Fehlallokation von Ressourcen durch ungeeignete Förderprogramme

Definition

The Australian Industry Group explicitly warns businesses to check whether program objectives are consistent with their business priorities and notes that chasing funding for activities that divert attention from core strategic objectives may not benefit the business in the long run.[4] For industry associations, this manifests when boards and executives pursue grants for peripheral projects because money is available, diverting senior staff from core membership services and advocacy. If a medium‑sized association has three senior managers (CEO, policy director, projects director) whose fully loaded cost is around AUD 180,000 each p.a., and they collectively spend 10–20 % of their time for a year designing and overseeing a poorly aligned grant project that produces limited member value or is non‑renewable, the implicit opportunity cost is around AUD 54,000–108,000. Additionally, under‑funded projects (e.g., grants requiring matching funding or significant in‑kind contributions) can force associations to cross‑subsidise from reserves or membership income, effectively eroding surplus that could have been invested elsewhere.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian Industry Associations binden jährlich geschätzt AUD 50,000–150,000 an Managementkapazität in schlecht passenden oder überkomplexen Grants. A structured grant‑fit scoring and portfolio view can redirect these Ressourcen auf weniger, aber finanziell tragfähigere Förderprojekte.

Affected Stakeholders

Chief Executive Officer, Board of Directors, Strategy/Policy Director, Grant/Business Development Manager

Related Business Risks