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