Free tool · Spreadsheet breaking point

Have we outgrown the spreadsheet?

For awards, scholarships, grants and competitions run on email and spreadsheets. Tell it how your program runs. It works out the staff hours the manual parts take, what a platform would have to cost to pay for itself, and writes a short case you can send to your manager or executive director. Sometimes the honest answer is that the spreadsheet is fine.

Try a sample program:

Your program

entries
judges
reads
rounds
a year

07Does the program use any of these?

08Your planning number

$/hr

The hourly rate is a planning figure for program staff, salary plus benefits. You do not need to enter your own pay.

The answer

Spreadsheet is fine
Getting close
Outgrown

You have outgrown the spreadsheet

The staff time alone now costs more than a platform would. The case below is ready to send.

You have outgrown the spreadsheet. 157 staff hours a cycle.

157 staff hours a cycle

About 3.9 work weeks a year, spent on the manual parts of running it.

Break even: $4,000 a year

By hand, it costs about $7,850 a year in staff time.

New Empact Work starts at $4,000 a year, which is 80 staff hours. You spend about 157. Doing it by hand costs about 2 times the break even.

Where the hours go

The math

Make the case

Two things only you can say

These go into the summary in your words. They are usually what moves the decision.

10What applicants and judges see today

Check what is true now. Anything left unchecked goes into the summary.

Ready to send

Your summary

Written in your voice for your manager or executive director. Paste it into an email and edit anything.

How it counts

What the number is counting

The number is the staff time the manual parts of a program take: the emails, the copying, the chasing. It does not count the work a person should be doing, like reading a hard nomination or talking to a sponsor. Each chore gets a planning number of minutes, multiplied by your submissions, reviews, judges and rounds, and by the number of programs you run this way.

The break even is $4,000 a year, where New Empact Work starts. Divided by your hourly rate, that is the number of staff hours a year where a platform pays for itself. Above it, the staff time makes the case. Below it, the case rests on the other two parts of the summary. The reviewer capacity calculator shows how many judges the round needs.

Starting points

Planning minutes, by chore

Answering applicants and chasing missing pieces
per submission
6 min
Confirmation and status emails
per submission
2 min
Compiling applications and attachments into review packets
per submission: downloading, merging, naming and filing
10 min
Assigning reviewers and sending files
per review assigned
2 min
Reminding judges
per judge, per round
3 min
Compiling scores into one sheet
per score returned: copying, checking, chasing gaps
3 min
Moving entries between rounds
per advancing entry, plus an hour per round
3 min
Removing names for blind review
per submission, when review is blind
5 min
Matching fee payments to entries
per submission, when there is a fee
3 min
Checking conflicts of interest
per review assigned, when you check
1 min

Questions

Questions this page answers

When should we move off spreadsheets?

When the manual hours cost more than a platform would, or when you add blind review, a second round or another program run the same way. A small single program often runs fine on a spreadsheet, and this page will say so.

How do I make the case to my executive director?

Lead with the break even figure, show where the hours go, then say what that time should be spent on and what applicants and judges experience today. The summary above is written in that order.

Where do the minutes come from?

They are planning defaults for each chore, listed above. The summary says they are estimates, so your manager knows what they are looking at.

Is what I type stored?

No. The calculator runs in your browser. Nothing is stored or sent, and there is no account.

When the case gets a yes

New Empact Work runs intake, review assignment, scoring and the record of who reviewed what in one place, for awards, grants, scholarships, and competitions.