We were able to streamline both our application process as well as the 2 year grant cycle process so it is all in one platform from application through review and then any subsequent reporting requirements of our subgrantees.

I liked how the implementation specialist was willing to answer all of our questions and work with us on our incredibly complex process to make sure our end product met all of our needs.

There are a few features we wished it had, but we understand our application process is far more complex than most organizations.

Overall - after 1 whole year of using Survey Monkey I am really happy with the program. This is the third Grantmaking Portal I have used for an extended period of time and I would say without a doubt that it is the best.

I love the new program to create reports - much more effective than the old one. I also really appreciate how customizable the visibility of each section is. Our transition between Fluid Review and Survey Monkey apply was as smooth as we could have hoped for - and that was due in large part to the amazing transition support we received.

I do wish that there was some kind of rubbish bin for deleted files - some of our applicants have accidentally deleted their whole applications which has caused major problems for us. I also wish that there were more customer service options for people in the southern hemisphere. I find that urgent problems can take days to fix sometimes due to the time difference - a live chat function for questions would make such a difference.

There's really nothing we liked about SMA because we never got as far as being able to use the software for our grants program. During the implementation process, it became clear that there are several significant flaws in the structure of SMA. As an example, SMA/FluidReview was developed for the Canadian market. As such, the organization information form (which cannot be changed) asks for CITY and PROVINCE. There are no fields for the US market such as STATE and ZIP CODE. Yes, you can add custom fields for STATE and ZIP CODE; however, these fields will appear at the end of the form away from the rest of the address information. And adding custom fields does not remove the PROVINCE field. The implementation person we worked with suggested that we ask for a US-style address on our grant application form, thus duplicating data entry. Using work-around solutions (kludges) was the order of the day. As another example, formatting for the budget form that was created for us was chaotic and confusing. Some number fields had one decimal place, others none (and not the two decimal places we were expecting). Some fields had a US dollar symbol; others did not. Again, we were told that SMA/FluidReview was developed with French formatting conventions in mind. Early on we did not see any way SMA would produce an elegant, easy to navigate solution designed for use in the US. It was at this point that we encountered the aforementioned refund policy.

The implementation process did not go smoothly for us. We were asked questions about our current grants program, which is rather simple: we use one web form hosted by Formstack. The implementation person intended to simply replicate our current grants program. This made no sense to me. We were never given the opportunity to understand what features SMA could bring to our grants process. I'm not sure how this type of implementation process would work for a foundation that is just getting started or is using an informal paper-based process. These implementation questions would be overwhelming. The biggest problem with SMA (and other similar grants software packages) is the amount of time and training expected of an administrator. These grants software packages expect that there will be one person within a foundation whose responsibility it is to administer the software. During the implementation process, it became very clear that SMA expects that administrators would devote significant time to not only training but also administrative duties. Sadly, there is no structured training program, no technical manual. So, training would be catch-as-catch can (a video here, an article there). Without someone on the foundation payroll who has a high degree of technology knowledge, SMA would be a very tough go for small foundations with few to no staff. Before you commit to SMA/FluidReview, make sure you have an administrator with a high degree of technological knowledge (and patience).

Overall, the onboarding process was very structured and clear, the training is available and the customer support team is pretty responsive.

I like that there are a lot of automation options and customization features available on the platform. Although we did not integrate it with our website, it was easy to make the portal look like it was part of our online presence.

because there are so many different options, the program requires a person who is fully trained to manage it. For someone who manages it on and off, it is too hard to remember how to change, add or remove features or stages. The reporting feature is a bit confusing.

It's a great app, you don't need experience to use it

I love his free version and paid version, like a student and employes who needs make surveys every month i've tried many apps, webs, and software and i totally rather this , it's easy to use and intuitive

Sometimes the template are not necesary, so that should be optional