Your summary was very helpful. The glass is half full - our experience here is typical. The glass is half empty - this is really depressing...... I have toyed with ideas about rewards for internal deadlines, but I keep comeing back to the problem of defining compliance in a tangible way. If they turn in a rough draft, some of the CVs, and the first year's budget by the internal deadline, do they get the reward? Only the FedEx pack enforces completion, as far as I can tell. Maybe you have garnered some ideas on this topic. Stuart A. Ross California State University, Fullerton xxxxxx@fullerton.edu ____________________________________________ 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 *****************************************************
