Re: S2S report on grants.gov Fultz, William 16 Jun 2006 07:52 EST

Mount Sinai Medical Center submitted 21 applications system-to-system
via InfoEd's PD module as well.  We contracted with InfoEd in December
for pretty much everything except Facilities and Colony Management.  We
kicked off Proposal Development and Tracking, Human Subjects Development
and Management, Lab Animals Development and Management and Environmental
Safety Development and Management in late January.  We kicked off
Clinical Trails in February.

We had the PD module up and began training investigators in early May.
Our Grants Office set an internal deadline a week before the NIH
deadline, which investigators met (for the most part). We ran help
sessions for them to load their proposals in the system leading up to
the due date.

Similar to Burnham Institute, everything posted pretty well with minor
warnings (generally about titles and degrees in Commons not matching
what the investigator put in their InfoEd profile.)  We did not have all
edits turned on in InfoEd so there were a couple of instances where the
investigator did not comply with submission rules.  In these cases
resubmission was easy. You learn pretty quickly what to review for on
the proposals and can ensure that they are in compliance before
submitting them.  In fact, I've never worked on research proposal
developments before May and could pretty accurately review submissions
for compliance with NIH rules after seeing only a few.

I don't have experience with Pure Edge, so I can't compare the two.
However, I do have a lot of experience implementing systems and found
this to be a fairly benign experience.  System issues were minor and
resolved quickly by InfoEd.  We've enhanced our training program based
on this submission, so I expect our 15-20 July 1 submissions to run even
smoother.

Beyond this, I see the S2S vs. Pure Edge issue to be more than just the
act of submitting proposals.  I believe that InfoEd will make it much
easier for our Institution to manage our proposal development and
submission process, since this is our system.  Reference data, such as
investigator profiles, sponsor profiles, subcontractor profiles, budget
profiles, etc., is managed by us and stored for reuse.

All information entered is reportable, and the reporting tool is
extremely easy to use.  For example, we were able to quickly create
reports on who was putting in proposals with subcontractors and
co-investigators so that we could ensure that they had all NIH required
data elements loaded in their profiles before submission.  In addition,
we will be able to generate management reports on proposals that were
submitted.

When viewed from a research program management perspective, it seems
better to use a system that provides more process management control and
reporting.

Bill Fultz

William Fultz
Senior Director of Information Technology
Office:  212-659-1522
Cell:     917-751-0496

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Henig
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:22 PM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] S2S report on grants.gov

BURNHAM INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH submitted 6 NIH R21 applications
system-to-system via InfoEd's Proposal Development module and 1 NIH R21
application through PureEdge.

INFOED PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT - The proposals submitted system-to-system
via InfoEd went successfully and were accepted quickly by Grants.gov and
the NIH eRA Commons with no significant errors. The few warnings
(Department not matching and the Research Plan page limit reminder) were
inconsequential.

PURE EDGE - We experienced extreme difficulty in submitting the single
R21 through PureEdge. We had to hit the Submit button at least thirty
times (no exaggeration) and calls to the helpdesk were not helpful.
Their suggestion was to keep trying. Late-afternoon on the deadline
date, it finally went through. Definitely did not need the added stress
of this on the deadline date. Don't know how those with very many
PureEdge applications survived!

In addition to the ease of submission utilizing a system-to-system
approach, InfoEd runs smoothly on multiple platforms and prepopulates a
significant portion of the application with Institutional and Personnel
Profile information. Furthermore, the information input into the
Proposal Development module flows through to our Proposal Tracking
module and finally to our Financial System. No duplicate entry of grant
information!

Obviously, we highly recommend InfoEd over PureEdge.

Regards,
Joe x3998

_________________________________
Joseph P. Henig, MS, CRA
Supervisor of Sponsored Research
_________________________________
Sponsored Research Office (SRO)
Contact us at:  xxxxxx@burnham.org
_________________________________

Burnham Institute for Medical Research
10901 North Torrey Pines Road
La Jolla, CA 92037

(858) 646-3100 x3998
(858) 646-3189 fax
xxxxxx@burnham.org
_________________________________
"From research, the power to cure."
Visit us at http://www.burnham.org.

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message.

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On
Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:45 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: [RESADM-L] S2S report on grants.gov

Over the past 2 weeks we have seen many navigating the NIH June 1
deadline for R21/R03 and heard about many errors, warnings, system
failures, system slowdowns, etc.  I assume that most of the people
contributing these battle stories were using PureEdge to submit.

Question: did anyone using a S2S mode of proposal prep and transmission
(on-site or via service provider) encounter problems?  I am not so much
interested in knowing which S2S product/service you used as I am very
curious about the SPECIFIC warnings and errors that you may have
encountered or avoided.

Thanks.

Charlie Hathaway

======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via
our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================

======================================================================
 Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
 subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
 via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================