Managing and Facilitating the Changing Nature of Research Administration

1. Managing and Facilitating the Changing Nature of Research Administration An Assessment Program for Sponsored Program Operations NCURA Peer Review Program

2. Presenters • Robert Andresen • Director of Research Financial Services; Associate Director, Research and Sponsored Programs • University of Wisconsin-Madison • Past Chair, Select Committee on Peer Review • Peggy S. Lowry • Manager, Peer Review and Peer Counsel Services • National Council of University Research Administrators • Retired Director, Oregon State University

3. INORMS Theme • PERFORMANCE--tracking, enabling, or measuring performance or impact utilizing tools or systems. This track encourages sessions that will educate participants on the deployment of specific tools such as electronic systems, development of key indicators, or application of scorecards that enable successful tracking and evaluation of research administration and research impact performance.

4. Abstract • The fast pace and changing nature of research administration in colleges and universities requires not just managing an existing enterprise but additionally facilitating ongoing changes to meet evolving expectations and requirements. Colleges and universities employ a number of approaches to assess how well programs are achieving their goals and a program's strengths and weaknesses, as well as to gather information to assist in developing strategic plans and priorities for future directions. These assessments in the U.S. are commonly seen in regularly occurring academic program reviews or institutional or other program accreditation. • The NCURA Peer Review Program was developed to provide an assessment of the sponsored programs operation, a parallel assessment to academic program reviews. The NCURA assessment is intended to help insure a high quality infrastructure by providing the highest caliber support services and efficiencies to support faculty and to provide proper stewardship of sponsored program funds. As the first formal U.S. program established to provide structured assessments, the program has received much attention and has conducted over 60 peer reviews. The National Standards for Effective Sponsored Programs Operations provide the framework for the review and insure that a consistent set of Standards are utilized in the review process. • This session will discuss the evolution of the program and future directions. A companion panel at the INORMS conference is Trends and Outcomes from the NCURA Peer Review Program for Sponsored Program Operations that will discuss some broad themes that surfaced from these reviews.

5. Assessing Sponsored Programs PAST NOW FUTURE

6. NCURA Peer Review Program History and Creation Task Force Created; Operational for 3 Years 2005-2007 Conceived by NCURA Past President 2 1 Idea Task Force 7 Reviewer Training Standards Development 3 Program Coordinator Developed/ Implemented Reviewer Training National Standards Developed: Indicators of Effective Operation Process Development Reviewer Selection 6 4 Program Coordination Developed Reviewer Criteria and Selection Process General Process for Conducting Peer Review Defined 5 PAST Coordinator Hired

7. Evolving the Peer Review Program • Why was developing the program important? • Objective Assessment • Accountability to Constituents • Need for Consistent Standards and Expectations • Open Dialogue and Communications PAST

8. Evolving the Peer Review Program • Outcomes/Issues to be met by Program • Effective Practices • Knowledgeable Individuals to Conduct Assessment • Continuing Improvement PAST

9. Current Program NOW

10. NCURA Peer Review Program • Program released March 2008 • Over 60 reviews to-date NOW $250+ M $0-8 M $70.1-$250 M $8.1-70 M

11. NCURA Peer Review Program NOW Emerging Research, PUI Not-for Profit Research Intensive Community College Common Feature: To Improve Large (40,000 students), small (3,000 students) Private, State, Land Grant Medical/ Health, Teaching, Research

12. Current Program • National Standards • Characteristics • 34 Standards; 65 features • Broad Institutional Areas to Functional Areas • How Standards are Used • Frame the Review • Applied in Context to Institution • Reviewers Knowledge NOW

13. Current Program • What motivates an institution to undergo assessment? • Change in Campus Leadership • Seeking Outside Feedback • Unfamiliarity with Sponsored Project Management Requirements • Seeking Increased Efficiencies and/or Cost Savings • Dissatisfaction with Services • Audit Concerns or Findings NOW

14. Current Program • What is the Process for Peer Review? • Campus Decisions • Briefing Book • On-site Visit • Report Preparation NOW

15. Current Program • Many Institutions Receiving a Review asking Now What! • Several additional services to assist institutions NOW

16. What Is Next FUTURE

17. What Is Next • Evolving Standards • Fine Tuning • Adapting to Different Types of Institutions • Global Perspective FUTURE

18. What Is Next • Continue to Share Themes • Develop Senior-Level Workshops FUTURE

19. Questions-Discussion PAST NOW ? FUTURE