Undergrad Services consist of Anthony Adams, Jennifer Browman, Erin Lamb, Misty Peeples, Ashlei Roach, and Travis Walden. It is a group formed at random by Mr. Polito to analyze a business and help it to run more effectively. Ashlei works at the Georgia Biotechnology Center and noticed that processing pre-proposals took excessively long periods of time and would be riddled with erors as they travelled through the complex approval process. She realized that these problems cold be improved or eleminated and she brought the problem before the rest of the group. We all recognized that these needless problems could be dealt with by implementing a very simple solution in order to obtain vastly better results. Our group worked together in all areas of this project and succeeded in our goals. The Georgia Biotechnology Center (GBC), a division of the Georgia Research Alliance, receives pre-proposals from several organizations requesting grants for projects and research. When these requests arrive two assistants, Ashlei and Oleysa, share the responsibility of identifying them as a Technology Development Program (TDP)or a Georgia Biotechnology Center(GBC)program. This is accomplished by shuffling through the numerous pages of the pre-proposals to find the information that distinguishes the requests as a TDP or GBC program. A GBC program is more than one-hundred thousand dollars, and a TDP program is for less than that amount. This process is time consuming as well as confusing. It is easy to make an error while attempting to identify the pre-proposals. If an error is made and the pre-proposals are sent to the next stage in the approval process, then even more time is wasted. The time required for a report to go through the process averaged sixty minutes when examined by Ashlei and forty-five minutes on average when examined by Oleysa during winter quarter of 1998. Those numbers do not even take into account the time wasted due to errors made in the beginning of the process. Each program has two separate notebooks and additional files devoted to the project investigator and their articular project. Because these projects deal with pertinent issues and large sums of money, their information needs to be readily accessible to office staff. Misinterpretation of a program leads to misfiling, frustration, and loss of time. Currently, when the proposal arrives the amount is checked for consideration. If the amount is included in the paperwork then it is easily identified. If it is more than one-hundred thousand dollars then it can proceed as a GBC. If not it is a TDP. If the amount is not located in the paperwork it can proceed as a GBC or TDP only if the name is recognized. If it is not, then Ashlei or Oleysa must look up prior GBC or TDP files. If it matches GBC or TDP then it can proceed through the system accordingly. If there is no match then the boss must be contacted for further instructions. We believe we could save time for the GBC, reduce errors, and make life easier for Ashlei and Oleysa. It only makes sense that the earlier in the process we end errors, the more time we save; therefore, we should stop them where they start. By providing the numerous businesses that solicit the GBC with cover sheets to accompany their pre-proposals, the time it takes to sort through their requests is deferred back to them. Our cover sheets are simple forms with room to write the year, project title, project investigator, and amount for consideration; that's it, a very simple solution. This is the only information necessary for Ashlei and Oleysa to determine the nature of the program. Those people most familiar with the pre-proposals; i.e.the businesses making the request, could fill out the information on the cover sheet with very minimal effort. As soon as the reports reach the GBC, Ashlei and Oleysa can identify them immediately as TDP or GBC programs and send them through the approval process. This is all very good in theory, but we arrived at a serious problem. The GBC was not receiving enough proposals to test our cover sheet. Although this was highly unlikely for this time of year, nothing could be done to rush researchers. They have until the end of the fiscal year to submit their proposals, which ends in July of 1998. To ensure our customer's satisfaction and to uphold our reputation, Undergrad Services devised a second plan. Members of our team accessed proposals from 1995 and removed any indication that they had been processed. They appeared as if they were just submitted. Because these proposals had never been seen by Ashlei or Olesya, they were prime candidates for the implementation. Each proposal was submitted to the employees with a cover sheet correctly filled out. This information could be accessed from the proposals before they were stripped to their raw form. Our results were signifficant. With our solution implemented, reports handled by Ashlei took thirty-five minutes on average and twenty-five minutes on average for Oleysa. Both girls improved their time by at least twenty minutes when all key facts were given to them on the form. By presenting these key facts on the cover sheet, we also managed to reduce errors. Now when the proposal arrives, the information on the cover sheet is checked and it is easily distinguished as GBC or TDP since the amount requested is indicated on the form. The effects of our solution were positive in every way. The head of the department responsible for these pre-proposals is considering implementing our solution permanently pending approval from her boss (and maybe his boss, too). When asked how they feel about including these cover sheets, clients of the GBC received the idea openly. They seemed to understand the benefits to their organizations. The faster requests could be processed, the sooner they could receive word of the GBC's decision and receive funds if their pre-proposals were approved. This is another result of our solution that cannot be ignored. Better efficiency combined with zero errors leads to better client service. With our solution everybody benefits.