University of Iowa

1
University of Iowa

• Division of Sponsored Programs
• Report Out on Contract Lean Event
• August, 2006

2
Participants

• Sponsors Meredith Hay, VPR and David Wynes,
  Associate VPR
• Champion Twila Reighley, Assistant VPR,
  Director of Sponsored Programs
• Participants
• David Wynes, Associate VPR
• Wendy Beaver, Sr. Associate Director, DSP
• Lisa Leff, Assistant Director, DSP
• Jim Leaven, Assistant Director, DSP
• Erin Brothers, Program Assistant, DSP
• Jennifer Lassner, Sr. Associate Director, DSP
• Charlotte Talman, Director, CTO
• Kathryn Cox, Licensing Associate, UIRF
• John Doershuk, Director, Contracts Program,
  Office of the State Archaeologist
• Paul Below, Contracts Administrator, IIHR
  Hydroscience and Engineering
• Wendy Jackson, Administrative Specialist,
  Occupational and Environmental Health
• Richard Ahrens, M.D., Professor, Pediatrics
• Chris Manjoine, Application Development and
  Support, Research Info Systems
• Audra Haddy, Associate Controller, Grant
  Accounting
• Rod McElvain, Contracts Administrator, Grant
  Accounting
• Facilitators Observers Brooke Langlitz,
  UIRF

3
Case for Change

• There have been a variety of complaints or
• concerns raised by campus users of the service
• to VPR, Sponsored Program staff and
• sponsoring entities regarding
• Length of time it takes for an initial contract
  review
• Length of time it takes for approval or
  notification of award
• Nature of the negotiation and the variances that
  may exist related to that part of the process
• Costing issues related to proposal review

4
Case for Change

• Annually, DSP processes 5,180 proposals, awards,
  non-monetary agreements, and subcontracts out
  (funding to other institutions). The contracts
  come from a widely diverse group of sponsors and
  vary in complexity and regulatory requirements.
• With this Review, we considered sponsored-related
  contracts directed to UI, about 2 of the grant
  applications and about 8 of the grant awards
  (estimated portion that are very complex and
  require a similar review to contracts), which
  means for this process, we focused on about 1,780
  units.
• Another event is scheduled to examine remaining
  grant process in the future.

5
Scope

• This review started at contract development in
  the unit or department and ended with DSP post
  award administration
• Various steps within DSP and other consultation
  and approval by DSP and sponsor to the actual
  issuance of an Award Activation Authorization
  Notice by DSP to GAO were included.

6
Objectives 1

• Make recommendations for automation where
  appropriate.
• Identify critical/unique skills or key persons in
  the process. Historical knowledge/relationship
  related to a contract is critical to efficient
  and effective resolution.
• Develop plan for reallocating work within DSP
  Contract Team related to future state map and
  determine staffing needed to meet acceptable
  turnaround times, considering queue and process
  time.
• Develop a communication/training plan for future
  state to share with stakeholders and general
  campus as appropriate.

7
Objectives 2

• Determine appropriate metrics and establish
  benchmarks that will drive desired behaviors,
  including but not limited to the following
• Decrease average cycle time baseline for current
  state for initial contract review, approval and
  notification. Set significant improvement goal
  for future state.
• Improve customer feedback to 90-95 satisfaction
  rate
• Determine acceptable and available processing
  times for individual turnaround in order to
  complete negotiation and UI signature of 65 of
  contract agreements within two weeks and 85
  within 75 days.

8
Boundaries

• Contract terms must comply with University
  policies and procedures and federal and state
  regulations.
• Ensure future state process design is flexible
  enough to
• Meet changing federal compliance requirements and
  expectations
• Accommodate unique industry and private
  organization contract requirements

9
What the Customer Values

• Sponsor
• Speed, compliance to their terms, low cost,
  quality
• Principal Investigator
• Speed, ability to spend, protection of interests,
  convenience, relationship with Sponsor, status of
  agreement
• University
• Protection, compliance, funding, relationships,
  academic values, consistency, cost and process
  efficiency, information/data
• Public/Human Subject
• Safety, compensation, access, objectivity
• The Academe/Collaborators
• Academic values, information, consistency, speed

10
Contracts by Sponsor Type
Based on Number of Executed Contracts FY2006 (DSP
Only)
11
Current State

• Multiple steps
• Nearly as many waits/delays as there are steps
• Significant backlog
• Excessive loopbacks
• Limited knowledge and tracking of contract status
  within DSP
• Limited information provided to PI/Department
• Very manual process paper intensive
• DSP accommodating (to a level of inefficiency)

12
Issues

• Contracts arrive in a variety of ways with
  incomplete and inaccurate information
• Some preliminary negotiation is completed without
  contacting DSP for appropriate terms
• Departmental process may be duplicative
• Limited education/understanding of routing form
  information
• Non-monetary database limited/separate
• Routing form arrival varies
• Many approvals required for routing form
• Hard copies rather than electronic
• No deadline or trigger tracking system

13
Issues

• Inconsistent communication of contract edits to
  departments
• Requests for status and updates are manual and
  ad-hoc
• Budget errors can occur throughout process
• With urgent contracts and limited resources,
  backlog is exacerbated
• Duplication of routing form on yellow sheet
• Coding of contracts can occur at different stages
• Budget changes not always communicated to Grant
  Accounting
• Current prioritization is not clearly defined

14
Issues

• Sponsor contact is not always known
• Matching files with contract is labor intensive
• Contracts are sent to various offices instead of
  DSP
• Information gathering from PI occurs at various
  stages
• Non-monetary agreements arrive in DSP with
  inadequate information
• Appropriate FA rate not consistently applied by
  PI/department
• Deadline for regulatory approvals not clearly
  communicated
• Backlog not fully addressed

15
Ideal State Characterization

• Automated where appropriate
• Good requirements capture early in the process
• Visibility to all changes/status
• Roadmap of administrative services
• Manageable volume
• Triage potential
• Protect PI/UI interests
• Eliminates redundancy
• Right person at the right time doing the right
  job
• Minimized waits
• Advertises, educates and shows benefit

All characteristics were met in the Future State
!
16
Future State
17
Future State
18
Accomplishments
19
Whats New or Changed?

• More accurate and complete information is
  available sooner to DSP and throughout process
• More information and tools available to PI
• Electronic viewing and editing status
• Streamlined contract turnaround times with clear
  metrics
• Work distribution is smarter, the right person is
  on the right job
• Contracts will be triaged according to effort and
  complexity up front in process expedited process
  for simple agreements

20
Whats New or Changed?

• Less manual paper processes
• More interactive and collaborative process with
  PI, e.g., scheduled conference calls for complex
  cases prior to Sponsor contact
• Potential to eliminate some negotiation steps
• Improved communication to all stakeholders
• Improved process metrics that system will deliver
• Process flow is smoother and more effective and
  efficient

21
Future Metrics

• Date contract or initial information is received
  in DSP
• Date all required information to start contract
  review is received
• Date contract is completed
• Volume
• Dollars per contract and total dollars
• Activity tracking log to identify bottlenecks
  within process, inclusive of internal and
  external contacts
• Track Current routing data and additional as
  required
• Budget completion date
• IRB and IACUC approvals
• Export control compliance review/date
• Publication exceptions
• Conflict of Interest approval
• Shared credit

22
Critical Next Steps

• Eliminate backlog through reallocation of effort
  and obtaining additional resources
• Electronic team to begin design and incorporate
  Lean recommendations
• Implementation plan in place with follow up
  meetings to be scheduled

23
Implementation tasks

• August September start
• Define categories for triage
• Define rules and triggers for contacting PI and
  Sponsors for follow-up then develop standard
  emails
• Decision RPI DSP needs to notify staff to
  accept industry sponsored CT terms when
  applicable conditions apply, e.g., CT sponsor
  initiated, protocol and drug
• Communicate Lean Event and Implementation process
• Define Work Distribution (consider Creep)
• Determine/Reallocate Roles and Responsibilities
  across entire process
• Finalize Fee For Service Exemption
• Review whether additional terminology is needed
  to accommodate change in contract (e.g.,
  termination clause)
• Determine how to eliminate backlog

24
Implementation tasks

• September October start
• Drop down box for reconciling budget
• Develop internal sponsored training
• Analyze need for relocation (examine space)
• Create DSP Contract email
• Investigate dual monitors
• Review building list options
• October November start
• Education PIs related to various items including
  FA Rate faculty are not authorized to approve
  rate reductions

25
Implementation tasks

• October November start (continued)
• Define intake process and points of contact for
  campus and sponsor
• PI Website
• Budget tools/worksheet
• FA calculator
• Model agreement
• Roadmap to include checklists
• Sponsor website
• Model agreement
• FA Rates

26
Implementation tasks

• November December start
• Develop container (electronic) and routing
• Contract log restarted
• Non-monetary routing project restarted
• Communication, tracking, ticklers, date
• Convert yellow and pink sheets as electronic
  information
• Develop method (dropdown) for capturing lessons
  learned at end of process
• December January start
• Budget Notification to PI