Also, Fastlane is much more user friendly, which makes it easier for PIs
to assist with the preparation and submission of their proposals.  With
Grants.gov, we're so worried that PIs will open the forms with the wrong
version of Acrobat, or forget to delete the spaces at the end of an
email address, or use special characters in the proposal title, or some
other nit-picky detail that will tank the proposal at the point of
submission, our pre-award office feels obligated to complete every bit
of the application ourselves.  The PIs who want more control over their
proposals really can't have it, and the rest (which do make up the
majority) have no idea what it really takes to submit their proposals or
why there are delays and problems with submissions.

In addition to all the other good arguments, Fastlane is just more
efficient.  Seeing as how we're all being asked to do more with less, it
seems only logical to use technology that makes the work easier instead
of more complicated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amy Hibbard
Assistant Director
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
3801 W. Temple Avenue
Building 1, room 224
Pomona, CA 91768
(909) 869-6929 - voice
(909) 869-2993 - fax
xxxxxx@csupomona.edu
http://www.csupomona.edu/~research/rsp/index.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On
Behalf Of Francis, Richard A.
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:00 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grants.gov vs Fastlane

I second what Lynn Rollins said.

Being able to develop the proposal as a series of files on a remote
server, accessible for review or editing by as many people as needed, is
a tremendous advantage of Fastlane.  Easy printing of the whole thing is
another.

I will add that the Fastlane system is much better because it allows SRO
maintenance of institutional data. IOW, it makes no sense that for each
grants.gov submission the institutions have to repeat the DUNS and other
institutional data that could be maintained by SROs for their
institution on the recipient server.

Rick Francis, Ph.D., C.R.A.
Director, RSP (Health Science Campus) & Research Info. Svcs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On
Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:19 AM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: [RESADM-L] Grants.gov vs Fastlane

I am giving a talk next week and anticipate being asked the question
that
was so common several years ago:
"Why didn't they just use a system like Fastlane?"

I know some of the reasons why Fastlane was not a good model for doing
ALL
federal grants.  However, being less familiar with Fastlane than I am
with
Grants.gov and NIH Commons, could someone tell me some reasons why
Fastlane is currently better or worse to use than S2S to Gg to NIH
Commons?

thanks

Charlie

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