The main reasons UCM is looking into an S2S system, is not because of the S2S capability. In fact, we may only have a dozen or so g.g apps a year. We don't have multiple campuses and I could care less (right now anyway) if it interfaces with my financial system (Banner). What we are looking for however, is 1) a way to electronically share documents (with internal individuals as well as external collaborators) to avoid killing so many trees and to get away from emailing. 2) Electronic approvals, because sneakernet is still going strong on our campus. 3) We're hopeful that when faculty start working on a project and start a portfolio in the system, its a way for us to get notified of a work in progress prior to the day its due. 4) And, if we can 'turn on' certain compliance requirements, its a way for us to help faculty be aware of all the issues prior to the due date. 5) Then finally, there's my budget, which seems to be the biggest issue in this decision. Even though Coeus is 'deep', is there a way we can implement it an 'inch deep'?? I guess I'll find out tomorrow during my demo. Now, if on the few g.g apps we have, we can pre-verify the packet before it gets uploaded - that'd be sweet!! I know we're all aware of the g.g complications due to the volume of discussion on this listserv. Terri L. Fayle Assistant Director Sponsored Programs WDE 1800 University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093 660-543-8165 xxxxxx@ucmo.edu http://www.ucmo.edu/osp "A customer who complains is my best friend" Stew Leonard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Drinane" <xxxxxx@COMCAST.NET> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:41:30 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] S2S for a small institution 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") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
