Considering the Human Element of Electronic Research Administration.

Abstract

Electronic Research Administration (ERA) is changing the way we prepare and submit grant proposals and administer awards. As the shift to increased reliance upon technology continues, we must remember that ERA is not simply a technology issue. It is actually a business issue, and the most important asset of any business is its people. As tasks and how they are performed change, we must not overlook the effects that these changes have on the people who must implement them. While we use the technology to do the job, it is still the people who do the work. Technology often promises to make life easier, but in reality it does just the opposite, especially in the short term. Additional work requirements combine with human abilities, needs and emotions to create problems that can diminish the effectiveness of even the best technology. Many personnel issues arise when new technology is introduced, including the fear of change, different staffing needs, the definition of new roles and responsibilities, and new traini ng requirements. We need to remain cognizant of these issues and plan for them in order to take full advantage of the technology available to us.

Introduction

As rapid advances in technology become commonplace, the way we do business is changing more quickly than ever before. It is not only important that organizations embrace new technology; they must embrace the concept of change as well. Today's technology will probably not last long before newer methods are introduced. Virtually no organization or job is static now.

In research administration, as in many other fields, we must respond to external change while facilitating our own internal change. We must adapt to the electronic systems of sponsors and other agencies and in turn seek ways to make our own internal systems more capable of handling both external needs and the institution's own needs as we attempt to utilize our data better and eliminate redundancy through technology.

In this rapidly changing environment, we need to constantly remind ourselves that technology is only a part of any organization and that people are also part of that organization. Technology aids us in completing our work, but it is generally not the ultimate goal. We need to keep sight of our mission and remember that technology is only one of the components helping us to achieve it.

People are still responsible for designing the technology, as well as operating and entering the data into the technology; consequently, they can make or break the implementation of a system. Successful adoption of technology is not only a function of the system being used and the job to be done. It is also a function of employee perceptions and expectations. As we implement ERA, we must consider that we are dealing with people, too, if we want to succeed.

While implementation of ERA may be relatively new; many other fields have already experienced similar technological change. Our needs will undoubtedly vary in some ways, but we can learn from the experiences of those in manufacturing, retail and libraries, who, among others, have gone this way before us. In some ways, even we ourselves have been here before, as we first introduced word processors and databases into our daily routines.

We should not forget the human element of ERA, and should therefore consider the roles of people in its implementation. This paper concentrates primarily on the experiences of the sponsored research office, but will also touch on the effects on principal investigators (PIs) and departmental staff as well.

More Information, More Work

In the early stages of its implementation, technology necessarily increases the workload of an organization. Until the new procedures are learned, most job functions will take longer to perform. We all know this, yet we are still surprised because we expect technology to transform our lives instantly.

As PIs prepare their first electronically submitted proposals, for example, they often become frustrated with the new technology and remark that they thought electronic submission was supposed to be easier than paper. Although most of them realize that eventually it will be, once they have learned the system, the short-term prospect of spending more time on the current proposal than the last one is hard to overlook.

Research administrators and support staff also experience the same tensions as we adapt not only to changes in the way our own jobs are done, but simultaneously must train the PIs for the new things being required of them. Further, most of us underestimate the time required to complete a task, often because we only count the time we spend typing at the computer. We often overlook things like time for research, training and technical difficulties. Until we all reach a flatter area on the learning curve, we need to allot more time for our work than in the past.

In addition, when there is greater capacity for handling information, people tend to expect more, and expect it faster. This in turn creates more stress. We used to wait for award documents to arrive via regular mail. Now, we receive many by e-mail. Consequently, we, and our investigators, expect a much quicker official notification after receiving preliminary word of an award from a program officer. Moreover, now that we can search for funding sources electronically, people expect an almost instantaneous reply. Where previously we may have had to wait for a funding agency to send a printed copy of the guidelines, now we can download it from the Web immediately. Someone who would have accepted a few days' delay in getting information may now become impatient if it takes a few hours.

We also find ourselves multitasking in an effort to keep up with the capabilities of technology. While talking on the phone to a P1 we may be e-mailing a program officer to get an answer to the question we are discussing. This may seem productive, but humans are not designed for such full-scale multitasking and will experience stress.

In departmental and central research administration, we are reviewing more draft proposals than ever before. With the National Science Foundation's FastLane system, for example, it is easy for a P1 to allow early access to a proposal electronically, rather than printing a paper copy and walking it around. Especially at a time when people are uncertain about how a system works, the added benefit of having another pair of eyes look at the proposal is compelling. Consequently, more PIs now ask that we look over a rough draft to see if there is anything that needs to be changed while they are still working on the proposal. While this can save last-minute hassles, it means that we are actually reviewing more proposals than our statistics show.

Faculty and staff may now spend considerable time troubleshooting technology. Where research administrators were once called upon to interpret guidelines, we now do that, and provide technical assistance as well. Unless an institution is fortunate enough to have a very supportive technology office, the research administrator or a support staff member may now be needed to help solve technical problems.

Comments from librarians indicate that troubleshooting hardware and software is the biggest nuisance and hindrance to providing good service to their patrons (Tenopir, 1998). Research administrators also feel that frustration as we attempt to meet deadlines and solve technical problems at the same time. Technology has definitely increased our workloads in this area. In the past, PIs probably would not have thought to come to our offices for help with word processing software. But now that technology is required to actually submit the proposal, we are expected to be able to troubleshoot it.

Because we have the capability to retain greater quantities of data with more efficiency and lower space requirements, we are inclined to keep track of more information. Consider, for example, an organizational database that allows staff members to keep track of more regulations and pre-approval requirements. While the system is definitely more efficient and can have substantial payoffs when questions arise, it may take longer to set up the initial award information since so much more information is being tracked for a single award.

In addition, we must allow time for internal systems management. Undoubtedly there will be problems with our hardware or software at some point. We will want to make improvements or upgrades. Consequently, we will require extra technical help, and/or other staff time to evaluate needs, solve problems and create new programs. Instead of providing us with vast amounts of free time, as technology was once predicted to do, we find instead that our days are fuller and longer than ever.

Developing the Right Skills

Many people assume that automation means that fewer job skills will be required of an employee. They compare the office to an assembly line, where each person does a small part of the job, and knows little about the remaining operations of the office. Further, like an assembly line, they argue that with such specialization, the tasks become more mechanical and require less skill and thought on the part of the worker.

To be sure, many jobs are now highly specialized, since many work environments are very complex. Even within research administration, it can be very difficult for one person to keep up with the guidelines and regulations of many sponsors. Implementation of electronic systems adds to this, especially when many sponsors develop different systems. Librarians also found this to be true, as different databases used different search mechanisms and had different capabilities. They needed more skills in some areas, not fewer.

In many situations, technology actually creates a need for additional worker skills. In addition to increased technical knowledge, the most sought-after employees are those with troubleshooting or problem-solving skills. As mentioned earlier, research administrators may now be called upon to provide technical assistance, such as software recommendations and installation or help in saving a document as a portable document format (pdf) file.

We may be asked to help determine what is wrong with a system or what a PI has entered incorrectly. Many manufacturing firms learned before us to rely heavily on the problem-solving skills of their line employees. Line employees are closer to the source. They often are faster than their engineers in determining what is wrong. The ability to quickly troubleshoot a machine and get it running again allows the production line to keep running and prevents lost production time. Likewise, the research administrator may now need to solve software problems that could prevent a PI from submitting a proposal or meeting a deadline. Because we have more experience with the systems, we may be quicker than technical personnel in solving the problem.

While technology may do most of the job for us, employees still need to know how to do the work without the technology in the event that the technology fails or is otherwise not available. Reliance upon computers to generate budgets, for example, is fine as long as the computer is up and running. An understanding of the components and calculations in a spreadsheet are still important in determining entry errors, as well as when a server is down.

The most critical skill requirements for most environments that rely heavily upon technology are employees who are willing to learn and take on responsibility. In fact, many companies now admit that employees must constantly learn new skills just to keep the jobs they already have. In their career management brochure, Apple states that they cannot guarantee lifelong employment, and that it is the employee's responsibility to drive his or her own development and career (Dubal, 1997).

Like Apple, we cannot provide job security, but we do need to provide an environment that fosters and values learning so that employees can ensure their value in the organization. Employees need to understand that the job they hold today most likely will not be performed in the same way in a year, and that keeping their skills updated is a way to maintain their value to the organization. Management needs to make certain that employees are given the opportunity to learn by providing training and communicating the need for constant skill updates and the importance of possessing many skills.

Specific skills, such as experience with a particular software package, become outdated very quickly. As skills become obsolete more rapidly, the ability to perform the other functions needed by the organization becomes critical. Hence, multiple skills are an important asset for the employee and the organization. This changing environment also offers employees the opportunity to move into new positions and challenges them to grow.

Human Ability, Needs and Emotions

We must also consider an individual's ability to handle greater responsibility. Because of the rapidly changing environment, many people are performing totally different jobs than the ones for which they were hired. While additional responsibility was generally based on the individual's performance and came in the form of a promotion, people are now simply expected to take on more responsibility without a significant change in status, and sometimes without considering whether they are ready for it. This, of course, places greater stress on people and may make it more difficult for them to learn.

We must also consider a host of human needs when implementing technology. First of all, we need to think of physical needs. Will focusing on a computer screen all day contribute to eyestrain? Will people suffer from muscle strain or repetitive stress injuries? While we may be capable of doing a greater volume of work with the aid of technology, we must remember to schedule frequent breaks from it in order to prevent physical problems and alleviate boredom.

People also have emotional needs that must be considered in the workplace as well. Of particular importance are the fear of change and the loss of status. Most people fear the unknown, and change is the ultimate unknown. We become comfortable with those things we have done regularly for long periods of time, and are secure in our ability to do them well. When a new system is introduced, we feel less knowledgeable. We no longer know how to do our jobs. This not only makes people feel insecure; they may in fact become defensive. Defensiveness may exhibit itself in hostility towards the new system, jeopardizing its successful implementation.

Throughout the change, we also need to be aware of the loss of social interaction that automation brings. While there may be little we can do on a large scale to prevent this, we perhaps should consider ways that we can still use the "human touch." Sometimes it is as easy as walking to someone's office rather than calling or e-mailing for every question. We can also encourage the scheduling of training sessions, where administrators and staff can get out to train the end-users of a system and meet them face to face.

Another reason that many people fear technological change is the assumption that it will result in the loss of jobs. It is in fact possible that some institutions will decrease staff as automation increases and there is pressure to keep costs down. What is likely to happen, though, is that jobs will change. Many middle-level jobs may be phased out as computers do more of the tasks once assigned to people. Lower- and higher-level jobs may replace some of the mid-level jobs as more clerical people are required to enter and retrieve data and, at a higher level, more decision-making skills are required.

While some staff members may perform more data-entry roles, others will acquire new skills that will expand their roles. Even those staff with data entry responsibilities, however, may now be entering data directly into the corporate database, where accuracy will become more critical and errors will have greater impact. When point-of-sale systems are introduced in retail, orders are often determined based on the information keyed or scanned at the cash registers. If inventory is ordered based on items entered as sold at the registers, incorrect entry can mean that goods will not be on-hand when they are needed. In research administration, if information is not entered correctly into a database and we pull that information from the database for proposal budgets, we may not request sufficient funds for a project.

The Need for Training

Training is critical when technology changes. Faculty and staff will need training in the use of new systems. While in the past we may not have found ourselves in the role of educator too frequently, now it can be a major part of the job. Librarians learned this before us. When card catalogs and other search mechanisms went on-line and enabled patrons to do their own searches, some felt that librarians would no longer be necessary.

Instead, librarians found that they spent a considerable amount of time training the patrons to use the technology. Their jobs had changed, certainly, in that they were no longer necessarily directly searching for the information, but they still had to guide their patrons in search techniques. Librarians evolved from being the actual keepers of information into experts on how to find information. They also found that they needed to understand something about the systems in order to perform troubleshooting functions when the technology went awry.

Like librarians, we may now find ourselves spending more time teaching workshops and answering one-on-one questions about the technology and how to use it, or how to find information relevant to using a system, preparing a proposal, or finding a funding source. We still need to know about sponsors, guidelines and other related issues, but we now use different methods to perform our jobs. In fact, like librarians, we find that we need not only most of the skills we have always needed, but also many new ones, and especially, technical skills. Conducting a workshop now necessarily includes both using technology and helping others to use it.

Administrators and staff also need to be trained to use new systems. In many cases, what we are doing is "training the trainer," or teaching those who will actually work with PIs in the preparation of the proposal. This is a critical function for us in that it provides additional resources that we can rely upon to ease the burden of increased demands on our time.

Another area where training is important is in alleviating the fears that so many people have about technology. While most of us have gone beyond the fear that we will erase the entire contents of a system with a single keystroke, there are still people who are not comfortable with technology. We need to be aware that people have different levels of skill and comfort with technology, and provide them with the training they need accordingly. People will adapt to using those things that they are comfortable with, so providing users with the expertise they need will help ensure that they will want to use the system.

Recommendations

As we look back upon the past and contemplate the future, how can we use what others have learned to smooth the way for our own increasing reliance upon technology? First and foremost, we must communicate with all of those affected by the changes. People fear less what they know than what they do not know. When there is no communication, people will often speculate and try to predict the future. Most often, their perceptions are much worse than the reality, which in turn may make attitudes worse and slow or even prevent the successful implementation of new technology.

We need to communicate with our research administrators, both at the central and departmental levels, to keep them informed of what is coming. Keeping people in the know makes them feel more like part of a team, which can be critical in implementation of new methods. Including them as early adopters gives them more of a feeling of ownership and therefore more of a stake in the success of the technology.

Communication should be two-way as well. To the extent possible, those who are involved in the implementation should be given a voice in the directions that it will take. Granted, we are constrained in the use of agency systems, but we have more latitude in the design and implementation of our own internal systems. The end users often have the best insights as to how things may work and what else may be affected by the changes. Again, this early input will also help them to take ownership and responsibility for the success of their suggestions. It helps to explain why some things must be done in a certain way, as opposed to the way they would most prefer. When suggestions or requests cannot be implemented, clear reasons should be given.

PIs should also be kept informed so that they are better prepared when things change. We should not only allow them time to prepare for the change, but should solicit their advice as well. For example, some assumptions have been made regarding who actually types the text of a proposal. It has been assumed that, with word processing technology on everyone's desk, most PIs actually typed their own manuscripts, so some systems were designed based on that assumption. In reality, clerical or student assistance with these tasks was common enough to make it awkward to implement some aspects of the system.

Early communication is also a way to calm their fears about the security and integrity of their data by giving them time to learn about the measures taken in these areas. It also gives them time to locate any needed software or hardware, instead of adding that to the last-minute stress.

Allowing for experimentation, and sometimes even for failure, can help people with the transition. Demo sites are especially helpful, since people can feel free to experiment and make errors with no consequence. If that is not an option, we need to explore other possibilities that will allow people to use the technology without fear of "messing something up."

There are many arguments about how change should be introduced. While gradual change may frustrate many people, it is the best way for others. Some people would rather dive in and get it over with. In the argument for gradual implementation, though, we can note that people have time to adjust to small items, rather than being hit with everything changing at once. Although it does mean that we are constantly learning new things, gradual change keeps us in the learning mode, which is important. We know that things will continue to change rapidly, and the easier it is for us to accept constant change, the better equipped we will be to deal with whatever the future holds. In addition, gradual change may be the only economically feasible way for some organizations to implement change since significant outlays of cash are often necessary.

To alleviate people's fears about no longer knowing how to do their jobs, we need to stress just what type of knowledge is important. Understanding exactly how the technology works may not be as important as knowing how to perform specific troubleshooting activities, or how to do the work manually, which many already know how to do.

Conclusion

There are undoubtedly many issues that need to be considered as we continue to implement ERA. Most importantly, we must not forget that people will be critical to the success of any system. Consequently, we must address the issues mentioned, as well as others, if we hope to make a smooth and successful transition into ERA.

Pamela A. Krauser ("Considering the Human Element of Electronic Research Administration") is the Director of Electronic Research Administration at the University of Notre Dame. Her primary responsibilities are pre-award administration and electronic research administration.

References

(1.) Tenopir, C. (1998). Plagued by our own successes. Library Journal, 123,(4), 39(2). EJ

(2.) Dubal, C. (1997). How to cope with re-engineering's aftereffects. Electronic Engineering Times, 954, 128(2). EJ