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

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

3. Overview/Background 3

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

5. 5 Research Funding Sources

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

7. Award Setup Pilot 7

8. 8 Award Setup Process Issues:  Retroactive cost transfers due to late account setup  Frustrated Investigators  Long delays in fund setup Officer/Analyst Receives Award Officer/Analyst Reviews Award Officer/Analyst Sends Award to Account Team for Set Up Account Team Completes Set Up FY2011 Awards were set up in an average of 28 days

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

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

11. Award Setup Pilot Process 11 Record receipt and Send Initial Communication, including request for missing documents Review Award Process Award and Send Final Communication Record receipt and Send Initial Communication Assign to Officer/Analyst Review/Negotiate Award and Request Missing Documents Process Award and Send Final Communication Expedited Award Process Complex Award Process

12. Implementation 12

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

14. Results 14

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

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

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

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

19. 19 Goals of Minimum Submission Requirements:  Ensure timely review of proposals submitted to OCGA  Enable PIs to continue working on their research plan, while compliance and review actions are completed by OCGA  Streamlines submission process  Creates metrics to provide for departments Minimum Submission for Review Completed EPASS with PI Signature (electronic) Sponsor Guidelines All Sponsor forms requiring OCGA signature Final Budget with Budget Justification Prime Statement of Work/Abstract or Project Description Subaward Documents (if applicable)

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

21. Lessons Learned 21

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

23. Questions? 23