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