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: PureEdge, IBM Workforms, Grants.gov, Mac, grants, Partial Recall]

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: [grants.gov, Mac, grants, David Cassidy, Rick Weiss, Northrop Grumman, Anteon, General Dynamics, PureEdge, IBM Workplace Forms]

“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: [Grants.gov, grants, federal, government, G2C, usability, UX, PureEdge, Mac, Apple, NSF, Citrix, fair access]

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: [Grants.gov, grants, federal, government, G2C, usability, UX, PureEdge, Mac, Apple, NSF, Citrix, fair access]

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: [federal government, research administration, Apple, Macintosh, pureedge, IBM, Grants.gov, grants, NCURA, FDP, NIH, eRA]

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?

Back in 2003, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) issued a report [PDF - 880 KB] in response to the Department of Homeland Security’s naming of Microsoft as the Department’s “primary security provider.” An August 28, 2003 ComputerWorld article states

The contract, awarded June 27, named Microsoft as the “primary technology provider” to the Department of Homeland Security, supplying desktop and server software critical for the agency.

In a letter yesterday to Tom Ridge, the secretary of the DHS, Ed Black, the CEO and president of the Washington-based CCIA, asked the agency to “reconsider” its decision to use Microsoft software inside an agency with critical security needs (download PDF).

From an economic and efficiency standpoint, it would be much easier for the federal government to adopt Microsoft as the defacto standard computing platform. Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this stance:

1. Security - Much like when one invests in the stock market, diversity is the key. One shouldn’t invest 100% in international stocks. Although these stocks might have a chance for a high return, if they tank you are out of luck. When investing, advisors make sure your portfolio is diversified, as a way to protect yourself if the event that stocks plummet in one part of your portfolio. Similarly, if a corporation or federal agency diversifies its technology portfolio, then it is less likely to experience a fatal security breach.
2. Innovation – Look at the innovators right now – Apple Computer, Amazon, Google, etc. These companies do not rely on one technology from one company. They innovate, in part, from using diverse technologies (hard and soft).

The federal government needs to seriously look at the technology policies it implements. I think I agree with a recent CIO article calling for a Federal Technology Czar. To combat technology and cybersecurity issues, the government should institute policies that promote technology diversity and should allow citizens to conduct business with the government using any technology available to them.

Tags: [federal government, Microsoft, Apple, CCIA, pureedge, Grants.gov, Section 508, cybersecurity, FDP, eRA]