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