Mount Sinai Medical Center submitted 21 applications system-to-system via InfoEd's PD module as well. We contracted with InfoEd in December for pretty much everything except Facilities and Colony Management. We kicked off Proposal Development and Tracking, Human Subjects Development and Management, Lab Animals Development and Management and Environmental Safety Development and Management in late January. We kicked off Clinical Trails in February. We had the PD module up and began training investigators in early May. Our Grants Office set an internal deadline a week before the NIH deadline, which investigators met (for the most part). We ran help sessions for them to load their proposals in the system leading up to the due date. Similar to Burnham Institute, everything posted pretty well with minor warnings (generally about titles and degrees in Commons not matching what the investigator put in their InfoEd profile.) We did not have all edits turned on in InfoEd so there were a couple of instances where the investigator did not comply with submission rules. In these cases resubmission was easy. You learn pretty quickly what to review for on the proposals and can ensure that they are in compliance before submitting them. In fact, I've never worked on research proposal developments before May and could pretty accurately review submissions for compliance with NIH rules after seeing only a few. I don't have experience with Pure Edge, so I can't compare the two. However, I do have a lot of experience implementing systems and found this to be a fairly benign experience. System issues were minor and resolved quickly by InfoEd. We've enhanced our training program based on this submission, so I expect our 15-20 July 1 submissions to run even smoother. Beyond this, I see the S2S vs. Pure Edge issue to be more than just the act of submitting proposals. I believe that InfoEd will make it much easier for our Institution to manage our proposal development and submission process, since this is our system. Reference data, such as investigator profiles, sponsor profiles, subcontractor profiles, budget profiles, etc., is managed by us and stored for reuse. All information entered is reportable, and the reporting tool is extremely easy to use. For example, we were able to quickly create reports on who was putting in proposals with subcontractors and co-investigators so that we could ensure that they had all NIH required data elements loaded in their profiles before submission. In addition, we will be able to generate management reports on proposals that were submitted. When viewed from a research program management perspective, it seems better to use a system that provides more process management control and reporting. Bill Fultz William Fultz Senior Director of Information Technology Office: 212-659-1522 Cell: 917-751-0496 -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Henig Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 4:22 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] S2S report on grants.gov BURNHAM INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH submitted 6 NIH R21 applications system-to-system via InfoEd's Proposal Development module and 1 NIH R21 application through PureEdge. INFOED PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT - The proposals submitted system-to-system via InfoEd went successfully and were accepted quickly by Grants.gov and the NIH eRA Commons with no significant errors. The few warnings (Department not matching and the Research Plan page limit reminder) were inconsequential. PURE EDGE - We experienced extreme difficulty in submitting the single R21 through PureEdge. We had to hit the Submit button at least thirty times (no exaggeration) and calls to the helpdesk were not helpful. Their suggestion was to keep trying. Late-afternoon on the deadline date, it finally went through. Definitely did not need the added stress of this on the deadline date. Don't know how those with very many PureEdge applications survived! In addition to the ease of submission utilizing a system-to-system approach, InfoEd runs smoothly on multiple platforms and prepopulates a significant portion of the application with Institutional and Personnel Profile information. Furthermore, the information input into the Proposal Development module flows through to our Proposal Tracking module and finally to our Financial System. No duplicate entry of grant information! Obviously, we highly recommend InfoEd over PureEdge. Regards, Joe x3998 _________________________________ Joseph P. Henig, MS, CRA Supervisor of Sponsored Research _________________________________ Sponsored Research Office (SRO) Contact us at: xxxxxx@burnham.org _________________________________ Burnham Institute for Medical Research 10901 North Torrey Pines Road La Jolla, CA 92037 (858) 646-3100 x3998 (858) 646-3189 fax xxxxxx@burnham.org _________________________________ "From research, the power to cure." Visit us at http://www.burnham.org. This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:45 AM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: [RESADM-L] S2S report on grants.gov Over the past 2 weeks we have seen many navigating the NIH June 1 deadline for R21/R03 and heard about many errors, warnings, system failures, system slowdowns, etc. I assume that most of the people contributing these battle stories were using PureEdge to submit. Question: did anyone using a S2S mode of proposal prep and transmission (on-site or via service provider) encounter problems? I am not so much interested in knowing which S2S product/service you used as I am very curious about the SPECIFIC warnings and errors that you may have encountered or avoided. Thanks. Charlie Hathaway ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
