Thanks, Spanky and Sarah, for your comments. I think the comment about charging a fee for late comers pushed the discussion off track somewhat. We always attempt to get proposals submitted, even when they come in the door at the last minute. Most of the few times that we have been unable to make submission of late proposals have been due to problems related to e-submissions. My question relates specifically to the new age of electronic proposals. With the constraints imposed by the numerous e-grants systems, we are finding it extremely difficult to submit late-arriving proposals. When we submitted all paper proposals, we could in many cases send a less-than-perfect proposal, and, yes, some of those do get funded. That is exactly why we face this dilemma. With many e-propoposals arriving late, we are stretched to deal with proposals which e-systems reject because of formatting, missing parts or other errors. Most e-systems are not very forgiving as far as adherence to their guidelines. It may not be a question of submitting a poor proposal; it may be that the grantor's system will not accept the proposal in the state which the PI gives it to us at the last minute. The time which we have to devote to these problemmatic proposals steals time from other submissions which need to make similar deadlines. Our thoughts about establishing some special deadline for e-proposals is self-protection; if it's not here by the internal deadline, we cannot guarantee submission by the grantor's deadline. That is not to imply that we will not do everything possible to get them in on time; we always go above and beyond to do so. Yet, we must protect those who do get the proposals in with sufficient time over those who consistently stretch the margins. We would not be telling a PI that his/her grant won't be submitted, only that circumstances may prevent submission if it's not here by the internal deadline. R. Steven Etheredge, Associate Director Sponsored Programs & Research University of South Carolina (803) 777-7093 (803) 777-4136 fax xxxxxx@gwm.sc.edu >>> xxxxxx@OBA.UIUC.EDU 03/12/03 02:24PM >>> Spanky, I'm with you. At Illinois, we have a required lead time for proposals to be in our office before they have to be submitted to the sponsor. But this requirements is "honored more in the breach than the observance." The proposal that doesn't get funded is the one that doesn't get submitted. I have seen ugly, typo-ridden, poorly-paginated, badly-formatted proposals get funded. If it's humanly possible, we will get the proposal out in time to meet the deadline. Yet, most days, most of the staff who process proposals leave at 5:00. Sarah W. Wasserman Associate Director Grants and Contracts Office University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 801 South Wright Street Champaign, IL 61820 (v) 217-244-7637 (f) 217-333-2189 xxxxxx@uillinois.edu -----Original Message----- From: Mike McCallister [mailto:xxxxxx@UALR.EDU] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:00 PM To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG Subject: [RESADM-L] Electronic proposals I've been stewing over this since the original post. Leveler (and balder, Jim) heads have spoken and the important points have been made. I am deeply troubled, however, by the whole idea of this late fee charge. I'm as against this concept as one can get. In fact, I find most policies about deadlines to get proposals into the research office for any kind of submission laughable. "Some "exceptions will be made." Yes, because exceptions are our job and unless the proposal is still "loose junk in a box" we all tend to get them submitted, if we can. One of the unpretty aspects of research administration culture is the idea that we are administering anything particularly researchers. We are helpers and helpers don't punish. They train, teach, encourage, and occasionally just put up with researchers. Being late can be discouraged, but human nature is what it is-- folks will often be late. Having policies and punitive steps is bad, bad PR, makes us look like controlling clerks and cops, rather than peers within the proposal process. It looks anything but professional. For sure, I threaten the very lives of those who are chronically late, try to abuse our folks, and are generally sloppy. there are some I would cheerfully bop in the head if they stepped in my door right now. But I can do change their behavior more effectively as a peer and a member of the academic community than by charging someone's budget. That will have little effect on the PI, anyway. Fees are punishments, punishments are for kids, and even when our PI's act like kids, they really aren't. And they hold grudges, gossip to whiners, and make our challenging job less fun when we embarrass them. I'd rethink this whole deal. It's going to reap more ill will than behavior change. I don't know of a research office that has good will to burn. And if I'm dead wrong, that's fine, too. Won't be the first time. Spanky >At Utah State University, we have instituted a new policy which requires >all proposed applications be submitted to my office 2 full working days >before the Sponsor due date. If they are not submitted as per the >policy, USU will no longer be signing the applications or transmitting >them electronically. We have determined that there will most likely be >some exceptions to this rule, but there will be a fee attached to the >lateness of the proposal. Thankfully, the Vice President for Research, >the Research Council and our President are in full support of this. The >policy becomes effective as of May 1. > >Dennis J. Paffrath, Director >Utah State University >Sponsored Programs Office >1415 Old Main Hill - Room 64 >Logan, UT 84322-1415 > >xxxxxx@usu.edu >(435) 797-8302 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On >Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:50 AM >To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG >Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Electronic proposal lead time > >I tell researchers that electronic research administration will speed up >application review and award but those benefits will require sacrifice >on the >pre-submission side. When full implementation occurs and electronic >routing >for all approvals/signatures is part of the game, 4:58 proposals will be >a >thing of the past. > >Charlie Hathaway > >Quoting Steven Etheredge <xxxxxx@GWM.SC.EDU>: > >> 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") >> ====================================================================== >> > > >====================================================================== > 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") >====================================================================== -- Mike McCallister, Ph. D. Director, Research and Sponsored Programs University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 (v) 501-569-8474 (f) 501-371-7614 (c) 501-590-5609 "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'" ~ Isaac Asimov ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
