130 likes | 249 Vues
OE Pre-Award Update som faculty Council Meeting june 21, 2012. Susanne Hildebrand-Zanki - AVC , Research. Agenda. Progress to Date Phase IA Survey Summary Pre-Award Resources Advisory Board UCSF Pre-Award Priorities for FY12-13 Questions. Progress as of June, 2012.
E N D
OE Pre-Award Update som faculty Council Meetingjune21, 2012 Susanne Hildebrand-Zanki - AVC, Research
Agenda • Progress to Date • Phase IA Survey Summary • Pre-Award Resources Advisory Board • UCSF Pre-Award Priorities for FY12-13 • Questions
Progress as of June, 2012 • Completed Phases IA, IB, and II, creating 6 teams in the new Research Management Services (RMS) structure • Reorganized Contracts and Grants • Developed and communicated Service Level Agreements (SLAs) • Formed Sponsored Research Advisory Board practices
RMS Team Locations Parnassus – 3 teams Laurel Heights – 3 teams Mt Zion– 1 team • Team C (currently in 109) • Team F (4th Flr) and G (3rd lfr) • Team D – UC Hall • Team H – UC Hall • Team I - UC Hall Mission Bay – 2 teams SFGH – 1 team • Team J - Hellman Bldg • Team E – Ward 24 • Teams A & B – Genentech Hall and Minnesota Street
Sponsored Research Advisory Board • Provide input on service levels and service delivery • Advise on new and/or anticipated customer needs and requirements • Provide input on budget • Ensure alignment with UCSF-wide goals
Sponsored Research Advisory Board The committee will be comprised to represent the varied constituencies of pre-award administration • 1 representative for the Schools of Dentistry, Nursing, and Pharmacy Dean’s Offices • 1 representative for the School of Medicine Dean’s Office • 1 Basic Science Investigator • 1 Clinical Research Investigator • 1 Social Science Investigator • 1 Faculty Member representing the Academic Senate • 3 MSOs, one each from SFGH, Parnassus, and Mission Bay Members will be appointed by the Deans. The Academic Senate representative will be appointed by the Chair of the Academic Senate.
UCSF HR Priorities FY12-13 • Customer Service and SLAs • Continuous Satisfaction Survey • Performance Metrics • Process and Procedure Refinement • Internal between C&G and RMS • External between RMS and our customers • Clear delineation of pre- and post-award responsibilities • Enabling technologies (CACTAS and eProposal) • Reporting • Funding Model for FY 13-14
Funding Options 12 Recharge 1. By Proposal • Disincentive to submit? • Variable cost vs. complexity of proposal? • Administratively burdensome 2. By Research Faculty • Significant challenges in counting PIs • Differentiate faculty/non-faculty? • Administratively burdensome Indirect Cost Recovery 1. Use indirect cost recovery $ that go to the Schools to pay for pre-award services • Reduced ICR $ to departments • Potentially disproportionally affects departments with high award success rate and high effective indirect cost rate • Eliminates recharges Next Steps: reevaluate and refine funding model options