The verdict in three sentences
A corporate foundation receiving 6,000 applications for 300 scholarships a year in London can no longer run on email attachments, shared drives and spreadsheets. A custom application platform at 40,000 to 70,000 GBP, delivered in about 4 months, halves processing time and makes double-blind review by 40 assessors fully traceable. The real benefit is credibility: a board that sees impact scholar by scholar renews the foundation's budget more readily.
What the manual process costs today
The pattern is familiar. Applicants send forms and transcripts by email, the foundation team logs each one in a spreadsheet, then splits files between assessors by email. Duplicates slip through, documents go missing, and assessors sometimes see the applicant's name or school, which weakens perceived fairness.
For 6,000 files, a team of 4 typically spends 10 to 12 weeks on data entry and checks before review even starts. Applicants from outside London, or from under-represented schools, are often the ones who drop out at the document stage.
| Step | Email and spreadsheets | Online platform |
|---|---|---|
| Submission | Email, frequent missing documents | Mobile form, mandatory documents checked |
| Eligibility check | Manual, 4 to 6 weeks | Automatic rules, minutes |
| Duplicates | Found by chance | Detected by email, phone and date of birth |
| Assignment to assessors | By email | Automatic, conflicts of interest declared |
| Anonymisation | Rarely possible | Double-blind: name, school, postcode hidden |
| Scholar follow-up | Yearly spreadsheet | Impact dashboard updated each term |
| Total campaign time | 5 to 6 months | 2.5 to 3 months |
Budget, 2026 orders of magnitude
The amounts below are 2026 orders of magnitude for a project of this size built for a UK foundation, compliant with UK GDPR and the Charity Commission's expectations on fair grant-making.
| Module | GBP range | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Scoping and mock-ups | 4,000 to 6,500 | Criteria, applicant journey, scoring grid |
| Mobile applicant portal | 10,500 to 18,500 | Account, multi-step form, uploads, status |
| Document checks | 5,500 to 9,000 | Format checks, transcripts, duplicate detection |
| Double-blind assessor area | 9,500 to 16,500 | Assignment, scored grid, consolidation, panel |
| Board impact dashboard | 6,500 to 11,500 | Completion rates, regional spread, diversity |
| Email and SMS notifications | 4,000 to 8,000 | Receipts, reminders, results |
| Total | 40,000 to 70,000 | About 4 months |
Yearly maintenance and hosting are quoted separately, depending on the number of funding rounds and the volume of stored documents. Applicant data, often from young people aged 17 to 19, falls under UK GDPR and needs a data protection impact assessment before launch.
How double-blind review works with 40 assessors
Each eligible file gets a code. The platform hides name, photo, school and postcode, then assigns the file to two randomly drawn assessors who have declared no conflict of interest. Each assessor scores against a 5-criterion grid out of 20 points. If the two scores differ by more than 4 points, a third assessor is added automatically.
With 40 assessors and 1,800 eligible files after checks, each assessor reviews about 90 files in 3 weeks, or 4 to 5 files per working day. The final panel sees names only at the decision meeting, on the shortlist of the top 450. The foundation can then publish a clear methodology, a strong answer to any question about fairness. Every score, reassignment and panel decision is logged, so the foundation can answer a complaint or an audit request within a day instead of digging through months of email threads.
Mini case study
Need a professional website?
Kolonell builds websites that attract clients, optimized for the Sénégalese market. Free quote in 2 minutes.
Emma, director of a corporate foundation in London, handles 6,000 applications and 300 scholarships a year. She chooses a platform at 55,000 GBP.
Today her 4 programme officers spend 11 weeks on data entry and checks, 44 weeks of work in total. With the platform, that falls to 3 weeks each, 12 weeks in total. The 32 weeks freed, at a loaded cost of 4,500 GBP a month per officer, are worth about 36,000 GBP per round. Add savings on printing, archiving and assessor logistics, around 8,000 GBP, and the platform pays back in a little over one funding round, with the freed time going to scholar support.
FAQ
Can applicants apply from a phone?
Yes, the form is built mobile-first. Applicants can save and return, and a clear photo is enough for most documents.
How do we stop an assessor recognising an applicant?
Name, photo, school and postcode are hidden during scoring. Assessors declare conflicts of interest, and a file is reassigned in under a minute if needed.
Can we reuse the platform for other programmes?
Yes, criteria, forms and grids are set per programme. A foundation can run 3 or 4 rounds a year with no new development.
How does the board track impact?
The dashboard shows scholar completion rates, regional and diversity spread, and cost per graduate. It updates every academic term.
Where is the data hosted?
Data stays in UK or EU hosting with encryption and access logs. The exact setup and retention periods are agreed at scoping with your data protection lead.
Let's scope your project. We define the applicant journey, double-blind review and impact dashboard with you, ready for your next funding round in about 4 months. Detailed quote within 48 h. WhatsApp +221 77 596 93 33.
Mohamed Bah
Fondateur, Kolonell
Passionate about digital and entrepreneurship in Africa, Mohamed has been helping Sénégalese businesses with their digital transformation since 2020. Founder of Kolonell, he believes every SME deserves a professional and accessible online présence.
