I posted the below message a couple of days ago.  I have gotten only a few
responses.
I have concluded that there is essentially no hard data.
SO PLEASE SEND "soft" data.
List the "new" things you have had to add to your repertoire of things your
office does in the last couple of years.  The least I can do is to tabulate
these.  You will probably all be saying the same things -- but if 20 of 25
respondents (not the 3 I have now!) are newly doing X, it is clear that is
"new work" for our offices.

Marcia Landen and Mike McCallister did a nice article in JSRA XXXIII, No.
III, 2002 (p.19-22) about these changes and how they affect the profession
--  but there is NO CLEAR LIST of the changes.

So send me lists of new tasks.  Maybe even experienced guesses at how much
time they take.  We ALL need something more to tell our bosses than just
that our shops are overworked.  We need to show that all university shops
are overworked because of the same things being added to our
workload.  Sometimes it is adding new requirements.  Sometimes it is
shifting duties from the sponsor to us. Sometimes it is shifting duties
from the PI to us.  I'll tabulate and share the results.

Chuck

>Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:29:47 -0400
>To: Research Administration Discussion List <xxxxxx@HRINET.ORG>
>From: "Herbert B. Chermside" <xxxxxx@vcu.edu>
>Subject: Incremental Workload Accretion
>
>My office has observed in the last couple of years a large increase of
>little things to do thrust upon us.  Just-in-time proposal data.  Letters
>of approval.  Reports of compliance measures.  Little things that take
>just 2 - 5 minutes -- of each of three people's time; receptionist,
>research administrator, signing authority.  Just little things -- many
>times a day.  It adds up to a significant increase in the office work load
>per major transaction.
>
>For example, we used to review a proposal, sign everything, and then not
>see it until the award came.  Now we review the proposal; we spend extra
>time with it because it has to be submitted electronically (by a different
>method for each sponsor); we receive requests for JIT information; we
>forward that to the PI to collect the data; we receive it back from the
>PI; we sign/certify, etc.; we fax it back to the sponsor; and finally an
>award comes.
>
>Are other sponsored program offices experiencing the same increase in
>required administrative activity required by the sponsors?  Has anyone
>measured it?  Do you have anecdotal reports?
>
>If you have some data, please respond on the list or privately.  Identify
>"hard" data and "experienced observation" separately, please.  Experienced
>observation is very useful, but we must separate the two.  If you can
>identify a specific cause for some of it, please do.  (For example,
>106-107 is forcing all these different electronic proposal mechanisms --
>it's not electronic that really gets to us, but that they are all
>different!)  I'll compile responses in about a week and share.
>
>Chuck

Herbert B. Chermside, CRA
Director, Sponsored Programs Administration
Virginia Commonwealth University
PO BOX 980568
Richmond, VA  23298-0568
Express Delivery Only:
 Biotech One, Suite 113
 Virginia Biotechnology Research Park
 800 East Leigh Street
 Richmond, VA 23219
Voice:  804-828-6772
Fax     804-828-2521
OFFICE e-mail   xxxxxx@VCU.EDU
Personal e-mail xxxxxx@vcu.edu
http://www.research.vcu.edu/ospa.htm

======================================================================
 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.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists")
======================================================================