Internal Proposal Submission deadline survey
Charles E. Graham 18 Feb 1998 04:36 EST
Resadm-l List members: you really came through for me with a
fantastic response to my query on internal proposal
deadlines - 64 and counting! Thanks so much for so many
responses and many thoughtful comments. I think a lot can be
learned from the survey.
I have tabulated the type of institution unsorted, because
no correlations evident, going partly on names of institution, which I have
not provided), # days proposal review leadtime
reported; F for firm has nothing in it if the deadline
appears to be firm, a - if not firm; cm means that the
preaward office copies and mails the proposal.
I left out the institution, because I have interpreted
comments and don't want to misrepresent anyone. Also the
compilation was hurried and there could be minor mistakes.
The overall picture is very clear: of the first 64 respondents, only
11 had an internal deadline that could be interpreted as
at all firm - and I suspect some of these aren't so firm,
but lack of comment prevented further interpretation (I only
asked what the deadline was - not if it was enforced).
most of you have a nominal deadline that you find
unenforcible, or no deadline.
Many commented that the lack of lead time is a serious
problem, though many also regarded getting proposals
processed "no matter what" as a professional responsibility.
This is our common dilemma which causes stress and overwork.
Many of you mentioned or implied that if the proposal is received
by the deadline you copy and mail the propoposal - and this
appeared to be the single strategy effective in getting
cooperation - though I have no data from you on how effective.
I would welcome such data (% received on deadline, and each
day thereafter) which I could compare to our data
where no deadline is enforced.
The only other strategy to gain compliance with an internal
deadline a couple of you mentioned it to "train" faculty -
in smaller institutions that means working closely with them
on proposal preparation so they come to appreciate the need
for timeliness.
How about a small Facilities and Administrative Cost (IC) rebate
to those that meet the deadline - does anyone do this? How?
When I posted this question I thought I was going to find
support for imposing a deadline; now I think the only
circumstance under which it might fly is if we give something
in return - copying and mailing - and that won't work for
faculty who have someone who can do that for them - grad
student or staff, which is often the case in stronger depts in a large
research I university like LSU. Your thoughts?
If this does not appear properly tabulated, it is because you are using a
proportional font, or line length is too short: save the message as a file
and import into an ASCII editor or wordprocessor using non-proportional
font. Available as Excel 5 spreadsheet if you have problems.
I hope you find this of interest: again, many thanks!
COMPILATION OF PRPOPSAL DEADLINE PROCEDURES FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS
Carnegie rank Days (- = not firm deadline)
or $ vol Req. cm=copying & mailing provided
>1 ? 0 COMMENTS
>2 Comp I 0 cm
>3 Undergrad 5 - cm Whatever it takes for institution
priorities
>4 Res Fndn 0 - 0 a problem for them
>5 Res I 7 - Never enforced so really 0
>6 Doc I 3 Routine exceptions - based on good
communication
>7 ? 3 Negotiated exceptions
>8 Res II 0 - "A problem
>9 Masters I 5 - Numerous exceptions; couldn't
handle in large inst!
>10 ? 5 - cm Policy is guidance only
>11 Res Inst 3 - cm "Get grant out
>12 Doc II 0 - cm Our job to get proposal out
>13 Doc I 3 - We always make exceptions
>14 Carn I ?? 2 - n 0.5 in practice: service a priority
>15 Masters I 5 "Exceptions for newbies
>16 ? 2-5 Expect to change to 5 for all. PI
responsible if not reviewed
>17 Doc II 0
>18 $16MM/pa 1 - cm Exceptions daily
>19 Res Inst 0 -
>20 Res Inst 0 -
>21 Res II 1 m
>22 Res Inst 14 Work closely with PIs
>23 ? 14 - typically 3 days
>24 masters I 0 -
>25 ? 0 -
>26 Res II 0 - 5 days if office is to cc & mail
>27 ? 14 - Basic sci usually submitted on due
date
>28 ? 5 - PI told review hampered & prop. can
be withdrawn
>29 Comp Res I 5 - cm cc & Mail if on time
>30 Res Inst 0 -
>31 Res I 0 - cm College level; some colleges have
deadlines due to CAS
>32 BA I 5 n 3 days in effect (only 50
proposals/yr)
>33 ? 5 - Frequent exceptions - seen as positive
>34 Res 1 5 - cm Frequent exceptions - late ones do
their own copying
>35 MS Comp i 5 - cm generous exceptions: eliminate
cc/mail service
>36 Doc II 10 - Accept anytime; Allow routing of
incomplete narratives
>37 MS Comp 2 3 c If late don't cc/mail
>38 ? 14 - c "2 in practice
>39 Res Inst 5 - Not strictly enforced
>40 Doc II 5 - Will process anytime
>41 MS I 5 Exception if everything is in order
>42 ? 3 - Whatever it takes
>43 Res I 3 Accept whenever: however most
received on time
>44 $150MM - No defined policy
>45 ? 4 - Late proposals a big problem
>46 Doc I 5 - cm faculty cc & mail late proposals
>47 Res I 3 - c faculty cc late proposals
>48 Carnegie II 2 - cm faculty cc & mail late proposals
>49 Doc II 2 - Whenever - a problem
>50 ? 5
>51 ? 1
>52 ? 10 - "In practice
>53 ? 5 - m daily exceptions
>54 Res II 3 - But handle everything; cm if
recieved 5 ? cm d advance
>55 ? 5 - cm But handle everything
>56 ? 0 - Always do what is needed
>57 Res I 5 - Not enforced
>58 Res I 5 -
>59 Res I 3 - Handle as they come in
>60 Comp I 5 cm Will accept at 5 days - exceptions
rarely made
>61 Res II 5 - cm
>62 Res II 2 - cm late -no cm
>63 Undergrad 0 - cm Wish we had required deadline
>64 ? 4 - Waiver letter from Dean
****************************************************
* Charles E. Graham, PhD., DSc.
*
* NOTE NEW E-mail address: xxxxxx@lsu.edu
* alias: xxxxxx@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu (faster)
*
* Director, Office of Sponsored Research/OSR
* Interim Chair, Institutional Review Board
* 117 David Boyd Hall, Louisiana State University
* Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
* 504-388-8692 FAX: 503-388-6792
* OSR Server: http://www.osr.lsu.edu/
* gopher: gopher.osr.lsu.edu
*****************************************************
