I’ll be grouchy.

 

Having a “reason to care” about the grant approval process or even being interested in it are not reasons for someone to be a necessary part of the process.  We need to ask each person/office some questions:

1)      What is your role in the process?  What are you looking at/checking for?

2)      Have you ever found problems in an application that prevented its submission?  Would/could/should those problems have been discovered by others?

3)      Is the institution obligated by agency or federal rules to be performing your role?  Is your role of internal importance only?  Could your function be accomplished via a report generated outside the formal submission process?

4)      What are the negative consequences of removing you from the approval process?  Do these consequences outweigh the greater efficiency of a more streamlined process?

5)      Do these questions irritate you?  Do I still have a job?

 

Charlie

 

From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of Lorrie Anthony
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 11:55 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grant Approvals

 

I used to be grouchy.  As one who works at a small campus and who used to chase after 8 administrative signatures, I got tired of being an overpaid gofer.  Even with electronic signatures I was spending way too much time going after folks who really didn't care.  I have now gotten the signatures whittled down to the dean (we have no department chairs), the President, the Provost, and the VP for Administration.  All of the folks have a reason to care and are very good with a timely response.



From:        "K.Monae Consulting" <xxxxxx@GMAIL.COM>
To:        xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Date:        03/09/2012 11:32 AM
Subject:        Re: [RESADM-L] Grant Approvals
Sent by:        Research Administration List <xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org>

I'm not particularly grouchy about this either...but I could hug you for this post right now! LOL

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 9, 2012, at 5:46 AM, Mike McCallister <xxxxxx@GRANTSTREETSERVICES.COM> wrote:

> I've found over the years that the smaller the school, the more signatures you have to get.  My personal best is a school with 12 signatures.  No kidding, 12.  Great big schools?  Maybe 3-- Chair, Dean and Designated Signatory.  All those extra signatures are silly in our opinion, but those who sign want desperately to be seen as part of the CONTROL function, even though when something goes wrong all that poop slides downhill onto the research administrators head.  "You should have known."  Right, that's why a secret is called a "secret."  Trying to reduce the institution's standing plan for signatures is just like poking a bunch of bears with a stick.  Everyone wants to appear to be involved, even when it is screamingly obvious their participation is just window dressing.  It just makes me nuts, but then this is also the nature of organizations that is replete with amateur administrators-- none were trained to manage anything and they meet the clueless standard far too of!
te!
> n.
>
> Not that I am particularly grouchy about this.
>
> Really.
>
> Spanky
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org] On Behalf Of Gregory K. Schmidt
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 8:39 PM
> To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
> Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Grant Approvals
>
> In my humble opinion, there are several on your list I'd drop.
>
> 1.  President
> 2.  VP of IA
> 3.  VP Student affairs
> 4.  VP Enrollment
> 5.  VP Admin
>
> I would add
> 1. School dean/Dept chair
>
> That's 3 approvals, maybe 4.  Why so few?  Do you really think the President reads all grant apps?  Why would Student affairs need to approve  a grant about Wombats?
>
> Give those I took off the list a monthly report (PI, Title, Sponsor, $, etc.).  
>
> The more signers on a document, the less reviewn there actually is.  If the Pres signs off, who will say no?  I'm an overworked VP of Student Affairs.  I don't have time for this!  Surely the VP Admin will catch anything wrong.  I'll sign and pass it on.  
>
> Don't think it happens?  Every single org I've either worked for, or consulted has had these issues.  Every one of them with errors.
>
> "xxxxxx@mcdaniel.edu" <xxxxxx@MCDANIEL.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Quite a while ago (perhaps almost a year) I sent an email out asking what sort of lead time your office/school requires for the grant approval process. I am revisiting that topic, as I am trying to prepare a policy change for my institution.
>>
>> Who at your institution has to sign off on a grant for it to be submitted? Oddly enough, our institutional policy does not include the PI or the Department Chair. Right now we require:
>>
>> *   Director of Grants (myself)
>> *   President
>> *   Provost
>> *   VP for Administration and Finance
>> *   VP for Institutional Advancement
>> *   VP for Student Affairs
>> *   VP for Enrollment Management/Dean of Admission
>>
>> As you can imagine this takes a lot of work and coordination, and policy has always been a 30 day lead time on all grants submitted. If any one of these people objects, changes have to be made to the proposal or it simply does not get submitted.
>>
>> I figure as we are trying to transition to electronic approvals, it is a good time to make other changes as well. Any data I can have from other institutions, especially small PUI's/Liberal Arts institutions, would be extremely helpful.
>>
>> Thank you for all your input!
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> **********************************************
>> Robin N Dewey, MS, CRA
>> Director, Office of Academic and Government Grants McDaniel College
>> 2 College Hill
>> Westminster, MD 21157-4390
>> Voice: 410-386-4699
>> Cell: 585-797-8536
>>
>>
>>
>> ======================================================================
>> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including  
>> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available  
>> via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the  
>> "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)
>>
>> A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help
>> ======================================================================
>
>
> ======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including  subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available  via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the  "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)
>
> A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help ======================================================================
>
>
> ======================================================================
> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
> via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the
> "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)
>
> A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help
> ======================================================================


======================================================================
Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including
subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available
via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the
"LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)

A link directly to helpful tips:  http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help
======================================================================

====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)

A link directly to helpful tips: http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help ======================================================================