Please refer to the CCR Handbook or Frequently Asked Questions.
If your questions/concerns are still unanswered, please contact:
NebraskaGrants.Com - Free search for grants and assistance. Whether you're a large or small business, you can search for assistance from federal, state and local ...
There has been some question lately as to which Adobe Reader version is usable with Grants.gov. The response is straightforward, there 4 versions compatible with Grants.gov.
1. Adobe Reader 8.1.1 – while compatible, submission made outside the browser will result in a broken pipe issue; therefore it is incumbent on the applicant to comply with instructions on the Grants.gov website.
2. Adobe Reader 8.1.2 – this version includes a security fix, but the “fix” was not applicable to Grants.gov forms; the same broken pipe issue remains as was in 8.1.1
3. Adobe Reader 8.1.3 – this version fixes broken pipe thereby allowing for submission outside the browser.
4. Adobe Reader 9.0 – this version contains the broken pipe issue, which will not be fixed until 9.1 is released.
First, it merits saying that Grants.gov does not “control” Adobe’s versioning system and releases.
Second, Adobe is, as are most computer-based software systems, constantly upgrading their capability. As a consequence, it is incumbent on Grants.gov and the applicant to remain attuned to the latest requirements and capabilities.
As Adobe releases a new version, it must be “tested” and “challenged” by Grants.gov to ensure compatibility and usability. When this is attained, the Grants.gov Program Management Office (PMO) then posts the updates on the Grants.gov website, its blog, and the information is disseminated via multiple venues to the applicant community.
Additionally, because Adobe is attuned to the needs of Grants.gov, many of their recent releases (i.e., newest versions) have been in response to Grants.gov needs. An excellent example of this is version 8.1.3; it fixed the “broken pipe” concerns evident in prior versions.
Because Adobe is constantly pursuing a better product with increased functionalities – and because it is operating in a highly competitive commercial arena – Adobe cannot “sit still.” If it were to freeze its product, Adobe would surrender the initiative to its competitors. As a consequence, it is a product seeking continuous improvements.
What does this mean to Grants.gov? This means as the Adobe product moves forward, so too must Grants.gov, and so too much the applicant community. That we must all constantly upgrade our capabilities is the price of success.
We well understand concerns regarding the many version changes. We at Grants.gov have the additional burden of testing and challenging each new version, validating its usability, and upgrading our capabilities. Unlike the individual applicant community wherein the latest version might merit only downloading, the applicant system-to-system and Grants.gov systems cannot remain stagnant but require continuous fine tuning.
Finally, why two versions of Adobe and not a single version? This is a question we posed to Adobe. Before presenting you their reply (below), the bottom-line is that Adobe has long maintained multiple product lines for different commercial audiences, in other words – the market place drives their products and relevant capabilities. This, too, becomes something we must live with.
The following is Adobe’s response:
-----
In product release cycles, there are three dates defined in the support policies. These include “General availability”, “End of core support”, and “End of extended support”. The products and their associated dates can be found on the Adobe website here: http://www.adobe.com/support/products/enterprise/eol/eol_matrix.html.
During the period between “General availability” and “End of core support” additional versions of Adobe Reader may be provided to the public and may include enhancements or product fixes. These enhancements may be made to any Adobe Reader version that has not reached End of core support. Depending on the product release cycle this may result in the availability of a specific enhancement in an “earlier” version of Reader. For example, an enhancement may be made available in Reader 8.1.3 that is not available in Reader 9.0 and will not be included in the Reader 9 series until Reader 9.1. Despite the version numbers, Reader 8.1.3 was released prior to Reader 9.1 but after Reader 9.0.
-----
Adobe has been an excellent partner with Grants.gov. We have the attention of the corporate headquarters, their developers, and staff. When we have encountered problems, Adobe has deployed, at their own cost, teams of people to our system integrator site to assist in problem resolution. Grants.gov and the applicant community are not part of the “acceptable noise level” in Adobe’s commercial arena. On the contrary, if and when we have problems, need support, and or voice our opinion, Adobe has a history of being responsive. They are our – Grants.gov and the applicant community’s – partner. But it is important to note that the partnership runs two-ways – as they support us, we must maintain pace with them (and their latest versions). Only in doing so will we all attain greater functionality and capability.
Subject: Update on FY2010 Migration Planning
Reference: July 16, 2008 Grants.gov FY2010 Budget Meeting
Objective: Transition the Grants.gov PMO systems capabilities to a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) (i.e., cloud computing) business model.
Rationale: Transition the PMO away from the task of hardware & software management and focus on core mission of developing, testing, and placing into production Grant applications for the purpose of transmitting data.
PaaS/Cloud rationale:
1. Increase processing power
2. Responsive scalability
3. Increase system availability
4. Significantly enhance system availability
5. Increase redundancy (addressing COOP)
6. Security issues mitigated
7. Better economics (overall and individual costing)
Upon migration completion, the objectives are:
1. Employ full forms functionality
2. Employ self-diagnostic forms
3. Make available a self-diagnostic computer tool for applicants
4. Operate in an environment responsive to in-depth metrics collection
5. Replicate the user experience vis-à-vis forms submission
6. Automate opportunity notice & availability via RSS, Twitter, etc.
7. Reduce reliance on contact center
8. Create a more realistic & responsive test environment
Regarding the website, by FY2010:
1. Effectiveness to significantly increase
2. Efficiency increase
3. More dynamic & responsive to changing needs
4. Information Architecture = encyclopedic
5. Data bases to remain intact & updated
6. Use website for work-flow management & increased transparency with Grantor community
Timeline - Migration will occur in FY2010
The following are the initial FFATA changes to the Research and Related forms family placed in the testing environment (AT07) in Adobe:
We are working on additional R&R forms to execute the transition to Adobe and will provide them shortly.
Summing up the above, >35% (specifically, 35.49%) of the phone calls have little to do with "applicant submission." By this I mean the following, if you have to submit an application today by a specific time, you - the applicant - are competing with the above inquiries.
If 35+% of the Contact Center's effort is engaging miscellaneous phone calls, and I am by no means denegrating the merit of these phone calls, then the Contact Center's efforts are being taken away from the applicants who have toiled against a deadline to make a submission. Thus I hope you can understand why I included the entry below.
Now, of the remaining 64+%, just less than 50% deal with CCR registration, obtaining a DUNS number, determining the points of contact at a given agency, and other similar topics.
Therefore, of the phone calls received at the Contact Center, only ~15% dealt with the actual submission of an application on a given date due. This means that for every 20 phone calls at the Contact Center, 17 are (generally) non-critical while 3 are of a time-critical nature.
As a consequence the 5.66/1 ratio against the submitting applicant needs to be addressed if we are going to meet our Grants.gov PMO Strategic Plan vision, mission, goals, and values.
How are we going to take care of and place a priority on the "applicant" on the day s/he needs support? We believe we need to empower the applicant as much as possible. As we move to FY2010, we are developing a strategy that at present consists of the following.
Goal: Reduce Call Center Dependency by Empowering the Applicant
All items marked with an "*" above, if properly addressed, will significantly reduce the phone call volume - but none so more as, perhaps, #8 above.
We believe that the more we empower the applicant with his/her own tools to simplify & verify the application completion and submission process, then the present ~15% of Contact Center day-of-submission calls will be significantly reduced.
Similarly, the better we structure our information architecture on the website, then the remaining 85% of calls will also be significantly reduced.
Yes, our objective is to eliminate the need for the Contact Center. It should be the objective of every effective and efficient organization. Will we attain that objective? Only time will tell the tale. But until we implement all of the above actions, and more, will we begin to make such an assessment.
The facts speak for themselves as to the site's versatility...
And there is more...
The Grants.gov Advantages.
- Principal beneficiary: Public
- Beneficiary: Grantor departments and agencies
- Beneficiary: federal government
To say I am proud of Grants.gov is an understatement. We're doing well and know it. We can do better and we know this also.
While we attempt to encourage the agencies to spread-out their closings, we were unsuccessful this year. (Next year, we hope, will be a different story.)
One comment for all readers: It is vital that everyone transition to the RSS Feed because the nightly emails will soon be terminated and or significantly reduced. Grants.gov presently transmits >650,000 emails/day and the processing load on Grants.gov is tremendous. This energy could better be used to process applications.