iSRA Virtual Conference - Monday Sessions

We all use email in our daily lives to accomplish our jobs, communicating with faculty, sponsors, vendors, department support, and many other internal and external people. However, though we get the job done, many of us do not use email as effectively as we could be, and more importantly, don’t provide the level of customer service that we should be providing as research administrators. Email can make our lives and jobs easier and make us more effective as the helpful research administrators we should be if we follow some simple guidelines and communication best practices. I will be discussing best practices and techniques within a workplace for response time, carbon copying, signatures, greetings, formality, content, and maintaining a professional tone that can help to make people’s professional lives easier and more effective, and maybe even their personal lives.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Respond to emails with professional and effective tone and language, especially those received with unpleasant tone or unpleasant news, and know when to take a conversation offline to avoid miscommunication and negativity. 
2. Include a proper greeting, subject line, and signature in emails; write clear, specific, and coherent emails; know how to respond when you don't know what to say; understand more about who and when to copy. 

Speaker(s): Christine Chacko, CPA, Assistant Director, Finance, Office of Research, Drexel University

When a Principal Investigator (PI) moves from one institution to another, more often than not, existing awards will transfer to the new institution with approval of the original institution and the sponsor. Unfortunately, these award transfers can sometimes become an arduous process with long delays that can negatively affect the PI’s ability to continue the research project uninterrupted. However, if research administrators anticipate transfers and work proactively and collaboratively, we can make the process efficient and develop lasting positive relationships with all involved. Institutional policies and procedures that encourage and support this approach enable administrators to better facilitate the process and responsiveness to the increasingly collaborative research environment and growing faculty workforce mobility. We will explore this topic from a process and relationship perspective; discuss the factors that may complicate and thus delay the transfer process; and share best practices for both incoming and outgoing awards and non-financial agreements. We will also discuss Successor in Interest bulk award transfers unique to situations where one institution is taking on the obligations of another.

Content level: Basic 

Learning objectives:

1. Gain basic understanding of the complexities of sponsored project transfers. 
2. Learn best practices for the collaborative and proactive administration of incoming and outgoing project transfers.

Speaker(s): Isabella DiFranzo, CRA, Grant and Contract Officer, Cornell University; Susan Wyatt Sedwick, PhD,CRA,CSM, Senior Consulting Specialist, Attain LLC; Jamie Sprague, Sr. Grant & Contract Officer Federal & Subaward Team Lead, Cornell University

The latest compliance area to present itself to the research communality is that of ‘foreign influence’. Whether from the NIH, the FBI, the Office of Science and Technology Policy or countless other agencies, the message is clear: be concerned about foreign influence. But, what is less clear is everything else – including how to integrate these efforts to reduce ‘foreign influence’ into the culture, practice and administration of research. In this session, we will address such topics as: What is meant by foreign influence? Institutional responses to this concern - especially in light of the lack of clear regulations or even guidelines and Institutional attempts to protect against 'foreign influence' but, at the same time, continue to encourage and support international research collaborations. 

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Identify "foreign influence". 
2. Explore ways to integrate efforts in reducing "foreign influence".

Speaker(s): John Baumann, Associate Vice President for Research Compliance, Indiana University 

Have you ever caught yourself saying one of the following when considering delegating a task? It will be faster if I do it myself. I'm not sure this will get done correctly if I don't do it myself. I really like doing this, so I'll do it myself. I don't like to ask. If so, THIS workshop is for you. Participants will learn more about why, what, when and to whom to delegate. This session is intended for managers and supervisors.

Content level: Basic 

Learning objectives:

1. We will identify reasons why delegation is essential for managers/supervisors of high performing teams.
2. Discovering the key aspects of Successful Delegation.

Speaker(s): Sheila McMillan, MBA, Lead Administrative Specialist, Temple University, Lewis Katz School of Medicine

Expectations for oversight of subrecipients have increased under the Uniform Guidance, and institutions continue to develop and refine their processes. However, many institutions still struggle with appropriate evaluation and management of high risk subrecipients. This session will focus on discussing challenges faced in working with subrecipients and best practices learned from these experiences.

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Attendees will gain insight on the requirements for risk assessment and monitoring of subrecipient under 2 CFR 200. Participants will understand the documentation obligations for monitoring.
2. Participants will explore ways to minimize the burden of the requirements. 

Speaker(s): Rashonda Harris, MBA, CRA Director, Emory University

Budget cuts coupled with a demand for greater research administration support are the reality at many public institutions of higher education. Is it possible to do less with less and still meet the needs of PIs, our institution, and our sponsors? This presentation will describe the "institutional proposal review model" in which central office review is limited to only those proposal elements that pose a risk to the University. The presentation will cover the impetus for this change, how the model was derived and implemented, the impact on department RAs, other organizational challenges and the results to date.

Content level: Intermediate

Learning objectives:

1. Implement a proposal review model based on proposal elements that pose a risk to the University. 
2. Understand the advantages and risks of implementing such a model within a higher education setting. 

Speaker(s): Pamela Miller, PhD, Executive Director, Sponsored Projects Office, UC Berkeley 

Almost every research institution must engage in the process of negotiating federal indirect rates. Non-profits face unique challenges under the Uniform Guidance in preparing, submitting and negotiating indirect rates. As we go through this process, many of us often wonder if we have done everything we can do within the constraints of federal regulations in order to maximize our institution’s negotiated indirect rate and resulting indirect cost recovery. In this session, we will discuss strategies that may be employed to maximize indirect cost recovery, both in the preparation of your indirect rate proposal as well as during the subsequent rate negotiation and budgeting of indirect costs on grants and contracts. Participants will be encouraged to share their experiences concerning the indirect rate process.

Content level: Basic 

Learning objectives:

1. Identify what an indirect cost rate is, its importance and the various types of costs recovered through the indirect rate.
2. Explore different types of rates and how they impact recovery and understand the process for preparing, submitting and negotiating the rate under the Uniform Guidance.

Speaker(s): Alex Weekes, CPA, Principal, ML Weekes & Company, PC

The high level of administrative burden on research investigators at AMC’s and research universities is a very real problem. A recent survey by the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) reported that research investigators spend 42% of their time on administrative activities. Most institutions blame external sponsors and regulating agencies for this problem. But, how much of the burden is created by our own institutions as a result of setting up inefficient processes that are onerous or confusing to the end-user? How often do organizations look at their existing policies and processes to see if they have become outdated or could be streamlined? Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) took the bold step to look inward and drive down the administrative burden for their researchers by creating an operational improvement program called Isuggest. The approach was to create an idea-driven organization where all employees could give ideas to improve our policies and processes. Unlike Six-Sigma that is top-down and driven by management, an idea-driven organization relies on the concept that small ideas by front-line employees can collectively lead to big impacts. The session will focus on the background, implementation plan, and results to date of Isuggest. In addition, we will give a demo of the application used to manage the program.

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Understand that all employees within an organization can be leveraged to improve organizational efficiency.
2. Understand how an idea system operates with the research enterprise of an AMC. 

Speaker(s): Gary Smith, MPA, Sr. Administrative Director, Massachusetts General Hospital Research Institute 

The NSF OIG will present updates on the audit process, in-depth case studies related to audit findings, and observed best practices by auditees. This presentation will include new/updated content from prior year NSF OIG presentations.

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Better understand the intricacies of common NSF OIG findings.
2. Understand grant management best practices that the NSF OIG has observed over recent audits.

Speaker(s): Ken Lish, CPA, CFE, MBA, Acting Director, Contract Grant Audits, National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General

With the advances in research administration we tend to forget about our basics. When we forget about basics we miss pertinent information to guide us in managing our awarded research projects. This session will remind us of what is important to the PI, the institution and everyone involved in the managing the award.

Content level: Basic 

Learning objectives:

1. Identify the needs of the PI, institution, pre and post award offices; know your PI's science to pull together a budget; match the budget to the science. 
2. Can you manage what was proposed at pre-award from the post-award perspective; if this, then scenarios. 

Speaker(s): Lorrie Robbins, CRA, Manager Research Administration, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Betty Morgan, CRA, Manager Research Administration, UNC Chapel Hill 

Research administrators are planners whether intrinsically or because of the deadline sensitivity of our work.  We thought we had seen it all and prepared for the worst but this past year has been unprecedented in the challenges we have faced on a global level.  The COVID-19 pandemic and horrific wildfires have challenged us in ways we never fathomed and tested our continuity of service action plans, risk management and communication strategies beyond dealing with government shutdowns, weather events and active threats on campus.  Accommodating working parents who are coping with a sudden loss of childcare, homeschooling children, sharing counter or office space with a spouse or, even worse, family members who are ill.  Keeping work moving when everyone is distracted and frightened by the daily news has taxed us all to the breaking point. The panelists will share lessons learned and provide insights on planning for the next unexpected event and the data that are needed for decision making in times of crisis, how to ensure communications that mitigate rather than heighten concerns are handled and how virtual teamwork helped us to survive the unimaginable. 

Content level: Intermediate 

Learning objectives:

1. Understand the basic tenets of contingency and risk management planning.
2. Identify key constituents who should be included in risk management communication planning. 

Speaker(s): Susan Wyatt Sedwick, PhD,CRA,CSM, Senior Consulting Specialist, Attain LLC; Andrea Deaton, Associate Vice President for Research and Executive Director, Office of Research Services The Univeristy of Oklahoma; Marie-Helene Rousseau, PhD, Research Funding and Development Manager, The Australian National University; Patrick Callaghan, Assistant Vice-Chancellor, Finance & Operations, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego 

 

This is a presentation of the process of drug development from the pharmaceutical industry’s perspective. Timelines, quality and cost will be driving factors for discussion. The pharmaceutical industry’s general organizational structure will be introduced. The clinical trial protocol development process and clinical study conduct will be presented. Pharmaceutical drivers for study site selection will be highlighted. Site-based contracts, including budgets, publication rights and intellectual property will also be discussed.

Content level: Basic 

Learning objectives:

1. Provide pharmaceutical industry perspective in the drug development process. 
2. Review timelines, quality and cost related issues. 

Speaker(s): Tia Patterson, PhD, Sr. Clinical Team Manager