Changing the culture of research administrators at a public university.

Introduction

The University of Michigan has a fairly decentralized operating environment for research administration. At the department level, over 800 staff are involved in the day-to-day administration of research. According to Jim Randolph, the Senior Associate Director of the Division for Research Development and Administration (DRDA), the University's philosophy for research administration is "to surround the principal investigators with well-trained department level administrators who manage the administrative details and allow the investigator to focus on the science." The central offices of the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR), Division for Research Development and Administration (DRDA), and Financial Operations Sponsored Programs Office (SPO) are the focal points for sponsored research administration.

Where vision, strategy, and other tactics can set an organization on the right path, senior leaders in OVPR, DRDA, SPO, and several departments across campus realized that to succeed over time, the research culture needed to change and become both positive and vibrant. The goal was to get research administrators, who had an uncertain status as a group, to believe they have the ability to respond to the changing environment by thinking and acting collaboratively (Lessons in Leadership, June 2006).

Inside an organization, functional units often develop their own unique cultures. This was the case at the University where culture clashes often occurred between the central sponsored projects office, departmental research offices, financial operations sponsored projects office, human resources, payroll, accounts payable, contract administration, and purchasing. Each different unit had developed its own perspective, set of values, and culture. Difficulties arose in coordinating and integrating the processes and organizational activities of research administration.

The newly envisioned research administration culture encompassed individuals working with any aspect of research administration within the multiple departments across campus. The characteristics of the culture included 1) minimal management levels, 2) informality and self-management, 3) employee ownership, 4) work teams, 5) participation, and 6) job rotation. Instead of hierarchical rules and procedures, what makes the research administration culture unique is teamwork, employee involvement programs, University commitment to employees, semiautonomous work teams, rewards on the basis of team (not individual) accomplishments, processes that encourage workers to voice suggestions, and an empowering environment for employees. Research administration leaders are viewed as mentors, team builders, and facilitators. (Cameron & Quinn, 2006).

Catalyst for Change

1) Dramatic Growth in Research Volume

The University of Michigan's research expenditures have more than doubled from $386 million in 1994 to $778 million in 2005. The increased research volume led to doubling of departmental level research administration staff.

2) Technological Changes

The University has seen significant changes in the use of technology and software and the need for data security in managing research and other institutional administrative functions. The Internet, a multi-tier remote computing application database (PeopleSoft), and electronic grant submissions all have affected day-to-day research management. These changes have necessitated the distribution of many central research administration functions to the department level. Decentralization has created a significant need for training and communication among department level administrators, as well as with financial coordinators and IT administrators.

3) Regulatory and Compliance Environment

From OMB Circular A-21 to human subjects policies, export controls, and the effects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the sponsored research regulation environment has changed dramatically over the last decade. The government's improved ability to track compliance (enhanced by its own use of improved technology) and the addition of new regulatory/compliance requirements has greatly impacted research administration. Research administrators at all levels need to be more educated about a wider variety of regulations and perform as educators and enforcers of those requirements closer to where the research is being conducted. Regulation and compliance are complex areas and lack of compliance comes with some potentially costly consequences.

Methods

The University of Michigan's Response A group of about ten senior leaders from across campus recognized the impact the changes would make on the University and decided to be proactive instead of reactive. They embarked on an integrated strategy to improve the research administration culture at the University of Michigan. This strategy was comprised of four components: 1) determining educational needs and creating training programs; 2) building a sense of community among research administrators; 3) creating cross-functional problem solving teams to encourage a collaborative environment; and 4) developing programs to recognize and reward individual and group research leadership.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

1) Education and Training

A guiding coalition from central and department level administration was formed in 1997 to build a new culture around research administration. One of their earlier findings was that the University needed a comprehensive training program for research administrators. Since this was a culture change, research administrators were chosen to be the ones to develop their own programs and be the experts. The research administrators determined the curriculum and designed and developed the program. Senior leadership realized there would be a trade off between the time it would take the group to develop the programs versus the quality and sustainability of the training program. Experts could have been brought in from the outside and training could have been done in a few months. Instead, the decision was made to take time to build a sense of ownership and participation and address the areas of concern for the research community.

After two years refining the curriculum, a process which involved more than 100 colleagues, the Research Administrators Instructional Network (RAIN) was piloted. Nine years later, RAIN training continues to be offered three times a year. Participants are required to make a four week commitment--a full day of training each week. While nearly 75 applications are received for each session, only 24 research administrators are selected for attendance. Since its inception in 1999, more than 500 research administrators have completed the RAIN program. It is increasingly common for research administration job postings at the University to list RAIN training as a desired qualification.

During the four day program, up to thirty central and departmental administrators present topics. In addition to the benefits of the comprehensive agenda, a sense of community and collaboration is encouraged by scheduled group lunches with the presenters and others in central administration. The current RAIN program agenda follows.

In 2001 DRDA allocated funds to create a dedicated staff position to manage education and training programs. This training staff member identifies ongoing training needs, oversees the development of new programs, and coordinates program delivery for the research administration community. The existence of this position has been instrumental in creating an open environment for the flow of ideas and in implementing programs in direct response to both central and departmental administrator's concerns.

DRDA and SPO have also collaborated to create additional training programs for new and experienced research administrators. Currently, fifteen programs, nine of which are listed below, are offered regularly. Enrollment in these programs has totaled over 2,500.

2) Creating a Sense of Community

The University of Michigan established the Research Administrators Network (RAN) in 2001. The Network is meant to provide continuing education in the area of research administration and enable departmental administrators to interact with each other and leaders in central administration. A planning committee, made up of mostly departmental administrators, sets the agendas for the quarterly meetings. Any research administrator is welcome to recommend or suggest new directions or agenda items for future RAN meetings. The meetings include an educational topic, as well as updates critical to the University research community. RAN meetings have an average attendance of 250. The meetings have become an effective and enjoyable tool for sustaining the research administration culture at the University.

As the new research culture grew stronger, employees made suggestions to improve their work and the work of other research administrators. Senior leaders empowered the research administrators by designating staff time to implement their ideas. Examples of suggestions from research administrators included creating a web-based research administrators' Toolkit' to assist research administrators to quickly locate information related to their jobs (http://www. research.umich.edu/ralinks/index.html) and developing a website, RAN Online, to provide a place where research administrators can share documents, templates and ideas that may be of use to their colleagues.

The Toolkit has proven to be a success and is updated on a regular basis. RAN Online has not proved to be as useful. However, succeed or fail, the response of development and implementation provided empowerment. Sharing information and problem solving online is not yet comfortable for many research administrators.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The Toolkit synthesizes information from the University's main Research website (see Table 3 below) with useful links and information relevant to research administrator's day-to-day work.

3) Cross Departmental Collaboration and Problem Solving

In October 2001, a Sponsored Programs Implementation Team (SPIT) was commissioned for two years to improve the administration of sponsored projects at the University. Specifically, SPIT was charged to validate a list of issues and priorities, to complete a situation analysis, and to deliver solutions. Many of these issues related to making central administration more responsive to the needs of departmental administrators. Others focused on maximizing the value of the new financial system (PeopleSoft). SPIT was a cross-functional representation of research administrators from the University of Michigan's central and departmental level administration.

The SPIT model has created new leadership opportunities for departmental research administrators. After SPIT's commission ended, a "Sponsored Projects Advisory Team" (SPA Team) was formed (http://www. spateam.umich.edu). The SPA Team's basic purpose is to: discuss new issues and facilitate solutions, address specific problems as they arise, continue to clarify the roles and responsibilities of central and academic units, manage communications about research administration, and evaluate solutions and subsequent policy and procedure changes.

These types of team efforts have set the standard for collaboration between departmental research administrators and staff in central offices. The communication and, in some instances, cultural clashes which once hindered problem solving are being overcome with the use of the SPIT model. The existence of this committee has given staff in all departments across campus the sense of collective support and responsibility.

4) Recognition Programs

As part of the cultural change, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) established the annual Distinguished Research Administrator and OVPR Exceptional Service Awards. Nominations are requested campus-wide. The Distinguished Research Administrator Award honors individual staff members from any department at the University who have demonstrated distinguished service exemplifying the goals of professional research administration over a number of years. The OVPR Exceptional Service Award honors individuals from OVPR or the many units which report to OVPR, who have made outstanding contributions going beyond the ordinary fulfillment of the position's job expectations. In addition to receiving an honorarium and an award plaque, these research administrators are recognized in front of their peers in an awards ceremony a RAN meeting.

Results

The success of the changing culture of research administrators has also impacted other units on the University of Michigan campus. The following are a few examples.

In June 2005, the University of Michigan's Human Resources and Affirmative Action department changed the University-wide career family classification system to assist and enable departments to attract and retain competent and committed staff. 'Research' was added as an independent career family, which can be defined as a meaningful grouping of jobs commonly clustered within a career emphasis (http://careernavigator. umjobs.org).

A second effort was Financial Operations Sponsored Programs Office's reorganization from a production line approach to a team approach, aligning with the departments. In part, this reorganization was in response to issues identified by the SPIT / SPA teams. The reorganization effort provided a service-oriented responsiveness to the operation, as well as bringing significant financial benefits to the institution, through improved tracking, invoicing, collection, reconciliation, and reporting. New staff initiatives included building teams aligned with institutional units, identifying training needs and how to deliver them, encouraging staff to get involved in professional organizations and in institutional activities, and job rotations.

A third example is the impact of the research administration culture on another newly forming campus-wide effort called Business Intelligence (BI) at the University of Michigan. The BI group is concerned with transforming enterprise data into information, and information into knowledge to enhance decision-making and to create actionable plans that drive effective business activity. Similar to the research administrators, Business Intelligence (BI) consists of a multidisciplinary group of individuals from numerous departments across campus. (http://www.businessintelligence.umich.edu). The BI culture model is based on the successful sustainable research administration model.

Conclusions

The University of Michigan has created a recognizable research administration culture, which is being used as a model for other internal functional groups. Research Administrators Instructional Network (RAIN) education is effective in building skills and knowledge. Research Administrative Network (RAN) meetings have provided a gathering place and training for the research community. The emphasis on networking has created an environment where research administrators, holding many different job titles, are comfortable communicating with their peers to share information and to problem solve. The cross-functional problem solving teams (SPIT & SPA) have had a dramatic impact, not only by creating and implementing solutions to issues affecting administrators, but also by serving as a model for the process of crossing boundaries to solve problems. The Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) awards have brought University-wide recognition to the many contributions of research administrators.

The University of Michigan continues to refine its vision thus enhancing the culture of professional research administrators. New approaches are being developed for future success. Educational programs are created on an on-going basis. A new leadership development program is being designed collaboratively to prepare the next generation of research administration leaders. The Sponsored Programs Advisory Team has transitioned to new leadership and membership. New sub-teams are being formed to address specific complex issues. There is positive energy in the research community, making collaborative progress sustainable.

The strategy for building a research culture has transformed research administration. It is a model which could bring success to other colleges and universities that are responding to similar internal and external changes.

Authors Note

The impetus for this article was a January 12, 2004 Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship, Positive Link Session presented by Marvin Parnes, Associate Vice President for Research and Executive Director, Division of Research Development and Administration, Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan. This can be viewed at http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/POS-Research/pastpositivesessions.htm.

References

Beckhard, R., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the Essence: The Art of Creating and Leading Fundamental Change in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lessons in Leadership: It's all about the culture in Leadership Strategies, 9(6), 2006, p 6, Retrieved 8/15/2006 from http://www.briefings.com/leadership

Sally E. Sivrais

University of Michigan

Stephen M. Ross School of Business

701 Tappan Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234, USA

[phone]

[phone] fax

[e-mail]

Carrie Disney

University of Michigan

Geriatrics Center/Institute of Gerontology 

Table 1. Sample RAIN Training Program Agenda

DAY ONE

  Introduction
      The Research Administration Environment
  Ethics and Compliance
      Openness in research; conflict of interest; human subject
      protection; laboratory animal care; occupational safety and
      health; non compliance and misconduct
  Lunch with Presenters

  Electronic Research Information Resources
      Electronic RA; Central (DRDA) assistance; UM Research
      Information Website
  Role of the RA
      Clarifying your responsibility; Funding

DAY TWO

  Proposals for Sponsored Activities
      Intro to proposal development; proposal writing; pre-proposals;
      starting the proposal; subcontracts, purchase orders,
      consultants; costs; cost sharing
  Lunch with Project Representatives
  Proposals for Sponsored Activities (continued)
      Internal proposal processing; Central (DRDA) responsibilities;
      budgets and justifications; pulling it all together

DAY THREE

  Initiation and Administration of Projects Award processing
      File organization and department databases; hardship accounts;
     award types; subprojects; cost-sharing
  Lunch with Account Representatives
  Initiation and Administration of Projects Award processing
  (continued)
      Reconciling, encumbering, projecting, and reporting; post award
      changes; project close out; final reports

DAY FOUR

  Human Resources Management
     Appointment options; case studies; web resources; International
     employment issues
  Game
      HR Jeopardy
  Lunch and DRDA tour
  Research Related Agreements, Intellectual Property and
  Confidentiality Regulatory compliance; public relations; lobbying;
  wrap up

Table 2. Training Program Titles

Research Proposal Writing Workshop
Industry Sponsored Research: Working with DRDA
Grants.gov: Electronic Submission of Federal Grant Application
Introduction to Sponsored Projects Administration
Financial Administration of Federally Sponsored Projects
A-21 Expenditure Monitoring of Federally Sponsored Projects
Cost Accounting Standards Training
Post Award Administration of NIH NRSA Training Grants
Introduction to Budgets: Developing Grant Proposal Budgets

Table 3. Toolkit Headings: Links for Research Administrators

A-Z index
Administrative Offices
Sponsored Projects Advisory Team
Forms
Funding/Sponsor Pages
Sponsored Project Award Database
Project Administration
Reference Materials
News
Research Administration Professional Development