Dear Colleagues, A couple of years ago, my office put together a business process guide for project directors preparing proposals. The guide outlines what services to expect from us, depending upon the number of days we are given to review the proposals: http://www.unh.edu/osr/e-proposals/support/eproposals_business_process_g uide.pdf . This approach seemed more pragmatic to us, rather than requiring completed proposals must be submitted to our office by a certain date, when everyone knows we will do everything possible to submit by the sponsor receipt deadline. Best regards to all, Kathy Cataneo, UNH -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:40 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Internal deadlines and processing times Thanks everyone for responding. The almost consensus is that guaranteed turnaround times are not a good idea. As for the rationale behind and the (lack of) enforcement of internal deadlines...maybe we just need to hear every few months or so that behavior never meets expectations...anywhere! I am curious about Peter's preaward officers processing applications in the order received. Could this be model of justice I have thirst for? The image of a line full of ardent, foot-tapping, clock watching PIs holding manila folders fills me with hope. Charlie > The director of our preaward office circulates a list each month that > shows the names of faculty members planning to submit applications, the > sponsor's deadline, the preaward officer assigned to process the grant, > and the internal deadline for submission. If nothing else, this makes > the point to each PI that their application is not the only one being > submitted for a given deadline; it also alarms investigators who haven't > notifed the OSP of their intent to submit--"You left me off the list!" > As for the turnaround time--each preaward officer processes applications > in the order he or she receives them. We make no promises on turnaround > time because it depends on where you stand in line, and the condition in > which you submit the application. > > > > > PJD > **************************************************************** > Peter J. Dolce, Ph.D. > Associate Vice President for Research > Grants Management and Compliance > 1005 D. B. Todd Boulevard > Meharry Medical College > Nashville, TN 37208 > > Phone 615 327 6237 > Fax 615 327 6716 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On > Behalf Of Schier-Happell, Suzanne E > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:46 PM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Internal deadlines and processing times > > What a timely discussion! > > Our office just narrowly avoided a true fiasco last week with a couple > of ACS proposals that we didn't have final drafts of until the day > before they were due, and by that time it was nearly impossible to get > the needed signatures (especially during the summer when people are on > vacation). > > That has prompted our office to begin a discussion about enacting an > internal deadline like the ones being discussed here. We currently have > no stated policy regarding how far in advance PI's need to get their > proposals to us, which means that we often (usually?) receive them at > the eleventh hour. > > We realize that such a deadline is fully unenforceable, and of course we > would never refuse to assist anyone who has something to submit, no > matter how late it arrives in our office. However, putting an official > deadline out there would clearly show PI's that submitting at the last > minute is at their own risk, and that our ability to get the required > signatures is not guaranteed if they come in after the internal > deadline. > > Right now there is no such understanding, and it puts a lot of pressure > on us from multiple directions--from the PI, who expects us to get his > or her proposal submitted successfully, and from the school officials > whose signatures are needed, who have busy schedules and don't always > appreciate our asking them to drop everything to review and sign a > proposal at the last minute. > > If only the deadline fairy would come and grant us one wish--to make > everyone submit their proposals chronically early! > > But yes, five days sounds great to me. I think that may be a policy we > adopt before the start of the new school year. > > Best regards, > Suzanne Happell > Assistant Director of Sponsored Programs > Otterbein College > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On > Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:23 PM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: [RESADM-L] Internal deadlines and processing times > > I have a meeting in an hour. I'd like to be able to say that most > OSPs do __________________. > > So...super quick survey: We have all discussed how many days before > a deadline we expect to see proposals/forms submitted for internal > approvals. And we have all (+/-) agreed that you do everything you > can to get every proposal out the door regardless of violation of > internal deadlines. I understand that the job demands extraordinary > effort and flexibility to get everything done on time...but > > Question: Do you have a policy saying that a proposal will be > reviewed and approved within a specific time frame following > submission of paperwork? Or do you just tell people "You will get it > back in time to submit!" > > 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") > ====================================================================== > > DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it may be > privileged, confidential, and contain health information that is legally > protected. This information is intended only for the use of the individual > or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is > prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party unless > permitted to do so by law or regulation. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying, or > distribution, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > information in error, please notify the sender immediately and arrange for > the return or destruction of these documents. > > > ====================================================================== > 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") ======================================================================
