Liz Visher Belinda Graham Penny Bambrick Program Partnerships team Managing ARC Projects

Post-award contacts – all schemes Director, Program PartnershipsLiz Visher Assistant Director, Post-awardBelinda Graham Senior Project OfficerElspeth Langford Project Officer – LPLiz McCallum Project Officer –FT, FL, ITRPEma Falez Project Officer – LE, IN, DEJoshua Hatch Project Officer – DPChloe Wei Project Officer – Final ReportsClaire Walters All queries and VFA EOY / Progress Report queries: (to be Final Report Web page for Post-award:

Centre contacts Director, Program PartnershipsLiz Visher Assistant Director, Centres and SRI SchemesPenny Bambrick Senior Project Officer – SRI and Co-Funded CentresMillennia Pullen Project Officer – SRI and Co-Funded CentresJessica Fredin Project Officer – SRI and Co-Funded CentresLisa Webster Project Officer – SRI and Co-Funded CentresKristy Sullivan Senior Project Officer – Centres of ExcellenceChristine Joannides Project Officer – Centres of ExcellenceVishal Pandey Centres of Excellence Co-Funded Centres Special Research Initiatives

Managing ARC Projects Policy overview Postaward – business streamlining Postaward – ICT developments Statistics and key project management issues for ROs Centres and ITRP –2017 ARC Centres of Excellence round –2011 Centres mid term reviews - observations –ITRP – some postaward matters

Policy overview The Government innovation agenda… Less Red Tape Improving collaboration – industry and universities Grant issues and misconduct – a new policy soon The legislative framework for financial accountability Sharing lessons with other agencies Research Impact update

Management of Grants Payments Monitoring Variations Reporting Reviews, Evaluation & Audits Contracts

Postaward – business streamlining Combined Funding Agreements Update on combining End of Year Reporting/Progress Report by Exception Reducing paperwork with Variations to Funding Agreements Final Reporting – discussions about one form for all schemes Helping you – find solutions with difficult matters

Postaward – ICT developments Statuses for projects – helping with questions from researchers on what ARC “active grants” mean for Discovery Projects for 2016 StatusDescription ActiveProject has funding paid this year or has an approved carryover CompleteProject has no active funding, the Final Report is being prepared ClosedProject has no active funding, the Final Report has been approved or waived

Postaward – ICT developments End of Year Reporting in RMS with enhancements and includes dropdown list for progress report by exception What’s next for consideration? –Payments * Dashboard of project info –Electronic VFAs* Reporting for ROs & ARC –Final Reporting* Re-using data & metrics –Centres reporting

A word of thanks The working group on postaward  Daniel Owens, UNSW  Dimity Phillips, ANU  Alice Percy, UTAS  Michelle Armstrong, Monash Uni  Cameron van den Heuvel, UAdel  Nadia Hamilton, Griffith Uni  Robert Roche, UWA  Hemali Seneviratne, CDU More volunteers to help?

Statistics for thought

In 2013 we completed 1,444 Variation requests. The most frequently requested VFA types were: –Change of Personnel (i.e. add/remove) (283), –Change of Organisation (i.e. add/remove) (229) –Transfer (135) and – Budget Variation (126). In 2014 (YTD as of 28/11/14), we have completed 1,606 Variation requests. The most frequently requested VFA types were: –Change of Personnel (i.e. add/remove) (319), –Transfer (212), –Change of Organisation (i.e. add/remove) (205) and –Budget Variation (119).

Key project management issues for ROs Partnerships with industry and other organisations and managing expectations before/during and after funding Teamwork issues between researchers A mobile workforce – competition is fierce Fellowship suspensions and employed staff Code of conduct matters and ethics

Key project management issues for ROs Appropriateness of requests and better timing Contacting the Postaward team to discuss more difficult issues – we try to find solutions with you Sharing business knowledge and benefits of streamlining Thanks for complying with the financial reporting of cash fully in End of Year’s

Key tips on money $A word on Revoke Recoveries $Bringing funding forward from outyears $Varying grant budget and duration… $Financial compliance - non-allowable items $Special conditions $Submitting a final report then declaring left over funding…

Presented By Julija Deleva - CFO Institutional Review Program

Web: arc.gov.au I The ARC’s Institutional Review Program Objectives: The objective of the reviews is to assess the effectiveness of the management of research projects with the aims being to determine whether: the research projects are operating in accordance with the terms of the Funding Agreement and Funding Rules appropriate reporting, budgeting and project management systems are in place; and activities correlate to those in the research proposal.

Web: arc.gov.au I Actions following an Institutional Review Institutions are notified of the results of each review Findings deemed to be high or extreme should be corrected within 1 to 3 months and the ARC will monitor the implementation of corrective action until such actions have been completed The ARC will follow-up on the actions taken by institutions to address the findings of the review

Web: arc.gov.au I Institutions are reminded that ARC funding agreements contain provision for termination if: o the Administering Organisation commits a breach of the agreement which the Commonwealth considers is not capable of remedy o in the opinion of the ARC, progress on the project is not satisfactory o the ARC reasonably considers that it has received inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information in relation to the project, including in the proposal or in any report provided under the agreement, or provided to the ARC as part of the Institutional Review.

ARC Centres of Excellence and Industrial Transformation Research Program

Centres and ITRP Matters for consultation for 2017 round 2011 mid-term reviews – a summary of our observations A word on research leadership ITRP – training centres and hubs – key postaward matters.

CE17 - consultation Objectives Assessment and selection criteria Marriages FTE for investigators Feedback on proposals Funding Institutional contributions

2011 Centres – Mid term reviews Forward thinking – new strategic plans for second half of research program A culture of organisational excellence Increasing collaboration as an entity, not just researcher based Multi-disciplinary research environment Research training – professional developmentGender equity programs Succession planning – a leadership team focusResearch leadership and mentoring, joint supervision Integration of the nodesFinancial expenditure and leveraging Integration of the research projectsKeeping the governance committees focused on the future Appearing as a unique national entityOutward focused culture – translating the research

Research Leadership selectedIndex=12 Leading a team, versus a leading team

Industrial Transformation Research Program Should appear as unique entities within universitiesChallenges with student placements with industry – placement plan, interstate costs, and truck drivers…. Allowing Directors discretion with recruitment, budget and resourcing and directions Leveraging new funds and collaborations. Working hard with organisational collaborations – managing expectations Postaward – delays in recruitment and conversion of funding Setting up leadership networksA word on international students Commercial activities and IPSecuring industry agreements – 3 years or more

Questions?