How This Framework Works
Grant writing is fundamentally different from gambling. You don't go bankrupt—you run out of time. And you must submit proposals repeatedly to eventually succeed. This evaluator recognizes that reality.
Key insight: Most proposals will be rejected. Success requires persistence. So we rank proposals by their effective commitment level—accounting for both how efficient they are AND how many times you're willing to resubmit. A high-value proposal you'd only submit once ranks lower than a medium-value proposal you'd iterate on multiple times.
The evaluator assigns each proposal to a tier—Core, Opportunistic, Exploratory, or Skip—based on efficiency and your realistic commitment.
Ranking by Effective Commitment
Portfolio Composition
Annual Time Allocation by Tier
Guide
How to Use It
Step 1: Set your target hourly value — What's your time worth? This is your threshold for deciding if a grant is worth pursuing. Consider what hourly rate makes grant-writing worthwhile.
Step 2: Set your time budget — How many hours per year can you allocate to grant writing? The tool uses this to check if your portfolio fits your capacity.
Step 3: Enter proposal details — For each grant: award amount, hours to write it, your estimated success probability, any strategic multiplier, and how many times you'd realistically submit.
Step 4: Read the results — Check the Submission Strategy tab for personalised guidance explaining exactly why each proposal got its tier.
Understanding the Tiers
Important: Tiers are based on the ratio of EV/hour to your target hourly value. The target is something you set — it's not a universal truth. A higher target means fewer proposals will qualify as Core; a lower target means more will. Adjust it to reflect what your time is genuinely worth to you.
| Tier | Ratio Threshold | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| CORE | ≥ 3× your target | Excellent return — at least 3× what you consider worthwhile. Pursue aggressively, resubmit if rejected. |
| OPPORTUNISTIC | ≥ 1× your target | Meets your threshold — worth your time. Submit, but don't over-invest in resubmissions. |
| EXPLORATORY | ≥ 0.1× your target | Below your threshold but not negligible. Submit once for learning or relationship-building. |
| SKIP | < 0.1× your target | Less than 10% of your threshold — not worth your time. Don't pursue. |
The Formulas
| Expected Value (EV) | = Award × Probability |
| EV per Hour | = EV ÷ Hours per submission |
| Ratio | = EV per Hour ÷ Your target hourly value |
| Expected Attempts | = 1 ÷ Probability |
| Effective Commitment | = Min(Expected Attempts, Max Attempts) |
Tips for Estimating Inputs
Success Probability
Be honest. Most grants have 10-25% success rates. Check funder statistics if available.
Consider: competition level, your track record with this funder, fit with their priorities.
Hours per Submission
Include everything: reading guidelines, drafting, revisions, gathering letters, admin.
Small grants: 10-30h. Standard grants: 40-80h. Large/complex: 100-500h+.
Strategic Multiplier
This captures intangible benefits beyond the money. A grant might be worth more than its face value if it brings prestige, visibility, or opens doors.
1.0× = money only. 1.5× = some added prestige/visibility. 2-3× = significant career or reputational benefit (e.g., a fellowship that signals leadership).
Max Attempts
Total times you'd submit this proposal, including the first attempt. 1 = one-shot only.
Be realistic — this affects your time budget. Don't say 5 if you'd actually quit after 2.
Remember
This tool helps you think systematically, but it's not a substitute for judgment. A "Skip" tier proposal might still be worth pursuing for reasons the model can't capture. Use the tiers as a starting point for prioritisation, not a rigid rule.