1 / 23

Reinventing the Award Review and Set-Up Process

Reinventing the Award Review and Set-Up Process . NCURA Annual Meeting November 2012. Marcia Smith, Associate Vice Chancellor, Research Administration, UCLA Patti Manheim, OCGA Director, Research Administration, UCLA Jenna Lee, Manager, Higher Education Consulting, Huron Consulting Group.

wing-carson
Download Presentation

Reinventing the Award Review and Set-Up Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reinventing the Award Review and Set-Up Process NCURA Annual Meeting November 2012 Marcia Smith, Associate Vice Chancellor, Research Administration, UCLA • Patti Manheim, OCGA Director, Research Administration, UCLA • Jenna Lee, Manager, Higher Education Consulting, Huron Consulting Group

  2. Agenda Overview/Background Award Setup Pilot Implementation and Results Lessons Learned Discussion (All)

  3. Overview/Background

  4. Overview/Background • $1 BillionSponsored Research Awarded in FY12 • $3.4 BillionProposed Dollars in last 12 months • 5,500Proposals Submitted in last 12 months • 6,400Award Transactions Processed in last 12 months

  5. Overview/Background Research Funding Sources

  6. Overview/Background • RAPID Initiative • UCLA’s RAPID Initiative provided a successful framework for working on several process improvement projects within ORA • RAPID’s scope reaches every office within the Office of Research Administration • ARRA Award Reporting • Campus Outreach • Cost Transfers • Post Award Operations Improvement • Effort Reporting • Financial Reporting and Closeout • Invoicing • Letter of Credit • Animal Office Operations Improvement • Pre Award Operations Improvement • Human Subjects Operations Improvement • Organizational Restructuring for central Office of Research Administration (ORA) • ORA Web-Based Portal • Performance Metrics and Measurement • PI Web-Based Portal • Proposal/Award Data Model Redesign • Proposal/Award Intake, Tracking and Set-Up • RAPID Website • Research Financial Conflict of Interest Operational Support • Staff Training • webIRB • Training Grants

  7. Award Setup Pilot

  8. Award Setup Pilot • Award Setup Process Issues: • Retroactive cost transfers due to late account setup • Frustrated Investigators • Long delays in fund setup FY2011 Awards were set up in an average of 28 days

  9. Award Setup Pilot • Goals for Future Award Process • Allow officers and analysts to concentrate on those awards that require negotiation and set up standard awards faster • Quicker access to funds • Single point of contact • Timely and consistent communication at key process points: • Award received • Award setup complete • Accountability • Reduction of retroactive cost transfers due to late account setup • Defined award setup process • Improved data gathering/reporting

  10. Unilateral/Expedited Awards (nonegotiation/no signature • All NIH and NSF (Phase 1) • All Other Sponsors (Phase 2) • No Cost Extensions • Administrative Changes (i.e. PI Change) Award Setup Pilot • Definition of Pilot Population Expedited Awards • Bilateral/Complex Awards (negotiation and/or signature is required) Complex Awards

  11. Award Setup Pilot Process Complex Award Process Expedited Award Process

  12. Implementation

  13. Implementation • Key factors to the pilot’s success: • Identify the right personnel to review awards • Ability to redefine and redesign processes as more teams were added • Phased Approach

  14. Results

  15. Award Setup (Pilot) • Turnaround time for Expedited Awards has improved by over 80% during the award setup pilot

  16. Award Setup (Current) • Full implementation January 2012 • Award setup has slowed for expedited awards, but is still 65% faster than complex awards Pre-Intake Team Processing Timelines Post-Intake Team Processing Timelines

  17. Award Setup (Current) • New process has identified hold-ups • Shaping policy and procedure decisions • Awards processed 6 days faster when all internal documents are present

  18. Shaping Policy and Procedure • Proposal Intake Team • Average of 426 proposals submissions/month • 61% of proposals are received on the day of or day before the deadline each month

  19. Shaping Policy and Procedure • Goals of Minimum Submission Requirements: • Ensure timely review of proposals submitted to OCGA • Enable PIs to continue working on their research plan, while compliance and review actions are completed by OCGA • Streamlines submission process • Creates metrics to provide for departments

  20. Shaping Policy and Procedure • Proposal Intake Team • Benefits: • Minimum Submission Requirements • Enable PIs to continue working on their research plan, while compliance and review actions are completed by OCGA • Ensure timely review of proposals submitted to OCGA • Complete proposal submissions enable expedited award process • As much as $12M in awards have been on hold for missing documents • Consistent communications – single point of contact • Reliable/consistent data • Compliance with sponsor guidelines • Compliance with UCLA/UCOP policies/procedures • Compliance with Federal, State, and Local laws • Report back to campus on key departmental metrics regarding proposal submission

  21. Lessons Learned

  22. Lessons Learned • Key factors to Pilot success: • People make the difference • Clear and transparent process • Communication and flexibility

  23. Questions?

More Related