-----Original Message----- From: Grants.gov list for System-to-System Info [mailto:xxxxxx@LIST.NIH.GOV] On Behalf Of Roger Wood Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:01 AM To: xxxxxx@LIST.NIH.GOV Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grants.gov vs Fastlane Support for System-to-System submissions is a key element that Grants.gov supports that is not supported by FastLane. (1) institutions can achieve very similar functionality to that provided by FastLane if they choose to use a system-to-system (S2S) approach rather than the Adobe forms solution provided directly by Grants.gov. This includes virtually everything that has been mentioned as an advantage of FastLane in the recent emails. (Note that this still does NOT include support for linked proposals as mentioned by Terri previously - that is a known gap in the Grants.gov data model.) (2) institutions "own their own data" - proposal data are entered into institutional systems and therefore are available for institutional reporting without having to re-key data entered into FastLane into an internal tracking & reporting system. There is nothing inherent that would limit the ability for a FastLane-like system to also allow for S2S functionality, but that doesn't exist now for FastLane. Thanks, Roger On 6/4/09 12:40 PM, "Nancy Anderson" <xxxxxx@CLICKCOMMERCE.COM> wrote: > Can we please have some Grants.gov supporters chime in on this? > > Thanks, > Nancy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of > Nadler, Elsa > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:20 AM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grants.gov vs Fastlane > > Just some historic perspective... several years ago I specifically asked why > the feds couldn't either use FastLane itself or adapt it and was told (1) it > belongs to NSF and other agencies could not use it and (2) it was not set up > for other agency requirements. In short, what I asked for was not possible. I > have used FastLane since its first required proposal submission (EPSCoR) and > have always liked it. > Reasons: > 1. content schema is visible on a single screen > 2. navigation and use are intuitive, simple and straightforward > 3. different forms are always a click away > 4. never any worry about corrupting the file > 5. never duplicate data entry > 6. forms are all available even if they are not mandatory (of course, one has > to read the solicitation requirements) > 7. others that don't immediately come to me. > > > Elsa Nadler > 419.383.6967 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of > Terri Hall > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:58 AM > To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org > Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grants.gov vs Fastlane > > Charlie, > Here are a few features of FastLane that come to mind that are not currently > in Grants.gov: > > 1) you can copy a budget from year to year and new budget is eligible if only > salaries change; Personnel info is also copied so need not be re-entered > 2) adding collaborators is a matter of selecting their institution from a > drop-down list - no DUNS needed > 3) ability to link collaborative proposals - they enter their info and you do > yours - each submits and FastLane "magically" links them into one proposal for > reviewers > 4) one-click opens form needed ... no moving it anywhere first > 5) Helpdesk staff actually has experience with system > > If others occur to me, I'll forward them. > Terri > > > P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. > If printing, consider the double-sided option. > > Terri M. Hall, CRA > Director, Electronic Research Administration Associate Director, Pre-Award > Administration Office of Research University of Notre Dame > (574) 631-7378 > xxxxxx@nd.edu > There is nothing like a dream to create the future. - Victor Hugo > > > > > -----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") > ====================================================================== ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
