Managing Portfolios from Different Ends of the Spectrum | Part 1: Steps to Determine the Root Causes of Underfunding/Overfunding
This three-part series delves into best practices for managing principal investigators (PIs) with either too little or too much contract and grant funding. The first part of the series introduces you to the steps to address both types of issues. Both scenarios are challenging for different reasons, but in both cases, it is important to first understand the why of the situation.
A good solution requires a good understanding of the problem.
To do this, I recommend Root Cause Analysis. This 5-step process asks you to: 1. Realize the problem, 2. Gather data, 3. Determine possible causal factors, 4. Identify root cause, and 5. Recommend and implement solutions. I like to call this my Hanks-Holmes-Toddler-Swift-Star-Lord approach. Allow me to explain…
“Houston, we have a problem.” – Tom Hanks
Hanks’ famous quote from Apollo 13 is perfect for illustrating step one. This is sometimes easier said than done. As research administrators, we must spot issues before they escalate. Regular financial meetings that include 12-month salary projections are a good tool to identify funding shortages, and tracking outgoing proposals and success rates help recognize concerning trends before they become chronic.
“Data! Data! Data! I cannot make bricks without clay.” – Sherlock Holmes
Once you and your PI have acknowledged the problem, it’s time to bust out your magnifying glasses and start gathering data that will help you determine the root cause.
I always look at proposal data first. Keeping track of outgoing proposals and which ones are funded is a good start. The more data points the better, but I recommend at least tracking the PI, sponsor name and type, dates, project title or some sort of tracking number, and amount requested. As proposals can take up to a year to be funded, your data should ideally go back at least 12 months. Include notes on when you expect to hear back so that you can remove proposals that have fallen out of the funding window.
I also recommend tracking post-award spending and reviewing with PIs monthly. Your reports should cover expenditures, encumbrances, and projections versus the original budget to manage burn rates effectively.
“But why? But why?” – Every toddler everywhere
Sometimes the answer will jump right out at you when reviewing the data, and other times you’ll need to keep digging before being able to determine the actual root cause.
Sometimes you will need to take a step back to gather more data for a satisfactory answer. Most often, this step will require you to set up a meeting with the PI where you can ask more questions to find the core reason.
“Hi! It’s me! I’m the problem, it’s me.” - Taylor Swift
Step four is accomplished when you have determined the true root cause. For example, let’s assume you’ve gathered data on an underfunded PI, and it is clear she just hasn’t been submitting proposals. This is a cause, but it isn’t the root cause. Keep asking “but why?”. Perhaps the answer is because she’s busy. But why? Because she doesn’t have enough time to research funding opportunities. But why? Because her project director quit last fall and the PI has been doing her job in addition to her own. Hi Taylor, there’s your problem.
“I have a plan… Um, I have PART of a plan.” – Star-Lord
Step five is where you come up with targeted solutions for your PI. Your plan should include initial and immediate steps, and back-up actions to take if improvement is not seen in a timely manner.
In Part II we will apply our five steps to underfunded PI scenarios.
Authored by Laura W. Sheehan, Manager of Research Administration, Department of Family Medicine
University of California Los Angeles