docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kent State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
33001
Subject
Information Systems
Date
Jun 11, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
22
Uploaded by DeaconKomodoDragonMaster1099
-Official Final Report- Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness Center
Kevin Boozer, Brendon Fenton, Zay Johnson, Alli
Lahmann, Brian Nofer, Sam Orona, Leah
Pasqualetti, Mike Savol
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 1
Executive Summary:
Throughout the semester the eight of us worked together to create a user-friendly grant database for our client, Dr. Dina Rooney, who is the executive director of Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness Center in Canton, Ohio. This database consists of grants that her organization can apply for to fund different aspects of her organization. In order to hit each of our goals there had to be communication and realistic expectations for each member. The team determined the most important tasks that would provide Aunt Susie's with a useful database. We created deliverables with deadlines and expectations then included them within a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) so that all project members were on the same page. We planned virtual meetings weekly with both the client and the team. To keep our information and deliverables on track, our team completed weekly status reports, which were also shared with the client; this is how we collectively monitored our progress and goals. We were able to assess the hours spent to date, what they were used to complete, and how many projected hours we had left until completion. Our focus was to hit quantitative metrics for our grants, and qualitative measures for our database. The client provided feedback throughout the duration of this project to clearly define what Aunt Susie's was
looking for in their database. She was able to tell us if we were gaining results that matched her objectives with feedback throughout the semester to ensure a quality database. We found that Excel was the best option because of the collaborative aspects of Office 365, our client is soon switching to Office 365 organization-wide, and it is more understandable for all levels of technological literacy. Our straightforward deliverables set the group up well from the beginning to achieve our goal. We are confident that the database that has been provided to Dr. Rooney will
meet her expectations and provide her with a useful tool for years to come. E- signed MOU: Alli do NOT forget to add this when transferred to word
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 2
Overview of Client Organization:
Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness center is an organization based out of Canton, Ohio. Their main purpose is to help cancer patients with a number of different services to make life easier for
those with ongoing treatment and complications. Some of these services include transportation, salon services, support groups, food services, house cleaning, and extra essentials. These services
are vital to those dealing with cancer and can be difficult to access, especially considering the financial burden many face during and after cancer treatment. Aunt Susie’s is attempting to make
these services more accessible to those who need it. This organization was started in memory of a woman named Susan Nixon Darling, who sadly passed away of ovarian cancer in 2011. Susan was known for her kind and compassionate heart as well as her intelligence: She was an inspiration to many. Susan was a life-long Northeast
Ohio resident who spent most of her life working in retail, and eventually owned her own storefront: “Susie’s Gifts and Necessities” in Springboro, Ohio. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed with cancer in 2010 that eventually took her life only a year later.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 3
Loved ones of Susan created Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness Center to help others who are
suffering from cancer and are in need of extra services outside of hospital services. Aunt Susie’s got their 501(c)(3) status, which states them as a nonprofit corporation in Stark County, in December of 2012. Aunt Susie’s has helped hundreds of people in their community since then through the different services they offer. Their Mission Statement is “to provide compassionate care to people in Stark County, Ohio, who have been diagnosed with cancer, and support their caregivers and families with day to day responsibilities”. Their vision overall is to give people a caring place to go that can ease some of the burden that comes along with a cancer diagnosis. Managing life after a cancer diagnosis is not an easy thing to do and Aunt Susie’s hopes to do their part by alleviating some of this burden for clients, and their families. Description of Project and Key Deliverables:
The description of the project that we set originally for Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness Center was to develop a database for Dr. Dina Rooney that includes grants for individual and family service nonprofit organizations in the State of Ohio; with special emphasis on operational,
project, and capacity grants. These 3 categories can be broken down further into local, state and federal levels. In our database, we expected to find 25 to 30 grants after speaking with our client on what their expectations were for the project. Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness Center tasked our group with finding at least 30 to 50 thousand dollars worth of grant funding between May of 2023 and May of 2024. This grant database will be easily accessible, user-friendly, and composed of quality data. The description put forth at the beginning of this project was structured in a clear, concise, and obtainable way to communicate our plan as effectively as possible. Our group's first deliverable was to create the grant database. The subtasks within this deliverable were to create the column descriptions as well as create the filters, complete data
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 4
analytics, and streamline the database. These subtasks were created to make sure that the database is set up well and there is a good baseline for developing it. After working with the team for a few weeks, our team came up with a rough draft Excel database. The purpose of the rough draft was to ensure that the direction that we were on aligned with our clients vision. The first and most important worksheet within the file “FinalDBAuntSusie” is the “Full_Database”. This sheet will show all the different types of column headers, such as the grantors, their contact information, the description of the grants, and more. The column headers were all chosen with consideration to what is most useful to know for the client. These columns are sorted to provide the most important information first and are also color coordinated to keep information clear in the cells. Dr. Rooney will also be able to add grants that she finds in the future. Direct links can sometimes be hard to find for grants so in our database we have added hotlinks to take the user directly to the grant application. This will be very easy to understand as Dr. Rooney scrolls through it. On this sheet under the column headers grant description, Source, and Action Needed, there are notes added for the client with helpful information. To make the Excel database more user friendly we added a Database Reference Write-Up PDF separately. It shows a write up for the database which includes instructions for any issues that could arise and how to use the capabilities built in. This allows anyone in the future that may use this database to
be able to understand it and use it properly. In the below graphic you can see a partial view of the
database and its features.
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 5
The next 3 deliverables were all based on searching for and finding grants to add to this database. Our goal was to find 10 operational grants, 10 capacity grants, and 10 program grants. We also decided that we were going to break these three categories down more. Our goal was to find two to three of each of these types of grants to be at a federal, local, or state level. We also chose to break grant finding into teams of two to three people per each category of grants. The purpose of this was to ensure that there was specialization in grant research. Our final deliverable was to make sure our database was completely user friendly. This entails going through the database extensively to make sure that it was organized, formatted correctly, and grammatically correct. We wanted to ensure that everything looked professional and had correct information. To do this, we went through and cleaned up all of the sheets, columns, notes, and all of the other aspects of the database that were included. During this deliverable, we also deleted any information we had included that was simply there for the team to stay organized during its creation process. The team would test to make sure that the database was fully functionable and easy to access for Dr. Rooney. Rationale for Recommended Strategy and Tactics in the Projects Action Plan:
When we first got together as a group consulting for Aunt Susie’s Cancer Wellness Center, we wanted to understand what the most important parts were to include. The information
we received from Dr. Rooney was open to interpretation. However, through consistent communication we made sure that these aligned with what Dr. Rooney’s visions were for the grant database. After researching industry's best practices for databases and how to find quality data, as well as getting to know what Aunt Susie’s was looking for, we tried to align our deliverables with what was most prevalent in the industry. Below you will find an image indicating important aspects of data research.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 6
We decided to include a few different types of grants that are available to the cancer wellness center. These were based on the questions we asked Dr. Rooney and responses that she gave in our first few meetings. For example, we asked which areas she was hoping to gain more funding for and through the help of her explanation, we were able to narrow down the more general grant fundings to operational for her in-house expenses such as rent for the building space. We also wanted to include a heavy focus on program grant funding because this was more
important to Dr. Rooney. She was looking to include marketing aspects to draw more funding in rather than having to search for it. Lastly, we wanted to find capacity grant funding to help strengthen Aunt Susie’s administrative and organizational effectiveness. When we were tasked to create deliverables to work through that were presented in the MOU, we decided to go with five different ones that were agreed upon with the entire group and Dr. Rooney. The first deliverable that we decided on including was the creation and formation of
the database. Kevin and Brian took over the first deliverable due to their advanced knowledge in Microsoft Excel and desire to challenge themselves for this project. This was a necessary step in
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 7
the process because we needed an actual database to present to Dr. Rooney that was formatted and organized properly and could be used efficiently and effectively. The next deliverable that we chose to implement was the search for capacity level grants. This was decided due to Dr. Rooneys' requirements of wanting to include funding for the capacity of Aunt Susie’s. When considering if we should dedicate this deliverable to only two consultants out of the eight total, we decided it would be best to have everyone look for any grant that was capacity related as finding the grants were more difficult with this restriction. The next deliverable that was decided on was finding operational level grants. We had the same thought process with this deliverable with the previous capacity level grant funding deliverable due to the success rates of finding one using keywords in our searches. The third deliverable that was decided on were program level grants that will allow Dr. Rooney the ability to enhance her efforts towards administration for the wellness center. This deliverable was vitally important because Dr. Rooney receives most of their financial contributions from program grants. Finally, the fifth and final deliverable that we decided to include was structuring the database for quality user accessibility. We felt this was important due
to Dr. Rooney still being new to the process and utilization of filters/sorting in Microsoft Excel, which our database would be based on.
When considering the separation of roles and subtasks related to our deliverables, we found it to be most efficient to divide the consulting team into groups of two or three. These groups were responsible for finding the different levels of funding for operational, capacity, and program grants. When talking with Dr. Rooney about grant searching, she concluded that we would have the most success to look for three different levels of this funding which were federal,
state, and local funding. Brian and Mike took on the role of finding federal level grants, while Kevin, Zay, and Sam focused on finding state level grants. Local level grants were covered by Leah, Alli, and Brendon. We saw the most success in diversifying these roles in this manner to
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 8
make the most of our research, as the key words involved with searching really differentiated between these funding levels.
For our last deliverable of making the database user friendly, Sam, Alli and Leah took on this role as they felt that they had great explanation skills. They also felt that they could format the database in a way that Dr. Rooney and her volunteer grant writers were able to easily understand and use it for future findings. When comparing our database and grant research for other databases, it could be seen as similar to a few of the websites that we stumbled across when
looking for funding opportunities. One of the websites that had a similar structure was Grantfinder.com. This website requires a payment which was not something that Dr. Rooney had
set aside funding for. It allowed for filter use of the non-profit and even extended out to what type of funding the non-profit was looking for. When compared to our abilities, we had a thorough understanding of the industry that Aunt Susies’ operated under, and this could be seen as one of the filters for the type of nonprofit on Grantfinder.com. Also, with our abilities to skim the internet for funding we were able to imitate the additional filters for types of funding, either if it were local, state, or federal levels. Review of Accuracy and Feasibility of the Project and Deliverables:
Our team took careful consideration of the task at hand and created deliverables to efficiently and accurately meet the requirements of our assignment. As a group, we are confident
that this database will exceed the expectations of our client and has the ability to be used for years to come. The database has been structured in a way for new inputs to seamlessly adjust to the format of the current database to provide a cohesive product regardless of the user inputting the data. A non-profit like Aunt Susie’s has a dire need for funding from charitable organizations
willing to provide grant funding. This process can be an arduous task on top of the many responsibilities already needing attention within the organization. Our group has been able to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 9
alleviate some of this strain by conducting research, compiling data, and presenting potential grants in a user-friendly database. Our first hurdle to tackle was creating the database and deciding the column criteria which was most pertinent for our client. By presenting the most important information in one place our client will be able to better manage all of their grants, both potential and received. When we first met with our client the two fundamental questions that they wanted answered by this database were: “Are we able to apply?” and “What criteria allows us to apply?”. We believe that this database answers both of these questions and more. Once we had an understandable layout for our database we were tasked with finding potential grants that Aunt Susie’s could apply for. We discussed with the client that a good benchmark to set was roughly 30 grants total in the database. This would be comprised of 10 grants of each government level: federal, state, and local. Our benchmarks were met and we are pleased to say that we found 60 potential grants that Aunt Susie’s can apply to. In the graph below you will be able to see how we exceeded our goals regarding the amount of grants we have.
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 10
The final order of business for our client’s grant database was creating a visually appealing, user friendly, organized database with all grant data included. To achieve this deliverable we included conditional formatting, dropdown option boxes, notes, and a database write-up. To curb any potential questions that could arise in the future when our group is no longer working with the client we have added a database write-up. This write up will include instructional content for all capabilities in the database so any future user can refer back to this “manual” if issues do occur. By structuring important tasks in an efficient, effective way our group was able to accurately meet and exceed our requirements for this assignment. Better/Worse Analysis of the Cost Budget:
As expected based on our efficiencies in actual vs. estimated time, our total project came in under budget. Since time directly translates to billable hours in a client project, being more efficient than expected transfers to being under budget. Our team’s time efficiency is highlighted
by the table below which breaks down each deliverable's estimated cost versus what it actually cost us in the budget.
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 11
One reason behind being under budget was the upfront initial planning as mentioned in our time analysis. Being able to establish Dr. Rooney’s needs early on in the project through weekly client meetings allowed our team to better adjust our work which streamlined our efforts to match deliverable criteria. Establishing exactly what Dr. Rooney wanted upfront increased our
productivity because less time was spent having to go back and fix or re-work things. With our deliverables established, we were able to figure out how to refine our searches to meet the grant metrics, again streamlining our project’s completion. Dr. Rooney aided our grant searches by giving us financial reports and other helpful information for our team to be able to discern if a certain grant would work for her nonprofit. This helped us avoid wasting time searching for grants that wouldn’t apply –again saving the project money. We were also lucky to find a Kent State grant database which was filled with many applicable grants, saving us time (and thus money) by cutting down on having to search the entire web for useful grants. This productivity was compounded in that each role was filled by the team member with the greatest strengths aligned towards the skills needed for that task. By assigning the team member most acquainted with the skills needed to complete each deliverable, the learning curve was shortened for each task, which again increased our overall efficiency. Additionally, our team
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 12
made predictions for time on how long grant research would take based on how long initial, preliminary searching took. What we didn’t expect was how much better at finding grants we would become as the semester progressed. At first, many team members could find one grant an hour, but by the end many of us could find three to five grants per hour. This can be attributed to better utilizing grant research databases, growing understanding of which key words produced valuable search results, and the overall speed that comes from feeling comfortable with a task with practice. The below graph demonstrates a better or worse cost analysis per deliverable and also gives insight into which deliverables took up the most of the budget. An Actual/Estimated Analysis of the Timeline: An analysis of the timeline for the implementation of activities completed within the scope of the project reveals valuable insight. This insight is useful to better predict additional projects, explain to clients reasons for estimated versus actual time discrepancies, and to gauge areas of efficiency and/or need for improvements. The data for this time analysis was collected from two sources. The first source was the MOU and the second source was the weekly status reports. Our project was well thought out and professionally designed after establishing the tasks we had in our MOU . With our client and team meetings every week, we had an established
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 13
blueprint of how we wanted to complete the database with state, local, and federal grants for Aunt Susie's. The MOU was a helpful breakdown for this project as it provided a week-by-week idea of what would be discussed and what we needed to do each week. The duration of the project was from January 17 through April 23 with the semester being split into two parts as stated by the MOU. The first part was weeks 1-6, which were predicted to focus on finalizing the project's focus and scope, deliverables, and individual student
subtasks and due dates. The second half of the semester (weeks 7-14) was projected to focus on the team completing the project deliverables to the mutually agreed upon performance metrics. The divided semester proved to be a beneficial way to break down the project as the extensive planning and foresight prepared in weeks 1-6 can in part be credited to the team’s ability to beat many time estimates in the second half of the semester.
To analyze whether the tasks of the project took longer or shorter than expected, it is helpful to first look at the total estimated hours to complete the project versus the actual hours to date (calculated by adding time spent on each of the five project deliverables, client meetings, team meetings, time spent on the final report): TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT HOURS:
264.5 hours
TOTAL ACTUAL PROJECT HOURS:
239.25 hours
An overview of the entire project shows an initial discrepancy in the estimated versus actual calculation. This is better explained with the data chart below which breaks down the total
estimated and actual project hours by deliverables. What is striking from the chart below is the remarkable efficiency beyond what was originally estimated for deliverables 2-4. The team was drastically more efficient at finding grants for these deliverables than originally estimated. This discrepancy can be explained on two accords: our team failed to anticipate efficiencies of scale
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 14
and our team underestimated how well individual team members would plan school work from other classes around the project’s workload. As is the case with many jobs, our team got better at our grant research the more we did it
which accounts for much of our striking efficiency beyond what was estimated. Another reason is that the team was able to space and plan our other school work around the tasks in the MOU. Our team originally planned slack time for other classes to get in the way of our project’s timely completion (i.e. unexpected assignments from other classes). We unnecessarily included too much wiggle room in our project timeline to allow room for other school work in our schedules. In reality, having an action plan well in advance from the MOU allowed team members to individually plan their outside homework loads to adjust for heavy or light weeks of project work.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 15
Below, a chart shows how time efficient each individual deliverable was and highlights which were under or over estimated.
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 16
This chart highlights that the final report was one area of the project which required 8.25x
more hours than anticipated. We can attribute this discrepancy to our team underestimating the scope of the final report, its completeness, and its in depth analysis. While our hours may have been too short for this deliverable, the team had allocated enough time in the project overall to adjust for the additional hours needed in the final report, especially given the great efficiency from other deliverables. Finally, the below pie chart explains the breakdown of total hours spent working on the entire project. The pie chart highlights how team meetings took up a large portion of the project’s total hours. The percentages next to each part unpack how much of the total planned and actual hours were spent on each deliverable, as well as client and team meetings. A Summary of Successes and Challenges:
During the creation of the project deliverables we chose a tactic within our strategy of assigning team members to specific performance metrics. This gave the group direction that was written, specific, and measurable. Due to our strategic planning everyone knew their assigned roles, and due dates to have their work done by. With these assigned roles there were high levels of ownership over everyone’s assigned tasks. The outcome of this has propelled our group ahead of track with no noteworthy setbacks.
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 17
The assigning of specific roles helped create success for our group that alleviated a lot of confusion, and ensured accountability toward getting your individual parts completed. A direct outcome of assigning certain performance metrics to individuals helped tailor our grant research and expand the amount of potential grants in the database. Instead of searching for broad grants, individual group members were able to specialize in more specific areas. The use of different databases for each different level and type of grant, as well as specific keywords input into different search engines produced a large variety of grants. The teams assigned roles ended up having a large impact on the success of grant research.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 18
At the beginning of the semester our group realized early on we do not have very much free time that overlaps with one another. Additionally, our group personally has faced a lot of personal trouble that extends beyond Kent State University and our classes. This led to our team agreeing on an active communication strategy. For example, we have an organized GroupMe that is used almost every day where our group can remind, inform, take polls, and share information with ease. On top of this we were also able to meet for team meetings every Monday
or Wednesday, which enables us to get the personal effect into our conversations. This has aided in the establishment of a free-flowing communication environment that ensures all group members are heard while keeping everyone up to date with what is going on. Below you will find two separate images. The first image is a screenshot from our group chat. As you can see, we were constantly reminding each other of our due dates for ourselves and keeping communication open. The second image is one of the many Microsoft Teams meetings that were hosted to stay on track together.
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 19
Although our group has had a lot of successes, we have had our fair share of challenges as well. At the beginning we had a strategy in place to make sure that Dr. Rooney had as much information about each grant as possible. This involved instituting over fifteen column descriptions. One downfall to this was none of us before this class ever conducted significant grant research. We soon realized that grants can have anywhere from three to ten or more pieces of information available. At first it did not seem like too large of an issue, but as more and more grants were installed into the database there were more spaces that were blank than filled. This led us to consulting with Dr. Rooney so that we could trim the database down to contain only the
information she would need. There was definitely a learning curve that our group had to overcome in regards to granting research and realizing the plan of flooding Dr. Rooney with information was a bad idea. The last major challenge we had to overcome as a group revolved around the use of Excel. Heading into the project we were informed we were to make a grant database on Excel. For the next week the group brainstormed all the capabilities that Excel has to make the potential
database advanced. Later on, Dr. Rooney informed our group that although she wants the database on Excel she has little experience with Excel and that it needs to be a more simplistic database. This was also necessary because this database will need to be shared and taught to others as well. This created a challenge for our group because we really had to take a step back and pivot into a simpler concept. This led to us reducing the advanced features and allocating more of our time to simplifying the database. This change in our database strategy led to more consulting and questions with our client than we originally thought we would have to do. Overall, after consulting with her, we were able to adjust the database into what she was looking for. Recommendations to Client for Future Actions:
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 20
As the semester comes to an end and our time with the client has closed, it’s safe to say that the time has been spent well. Because Dr. Rooney has already experienced a semester with another team before ours, we believe that there was less room for failure or mishaps. Dr. Rooney was quite straightforward from the beginning and kept us aware of what her expectations were for both the group and project. With that being said, there are a few things that could be adjusted or recommended for our clients future endeavors with both similar projects and for their organization. We suggest that Dr. Rooney should start looking into the grants in the final database that the group created for them. Many of the grants in the database have deadlines coming up within the year, and the application process for them can take at least a week or so. With the database being color-coded, it will be visually easy to look into which grants they should apply for first according to the deadlines. Another recommendation for future actions would be to take the data and information inside of the database and re-use it for upcoming years. One of our main deliverables as a group was to organize the spreadsheet in a way the client can easily find specific grants based on its type and federal level. Many of the grants the team listed roll over to the next year and simply require the client to re-apply. The Excel database has the capacity to become a yearly template if the user sees fit; especially given a majority of the grant applications can be renewed year after year. The advantage of having a database that doubles as a template is that it allows the client to keep each cell’s formulas and color-coordination in perpetuity, rather than having to start over each year. Lots of bigger companies and organizations do this as well, which helps them cut down time spent on side tasks and allows them to focus on the bigger goal of the company. We hope that Aunt Susie’s will be able to spend less time organizing grants each year and more time helping patients.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Nofer, Lahmann, Pasqualetti, Boozer, Fenton, Orona, Savol, Johnson 21
Another recommendation for the client for future actions is to put their organization more
out there for the world to see! Lots of federal grants are harder for smaller businesses to apply for
due to its small recognition, however having a marketing team who knows how to bring up the algorithm for a small business can fix that. The purpose of Aunt Susie’s has such a strong and beautiful message behind it that many across the country can relate to. Since our team was able to hit not only the target number of grants but double that amount, the client has many possibilities to help market their nonprofit much more.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help