Research Funding Support
A single-page pre-award service guide for researchers and departmental administrators. Find the right support conversation, prepare review and budget inputs, and clarify the submission handoff.
Every employee gets a seat — priced per employee in Communications & Intranet, quoted with this template ready.
Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.
Built for: Higher education · University research administration · Academic and scientific research
Overview
Research Funding Support is a single-page intranet service guide for the pre-award work that happens before a research proposal is submitted. Its opening identifies the audience and scope, then four support cards help readers prepare for conversations about opportunity fit, internal review, budget support, and submission handoff. Each card specifies the information to bring, such as call details, draft scope, cost assumptions, or submission instructions. The page makes clear that these are preparation summaries, not request links.
A three-part worked example shows how a fictional multi-campus university team can move from assessing an opportunity to making budget assumptions visible and preparing a clear handoff. It illustrates useful inputs and role coordination without claiming approval, a confirmed institutional process, or a guaranteed submission outcome. The roles section distinguishes the research support team's pre-award coordination, the departmental administrator's local input gathering, and the researcher's responsibility for project scope and collaborator decisions.
Use this template when researchers and administrators need a shared starting point for proposal conversations, especially when multiple campuses, departments, collaborators, or provisional costs are involved. Customize fictional examples and role descriptions to match confirmed local practices, and add only verified support destinations. Do not use it as a post-award grant-management guide, an eligibility determination, a formal approval checklist, or a substitute for an authoritative funding call. It contains no live proposal or budget integration, so teams must bring current documents and confirm their own submission route.
Standards & compliance context
- Treat the fictional Northbridge examples as illustrative content, not evidence of an institution's approved research administration process.
- Confirm applicable funding-call requirements and institutional procedures with the responsible local support role; this guide does not establish eligibility or approval.
- Keep any customized page accessible by using meaningful headings, descriptive link text, and sufficient contrast, consistent with WCAG 2.1 AA practices.
- Do not add claims about review completion, submission approval, or guaranteed outcomes unless those claims are supported by the institution's confirmed process.
General regulatory context for orientation only — verify current requirements with counsel or the relevant agency before relying on this template for compliance.
What's inside this template
Find pre-award support for your proposal
This opening defines the guide's audience and keeps its scope on proposal development before submission.
-
For researchers and departmental administrators coordinating funding proposals before submission. Northbridge University is a fictional multi-campus example. Use this guide to identify the next support conversation for opportunity fit, internal review, budget preparation, or submission handoff. It covers proposal development before submission, not post-award grant delivery.
Find the support you need
These cards show what to bring to opportunity-fit, review, budget, and handoff conversations.
-
These summaries help you identify what to bring to the relevant support conversation; they are not request links. Opportunity fit Bring the funding call or opportunity details. Summarize the proposed work, intended participants, and likely partners. Internal review Share the draft scope and the proposal's key commitments. Identify which departments, campuses, or collaborators need to contribute. Budget support List planned costs and the assumptions behind each estimate. Flag partner contributions, shared resources, and items needing local clarification. Submission handoff Bring the current proposal version and the call's submission instructions. Clarify the submission route and remaining responsibilities with the relevant support role.
Coordinate review and costing
The fictional Northbridge scenarios demonstrate how teams can make proposal inputs and open assumptions visible.
-
A worked example from the fictional Northbridge setting. Start with the opportunity A researcher at Northbridge's East Campus finds a call that may suit a joint project with a colleague at West Campus. They share the call details, a short project summary, and partner roles with the research support team so the opportunity can be discussed in context. Name the opportunity and its stated submission date. Summarize the proposed work and the people or units involved. Make assumptions visible The departmental administrator gathers the draft scope and a working cost outline. For example, they label a shared equipment estimate as provisional and note which campus is expected to provide it. The research support team can help clarify what needs internal review and which role should resolve open assumptions before the next handoff. Separate confirmed figures from estimates that still need discussion. Record the owner of each open question and the next handoff. Prepare a clear handoff Before submission handoff, the researcher and administrator bring together the current proposal draft, working budget, call instructions, and a concise list of unresolved items. The receiving support role can see what is ready for discussion and what still needs an owner; this example does not imply approval or guarantee a submission outcome. Use the same current proposal version across contributors. State the next action and responsible role for each unresolved item.
Roles and help route
Clear role boundaries help researchers and administrators identify who coordinates each pre-award question.
-
Responsibilities in the Northbridge example Research support team: coordinates pre-award guidance, helps identify internal review needs, and clarifies the next handoff. Ask this role when an opportunity question crosses departments or campuses, or when the next internal step is unclear. Departmental administrator: coordinates local inputs, brings proposal and budget information together, and makes open assumptions visible to the researcher and relevant support roles. Researcher or proposal lead: supplies the project scope, opportunity details, and decisions needed from collaborators. Bring local costing questions to the departmental administrator and opportunity or handoff questions to research support. The example describes responsibilities, not named staff assignments or a confirmed local process.
How to use this template
- Replace the fictional Northbridge setting and role descriptions with confirmed local terminology, ownership, and support routes.
- Review the four support cards and add only verified links or instructions where your institution has an established destination.
- Ask the researcher or proposal lead to bring the funding call, submission date, short project scope, and collaborator roles to the opportunity-fit discussion.
- Have the departmental administrator assemble the draft scope and working cost outline, labeling estimates, shared resources, partner contributions, and open assumptions.
- Before handoff, align contributors on the current proposal version and call instructions, then record each unresolved item with its next action and responsible role.
- Assign a local page owner to check the guidance when support routes or internal practices change and to correct reader-reported errors.
Best practices
- Keep the page focused on pre-award support and link to a separate authoritative source for post-award grant delivery.
- Preserve the card descriptions that clarify what to bring, and label them as preparation guidance rather than request links.
- Ask proposal leads to include the opportunity's stated submission date when opening a support conversation.
- Label each budget figure as confirmed or provisional and record the owner of every unresolved assumption.
- Use one current proposal version across contributors and identify it explicitly during handoff.
- Name responsibilities by role unless local staff assignments have been confirmed and are maintained.
- Verify local destinations and submission instructions before adding links; do not imply the guide itself submits or approves a proposal.
- Provide a visible correction or help route and review the page when local support responsibilities change.
What this template typically catches
Issues teams running this template most often surface in practice:
Common use cases
Frequently asked questions
What stage of research funding does this guide cover?
It covers pre-award proposal development: opportunity fit, internal review, budget preparation, and submission handoff. It does not describe post-award grant delivery. Use a separate authoritative page for award management, reporting, or grant closeout.
Who should use the page and who coordinates support?
The example is for researchers or proposal leads and departmental administrators coordinating a funding proposal. The research support team is the route for opportunity questions, internal review needs, and unclear handoffs. The administrator gathers local inputs, while the researcher supplies the project scope and collaborator decisions.
When should we start a support conversation?
Use the guide as soon as you have an opportunity to assess or a proposal that needs internal coordination. Bring the call details and stated submission date, even if the scope and budget are still developing. The page does not set a universal lead time or deadline, so confirm local timing with the relevant support role.
Does this page approve a proposal or determine eligibility?
No. The cards help readers prepare for a support conversation; they are not request links, eligibility decisions, or approval steps. The worked examples explicitly leave unresolved items for discussion and do not promise a submission outcome.
How should we handle uncertain costs or contributions?
Separate confirmed figures from estimates and label provisional costs clearly. Note partner contributions, shared resources, and the campus or unit expected to provide them, then identify an owner for each open question. Ask the departmental administrator or relevant support role to clarify local assumptions before the next handoff.
What is the most common handoff problem this guide helps prevent?
A handoff can stall when contributors use different proposal versions or unresolved items have no named responsible role. Bring the current draft, working budget, call instructions, and a concise list of open questions together. State the next action and responsible role for each unresolved item.
Can we customize this for our university's process?
Yes. Replace the fictional Northbridge examples with confirmed local role names, support routes, and applicable process details. Keep the distinction between pre-award support and post-award delivery, and do not add deadlines, approvals, or request links unless they have been verified.
Does the template connect to a proposal or budget system?
The supplied page is a static service guide with sample scenarios, not a connected proposal tracker or budget workflow. It does not include request links or live blocks. If you add a system destination during customization, confirm that the link is valid and that its instructions match the local process.
How often should the page be reviewed?
Review it when support roles, submission routes, or internal review practices change, and periodically confirm that its destinations and instructions remain accurate. The Northbridge content is fictional sample copy, not a verified institutional process. Assign a local content owner before publishing so readers have a route for corrections.
Related templates
Go deeper on the topic
-
A modern intranet is a specific surface — typically the home-base destination where employees get company news, find policies, and access key apps. A digital...
Ready to use this template?
Every employee gets a seat. Request pricing for Communications & Intranet and we quote into a workspace with Research Funding Support ready.
Rolled out to every employee at AutoZone (125,000), PetSmart (50,000+), A.S. Watson and Raley's (20,000) — and at larger retailers we are not permitted to name.
