I am now in for some loose change too. 1. First, perhaps there are some misconceptions about GrantSlam. This system was initially developed to allow PI/staff to produce paper copies of the NIH 398 and other NIH applications. It was a single user program and so was marketed directly to potential users. The users entered data into the system which then created a very nice printed 398 application for routing and approval within the university and sending to NIH. Thus there are many users of this version around the country 2. In view of its success in the paper mode, Cayuse Software was selected as one of 6 vendors to develop an electronic delivery system for applications to NIH as part of the electronic Competing Grants Application Process (eCGAP). We at Michigan wanted to participate in this project so applied for a sub contract from Cayuse to test the system by making submissions. Note that as part of its grant from NIH, the company was to solicit testers for the system. To this end, using NIH lists of grantees, they did send messages asking for people to test the system. Testers would need to involve their grants office. We obtained a sub contract and submitted about a dozen applications. 3. As part of the eCGAP development, the company was moving from a client-server system to an open source fully web-based version that would be much more flexible and might better meet the central management needs of an institution. Then the eCGAP project was halted and the NIH vendors were directed to work on solutions that linked to Grants.gov and used the Form 424(R&R) wrapped around a Form 398. This system would be grants office based and so direct solicitation of faculty would not be useful. I suspect those who had successful experiences with the paper GrantSlam program wanted to carry that over to the electronic side of things. 4. Cayuse is now working on this new system to allow users to create applications compatible with Grants.gov. The system is still being built so I have not used it. I do know that the plan is to allow users to open a file with the appropriate schema for the desired application downloaded from Grants.gov. This can be done with mac or pc. Saved data such as institutional information, PI profiles, and budgets can be incorporated into the file. Unique information can be added and text files converted to pdf and up-loaded. I have just completed the conversion of a Grants.gov file to an NIH Commons version (helped a PI with an STTR) and can say there is much tedious data entry and opportunities for errors. I refer to NIH fatal errors that are not revealed until the file reaches the NIH Commons. These must be corrected prior to the final deadline. The complete file can then be printed if desired (not so with plain Grants.gov file except section by section), or viewed, and approved electronically by the appropriate officials and then submitted to Grants.gov via an html stream ala the S2S procedure. This process would be instead of requiring users to treat each application as a unique task and route as a paper copy for approval to the grants office which would then submit as is done now. I hope to know more about this system and get a chance to test it. I know some grants office folks are nervous about waiting for something that will not be ready until perhaps the early second quarter of 2006. I doubt any school will have created its own system by then. One advantage I think that comes from such a system is that it would work for all sponsors who use Grants.gov. I certainly cannot vouch for it now but do look forward to testing it. Grants.gov staff are very sensitive to the Mac problem and hope to have it corrected soon. Even if there is no platform problem, a G.g interface option might be useful. In the past I have made objective appraisals of the eCGAP system and will continue to do so for the Grants.govSlam product. So more later, I hope. Bob xxxxxx@umich.edu On Dec 9, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Jon Hart wrote: I had to add my 2 cents on this. About 50% of our faculty use MACs, and the PureEdge solution has them ready to take the grants.gov offices by storm (und drang). For this reason (only) we are going to have to have a solution apart from the PureEdge software, which offers a MAC "fix" that is basically unworkable. We purchased InfoEd's Proposal Development module some time ago (we use other modules of theirs) which is a web-based solution that will accept any platform that can mount a browser, which we hope will work for everyone until grants.gov gets their act in order -- if they ever do. Grants.gov has forced those of us with substantial MAC communities to purchase third-party software, whether InfoEd, GrantSlam (historically a good product, in my opinion), or other vendors' programs. I think it unconscionable that our government has put us in this position to request federal assistance for important research, but there you are (vent). Joni. Jon Hart, M.P.A., C.I.P. Senior Director Office of Sponsored Programs Administration Human Subjects Protections Program The Rockefeller University email: xxxxxx@mail.rockefeller.edu Tel: (212) 327-8054; fax: (212) 327-8400 ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
