NETWORKING & CURRENT TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES
Discussion Group & Networking: RAPPoRT (Research Admin Pre & Post Research Topics)
Are you seeking a forum where you can share knowledge, build ‘RAPPoRT’ with & learn from other Michigan Medicine Research Administrators?
The RAPPoRT Discussion Group is an opportunity for Research Administrators to network, build collaborations with colleagues, and engage in discussion on pre & post-award research topics. No registration is required to attend. Discussion groups are informal and attendees are welcome to bring their lunch.
Need additional time to talk or have a question on another research topic?
Open Door RAPPoRT, hosted by Jane Sierra & Beth Brant immediately following the group discussion, offers pre & post-award administrators a one-on-one opportunity for additional discussion on any pre or post-award topic with either Jane or Beth.
RAPPoRT Discussion Group & Open Door Series
(Research Admin Pre & Post Research Topics)
Schedule: First Monday of the month
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM: RAPPoRT Discussion Group
1:00 PM – 2:00 PM: Open Door RAPPoRT
2019 Planned Topic & Room Schedule
- February 4: Post-Award Topic
3114 Med Sci I
Budget vs. Revenue & Why it’s Important to Pay Attention to Both
- March 4: Post-Award Topic
3114 Med Sci I
Project Initiation: Award Record, Sponsor Documentation and System Review
- April 1: Pre-Award Topic
Sponsor Guidelines: Reading & Identifying Key Elements the Grant Services & Analysis Office Requires as well as Other Essentials to Keep An Eye On
- May 6: Joint Pre & Post-Award Topic
4234 Med Sci I
Best Practices with Grant Transfers: Receiving Incoming Award Transfers to UM & Transferring UM Awards to a New Institution
- June 3: Post-Award Topic
Navigating Post Award Change Requests
- August 5: Pre-Award Topic
Representing Effort & Calculating Salary: Understanding Person Months vs Total Professional Effort vs % of Appointment / Base Salary vs Comp Rate
- *September 3: Pre-Award Topic
(Tuesday due to Holiday)
Navigating FCOI - What is FCOI & When is it Applied?
- October 7: Post-Award Topic
Leveraging MReports Functionality
- November 4: Joint Pre & Post-Award Topic
Fundamentals of Sponsor Salary Caps on Proposals & Awards
- December 2: Pre-Award Topic
Proposal Preparation: Checklists & Resources
Medical School Research Administration Policies
- Grants Processing Policy - Our policy detailing the grant processing deadlines.
- Grant Services & Analysis Service Policy on Submitting PHS Proposals - Our policy on submitting PHS system-to-system electronic proposals.
- Clinical Trial Routing Form (CTRF) - This page explains the required use of the CTRF within the Medical School.
- Effort Reporting - This link takes you to the UMHS site that houses the effort reporting policy. The policy details how Medical School and UMHS faculty and staff report time and effort.
- Establishing Subaccounts - This policy describes when a subaccount should be expected and provided.
- Institutional Cost Sharing - This policy describes the process and conditions for obtaining a research cost share commitment from the Medical School Dean's Office, HHC, or EVPMA. Further, this also addresses the process for Medical School units seeking a cost share from the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR).
- Indirect Cost Recovery Policy - This policy describes the Medical School's expectations regarding recovery of indirect costs.
- Indirect Cost Waivers - This policy describes the process that should be followed by Medical School units seeking an indirect cost waiver.
- Indirect Cost Waivers on Federal Patient Pass-Through Costs - This policy describes the process and conditions for Medical School units seeking a reduction of indirect costs on pass-through expenses related to clinical trial patient payments.
- Recovering Full Indirects: Industry Funded Research - This policy describes the required process that should be used to negotiate the indirect cost rate with industry sponsors.
Financial Documents & Templates
This page contains budget templates in several formats that can be used to prepare research proposal budgets, as well as some templates to assist with calculating salary over the PHS cap and working with UM/VA split appointments.
Handling Recharge Service Units in Grant Proposals
This document describes how recharge service units should be reflected in grant proposals.
- Canceling a PAF - This best practice explains when it is advised a PAF be canceled, how to do it, and who is able to complete the activity.
- Changes After Routing in eRPM - This best practice describes the procedure that should be followed when changes are made in eRPM after a proposal has been routed.
- Counting Pages - This best practice details a quick and easy method for ensuring you are not over the allowed page limit.
- Leaving Comments in eRPM - This best practice describes how comments that are left in eRPM need to be concise but thorough for all potential viewers.
- Ready to Finalize? - Creating the Final PDF (Grants.gov) - This best practice explains the process of creating and reviewing the 'final' PDF prior to finalizing or submitting a NIH proposal.
- Review of Proposals in the Commons - This page clarifies the NIH 2-day window following proposal submission and the ability to reject / resubmit a proposal.
TRAINING BY TOPIC
You may also wish to visit the NCURA channel on YouTube for "YouTube Tuesdays" where you'll find more short, helpful videos on many aspects of research administration. But as you watch videos, know that Michigan's institutional policy may differ from the presenter's and any question about applicability in our context may be directed to the Grant Services & Analysis at email@example.com.
Going for the Perfectly Routed Proposal: The Grants Office's Top 10
These resources hold the presentation materials from the training session held in April 2013. The session highlighted the most common problems (and solutions!) that the Medical School Grants Office comes across during administrative review, things to keep in mind when putting a proposal together, and some best practices. Attendees left with a better understanding of what happens during the Grants Office review and how to prevent common issues. The session was geared towards all experience levels, from the newest hire to the seasoned research administrator.
- The Perfectly Routed Proposal - The PDF of the PowerPoint presentation from the session.
- Frequently Required Proposal Information - A link to the standard information that is needed for Face/Cover Pages when preparing proposals, provided by ORSP.
- FCOI Disclosures for Proposals - The campus FAQ site provides detailed information about the Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) regulations.
- Checklist for Routing the Administrative Shell - This page presents the items that are reviewed by the Medical School when an Administrative Shell is routed for review and approval.
- Comments in eRPM - This best practice describes how comments that are left in eRPM need to be concise but thorough for all potential viewers.
- Counting Pages - This best practice details a quick and easy method for ensuring you are not over the allowed page limit.
- Administrative Shell Changes After Routing - This document describes the procedure that should be followed when changes are made in eRPM after a proposal has been routed.
- Proposal Finalization Checklist - This checklist provides you with key items to check before finalizing a proposal (reflective of issues commonly found prior to submission).
- Ready to Finalize? - This best practice explains the process of creating and reviewing the 'final' PDF prior to finalizing or submitting a NIH proposal.
- Service Policy on Submitting PHS Proposals - Our service policy on submitting PHS system-to-system electronic proposals.
- Review of Proposals in Commons - This document clarifies the NIH 2-day window following proposal submission and ability to reject / resubmit a proposal.
The Administrative Shell of the NIH Research Grant
This page contains the presentation materials from the training session held in May 2013. This session walked through the common information and expectations of putting together the administrative shell pages for an NIH research grant application (R01, or similar) -- covering issues from the first question of Application Type on the cover page to the Multiple PI Plan on the last, and almost everything in between. A significant portion of the time was spent on budget/justification rules and institutional expectations, as well as highlighting the last things you should double check before saying "Submit!"
- The Administrative Shell of a NIH Research Grant - The PDF of the PowerPoint Presentation from the session.
- Sample SF424 Application - A PDF of the SF424 application (administrative shell components).
- Biosketch - Guidance on how to prepare a biosketch.
- Sample Biosketch - A link to the Sample Biosketch provided by the NIH in Word format.
- Differences Between the Biosketch and Other Support - A link to the Grant Services & Analysis webpage that describes the differences between the two documents.
- Budget Justification - Guidance, by budget type, on preparing the budget justification.
- Consortium/Contractual Arrangements - Guidance on what to obtain when including subcontract sites in an application.
- Letter of Commitment to Establish a Subcontract Agreement - A link to the form that should be filled out by the subcontract sites when preparing an application. This form includes the required FCOI questions.
- Facilities & Other Resources - Guidance on what to include in the Facilities & Other Resources document.
- Multiple PI Leadership Plan - Guidance on what to include in the Multiple PI Leadership Plan
- NIH SF424 Application Instructions - A link to the SF424 Application Instructions provided by the NIH.
Considering All the Costs: Budgeting Proposals for Medical School Faculty
The purpose of this workshop (presented in 2010) was to review the conceptualization of the full costs required to perform research work plans, consider the sources of funds to complete the work, and discuss how peer reviewers perceive budget requests. Concepts presented and discussed apply to all types of externally sponsored activities and sponsors. NOTE: this webpage is only accessible through the University of Michigan Ann Arbor Campus network or log-in via VPN.
Budgeting a Clinical Trial
A PDF of slides from a 2012 training session on how to budget a clinical trial.
A Basic Definition of Cost Sharing (video below)
A quick description of the institutional investment created when full costs are not requested or recovered by the sponsor.
The Difference Between Tracked (Quantified) and Not (Non-Quantified) Cost Sharing
Not all institutional investment (cost sharing) must be tracked. This video explains the difference in terms of what is represented to the sponsor.
Effort - Navigate Lunch and Learn
ORSP's Navigate: Lunch & Learn session from February 2018 covering effort reporting and certification. Faculty and staff are responsible for monitoring their activities to ensure that their effort is supported by fund sources appropriate to their activities, and for certifying their effort on an annual basis. But effort reporting and certification can be a confusing topic for faculty and research administrators alike. In this Lunch & Learn session, Heather Offhaus, Director of the Medical School Grants Review & Analysis Office, provided a basic overview of Effort and discussed its importance.
Effort Part 1 - The Three Mantras of Effort Reporting (video below)
An introduction to the basics of understanding effort & effort reporting. Three simple rules to why and when you track what.
Effort Part 2 - Talking with Faculty About Effort (video below)
Tips on discussing effort with those that must report and certify their effort.
Transferring Grants Between Institutions
The process of transferring grants between institutions can be difficult. Not only does the PI have preferences to express, but the institutions involved have to agree. And once the decision to transfer (or not!) is made, each individual grant may have different requirements, even when dealing with the same sponsor. It is important to communicate among all the “interested parties” – PI, institution, the funding agency’s Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist (or equivalents) – to ensure a timely and efficient process.
Considerations related to the process:
- Transfers may involve many parties, such as the PI, Research Administrator, Department Chair and/or Administrator, Dean’s Office, University Central Offices (ORSP, OTT), Sponsor’s Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist, and the other institution.
- The original grantee institution must be willing to transfer the grant to the new institution – grants are awarded to the institution, not the PI. As a result, before transferring a grant out of an institution the PI and/or Research Administrator will need to discuss their wishes with the Department Chair and/or Dean’s Office.
- The sponsor has the right to refuse the request coming from the institution.
- Forms and information required to transfer grants may change from one grant to another. Always contact the Program Officer and Grants Management Specialist each time for up-to-date instructions.
- When in the process of transferring grants into UM, consider requesting a Hardship Account. Transfers often take some time to process and establishing an account will allow appropriate charges to be associated with the P/G until the award arrives – saving time later!
- When transferring grants out of the UM, equipment, personnel, and other research-related items, for example lab notebooks, data sets, or intellectual property, may need to be specifically reviewed and authorized for transfer out as well. Please see the resources below for more information.
- Presentation (November 2014) on Transferring Grants between Institutions.
- RASC website - Best practice document on transfer of institution general considerations.
- Medical School's Post-Award Best Practices related to post award close out of transfer projects.
- UMMS Office of Research's Managing a Research Operation page.
- ORSP provided checklists for US Army Medical and NSF.
The Benefits and Risks of Advance (Hardship) Accounts
The video addresses why you might consider using advance (aka Hardship) accounts and the risk associated with them.
A quick reminder about the importance of maintaining proper documentation.
Additional Training Opportunities
Navigate: E-ssentials eLearning Modules
Navigate: E-ssentials is a collection of self-paced elearning modules covering a variety of topics related to research administration at U-M. Addressing common tasks, concepts, and business processes encountered throughout the Sponsored Project Lifecycle, Navigate: E-ssentials also provides resources and job aids to assist research administrators with the successful management of a sponsored project.
Office of Research Training Opportunities
Other units within the Medical School's Office of Research often provide training sessions on various topics. This link will provide information on other those opportunities.
Campus Training Opportunities
The Office of Research and Sponsored Projects (ORSP) on campus also offers training sessions on a variety of topics.