All, Be sure to submit your/your institutions comments to http://grants.nih.gov/cfdocs/era_process_changes_rfi/add.htm by April 19th. This will have the most affect. Candyce Candyce C. Lindsay, CRA Research Policy and Assurance Office of VP Research and Economic Affairs Arizona State University 480 965 8016-phone 480 965 2455-fax xxxxxx@asu.edu "Living a life is like constructing a building: if you start wrong, you'll end wrong." --Maya Angelou -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan A Samelak Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:07 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH considering eliminating correction window, seeking comments I was all set to support elimination of the correction window, & then I went into Commons and viewed the reasons why ERROR messages (items that would have prevented an application from progressing to the next stage) were received. What I found is that there were few, and there was no pattern. A sampling: Missed answering the Clinical Trial Question when Human Subjects was selected...A subaward budget was included with a Modular budget...A single file within a package was not in PDF format...etc. Yes, someone should have caught these. But this demonstrates a point made previously that these are not identified with Grants.gov validation prior to transmitting, but with NIH validation post-transmission. I didn't look to see if the corrections would have been submitted before or after the deadlines. But if originally submitted close to the deadline without any correction window, the applications would have had to wait for the next cycle (at a minimum, 4 months). Not that anyone is asking, but a one business day ERROR correction window shouldn't be asking too much. As for the topic of submission deadlines separate from whether there is any correction window: Experience to this point of my career is that those who put off composing or supplying materials to complete a package until very close to a deadline, & missing a deadline, have done so only once. -J Jonathan A. (Jay) Samelak, MPA Grant & Contract Specialist Bowling Green State University Office of Sponsored Programs & Research (OSPR) 106 University Hall Bowling Green, OH 43403 PH: 419.372.2481 Fax: 419.372.0304 xxxxxx@bgsu.edu -----Original Message----- From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Hathaway Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:00 PM To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH considering eliminating correction window, seeking comments Hi- While it seems that most people responding seem to like NIH's idea of abolishing the post-deadline correction window, there have been some good points presented arguing why the change is ill-conceived, or at least fraught with danger. I think NIH is proposing this primarily to 1) save time and money generally but also 2) create a "fair and consistent submission deadline" WITHOUT having to spend tons of money enforcing the rules about what gets changed post-deadline. The latter would require way too many human hours for NIH to do the police work. Their argument that this will reduce time to process applications etc etc isn't so convincing. Some have suggested alternatives (add-ons) to the complete abolishment of the correction window. Some of these sounded good but I think many were based on the particular view of internal submission procedures from one institution's perspective. We differ a lot in how we navigate the NIH submission process. Consider the variations in internal deadlines, how much of an application we review in order to approve it, if the PIs can submit their own proposals after internal approval, time zones (does Commons handle questions at 7:45 EST for people in Oregon as well as handle my New York questions at 4:45?), the knowledge and skill of the PIs and administrators assembling and checking proposals, and related, as Bob mentioned, if applicants have really good pre-proposal error checking. The latter is important. S2S gadgets are great but don't cover 100% of problems. As Steve has just mentioned, Adobe forms may need much much better error pick-up. I think this argues for NIH not trying to second guess our internal processes and just applying a simple, but very "tough love" approach. As for the conceptualization of "deadlines"...the term originates from prisons where inmates were shot (dead) if they crossed a line. For the warden, it was clear and simple (and economical?). For the prisoners, it also had to be understood clearly but the issues were more complex: how close does one get to that line? Sorry for this analogy but I think the challenge for us is to create internal processes that keep people from crossing the line or at least becoming very aware of the consequences if they slip. 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") ======================================================================
