Reinventing the Award Review and Set-Up Process

NCURA Annual MeetingNovember 2012

Marcia Smith, Associate Vice Chancellor, Research Administration, UCLAPatti Manheim, OCGA Director, Research Administration, UCLAJenna Lee, Manager, Higher Education Consulting, Huron Consulting Group

Agenda

Overview/Background

Award Setup Pilot

Implementation and Results

Lessons Learned

Discussion (All)

2

Overview/Background

3

4

$1 Billion Sponsored Research Awarded in FY12

$3.4 Billion Proposed Dollars in last 12 months

5,500 Proposals Submitted in last 12 months

6,400 Award Transactions Processed in last 12 months

Overview/Background

Overview/Background

5

Research Funding Sources

Overview/Background

6

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

Award Setup Pilot

7

Award Setup Pilot

8

Award Setup Process Issues:

Retroactive cost transfers due to late account setup

Frustrated Investigators

Long delays in fund setup

Officer/Analyst Receives Award

Officer/Analyst Reviews Award

Officer/Analyst Sends Award to Account Team

for Set Up

Account Team Completes Set

Up

FY2011 Awards were set up in an average of 28 days

Award Setup Pilot

9

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

Award Setup Pilot

10

Definition of Pilot Population

• Unilateral/Expedited Awards (no negotiation/no signature

• All NIH and NSF (Phase 1)• All Other Sponsors (Phase 2)• No Cost Extensions• Administrative Changes (i.e. PI Change)

Expedited Awards

• Bilateral/Complex Awards (negotiation and/or signature is required)

Complex Awards

Award Setup Pilot Process

11

Record receipt and Send Initial Communication, including

request for missing documents

Review Award

Process Award and Send Final Communication

Record receipt and Send Initial Communication

Assign to Officer/Analyst

Review/Negotiate Award and Request Missing Documents

Process Award and Send Final Communication

Expedited Award Process

ComplexAward Process

Implementation

12

13

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

Implementation

Office

Sponsors

Pilot

Results

14

Award Setup (Pilot)

15

Turnaround time for Expedited Awards has improved by over 80% during the award setup pilot

Award Setup (Current)

16

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

New process has identified hold-ups • Shaping policy and procedure decisions• Awards processed 6 days faster when all internal documents are

present

Award Setup (Current)

18

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

Shaping Policy and Procedure

Shaping Policy and Procedure

19

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

Minimum Submission for Review

Completed EPASS with PI Signature (electronic)

Sponsor Guidelines

All Sponsor forms requiring OCGA signature

Final Budget with Budget Justification

Prime Statement of Work/Abstract or Project Description

Subaward Documents (if applicable)

20

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

Shaping Policy and Procedure

Lessons Learned

21

Lessons Learned

22

Key factors to Pilot success:

People make the difference

Clear and transparent process

Communication and flexibility

Questions?

23