Search Results for: grants.gov

  • Rob Fay 6:21 am on 11/28/2006 Permalink | Reply  

    PureEdge on the Mac 

    Grants.gov has announced the release of the IBM Workplace Forms Viewer (formerly called PureEdge) for Macintosh computers. The software does NOT work on the new Intel Macs. A new version of the software should be released in a month that will work with the new Macs.

    This software allows Mac users to download, view and complete PureEdge application packages for submission of proposals via Grants.gov to federal agencies.

    How is it working for you?

    Tags: , , , , , ]

     

    • Chuck Wack 5:02 pm on 7/11/2007 Permalink

      Frankly… it sucks. The Army uses Pure Edge for all of its evaluation forms (in some instances requires it). I can take forms filled out in the Mac version over to a PC and viola! ALL of the fields are Blank! Take it back to the Mac and everything is fine. There is no option for copy and pasting. Digital signatures do not work and there is no way to print the document. What a mess.

  • Rob Fay 12:27 pm on 9/13/2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Grant.gov’s Aluminum Bullet 

    Grants.Gov

    I do not envy those folks over at grants.gov. What a hurculean undertaking to provide a unified entryway into finding and applying for federal grants [author's inquiry - is there a grants.gov plan to support the full grants lifecycle, from apply to closeout?]. The politics involved. The clear communication needed. The strong leadership and management structure needed.

    As mentioned in Rick Weiss’ Washington Post article and David Cassidy’s commentary [here and here], the grants.gov project will have a new prime contractor take over the development effort.

    Assigning Blame

    Can I assume that the previous contractor failed? Did they not deliver on time, within cost, and with agreed-upon quality measures? If they failed, was it entirely their fault or were there federal government management lapses? Can the American public not renew the contracts of any federal government leadership that may have failed?

    Of course I’m being facetious, but I want to point out that at the end of the day, a project fails because its leadership did not plan accordingly. And of course when a project fails, is the solution to simply hire a new contractor who may have won on a low bid, quickly bring them up to speed, and then assume they will be the silver bullet to satisfy all stakeholders? Without knowing the capabilities of both the former and current contractor, it seems the easy target is to give the contractor the boot rather than to conduct a “lessons learned” within your own ranks and make necessary changes (both to personnel and policy).

    Compatability

    I’ve talked about incompatability issues between the Mac OS platform and grants.gov in the past [see here], so it does not surprise me that there still is no resolution to this issue. To be quite honest, I’m surprised that the issue is important enough to warrant a Washington Post article.

    But that brings us back to a fundamental theme. Although the federal government is required to provide an option for people to transact with them electronically, do they serve the public’s best interests by favoring one operating system over another or by forcing people to conduct their business electronically? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

    “So, the question is, why does this federal site (grants.gov), which has the authority for consolidating the business of grant funding among a majority of federal agencies, have the authority to mandate a technology that can only be used by users of one operating system? There are federal mandates such as Section 508 that provide for equal access to web applications for handicapped individuals. Shouldn’t there be an equal access technology policy too?”

    Rick and Dave point out that a Mac client solution has been underway, but it seems the better plan might be to simply create a cross-platform solution, perhaps using the Java platform.

    Tags: [, , , , , , , , , ]

     

    • Dave Cassidy 11:35 am on 9/14/2006 Permalink

      As long as an offline client is needed, the system will use e-forms. While it would indeed be more open-standards focused, using Java Swing (or anything similar) has several problems of its own — browser and OS compatibility, performance issues, and more — that would create new issues.

      Personally, I’m in favor of the e-forms solution playing second fiddle to an online application mechanism, much like FastLane. When Grants.gov started up, most grantees were not familiar with either e-forms or web-forms. Nowadays, though, most people are much more comfortable with web-based forms and it’s e-forms that present a learning curve.

      In addition, with contemporary technologies such as AJAX, a rich web interface experience is possible (Google Maps, GMail, Basecamp, Salesforce.com and many other apps demonstrate this) so there’s no argument against the feasibility of this approach.
      But the government doesn’t want to host people’s grant application data — either in draft or submitted form — wherever possible. (NSF is okay with it; other agencies are more skittish.) So we’ll need to see a change in thinking there before this option becomes truly feasible.

    • Rob Fay 12:51 pm on 9/14/2006 Permalink

      Sure, Java isn’t without its problems, but I assumed that it might be easier to rollout than a separate client for each OS.

      The government does, in fact, hold onto people’s grant application data – aren’t there rules for retention? However, I understand if grants.gov doesn’t have the resources to support it and must, instead, just feed the data off to the granting agency.

      But that perhaps answers my question that grants.gov could never handle cradle-to-grave grants needs if it’s simply the broker of such information.

  • Rob Fay 12:13 pm on 2/14/2006 Permalink  

    Which Stakeholder is Greater? 

    I understand that one of the big reasons Grants.gov went with its current solution was so that people could fill out forms offline. However, I wonder which stakeholder is more affected – the person who cannot have constant Internet access or the person who has a Mac (or another alternative OS) and has to jump through additional hoops in order to submit his or her application? I am amazed that any research institution would not have constant Internet connectivity. Do we know what percentage of applicants might fall into this category? Dave indicates that as many as 33% of the Grants.gov audience uses a computing platform other than Windows OS. I just cannot imagine that 33% of applicants in the grantee community would not have access to the Internet. As I’ve remarked tongue-in-cheek in the past,

    “There are federal mandates such as Section 508 that provide for equal access to web applications for handicapped individuals. Shouldn’t there be an equal access technology policy too?”

    My point being that official G2C business systems should allow for multi-platform accessibility. Granted, I’ve spoken about the alternative of using Citrix, but this is not a particularly intuitive solution for many people. At least there are some offers of help.

    Frankly, I do not think that it would be such a stretch to create a product that is available on multiple platforms. Sure, perhaps they cannot have something available “for every platform imaginable,” but this is not forging new ground. For instance, a tool like JEdit is Java-based and can therefore be run on multiple platforms. It is a text editor that handles a variety of plugins, including fairly robust XML editing. Now, although I do not know all the technology requirements for a tool to be able to transmit the data to grants.gov, it seems to me that something similar can be created that meets the requirements for offline application creation.

    If Grants.gov is unwilling to “host” grantees’ data centrally, then it seems that this saved money could easily be used to resolve this issue. It’s just a shame that they did not think to include the multiple platform requirement when they initially contracted with PureEdge. I guess the saying goes “better late than never,” but it sounds as though there are some angry people – I’ve been monitoring this dissatisfaction for almost 2-3 years now.

    Tags: [, , , , , , , , , , , , ]

     

  • Rob Fay 7:32 am on 2/13/2006 Permalink  

    Grant.gov Usability Incompatability 

    Grants.Gov

    Today’s Washington Post catches on the problems Mac users have identified for a while now – that Grants.gov does not support Mac users unless these users use a Citrix workaround.

    Scientists should focus on science, not on how to submit applications for funding. It seems to me that the process should be intuitive and quick – not painstakingly difficult to figure out. The Grants.gov issue starts off with usability problems because it does not support a variety of computing platforms. Why does the grant community gush about NSF’s Fastlane system? Well, you don’t need to get bogged down in instructions to figure out how to use it and it is platform independent.

    Perhaps Grants.gov should determine why scientists love this system. Previous posts about Grants.gov here and here.

    Tags: [, , , , , , , , , , , , ]

     

    • Dave Cassidy 9:47 pm on 2/13/2006 Permalink

      Rob, I just responded to a similar comment on the TCG blog, thusly:

      There won’t be a platform-agnostic version as long as Grants.gov uses e-forms technology. This is for two reasons. First, I don’t know of a single e-forms vendor that (a) has implementations of their product for every platform imaginable, (b) could guarantee that all those platforms could utilize the same form structures, and (c) could provide tools to make it affordable to produce multiple platform-specific flavors of forms for every kind of form used by Grants.gov.

      What’s more, Grants.gov has no interest in hosting grantee’s data. The RFI notes that “The forms should not require the user to be connected to the Internet in order to be completed.” Having off-line access to the forms is very important — not every grant applicant has reliable Internet access.

      So we’re left with Grants.gov trying to please as many people as possible, given the constraints of the mission and the technologies available. The FastLane model was rejected early on in the Grants.gov conceptual design. Maybe it will come back as complimentary service to the e-forms…but I don’t see it happening soon.

    • Jim Hu 11:00 am on 2/14/2006 Permalink

      Rob, I sent a trackback ping to this post, which was accepted, but I don’t see trackbacks displayed. Anyway, there are several related posts on my blog, and the links show up on Dave’s Defenestrated blog.

    • Alexander Repenning 4:06 pm on 4/3/2006 Permalink

      | Dave Cassidy: “trying to please as many people as possible”

      Thank you for trying but I think this experiment has failed miserably. The idea of using federal money to create a submission system that is engineered around the web and is not even trying to be cross platform is simply mind boggling.

      | Cassidy: “Having off-line access to the forms is very important — not every grant applicant has reliable Internet access”

      No it isn’t. Nobody ever types in proposals directly into a browser using Fastlane either. People use documents, spreadsheets etc. to prepare submissions offline anyway. Then they upload and modify submissions incrementally. This is how the Web works and it works quite well. Grants.gov hinges on proprietary mechanism requiring uploading a proposal as one gigantic file. Then grants.gov server can obviously not handle the traffic consisting of these files. How is this an improvement?

      This technology has been a BIG step backwards. The only organization happy with the system must be the one who created it. Please abandon this terrible experiment and give us a real, web-based submission mechanism.

  • Rob Fay 12:49 pm on 11/18/2005 Permalink  

    More Mac Incompatibility with Grants.gov 

    Back in April I discussed how the federal government is discriminating against Macintosh users with regard to e-gov business transactions with the grantee community. I still cannot believe that OMB chose a solution that disregards a significant segment of its community. Furthermore, I find it hard to trust a vender who cannot implement a quick solution to cross-platform compatibility issues, particularly now that we live in an era that relies less on any given computing platform in favor of open-standards web services. Anyway, here is the latest word on Mac compatibility with Grants.gov:

    I have heard that Grants.gov is not Macintosh compatible. What do I do if I use only a Macintosh?
    Grants.gov is aware of the issues facing Macintosh users who apply for Federal grants electronically. Grants.gov has provided the following response regarding this issue on the FAQ page of their website:

    “Grants.gov has been working with PureEdge [since acquired by IBM and renamed IBM® Workplace Forms™] to offer a viewer that is compatible with as many operating systems as possible. Once a MAC compatible viewer has been developed information will be posted on our website. Our goal is to ensure the widest possible acceptance of Grants.gov and not exclude anyone from the electronic grants submission process.”

    Pure Edge anticipates having a platform independent solution available by November 2006. Until then, PC emulation software for the Mac will allow Macintosh users to prepare and submit their applications to Grants.gov. Grants.gov has provided information [PDF] on using the PureEdge viewer with a Mac.

    Grants.gov and NIH are partnering to provide free access to Citrix servers for Macintosh Users who are looking for an alternative to using PC emulation software with the PureEdge™ forms. This service will be available for use at the end of December 2005.

    A Citrix server connection allows Macintosh users to remotely launch a Windows session on their own machines by using the free Citrix client application. While connected to the server, Mac users can develop their grant application using PureEdge™ forms. Applicants will need to download and install the free Citrix client application in order to work on the SF424 (R&R) application package with the specific grant for which they are applying.

    While connected to the Citrix server, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR)/Signing Official (SO) can submit the application to NIH via Grants.gov.

    Applicants can also use service providers (see Service Providers) for a platform independent solution.

    Applicants having trouble submitting their application electronically to Grants.gov should contact Grant.gov customer support for assistance.

    Statement from OER Deputy Director regarding Macintosh compatibility:

    “We truly regret the inconvenience that Grants.gov’s lack of platform independence is causing Macintosh users. As stated in the FAQ’s posted on this website, the Office of Management and Budget, part of the Executive Office of the President, has chosen Grants.gov as the single portal for all submissions of federal grant applications, and NIH’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as Grants.gov’s implementer. As the federal government’s largest research granting agency, NIH is expected to be a key player in the DHHS implementation of Grants.gov. We and others have made Grants.gov aware of the difficulties that Macintosh users are experiencing and are working with Grants.gov staff to implement a temporary solution (Citrix). We recognize that this solution is not ideal but ask for your patience and forbearance as we work toward the very complex task of electronic submission of all NIH applications by May 2007. Grants.gov is working with PureEdge toward a platform independent solution by November of 2006. For additional information about Grants.gov please visit their website at www.grants.gov.”

    - Norka Ruiz Bravo, NIH Deputy Director of Extramural Research

    Tags: [, , , , , , , , , , , ]

     

    • Thom Hughes 1:18 pm on 12/8/2005 Permalink

      At first I too was concerned with the Mac compatability issue. Many of us in the scientific community use Macs, and it is hard to imagine why we would have to go out and by windows boxes just to submit grants. Well, I just used the grants.gov system for the first time to submit a grant, using a windows machine, and I have this to report. Don’t worry about the system not working on your mac. It doesn’t work on a windows machine either. It is truly the most wretched system I have ever had to struggle with. Who ever decided to use this system has single handedly set biomedical research back at least a year.

    • Rob Fay 1:50 pm on 12/8/2005 Permalink

      I’ve submitted a few grants.gov applications in the past, only because the university I worked at required approval and submission by the central administration instead of direct submission by the PIs.

      It’s wasn’t too painful, but it was not intuitive either. What I dislike is that you can only check preliminary submission status at grant.gov, then you must go to the agency to check the status of the application.

      I do understand part of the reason to use PureEdge. It allows for offline work to get necessary data elements into the proper XML format. The powers that be rightly knew that some persons may not always have constant (high speed) internet connectivity.

      On the other hand, a reliance on a proprietary product not available for all platforms seems preposterous to me.

      What is the lesser of two evils – requiring an internet connection or requiring the use of a proprietary product?

  • Rob Fay 9:32 pm on 4/21/2005 Permalink | Reply  

    Fair Access, Security, and Innovation 

    I came across a blog posting today with the title, “Federal Government Discriminates against Mac Users.” The author, a federally funded research professor, was finding difficulty applying for federal funding because he had to use the PureEdge Viewer to submit his application for grant funding to the Grants.gov site. His problem is that he is a Mac user and Macs are only supported if you don’t mind using a pc simulation program such as Virtual PC. I’ve used VPC, but IMHO it has not proven to be a viable solution for Mac users, particularly for something as important as conducting business with the federal government. Some Mac users have previously voiced their concerns at places such as the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP).

    So, the question is, why does this federal site, which has the authority for consolidating the business of grant funding among a majority of federal agencies, have the authority to mandate a technology that can only be used by users of one operating system? There are federal mandates such as Section 508 that provide for equal access to web applications for handicapped individuals. Shouldn’t there be an equal access technology policy too?
    (More …)

     

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel