In order to facilitate offline filling - a word document should be provided with all appropriate headings and word counts, such that the procurement work can begin without having to logon to the portal, and to enable offline filling and approval-seeking.
Date
Votes
12 comments, 14 total votes
-
Sharon O'Keeffe This would be very helpful - particularly for those with internet access issues, small organisations, farmers, those collaborating etc. If we do not provide the templates they will make their own which is not ideal in case we add different types of applications.
-
Kyle Thoms Support Sharon's observations. We have first hand experience of the difficulties faced by small regional providers with connectivity barriers. Am assuming that there would be later populating of the onlin portal forms
-
Glenn Luthy Does this issue go away now that we have the application extract in place? I realise it requires internet access in order to get the extract, but after that the offline requirement is met.
I think we should avoid the provision of templates if possible. Firstly, they will encourage users (even those with great internet access) to use the templates in the first instance, and not the portal. Secondly, they will need to be kept in sync with changes to the portal which is duplicate maintenance effort for GRDC. This will be exacerbated if we end up with multiple application types.
The application extract also provides GRDC and applicants with better version / change management than the provision of static offline templates.
-
Sharon O'Keeffe Hi Glenn - the template is still needed, particularly for grower applications (GAD program etc.) - even if we don't build it, someone will eventually and then we can't control the template. Also my understanding is that the extract pulls it out in PDF which means there is no track changes for collaboration - only comments? (I may be incorrect here). Cheers Sharon
-
Gillian Meppem I'd like to reignite this discussion. Applicants report finding it very difficult to craft their application and in some instances seek the necessary approval for words from their managers, without first knowing exactly what will be required of them. They could go through and put N/A in each field and then print the extract (currently out of date) but why do this when we could provide a pdf with NOT FOR SUBMISSION watermarked through it that they could use for these purposes. We make it very clear that applications will only be accepted via the GIP not email. A few lines detailing what is expected in each section and the character limit would also be of assistance for those new to the process. This strikes me as as very simple way of helping our Applicants to present the best possible tender.
-
Jan Edwards Agree. It would reduce the number of dummy applications we are getting - the result of applicants trying to work out what information is needed.
-
Glenn Luthy Hi all, happy for this one to come back into consideration, particularly given ETI's greater emphasis (compared to CSR) on external stakeholders.
Given this issue's first incarnation was 18 months ago, perhaps we put the template aside as a solution for a second, and confirm the problem(s) we want to focus on? In the comment trail above, the following needs have all been mentioned:
- offline filling
- accommodating low-bandwidth
- crafting of application/track changes for collaboration
- seeking approval for words without knowing what is required
Are these all still relevant? Do they all have equal importance? Are there any more? If we settle that list, we can hand the issues over to Oakton, and review some solution options, including the template approach.
Thanks,
Glenn.
-
Glenn Luthy Also, it would be good to re-cap on who is using the application form predominately. It was first envisaged that it would be filled in by researchers with the necessary subject matter expertise. Is this not the case? Do we for instance, have administrative people expected to fill the form in on behalf of the researchers?
Glenn.
-
Jan Edwards In my view, the template is not to replace the portal, it is to give the organisation a complete view of the detail needed and allow them to get their application in order before starting to submit via the portal.
who fills it in at their end is their business.
it would be useful if they could track changes as often these applications need to move between organisations.
if it could then be sucked into the portal so much the better, but our first problem is people not knowing what the application process entails.
-
Gillian Meppem Following a recent external engagement tour I can report that this request is as prevalent as ever!
The main comments from our providers were:
- we wish to understand exactly what is required before we begin the application process; and
- we need to have our wording approved by various personnel in the organisation before it is submitted.
-
Glenn Luthy Bump. Are there any updates or new information on this one?
-
Gillian Meppem Glenn. Nothing new but the same level of interest. Can we progress to a story?
Please sign in to leave a comment.