The Journaldownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/VolXXXIIINoI.pdfThe Journal of Research...

Society of Research Administrators International

The Journal

of

Research Administration

The Journal of Research Administration Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002

Society of Research Administrators International

The Journal

of

Research Administration

The Journal of Research Administration

EDITORMolly A. Anthony, PhD

ASSOCIATE EDITORSPamela Brown, MABruce W. Elliott, Jr, PhD

PUBLISHING EDITORLynne R. Harris

Journal correspondence: Manuscripts or letters to the editor should be submitted to the editor. Submission of a manu-script is considered to be a representation that it is not copyrighted, previously published, or concurrently under consid-eration for publishing in print or electronic form. Consult the journal Web page (www.srainternational. org/journal) forspecific information for authors, templates, and new material. The preferred communication route is through e-mailattention editor through the journal web page at [email protected]. If electronic communication is notpossible, please send written materials to the attention of the editor.

Journal correspondence to:Editor: [email protected] or in written format toMolly Anthony, PhD310 Greene Lea DriveRuckersville, VA 22968

Subscriptions: Members—$35 per year (3 issues) in United States, Canada, and Mexico; $40 foreign (included inmembership dues). Non-members—$45 per year (3 issues) in the United States, Canada and Mexico; $50 foreign. Makechecks payable to The Journal of Research Administration. Send change-of-address notices (together with your addresslabel) and all other correspondence regarding subscriptions and purchase of back issues to Society of Research Administrators International, Executive Office, 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1004, Arlington, VA 22209. Phone:703/741-0140.

Copyright © 2002 by the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA). All material subject to this copyrightmay be photocopied for limited non-commercial educational purposes with the written permission of the SRA and withappropriate credit. Opinions expressed in this journal represent the opinions of the authors and do not reflect officialpolicy of either the SRA or the author’s affiliated institution unless so noted in the author’s note portion of the specificarticle. Papers prepared by employees of the U.S. government as part of their official duties may not be copyrighted, butthe journal format is copyrighted and requires written permission of the Society of Research Administrators Interna-tional, as outlined above.

Copying for general distribution, resale, or other purposes may be authorized only with specific written permission fromthe Society of Research Administrators International. Requests for such permission must be in writing to the Society ofResearch Administrators International, 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1004, Arlington, Virginia 22209.

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETYPresident Julie B. ColePresident-Elect Pearl BigfeatherImmediate Past President Elliott C. Kulakowski, PhDTreasurer Cary E. ThomasSecretary J. Terence Manns

The Journal of Research Administration (ISSN 1539-1590), published three times a year, is the official journal of theSociety of Research Administrators International, Arlington, Virginia 22209. Founded in 1967, the Society of ResearchAdministrators International is dedicated to the education and the professional development of research administratorsand to enhance public understanding of research and its administration. Representing all disciplines and sectors inresearch administration, it serves as the international society to promote quality and innovation in research administra-tion. Periodicals are postage paid at Washington, DC and at an additional mailing office.

Postmaster: Send address changes to The Journal of Research Administration, 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1004,Arlington, VA 22209

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARDJoe Bass Kathleen Hogue Gonzalez, CRAJim Hanlon Michael Owen, PhD Bruce Steinert, PhDAnne P. Sterner, MARichard C. Straight, PhDDiane M. Watson, MBAMary H. Watson, PhD

Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002

In This Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Features Case StudiesIncentive, Reward, Development, or Welfare? Revision of an Integral Grant Program . . . . . . . . . .5By Lucinda McCray Beier

Designing an Incentive Plan for Researchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13By Michael J. Drnach

Passing on the Public Trust: A Case Study in Research Administration Education . . . . . . . . . . . .19By Edward F. Gabriele

Changing a Department’s Organization Practically Overnight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25By Kathleen F. Wiersema

CommentaryFOIA and Sponsored Programs Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31By Peggy F. Harrel, Daniel T. Riggle

Shop Talk Benchmarking in Sponsored Programs Administration: Using the Web to Analyze Nationwide Data Collection Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37By William S. Kirby, Paul G. Waugaman

Working with Technology and Technical Staffs in Research Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41By Pamela A. Krauser

Book ReviewLearning Adobe Tips: A Review of Acrobat PDF and Workflow in Detail. (2000) Frank Romano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45By William H. Caskey

The first year of the 21st centurybrought many challenges to thepeople of the world. Researchadministrators are also feelingtensions within our field with itsever-increasing demands andresponsibilities for assurance ofthe integrity of the researchenterprise we steward. Thisissue of the Journal ofResearch Administrationhighlights ways in whichresearch administrativestaffs think out of the box to address

and manage needed change or toexplore other fields for clues to solve the

puzzles of daily work life. Our authorsrepresent a broad sector of the research

enterprise and we are grateful to them forsharing their opinions, findings, investiga-

tions, and case practices with us. The journalteam hopes that you will benefit from readingthese papers from your colleagues.

The department level research adminis-trator is faced with first-hand, day-to-day chal-lenges from researchers, staff, and institutionaloperations, and has the opportunity to makesignificant contributions to the quality of theresearch environment. In this issue, we heartwo ways the research administration staffmade a difference in their departments.

Kate Wiersema describes one geographydepartment’s solution to managing a 380%growth in research revenue through newadministrative staff and re-engineering thedepartment’s policies and procedures. Thischange evolved into more efficiency and satisfaction for 100 employees. Mike Drnachdescribes how one management group helpedequalize fiscal incentives for scientists workingin a clinical department. His article illustrateshow accounting staffs can play critical roles inpolicy development and procedure imple-mentation for other team members.

Teamwork through task force action orcreating diverse teams is an essential method

The Journal of Research Administration / In This Issue Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 1

In This Issue

to visualize change and capture thetalents of colleagues. Team deci-sions often take us farther than wecould go alone. Two universitysettings illustrate how differentresearch administrators participatedon teams. Lucinda Beier describes a case in which college level deci-sion-makers (chairs, associationdean, and the research director)impacted well-established processesto revitalize faculty developmentand foster scholarship through

revising the internal grant system at thecollege of arts and science. The one-yearimplementation appears to be on a successfultrack. Pam Krauser focuses on the sharedresponsibility of teams in meeting researchadministration work goals in her Shop Talkdiscussion.

Different views of stewardship and publicaccountability come forward in the paper byEd Gabriele and the commentary by DanRiggle and Peggy Harrel. Ed weaves a storyof how research administrators can use apresenting opportunity and annually evolve aprogram into a creative way to educate youthand stimulate a broad understanding of ourfield. Dan and Peggy again remind us of ourobligations to protect confidentiality as wecomply with public access to government-sponsored information.

Completing this issue are two briefcommunications offering administrative staffexamples to expand their knowledge and useof technology. In his review of FrankRomano’s Acrobat PDF and Workflow inDetail, Bill Caskey suggests that chapter 13,on compression, is worth the price of thisbook to aide in transfer of high quality PDFfile proposals. Bill Kirby and Paul Waugamanshare web access to the latest round of benchmarking results and analysis using newInternet technology to respond to diverse user needs.

Molly A. Anthony, PhD,Editor

2 Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 The Journal of Research Administration / In This Issue

AcknowledgementsWhen you review the names of the journal

team you will notice several changes. See ournew Web page for detailed instructions toauthors and other information about the teamand their responsibilities. The journal is onlyas valuable as its contributors and we lookforward to receiving your correspondence,papers, reviews, commentaries, and Shop Talkcontributions. Issue deadlines are also on theWeb page.

I want to take this opportunity to extendour appreciation to Pam Miller for serving asjournal editor for the past six years. ThroughPam’s guidance we revised the look of thejournal in 2000 and in 2001 re-engineeredthe infrastructure to enable our editorial

board (ERB) to be more timely and accessibleto you. Please notice that most of the papersin this issue started as contributed papers tothe SRA annual meeting session the Societysponsors each year. This is an excellent oppor-tunity for you to write and to present withfeedback from peers. The motivation of thatsession and the initial review of papers allowyou to revise a paper for further peer review.We hope you will be motivated to contributeto the growth and development of the field bysharing with us. We long for the scholarly andthe practical. It is not too early to think abouta contributed paper for the October meetingin Orlando. Please consult the SRA Web pagesfor the annual meeting and the journal. Makethe decision to become an author in 2002.

SRA invites YOU to share your experience, research, knowledge, and opinions through additional opportunities

The Editorial Review Board and the Journal of Research Administration team invite your response to our CALL.

1. Manuscripts for the Peer-Reviewed Journal. The summer 2002 issue will accept manuscripts through 30 April 2002 for

general content and through 9 May 2002 for the special theme content on Conflict of Interest — A Cry for Management

(This issue will be mailed in July)

The third journal issue for 2002 will accept manuscripts through 15 Septemberfor the issue that will be mailed in late November.

2. Contributed Paper PresentationsThe Orlando annual meeting offers an opportunity to develop a 10-minute presentation based

on a Contributed Paper that will be read and reacted to by colleagues attending a special session at the meeting. Many of these contributions are subsequently refined and published to share with a larger professional readership. See the newsletter or web page for detailed information

about submitting a contributed paper. Email your abstract and author information attention to Linda Patton at the email address below.

Visit the new SRA web page for author guidelines, developing a Contributed Paper for annual meeting, manuscript policies, and contact information.

Transmit both journal manuscripts and contributed papers to:[email protected] attention to

Molly A. Anthony, PhDEditor, Journal of Research Administration

Or Linda Patton, CRA

ERB Coordinator, Contributed Papers 2002

The Journal of Research Administration / Contributors Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 3

Lucinda McCray Beier,PhD directs the College ofArts and Sciences ResearchOf fice at Ill inois StateUniversity and the AppliedSocial Research Unit, anoutreach organization thatprovides informat ion,

research, and training services for clients. Dr.Beier has a joint faculty appointment in thedepartments of History and Political Science.Her doctorate, in the history of medicine, isfrom Lancaster University in Great Britain.She has published two books, numerous articles, op-ed pieces, and project reports onsubjects ranging from the sufferer’s experienceof ill health and medical care to the needs forhuman services in downstate Illinois.

William H. Caskey, PhDis Director of Research &Grants Administration atChildren’s Mercy Hospitals& Clinics, Kansas City, MOand Associate Professor ofMedicine at the Universityof Missouri-Kansas City

School of Medicine. He was a research micro-biologist prior to becoming a research admin-istrator, having earned a PhD in Microbiologyand Systems Science from Michigan StateUniversity. He worked as a research adminis-trator in a regional comprehensive universityand a land grant university. He regularlypresents workshops and papers at national,regional, and local meetings. Dr. Caskey isPresident-Elect of the Midwest Section ofSRA.

Michael J. Drnach, MBAof Partners HealthcareSystems, MA, currentlyserves as an AccountingManager for the Brigham &Women’s Physician Organ-ization, formed recently fromthe merger of seven inde-

pendent foundations within the Brigham &

Women’s Hospital, of which OB/GYN Foun-dation was one. His degree is from North-eastern University. Mr. Drnach has eight yearsof grant administration experience working inthe medical/academic community with aprevious decade of work in the publishingindustry.

Edward F. Gabriele, DMinserves as the Director of theOffice of Research Admin-istration and the HumanSubjects Protections Programa t t h e N a v a l M e d i c a lResearch Center, Si lverSpring, MD and the Henry

M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancementof Military Medicine. He holds an appoint-ment as Adjunct Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Preventive Medicine andBiometrics at the Uniformed Services Univer-sity of the Health Sciences. Dr. Gabriele holdsa doctorate in theology from The CatholicUniversity of America. Since 1997, he hasprepared over 35 professional publications,abstracts, posters, and multimedia presenta-tions in research administration and humansubjects protections theory.

P e g g y H a r r e l , P h Dserves as Director of Grad-uate Studies and Spon-s o r e d Research at theUniversity of Southe r nIndiana (USI) since 1992,having joined USI in 1989.Dr. Harrel is currently liaison

officer advisory group member for AASCU’sGrants Resource Center (GRC). She receivedher doctorate in English linguistics from theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison. She isactive in professional activities and presentedat regional and national meetings of SRA,NCURA, and GRC numerous times andpreviously published in SRA’s The Journal,SRA News, and the Proceedings of InvitedPapers.

Contributors

4 Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 The Journal of Research Administration / Contributors

William S. Kirby has over30 years experience in themanagement of sponsoredresearch, consulting, execu-tive training, and the applica-tion of technology. Since1997 his efforts at KPMGConsulting, Inc. include

university research administration and bench-marking issues with a focus on assessment,strategy, and operations. Prior to KPMG, hewas Director of NSF’s grant management andpolicy operations and a senior consultant atthe Federal Quality Institute. He is a memberof SRA’s Benchmarking Task Force and Co-Chair of SRA’s Evaluation Task Force for 2001-2002. Mr. Kirby has authorednumerous publications and won the 1993Rod Rose Award for the most outstandingarticle in The SRA Journal.

Pamela A. Krauser, MBAis the Director of Elec-tronic Research Adminis-tration in the Office ofResearch at the Universityof Notre Dame, IN. Herprimary responsibilities arepre-award administration

and electronic research administration.Currently Ms. Krauser serves as chair of theSRA membership committee and on theMidwest Section Executive Committee.

Daniel T. Riggle, MAcurrently serves as SeniorProgram Associate at theGrants Resource Center(formerly known as theOffice of Federal Programs),of the American Associationof State Colleges and

Universities. His work includes assisting over20 universities in the Western Region, moni-toring programs of NSF, Departments ofAgriculture, Transportation, and Interior,

EPA, and NRC/NAS, and serving as editor ofGRC Bulletin for the last five years and previ-ously GRC GrantWeek and GRC NIH/NSFBulletin. He also teaches college courses inResearch and Advanced Writing and Intro-duction to Literature, Business Communica-tions. Mr. Riggle has a MA in English fromNorthern Illinois University.

Paul G. Waugaman is aPrincipal of the TechnologyCommercialization Group,LLC, and Chair of SRA’sEvaluation and Bench-marking Task Force. Hehas extensive experience intechnology evaluation and

management, and benchmarking. Over his40-year career in research administration, heserved as the chief management officer at twoNIH institutes and led the technology transferefforts at North Carolina State University andthe Wake Forest University School of Medi-cine. Mr. Waugaman has published onperformance benchmarking and best practicesin technology transfer, the management ofsponsored research, and the nature of acad-emic-business research relationships.

Kathleen F. Wiersema, MAhas been involved inmanaging and coordinatingresearch projects, bothbig and small, for over 25years at the University ofMichigan and most recentlya t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f

Maryland. Her master’s degree in mentalhealth counseling assists her efforts in trainingand facilitating organizational change. She is currently Research Administrator for theDepartment of Geography, the Universityof Maryland, College Park, MD and alsomaintains a private counseling practice.

The Journal of Research Administration / Feature Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 5

Incentive, Reward, Development, or Welfare?

Revision of an IntegralGrant Program

Lucinda M. Beier

AbstractEach year since 1994, Illinois State University’s College of Arts and Sciences (CAS),

has spent approximately $220,000 on its internal University Research Grant (URG)program, which is intended to foster faculty research and grant activity. In 1999, a task

force reviewed and re-configured the CAS/URG program. Revision activities gener-ated college-wide discussion of the proper application of the internal grant program andits relationship to other research support mechanisms. The eventual consensus empha-sizes development of pre-tenure faculty research programs, stimulation of external grantproposals, and support of research that is valuable to the discipline regardless of itspotential to attract external support. First-year implementation of the program resultedin a dramatic increase in the percentage of applications funded—from 47% in FY 2001to 78% in FY 2002. There was a corresponding decline in complaints about programadministration.

Case Study

This article was developed from a Contributed Paper presented at the October 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society of Research Administrators International,Vancouver, CN. Address correspondence to LucindaMcCray Beier, PhD, Director Research Office, College of Arts and Sciences, Illinois State University via E-mail: [email protected]

IntroductionLike many other universities, Illinois State

University (ISU) has offered an internal grantprogram since the 1970s. The program hasgone through several incarnations. Initiallydesigned to aid ISU’s transition from anormal school, focused primarily on teachereducation, to a comprehensive university, theSummer Grant program originally empha-sized stimulation of faculty research. In the1980s, program goals expanded to include

motivating development of external grantsubmissions.

Having traditionally been centrally admin-istered, in 1994 the University Research Grant(URG) program was decentralized. Each ofISU’s colleges—Applied Science and Tech-nology, Art, Arts and Sciences, Business,Education, and Nursing—were allocated aportion of URG funds and empowered todevelop and administer their own URGprogram. The College of Arts and Sciences

6 Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 The Journal of Research Administration / Feature

(CAS), by far the largest in the university, with16 departments and 343 tenure-line faculty,devised four subprograms to distribute annualURG funding of approximately $220,000.These were the Senior Research Developmentand the Senior Grant Development programs,offering a maximum of $4,000 to be appliedto either salary or other research expenses, the Junior Research Development program,offering a maximum of $3,000 for salary orother costs, and the Small Grant program,offering a maximum of $1,000 for researchcosts.

In its five years of operation, the 1994CAS URG program spent over $1 million,attracted more than 500 proposals, andfunded over 240 projects. According tofaculty productivity reports, it supporteddevelopment of hundreds of conferencepresentations, journal articles, books, andgrant proposals. However, it also generatedserious disagreements and problems includingthe following:

1. In the last three years of program oper-ation, 40% of URG funds went to thesame 11 faculty members.

2. Some departments participated moreactively than others.

3. Non-participating departments andfaculty members felt discriminatedagainst and hopeless about obtainingURG funding.

4. Departments that were the most activein the program also experienced thelargest number of rejections and, thus,were most vocal in their criticism of theprogram.

5. Faculty were critical of both depart-mental and college proposal reviewprocesses.

6. Controversy raged between benchscientists, who favored funding non-salary research costs only, and human-ists, who advocated provision of salarysupport.

A survey of tenure-line faculty, conductedduring the 1998-1999 academic year, elicited110 responses broadly representing CASfaculty by tenure status, gender, and length oftime at ISU. Survey results indicated that, ingeneral, faculty wanted the URG program tocontinue. The majority of respondents agreed

that the program should support developmentof pre-tenure faculty members’ researchprograms (83%), support development ofexternal grant proposals (58%), support goodresearch that might not attract externalfunding (58%), and support experimental orinnovative research (53%). Less than halfthought that the URG program shouldreward successful performance (45%) orsupport reinvigoration of faculty researchcareers (44%). Respondents’ comments over-whelmingly recommended improvement ofthe URG proposal review process.

The survey was followed by a facultyforum, which identified the following prob-lems associated with the URG program:

(a) insufficient support of pre-tenurefaculty, (b) inconsistent departmental evalua-tion processes, (c) discomfort with interdisci-plinary review of proposals at college level, (d) inconsistent and inequitable representa-tion of departments in the college reviewprocess, (e) inappropriately heavy amount ofwork expected from members of the collegeproposal review committee, and (f) generation(by the URG application and evaluationprocess) of considerable faculty bitterness.

Program RevisionIn the autumn of 1999, the Dean of the

CAS convened a task force to review andrevise the URG program. This task force wascomposed of three senior department chairs(representing humanities, social sciences, andscience/mathematics), three tenured faculty,one pre-tenure faculty member, the AssociateDean of CAS, and the CAS Research OfficeDirector. The dean advised members ofthe task force that program revision mustcomply with the general university require-ments for college URG programs and that theprogram review should be viewed by CASfaculty as a fair process without self-interest.The task force’s charge was to reconfigure theURG program to better foster scholarship andgrants among faculty, develop the next gener-ation of faculty, and streamline theproposal evaluation process. The proposalfor a revised program was to be completed byFebruary 2000.


Task Force ReviewProgram review began with data collec-

tion. The task force first looked at grant application and success rates by year ofappointment, gender, departmental affiliation,and category of research interests (e.g.,humanities, social science, and science/math-ematics). It considered the number of newfaculty hires (rapidly increasing) and the issueof faculty retention. It collected informationabout departmental review and ratingprocesses, faculty productivity (presentations,publications, and grants) resulting from URGsupport, and models for internal grantprograms at other universities. This processidentified some additional issues of concern.

1. With appointments at an all-time high,and continued retirements and hiringprojected, the URG program providedan important support for pre-tenurefaculty development and retention.However, regular rejection of newfaculty URG proposals sent an unfortu-nate message and alienated new hireswithin the first few months of theirappointments.

2. Departmental review committees werebeing asked to do contradictory tasks.On the one hand, they were expectedto mentor development of strong URGapplications and advocate for fundingof applications from their departments.On the other hand, they wereinstructed to rank URG proposals andjustify rankings to the College proposalreview committee.

3. Depar tmenta l proposa l r ev iewprocesses varied widely, from onedepartment that used a 12-memberinternal review committee, to a depart-ment whose chair reviewed and rankedproposals on his own. There was alsothe clear indication that departmentsstrategized ranking of URG proposalsto garner advantage with the collegereview committee.

4. The college review committee wasroutinely challenged by the need tocompare requests for salary dollars and requests for research expenses—apples versus pears, as one task forcemember said.

5. Some departments were routinelyrepresented on the college reviewcommittee, while other departmentswere almost never represented. Thissituation was perceived to give repre-sented departments an advantage in theproposal review process.

In order to make the best use of time, thetask force’s very able chair directed membersto first consider the needs of pre-tenurefaculty members, then to focus on the needsof tenured faculty members, and finally to dealwith program administration issues. At each ofthe task force’s weekly meetings, the chairprovided a graphical summary of decisionsmade in previous meetings and decisions yetto be made.

Task Force ConsensusThe URG program (2000) that emerged

from the task force’s deliberations surprised allof its members. It includes both compromisesand innovations designed to solve some of theproblems encountered by the previousprogram (1994) and meet the goals set by thedean’s charge. The reconfigured programincludes four subprograms, namely, the NewFaculty Initiative Grant (NFIG), the Pre-tenure Faculty Initiative Grant (PFIG), theSummer Faculty Fellowship (SFF), and theFaculty Research Award (FRA). See appendixfor the summary of new programs, Figure 1provides a comparison of old and newprograms in the college. Overall, the newprograms focus on developing and supportingfaculty research careers. They virtually guar-antee funding for new faculty members, butimpose increasingly rigorous evaluation stan-dards as faculty progress in their appointmentsat ISU. For continued eligibility, the newprograms require faculty to have regularsubmissions of external grant proposals and toensure serious consideration the proposalwriter must demonstrate continuous scholarlyproductivity. To reduce difficulty experiencedby review committees in evaluating requestsfor salary, as opposed to requests for researchcosts, the new subprograms for tenuredfaculty separate the opportunity to competefor these types of support. In order to invest ina larger number of faculty projects and spread


URG resources more equitably throughoutthe college, funding levels were reduced and asit-out introduced for the Summer FacultyFellowship.

ResultsThe reconfigured program was reviewed

and approved by CAS and the UniversityResearch Council in March 2000. It was thenintroduced to CAS-faculty members, whosubmitted the first proposals for the four newsubprograms in the autumn of the 2000-2001academic year. Comparisons of the last year ofthe old (1994) program, with grants paid inFY 2001, and the new (2000) program, with

grants paid in FY 2002, yield some intriguinginformation. As Table 1 indicates, there was a17% net decrease in the number of applicantsto the new program but the success rate ofapplicants increased.

Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, whilethe percentage of applications from pre-tenurefaculty members increased somewhat, thesuccess rate for pre-tenure applicationsincreased, while the success rate for tenuredfaculty members declined commensurately.

Informal data provided by tenured facultymembers suggests that senior faculty now feelthat grant amounts are so low that it is notworth their time to apply for a URG. TheURG program is also increasingly viewed as

Figure 1Comparison of 1994 and 2000 College of Arts and Sciences URG Programs

1994 2000Sub-programs Junior Research Development New Faculty Initiative Grant (NFIG)

Senior Research Development Pre-tenure Faculty Initiative Grant (PFIG)Senior Grant Development Summer Faculty Fellowship (SFF)Small Grants Faculty Research Award (FRA)

Award amounts $3,000, Junior Research Development $2,500, NFIG and PFIG$4,000, Senior Grants $3,000, SFF$1,000, Small Grants $2,000, FRA

Sit-out None Faculty members who receive SFF cannot apply again for two years.

Required external grant After 3 RDA After receiving NFIG and PFIG awardsAfter receiving 2 FRAs or 1 FRA and 1 SFF

Ability to apply for None Applicants may apply concurrently two awards for for FRA and SFFthe same project

Departments rank Junior and Senior URG grants SFF and FRA grants onlyproposals

All meritorious proposals No NFIG and PFIG (although PFIG proposalsfrom pre-tenure faculty must show research/creative activity sincefunded. ISU appointment)

Joint proposals Junior and Senior URG grants All grants, but with specific description & justification of each PI’s contribution

College committee gives Junior and Senior URG grants Un-funded proposals onlyfeedback

Repeated department Yes Norep on college committee


being primarily appropriate for junior facultymembers; thus, senior faculty—particularlypeople with significant external grantfunding—recuse themselves from theprogram voluntarily.

One of the major goals of the task forcewas to reconfigure the URG program in sucha way as to improve faculty morale. It isapparent that the intentional reduction ofaward amounts and change of evaluation stan-dards for pre-tenure awards, combined withthe unintended decrease in the number ofapplications, increased overall success rates.Figures 3 and Figure 4 demonstrate depart-mental success rates. Thus, departments suchas Biological Sciences and English, which hadtraditionally been the most active programparticipants and had the largest number offaculty members denied funding, enjoyedgreater success and reported fewer complaintsthan at any time in the past.

Other elements of the new program thatmay help to improve faculty morale are relatedto program administration. The new program

Table 1 Comparison of URG Applications and Awards

FY 2001 FY 2002

URG and Small Grants URGs

135 applicants 112 applicants64 awards (47%) 87 awards (78%)

Table 2Awards by Faculty Tenure Status

Faculty Pre-tenure Tenured

FY01 Applicants 50% 50%FY01 Awards 53% 47%

FY02 Applicants 52% 48%FY02 Awards 60% 40%

Figure 2 FY 2001 Applicants and Awards by Department


requires that pre-tenure faculty proposals bementored within the department before theyare submitted as meritorious to the collegeproposal review committee. Furthermore,departments are no longer expected to rankNew Faculty Initiative Grants; thus, first- andsecond-year faculty will not compete againsteach other for these awards. To increase theperception of fairness in program administra-tion within and across departments, the newprogram also introduces changes in composi-tion and operation of the college proposalreview committee, requiring that departmentsnot exceed their two-year terms of represen-tation on the committee, and that committeemembers not be allowed to apply for URGgrants.

ConclusionThe returns are not yet in on the CAS’

new and improved URG program. Withdeclining interest among senior faculty andbarriers such as the sit-out for the senior salaryprogram and the requirement that facultysubmit external grant applications to maintainprogram eligibility, there may be too fewapplications for URG grants. In addition, withdecreasing competition for URG grants, thequality of grant proposals may decline. Thecollege has, however, recommended review ofthe program after five years of operation,which will create an opportunity to respondto inevitable changes.

Figure 3 FY 2002 Applicants and Awards by Department

02468

1012141618202224

No. ApplicantsNo. Recipients

Social W

ork (N

=4)

Comm

unica

tions

(N=6

)

Econo

mics

(N=7

)

Geolo

gy (N

=2)

Physic

s (N

=6)

Hist

ory (N

=7)

Fore

ign L

angu

age (

N=3

)

Biolo

gy (N

=23)

Englis

h (N

=18)

Speec

h Pat

holo

gy (N

=0)

Chem

istry

(N=1

2)

Polit

ical S

cienc

e (N

=3)

Sociolo

gy (N

=5)

Psych

ology

(N=9

)

Philo

soph

y (N

=3)

Mat

h (N

=4)


AppendixUniversity Research Grant Programs of the College of Arts and Sciences

New Faculty Initiative Grant (NFIG) Pre-tenure Faculty Initiative Grant (PFIG)

Eligibility First- or second-year tenure-track faculty who hold the terminal degree in their discipline A faculty member may receive this grant only once.

Costs supported Salary and/or project expenses

Award amount $2,500

Criteria for funding All meritorious proposals will be funded.

Accountability Professional Outcome Form required

Submission deadline 1 November

Summer Faculty Fellowship (SFF)

Eligibility Pre-tenure faculty members who have received both NFIG and PFIG awards and submitted an external grant proposal through the University Research Office and Tenured faculty members

Sit-out Faculty members who have received an SFF may not apply for the two fiscal years following that award.

Costs supported Salary only

Award amount $3,000

Criteria for funding Highest quality proposals will be funded.

Submission deadline October 1


Note Applicants may apply concurrently for a FRA if they meet the eligibility requirements for that program.

Eligibility Pre-tenure faculty members holding the terminal degree in their disciplines who are in years 2-5 of service A faculty member may receive thisgrant only once.

Costs supported Salary and/or project expenses

Award amount $2,500

Criteria for funding Meritorious proposals will be funded.Applicant must demonstrate research/creative activity sinceappointment at ISU.


Submission deadline 1 October

Faculty Research Award (FRA)

Eligibility Pre-tenure faculty members who have receivedboth NFIG and PFIG awards and submitted an external grant proposal through the University Research Office and Tenured faculty members

External grant requirement After receiving two FRAs, orone FRA and one SFF, a faculty member must submit anexternal grant proposal to be eligible for another FRA.

Costs supported Project expenses excluding faculty salary.

Award maximum $2,000

Criteria for funding Highest quality proposals will befunded.

Submission deadline 1 October


Note Applicants may apply concurrently for a SFF, if they meet the eligibility requirements for that program.



Case Study

Designing an Incentive Plan for Researchers

Michael J. Drnach

AbstractIncentive, in the commercial sense, has been defined as “any special inducementoffered by a business firm to promote sales, productivity, or extra effort bypersonnel” (The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1971, p. 484). This ideaof promoting productivity however, has not been applied to the research commu-nity. Perhaps a reason for this lack of application is the inherent difficulty of imple-

menting incentives within a research environment. This paper will review how,working with senior researchers, the obstetric and gynecology (Ob-gyn) administra-

tive staff designed an incentive program for researchers. It also summarizes the stepstaken to build a consensus as well as providing an example financial plan to supportsuch an incentive plan. While the plan has not been fully implemented, the initialresponse from the researchers is positive.

IntroductionThe NIH (2000) reports that between the

years 1990 and 2000 funding to the medicalresearch community increased nearly 50%.This increase in funding has led to a faster-than-average job growth predicted by theBureau of Labor Statistics (2000) for the timeframe 1998-2008. The increased funding byNIH, however, has tapered off, and hascaused financial pressure on NIH, whichresponded by reducing the number of awardsand size of awards. This decrease in awarddollars has increased competition for suchfunds, putting more pressure on both newand established researchers. To encourageproductivity and reward researchers duringthis highly competitive time, a group ofresearchers and administrators established amonetary incentive plan that would poten-

tially attract new researchers and retain thebrightest and best researchers in the depart-ment. The result was a research incentive planthat rewards research labs and/or individualresearchers for their financial independence.

The plan’s goal is to reward financiallyindependent Research Programs/Divisionswhile maintaining equity within the depart-ment. Clinicians within the department haveoperated under a combined base salary/incen-tive program for several years and this plan issuccessful as evidenced by the increasednumber of individuals in balance and in incen-tive. The hope is to achieve the same level ofsuccess with the researcher faculty. Further-more, the allocation of funds within theresearch incentive plan mimics the clinician’sincentive plan to maintain one financialprocess, making it easy to administer and

Address correspondence to Michael J. Drnach,Accounting Manager, Partners Healthcare Systems, Inc.,Brigham & Women’s Physician Organization, Building 38, Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston, MA 02115.Phone: (617) 724-9586, Fax: (617) 724-2453, E-mail: [email protected]


vidual’s incentive figure may not exceedthe percent of an individual’s grantfunds (both direct and indirect) whichcontributed to the total program/division’s grant funding. For example,researcher A would generate $1,000(10% maximum) when the researcherbrings in a new $10,000 in grantfunding.

6. The program/division director mayrequest a lump sum incentive amountpaid to the overall program/division oran incentive amount for a specificresearcher within their program/division.

7. The department chair must approvef ina l dec i s ions on a l l incent ivepayments.

Winners and WinnersThe beneficiaries of the incentive plan are

not only the individual recipients of the incen-tive payments but also the program/divisionitself, as well as the overall department. Theindividual recipients benefit is the salary in-centive payment intended to stimulate andadvance their research efforts. The goodwilland increased productivity that will be generated by the incented researchers rewardthe program/division. The department,rewarded by the potential increased grantrevenue generated by the incentedresearchers, may receive increased supportfrom the institution such as priority in allo-cating research space and increased financialsupport from additional overhead collectedfrom research revenues.

The Calculation ProcessTo ensure equity across all research

programs/divisions, pro-forma revenue andexpense statements are prepared for eachprogram/division. Only those programs/divisions that are currently or projected to bein balance are eligible for the incentive plan.Program/division directors are notified oftheir eligibility at the end of each fiscal year.Once notified, the program/division directormay participate in the incentive plan or mayhold the funds in escrow for future use. Indeciding whether or not to participate,program/division directors must weigh the

monitor, as well as maintain a sense of fairnesswithin the department.

The Basic Framework of the Plan

The plan recognizes researchers whomanage a balanced program and operate in a positive financial condition in accordancewith our previously developed DepartmentResearch Program Guiding Principles.

1. The program/division must have accessto discretionary funds.

2. Incentives are calculated and paid annu-ally with funds from the program’sdiscretionary account. Discretionaryaccount funding is derived from theinterest earned on depar tmentalendowment funds. Only 75% of theunencumbered balance in the discre-tionary account is available for incentivepayments; the remaining 25% must stayin the discretionary account to coverany encumbered or unanticipatedprogram/division needs. For anexample, see Figure 1.

3. The program/division must be finan-cially self-sufficient, meaning that nofinancial support is received from thedepartment. It must also project a positive cash flow for the 12 monthsfollowing an incentive payment.

4. The program/division must also meetthe current hospital space recoveryfigure.

5. At fiscal year-end, the program/divisiondirector determines the individualincentives based on the total financialcontribution to the program/divisionmade by the individual. The indi-

Figure 1Discretionary Account Excerpt

Endowment Account Principal balance $1,000,000.00Interest rate given to department 4.5%Discretionary funds available for use $45,000.00

Funds Available for Incentive Payments (75%) $33,750.00Funds held in escrow $11,250.00


pros and cons of an incentive program. The pros of an incentive program include

demonstrating support for new researchers,promoting goodwill, and supportingincreased productivity. Employee retentionmay also be affected, as employees who arefinancially rewarded may be less likely to leavetheir jobs for more lucrative or stable offers.With satisfied productive employees researcherefforts may increase, benefiting the entiredepartment through increased institutionalsupport due to a revenue increase for theprogram/division.

There are cons to incentives as well. Theprogram/division director must work to mini-mize any negative impact from an incentiveplan. A negative effect of an incentive programmay be a shift in focus by individualresearchers or the program/division awayfrom altruistic research to more lucrative fieldsof research. Furthermore, there may be anincrease in competition among researchersthat may lead to less collegial interaction.Finally, programs/divisions that do not have the financial means to support incentivesmay see the departure of their employees,causing a potential brain drain for the overall department.

The Design PhaseCooperation between research and admin-

istration was essential when designing andimplementing an incentive plan. The plandescribed here was designed with the goal ofpromoting financial independence andstability within our research labs as well asproviding a vehicle for our program/divisiondirectors to reward and encourage promisingresearchers. With careful planning and acommitment to research, an incentive plancan be successfully implemented.

Key elements in designing the incentiveplan were cooperation and commitment.Cooperation from senior researchers withinthe department is critical for the plan to appealto all researchers within the department.Involving the senior researchers in the designphase helped to create a commitment tosuccessfully implement the plan. The designteam included two senior researchers, an influ-ential new researcher, and two senior-leveladministrators. The idea for the plan was

generated by one of the senior researcherswho wanted to reward two novice researcherswho received their first federal grants duringthe past year. The senior administratorsmodeled the incentive plan after the currentclinician’s incentive plan to maintain consis-tency within the department and to minimizethe perceived dif ferences between theresearchers and clinicians. This was necessarysince one group often feels like a second-classcitizen to the other. Consistency also makesthe plan easier to manage. Equity was main-tained in that both researchers and cliniciansare eligible for an incentive.

RoadblocksIn modeling the plan, there were differ-

ences between the clinician’s and researcher’splans. A major difference was the source offunds. The clinician’s plan is supportedthrough funds generated by the clinicians.Researchers do not normally generate excessincome through research, so interest gener-ated from endowment accounts and otherprivate sources of funds (i.e., gifts) was used.Endowment accounts are accounts held bythe institution and created from contributionsmade to the program/division from externalpersons or groups . Our more seniorresearchers have been able to generate largeunrestricted gifts from which to generateinterest income. This interest income isdeposited into an interest-bearing discre-tionary account from which the program/division directors can spend. Working withour institution’s development office, thedepartment established substantial endow-ment accounts from which the chairman dedi-cated interest income to several program/divisions. A large endowment, typically onemillion dollars, is needed to generate enoughincome to support an incentive program. Thiscan, however, cause a problem for programs/divisions without the resources or expertiseneeded to generate a large endowment. In afew instances, interest from endowmentspreviously established by the department havebeen earmarked for a specific program/divi-sion to support activities such as an incentiveplan. This is a choice of the department butone that could help meet the goals of theincentive plan.


State your Goals!The goals of an incentive plan should be

established during the design phase. The goalsshould be clearly stated and understood by allmembers of the department to avoid anyconfusion as to the purpose of the programand to avoid any potential conflicts amongparticipants. The goals were to reward, moti-vate, and support the research communitywithin the department. As with any plan thereare limitations that can make reaching thegoal(s) difficult. One limitation is the avail-ability of funds. Another limitation thatshould not be overlooked is ensuring thatadequate and capable personnel are availableto monitor and implement the plan. It isrecommended that trained personnel beinvolved to accurately calculate and disperseincentive dollars. Due to personnel turnover,the plan described above has not yet been fullyimplemented, reflecting the importance ofhaving adequate administrative personnel.Included in the appendix is a copy of the draftincentive plan the Ob-gyn group designed.

ConclusionWith the limitations and pitfalls mentioned

in this article, is it worth it to design and

implement a researcher incentive plan withinyour organization? The answer should be aresounding YES. Through careful planning,monitoring and clearly stating a set of goals,an institution can create an incentive plan thatworks well within their environment. It is ourhope that the process described in this paperwill encourage other administrators to imple-ment a research incentive policy.

ReferencesNIH Awards by Component and Funding

Mechanism, Fiscal Years 1990-2000.Retrieved 27 November 2001 from http://silk.nih.gov/public/[email protected].

Bureau of Labor Statistics Electronic version.Occupational Outlook Handbook, p. 126.Retrieved from http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm.

Note: The hospital space recovery figurerepresents the indirect costs to the hospital ofmaintaining space and includes items such asmaintenance, repairs, cleaning, electricity, etc.Each program/division is expected to meet orexceed the minimum space recovery figurecalculated by the hospital.

Appendix

Research Incentive PolicyBrigham and Women’s Obstetric and Gynecological Department

Policy # __ 1 January 2000

Purpose:To recognize researchers who manage a balanced program and operate in a positive

financial condition in accordance with the department’s Research Program Guiding Principles.Incentive payments will be awarded annually based upon the financial performance of

the Research program, the availability of program/division discretionary funds for incen-tive payments, and recommendation of the program/division director.

Criteria:1. The current and projected financial status of the program/division must reflect 100%

self-sufficient funding and be in a surplus condition.

2. The program/division must be projected to remain in a surplus condition for aminimum of 12 months after the incentive payment is made.


Appendix continued

3. The Ob-gyn Finance Division, through a standard departmental pro-forma profit andloss statement will determine compliance of the first two conditions.

4. The program/division must meet the currently required space recovery figure as setforth by BWH Research Administration.

Incentive Payment Calculation:The dollar amount of the incentive payment will be based on several factors:

1. The source of funds available to cover the incentive will be either program/divisionendowment expendable interest or other discretionary funds. Up to 75% of the unen-cumbered balance in the account is eligible for the final overall program/division incen-tive payment, henceforth referred to as “incentive payment-eligible funds.” Twenty-fivepercent of the unencumbered balance must remain in the account to cover futureprogram/division needs.

2. The incentive-payment-eligible-funds will be divided among the program/division’sfunded investigators. The division or lab director will determine individual incentivesbased on the total financial contribution to the program/division made by the indi-vidual. The incentive, may not exceed the percent of an individual’s grant funds (bothdirect and indirect) which contributed to the total program/division’s grant funding.The final incentive will be the lesser of the amount requested and the amount calculated(percent of total grant funds x 75% of unencumbered balance).

3. The incentive payment-eligible funds will be allocated consistent with the physicianincentive policy, which is as follows:

75% Individual investigator20% Overall program/division — to be used to support new research activities5% Department — to be invested in the Research & Education Foundation

Procedure:➯ Two months prior to fiscal year end, the program/division director must submit to the

chairman and executive director a written request for incentive payments.

➯ The amount of the incentive bonus must be approved by the chairman, the executivedirector and CFO of the foundation, as well as the clinical division director if theprogram/division is closely associated with a clinical division within the department.

➯ The requester will be informed of the approval in writing and a memo will be sent tothe BWH payroll office requesting that the incentive payments be included in the nextpaycheck.

➯ In keeping with Brigham & Women’s pay policy, incentives will be processed throughthe Brigham Payroll Department with all applicable taxes applied.

➯ The incentive will be paid one month after the end of the current fiscal year from whichthe incentive calculation is based. The fiscal year runs 1 October through 30 September.

➯ This policy and procedure will be reviewed annually by the Department of Obstetricsand Gynecology Research Strategic Planning Committee for applicability and relevance.



Passing on the Public Trust:A Case Study in ResearchAdministration Education

Edward F. Gabriele

AbstractIn the course of contemporary research history, research administration hasemerged as a senior level executive activity providing ethical, regulatory, legal, and

administrative leadership for sponsors, institutions, investigators, and staff. Topromote research administration as an executive career pathway, the Office of

Research Administration (ORA) at the Naval Medical Research Center created andsponsored a de novo curriculum in research administration and research ethics to

educate young scholars in the philosophical, legal, and sociological values and principlesthat under-gird the responsible conduct of research. This program is an important newpathway for promoting research administration as a senior level professional career. Itis under continual development and refinement for secondary school students andundergraduates.

Case Study

This article was developed from a paper presented at the October 2001 Annual Meeting of SRA Interna-tional,Vancouver, Canada. Colleagues who helped prepare the experience and original paper were Ms.Stephanie Gray, HM2 Jon Fletcher, USN, LT David Bacon, MSC, USNR, Dr. Adam McKee of the NavalMedical Research Center, and Ms. Mary Phillips, SEAP, The George Washington University,Washington, DCContact the latter about SEAP at 202-994-2234. Examples of the summer 2001 syllabus are available uponrequest. Disclaimer.The opinions reflected in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or of the U.S. government. Addresscorrespondence to Dr. Edward F. Gabriele, Director, Office of Research Administration & Human SubjectsProtections Program, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500. E-mail: [email protected]

IntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to present in

summary form the Research AdministrationCurriculum developed by the Office ofResearch Administration (ORA), Naval MedicalResearch Center (NMRC), for the Scienceand Engineering Apprentice Program (SEAP)of The George Washington University.

The paper will begin with a brief summaryof the historical foundation of the Office of

Research Administration (ORA) and consid-eration of the Science and EngineeringApprentice Program’s (SEAP) historical para-meters that provided the collaborative contextin which this unique curriculum was able toevolve. The paper will then reflect upon thefundamental paradigm, characteristics, andstructure of the curriculum itself as it was firstconceived and as it continues to develop. Afinal section will provide a closing considera-


human use, and coordination of other specialprograms on an ad hoc or emergent basis.Neither the Office of the Scientific Directornor the Office of the Scientific Administratorwere configured precisely as research adminis-tration subject area experts for the needs ofthe research community. Hence, the conceptof establishing a research administration officewas slow to emerge as a possible paradigm ormodel for future service. ORA, formed in1997, now has four overarching service areasnamely: (a) sponsored programs administra-tion, (b) human subject protections program,(c) electronic research administration andresearch archives administration, and (d)Research-Education Partnership Programcoordination.

The ORA-SEAP ResearchAdministration Curriculum

SEAP History In 1980, at the direction of the President,

the Department of Defense initiated a uniqueprogram for the promotion of science andengineering careers among the youth of thenation. This developed into a large andcomprehensive national program that becameknown as SEAP. It capitalized upon the expe-rience and assets of Department of the Navyand Department of the Army laboratories inthe Washington, DC area. Over time, SEAPdeveloped six major objectives. First, SEAPlooks to acquaint high school students withthe mission and purpose of Department ofDefense laboratory assets through summerapprenticeships in research and engineering.Second, SEAP provides young scholars withreal time exposures to science and engineeringprocesses in the laboratory context. Third, byallowing students the opportunity to experi-ence Department of Defense laboratory life,SEAP provides a fuller appreciation of thecontributions Department of Defense activi-ties make to the nation and to scholarship.Fourth, by providing students with actualapprenticeships, SEAP promotes science andengineering careers among the young. Fifth,by providing students with professional expe-riences that require personal responsibility,SEAP encourages students to become rolemodels for their peers. Sixth, SEAP reaches

tion upon the necessity, growth, and develop-ment of programs of enrichment for futuregenerations of research administrators.

Ultimately, this paper and the curriculumit summarizes are predicated upon a particularperspective on the nature of education itself.Far beyond the mere rote learning of facts andfigures, beyond the acquisition of skillshowever complex, education is essentially anact of leadership. Through personal example,through instruction, through experience, andthrough that critical form of reflection whichscholars call praxis, students are invited to beled out of darkness and into successive spacesand temporalities of enlightenment andresponsibility in the hope of real freedom,greater moral development, and that mostultimate of gifts, wisdom. None of these canbe achieved or entered into lightly or quickly.They take time, maturation, and ripening.Education is as much about the experience offormation as it is about learning information.The eight-week summer research administra-tion curriculum described in this case study isone attempt to shape and form future gener-ations of truly informed research administra-tors. However, this unique curriculum isperhaps symbolic of the maturing identity andappreciation of research administration as aprofessional service.

Research AdministrationFunctions

Until FY1993, NMRC research adminis-tration needs were served by the Office of theScientific Director. The emphasis was onscientific program development, the reviewand critique of project-specific experimentaldesigns, and the evaluation of scientificprogress especially in relationship to therequirements of higher authorities. Experi-menting with a wide variety of managementmodels, the Office of the Scientific Directorwas succeeded by the Office of the ScientificAdministrator. This movement was made inthe light of initiatives to delegate scientificdirection to subject area expert leaders in theorganization while maintaining for centralinstitutional authorities a coordinating func-tion for sponsor relations, support for partic-ular research program areas such as animal or


out particularly to underrepresented popula-tions to encourage academic excellence andopportunity where previously individuals hadno access to programs of enrichment in thesciences and engineering.

In general, the SEAP regimen is focusedupon high school students for summerapprenticeships. However, SEAP also encom-passes special programs for high schoolteachers themselves, for junior high schoolstudents, for select undergraduates, and formembers of previously underrepresentedpopulations. In addition, if participating indi-vidual institutions can provide additionalresources beyond the funds supporting thesummer high school program, summerstudents have the possibility of extending their scholarly experiences during the regularacademic year.

It is important to note that at the presenttime over 10,687 students have been enrolledin SEAP apprenticeships since 1980. SEAPstudents are engaged in these experiences in19 federal laboratories in the National CapitalRegion, 10 additional federal institutionsoutside the Washington, DC area, and at threenon-federal institutions of distinction. Buthow did this unique program become inter-twined with research administration andresearch ethics at ORA?

ORA Program Curriculum Development

In late 1998, there was a need to provideadditional SEAP apprenticeships for a greaterthan expected number of applicants. ORAleadership proposed the potential develop-ment of a unique, experimental, scholarlyapprenticeship for students in the area ofresearch administration, research ethics, andresearch support services. As a result of thiscollaboration, the first SEAP Research Admin-istration Curriculum was developed.

During the first summer of this newcurriculum, students were placed in distinctand separate departments/areas of explorationand service — sponsored programs administra-tion and research archives, intellectual propertyand technology transfer, human subject protec-tions, library and research information services,and research finance. In succeeding years, areasof exploration and service were limited. In2000 and 2001, these areas of exploration and

service were engaged largely as overlappingexperiences as opposed to distinct and separateareas of service in separate departments.

In 1998, 10 students were chosen forscholarly ORA apprenticeships; in 1999, four;in 2000, two. Between 1998 and 2000, dueto an unexpected availability of intramuralresources, two students continued theirsummer scholar experiences during theregular academic year. In 2001, three studentswere interviewed and offered scholarlyapprenticeships in research ethics and researchadministration. As a result of an additionalrequest, these students were joined by anAmerican Red Cross undergraduate volunteerexploring research ethics and human subject’sprotections theory and policy.

This unique application of the SEAP expe-rience to research administration and researchethics in the Naval medical research and devel-opment context quickly became the subject ofcommendation from higher authorities. In1999, the ORA-SEAP research administrationcurriculum (hereafter called the curriculum)received a commendation from The GeorgeWashington University and the Office of theSurgeon General of the Navy for its innova-tion and its outreach to young scholars in anarea of intellectual and professional expertisenever before explored.

The curriculum has become an integralpart of the ORA Research-Education Part-nerships Program. As the curriculum growsand develops, ORA leadership is looking tothe potential augmentation of its curriculumby incorporating internships and clerkships for post-secondary students and also byexploring possible summer internships forsecondary school teachers who would like toinvestigate the role of ethics and administra-tion in the processes of scientific and engi-neering research.

Paradigm and Structure of the Curriculum

The formation of the curriculum wasbased upon a series of particular assumptionsand foundations. Above all, the curriculum isbased upon a paradigm of interactional educa-tion in which there is a dynamic interrelation-ship between academic, experiential, andintegrational learning. To maintain theintegrity of this paradigm, ORA staff members


adopted three key characteristics upon whichthe components of the curriculum would befounded.

In the first instance, it was judged essentialthat the academic scholarship basis of theSEAP experience be of paramount impor-tance. In each year of curriculum implemen-tation, this has been a key component for staffand leadership. The experience must be clearlyeducational and not a work-study program. Inthe second instance, staff acknowledged thatthe incorporation of academic learning withinprofessional daily service be of equal impor-tance. Therefore, leadership and staff workedclosely to develop experiential contexts forstudent projects that were realistic for eachstudent’s level of learning and directly relatedto the academic components of the summerexperience. It was critically important thatstudent projects and experiences address thestudent’s level of learning and academicenthusiasm, while inviting students to exceedpresent levels and move to greater knowledgeand acquiring of skills, values, behaviors, andattitudes as maturing persons of intellect andpromise. In the third and final instance, staffconsidered it to be critically important thatstudents be invited to integrate academiclearning with experiential learning in a seriesof exercises and final projects that would meetgeneral SEAP requirements but also result in demonstrable opportunities for success,personal growth, and achievement.

With these three assumptions as a firmfoundation, the curriculum matured over timeinto a three-fold system of learning for studentscholars. Through directed readings, lectures,field trips, daily projects, research papers,abstract/poster preparations, and weekly jour-nals, student learning was developed as anintertwining of three critical components: (a)information, (b) formation, and (c) integra-tion. The student learning goals from 2001are in the appendix.

Information. Academic learning isimparted through a lecture series from stafffaculty members. Lectures include areas suchas the history of Navy medicine, sponsoredprograms, research financing, human subjectsprotections, animal welfare issues, intellectualproperty, technology transfer, and generalconsiderations regarding the culture ofresearch. Information is further imparted

through required weekly reading periods,weekly literature seminars and weekly writingseminars in preparation for student researchpapers. Information opportunities areaugmented by field trips to local sites chosenin connection with student research projects,e.g., the Holocaust Museum, the NationalMuseum of Health and Medicine, and theBureau of Medicine and Surgery, Departmentof the Navy.

Formation. Each student is responsible forprofessional service in appropriate projectsaccomplished under staff member leadership.Projects change with each year. Examples ofsuch projects include updates to sponsoredprograms information systems, updates tohuman use protocol dbase systems, atten-dance at and assistance with IRB meetingproceedings, high speed document scanningfor the ORA e-archives project, etc. Eachstudent works with a senior member of thestaff and has his/her work evaluated by thesame. In addition, students are required tomaintain a daily work journal of activities thatincludes personal reflections on one’s learningexperiences.

Integration. To fulfill SEAP and ORArequirements, students are directed in thepreparation of a 10-page research paper on anassigned topic, the preparation of abstracts/posters for university presentation, and thekeeping of the weekly apprentice journal.Students engage the ORA Director in aweekly process group meeting to assess andexplore experiences and progress. In 2001, inaddition to the program requirement of indi-vidual abstracts/posters, students additionallyprepared a joint abstract/poster on the topicof research ethics and human subjects protec-tions. This additional abstract/poster wasscheduled for presentation at the university orthe SEAP closing ceremonies and also for theannual meeting of the Society of ResearchAdministrators 14-17 October 2001. Thesubmission of this poster for the AnnualMeeting of SRA was a distinctly new accom-plishment for students and for the curriculumitself. The abstract/poster was prepared underthe supervision of two department membersand the undergraduate intern who werenamed as co-authors and who ensured thatstudent participation in this effort met thelevels expected of a professional abstract/


poster presentation for publication.The paradigm, characteristics, and compo-

nents of the curriculum have proven thus farto be a challenging and successful experiencefor students and staff. While the curriculumitself has posed particular challenges to staff,resources, and logistics, the overall experiencehas provided growth and development notonly to student-scholars but also to staff asthey continue to refine and evolve their self-understanding as research administrators.

The curriculum has also been successful asa particular adaptation of the SEAP experiencebeyond the normally expected parameters ofthe laboratory. Students have gained a widerappreciation that science does not just happenbut that it requires the challenges of insight,oversight, and compliance. Therefore, thecurriculum fleshes out the scientific experiencein a way that presents the world of the labora-tory from the perspective of the regulatoryand administrative panorama and not justfrom the localized view under the microscope.

Conclusion: Passing on the Public Trust

The identity of research administration asa professional service has changed and evolvedgreatly over time. In the last half-century,research administrators have grown frombeing clerical assistants, to middle manage-ment administrators, to financial policyexperts, to regulatory compliance overseers,to marketing and development officers. Inessence, the identity of the research adminis-trator and the definition of research adminis-

tration have grown and evolved as rapidly ashas the act of research itself. Ultimately, it isclear that research administration is an act ofstewardship, a form of enabling insight andindustry within a context of academic andprofessional integrity. But how is this identityfostered? How is it passed on? How willresearch administration remain a vital andproactive force within the communities ofinquiry that are the contexts of researchwithin which we serve?

In our society, education serves a wide andfar-reaching variety of purposes, not the leastof which is to pass on our legacy to futuregenerations. Research administrators have aparticular role in protecting and stewardingthe hopes of those who invest in research. And that certainly is far different than mostresearch administrators probably ever imag-ined possible. With this in mind, it is apparentthat programs of education in research admin-istration will flourish and grow and develop asresearch administrators become more andmore aware of and claim with greater knowl-edge our inherent leadership within theprocess of research. Our role is not just aboutresearch support services but the utter basis ofresearch that is found in insight, industry, andintegrity. For all of this, research administra-tors are ethical leaders whose oversight andstewardship brings depth, dedication, andgenius to the ethos (or fundamental character)of the research communities we serve. Withthis in mind, how then will we prepare thosewho must take our place so as to continue thegood that we do?


AppendixStudent goals. By the end of the SEAP Program, the student will be able to:

1. Articulate the nature of research administration and its importance for executive serviceof federally funded biomedical research efforts.

2. Identify the various constitutive parts of research administration service as it is evolvingwithin NMRC.

3. Define the term military relevance regarding DoD/DoN biomedical research anddiscuss the importance of military medical research to public health needs.

4. Define relevant ORA terminology, concepts, processes, needs, and issues. 5. Address in summary fashion relevant ORA governing principles. 6. Address the general importance and at least three specific applications of computer

technology in the development of electronic research administration.7. Identify and explain four important general concepts of executive management in the

professional work place.8. Discuss ORA-related career pathways and programs of study/certification.


Changing a Department’sOrganization Practically

OvernightKathleen F. Wiersema

AbstractWould your department benefit from an organizational change? How would youknow? How would you handle the change? What skills would you and your staff

need? This paper addresses these and other questions involved in managing change. It presents a case study of a small academic research department at a state university

that suddenly became a large research unit; it reviews the changes made and discussesthe lessons learned.

Case Study

This paper was first presented at the October 2001 Annual Meeting of the Society of Research Administra-tors International,Vancouver, CN. Address correspondence to Kathleen F. Wiersema, Research Adminis-trator, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, 2181 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742, E-mail:[email protected]

IntroductionThe competition for resources at a state-

supported university campus is often severeand the scarcity of extra funds required for thereorganization of a department can preventmeaningful change. Weick (1999) argues thatthere are two basic kinds of change—episodicand continuous. Most organizations respondto pressures from outside in an episodicmanner. They respond to each pressure or toan accumulation of events by tinkering withthe basic organizational structure. Organiza-tional structure for the purposes of this paperincludes the kind of structure that might bereflected in an organizational chart, how deci-sion-making authority is used, the type oftasks assigned to staff members, and the levelof accountability.

Wholesale change in a work environmentis daunting to most people. Concerns aboutjob loss, loss of prestige, new responsibilities,less control, less freedom of action, and so on,

are prevalent. Because many administratorshave these same concerns, it takes a certainamount of courage for them to recognize andacknowledge the need for an overall change,let alone to initiate and manage one with itsinherent confusion and stress noted Feldman(1999).

Tinkering, or making minor changes inpolicy and procedure, is often used because itis less threatening and does not require aparticularly high level of tolerance for ambi-guity by the staff. However, while suchtinkering may result in short-term improve-ment, the department or organization mayrevert to prior practices and it may takerepeated efforts to formalize the changes.How well an organization responds to therapidly shifting environment of fundingrequirements, government regulations, anduniversity requirements determines howsuccessful it will be in the long run. The ability


administration, with its crisis-like approach,prevented the chair from planning for thefuture needs of the department.

The chair recognized the need for a highlyqualified person to manage the administrationof the department. The person he chose hadskills in system design as well as research andcomputer skills. He made it clear to the facultyand staff that this individual had his highestconfidence. The first thing this administratordid was to facilitate a staff review of theresources of the department and prepare aneeds assessment. As expected, there was toolittle space, too much work, and an inefficientadministrative system. They reviewed thevarious actions and procedures used by thestaff to meet the day-to-day demands anddecided which ones could be handled moreefficiently or eliminated. Position descriptionswere modified as much as possible to coun-terbalance the realities of working in a stateemployment system with its history of lowsalary and perhaps limited skill levels. As aresult, though greatly enhanced, the positiondescriptions still relied heavily on performinga specialized group of tasks representative of aclosed system rather than the multi-skilled andmore fluid style of an open system.

Next, the skills and abilities of the staffwere reviewed to determine if each individualwould be able to function in a proposed ormodified position most similar to the one theyheld or if their skills could be better used tosupport other activities. Those who wereunqualified to take on the redesigned jobdescriptions were offered skills training. Basedon this assessment, the team now had clearlydefined ideas as to the qualifications neededwhen they sought to augment the existingstaff.

The depar tment was exper ienc ingincreased computer support demands becauseof the number of new research staff and theexceptionally large data sets used in researchprojects. The available support systems oncampus were not equal to the task and wereunresponsive to the changing needs due, inpart, to the reality of the state-based employ-ment system. For example, frequent computercrashes severely hampered productivity andincreased the stress of research staff, adminis-trators, and faculty.

Thus, the next hurdle was financial. How

to respond to change is a crucial element inthe effectiveness of an organization.

Many academic research departmentsdeveloped as closed systems. In the past,departments may have had minimal need torespond and interact with outside entitiesbecause regulations and policies were clearand did not change often. Occasionally, theuniversity might require some paperwork, butthe university, too, was primarily a closedsystem, responding to regular interactivedemands of the sponsoring agency (state).

Today, the world of academia is different.Departments now experience increased inter-actions with the university and the researchand political communities at large, especiallyin federal compliance issues. It has become, bythe impetus of forces on the outside, an openorganization. However, to its detriment, itmay still try to function as a closed one,tinkering with change. The results areincreased staff stress and turnover, potentialloss of funds, decreased student enrollmentsand other negative effects on the unit’s overallhealth. It is not prepared to respond effec-tively and efficiently to change and changingdemands. When tinkering does not providesustained improvement in morale, taskhandling and reduction of stress, it is time toconsider making a wholesale change in theorganizational structure.

The Case The Department of Geography at the

University of Maryland received approxi-mately $4.5M in research funding in 1996,the average level of income for several years.In 1997, the research income grew to $12Mand by 1998 it was $22M! This increasedactivity resulted in stress on the administrativestaff that was manifested in low morale and anoverall sense of crisis. In the space of a fewyears, a somewhat slumbering departmentdiscovered that it was now moving aheadrapidly—not only ahead of other departmentsin the field but ahead of what the college anduniversity expected and were ready to support.

At this time, all decisions at the academic,administrative, and research level were madeby the department chair. This approach istypical in departments and is a symptom of aclosed system. The minutia of the day-to-day


were they to fund the necessary space andfacilities, hire new staff, and support on-sitecomputer expertise? How were they to find orcreate space that had become even morenecessary as one of the new research projectsrequired extensive institutional commitmentto provide space for a 24/7 satellite-moni-toring center?

The dean and other administrators withinthe university were solicited for their mone-tary support for the necessary renovationsand, in some cases, the necessary salarysupport for new staff. They were generallysuccessful in convincing the various units tosupport the necessary changes. One of themore difficult tasks was to gain approval fromthe university hierarchy to create a cost poolfor departmental computer support expenses.All salary, hardware, supply, and maintenancecosts for computer support are charged to acost account. The cost pool provides a moreaccurate picture of the cost of providing thecomputer support service to the projects andthe department.

This expense is a fixed cost required in everyresearch proposal budget and set aside in thedepartment’s administration budget. As thedepartmental computer network was established,support levels for equipment and software in thedepartment were established and this reduced theproblems associated with incompatible or special-ized equipment and software. The director ofadministration oversaw the implementationsand/or upgrades. As a former researcher, this indi-vidual was familiar with the needs of the researchersand was able to prioritize the expenditures andchanges for more immediate improvement.

ChangeWhile the overall reorganization was being

implemented and positions were being re-assigned, the strain of the increasing numberof tasks and changes and new opportunitiesoutside the unit led some administrators tolook for positions they felt would use theirskills more effectively. The new openings thenprovided an opportunity to hire personnelwith the skills necessary for handling theworkload and the complexity of managing alarge research department.

The reorganization means that eightDepartment of Geography FTEs—Director of

Administration, Research Administrator,Personnel/Payroll Administrator, 3⁄4 timeAccounting Assistant, an Assistant to theChair, Receptionist, full-time Advisor Consul-tant, part-time Student Assistant, andcomputer support personnel, can handle thepayroll activity for 150-plus personnel,including foreign visa applications, 60-75active accounts, and the academic, research,and administrative purchases totalingapproximately $5M/year, as well as providingall the maintenance of a computer network forover 100 users.

The New or Reorganized Staff Positions

The changes made in the staff positions inthe Department of Geography follow:

1. A Personnel/Payroll Manager handlesthe appointments, payroll, and visaissues for the 150 plus persons workingin the department.

2. The scope of work for the part-timeAccounting Assistant was narrowed byremoving payroll-related activities. Themain tasks now include reconciling the65 or more shadow accounts with theuniversity accounts each month, veri-fying invoices, working with thecontractors to modify the physicalspace, monitoring and reallocating thecomputer support costs, and main-taining the inventory.

3. A part-time Student Assistant encum-bers proposed purchases in the shadowsystem, prepares the necessarypurchasing paperwork, reviews travelexpense statements, and helps withproposal package preparation

4. The Receptionist, in addition to thenormal tasks of such a position, isassigned the responsibility for orderingsupplies, maintaining a departmentinventory of basic office supplies, main-taining the copier and fax machines andreceiving, verifying, and distributingordered items. With the advent of aprocurement card system at the univer-sity, the Receptionist is also responsiblefor making and accounting for suchpurchases.


5. The traditional role of the chair’s secre-tary was modified. In addition to theadministrative support the Administra-tive Assistant provides the Chair, thisindividual also oversees the searchprocesses for new faculty and staff. Inaddition, the position provides orienta-tion to new employees, preparesemployment contracts, and obtains allnecessary departmental approvals andsignatures.

6. Partial financial support from the deanand other campus units allowed thehiring of an experienced ResearchAdministrator. The Research Adminis-trator oversees the activities for 50-75active accounts in addition to over-seeing the preparation and review ofresearch proposals. This individual isalso the compliance and audit monitor,and reviews and approves all expendi-tures for the department. Additionally,the position supports the Director ofAdministrative Services and the Chair.

7. Another innovation was the creation ofthe position of Advisor Consultant tohandle all of the day-to-day bureau-cratic requirements of academic admin-istration. The Advisor Consultant dealswith such tasks as class schedules,review of academic records, andworking with students to help themthrough the web of administrativerequirements. Having a person dedi-cated to meeting institutionallyimposed deadlines and assistingstudents in need has increased the unit’sefficiency.

8. Each large research project/unit desig-nated a researcher, some of which haveprocurement and budgetary authorityfor the projects in that unit, who acts as the point of contact for all thepersonnel within that unit. This reducesthe number of contacts by administra-tive staff to obtain necessary reportsand forms and to inform staff ofchanges in the administrative proce-dures.

Procedural ChangesThe reorganizing of the staff responsibili-

ties alone would not have resulted in thebenefits observable in the departmental oper-ations today. It relies heavily on the use oftechnology because the quasi-closed systemwould not have had the flexibility to meet theneeds the open system can address.

The department has a web page and, in asecured area, available only to departmentpersonnel, are forms found in the appendix.

All new faculty members are required toattend an instructional seminar, facilitated bythe Research Administrator, that deals withpreparing proposals and managing researchprojects. The seminar must be attended beforethe Chair will approve a new PI’s proposal.Each new researcher with budgetary orprocurement authority is also required toattend the seminar. These two things havereduced the number of errors in proposals andthe number of interactions required to explainprocedures and policies.

ConclusionsThere was indeed some resistance by both

administrative staff and researchers to partici-pating in the changes. Some expressed anger.A few people accepted positions outside theunit. Some of those who remained werecautious about the new procedures and wereinitially unhappy. However, as a team spiritwas created and they continued to worktogether the unease abated. Willingness totake on new tasks and to handle them well arerewarded verbally and, in some cases, mone-tarily. In the early days of the process it wasnecessary to have frequent meetings with thevarious constituencies in the department to besure that all views and needs were addressed.Sometimes, a change required intensive inter-actions but, as time went on, less and lesshands-on instruction was required. Someresearchers have refused to fully participate inthe procurement and travel request proce-dures and continue to present difficulties tothe administrative staff. However, becausethere are far fewer actions such as this, theyhave less of an impact on the task effectivenessof the staff.

The Director of Administration, theResearch Administrator, and the Chair


continue to build on their working relation-ship with regular weekly meetings that addressareas of concern. The sessions provide anopportunity to look at the potential impact ofnew projects and personnel and to makeadjustments in resource allocation and staffresponsibilities to meet future needs.

This new decision-making process hasresulted in a generalized acceptance of thechanges. As the effectiveness of the earlychanges became evident, all later changes wereaccepted with little or no agitation or stress.Change continues day-to-day in the unit andeven those staff members who were uncom-fortable with the original set of changes havebecome active partners in suggesting possiblealterations in procedure and policy. A biweeklymeeting of all the administrative team servesfor disseminating new information andobtaining suggestions for improvement. Thereputation of the department administrativeteam is high both on and off the campus.Frequently, the staff members who stayedthrough the changes are amazed how much

more they are able to get done and how littlestress they now experience. They have ashared understanding of each person’s contri-bution to the overall effectiveness of thedepartment.

ReferencesCaroli, E., & Van Reenen, J. (2001). Skill

based organizational change? Evidencefrom a panel of British and French estab-lishments. Quarterly Journal of Economics,116 (4), 1449-1492.

Feldman, K. (1999). Explaining the role ofstrategy development in planning forchange. Retrieved 11 December 2001from www.changeperform.com.au

Malhotra, Y. (1993). The role of informationtechnology in managing organizationalchange and organizational interdepen-dence. Working paper of the Brint Institute. Retrieved 7 July 2001 fromwww.brint.com/papers/change.

Perlman, D., & Takacs, G.J. (1990). The 10stages of change. Nursing Management,21 (4) 33-38.

AppendixTravel Request Form. The form asks for all the information necessary to obtain autho-

rization to expend funds on travel. Each traveler can access a form that is automaticallyprogrammed to be sent to the Director of Administration and the Research Administrator.Travel approvals within the department usually take less than a day, and most often only afew hours.

Expense Report Form. The traveler prepares this online form, prints and signs it andgives it, along with the necessary receipts, to the department administrative office forreview and approval. The system is designed so that, if the form is submitted to the traveloffice on time, the reimbursement will appear in the next biweekly paycheck

Supply Request Form. The department Receptionist maintains a limited supply of officeproducts. The supply request form, prepared by the requestor, is sent electronically to thereceptionist who fills the request for the staff member. The expenses are charged either tothe F&A returned to the department or to the teaching support funds set-aside for facultymembers. Each PI is also allocated a given amount of F&A return each fiscal year by theResearch Administrator based on PI’s amount of research activity. The supply requests areusually filled within a day.

Procurement Request Form. This is used to request outside service or the purchase ofitems not maintained in the department supply closet. Once the requestor has completedthe electronic form it is automatically sent to the Research Administrator, who reviews itfor appropriateness and reasonableness. Upon approval, it is sent to the part-time Student Assistant who completes processing. The result is a huge increase in efficiency becausenone of the forms can be transmitted unless all the necessary information has been entered.There is little need to contact the requestor for follow-up information.


Appendix continuedThe Research Administrator, soon after assuming the position, recognized that the

shadow system used by the department and the researchers (Excel spreadsheets, hand enteredand reconciled by the Accounting Assistant) was inadequate. The new commercial shadowaccounting system allowed the creation of expense codes that either matched the university’schart of accounts or additional ones when the university codes were too limited, (i.e., soft-ware maintenance, data set procurement, research materials that are useful to track).

This electronic procurement form also contains the most frequently used expense codesin a drop down box so the requestor can designate where in the project budget the specificexpense will appear. The student assistant uses the special code for the shadow system andwhen necessary, uses a code from a prepared crosswalk that compares the departmentallycreated codes with the existing university codes so the procurement paperwork is accept-able to the university system. This has almost eliminated questions from PIs about expensesthat appear on their monthly reports in categories they do not recognize.

Budget Template Forms. To further enhance the correspondence between the proposalbudget and the allocation of expenses, a Budget Template was created on an Excel spread-sheet. It is based on the same expense codes in categories expected by the sponsor andcontains formulas that automatically increase the costs from year to year. It also calculatesfringe benefits based on university-established percentages and is programmed to adjust thedirect costs by items that are F&A exempt, calculate the F&A, and prepare a budgetsummary. Thus, when the funds arrive, the proposal budget is entered into the shadowsystem using the same codes.

The Budget Template is maintained on the Web page, along with all of the standardforms required to prepare and route a proposal with concise explanations of how tocomplete them. A BUDGET JUSTIFICATION TEMPLATE is also available. Since theintroduction of the two templates, increased consistency across proposals speeds review atall levels and helps to sustain an audit.

Personnel Forms. Forms for appointing and terminating employees, as well as one forrequesting modifications to the source of the support and percentages of effort arecompleted by the PI and then forwarded to the administrative office, reviewed by theResearch Administrator and, in the case of new hires, by the Director of Administration.The responsibility of the latter is to review for departmental equity in the requested salarylevel. The Separation/Termination Form directs whether to terminate these rights and atwhat time. The Personnel Manager undertakes no personnel action without one of theseforms appropriately completed and signed, and the salary encumbrances in the shadowsystem are modified based on the change forms.

Electronic Requests. Requests for assistance from the administrative staff for computerproblems or for information are sent via an electronic request system. The request isprepared and sent automatically to the Receptionist who forwards it to the person mostqualified to help. The help system is monitored and when a number of requests fall intothe same category, the standard policy or procedure may be modified to reduce the numberof requests.

Weick, K.E. (1999). Organizational changeand development. Annual Review ofPsychology. 50, 361-386.

General Background ReferencesDougherty, A.M. (1990). Consultation: prac-

tices and perspectives. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks\Cole Publishing Co.

Gallessich, J. (1988). The profession and prac-tice of consultation. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Publishers.


Commentary

The impetus for this article was a presentation to the March 2000, AASCU Grant Resource Center (GRC)Spring Meeting.The content has been substantially revised and expanded. In addition, the content of aportion of this article (less than one-third) was published in the SRA Newsletter, June/July, 2000 as Beyond the Freedom of Information Act:What Is Your Responsibility? Contact the commentators at the followingaddresses. Daniel T. Riggle, MA, Senior Program Associate, Grants Resource Center, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1307 New York Avenue, Fifth Floor,Washington, DC 20005-4701.Phone: 202/293-7070. E-mail: [email protected]. Peggy F. Harrel, PhD, Director, Graduate Studies and Spon-sored Research, University of Southern Indiana, 8600 University Boulevard, Evansville, Indiana 47712-3596.Phone: 812/465-7015. E-mail: [email protected]

FOIA and SponsoredPrograms Administration

Daniel T. Riggle and Peggy F. Harrel

AbstractBorn in 1966 in controversy over the idea of making accessible the federal govern-ment’s once closed records, the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, along withthe Privacy Act, makes possible the disclosure of information such as that containedin funded proposals and encourages a more open exchange of information insideand outside of the government by protecting citizens’ privacy. Research adminis-

trators (RAs) are involved daily with various aspects of this legislation and yet have limited knowledge about its potential importance to their work. We assume

the public has the right to information, but we must not forget that investigators alsohave the right to privacy. RAs must act responsibly and ethically toward handling infor-mation available in funded proposals and not make information available that mightendanger principal investigators (PIs). The rapid development of the World Wide Webis changing access to funded proposals. It will also affect the FOIA and the issuessurrounding it, as well as how information exchange evolves inside and outside of thefederal government.

edge about its implementation and poten-tial vulnerability.

The Case for FOIAWhen President Lyndon Johnson signed

the FOIA into law in 1966, the enactmentculminated a 12-year battle to determinewhether the executive or legislative branch ofthe government would control access topublic records (McMasters, 1996). BetweenJune of 1964 and October of 1965, govern-

IntroductionThe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

viewed by some people today as a methodicaland even burdensome means for gainingaccess to previously unavailable informationand records, was born in controversy over thenotion of opening up the federal govern-ment’s once closed record keeping andsharing process. Research administrators(RAs) are involved daily with various aspectsof this legislation and yet have limited knowl-


ment officials actively resisted the proposedopenness to records. In fact, Johnson’s ownpress secretary, Bill Moyers, publicly criticizedthe bill and its implications for looseninggovernmental control over sensitive infor-mation. Due to the ongoing controversysurrounding FOIA (McMasters), it is notsurprising that President Johnson signed thebill at the LBJ Ranch, on the last day before amandatory veto would have occurred—without publicity, without even a press confer-ence, and without the distribution ofceremonial pens.

Even after the bill became law, the resis-tance continued. It was not until 1974, whenthe Act was first amended, that FOIA beganto work as initially intended. The 1974amendments provided that any person has aright to request and gain access to govern-ment records and information, except wherethose records are protected by nine exemp-tions pertaining to the following: (a) mattersof national security, (b) internal agency rules,(c) that which is governed by other statutessuch as the Income Tax Code, (d) businessinformation (such as trade secrets, commer-cial/financial information, and formulas), (e) internal government memos, (f) privatematters [anything that would lead to any inva-sion of privacy, as protected under the PrivacyAct of 1974], (g) law-enforcement investiga-tions, (h) regulation of financial institutions,and (i) oil wells.

It is noted, however, according to theReporters Committee for Freedom of thePress (RCFP), that “...[e]xcept for the statutory exemption [exemption c], theseexemptions, for the most part, are not manda-tory—which means that the government ispermitted, but not required, to withhold theinformation. Even if records fall within thesecategories, they still can be released at thegovernment’s discretion. This is particularlytrue if [one] can show that disclosure wouldbe ‘in the public interest’... .” In addition,RCFP explains that “...even though portionsof a requested document may be covered byan exemption, the [FOIA] requires thegovernment agency to release the remainderof the document or file after the exempt mate-rial has been edited out ....” (Daugherty,1998, p. 16).

For those working with federally funded

proposals and those who request the informa-tion within them, the important exemptionsare those for business information and privatematters. These exceptions pertain to requestsfor proposals for contract work with theDepartment of Defense, which could entailmatters of national security (exemption a),activities conducted by businesses or corpora-tions (or even such organizations as institu-tions of higher education) that might involvetrade secrets (exemption d), or geologicalresearch that might reveal the location of oilwells (exemption i).

The 1974 amendments also included thestipulation that the government must respondto requests within 10 working days of the dateof the request. This was later extended to 20days under the Electronic FOIA amendmentsof 1996. In addition, the 1974 amendmentsmake clear that private organizations and busi-nesses need not release information to thepublic, whether or not that information issubmitted to the federal government;however, information submitted to thegovernment by an organization, and thisincludes private corporations, state/localgovernment entities, and nonprofit organiza-tions, including institutions of higher educa-tion (say, via a proposal for funding) must bemade available to a requester through FOIA,provided the information is not protectedunder the exemptions.

Under the 1996 Electronic FOIA amend-ments, government agencies must makepublicly available any records created after 1 November 1996 via computer/telecommu-nications or other electronic means by 31 December 1999. (NEH, 2001) The 1996amendments also direct agencies to furnishmaterials or guidelines for requesting infor-mation and to include an index of all information systems, a description of majorinformation and locator systems maintainedby the agency, as well as a handbook on howto obtain information from the agency.

Traditionally, requests for informationunder FOIA and responses to those requestsare delivered through the U.S. mail. If afederal agency has the capacity and agrees todo so, it will accept requests via facsimile.Although it is not standard practice across thefederal government, the National Endowmentfor the Humanities (NEH) provides electronic


FOIA forms and accepts electronic requestsfor information under the Act (McMasters).In addition, the National Science Founda-tion’s (NSF) Cultural Anthropology Programhas posted full-text copies of sample funded-proposals for a number of years. According toStuart Plattner, NSF Program Director for theCultural Anthropology Program, the sampleproposals are dissertation assistance awards,which are available with full permission of theinvestigators to be used as an educational toolfor prospective applicants for future disserta-tion awards. Plattner said the hope is that theprogram receives the best possible proposalsin the future, and that these sample awardsprovide models for doctoral students who willapproach the program in the future. Heknows of no other NSF program engaged inthis activity, nor has he ever been approachedby anyone from the research administrationcommunity regarding this practice. NEH andNSF appear to be exceptions to the rule inoffering electronic request capacity and accessto funded proposals, even on a limited basis.

According to the Society of ProfessionalJournalists (SPJ), some changes introducedunder the 1996 Electronic FOIA amend-ments raise concerns regarding privacy andaccess to information. Advocates for universalaccess to information argue that the govern-ment should make more information availableelectronically. However, those stressing acautious approach believe that rapid changesin the direction of quicker, or universal, accesscould lead to increased litigation over viola-tions of the Privacy Act.

Because of the pressures already placed onagency staff to release the information rapidlyand the disincentives to do so because ofpossible legal backlash from third partiesrequesting the information, agency personnelmay consider circumventing FOIA require-ments. SPJ maintains that there are currentlyfew incentives for government employees torelease information, especially to do so quickly,but there are potentially severe penalties forreleasing sensitive or protected information.Also, agency staff, under pressure, could beginto release information, electronically or other-wise, without taking appropriate safeguards.

Citizen information-seekers can abuse theprivilege of having access to information bynot adhering to the spirit of FOIA when

seeking the information from other sources.Circumvention leads to greater liability forPrivacy Act (PA) infringement. PA-circum-vention-of-FOIA comes in the form ofrequesting copies of funded proposals fromsuccessful principal investigators (PIs) withoutprotecting and carelessly disseminating theinformation received. Carelessness can sabo-tage the process by which future researchersor RAs can request information fromsuccessful PIs, as word of the carelessness andits effects circulates through the scholarlycommunity and successful PIs become waryof sharing the results of their work.

Ironically, FOIA’s popularity, based on itsinitial appeal to the general public throughgovernmental openness, now may be fuelingdiscussions that FOIA should become lessfreely applicable—all of this while the 1996Electronic FOIA would appear to open up theagencies to an unprecedented degree. What,then, should the RA keep in mind inapproaching FOIA and issues related to theletter of the law and its intent?

What This Means for RAsRAs are involved often with various aspects

of this legislation and may have limitedknowledge about its implementation andvulnerability. For example, when RAs trainnovice grant-seekers how to apply for grants,potential investigators may ask for an exampleof a funded proposal to help them envisionthe end product. RAs also find copies offunded proposals useful as models to organizea proposal, to follow the complicated andapparently conflicting directions in theprogram guidelines, or to construct internallyconsistent selected standard proposal parts.Examples of funded proposals serve a varietyof uses for RAs, but finding good examplesappropriate for the situation is difficult.Usually when RAs cannot find what they wantin their own files, they seek copies from othersources.

RAs have several options for sources, theycould: (a) request a copy from the fundingagency, (b) contact a successful PI directly, or(c) contact a colleague in the PI’s SponsoredResearch Of f ice to request a sample.Obtaining a copy directly from the federalagency requires knowing how to ask, which


means knowing how to use FOIA. Asmentioned earlier, each agency must makeguidance available on how to request infor-mation under FOIA. To obtain a particularfunded proposal, the requestor contacts theawarding agency and specifies which proposalis desired.

For all persons involved in research admin-istration, the greatest obstacle to FOIA is the6- to 8-week (or more) delay between submit-ting a request and receiving a copy of a fundedproposal. It is one thing for government tofulfill the requirements of FOIA byresponding to a request within 20 workingdays and another to fulfill the request.

Although the length of time involved inprocessing FOIA requests encourages RAs tocircumvent the FOIA process in obtainingfunded proposals, the Act does, as shownabove, fulfill a noble promise. Along with thePrivacy Act, FOIA makes possible the disclo-sure of information in funded proposals andencourages an open exchange of informationinside and outside of the government whileprotecting citizens’ privacy. Far too frequentlyRAs do not take the time to consider the rightto privacy of the PI whose proposal is beingdistributed. For example, RAs should askthemselves how often they have seen or evenused sample proposals and share un-sanitizedproposals with personal data remaining on thesample. Data such as the PI’s social securitynumber, address, and salary are often includedin the proposal. Occasionally private informa-tion of other contributors is also stated. Riskexists to disseminate such private informationbroadly and indiscriminately.

As careful as RAs are about ensuring thesecurity of their own personal data, it is impor-tant they be equally concerned about broad-casting a PI’s personal data to completestrangers with no control over who will haveaccess to this information in the future. Of allpersons within the grants enterprise, RAs arein the best position to ensure that personalinformation is not distributed during the useof funded proposals, no matter how thoseproposals are obtained. With this foreknowl-edge of risk, it is the RAs’ responsibility toprotect the data and the PI and to observe thespirit, if not the letter, of the FOIA and thePrivacy Act.

RecommendationsThe following are some steps recom-

mended for RAs to ensure the privacy of theindividuals involved in a funded project, aswell as to protect any proprietary informationthat might be contained in the proposal. First,upon identifying a funded proposal that an RAwishes to obtain, secure the PI’s permission touse this funded proposal. By contacting theresearch office at the PI’s institution, one canrequest permission from the institution ordirectly from the PI. In either case, it is impor-tant for the PI to learn how the proposal willbe used. If the plan includes dissemination ata workshop or conference for a number ofresearchers or RAs, or if the proposal will beused repeatedly for a similar purpose, the PIcan determine, what if any, proprietary orpersonal information should be eliminated.Second, at a minimum, RAs should eliminatekey personal information from the proposal(social security number, address and phonenumbers, and the curriculum vitae). Anothersuggestion is how to delete or concealpersonal information. Rather than whiting itout with a coating of correction fluid over theprinted information, or blacking it out with apermanent ink marker, it is far more effectiveto first white out or black out the informationand then photocopy the page. In addition,RAs should also stamp an identifier on pagesthroughout every proposal they distribute toensure that responsible dissemination can betracked.

While these protective measures take bothtime and effort, the responsibility to protectthe personal information is clear. Expecting noless care in the use of their own personal infor-mation, recalling the profound example of theFOIA, and recognizing the fragile aspects ofits continued existence, RAs are in a uniqueposition to support the spirit and implemen-tation of the Act.

The Future of FOIAThe development of the World Wide Web

has the potential for changing access tofunded proposals. Recently, The Grantsman-ship Center, Inc., a for-profit grants assistanceorganization, began to offer funded proposalsfor a fee as a part of its Web-based operations.


The company holds over 100 proposals in thearea of postsecondary education alone,covering only the Departments of Educationand Health and Human Services. So far, theGrantsmanship Center’s service appears to bethe only one of its kind, but, depending on itssuccess, it might be breaking new ground inthe field of electronic research administration.

With greater availability of Web-basedtechnology, as well as the potential appearanceof future fee-based operations to search forand find funded proposals, one wonders if PIswill be increasingly hesitant to share theirproposals (or at least to do so gratis). Simi-larly, it would be naïve to think that successfulPIs and their home institutions would univer-sally operate in an atmosphere of free andopen information exchange if it becameknown that others were profiting monetarilyfrom the information exchange. One mighteven wonder if the entire enterprise ofproviding funded proposals to prospective PIscould evolve into a fee-for-service exchange.

Recalling the pressures placed upon thegovernment to provide information underFOIA in a timely and legally appropriatemanner, one might ask if it is possible thatincreasing numbers of requests to successfulPIs for copies of funded proposals (themethod of circumventing FOIA) fromresearchers and RAs in the field will changethe nature of this exchange of information inways yet unconsidered. In addition, sinceFOIA is in some ways a fragile law, which hashad, and continues to have, detractors inCongress, is it also possible that if the govern-ment is unable to abide by FOIA without highcost to the taxpayer, some legislators mightattempt to weaken it or subvert it? How greata loss would this be to RAs or prospective PIs?And will changes to the system (or lack of asystem) of information exchange between asuccessful PI and a prospective PI force thoseseeking funded proposals to return to a moreexclusive reliance on FOIA, thereby increasing

the aforementioned pressure on the federalgovernment to abide by it?

Many of the logistical and philosophicalissues surrounding FOIA have been devel-oping since its inception and over a longperiod of time, while others are just nowemerging due to the competitive nature of thegrants process and rapid technological inno-vation. It will be worth watching the evolu-tion of FOIA and the issues surrounding it, asone also watches how information exchangeevolves inside and outside of the federalgovernment. In any case it is important thatRAs assure the privacy of the PI when gath-ering and disseminating personal and privateinformation.

ReferencesMcMasters, P. (1996). FOIA, It’s Always

There. Quill, 84(8), 10-12.Feinberg, L. (1996). The Day LBJ Signed

FOIA. Quill, 84(8), 13-15.Daugherty, R. (Ed.). (1998). How to Use the

FOI Act (8th ed.). Arlington, VA: TheReporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The National Endowment for the Humani-ties. (22 May 2001). The Freedom of Information Act: A Guide to RequestingNEH Records. Retrieve from http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/foia/foia_gui.html

Plattner, S. Personal Communication 9 April2001.

National Science Foundation: Social, Behav-ioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate/Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Division. Cultural Anthropology ProposalSamples. (May 22, 2001). Retrieve fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/sbe/bcs/anthro/samples/start.htm

The Grantsmanship Center, Inc. (22 May2001). TGCI Winning Grant ProposalsOn- l i n e . Re t r i e v e f r om h t tp ://www.TGCIgrantproposals.com/index.htm


The Journal of Research Administration / Shop Talk Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 37

Benchmarking in SponsoredPrograms Administration:

Using the Web to Analyze Nationwide

Data Collection ResultsWilliam S. Kirby and Paul G. Waugaman

Shop Talk

This paper was originally part of a Contributing Paper presented at the October 2001 SRA InternationalAnnual Meeting in Vancouver, CN. The authors are employed by private firms with practice areas servingthe research enterprise. Correspondence about the project should be addressed to William S. Kirby, KPMGConsulting, Inc. or to Paul G.Waugaman,TCG, LLC. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

IntroductionThe Society of Research Administrators

International (SRA), the National Associationof College and University Business Officers(NACUBO), and the Higher Education Prac-tice of KPMG Consulting, Inc. have jointlyundertaken the development of a nationalbenchmarking program. This program hastwo purposes: (a) to provide participatinginstitutions tools for quantitative analysis oftheir activities and comparison data and (b) toprovide the sponsored programs admini-stration community with performance andpractice benchmarks to aid training and development programs.

Two rounds (FY 1998 and FY 2000) ofcomplete data collection focus on institutionalsponsored research competitiveness, adminis-trative efficiency, productivity, and organiza-tional practices. The resulting databaseincludes a nationwide sample of academic andnon-profit institutions, representing over 40%of total U.S. academic research expenditures.Data are available to participating institutionsusing a Web-based reporting and analysis tool.

This reporting system allows participants tocustomize and generate institution-specificpeer comparisons in a variety of tabular andgraphical formats. This brief describes themeasures and refers participant institutions to the Web page that allows them to make on-line comparisons.

Results from the FY 1998 and FY 2000national surveys are widely available. Visit theSRA International Benchmarking Web pageor the Research Management study area atwww.higheredbenchmarking.com.

The Need for Customized Reporting

As a result of experience gained during thefirst round of data collection and feedback, thestudy leaders moved to the World Wide Webto make the data collection process more effi-cient and to provide participants with moreflexibility and control over the reportingprocess. A powerful reporting tool is availablefor the study participants. The followingsections describe the data elements and illus-

38 Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 The Journal of Research Administration / Shop Talk

trate how the tool can be used to analyzecomparative data.

Data Elements and VariablesThe following sections describe the various

data elements, pre-defined variables, and pre-defined comparison groups in the system.Refer to the survey definitions for the descrip-tion of each element and its inclusions andexclusions. See Table 1 for key data defini-tions.

Indicators and Variables. The performanceindicators are organized around the fourthemes: (a) sustaining or enhancing sponsoredprojects activity and funding, (b) containingthe costs and improving the efficiency of spon-sored projects administration, (c) improvingadministrative services to faculty, and (d)maintaining and improving institutional andsponsor accountability. Table 2 lists the demo-graphic comparison groups for analysis.

Table 1Data Elements from the 2000 Benchmarking Survey

Data Element Data Definition

Sponsored Programs Staffing FTE staffing for the institution’s central sponsored programs administration including both pre-award and post-award financial management functions

Sponsored Programs Costs Direct operating budgets of the functions included in above

Workload Number of proposals and awards (competitive, as well as non-competitive), number of active projects, dollar value of active projects, number of funded PI’s

Research Staffing Total number of faculty FTEs eligible to participate in research and the number of principal investigators or co-PIs

Funding Expenditures from externally sponsored sources over the preceding five year period, identification of the top three sponsors, and a breakdown of one year’s awards by source of funds (Federal, State, Private)

Organization Organizational structure and reporting lines for sponsored programs administration (pre-award and post-award)

Decentralization Distribution of sponsored programs administration functions and responsibilities across different organizational units and levels

Table 2Available Demographic and Comparison Groups

Public Control

Private Control

Land Grant Institutions

Independent Research Institutes, including stand-alone Medical Schools

Institutions with Medical Schools

Minority Institutions

NSF Top 100 (Participating institutions that are among the top 100 in overall research and development expenditures) a

NSF Top 101-200 (Participating institutions that are among the institutions ranked from 101-200 in overall researchand development expenditures)

Self-selected peers Participants may construct a peer group of other participants

Source: a National Science Foundation (2000,Table B-32).


Examples of ResultsFigures 1 and 2 illustrate the types of

analyses that can be done using the Web-basedreporting tool. These examples wereproduced using data from the FY 1998 andearly data from the FY 2000 survey. The graphin the first figure plots a hypothetical partici-pant’s FY 1998 and FY 2000 data on thenumber of proposals submitted per 100faculty FTE reported for each year. Theparticipant shows higher performance thanthe mean values of all participants and also forcomparison groups of the NSF top-100universities in the sample.

The graph in the second figure plots directdata, not ratio measures. It compares theparticipant’s staffing levels in post-awardfinancial administration with the mean staffinglevels of other participants and in the NSFtop-100 comparison group. This slide shows arelatively large post-award financial adminis-tration staff compared to the means ofcomparison groups.

The FY 1998 survey yielded some inter-esting results with regard to competitivenessand cost and efficiency. Generally, the surveyresults confirmed the conventional wisdomthat sponsored research administration atlarger, more research-intensive institutionsappear to be more cost effective, havinggenerally higher median levels of proposalsand projects per sponsored program adminis-tration employee (FTE) or operating dollar.Since the survey did not address the issue ofdecentralized staff and cost, this is notsurprising.

However, the survey also showed that theso-called success rate (the ratio of proposalssubmitted to the number of awards receivedin the year), for institutions with smallerresearch programs was better than the moreresearch-intensive institutions. This wouldseem to indicate that researchers in these insti-tutions tend to focus their proposal-prepara-

tion effort on those projects where they havea higher probability of success in competition,and not to shotgun proposals.

Michael Warnock, who developed amethodology for performance ranking on 18areas of his own institution against a peergroup, used the benchmarking results to makea successful business case for five additionalstaff, and improved performance in the areathat they had targeted as weak. (See the Website.) Programs not participating in the studycould, if they so desired, use the survey ques-tions to calculate their own performance ratiosand then compare them to aggregate resultspublished on the website using the same orsimilar methodology. Of course, the goal ofthe SRA Benchmarking Task Force is toencourage members to participate in theupcoming survey as the best way to be able toeffectively use the survey data. Greaternumbers of participants create more reliableresults. An online audio presentation for SRAmembers on the past summary results will bescheduled in the spring.

For Further Information The Web site will also be the location of a

series of presentations intended to demon-strate the utility of benchmarking in programmanagement and operational improvement.The FY 2000 data collection closed 31December 2001. Web-based analysis openedto participants in January 2002. SRA generalmembers may view selected findings similar to the figures in this paper atwww.higheredbenchmarking.com.

ReferencesNational Science Foundation-SRS (2000)

Table B-32. Academic Research and Devel-opment Expenditures-FY 1999. Washington, DC: National Science Foun-dation.


Figure 1. Comparison of demonstration university value with median values of two comparison groups.

Figure 2. Comparison of demonstration university FTE staffing with median values of two comparison groups.


Working with Technologyand Technical Staffs inResearch Administration

Pamela A. Krauser

Shop Talk

IntroductionIn today’s research administration envi-ronment, we must work more closely

than ever with our information tech-nology (IT) staffs. Whether we have our

own in-house staffs or work with a centralIT office, we cannot afford to ignore the

importance of technology in doing our jobs.Electronic searches for funding, proposalsubmission, and grant management areincreasingly commonplace. Technology, onceconsidered more of a behind-the-scenes task,is now part of our overall business strategy andpart of the services we offer to our researchers.We are no longer just dependent upon ourtechnology personnel to support us when wehave word processing or spreadsheet prob-lems.

To ensure that our researchers have thecapabilities to be successful in obtaining andmanaging external funding, we need to besavvy, not just of technology but also inmanaging and working with technicalpersonnel. We also need to know how tomanage technology projects, whether we areimplementing sponsor systems in our organi-zations or designing and implementing ourown systems.

In some instances, we have direct supervi-sory responsibility over the technicalpersonnel involved in others we must workwith people who do not report to us. Some-

times the teams we work on will be carefullyplanned, and at other times we may need toassemble a cross-functional team at amoment’s notice to resolve a businessproblem. Setting some guidelines for thecollaboration of different groups who mayhave never worked together in the past isessential for success. We do not want our tech-nical personnel to merely cooperate with us;we want them to collaborate with us. Byproviding an environment where technicaland administrative staffs truly collaborate tosolve a business need, we can achieve betterIT solutions.

Communicating with Technical Personnel

Martha K. Heyman (2001), in an articlethat addresses the importance of librariansworking with technical staff, states that “noone would argue that the first step in gettingpeople to hear you is to at least speak theirlanguage.” Learning basic IT terminology andacquiring knowledge of the tools and tech-niques that fill the toolbox of the technicalperson will allow you to clarify your (and yourresearchers’) business needs and contributemore fully to finding the best IT solution. Wecan then be role models, encouraging thetechnical staff to develop knowledge of ourjobs, as Heyman (2001) notes. This, of

This article was developed from a Contributed Paper presented at the October 2001 Annual Meeting of theSociety of Research Administrators International,Vancouver, CN. Address correspondence to Pamela A.Krauser, Director, Electronic Research Administration, Office of Research, University of Notre Dame, 511Main Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556. E-mail: [email protected]


course, will also aid in the development ofbetter solutions.

We should also encourage technicalpersonnel to gain a basic understanding of ourbusiness environment. Whether it involvessending them to research administrationconferences and workshops, or providingmore background and training at home, theinvestment will be worth the effort whentechnical solutions better meet our needs. Infact, just as research administrators shouldhave basic technical skills, many technicalpeople are now hired and evaluated based inpart on their knowledge of business. Conse-quently, it is becoming increasingly moreimportant for technical staff to have basicbusiness knowledge prior to being hired.

Creating a Team EnvironmentGiven the complexity of designing and

implementing technical solutions for researchadministration, assembling a team is the bestway to ensure that all stakeholder needs areconsidered. The team should consist of tech-nical and non-technical people who will use orbe affected by the technology. It should bemade clear that each member adds value tothe team, and that the team owes its strengthto its diverse membership. Great technologythat doesn’t solve the business needs of theorganization has little value. Similarly, simplyautomating the existing process does not takeadvantage of the benefits technology can add.A system that works for the administrationmay not meet the needs of the researcher. As a result, the team needs to have memberswho will consider the needs to be met as wellas how to best harness technology to meetthose needs.

Each team should have an identifiedleader. In most situations, that leader shouldbe someone who knows the business side ofthe project, in this case, the research adminis-trator. This makes sense since the goal is toachieve the best possible business practice, notjust the best possible technology.

Assembling the right team to work on anIT project can mean the difference betweenfailure and success. Harvard Universitylearned this when implementing a new finan-cial system. In the project’s early stages, they“had technical teams separated from func-

tional teams, so the right hand and the lefthand were not coordinated.” (Mora, 2001,p.16) Their next team was integrated, andalthough it proved more difficult to manage,it was more successful in getting the work done.

At the University of Notre Dame, imple-mentation of MIT’s Coeus system involved ateam of research administrators, staff, Officeof Research technical staff, and central ITstaff. There was also faculty input, althoughwe acknowledge that more faculty inputwould have improved the process and wehope to include more faculty as we beginimplementing parts of the system that willimpact them.

Sharing ResponsibilityIt should be clear from the beginning that

each member of the team bears responsibilityfor the outcome of the project. When ITprojects fail, there is often a tendency to blamethe technical staff. In reality, however, manyprojects fail because the technical staff was notgiven enough information, or users of thetechnology were not given adequate inputinto the process and/or did not buy into itsimplementation.

Sharing the responsibility can also help tofoster collaboration. When everyone has astake in the outcome, it becomes more criticalto share information. We expect IT staff totake our business needs and provide us withthe best technical solution, but if we do nottake responsibility for explaining our require-ments and uses, we will most likely be disap-pointed with the final product.

Defining the PurposeOnce the team has been created, it is

essential to clearly establish the goals andobjectives of the work at the beginning of thecollaboration. The purpose must be defined interms that all parties understand and it shouldbe restated and mutually agreed upon. Asdiscussed above, this is certainly true whenadministrators and technical staff interactbecause administrators often do not fullyunderstand the language of the technical staffand our technical staff may have limitedknowledge of the business to be conducted.

Both groups must constantly remember


that the final goal is to provide our researcherswith the tools necessary to seek, obtain, andmanage external funding for their research.We should always keep in mind that theprocessing and analysis of our informationshould be done by machine to the extentpossible, freeing the people to solve otherbusiness problems. The business processes andtechnology employed to meet these goals arenot ends in themselves but simply tools thatallow us to add value in achieving the missionsof our organizations.

Reviewing the Current Business Process

Having agreed upon the goals for the ITproject, the team should then carefullyexamine the current ways of doing business,starting with the assumption that there isprobably a better way of doing things. At thisstage, we should not even think about thetechnology we will use, but should focus onthe business needs and then examine poten-tial technical solutions.

Many of the things we do have evolvedover time and may no longer be efficient oreven necessary, especially given the techno-logical change that has taken place since theywere first implemented. Sleight (2000) offerssome thoughts to consider when reviewingthe business process.

A process is not necessarily effective justbecause it has always been done this way.

A business process is liable to becomestatic and inflexible, while businessneeds can change rapidly.

IT issues must not be considered untilthe best scenario for the business processhas been devised.

Top-performing [colleagues] should bebenchmarked. (p. 44)

The first two items are simply reminders tolook for the best way to do things. Tech-nology will allow us to do more than everbefore, and it allows us to be both more effec-tive and efficient in doing our jobs. We shouldespecially focus on being effective—on doing

the right things to achieve our current busi-ness needs.

In our efforts to determine the best busi-ness practices, we should also consider theprocesses of other organizations to avoid rein-venting the wheel. We can certainly learn fromthose who have learned before us, andresearch administrators are typically verywilling to share the knowledge they havegained. If we are designing our own systems,we can learn from the mistakes and successesof others and if we are implementing anexisting system, we can better determine if theproposed system will meet our needs.

Even when implementing a sponsor’ssystem in our organization, we should alwaysthink of ways that the system can be used toaccomplish our own needs. For example, atNotre Dame, we are taking advantage ofproposals already available in PDF-formatthrough NSF’s FastLane system. As we worktowards our target of limiting paper in theoffice, we see an opportunity to use FastLane tocomplement our current process of scanningand other electronic filing of documents. ThePDF-file is easily saved and filed electronically,which also ensures that we have the final,submitted version of the proposal on file.Although the NSF system was imposed uponus, we are using it to achieve our goals as well.Coordination with our technical staff has beeninstrumental in implementing this process, fromobtaining more server space to overcoming thetechnical glitches caused by upgrades to theoperating system on our personal computers.Physical filing space limitations and sharingfiles have helped to drive our goal of creatingelectronic files. We have examined a businessneed and utilized a sponsor’s technology tohelp us meet that need.

Once we have determined our businessneeds, it is time for the technical staff tosuggest alternatives for achieving our objec-tives. Ideally, the technology and our businessneeds would be a perfect fit. More commonly,however, there will be some compromisesrequired, but the compromises will be fewerif we use a team approach, consider the busi-ness needs first, and then determine the bestIT solution to meet those needs.


ConclusionTechnology is a powerful tool that can

enable us to better manage our daily businessactivities. In order to use technology to itsfullest potential, we need to first consider whatour business needs are, what information weneed to meet those needs, and how we use theinformation. Only after the business needs arecarefully determined should we consider thetypes of technology that will aid us inachieving those goals.

The best way to ensure that the needs ofthe users are met and that the best possiblesystem for meeting those needs is successfullyimplemented is to utilize the talents of bothadministrators and technology staff in plan-ning and implementing systems, whether they are our own systems or those required by sponsors. Input from other users of the system is also important to successful imple-mentation.

In addition, having research administratorswith fundamental technical skills and trainingtechnical staff in the fundamental activities ofresearch administration will allow both partiesto communicate more effectively and deter-mine the best technology available to do thedesired work.

ReferencesHeyman, M. K. (2001). Building successful

relationships with IT professionals. Information Outlook 5.4: 34, 12. Retrieveat http://www.sla.org/pubs/serial/io/2001/April01

Mora, E. (2001) Financial systems implemen-tation: Harvard’s odyssey to oracle andbeyond. NCURA Newsletter XXXIII. 3:16-17. Retrieve at http://www.ncura.edu

Sleight, S. (2000) Information technology. Essential managers. New York: DorlingKindersley.

The Journal of Research Administration / Book Review Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 45

Address correspondence to William H. Caskey, Director, Research & Grants Administration Children’sMercy Hospitals & Clinics, 2400 Gillham Road, Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816)234-3879,Fax: (816)855-1982, E-mail: [email protected]

Learning Adobe Tips by William H. Caskey

Acrobat PDF andWorkflow in Detail

by Frank RomanoUpper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PRT 486 pages $39.99

Book Review

Acrobat PDF and Workflow in Detailwas written for the publishing profes-

sional and will be useful to intermediateand advanced users of Adobe Acrobat 4.0

and 5.0. Accordingly, acronyms and termi-nology peculiar to publishing abound.Because of the focus on the publishingindustry, the book almost exclusively discussesAcrobat 4.0 from the perspective of theMacintosh computer. There is very little infor-mation about the Windows version, but theauthor does discuss the functional differencesbetween the Windows and Macintoshversions. And, there is sufficient similarity inthe user interface of Acrobat 4.0 for the twoplatforms that the savvy Windows user shouldhave no problems. The book can be a valuableresource for researchers and research admin-istrators and for Windows users. It is not ahow-to, but a detailed presentation of issues,concepts, and strategies applicable to gener-ating high quality PDF files.

Acrobat PDF and Workflow in Detail isdivided into 22 chapters that address a rangeof topics relating to the use of PDF files in thepublishing industry. Entitled Digital Work-flow, Chapter 1 sets the stage for the focus ofthe book. Digital workflow refers to thepublishing process and the use of PDF files as

the component from creation of the docu-ment to printing the final copy, a completelyelectronic process that has replaced a varietyof older, time-consuming workflow. Theadvantage to the publishing industry is thesame advantage enjoyed by researchers andresearch administrators using PDF files, thepreservation of form and content of docu-ments throughout each step in the process.Chapter 5 also discusses workflow environ-ments and simply describes networks and thevarious implementations of peer-to-peer andserver-based networks. A chapter that will beof little use to the research community isChapter 2, a history of PostScript and howPDF evolved.

Chapter 3, entitled PDF Introduction,introduces the PDF file, its format and char-acteristics, and Acrobat 4.0 and its majorfeatures and use. Information is presentedmore as a review and series of highlights. Theintermediate and advanced user will skim orskip this chapter; the novice will find littleuseful information. Other chapters almostexclusively focus on aspects of PDF andAcrobat 4.0 that are specific to the publishingindustry, as would be expected consideringthe primary intended audience. However, bitsof information useful to researchers and

46 Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 The Journal of Research Administration / Book Review

research administrators are scatteredthroughout. A research administrator wouldprobably think that Chapter 16 entitled Inter-active Acrobat might focus on interactiveforms. Some mention is made of interactiveforms (not enough to be really useful), but thediscussion centers on capabilities of PDF thatwould be useful for Web pages: executingJavaScript, playing a movie or sound, andautomating other actions. Webmasters usingPDF files rather than HTML or XML for pagedesign may find this chapter useful.

The remainder of the book explores PDFfiles, the use of Adobe Acrobat 4.0, and topicsthat optimize the use of PDF files or enhancethe quality of the documents produced inPDF, issues that should be of interested to theresearch community. Throughout these chap-ters are nuggets of information that willbenefit all users of PDF files and Acrobat 4.0.Chapter 6, Creating PDF Files, discusses theuse of PDFWriter and Acrobat Distiller, whichshould be used when creating PDF files fromother programs including the MicrosoftOffice suite. Although the author indicatesthat PDFWriter is appropriate for certain uses,the capabilities of Distiller that are presentedwill probably lead users to adopt Distillerexclusively to create PDF files. Distiller andAdobe Capture are discussed in detail in chap-ters 11 and 22, respectively.

Exporting and Importing PDF annota-tions and data, including forms data, are thesubjects of Chapter 10. Strangely, this chapteralso presents detailed information on theAdobe PostScript printer drivers for Windows.Chapter 12, Fonts, is a must-read for all PDFusers. The author discusses different fonts,

embedding the fonts, and legal issues associ-ated with embedding fonts, which can beuseful to research administrators working with researchers preparing proposals to besubmitted in PDF or developing PDF docu-ments for Web pages. A short introduction to the emerging OpenType fonts is alsoincluded. And, the substitution of Arial andTimes New Roman for Helvetica and Times,the standard PostScript fonts, is discussed.Chapter 13, Compression, is worth the price ofthe book alone. The various options forcompression are discussed in detail. Down-sampling and subsampling of data fromphotographic images are used by Distiller tocreate PDF files. Photographs at various reso-lutions are included to illustrate the effect ofeach process. An understanding of the infor-mation presented in this chapter and its appro-priate application will greatly improve thequality of PDF content and its appearancewhen displayed or printed. Similarly, Chapter19, High-Resolution Printing, presentsoptions and techniques for optimizing thequality of PDF files generated by Distiller.Chapters 19 and 11 should be read together.Knowledge of how compression affects qualityof photographic images and the variousDistiller options will be crucial for investiga-tors preparing proposals in PDF for electronicsubmission.

Almost a book within a book, comments areprinted in the outside margins throughout thebook. These comments explain in more detailsome concepts, present new ideas, or offerquick helpful tips for creation of PDF docu-ments.

The Journal of Research Administration Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 47

Notes

48 Volume XXXIII, Number 1, 2002 The Journal of Research Administration

Notes

Society of Research Administrators International1901 North Moore Street

Suite 1004Arlington,VA 22209

Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

The Journaldownload.srainternational.org/journal/archive/VolXXXIIINoI.pdfThe Journal of Research...

Documents