1

1

Driving Organizational Improvement in Research Administration and Operations

The Future of Research Administration

NCURA Region I Spring MeetingMay 5th 2014

2

Presenters

Eleni RyalsCorporate Director - Research Management Post Award & TrainingPartners Research Management617-954-9662eryals@partners.org

Gary SmithSr. Administrative Director for ResearchMGH Research Management(617) 643-5357Smith.gary@mgh.harvard.edu

2

3

Agenda

MGH Improvement Initiatives- Continuous Research Operations Improvement (CROI)- Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey Program

Partners Initiatives- Simplify the Business- Leverage IT- Manage the Work

4

Investigators spend 42% of their time on administrative activities rather than on research

FDP Administrative Burden Survey

3

Continuous Research Operations Improvement (CROI)

The Central Fact

Front-line workers see a great many problemsand opportunities that their managers don’t.

© Alan G. Robinson, 2014

4

The 80/20 Principle of Improvement

In organizations with effective idea systems, roughly 80percent of the potential for overall performanceimprovement comes from front-line ideas. Only 20percent comes from management-driven initiatives.

Organizations which are not set up to listen to and acton large numbers of front-line ideas are using at bestonly a fifth of their improvement engine.

7© Alan G. Robinson, 2014 “The Idea Driven Organization”

2 Black Belt Projects(SEK 1.5 Mill)5 Green Belt Projects

(SEK 1 Mill)

1,720 front-Line Ideas (SEK 8 Mill)

Coca-Cola Stockholm

Carlson’s Law

Top-down innovation is orderly but dumb.

Bottom-up innovation is chaotic but smart.(Bottom-up innovation gets results but requires an organized

vetting and implementation process)

© Alan G. Robinson, 2014

5

Page 9

CROI Background

CROI Goal - Based on “Prime Directive” for Research SupportFocus on the researcher. Further the research mission and bring value to it. Maximize the researchers’ time ‘at the bench’ by eliminating or maximizing the efficiency of their ancillary obligations.

Launched on October 31, 2012

15 working groups (each co-led by an investigator and administrator) created to review submitted suggestions/ideas and recommend solutions.

CROI reports to Research Management Advisory Committee (RMAC)

6

Current Status

*New – Workgroup needs to input summary and status

**Closed - E.G., request to change cost transfer policy – bound by federal regulation

Working Group  Open New Resolved Closed Submitted

Animal Care 20 0 23 0 43

Central Data 2 0 0 0 2

Clinical Research 60 0 5 10 75

Communications 4 0 3 1 8

Compliance 2 0 3 1 6

Grant Tracking 0 0 1 0 1

Human Resources 5 0 11 3 19

Internet 2 0 1 0 3

Intranet 2 0 2 0 4

IT Infrastructure 5 0 21 1 27

Materials Management 15 0 13 23 51

Research Management 34 0 21 22 77

RVL 7 0 0 0 7

Safety 2 0 8 0 10

Space and Facilities 11 0 21 1 33

Totals 171 0 133 62 366

7

Page 13

Sample of Our Successes

• More efficient eCOI process• IRB Helpline• Expanded WiFi in research buildings• Academic discounts• Timeout status in InfoEd• On-line animal user orientation• New PI Dashboard in development• Improved intranet site• Increased mailbox size for emails• Improvement in chemical waste pick up• Added Research Intranet site to other MGH publications• MGH Research Intranet available outside the firewall• Identified options for improved freezer space• Redirected to new web-based email system• Additional “Mothers Room” in research building• Improved processes for communicating staffing changes

Customer Service Satisfaction Survey

8

Program Objectives

• Gather feedback from MGH research investigators and research department administrators about their satisfaction with the administrative services provided by Partners Research Management.

• Identify administrative processes that are working well and those in need of improvement.

• Gather historical data to measure improvement or decline in service levels from Partners Research Management.

• Use feedback gathered to improve services provided by Partners Research Management and deliver solutions that address investigators and department administrator needs.

• Gain a better understanding of the administrative needs of our investigators and department administrators.

Customer Service Survey (example Post-Award) Prioritize Projects based on Input

Following excerpt from 2013 Partners Research Management survey of their Research Community:

“Please review the following list and let us know from 1‐5 (5 being the best) which of these efforts you want Post‐Award to prioritize:”

Pro‐active financial analysis focused on a) un‐expended balances in order to mitigate return of unspent funds, and b) accelerated spending that could lead to a project deficit

Best practices and management of large, complex awards including federal contracts, multi‐party awards, and clinical trials 

Best practices and risk management of international agreements, and inclusion of subcontractor selection database

Streamline subcontracting across Partners entities to betterpromotePartners‐wide collaborations

16

9

Simplify the Business

17

Compliance ≠ Complexity

Simplify transactions: what is truly needed by institutions versus nice to have?

Some examples:

Contracts

Unilateral subs

E‐Notifications

New Awards

Award Renewals/Revisions

Online Workflow

Subcontract / Contract Agreements

Invoices

18

Simplify the Business

10

Unilateral Modifications: Too Good to be True?

Partners Implemented A New Process

Increased operational efficiency

Reduced administrative burden (PI’s and us)

Expedited payment

Achieved at little or no cost

Unilateral = one signature

Doesn’t require countersignature of recipient institution

Benefits of Unilateral Modifications

Bilateral modifications

Take more time to execute

Delays renewal of funds

Delays invoicing

Increases turnaround time

Unilateral modifications

Decreases turnaround time

Expedites invoicing 

Accelerates payment for ongoing work

Reduces administrative burden

PI and Department involvement reduced

Approval unnecessary since there are no substantive change to the budget and scope of work

Decrease time and effort processing modifications and renewing funds

11

Unilaterals vs. Bilaterals

Unilaterals

Renewals with a budget cut less than or equal to 10%

No Cost Extensions (NCEs)

Carry forward approvals

Bilaterals

Change in scope

Renewals cut by 10% or more

De‐obligation or termination

Changes to Terms and Conditions; Change in PI, etc.

Subcontracts In New & Modifications

For new incoming agreements, average turnaround time is 42.1 days.

Sub In MOD 

Agreement Type Signature Type FEA Avg TAT

(FEA < 30 days) **

FDP

Bilateral 299 20.2 76.90%

Unilateral 55 6 94.50%

Foundation (Incoming

Agmts Only)

Bilateral 32 23.7 68.80%

Unilateral 8 1.3 100.00%

Other

Bilateral 216 20.2 82.90%

Unilateral 58 3.4 98.30%

Bilateral 1 3 100.00%

Total 669

*Target 80%

TAT (Turn around time) = Received date to PEA date

Date Range: 10/01/12 - 05/08/2013

12

Subcontracts Out New & Modifications

23

*For new outgoing agreements average turnaround time is 17.4 days.

Sub Out MOD Sub Out New*

Agreement Type Signature Type PEA AVG TAT

(PEA < 30 days) * PEA Avg TAT

(PEA < 30 days) *

FDP

Bilateral 286 13.5 94.80% 177 22 80.80%

Unilateral 97 10.9 95.90%

Other

Bilateral 362 14.2 92.80% 408 15.4 87.50%

Unilateral 122 10 97.50%

Bilateral 0 0

Total 867 585 17.39*

24

Leverage IT to Maximize Efficiency

13

E‐Notifications Are New E‐Notifications to PIs/DAs for:

Notice of Award

Award Renewal/Revision

Saves time for central staff

Provides consistent, streamlined and brandedmessages to Department

25

26

E‐Workflow Going Live May 19th

PI/DA review and approval utilizing workflow functionality

Enhancement of existing Subcontract Invoice e‐approval process

Applicable to:

o Agreement In ‐New

o Agreement In‐Modification

o PSA Out ‐Modification

o PSA Out ‐New

o Subcontract Agreement Out

o Final Invoice ‐ Outgoing

o Financial Report

E‐mail sent to:

Named PI on InfoEd grant record

Department Manager [in InfoEd Summary page]

Approver Contacts in InfoEd deliverable [up to three can be selected]

Auto‐reminders are sent if not approved within certain timeframe

Comments box: Research Management user can add special comments to the Approval Screen regarding any particular items to note 

Approval Screen: Approver can add comments back (show in the InfoEd deliverable) and upload docs that will attach to the deliverable

When approvers log into InfoEd, click on My Action Items to view work list of pending approvals ‐

14

Increases transparency

Eases administrative burden

Decreases e‐mail traffic

Consolidates pending work lists

Improves turnaround times

Streamlines processes across RM

Why workflow?

FSR

Sub Out

AgmtIn

Sub Invoice

Workflow: E‐mail and Approval Screen

28

15

Approval Structure for Contracts

29

When are these sent for PI/DA review?

Required Negative Assurance

Agreement In‐New Always Always N/A

Agreement In‐Mod Unusual terms outside of standard  renewal/carry forward/NCE

Termination, PI change, de‐obligation, SOW change

Budget cut over 20%

Subcontract Out New Always; except large collaborations where only the template is approved

GA/AA discretion: Unusual terms; high risk subcontractor

Almost always, unless [see previous square]

Subcontract Out Mod N/A N/A N/A

PSA Out New Always; except large collaborations where only the template is approved

GA/AA discretion: Unusual terms; high risk site

Almost always, unless [see previous square]

PSA Out Mod Unusual terms outside of standard  renewal/carry forward/NCE

GA/AA discretion: Unusual terms; high risk site

N/A

Workflow TAT Reminders sent every 7 calendar days

10 day window; No reminder sent

30

Managing the Work

16

MicroStrategy – Pending Worklist

31

MicroStrategy – Completed Worklist

32

17

Microstrategy Reporting Tracks Pending and Future deliverables in one place

Prioritizes items by Not Initiated, On Target, At Risk, Target Missed

33

Staff Opportunities / Work‐Life Balance

34

18

Administrative Support Structure 

Investigators and Research Departments need experienced Grants Administrators

Short‐term fee‐for‐service Central staff available for specific jobs on an hourly fee basis. On the 

employee’s own time, and come after their primary job functions at RM.

Temporary hospital department administrator Central staff fulfills a Department Administrator position on a 

temporary basis (high‐volume periods, employee leave of absence, etc). 

Full‐time research administration Full time Central position dedicated to an individual department. Has 

the benefit of full Central office training, resources, and expertise.  May be a hybrid role responsible for Department activities and Central activities.

35

Flexible Schedules

Critical to provide consistent structure

Employees in good standing– new employees Manager discretion

Agreement signed by Employee and Manager that explains the rules

1. Summer Hours

a. Schedule Options

Four days, 10.5 hours = 1 day off

Four days, 9.5 hours = ½ day off

b. PTO based on revised summer schedule

2. Work from Home

a. portable job duties; 

b. conducive work space with appropriate equipment (telephone, computer, internet, etc.) suitable for working at home; 

c. Ability to work independently and productively. 

a. Maximum of 3 days/week – 2 days or more office space may be converted to “hotel space”

Page 36