Trends and Outcomes from the NCURA Peer Review Program for Sponsored Programs

1. Trends and Outcomes from the NCURA Peer Review Program for Sponsored Programs An Assessment Program for Sponsored Program Operations NCURA Peer Review Program

2. INORMS Theme • PRACTICE—exchange of pre-award, post-award, or compliance operational best practices. This track encourages sessions permitting the sharing and exchange of best operational practices focused on improving the research administrative services or on ensuring compliance with institutional or national regulations.

3. Abstract • The NCURA Peer Review Program provides an assessment of the sponsored programs operation to help insure an equally high quality infrastructure by providing the highest caliber support services and efficiencies to support faculty and to provide proper stewardship of sponsored program funds. As the first formal U.S. program established to provide structured assessments, the six years of operation have revealed numerous themes that exist across the range of institutions undergoing a review. • This session will discuss some of the following broad themes that have surfaced from these reviews and that serve as indicators of pre-award, post-award, and compliance practices that continue to be challenges for effective sponsored program operations in the U.S. • Risk Management • Faculty Service • Operational Efficiencies • Business Process Improvement • Communications • This session is a companion panel to Managing and Facilitating the Changing Nature of Research Administration: An Assessment Program for Sponsored Program Operations. This companion panel will discuss the evolution of the NCURA Peer Review Program and future directions.

4. Presenters • Kerry Peluso • Associate Vice President for Research Administration • Emory University • Chair, NCURA Select Committee on Peer Review • Peggy S. Lowry • Manager, Peer Review and Peer Counsel Services • National Council of University Research Administrators • Retired Director, Office of Sponsored Programs and Research Compliance, Oregon State University

5. NCURA Peer Review Program • Program released March 2008 • Over 60 reviews to-date $250+ M $0-8 M $70.1-$250 M $8.1-70 M

6. NCURA Peer Review Program Emerging Research, PUI Not-for Profit Research Intensive Community College Common Feature: To Improve Private, State, Land Grant Large (40,000 students), small (3,000 students) Medical/ Health, Teaching, Research

7. Common Trends and Challenges Faculty Service Risk Management Operational Efficiencies Business Process Improvement Communications

8. Challenge: Communications Common Challenges • Unclear messages • Messages that don’t reach everyone they need to • Lack of open dialogue Sample Recommendations • Think of the reader when delivering message • Have data • Use many modes of communication including presentations, emails, newsletters, web sites, etc. • Encourage create forums for feedback • Communicate data about statistics (turn around times, issues, etc.)

9. Challenge: Faculty Service Common Challenges • Diverse faculty expectations • Inconsistent service • Pre- post-award style differences • Complaints of changing rules Sample Recommendations • Focus groups • Define services for needs • Education/mentoring • Engagement of leadership • Pre- post-award teams/awareness of faculty needs

10. Challenge: Business Process Common Challenges • Unclear roles and responsibilities • Unclear (or unrealistic) expectations • Unclear or no standard goals/milestones Sample Recommendations • Define and document roles and responsibilities • Define and document workflows • Define and communicate expectations (turn around times, response times, etc.) • All staff need to have measurable goals that they are held accountable for

11. Challenge: Risk Management Common Challenges • Lack of partnership with Internal Audit • Lack of integrating risk monitoring • Risk adverse posture (primarily smaller volume institutions) Sample Recommendations • Regular meetings with Internal Audit • Define areas of risk concern; discuss audit schedule • Engage leadership in understanding risk; implement self audits when risks identified at other institutions • Peer or aspirational peer models of managing financial risk on sponsored programs; spot audits of high risk transactions

12. Challenge: Operational Efficiencies Common Challenges • Redundancies of duties • Unnecessary approvals • Poor use of electronic resources • Lack of staffing Sample Recommendations • Lean Management review • Review systems available, optimize current systems • Look at team structures • Consider alternative organizational structures • After doing all of above, document need for staff with statistics and consider risk to institution

13. Discussion s s t i o n e u Q