1. Office of Research: Sponsored Programs Examples of Key Process Improvement Initiatives March, 2009

2. Background: A (not so) Short History on the Notice to Establish Account (NEA) Process Process established in 1965 An adaptation of an Army process The process was updated in 1987 –New printer was purchased –The same printer was in use until Jan 7, 2009

3. Background: The Problem with the NEA process Inefficient: –Took up to 1 month to process an award –Had to be hand carried from OSP to GCA –Costly-up to $10,000 in paper alone –Required 7 copies of each award –Required 4 handoffs in OSP alone –Data entered 3 times for each award (2-OSP, 1GCA) –Frequently misplaced files

4. Goals for Replacing the NEA Process Improve the efficiency of the process Combine separate OSP and GCA processes into one Increase data integrity, accuracy and improved distribution of information Get out of processing paper and move to the electronic age Transparency of award status to campus Provide accurate, timely status information Improve speed and consistency of communication of budget number and other changes

5. Solution: Automation in SAGE Suite Campus Research Community Office of Sponsored Programs Pre-Award Administration Grant & Contract Accounting Post-Award Administration Data originates closest to source, but can be viewed and acted on as appropriate in other systems

6. Reduced time to set up awards (2,3 days) Better tracking, no lost files Paperless OSP process Extensive cost reduction Reduced need for Advance Budgets and budget extensions Revised staff roles/flow down responsibility More Consistent Business Practices Outcomes: OSP Improvements

7. Result: Researchers get their budget numbers faster!

8. Other Process Improvements 21 On-going Initiatives: Categories: –Priority Ongoing Process Improvement Initiatives –Long Term Process Improvement (SPAERC/SAGE) –Business Practice Modifications (File Mgmt) –Tools and Materials Development (Master Agreement list)

9. Budget Extensions For no-cost and cost extensions or supplements. –Anticipated date, April, 2009 –Web-based for easier access and processing –Request will go to OSP for approval –Flow down responsibility –Combines three budget actions into one form and process.

10. Budget Extension Process: Anticipated Outcomes –Much faster turn around time for requests for no-cost extensions and supplements –Paperless: cost saving on materials –Fewer duplicated efforts –Lower workload for dept administrators/GCA and OSP

11. 2. Clinical Trial Process Improvement Goal: decrease time to enrollment of subjects to 90 days. Led by Richard Meisinger Exec. Sponsors: Dr. Mary Lidstrom, Dr. John Slattery and Kathryn Waddell Completion date: Winter 2010 Cross campus participation (SOM, HSD, OSP, Health System)

12. Clinical Trials Anticipated Deliverables Firm plan to reduce time to enroll patients Clinical Research Handbook A plan, consistent with the Roadmap, for a tracking system to monitor status/location of a proposal in the pipeline Enhanced knowledge of process, timelines and responsibilities

13. What is Next in OSP? More Efficiency Improvements in Process –System 2 System proposal submission (Grant Runner) –Revised award process for clinical trials –VA contracts processing and tracking –Intranet re-design –Extranet re-design –Sub-contract processing –Non-federal Model Documents Reference –Master Agreement tracking and posting –“Expert” list compiled and posted –Review of F&A Waiver Request Process