Candyce makes an excellent point--but let's not forget the very forum that allows us to air our own and consider other opinions before finalizing those institutional comments.

Have you voted for this listserv today?  Are you aware that Mike Varney's approval rating has slipped below the 80th percentile? :)

If you would like to vote, the URL is: http://www.lsoft.com/news/choicevote.asp

Robert Aull
Indiana University

-----Original Message-----
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@hrinet.org] On Behalf Of Candyce Lindsay
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:35 PM
To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NIH considering eliminating correction window, seeking comments

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

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