Federal agencies keep a data base of their grant information.  At
present they must enter information into their system.  Most university
grants offices likewise keep a data base of their grant information and
make entries.  Most PI's or their staff enter information into agency
application forms and probably on a university routing and approval
form.  The university grants offices enter the same information into
their grants system.  The federal agencies' staff enter the same
information into their grants system.  Quite a bit of redundancy.

So, how to resolve this?  Federal agencies would like the data be
entered at the source of the data -- the PI's or their staff or the
university grants office.  So agencies will have a strong incentive to
develop and promote, and soon require, applicants to use the agency
system.  There are other advantages to them too, such as making reviews
easier.

NSF was the first agency to follow this path.  How long was the time
interval between the unveiling of the optional FastLane until it was
made mandatory?  That might be an indicator of the time we have until
Grants.gov is mandatory.

The current Grants.gov with its half (or at best three quarters)
functional Pure Edge system for individual use is but a stop gap
measure for large institutions.  It will remain for small institutions
or large ones even, who submit but a few applications a year.  Keep in
mind that Grants.gov is for the entire grants giving enterprise of the
federal government -- states, local governments, school districts,
Indian tribes, and universities (who get only a small fraction of that
grants dollar volume).

The solution for universities is not the Pure Edge, person to system
approach, nor perhaps the NIH Commons current vendor offerings, but the
forthcoming Grants.gov System to System (S2S) option.  This involves
universities creating their own internal proposal creation, routing,
approval, archiving, and submitting system.  This internal system will
then route applications to the Grants.gov system which, in turn, will
forward them to the proper agency system.

Thus we a single data entry for both the university grants office and
the federal agency.  Unlike FastLane this system will not be user to
web and so universities will need to buy or build systems that will
create a continuous stream of data from PI to Federal Agency.  Along
the way, the grants office can pick off the data it needs.

So do not put much effort into mastering the person to system current
version of Grants.gov or the NIH Commons but be working toward the
larger, campus-wide grants management system that replaces the
paper-based routing and approvals you now do, with its multiple points
of data entry, making extra copies and federal express shipping.  Once
in place, such a campus system should provide savings and give
expediency for the grants environment.  The same will happen for the
agencies too, so we cannot fault them too much for working toward this.

Complain about, fight, or avoid the federal agencies movement in this
direction but be grateful that some institutions such as the FDP are
trying to make this transition as easy possible and are keeping the
agencies aware of the special needs of universities. Keep a vigil on
what is happening, look to the examples of the University of Minnesota
and MIT who have created such systems, and some others that are in the
midst creating the necessary systems, and find out what vendors can
offer what help.

The next few years will hold some turmoil in the grants submission area
but once new systems are in place, the process should be better than
now.  For this to happen we need to have a single federal system with
standards that seldom change.  Let's hope Grants.gov S2S will be that
system.

Bob
xxxxxx@umich.edu
On Oct 26, 2004, at 11:01 AM, Jean M. Murphy wrote:

Charlie,
 Excellent questions!  I am also worried that we are not doing
enough and
will face extinction if we don't act soon.  But, do we really need to
act
now to submit through Grants.gov?   If so, how do I convince the PI's
and
the administration that we need to invest now?
Jean

Charlie Hathaway writes:
> When John said "the rush to electronic proposal submission" I decided
> it
> was time to ask a question:  what is driving this rush?
>
> For years now I have heard people talking about the eRA future and the
> plans they are making.  I am intimidated by all the descriptions of
> institutional electronic infrastructure building and feel that, in
> comparison, my institution is doing very little.  We get a big bunch of
> money from NIH each year using Fed-Ex to send applications.  We get a
> little bit of money from NSF using Fastlane.  Our PIs are beginning to
> use NIH Commons.  But we tend not to change unless agency practices
> change, and there is an impetus to change.  Is this a Darwinian issue?
> Will we one day wake up to dark skies, the inability to submit our
> proposals, and the end of nutritional cash flow?  Can I convince my
> administration that extinction looms unless we buy a big software
> package
> and start negotiating with an eRA vendor?

Jean M. Murphy
Director of Pre-Award Services
Wellesley Centers for Women
http://www.wcwonline.org
E-mail:  xxxxxx@wellesley.edu      Phone:  781-283-2508     Fax:
781-283-2504

Wellesley College, Cheever House, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA
02481

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