Jessica, We have been using Cayuse since September 2007. Being a PUI with about $6M in awards annually and 5 staff members, we researched many systems. We've been an InfoEd customer of SPIN & SMARTS for about 14 years and used their SPAS stand-alone system until this past year. It would have been so comfortable just to continue using their system, BUT, the price was so out of our reach we couldn't even begin to consider them. The same with Click Commerce. And then our lives changed when we found out about Cayuse424. This product has given us everything we needed and more at a price we could afford! Our faculty love it! Our IT people love it because we're not clogging up the e-mail system with large proposals! The support is phenomenal! There's always someone for us to talk to whenever we need help and they are always listening to our thoughts and suggestions. It has cut down the time it takes to get our proposals approved tremendously. If you would like a personal recommendation from any of our staff or faculty, please give me a call. Good luck! Beryline _________________________ Beryline Temples Sponsored Programs Administrator Sponsored Programs Office University of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey Avenue Torreyson Library 324 Conway, AR 72035-0001 phone: (501) 450-3451 fax: (501) 450-5339 xxxxxx@uca.edu http://spo.uca.edu >>> William Caskey <xxxxxx@SFBR.ORG> 11/26/2008 8:41 AM >>> Now that the NIH deadlines are over, I have a chance to second the comments Johnna made below; and I won't re-iterate those. We are using the hosted solution and have had no access-related issues and the system has always been responsive. The PIs find proposal development to be straightforward and intuitive. The interface is so intuitive that little or no training is necessary. Budget calculations are very easy and we use the software to develop the budgets for programs that still require paper submissions. We are still in the process of fully implementing the routing/approval functions but the tests have worked well. Validation of the proposal is also excellent. All warning and errors are identified and clicking on the warning/error message takes one right to the field needing attention. We've not had a proposal rejected because of an error after Cayuse424 has validated the proposal. Each proposal in the system has a Summary which we use for routing. We can enter the information for the non-electronic proposals and scan the relevant documents (up to 10 can be attached). I've created a Word form that is completed by the PI containing the additional information we need for our database and attach that as one of the documents. So, we'll use the routing system for all proposals; this is the portion we're still working on. Even during the recent problems at Grants.gov, we submitted all proposals on time with no problems (except for the delay in receiving confirmation of receipt by NIH Commons). Probably the biggest difference between Cayuse424 and InfoEd is that Cayuse424 focuses on proposal development and submission whereas InfoEd, as noted by others, offers a modular approach to a rather complete research administration software system. Cayuse424 does have a data export feature which allows retrieval of the information for proposals as an XML data stream. I can't attest to the support required for InfoEd but I can say that we have no dedicated IT personnel, not even a portion of an FTE, for Cayuse424. We simply haven't needed it...Bill Bill Caskey, PhD Director, Office of Sponsored Programs Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research P.O. Box 760549 San Antonio, TX 78245-0549 Phone: 210.258.9544 Fax: 210.670.3335 E-mail: xxxxxx@sfbr.org<mailto:xxxxxx@sfbr.org> Physical Address for express mail: 7620 NW Loop 410 San Antonio, TX 78227-5301 From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Kincaid, Johnna K Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:28 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Cayuse vs. InfoEd. . I can also vouch for Cayuse on behalf of my institution. We looked at several S2S products (including Coeus and InfoEd) and started using Cayuse424 last March. It is much easier to use than Coeus and more affordable than InfoEd. My staff in Office of Sponsored Projects, the faculty and their grants administrators are very pleased with Cayuse. Fast vs. right? Cayuse does both. Cayuse is web-based and we're using the hosted solution. Technical support at Cayuse is excellent and they even have a guy who used to be in research administration at a university so they understand our business. They are very responsive to their users. Cayuse uses the SF424 form set that we're all familiar with. When building a proposal Cayuse424 provides auto-fill capability from institutional and professional profiles that are built one time. It also flags items in the budget if the auto-fill is overridden which makes budget review in my office a breeze. Cayuse provides continuous validation of the proposal for errors and warnings so you know when you submit you have 'zero' errors. Security is role-based and can be managed at the personnel level or the proposal level. I could go on and on ... If this sounds like a plug for Cayuse then so be it. We're just very happy with it (especially with Adobe coming) and I know our institution is not alone. Talk to any Cayuse user and you'll hear more of the same. Johnna K. Kincaid Executive Director, Sponsored Projects Administration The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston P.O. Box 20036 Houston, TX 77225-0036 Phone Number: (713) 500-3094 Fax Number: (713) 500-0355 E-Mail: xxxxxx@uth.tmc.edu ________________________________ From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Greene, Susan A Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Cayuse vs. InfoEd. . I don't know anything about InfoEd to make a comparison but the same things Terri mentioned below are true about Cayuse. It might be helpful to review case studies or demo movies at this link: http://www.cayuse.com/insight/case-studies.php For over a year and a half MUSC has successfully submitted to NIH, AHRQ, CDC, CDMRP, DOD, NSF, ONR and HHS agencies and are extremely satisfied with both the intuitive software and the top-notch customer service. Hope this helps! Susan A. Greene MUSC, Research & Sponsored Programs 843-792-2040 From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Terri Hall Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:23 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Cayuse vs. InfoEd. . We've been successfully submitting NIH proposals via InfoEd for over a year now and are excited about the other federal sponsors to be added early next year. We plan on implementing several other modules of the InfoEd suite to provide cradle-to-grave support for our research enterprise. I encourage you to contact InfoEd for more information to decide what'll meet your needs the best. Just deciding on what those needs actually are is a time-consuming but worthwhile exercise. Here are some of the benefits we've already noted with infoEd: 1) Our faculty are quite impressed with the electronic routing 2) whenever there's been a problem with a submission, the InfoEd support staff has promptly responded 3) an interface between our HR system and InfoEd pre-populates much of the oft-requested information on forms so we needn't re-enter everything as we have to with Grants.gov applications 4) the InfoEd budget component allows us to inflate salaries in succeeding years, so e.g., we enter year 1 salaries, select 3%, and years 2-5 are automatically calculated in seconds As with any implementation, ours has not been without its bugs, so expect some delays when they occur and realize you just have to work through them. One recommendation I'd say is absolutely necessary is to include experts in your business process as well as technical experts from your office of information technology, and as many stakeholders as you can get on your project team. The input from these folks has been invaluable and we couldn't have made the progress we have without them. While there may be systems out there that can be up-n-running in hours, you'll need to decide if your goal is to do it fast or to do it right. We opted for the latter and have not regretted it. Terri Terri M. Hall, CRA Director, Electronic Research Administration Office of Research University of Notre Dame (574) 631-7378 xxxxxx@nd.edu<mailto:xxxxxx@nd.edu> Many things in life will catch your eye, but only a few will catch your heart. Pursue those. ________________________________ From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Turner, Don Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:43 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Cayuse vs. InfoEd. . Don't forget about Click Commerce in this equation. They have been very good partners and, having strong positive attributes and good support. Cayuse and the crew there are certainly very good partners as well. You would be hard pressed to go wrong with either Click Commerce or Cayuse. Either of those establish a partnership with the customer that is worth it's weight in gold when crunch time hits and little issues arise that need to be overcome. Click is completely configurable too by you, for your unique flavor and handles routing and approvals and scheduled automated processes. Click Commerce has several modules including Grant Submission, IRB, IACUC, Biohazard, Clinical Trials,etc. It just depends on what you need or want at this time...good luck and happy hunting. ________________________________ From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:05 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Cayuse vs. InfoEd. . The big difference is size. Cayuse is primarily a proposal preparation and submission tool, and I think a very good one. InfoEd should be considered if you want to ALSO add on modules to handle other stuff (tech transfer, human subjects). so...do you want to buy best of breed for one or all components? Or buy a single multi-faceted unit? I would also ask yourself how much time you want to spend in implementation (including training). Our first proposal preparation and submission using Cayuse was done in less than 12 hours by a PI and dept administrator who had never seen the system previously or had any training. (We did provide some phone assistance but they did it themselves.) I do not advise this "method" for most of our users...but clearly the system is user friendly and intuitive. I have no experience using InfoEd. Charlie At 12:28 PM 11/20/2008, you wrote: Hello, My Foundation is interested in purchasing software to facilitate grants.gov submissions. Can anyone provide insight into Cayuse vs. InfoEd? I have participated in a webinar hosted by Cayuse and I was quite impressed. I dont know too much about InfoEd. I know this has been a topic on this Listserv in the past but when I searched the archives I only retrieved hits from 2006. It is my understanding that both Cayuse and InfoEd have been updated since then (as well as problems within grants.gov). Thank you for your continued support. ~Jessica Jessica Soderlind | Grants and Contracts Manager The Geneva Foundation 9501 Lakewood Drive, Suite D | Tacoma, WA 98499 T | 253.682.3813 F | 253.383.8874 TheGenevaFoundation.org Integrity | Teamwork | Innovation | Quality | Superior Customer Service | Respect for All ====================================================================== 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<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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
