We submitted four DoEd proposals yesterday, the last was submitted at 2:39 p.m. EST (email receipt received immediately) but not officially validated (according the G.g system) until 6:17 a.m. today. Sponsor guidelines dictated it had to be validated by 4:30 p.m. EST yesterday... the other three all went through from start to finish within 2 hours for each. Rebecca Antley, CRA, Grants & Contracts Administrator MUSC Research & Sponsored Programs -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:48 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: [RESADM-L] I sent a HRSA application today around Noon. It took about 10 min total from AOR hitting Submit to Agency retrieval email. > Anyone tried to use grants.gov today--5 days before the NIH R01 deadline? > It's taking ten minutes to log on to g.g; another 10-15 to submit the > application; and another 5-10 to get confirmation. > > Maybe it's just my computer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org]On Behalf > Of Cull, Paula > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 4:56 PM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] another article in the Chronicle on grants.gov > > > Bob Beattie: > > Thank you, finally someone with a wider vision and lots of common sense > who is articulate too! > > Paula Cull > Grants & Sponsored Programs > Montana State University-Billings > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Beattie > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:21 PM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] another article in the Chronicle on grants.gov > > While the article is not as positive as it should be, given the > actual whelming (not over and not over) success of the program, it is > not all that bad. There are problems in it. For one thing the whole > "Find" component of Grants.gov is not mentioned. Something with > capability to find and then download any Federal grant application > with a fairly standard form seems like a pretty good system. I also > dislike words such as "maze," "anxiety," "dole out grants," > "stymied," "cumbersome." Nothing was more cumbersome than typing up > an application, checking by eyeball, making 20 copies (are all the > pages done right), boxing it up, carrying it to the FedEx pick up, > filling out the labels (and hoping the truck was not in an accident). > > I find that most of our UM user community, typically admin staff, and > not PIs (who should be doing science, not data entry) like the > system. Our grants office staff are happy with it too. Especially > so, now that we have the new IBM viewer for our Macs to do > submissions. The Mac viewer is terrific, well only in so far as it > does what the original Pure Edge program did. And we all know there > are some problems there :) > > Counting pages is a poor metric for measuring success. The NIH guide > need not be printed in all 202 pages but is best kept as an online > Word file for each searching. Likewise the other Guides. Recall > there was once an NIH 398 Guide and application kit that arrive in > our office, at least, by the carton load. > > The real paper waster, is of course, printing an application. An > equal number of wasted pages for each good 424 page. This is on our > list of things to be fixed (and the problems with multi-year > budgets) But then do we need to print applications? > > Not mentioned in the article is the fact that months will be cut from > the review process by NIH. Getting results a grant cycle earlier > seems well worth the effort to learn the system. > > Also, a positive aspect is that we no longer, or at least should no > longer, have to deal with 26 different agency formats and > procedures. Yes there are those that want extra paper, and extra > processing, or do not want to give up all their applications to the > new system, but can this just be attributed to those agencies only > maturing slowly, or not appreciating how their users suffer at their > whims. We certainly do not want 26 different systems, even if they > are as good, but in their own way, as FastLane. One form, one > system, one portal is a motto I like. We will still have to deal > with 26 different post-submission systems. > > Grants.gov is 3 years old but people have only been paying attention > for about a year -- When NIH Talks Universities Listen. So much > progress in that one year. NIH has made many concession in how they > are using the system. Note the deadline change time, the removal of > the PI/SO verification, the stretching out of the deadline in a > month, removing many things that caused errors. This whole > electronic submission process cannot be done without a little > compromise by both agencies and users. Someone said it was like beta > testing, well who better to be testing this but all of us. If > Grants.gov and the agencies will listen to our suggestions, we should > soon be able to expect system which, if not perfect, should be at > least excellent. > > Bob > xxxxxx@umich.edu > > > > > On Jan 31, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Molly Daniel wrote: > > http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i22/22a02501.htm > The link above is to an article in this week's Chronicle of Higher > Education about the underwhelming success of Grants.gov. The article > cites a claim by NIH that the electronic submission process will save > an estimated "200 million sheets of paper." We haven't really saved a > forest yet, though, because those 200 million pages are likely offset > by the 500 million printed in a several hundred offices of applicant > organizations around the country who are trying to figure out how to > use the system. > > Grants.gov Applicant User Guide - 90 pages > NIH eRA Commonts System Users Guide - 104 pages > Grants.gov Application Guide for the SF424 (R&R) (version 2) - 202 pages > NIH ERA Exchange Services Notes, Tips and Validations for Grants.gov > components - 74 pages > > This of course does not include the RFA/RFP, the sample completed > SF424 R&R application or the many drafts of the "completed" form > pages we spit out as we develop the drafts. Sure, we always have > printed those documents, but now it seems as though the parts are > broken up into to even more separate sheets of paper. > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Molly Daniel > Grants Specialist > Planning Department > Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center > 1000 Health Center Drive > Mattoon, IL 61938 > tel. 217.258.2195 > fax 217.258.4135 > email: xxxxxx@sblhs.org > http://www.sarahbush.org > > ====================================================================== I > > nstructions 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") > ====================================================================== > > > ********************** > Confidentiality Notice > ********************** > The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the > person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action > in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than > the intended recipient is prohibited. > If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and > delete the e-mail and any attached material immediately. Thank you. > > > ====================================================================== > 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") ======================================================================
