There are two reasons why faculty proposals are not funded:
 too little money in the pot for the number of applicants is one,
 and poorly prepared proposals is the other.  We have "control" only over
the latter group.

It is our experience that the last minute dash type of proposal is more
likely to contain significant errors and omissions than the ones prepared
with sufficient time for review.  For this reason and others we have
instituted a policy virtually requiring a "notice of intent to submit."  I
say "virtually" because we will handle surprise proposals only on a space
and time available basis during normal working hours.

Intrinsic to the Notice of Intent is a "time frames" schedule.  Electronic
submission, for instance, requires that the potential proposer seek
assistance THREE WEEKS prior to the deadline.  This is not a deadline for
production of a finished proposal; it is the time when we are notified and
set up the schedule for getting the proposal completed, converted to pdf, if
necessary, and uploaded into the esubmission program.  For DoEnergy 3 weeks
is barely enough.  For a first timer's Fastlane proposal, it is barely
enough.

There has been some resistance to the program, based primarily on the fact
that faculty members frequently do not know whether they are actually going
to submit until they see how much progress they are making on the
preparation of their proposal.  The "adrenalin" system of proposal
preparation is a myth, by the way.  It is not systematic, nor does it
usually produce good proposals.  It nevertheless persists as a bad habit,
which we are trying to break on this campus.

You can see our Notice of Intent form at http://www.csulb.edu/~research/ ...
but please do not submit ... just look.

Jim

Steven Etheredge wrote:

> Dear Colleagues:
>
> While all of us have preferred lead times (in our case, 3 days) for
> receiving proposals in our office, we have been experiencing more angst
> than usual as more and more agencies have gone to electronic submission.
> (And we thought eRA would make our jobs easier!)  We are a large
> institution and will submit approximately 1,700 proposals this year.  We
> are finding that our PI's normal behavior of getting many proposals to
> us on the actual day of required electronic submission is creating
> significant issues with non-user friendly e-grant systems, such as DOE,
> along with slow agency server response on due dates.  We are being
> pushed to the limits in getting these e-proposals submitted before the
> deadline.
>
> My questions relate to whether your institution has developed
> guidelines to deal specifically with proposals that require electronic
> submission.  We are contemplating putting such a policy in place.  Your
> input will be appreciated.
>
> Steve Etheredge
> Associate Director
>
> R. Steven Etheredge, Associate Director
> Sponsored Programs & Research
> University of South Carolina
> (803) 777-7093
> (803) 777-4136 fax
> xxxxxx@gwm.sc.edu
>
> ======================================================================
>  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")
> ======================================================================

--
James R. Brett, Ph.D., Director,
Office of University Research
California State University, Long Beach
562-985-5314  562-985-8665 fax
http://www.csulb.edu/~research/

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================