Nancy is exactly correct, especially point two about direct submissions. The NSF has never been able to modify their system to deal with data streams, even back in the days of electronic data transfers, with Transaction Set 194. Grants.gov is in no way a grants management system as is FastLane. It is just, JUST, a post office to allow us to submit applications that agencies can then pick up and put into their own management systems. In the original conception, large institutions would be doing this in what has now be called S2S. From the university internal grants management system to Grants.gov, via a data stream. Applications begin at the PI/staff desktop, are routed to the signing officials who push into Grants.gov. A very important aspect of this, in contrast to FastLane, is that the data are kept at the submitting institution. Smaller institutions, those that Charlie Havekost (father of Grants.gov) called the Hospice in the Desert, would use the forms option. Indeed, Grants.gov has lots of problems. There was little if any user input to the development. Only recently did the management of the program begin to accept advice from users. The choice to use Adobe Forms was, in retrospect, not so good because of the size issues. Downloading any forms and sending them back presents problems. A web based single submission portal is a good idea, but a single system. The most important point of Grants.gov is that it is a single system that we can deal with. Everything said about the good qualities of FastLane can be true, but why cannot The NSF allow applications to come into Fastlane from Grants.gov. Then all of the management aspects can be used. Don't we want just one system by which we send applications to the Feds? We do not want that system to be cluttered with management aspects. I should mention that the original conception of G.g did include sending post-award materials, but that was dropped. It is back again in Senate Bill 303. Perhaps a web based system would have been much better for the original Grants.gov, instead of those troublesome PureEdge forms. Again, no user input was requested so the developers, who knew nothing about the ultimate users, went to forms. It was expected, as I wrote, that S2S would eventually replace forms. The NSF never was as supportive of Grants.gov, and thus contribute to its improvement, as was NIH. What improvements there might have been for Grants.gov if the innovative and skilled staff of NSF had worked on it, as did the eRA staff of NIH. Now it takes the opportunity offered by the OMB to completely drop out of support for the one system, and support the retrograde movement to many systems. If you will accept FastLane as independent from Grants.gov, then you also accept FedConnect, IIPS, NSPIRES, etc. Recall Sarah Dumais' excellent statement yesterday, " I would far rather use one system with known issues and known procedures to resolve problems than with half a dozen (or more) different systems with even less accessible help desks and far sketchier "solutions." So why is Grants.gov better than FastLane or why WAS it better? It was the ONE system that we could learn to use and the ONE system we could deal with, including getting changes. Now we need to deal, again, with every agencies good to half-baked system. I will still work to improve Grants.gov and have it again, as the single portal for grants submissions. I still believe in the principles of PL106-107 and the need for streamlining Grants submissions. Bob ------------------------------ Robert Beattie UMich e-Business Point of Contact UMich Grants.gov Liaison Managing Senior Project Representative for Electronic Research Administration Division of Research Development and Administration University of Michigan xxxxxx@umich.edu (734) 936-1283 On Jun 4, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Nancy Anderson wrote: Shea, You say that Fastlane is reliable, but have they handled anywhere near the amount of volume that Grants.gov has? The idea behind Grants.gov was to streamline the federal grant application process by providing a single location where an applicant could find and apply for grants from all federal agencies. One thing that Grants.gov provides that Fastlane does not provide is S2S integration for applicants. S2S can be very useful and efficient for some of the larger institutions that are applying for several grants from several agencies. It seems to me that Grants.gov still has some issues that they need to hash out, but they have come a long way over the past couple of years. I look forward to seeing the success of Grants.gov as they continue to improve on their processes and performance. Nancy Anderson -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of L. Shea McGovern Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 8:57 AM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grants.gov vs Fastlane Hi Charlie - I find Grants.gov and the NIH Commons workable, but in answer to your question. FastLane is very user friendly and, in the ten years that I have used it, it has been extremely reliable. Faculty at Dartmouth who have a choice between Grants.gov and FastLane consistently choose FastLane. I also appreciate the ability to easily generate Collaborative Proposals for funding directly to separate institutions. Shea --- Research Administration Discussion List wrote: 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 --- end of quote --- Shea McGovern Assistant Director, Office of Sponsored Projects Dartmouth College 11 Rope Ferry Road, HB 6210 Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: 603-646-3977 Fax: 603-646-3670 Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply mail. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. ====================================================================== 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") ======================================================================
