Dear Martha and colleagues: I'll bite. This is a great question that hopefully
was preceded by an even more basic one: What is it that we want to accomplish?
Once we're clear about that, it makes a lot of sense to ask whether the central
office contributes anything to the aim if it reviews proposals. Cutting out the
review simply to be more efficient or cut costs without reference to the results
we want to achieve, could be short sighted. One can be very efficient at doing
the wrong things.

Sounds like the dreaded R word may be behind this question. After sitting
through what seems like innumerable sessions at the spring meetings on
re-engineering, re-invention, and ERA I've been kind of appalled at the rush to
change organizational structures and processes and embrace automation without
asking the more basic questions. Re-engineering is not a synonym for
improvement. Improvement emanates from change, but not all change produces
improvement. If the existing system was poorly conceived, what guarantees that
the re-engineered system will be better? Establishing a re-engineering
bureaucracy ensures that re-design will take place even if not warranted.
Re-engineering should be an option within an overall strategic approach, not the
driver of the strategy. I didn't mean for this to sound cranky, but NO MORE
Re-engineering! Back to some basics!

Bill Kirby

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: proposal review
Author:  Research Administration Discussion Group
<xxxxxx@health.state.ny.us> at NOTE
Date:    5/22/96 9:03 PM

Dear Colleagues:

A philosophical question for general discussion:

Why should a central university office review and approve proposals before
they are submitted to external sponsors?

----------------------------------------------------------
Martha M. Taylor,   Director               (334) 844-4438
Contracts and Grants Administration         FAX (334) 844-5953
307 Samford Hall
Auburn University,  AL  36849-5131
xxxxxx@mail.auburn.edu