A futher note on this explanation:

5.  We have submitted some 300 NIH applications and only once did we get
a second error message about a problem that did not show among the first
errors.  We have needed to submit 2-3 applications because the PI did
not actually fix the original error.  It was still an error even with a
second try.

In addition to the above situation, you can get an error that the
eCommons username is not entered into the application package.  When you
resubmit the application with the username in it, you might get more
errors.  This is because the eCommons system looks for the username
first, and if it doesn't find it, it stops right there.  However, the
application itself might have other errors besides that - but the
eCommons system will not look for those until after it has identified
the application package with the correct eCommons profile.  That may
explain why, in some cases, it seems as though there are errors that are
not addressed in the first go-round.

Kris

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Beattie
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:27 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] An open complaint about HHS electronic
application processes

Some of the points below are well taken and should be rectified,
especially regarding HRSA.  They need to be reported to OMB and others
for their terrible service.  I do, however, suggest that some of the
comments about the NIH procedures are not correct.

1.  The eRA Commons existed many years prior to Grants.gov and is the
repository of all NIH applications.  The Commons allows PI's and
research administrators to manage applications and awards in quite a
simple manner.  Progress reports, Just-in-Time actions, No Cost Time
Extensions, Internet Assisted Reviews, soon Xtrain, and other procedures
are all done through eCommons.  This system is well worth learning.

2.  The eCommons has to be connected to Grants.gov because applications
to NIH must go somewhere.  The applications go into the eCommons for
management by both the NIH staff and University staff.

3.  A person does not need to log into the eCommons to find if there are
warnings or errors.  The PI (and others if a group email is
used)  and the SO get a message from NIH stating that there are warnings
or errors.  Then these people can go into eCommons to read the warnings
and errors.  Perhaps in the future, these messages could contain the
text of the warnings and errors.  In the meantime, it takes but a few
minutes to look them up.

4.  Yes people must learn two systems.  Indeed, they must learn many
systems in order to use electronic submission -- a word processing
program, a .pdf creation program, a web browser, an email system, a
computer.  Research enterprise personnel need to know the eRA Commons
for many other functions than just looking at the status of submitted
applications.  Is the letter below a call for a return to the paper
submission world -- xeroxing multiple copies, sending and tracking by
FedEx, getting letters with questions, waiting months for receipts,
missing deadlines due to mistakes in applications that are discovered
too late to fix.  If you send by FedEx you would also get a tracking
number and also a number from NIH.  The Grants.gov tracking number is
nothing to keep after the application arrives.

5.  We have submitted some 300 NIH applications and only once did we get
a second error message about a problem that did not show among the first
errors.  We have needed to submit 2-3 applications because the PI did
not actually fix the original error.  It was still an error even with a
second try.

6.  I would argue that NIH (NOT HRSA) is the one agency that is indeed
following the Grants.gov principles.  One Form, One System, One Portal
for submission.  Once a grant is submitted then you need to turn to
another system.  NIH has promised that all applications will come
through Grants.gov soon.  Other agencies are not following the basic
Grants.gov principle and are allowing paper and other system
submissions.  These are the agencies that need to be taken to task.

Do not allow NRSA in the barrel to spoil NIH.  Chastise NRSA to COGR, to
OBM, to Secretary of HHS.  But praise NIH for what it is doing.  I have
been working on electronic proposal management and submission systems
since 1985.  Now we are making progress, some agencies are at
last meeting the needs of research administrators.  Some are not.
Grants.gov staff are working hard to meet the needs of its stakeholders
who are not just grant submitters, but are both the individual
submitters, the S2S submitters, the agency folks who make the
applications and the agency people who then receive the applications.
If this whole effort is to succeed we must target very specifically
those problems that need to be fixed and not criticize with a "broad
brush."

Bob
------------------------------
Robert Beattie
UMich Grants.gov Liaison
Managing Senior Project Representative for Electronic Research
Administration Division of Research Development and Administration
University of Michigan
xxxxxx@umich.edu   (734) 936-1283
Learn more about Grants.gov @ UMICH
http://www.research.umich.edu/era/grants_gov/

On Feb 23, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Peterson, Nancy K wrote:

Winona State University is not a member of COGR.  I represent a
small, one-and-a-half person mid-sized teaching-focused institution.
Still I'm dealing with the same problems that major research
universities are experiencing.  If anyone could forward this message on
to Council on Government Relations (COGR) - or to any other individual
or organization you can think of that might be of help - feel free to do
so.

-----------------------------------------

The Department of Health and Human Services is violating the basic
principle behind creating grants.gov.

First, NIH came up with their ERA Commons System.  You must be
registered in the ERA system to apply.  To apply, you submit an
application through grants.gov, then you have to login to the ERA
Commons to verify you have no warnings or errors that must be corrected.
If you do, you have to re-apply through grants.gov, then go to ERA to
check for warnings and errors (which may not be the ones you were
informed about previously), then you have to re-apply through
grants.gov, and so on and so on.  Applying to NIH means research
administrators, authorizing officials and principal investigators all
have to learn two systems.  (Oh, you also end up with a grants.gov
tracking number and a different ERA number.)

Now HRSA is requiring electronic submission and has an Electronic
Handbook (EHB) system.  A recent deadline was an absolute nightmare.
Again, the authorizing official and principal investigator must be
registered with EHB.  (Oh, by the way, anybody can register and
designate themselves to be an authorizing official.)  Again, to apply,
you submit an application through grants.gov, then you have to login to
EHB to complete your application.  I have a PI with multiple
registrations because he received poor instructions from the help desk
(on hold wait time for every call was 20-25 minutes) and there does not
appear to be any way to delete the extra ones.  And of course, your
application has one tracking number for grants.gov and another one for
HRSA.

Using grants.gov was supposed to simplify things, because applicants
would use one application system and not have to learn separate ones.
With HHS, we're using grants.gov and needing to register and learn
different electronic systems for each funding source within the
department...systems that are incredibly un-user-friendly and have
woefully inadequate support services.

As I said, HHS is violating the basic principle behind having grants.gov
in the first place.  All they are doing is adding on a grants.gov
requirement in addition to each funding source's own application system.
It seems the result of the paperwork reduction act is an electric work
explosion.  Any assistance you could provide to initiate changes in this
multiple application systems practice would be greatly appreciated.

-------------------------------------------------------

Nancy Kay Peterson, Director

Grants & Sponsored Projects (G&SP)

Winona State University

Somsen Hall 212

Winona, MN  55987

Phone: 507.457.5519

Fax:     507.457.5586

http://www.winona.edu/grants

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