Foundation Technology Requirements: What Grantmakers Want to See

Foundations expect applicants to demonstrate capacity to adopt and use new technology effectively. This doesn't mean you need a large IT department, but you do need to show how you'll manage implementation, provide user support, maintain systems, and address technical challenges as they arise. For many smaller organizations, this might mean partnerships with technology providers, consultants, or peer organizations rather than in-house expertise.

Applications should address who will oversee technology implementation, what skills they bring, and how your organization will develop additional capacity over time. If you're requesting funding for AI tools, explain how staff will learn to use them effectively and who will champion adoption across the organization. Foundations want to see realistic assessments of your current state and thoughtful plans for building capability.

• Identify specific staff roles responsible for technology oversight and implementation
• Outline training plans for staff who will use new technology
• Describe support systems (consultants, peer networks, vendor support) that complement internal capacity
• Address how you'll maintain and upgrade systems beyond the grant period

Generic statements about "improving efficiency" or "modernizing operations" won't differentiate your application. Foundations want specific use cases that show you understand how technology will transform particular aspects of your work. Describe the current challenge, explain why existing approaches fall short, and detail how the proposed technology addresses the gap in ways that advance your mission.

Strong applications demonstrate mission alignment by showing how technology enables you to serve more people, improve service quality, reach underserved communities, or operate more sustainably. For example, rather than simply requesting funding for a new CRM system, explain how it will enable personalized donor stewardship that increases retention and supports long-term financial stability—which in turn enables expanded program services to your community.

When discussing AI specifically, foundations are particularly interested in applications that address equity, accessibility, and responsible implementation. Show that you've considered how AI tools might introduce bias, how you'll ensure they benefit rather than exclude vulnerable populations, and how you'll maintain human judgment and relationships even as you automate certain tasks. This demonstrates sophisticated thinking that foundations value.

Foundations respond positively to applications that outline realistic implementation timelines with clear milestones. Break down how you'll move from grant award to full implementation, identifying key decision points, potential challenges, and how you'll adapt if things don't go as planned. This shows project management capacity and realistic expectations about technology adoption.

Strong plans acknowledge that technology implementation rarely goes smoothly. They build in time for learning, adjustment, and course correction. They identify specific success indicators at different stages—not just final outcomes but interim milestones that demonstrate progress. This gives foundations confidence that you can manage complex projects and will communicate honestly about challenges and adaptations along the way.

• Phase implementation with clear milestones (e.g., vendor selection, pilot testing, staff training, full rollout)
• Identify potential obstacles and mitigation strategies
• Build in learning periods and opportunities for adjustment
• Describe how you'll gather feedback from users and make iterative improvements

Foundations prioritize applications that outline measurable outcomes and explain how you'll track progress. These metrics should include both operational measures (e.g., time saved, processes streamlined, data quality improved) and mission-related impacts (e.g., more people served, better outcomes achieved, increased community reach). The strongest applications connect these two levels, showing how operational improvements enable greater mission impact.

Be specific about what you'll measure and how. Rather than vague commitments to "track effectiveness," describe the specific data you'll collect, the tools you'll use to analyze it, and the benchmarks that will indicate success. Explain how you'll use this data not just for reporting to the foundation but for your own continuous improvement and strategic decision-making. This demonstrates a commitment to measuring and adapting based on data, which foundations value highly.

Don't just propose metrics that make you look good—include measures that will reveal challenges and areas for improvement. Foundations appreciate applicants who commit to honest assessment and learning, not just success reporting. This transparency builds trust and demonstrates organizational maturity.

One of the most common weaknesses in technology grant applications is underestimating the time, resources, and organizational change required for successful implementation. Applications that promise rapid deployment without acknowledging learning curves, integration challenges, or change management needs raise red flags for experienced program officers who understand technology adoption realities.

Be honest about complexity and the learning process your organization will undertake. Foundations would rather fund realistic plans that acknowledge challenges than overly optimistic proposals that will likely disappoint. Showing awareness of potential obstacles and how you'll address them demonstrates project management maturity that foundations value.

• Build realistic timelines that account for vendor selection, contract negotiation, data migration, training, and adjustment periods
• Acknowledge that staff adoption takes time and plan for ongoing training and support, not just initial orientation
• Recognize that systems integration often reveals unexpected challenges that require problem-solving and adaptation

Applications that focus primarily on tools and features without clearly connecting them to mission outcomes and strategic goals tend to fall flat. Program officers want to understand why this particular technology matters for your particular mission at this particular moment—not just that it's impressive or cutting-edge.

Every technology request should answer: What mission impact becomes possible with this tool that isn't possible without it? How does this enable you to serve your community more effectively? What strategic priorities does this support? If you can't clearly answer these questions, you may need to reconsider whether the technology request is truly strategic or simply aspirational.

As foundations become more sophisticated about AI and data-driven tools, they're increasingly asking about privacy protections, bias mitigation, and ethical governance. Applications that don't address these considerations—particularly when requesting funding for AI tools or systems that handle sensitive personal information—appear naive about the responsibilities that come with technology adoption.

Explain how you'll protect data privacy, ensure algorithmic fairness, maintain transparency with those you serve, and address stakeholder concerns about AI use. Demonstrate that you've developed or are developing appropriate policies and protocols for responsible technology use. This shows maturity and values alignment that foundations seek in their partners.

Applications that focus exclusively on systems and software while neglecting the human dimensions of change management tend to be less competitive. Foundations understand that technology implementation fails most often due to people challenges—staff resistance, inadequate training, poor change management—not technical limitations.

Address how you'll support staff through the transition, how you'll maintain the human relationships and judgment that define your mission even as you automate certain tasks, and how you'll ensure technology serves people rather than the other way around. This attention to the human element demonstrates understanding that technology is a means to mission impact, not an end in itself.