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