Strong communication means everyone sees the same information, at the right time, in the right place, with no guesswork about what happens next. In practice, it’s about replacing scattered emails and spreadsheets with a clear, shared picture of each competition from announcement to award.
Many programs quickly out grow their communication systems in busy campus offices. Applications that easily fit into one inbox now involve multiple administrators, reviewers, and leadership. Each step creates a new email thread, a fresh spreadsheet, or a different folder. The tools still work, but the handoffs between has grown cumbersome.
This is where risk appears. When a information moves from form to spreadsheet to inbox, details can be lost: an outdated version of the opportunity's requirements, missing attachments, or unclear decisions. Those gaps matter, especially for external grant submissions.
Since the volume and pace of work are not slowing down, communication practices have to become more intentional.
The first building block of better communication is a single place where people know to look. For limited submissions, internal funding, fellowship and other programs, that means a consistent home for opportunity descriptions, timelines, eligibility, forms, and status updates.
A single source of truth can be a dedicated platform (like InfoReady), a well-maintained portal, or a clearly structured site. What matters is that faculty and staff stop guessing which email, spreadsheet, or folder holds the “real” information. When something changes, you update it once and point everyone there.
As you design this hub, think like a busy faculty member. Use clear titles, highlight internal deadlines, and link to sponsor guidance. A short communication line in each announcement such as, “All updates will appear on this page,” reduces follow-up questions and prevents confusion.
Competitions for funding or awards often involve anxious applicants, busy reviewers, and administrators working under pressure. Communication is where trust is built or lost. Every opportunity posting should answer these questions up front:
Who is eligible?
What materials are required?
What is the internal deadline?
What happens after submission?
How are decisions made?
When will applicants be notified
What must selected nominees do next?
Every time you rebuild something from scratch, you’re spending time you don’t have. Create message templates for key moments of communication. Templates also reduce errors, make onboarding easier, and makes the process not dependent on any one person’s memory. Here are messages that can often be set up as templates.
To Applicants
Announcement of opportunity
Submission received confirmation
Notification of selection or non-selection
To Reviewers
Invitation to review
Deadline reminders
To Selected Proposal Nominees
Next steps
Sponsor submission follow-up
Outcome reporting request
When the University of Memphis moved from email-only processes to a centralized system, the team was able to standardize these messages and cut down on chases for updates. Read their story.
Even the best tools cannot fix confusion about who is responsible for what. Communication breaks down when one person assumes someone else has “taken care of it,” especially near deadlines. Clear roles turn fuzzy expectations into explicit handoffs.
Map the real steps you take today, from scanning sponsor newsletters to notifying nominees and tracking external outcomes. Then assign owners for each step: who posts opportunities, who screens eligibility, who recruits reviewers, and who logs final decisions.
For example, a central research office might own opportunity setup and reporting, while colleges handle local outreach and nominee support. Smaller institutions may rely on one or two administrators with help from faculty champions. Both models can work, as long as everyone knows their part.
Share the roles with teams and link to it in onboarding materials for new staff and reviewers. When someone leaves or changes roles, the chart becomes a communication safety net. You can quickly reassign responsibilities instead of rebuilding the process from memory.
The final stage of communication is often the one most easily skipped: closing the loop. Applicants who never hear back, or reviewers who do not see how their input was used, lose confidence in the process. Thoughtful follow-up builds trust and supports future participation.
At a minimum, plan two types of outcome messages for each competition: individualized notifications for selected and non-selected applicants, and a brief internal summary you can share with leadership and stakeholders. Templates make this manageable even when volumes are high.
Consider tracking a small set of metrics for each opportunity, such as number of applications, reviewer completion rate, submission rate, and award outcomes. Platforms that centralize competitions can make this data easy to retrieve. Including a brief data snapshot in your internal summary turns communication into evidence.
Communication is not an extra layer of work on top of programs. It is the structure that holds those workflows together. With a clear source of truth, predictable messages, defined roles, realistic timelines, and consistent follow-up, any campus office can manage growing complexity without burning out their teams.