Settings and activity
41 results found
-
4 votes
Rachael
supported this idea
·
-
31 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
24 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
38 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Rachael
supported this idea
·
-
25 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Rachael
commented
I like this idea of shared documents but would find it helpful at the LOI/application point. The inline application is a good length but it would be helpful to have our additional instructions in 1 source area for the applicants. I agree there are other sites that make this a low priority request but also think for continuity and great workflow for applicants/grantees it better to have everything in 1 area.
Rachael.An error occurred while saving the comment Rachael
commented
Agreed, that would be a great option for post award project management and making the application very user friendly to our grantee/awardees.
RachaelRachael
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
79 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Rachael
commented
We are very much in favor of this idea. Having an evaluation at the follow-up stage is sound grants management practice. Having the documentation all in one place makes sense from an efficiency and audit perspective too.
Rachael
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Rachael
commented
Agreed, we manage vendor/awardee payments via a purchase order system. It would be helpful to add key information from that system to our "Award Details" so we can compare reports more closely going forward. Information such as: PO#, invoice# dates each were issued etc. perhaps allow for upload of approval correspondence.
RachaelRachael
supported this idea
·
-
149 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Rachael
commented
The current follow-up assignment and review process is a bit restrictive. If the follow-up can only have 1 assigned person and that in turn is not assignable to an internal review process I am not understanding the system functionality and logic. If an applicant turns something in at follow-up point I would think all grantees would want a linked review and approval to this process.
-
23 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
21 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesRachael
supported this idea
·
I agree, it would be so much easier if the administrator choice of who can view the material was located in 1 area verse in 2 different areas at this time. This is a bit confusing on where to change view applicants and reviewers vs internal administrator view only.
This might also clear up confusion on internal administration view only? Would this also make the material in the administrator only view deleteable?
Rachael.