AI-Driven vs. Traditional Grantmaking

AI can make processes faster and more consistent; traditional methods emphasise deliberation—combined, they work best.

• Use AI for triage, summaries and drafting.
• Keep decisions and ethics with people.
• Be transparent about how tools are used.

Finding the balance

Define where automation helps and where judgement rules.

• Clear roles and escalation paths.
• Explainable outputs and audit logs.
• Proportionate checks based on risk.

Key takeaway: Plinth embeds this balance by design.

Protecting trust

Applicants and boards need confidence in fairness.

• Publish criteria and feedback standards.
• Offer routes to question or clarify outcomes.
• Monitor for bias and adjust processes.

Key takeaway: trust grows with openness and consistency.

Measuring results

Track time saved and quality of decisions.

• Compare turnaround times and reviewer consistency.
• Survey applicants about clarity and fairness.
• Review outcomes and learning across rounds.

Key takeaway: measure what matters, not model scores.

FAQs

Is AI required?

No, but it now delivers strong returns with good governance.

Can we switch AI off per programme?

Yes—toggle features based on policy and risk.

What if stakeholders are sceptical?

Run a pilot and share evidence of time saved and quality.