While we are on the subject of error messages, I would like to hear comparison data from people who have submitted BOTH via PureEdge and an "error checking" S2S mode (from your own server/database or through an off-site service provider). The big knocks against PureEdge are the lack of web-based access and the lack of pre-submission validation against agency rules. I see the web-based access as being more important for NIH submissions that involve larger projects (i.e R01s and beyond). As for the errors: let's see the evidence that the S2S products do a significantly better job than a trained and diligent PureEdge application preparer. It would be nice if the agencies could provide us with rankings for error-free submission among different submission modes/products. Unfortunately, I have been told that when the NIH receives an application, they cannot tell how it was initially sent to Gg. Is this true? Charlie At 09:28 PM 2/28/2006, you wrote: >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") >====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
