S2S still has its advantages - to my mind having a record stored in one's own database that is an exact copy of what went to the Feds is a good thing from a tracking & compliance perspective. I do agree, though, that at some point the sponsored portfolio could be more efficiently tracked with smaller systems (Excel, in some cases) and an enterprise system like Coeus is overkill. I think Bob's notion of consortia becomes feasible when Coeus & Kuali merge, the software is free, and users can be more creative with how they use it. One of the issues becomes the support for a multi-campus environment, where things like fringe & F&A rates will vary from one site to the next. This is not insurmountable (software could be installed separately for each institution, with support & maintenance centralized), but does need to be considered. Bob Beattie wrote: > At one time, when G.g was new, and S2S options were just getting > started, there were discussions of "Service Bureaus" for grants > submissions. > Larger institutions would provide access to their S2S to smaller > schools in the region or state. Alternatively, vendors would give server > access to places that could not afford to implement systems on > campus. In both cases this would be done for some fixed fee for > maintaining the files and an additional fee for each usage. Once a > system is up and running, it is only a small increment to add > another user. I have not heard much, recently, of this potential > solution for the small user. > > Another arrangement might be for small institutions in a region to > form a collective, each campus taking some part in the > maintenance and operation of the system used by all members of the > consortium. I only mention this as a regional > grouping so that there can be centralized training without much > travel. It is, of course, possible for a virtual consortium > with web based training. > > Anyway, these might serve the needs of the smaller participants in the > grants business. It is important to note, that the first > "S" in S2S is critical in any discussion. The assumption of the > original developers of Grants.gov was that a campus > would have an internal grants management system. This would allow PI > and their staff to create an application and > all the internal data requirements, route electronically for necessary > approvals, and have it end up in the grants office > for submission to G.g, and for local archiving of the data, and > integrating with the financial system if awarded. Without > the local proposal management system, a service bureau or consortium > is just a web based submission mechanism. > > If Grants.gov were to move itself to a web based system for the > "preparation of forms" or better "data entry," (can we get away > from thinking in forms terms, now) like FastLane, would smaller > places still need a system to system operation if > they had no internal system? Would there still be a need for S2S? > Is web based proposal preparation and submission a > S2S if it does not have the full proposal/budget creation function, > including looking up salaries and bringing in things > like current and pending funding or space data, cloning previous > applications, then have full routing, > data management, and integration with financials? > > Just some ideas inspired by Greg's thoughtful comments and the others > in this thread. Now on to > trying to submit some of those pesky forms :) > > Bob > ------------------------------ > Robert Beattie > UMich Grants.gov Liaison > University of Michigan > xxxxxx@umich.edu (734) 936-1283 > > On Feb 25, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Gregory K. Schmidt wrote: > > Thanks Tom for the clarification. > > While I agree that Coeus is modular, in a school where they're doing > under > $30M I would guess that the person doing grants management is also doing > development work. There is probably two or three people who manage the > Administrative IT systems, which are most likely student-centric, as they > should be. Have to keep the kiddies in class and have their grades > recorded. So while the modules may or may not be added, they're pretty > important to have at some time. A manual system needs maintenance, and > possibly more so than a computerized one. Computer systems though need > different skill-sets, and often ones not prevalent in persons in the > development office. > > All I'm saying is that you have to look at the needs and assess them. > Look > at skill-sets of staff at hand. Determine the work-load and estimate any > increases for each system you're looking to purchase. Figure out if any > issues are involved in integrating into your ERP system and what > interfaces > you may need. Determine training needs on an ongoing basis. All this is > added to the cost. > > My guess, and it IS a guess, is that a smaller integrated grants > management > system will be easier on a small school's infrastructure and the > sanity of > its administrators. > > Greg Schmidt > > GKS Consulting, LLC > 703-346-5696 > > > > This information is intended for the named recipient only and may contain > confidential/privileged material. Review, dissemination, or use of, or > reliance on this information by others is prohibited. If received in > error, > please contact xxxxxx@verizon.net and delete. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On > Behalf Of > Tom Drinane > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 1:01 PM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] S2S for a small institution > > A small correction from Dartmouth, a Coeus school. > > It is true that Coeus, since it's not from a vendor, requires more > resources from a school to install, maintain, etc. On the other hand, > you use the modules you want. If you don't want to do your IRB through > Coeus, you never set up IRB. Rolodex maintenance is pretty much a > no-brainer in terms of upkeep. > > All that said, Cayuse is much more focused on just S2S. If that is > really all you want, you might want to look at that. > > Gregory K. Schmidt wrote: >> Terri, Robert, et al; >> >> It is nice that Coeus is around. MIT has done a wonderful job in >> creating >> it and growing it. I will say though that there are two issues with > Coeus, >> but only from the perspective of a small college. >> >> First, as you mentioned, it's "so much 'deeper'". Do you really need >> all >> that depth? Your situation could be the proverbial "using a sledge >> hammer >> for a finish nail application." It's admittedly been awhile since I've > seen >> Coeus in action, but you may have to use a lot of the product to get >> relatively simple things accomplished. You have to ask if the number of >> steps you'll take to get to the submission and management of the >> award is >> worth the value of the award. >> >> Second, with all that depth comes maintenance costs. Coeus is a very >> powerful product. Like any integrated computer system you will need to >> think about the underlying accounting system and integrating with that. >> Also, the Rolodex needs to be maintained, the IRB needs to be created >> and >> managed, the routing of the awards and approval process will need to be >> designed and managed, there will be updates to Coeus and to Oracle which >> will have to be handled, etc. These secondary costs could be large. >> >> All I'm trying to say is that you cannot really just look at the entry >> costs. You need to look at the longer term costs as well. For a >> mid- to >> large-sized college or university, Coeus is almost a no brainer. Not so >> much for a small college. >> >> Options other than the two you mentioned below may be IT Works, InfoEd, >> GAMS/ERA Software Systems. >> >> Greg Schmidt >> >> GKS Consulting, LLC >> 703-346-5696 >> >> >> >> This information is intended for the named recipient only and may >> contain >> confidential/privileged material. Review, dissemination, or use of, or >> reliance on this information by others is prohibited. If received in > error, >> please contact xxxxxx@verizon.net and delete. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On >> Behalf > Of >> T. Fayle >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:34 PM >> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org >> Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] S2S for a small institution >> >> Bob, >> >> My institution (me) has been reviewing S2S for the last few months. >> This >> Friday we will be doing a demo for Coeus. I've seen Cayuse and Xythos > (more >> doc management than res admin). Cayuse is $12,500/year with a 3% >> increase >> per year. Xythos doesn't want to deal with you unless you have 600-800 >> users, and that would be $47,000 plus support. >> >> Coeus, on the other hand, was written by research administrators for >> research administrators and is the cheapest one of the bunch, $7500 >> first >> year with 5% increase per year and three year contract. Besides the >> fact >> that its so much 'deeper' than Cayuse or Xythos or any of the others. > After >> Friday I can tell you it feels. It seems this is about as cheap as it > gets. >> >> Our institutions has about 11,000 students, 400 faculty and we submit > about >> 150 projects per year. Our total awards amount to $8.4M, with about $2M > of >> that being for research. So, I consider us as one of those 'small >> institutions'. >> >> Terri Fayle >> Assistant Director >> Sponsored Programs >> University of Central Missouri >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On >> Behalf > Of >> Robert Bienkowski >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:14 PM >> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org >> Subject: [RESADM-L] S2S for a small institution >> >> Can anyone suggest a vendor who could provide S2S service for a small >> institution with modest plans for grants submissions? >> Thanks >> >> Bob Bienkowski >> -- >> Robert S Bienkowski, PhD >> xxxxxx@att.net >> >> >> >> >> ====================================================================== >> 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") >> ====================================================================== >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1968 - Release Date: >> 02/23/09 >> 18:22:00 >> >> >> ====================================================================== >> 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") >> ====================================================================== >> >> >> > -- Tom Drinane 8 Douglas Ridge Norwich, VT 05055 802-356-7843 (M) 802-649-5525 (H) 603-646-3008 (W) ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
