Charles, You will be getting 4 messages with every Grants.gov submission. The first message has a useful referent -- applicant filing name. We use a standard format for this so will know what it refers to. The three subsequent messages have only the Grants.gov referent number. What a record keeping nightmare. We do about 100 applications for a cycle so will get 400 messages, plus every re- submission will have 4 more. Maybe a third with errors (a high estimate because by then we will have overcome most of the error problems) so that is another 120 messages. This does not include the messages for NIH, so 100 of those to start with and then 30 more having errors, so a second message, gives us 650 total emails over the course of a week! One aspect to consider with Charlie's point below about a department administrator submitting the original Grant is that there is pressure on NIH to eliminate the SO validation in the Commons. If the original submission by the AOR is done by someone authorized by the University to do so, or if the person is submitting a proposal approved by an authorized person, then why is there a need for another authorization. At one time some people considered letting the PI do the Submission as long as the SO had to then do an authorization in the Commons. This does, however, get very tedious as the EBIZPOC must give submission authorization to all the PI's. EBIZPOC = Electronic Business Point of Contact = the person who makes decisions as to whom to register in Grants.gov. Usually this is the person named in the Central Contract Registry, who ends up getting all the junk mail and calls for free credit cards :) So if NIH does away with the SO/AOR second validation, then the Grants.gov becomes the official submission, with no NIH follow up. In this case it seems to me that the submission must be closer to the Grants office and not done by a PI or even a department/unit administrator. There is some potential for this, if the application has been officially approved by an authorized person at the Grants office, or higher up. Still the EBIZPOC must be making all these approvals and keeping track of who is approved. Lots of university business process decisions to make. Bob xxxxxx@umich.edu On Feb 28, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Kaars, Charles wrote: > MC, > > This is an interesting exchange. I hadn't thought about who > will get the error messages. When we are handling 40 submissions on > Feb. 1 2007 we will not want to get the error messages in our mail > boxes. > > C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG] On > Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:01 PM > To: xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] basic question > > Bob- > > Thanks! Your FedEx analogy is apt. We are trying to consider the > best > way to give depts and investigators flexibility, get error > notifications > back to the people who will need to make the corrections, and maintain > institutional control. Obviously, this all looks ahead to those > deadlines when we would prefer to not monitor and micro-manage every > single proposal getting bounced around in the xml ether. Who wants a > POed SO? > > You mention that NIH says it sends messages to the person in > section 19. > This is the AOR (not SO). IF this is true, it means that a department > administrator authorized as an AOR can (following internal approvals) > submit a proposal, learn of errors, handle the resubmission, etc. > Then > the SO can do the final verification. > > Charlie > > > At 03:08 PM 2/28/2006, you wrote: >> Who's Who and Can Do What is a crucial question people using >> Grants.gov > >> need to consider. >> >> SO = signing official, a NIH Commons term for the person who signs >> the >> PHS 398 in the lower right side and who, in the Commons, has highest >> authority and can do anything except see PI reviews. >> >> AOR = authorized organizational representative, a Grants.gov term >> for a > >> person authorized by the EbizPOC to submit proposals. >> >> One person can have both roles and the roles can have the same or >> different people. That is to say, an institution can assign both >> jobs >> to a person and to many people. University business rules should >> dictate who can do the tasks allotted to each role. For example a >> person can be given SO rights for the Commons but not be >> authorized by >> the university to approve proposals. So the person can work on >> Commons > >> projects as an SO but not do approvals because that is not the >> person's > >> job at the institution. >> >> Likewise, you can consider actually pushing the button to "submit" >> an application via Grants.gov to be akin to putting it in the >> FedEx box > >> if the application has been APPROVED by an institutionally authorized >> person. Thus a person who does not have the institutional right to >> approve a proposal can still "submit" it, once it is approved. I >> have >> spoken to folks at some universities who seem to think that the >> government agencies understand the roles and rights of people in >> universities and have assigned system roles and rights based on this >> knowledge. Thus, a Vice Provost for Research who is authorized by >> the >> Governing Board to approve proposals seems to be the only one who >> can >> "submit" them through a system. Consider differentiating between >> University business rules and submission system business rules. >> >> Grants.gov recognizes as the submitter, the person whose sign-on and >> password is used to make the submission. There is an email >> address for > >> this person in the system and that person gets the 4 Grants.gov >> messages. >> >> NIH says it sends messages to the "Person to be contacted" (section >> 6) and to the SO, the person listed in section 19. If this >> person is > >> not an SO then I do not know, because our "official" AOR is also >> an SO. > >> Sending to both people may explain why some people got two >> messages, as > >> both the contact person and the SO/AOR. The contact person for us is >> the person who would have been in the lower left section of of the >> PHS >> 398 and she did not get NIH messages. >> >> So Grants.gov notifies the submitter only. We have a group email >> address for this "person" and so all people who have AOR status >> get the > >> message. NIH notifies the person in section 19 and maybe the >> person in > >> section 6. In any event, any one with the SO rights in the >> Commons can > >> verify, whether that person "submitted" the application or not. It >> would really be nice if NIH sent their messages to all SO's. In >> so far > >> as the PI is concerned, folks might consider using a group email >> if the > >> PI is difficult to contact. All people in the research team, or the >> department management staff could be in this group. >> >> Charlie, am I getting to an answer to your question? >> >> Bob Beattie >> UM Grants.gov Liaison >> xxxxxx@umich.edu 936-1283 >> Learn more about Grants.gov @ UMICH >> http://www.research.umich.edu/era/grants_gov/ >> >> >> >> On Feb 28, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Charlie Hathaway wrote: >> >> Just when I think I am understanding Grants.gov/NIH eRA, my brain >> stumbles. >> >> Question: What is the relationship between a Grants.gov "AOR" and an >> NIH "SO"? >> >> My assumption was that AORs submit to Gg and deal with Gg issues, >> that >> SOs deal with NIH Commons issues, and that an AOR may or may not >> be an >> SO. >> >> Now I come across Gg tutorials mentioning SOs and some NIH tutorials >> talking about AORs. >> >> And if you have multiple SOs and AORs, who gets notified about errors >> and who needs to do the verification? >> >> Help? Thanks. >> >> Charlie >> >> >> ===================================================================== >> = >> 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") > ====================================================================== > > > ====================================================================== > 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") ======================================================================
