Presentation on theme: "Open Campus Meetings November 7 & 13, 2014 RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM (RAS) Submission of Grants.gov vs. Non-Grants.gov Proposals."— Presentation transcript:
Open Campus Meetings November 7 & 13, 2014 RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM (RAS) Submission of Grants.gov vs. Non-Grants.gov Proposals
An electronic Research Administration System that enables researchers and department administrators to: Create proposals; Route them electronically for internal approval; and Submit them to the sponsoring agency System-to-system capabilities for Grants.gov proposals Goal: Improve quality Pre-population of data Data validation Improve productivity Streamlined and consistent processes WHAT IS RAS?
Product Selection (Kuali Coeus) – 2012 Focus groups with Tufts’ research administration community Proposal Tracking – February 2013-March 2014 Focus groups with OVPR staff – August-October 2013 Roll-out to OVPR staff – November 2013 Stabilization and reporting – March 2014 Proposal Development – Fall 2014-Winter 2015 Focus groups with OVPR staff – Fall 2014 HOW WE GOT HERE
TODAY’S GOAL & OBJECTIVE Goal: To tailor RAS to the needs of Tufts’ research administration community Partnership between OVPR (RAS Core Team), Tufts Technology Services (TTS), and the Change Collaborative (CC) Objective: Submission of Grants.gov vs. Non-Grants.gov proposals
Application Forms / Package: sponsor specific ORA Review: completed once proposal is finalized Review sometimes occurs in two phases: business pieces and science pieces Submission Method: sponsor specific after ORA review and approval GRANTS.GOV VS. NON-GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – CURRENT STATE
Application Forms / Package: RAS Complete detailed budget and attach budget justification for all proposals (including those that only require a modular budget) ORA Review: completed within RAS once proposal is finalized Submission Method: system-to-system after ORA review and approval (RAS grants.gov) GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – PROPOSED FUTURE STATE
Benefits of Detailed Budget & Budget Justification: Most PIs and department administrators are already constructing detailed budgets with shadow systems Provides a consistent tool to manage the budget process Supports internal collaborations Facilitates review process at both the Central and School level Links pre- and post-award processes (i.e. account set-up and access to funds) GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Challenges of Detailed Budget & Budget Justification: Requires a lot of effort upfront when the chance of getting an award is low and will potentially elicit push back from faculty Detailed budget is enough to reveal the PI's thought process about the planned expenditures Requires extra work /documents for modular budgets An alternative would be to require a “personnel” justification and a “non-personnel” justification Has the potential to hold up the internal approval process, assuming budget is required for routing GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, CONT.
Application Forms / Package: sponsor specific Create proposal in RAS and complete components required for routing Complete detailed budget and or attach budget justification if not required by sponsor ORA Review: completed outside of RAS once proposal is finalized Submission Method: sponsor specific ORA will upload final copy of proposal to RAS after submitting proposal to sponsor NON-GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – PROPOSED FUTURE STATE
Benefits of Detailed Budget & Budget Justification: Most PIs and department administrators are already constructing detailed budgets with shadow systems Provides a consistent tool to manage the budget process Supports internal collaborations Facilitates review process at both the Central and School level Links pre- and post-award processes (i.e. account set-up and access to funds) NON-GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Challenges: Most private sponsors do not place restrictions on how the funds are to be spent Spending flexibility should be granted so that internal requirements do not “lock” investigators into a spend pattern Some applications have a short turn-around time and having to prepare materials that are not required by the sponsor may delay or prevent application submission Detailed budget and budget should be required within a certain timeframe post- submission Allowing multiple budget formats will not create consistency RAS budget module should be required for ALL applications There is often a different presentation of budgets internally and externally (to the sponsor): (1) fixed priced contracts and (2) fixed cost per unit RAS should only reflect what the sponsor has agreed to pay and not the internal cost RAS budget module should only be used once the budget has been approved by the sponsor (it should not be used to develop the budget) NON-GRANTS.GOV PROPOSALS – COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, CONT.
PARKING LOT / ACTION ITEMS Conceptual design for applications to internal programs Clarification between sponsored research and prizes / awards / gifts Coordination with Library on Data Management Plans Classified research Templates for Facilities & Resources documents and display a hyperlink in RAS Revisit internal rebudget policy to streamline budget changes where sponsor approval is not required (i.e. private awards) and clarify process for scope accounts Capital equipment charges and use of CEA
Proposed scenarios will be modified based on feedback from the community and displayed on CC website for review and comment for 3 business days Scenarios will be reviewed by Senior Leadership Additional input from the community will be sought on: Routing Budget Different types of applications and activity types Corrections and Just-In-Time NEXT STEPS
Proposal Development (cont.) – Fall 2014-Winter 2015 Pilots – Spring 2015 Rollout – Summer-Winter 2015 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
RAS Website: CC Website: Stay informed about our activities Join a focus group Request departmental research administration support Volunteer to be a mentor Request a mentor us at MORE INFORMATION