Fehlentscheidungen bei Budgetierung und Projektumfang aufgrund unklarer Förderregeln

Definition

Different Australian arts grant programs apply distinct rules around what costs are eligible, which entities can apply, and what activities are prioritised. For example, the Seaborn Broughton & Walford Foundation advises companies to seek grants for production and performance expenses rather than administration costs, while Carclew and other programs have specific age, location, and organisational criteria.[3][6] Creative Australia and Screen Australia also impose legal status, ABN, residency, and GST requirements, and require that budgets and project plans meet feasibility and sustainability criteria.[1][2][5][7] In the absence of integrated historical data on which types of projects, budgets, and cost structures are typically funded, theatre companies may design projects around anticipated grants that systematically under-recover overheads or rely on ineligible cost items. This can result in projects going ahead on the assumption of full cost recovery but later facing budget holes of 10–25% when administration, core staffing, or contingency items are not funded, forcing companies to reallocate internal reserves or cut activity. For a production budget of AUD 100,000–200,000 with 40–60% expected to be covered by grants, a 10–20% shortfall on grant-covered costs equates to AUD 4,000–24,000 per project. Repeating such mis-scoping over multiple annual productions can compound into AUD 10,000–70,000 in margin erosion or unfunded overhead per year.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Theatre companies in Australia 🇦🇺 lose AUD 10,000–70,000 per year through under-costed projects, unfunded admin overheads, and misaligned proposals. A data-driven grant and restricted-fund planning system helps optimise project design, protect margins, and target the right programs.

Affected Stakeholders

Artistic Director, Executive Producer, Finance Manager, Development/Grants Manager, Board Members

Related Business Risks