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