R. Steven Etheredge, Associate Director Sponsored Programs & Research University of South Carolina (803) 777-7093 (803) 777-4136 fax xxxxxx@gwm.sc.edu >>> xxxxxx@CALPOLY.EDU 03/13/03 01:16PM >>> Thank you for being proactive in your approach to automating the internal grant proposal processing. It is encouraging to see a manager take the lead in creating such a system to benefit everyone. Hopefully, such systems will instill knowledge that submitting a proposal is a team effort --- a team that requires all parties to respect the needs (including deadlines and workloads) of others. Because one is in a service position, this does not entitle others to abuse them on behalf of a proposal deadline policy that "no deadline will be missed". It is heartening to read instances where a Manager steps forward on behalf of their staff "to protect those who serve". -----Original Message----- From: hcherm [mailto:xxxxxx@VCU.EDU] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:21 AM To: RESADM-L Cc: hcherm Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Electronic proposal lead time VCU is facing similar problems. We find that an electronic proposal that must be submitted from the central office takes more time to "make right" than a paper proposal. This is exacerbated by the fact that some of the electronic acceptance systems will reject some kinds of forms unless they are "perfect". One example: a Greek letter symbol was in a title -- perfectly acceptable on paper, and maybe scientifically required to make sense -- but the electronic receiver kept giving a "hidden quotes" rejection; drove us up the wall! Our turnaround time for a "perfect" proposal -- a few small flaws that PI can correct (we return signed proposals to PI for submittal) -- is 2 working days. For the recent Congressionally Directed... deadline, we asked each PI to give us a MINIMUM of 3 working days. We are going to bring on line an electronic proposal preparation system. Gradually, and with careful hand holding until we all know how it works in detail! But if the PI "releases" for central review at the last minute, there may well be other than small flaws, and take more review time. However, this Proposal Prep we are installing requires department and school review BEFORE release to central office, which may help. Also, central office can make those small flaw corrections. We have no idea how much time this will take for review and interaction with PI's, yet. I note that the externally imposed electronic submissions do not have lower level reviews built in. We may have to make 3 days a minimum, and 4 or 5 for electronic submissions. The problem is not yours alone, and there are as yet no best practices -- can't be, because each new electronic submission is different from the last! For the moment we are doing the best we can, and may have to be formal about longer lead time needs! Chuck At 08:53 AM 3/12/2003 -0500, you 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") >====================================================================== Herbert B. Chermside, CRA Director, Sponsored Programs Administration Virginia Commonwealth University PO BOX 980568 Richmond, VA 23298-0568 Express Delivery Only: Biotech One, Suite 113 Virginia Biotechnology Research Park 800 East Leigh Street Richmond, VA 23219 Voice: 804-828-6772 Fax 804-828-2521 OFFICE e-mail xxxxxx@VCU.EDU Personal e-mail xxxxxx@vcu.edu http://www.research.vcu.edu/ospa.htm ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
