Managing Portfolios from Different Ends of the Spectrum | Part 2: Managing Underfunded Principal Investigators
This three-part series delves into best practices for managing principal investigators (PI’s) with either too little or too much contract and grant funding. In Part I we learned the 5-step process to determine the root causes of under- and over-funding. Now let’s apply those skills to some sample underfunded scenarios.
Let’s assume we’ve already completed step 1. Realize the problem, and we’re going to grab our magnifying glass and move to step 2. Gathering data. A great place to start is to look at outgoing proposals and success rates.
Figure 1 shows the numbers of submitted proposals and awarded projects for six fictional principal investigators (PIs). Our underfunded PIs are highlighted in yellow (the other PIs are well-funded and included for comparison).
Scenario: Not-Submitting Susan
Dr. Susan’s cause of underfunding seems obvious. She only submitted one proposal, whereas her well-funded colleagues submitted 9 or more. So, the problem is that Dr. Susan isn’t submitting enough proposals. Right?
Not so fast. Step 3. Determine possible causal factors asks us to be a toddler and keep asking “but why?” until we find Taylor Swift. (Please review Part 1 in last month’s Catalyst if that last sentence made your brain hurt.)
Schedule a meeting with her to determine why she only submitted one proposal: Laziness? Lacking administrative support? Not enough protected time for proposal writing? Lack of clear expectations regarding proposal activity?
Let’s assume you’ve discovered the root cause: Lack of clear expectations regarding proposal activity. Now, Star-Lord can come in and implement a plan of action.
- Include long-term projections during fiscal review meetings that cover:
- What her funding shortfall is
- When it takes effect
- What the consequences of this shortfall are
- Provide reminders to seek new funding long before existing projects end
- Share policies regarding proposal expectations
- Show her how her proposal productivity compares to her peers.
- If no improvement: escalate. E.g., Ask her to submit a plan for future proposal activities, schedule a one-on-one with leadership about expectations and obstacles, or more severe consequences, such as reduction of salary.
Other possible courses of action to help Not-Submitting Susan, depending on various other root causes, can include subscribing her to funding opportunity newsletters, encouraging collaboration with colleagues, or suggesting she pursue Co-Investigator opportunities.
Scenario: Underfunded Uma
Figure 1 shows us that Dr. Uma is submitting more proposals than our well-funded PIs but has a poor success rate.
“But why?” Review her prior submissions to find out: Is she applying to the appropriate sponsor/opportunity for the type of research being proposed? What areas of her applications are receiving low scores? Are there common themes in her reviewers’ comments?
Possible courses of action:
- Help find sponsors whose funding goals align with her research interests
- Provide/refer to training in proposal basics
- Provide additional administrative support/review for future proposals
- Schedule a meeting with leadership/mentor to discuss opportunities/obstacles
- Analyze reviewer comments to identify common/repeated themes and areas of weakness
- Encourage pilot proposals or smaller projects
- Seek bridge funding, if available
- Ask her to consider other fields of research/foci
With Underfunded Umas, be on the lookout for signs of exhaustion, and feelings of frustration or futility. This can lead to retention issues if not addressed.
Scenario: Overspending Owen
Dr. Owen’s data in Figure 1 doesn’t tell us much. His outgoing proposals and success rate are just as good as his well-funded colleagues, so we need more data.
Looking at his post-award spending (Figure 2), we see it isn’t a matter of not getting projects funded, but rather of spending more than he has.
“But why?” Drill down deeper into Overspending Owen’s financial expenditures and compare them with his budgets. Is he claiming more effort than originally budgeted? Is this a case of poor planning, or unethical spending?
Possible action plans:
- Provide/refer to training in post-award management
- Provide additional administrative support for monitoring spending
- Work with him to develop an appropriate spending plan (and document everything!)
- Mandate regular meetings with fund manager to monitor spending and burn rate
- Encourage him to seek additional sources of funding
If you do not see improvement, escalate your response to include these possible actions:
- Institute a new purchasing process that requires additional approvals before incurring expenses
- Institute mandatory extra review of outgoing proposals to ensure adequate funds are requested
- Ask leadership to intervene
In Part 3, we will discuss Managing Overfunded Principal Investigators.
Authored by Laura W. Sheehan, Manager of Research Administration, Department of Family Medicine
University of California Los Angeles