InfoReady

"Clunky but great for multi-step processes"

Overall: InfoReady was key in our ability to pivot from an outdated paper process (using literally carbon copies) to a digital process while being able to account for multiple review steps. There's a lot of helpful automation built into the software, and the support team is excellent. I wish more customization was available and that there was a function to create multiple iterations of the same form (Across different years/semester etc) and automatically consolidate the data.

Pros: The Review features allowing verified signatures (with notes/feedback) from multiple stakeholders, including the ability to set up a process where one person has to sign off to send it to the next, etc., is incredibly helpful for complex approval processes. I also am grateful for the ability for administrators to a) edit applications after submission (since submitters cannot) and b) review by proxy. It's easy to copy competitions for a new semester/year. The ability to customize notifications that are sent automatically is great, as is the ability to export application data to Excel.

Cons: Inability to edit questions after the launch of a competition. The software is not super intuitive and frequently confuses our less-tech-savvy users. I also wish you could edit the button text and other default text. (My department uses it sort of eccentrically, for an application approval process rather than for "competitions", so the default text sometimes confuses folks.

"InfoReady and TAMU Grad School"

Overall: My overall experience with InfoReady wasn't bad, but I don't understand why the company would switch from Qualtrics to InfoReady. Even though we had ran into some trouble along the way your customer relations team has always been there to help. A lot of the issues have been solved through customer support although there are still some requests that we are waiting on being implemented.

Pros: I like the batch operations the most. It is super easy to download zipped packets containing all the application details. The report is also very nice as it is downloaded as an excel sheet allowing us to use the information in an easily accessible manor.

Cons: I don't like the UI, it is super clunky and there is a lot of hard coded things that would be nice if we were able to edit. My main issue is with the Organization Hierarchy its hard to easily access the organizations to make edits. We have about 300 different programs offered and the designated reviewer for certain roles change often. The UI box is too small and there is an issue with scrolling. Even when inside the box if you scroll up or down the whole page scrolls along with the box. Another issue with the is with the lack or organizations allowed during the creation and implementation of competitions. By that I mean it would be nice if there was away to make questions that only showed to applicants if they selected a certain answer to the previous questions. It makes the application very crowded especially for those applicants who don't apply to the questions.

"Excellent customer service and multi-faceted product"

Overall: The overall experience with InfoReady has been positive. We rolled it out several years ago, and have been through multiple iterations of re-design to best suit campus needs. The IRR team has been quite responsive to issues that have come up and flexible in terms of working with us. While there are some limitations to what IRR can do, the majority of the time we are able to find and implement solutions.

Pros: • The ability to create templates has been very useful. Building a competition from scratch requires a fair amount of time as there are numerous options for customization, so templates have saved hours of work. • Competitions can be phased, from letters of intent to invitations for full proposals and progress reports. Each may be assigned intermediate routing steps, such as requiring departmental approval, etc. • Competitions are built from modular sections, rather than one single long document. It helps in fine-tuning details and attaches descriptions to individual components such as required uploads. • The entire review process is run through the system, including for non-university reviewers. Whereas before reviewers might have to be emailed materials or links, once assigned they are able to enter the system and respond to all set questions / scores. This allows quick export of reviews, expediting overall review decisions and reducing any potential errors in transcription. The system will also send reminder emails on your behalf and simplifies notification of awardees. • It’s SSO, so university folks just need to log in to create an account.

Cons: • We’ve run into occasional problems with providing access to different types of accounts, such as our Sponsored Programs Office proposals team who needs to view information on PIs selected for campus limited submissions. We were able to find a workaround, but it took some time. It would be more efficient if it were able to communicate with other campus databases directly. • The interface is a bit cumbersome in creating exports and the competition creation pages are very busy.