• Foundation Phase (year 1)

• Tests whether UCOP systemwide research funding provides value to UC that is unique and different that value provided by campus research funding.

• Tests whether the current UCOP research portfolio aligns with systemwide principles.

UCOP Research Portfolio Review:

Phase 1

• Building Phase (year 2)

• Tests whether additional existing systemwide research investments belong in the UCOP research portfolio.

• Tests how additional aspects/considerations inform the UCOP Research Portfolio Review.

• Tests how new research programs are identified and selected for the UCOP research portfolio.

UCOP Research Portfolio Review:

Phase 2 • Establishment Phase (year 3 +)

• Tests robustness and resiliency of UCOP Research Portfolio Review Process.

• Tests long-term strategy for optimizing the UCOP Research Portfolio.

UCOP Research Portfolio Review:

Phase 3

University of California Systemwide Research Portfolio Evaluation Emily L. Rader and Dorothy J. Miller, PhD; UC Office of the President, Research and Graduate Studies

Why review the systemwide research portfolio?

What does a systemwide research portfolio review look like?

What happens next?

Background: The UC Office of the President (UCOP) provides central funds to support a limited number of University of California (UC) cross-campus programs and initiatives across all fields of scholarship. These investments can range from smaller initiatives that combine expertise and resources from two or three UC campuses, to large shared-infrastructure projects that benefit research throughout the UC system. Before 2012, the mix of systemwide research investments had arisen over many decades in response to different opportunities or political imperatives. As a result, these investments comprised an amalgam of cost and quality that had not been comprehensively assessed. To help guide UC-wide research investments and ensure the success of these systemwide funds in advancing the University’s research goals, UCOP established a mature framework to carefully evaluate both the overall and relative merits of its investments, and to help make decisions and plans for any future university-wide research initiatives.

Each UC campus has a unique and competitive research enterprise that is responsive to its faculty, students, sponsors, and stakeholders. As a ten-campus public university system, however, UC has unique opportunities and responsibilities to invest in research that is different and beyond what can be accomplished on a single campus. In FY 2012, UCOP invested $120.4 million to support systemwide research collaborations of the highest quality and impact. This amount, however, reflected four years of statewide budget cuts which greatly diminished support for many programs, with some research program budgets decreasing by a total of $40.8 million in that time. In response to funding constraints, the Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies convened a joint faculty-administration working group, the Principles, Processes, and Assessment Task Force (PPA). The PPA was charged with examining the principles and processes guiding UCOP-funded research programs, and recommending a comprehensive framework to guide future decision-making and assessment of UCOP research investments. The PPA agreed on the following framework to define the goals and purpose driving and distinguishing UC-wide research investments.

To implement the new framework for assessment, the Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies convened a Portfolio Review Group (PRG) in Fall 2012, comprised of senior research administrators and distinguished faculty members representing each of the ten campuses. Members were from a broad range of roles and academic disciplines, with an emphasis on individuals with a deep knowledge of research. A PRG Project Lead (from the Vice President’s staff) was tasked with working directly with the PRG chair and members, and coordinating staff from the Research Investment Studies and Analysis team (RISA), who would serve as the primary contacts for the portfolio review with program directors. Together with the Office of Research and Graduate Studies (ORGS), the PRG worked to develop a multi-phase, multi-year process, to define roles and responsibilities, and to develop a work plan and timeline.

In consultation with the UC Provost and other UCOP stakeholders, twenty programs receiving systemwide research funding or research support were selected for the principle alignment review; all programs included were either multicampus research programs directly administered by ORGS, or campus-administered programs receiving state funding managed by UCOP. While the portfolio’s size and composition had evolved over time and individual programs had previously undergone academic reviews, this was the first comprehensive review of the portfolio as a whole. As a basis for PRG deliberations, each program director was asked to provide a narrative program summary describing the program’s alignment to each of the principles, objectives, and considerations, along with supporting data. For both the alignment assessment and the subsequent priorities and research investment discussion, the PRG followed a process of individual assessment followed by committee discussion and recommendation development for each program in the systemwide research portfolio. Assessments were based on information provided to the committee by the program directors as well as external program reviews when available.

Funding Recommendations

In early 2014, the PRG completed its charge and submitted its final recommendations to the Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies. In considering the future of systemwide research, the PRG did not identify specific areas of inquiry or research opportunities, stating that this should be an organic process best driven by campuses. However, the PRG saw a valuable role for UCOP both in nurturing and supporting ideas coming from campuses with the potential to become systemwide research programs, and in partnering with the state to manage legislatively-mandated research programs on behalf of California. In the future, the PRG recommended that systemwide research programs be able to effectively respond to big opportunities, to maintain flexibility to support and foster innovation, and to rapidly respond to emerging and unique research opportunities. With this in mind, systemwide research funding should be awarded in a competitive, peer-reviewed process, under matching and collaborative funding scenarios, and may be used to support seed/startup, infrastructure, or strategic funding opportunities.

Roles and Work Plan

Strategic Planning and Engagement In addition to discussing funding strategies and the future of the systemwide research portfolio , the PRG recommended that selected programs develop a plan for increasing systemwide research engagement, research collaboration, and research participation. This recommendation asked programs to examine opportunities to increase both intercampus participation and collaboration and to expand interdisciplinary research in a manner appropriate for each program’s activities and mission. Programs were also asked to provide program-specific definitions of systemwide research engagement, collaboration, and participation along with measurable goals and metrics to track progress and outcomes. Final strategic plans will be submitted in January 2016, with implementation targeted for July. In parallel, ORGS is working to raise awareness of the value and impact of University of California research at the state and federal levels. Selected systemwide programs have been asked to provide a two-page briefing document by early January 2016, which will highlight 1 - 2 major accomplishments of the last six months; synergies with UC-wide initiatives and areas of research excellence; and how these accomplishments benefit program stakeholders, impacted community groups, and industry, non-profit, state, or federal partners. This brief, to be developed every six months, is intended to serve as an evolving resource for UCOP to demonstrate the value, impact, and future potential of UC research in addressing vitally important issues at the state, regional, federal, and global levels.

Increase Investment

5% Maintain Investment,

Continue with Regular Reviews

55%

Maintain Investment, Reconfigure

Program 5%

Eliminate Investment or

Redirect Funds to Higher Priority

Programs 30%

Remove from Portfolio:

Move to Campus 5%

Principles Objectives ConsiderationsC1. What does the program provide to leverage UCOP funds,

positioning UC as a world leader in research scholarship

and/or creative work?

C2. What is the scope of access to these unique systemwide

resources? How does it go beyond that which could be

achieved by a single campus?

C3. How do the unique systemwide opportunities provided by

program help attract and retain faculty, staff, and students?

C1. How does the program enable successful multicampus

competition for sponsored research projects and grants?

C2. How does the program build systemwide research

engagement, collaboration, and support that encompasses

and benefits multiple campuses?

C1. How does the program operate/manage systemwide

shared research resources more efficiently than might be

managed by a single campus program?

C2. Is the program's operational efficiency periodically

evaluated and how are recommendations for improvement

implemented?

O2. Demonstrate systemwide

engagement and collaboration beyond

that present on a single campus.

C1. How does the program engage multiple campuses to

foster opportunities for collaborations and broad

participation that builds and leverages existing research

expertise and resources?

C2. How does the program engage additional UC campuses,

similar programs, and/or external partners to promote

collaboration, share functions, and avoid duplicative effort?

C1. How does the program demonstrate UC's commitment to

public outreach and inclusion, citizen engagement, and

broader public education?

C2. How does the program deliver significant impacts, either

locally or across California, in economic, social,

environmental, energy, health, security, and/or other areas to

serve the public interest?

Principle #1: Act as one system of

multiple campuses to enhance UC's

research capacity, influence and

advantage.

Enabling UC to do more with more.

Considerations for Conducting the Principle Alignment Review

O1. Conduct research that addresses

strategic issues important to California,

benefiting Californians.

Principle #2: Promote efficient inter-

campus collaborations and

systemwide economies of scale.

Enabling UC to do more with less.

Principle #3: Serve the State and

Citizens of California.

Enabling UC to benefit the public.

O2. Enable successful multicampus

competition for extramural funds

O1. Ensure efficient

operation/management of shared

research resources

O1. Provide unique resources for

competitive advantage

Principle 1: Act as one system 2: Collaborate for Scale & Efficiency

3: Serve the State Location of Data

Provided Objective 1 2 1 2 1

Consideration 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Common Data/Indicators

1. Affiliated faculty/postdoctoral students/graduate students/researchers/technical staff (most recent 3 years)

X Excel 2a: Affiliated

Researchers Tab

2. Usage/Participation Data on Shared Facilities, Resources, and/or Opportunities (most recent year)

X Excel2b: Usage

Data Tab

3. Affiliated New/junior faculty (most recent 3 years) X

Excel 2a: Affiliated

Researchers Tab

4. Usage by new/junior faculty of Shared Facilities, Resources, and/or Opportunities

X Excel 2b: Usage

Data Tab

5. If applicable, supporting data for usage/role of facility or resource in faculty recruitment (most recent 3 years)

X N/A

6. External grant/project proposals ($) associated with the program (most recent 3 years)

X Excel 2c: External

Grants & Proposals Tab

7. Names and campus affiliation of membership for each of the current advisory, executive, operational and other governance committees (most recent year)

X Excel 2d:

Governance Membership Tab

8. Schedule of meetings of applicable advisory, executive, operational and governance committees/boards (most recent 3 years)

X Excel 2e:

Governance Schedules Tab

9. Program-affiliated research contracts (most recent 3 years) - i.e. grants, contracts or activity funded by the program itself (include campus affiliation of PIs, and project supported faculty, graduate students, postdocs)

X

Excel 2f: Research

Contracts & Grants Tab

Program Specific Data/Indicators

10. Supporting data or metrics pertaining to discussion of program public outreach and engagement.

X Excel 2g:

Outreach Tab

In developing the framework, the PPA was asked to consider how a typical program might demonstrate its alignment to their recommended principles, objectives, and considerations through both a narrative outlining the program’s missions, initiatives, goals, and three-year budget funding scenarios (no change in budget, 25% budget increase, and 25% budget decrease), and available supporting data (see matrix, left). The PPA recommended that programs be allowed to provide additional supplementary information such as recent external or academic reviews, news articles, and lists of publications. However, the primary material under consideration would be that demonstrating the program’s alignment to the principle framework.

With thanks to Debbie Shen and Lifang Chiang