Iād also be interested in an answer to this question, though I think there are probably more possible bottlenecks than just those two (or maybe you meant āgood ideasā very broadly and Iād want to subdivide it). I imagine that other possible bottlenecks could include:
good applicants with good proposals for implementing the good project ideas
grantmaker capacity to evaluate project ideas
Maybe this should capture both whether they have time and whether they have techniques or abilities to evaluate project ideas whose expected value seems particularly hard to assess
grantmaker capacity to solicit or generate new project ideas
Some related questions, adapted from something I wrote previously:
To the extent that youāre bottlenecked by the number of good applications or would be bottlenecked by that if funded more, is that because (or do you expect itād be because) there too few applications in general, or too low a proportion that are high-quality?
When an application isnāt sufficiently high-quality, is that usually due to the quality of the idea, the quality of the applicant, or a mismatch between the idea and the applicantās skillset (e.g., the applicant does seem highly generally competent, but lacks a specific, relevant skill)?
If there are too few applicants, or too few with relevant skills, is this because there are too few of such people interested in effective animal advocacy, or because there probably are such people who are in EAA but theyāre applying less often than would be ideal?
(It seems like answers to those questions could inform whether AWF should focus on generating more ideas, finding more people from within EAA who could execute ideas, finding more people from outside of EAA who could execute ideas, improving the match between ideas and people, or just building the relevant community.)
Iād also be interested in an answer to this question, though I think there are probably more possible bottlenecks than just those two (or maybe you meant āgood ideasā very broadly and Iād want to subdivide it). I imagine that other possible bottlenecks could include:
good applicants with good proposals for implementing the good project ideas
grantmaker capacity to evaluate project ideas
Maybe this should capture both whether they have time and whether they have techniques or abilities to evaluate project ideas whose expected value seems particularly hard to assess
grantmaker capacity to solicit or generate new project ideas
Some related questions, adapted from something I wrote previously:
To the extent that youāre bottlenecked by the number of good applications or would be bottlenecked by that if funded more, is that because (or do you expect itād be because) there too few applications in general, or too low a proportion that are high-quality?
When an application isnāt sufficiently high-quality, is that usually due to the quality of the idea, the quality of the applicant, or a mismatch between the idea and the applicantās skillset (e.g., the applicant does seem highly generally competent, but lacks a specific, relevant skill)?
If there are too few applicants, or too few with relevant skills, is this because there are too few of such people interested in effective animal advocacy, or because there probably are such people who are in EAA but theyāre applying less often than would be ideal?
(It seems like answers to those questions could inform whether AWF should focus on generating more ideas, finding more people from within EAA who could execute ideas, finding more people from outside of EAA who could execute ideas, improving the match between ideas and people, or just building the relevant community.)