I think the opinion of the faculty is important, since they are one of our primary
customers.  We have important external customers, (our sponsors and ensuing
restrictions and regulations) and other important internal customers (Deans,
Presidents, Trustees) to whom we must be responsive.  The interface of these
responsibilities presents our conflicts and our challenges, and is also the setting
for the "art" of effective research administration.

Given that the faculty sees often only one side of the story, a true assessment must
somehow weigh the other perspectives.  How can this be done?  Sometimes the executive
and governance structures of our institutions are not well enough versed (and have
little desire to be so educated) to balance faculty service with the encumbrances
required by a very highly regulated environment (university science) and the
restrictions of our sponsors.  They rely on us to keep them out of trouble.

Faculty opinion of service is important, but what would probably be more valuable to
the faculty is an independent assessment that the research administration policies
and procedures at their institution (choose one depending whether its a bad or good
day) (a) are no more restrictive or annoying than those that at comparable
institutions housing their colleagues and competitors or (b) facilitate their
activities at least as effectively (if not more so) than those practices at
comparable institutions.

What is called for, it seems to me, is some sort of peer review of the institution's
research administration.   Peer review has served the science community very well for
fifty years.  Peer review in animal facilities (AAALAC) and in hospitals (JCAHO) has
driven a continually improving environment.  I am not proposing accreditation, rather
wondering whether some ad hoc or voluntary system would be worthwhile.   If you have
experienced some sort of external review, I'd be interested in hearing what it was
like and whether it was of value.  I'd be interested in knowing whether SRA or NCURA
have had presentations on this.

Bill New  xxxxxx@tch.harvard.edu

mjs wrote:

> Bill:
> Thanks very much for the reply. Yes, please send  a copy of  the "instrument" you
> use. Unfortunately, no one on the list seemed to have anything. I had determined
> that I would have to write one. So, that goes on the stack of  "things to do".
>
> Your interest and help are appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Martha J. Spalding
> Coordinator, Sponsored Programs
> Marshall University Graduate College
>
> William Campbell wrote:
>
> > Martha, I just received your query this morning, been on vacation.  We've done
> > 'quality evaluations' twice in the past few years, using a survey we wrote
> > ourselves.  I think that's a wise strategy, since each university does research
> > admin differently.  We asked specific questions about the specific services we
> > offer requested suggestions for improvement.  Got some interesting feedback,
> > too, resulting in our recent switch from paper-based communications with
> > electronic backup to electronic communications with paper backup.
> >
> > I'll be happy to email you a copy of our surveys if you like.
> >
> > Regards, Bill
> >
> >

======================================================================
 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")
======================================================================