launching the admin burden in canada (abc) partnership initiative - janet halliwell and david baker
TRANSCRIPT
CASRAI ReConnect 2015
October 27, 2015
The STI Strategy 2014
Our Government will work with the post-secondary sector and other research-funders to reduce the administrative burden associated with research so it will be the lowest in the G7, while maintaining a strong commitment to uphold our high standards of research excellence and accountability and to govern the conduct of research and protect the health, safety and privacy of Canadians.
To accomplish this, we will:◦ Expand the current efforts of funding agencies
supported by the federal government to improve client service, harmonize and simplify administrative requirements as well as align and integrate funding opportunities.
◦ Reach out to research funders and administrators as well as standard-setting organizations and regulatory bodies outside the federal family to identify and pursue opportunities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our research enterprise.
◦ Investigate actions such as aligning reporting requirements, adopting common standards and promoting mutual recognition or harmonization of regulatory requirements where possible.
The CASRAI-led ABC project is designed to support and inform efforts at Industry Canada and the funding agencies to achieve a tangible reduction in the adverse impacts of research administration burden in the Canadian research ecosystem.
The end goal is to allow researchers to spend more time on research.
ABC Core Group (co-chairs Janet Halliwell & Heather Woermke)
Researchers and their institutions through:◦ CARA
◦ CAUBO
◦ CAGS
ABC Collaborating Groups
Industry Canada
The funding agencies – at the moment via IC
Review of successful CFI process 2011-2012
Review of US activities
Good interactions with Industry Canada
Inventory of issues identified (the expansionary phase initiated)
Criteria drafted for selection of priorities – yet to be confirmed
NOW – the tough part …tightening our focus and working towards solutions!
Working group established October 2011 –with external participants
Survey November 2011
Identification of a limited number of initiatives to pursue
Staff work to address challenges through 2012
Ongoing internal mandate for reform
Working smarter and reducing burden – increasing effectiveness and efficiency: Transitioning to a risk-based management approach Shifting from individual project management to a
portfolio-management approach Revisiting other requirements and practices to
increase effectiveness and reduce burden
Addressing challenges to ensure we remain highly accountable
Continuing to improve on our requirements and practices to ensure we achieve expected results
But CFI process involved only one agency; many issues
involve a lack of inter-agency coherence of approach and requirements
The TC3 deals with a more complex set of programs and compliance issues (and then there are health charities, provincial funders and ….)
Some issues result from institutional assumptions of requirements that may not be valid or are “overkill”
Until now, there has been no single forum to identify and discuss those issues that are tractable to change without compromising accountability
The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) - a program convened by the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable of the National Academies in 1986. Its purpose is to reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants and contracts.
NSB Report – 2015 Reducing Investigators’ Administrative Workload for Federally Funded Research. Report benefited from extensive work done by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
Estimate – 42% of a researchers time spent on admin burden – some inevitable, some targets for change
Under the FDP – addressed:
Streamlined terms and conditions for research grants
Increased budget flexibility
No cost time extensions
Carry-forward across continuation years
Technical progress reports/minimal continuation proposals
Electronic Research Administration
Cost Sharing and Effort Reporting
Award Terms and Conditions
Sub-awards
…..
The NSB 2015 report recommends:
1. Focus on the science (require only those aspects essential for merit review)
2. Eliminate or modify ineffective or inappropriate regulations (deals with many compliance issues such as human subjects, animal care, safety)
3. Harmonize and streamline requirements (with and among agencies)
4. Increase university efficiency and effectiveness (avoiding unnecessary requirements, sharing best practices, provision of effective support to researchers)
Industry Canada is committed to seeing action on this front and has:◦ initiated discussions with the TC3+
◦ supported this CASRAI initiative to engage the community
The ABC Steering Committee is poised to move into the operational phase of this initiative… so let’s look at where we are today
1. International Recruitment
2. Program Design
3. Apply for Funding
4. Funding Awards
5. Research procurement
6. Conduct of Research - Ongoing Reporting
7. Conduct of Research – Compliance
8. Post-Award audits
9. Scholarly Communications
10. Payments
11. Eligibility rules/process
Current state Proliferation of program modalities without
sufficient rationale. Programs and priorities often developed by multiple agencies around converging goals but with differing mechanisms, deadlines and approaches among agencies
Desired state Coordinated actions among funding agencies
with deadlines aligned and synergy of approach
Current state
Lack of interoperability of peer review across programs. Need for improved interoperability of peer review to reduce burden on peer reviewers - eg: NSERC/Mitacs/ NCEs/CRC/CFI
Desired state
Standardized information formats for flowing/reusing funding application data between review panels
Research Support Program(RSF)
Current state
Undue time spent in allocating legitimate research costs to a cost centre. The eligibility rules for RSF are quite limited, while restrictions on what may be charged as a direct cost of research have tightened. Significant time is spent in finding appropriate cost centers for such charges.
Desired state
Extend eligibility to allow some of the low dollar items no longer eligible under direct costs to be eligible under RSF (e.g. printing & stationery costs)
Current state
No agreed or common standards for publishing funding results. There is an explosion of different extranet sites that require research offices to tomaster and use different protocols in order to access information from each agency
Desired state
Funders publish results in a standard, software-readable format
Solution pending
Casrai standards for announcing funding results established; implementation pilot to run 2015-2016 (NSERC, SSHRC, UofT, uSask, Research Manitoba)
Current state
Lack of clarity on requirements and funding eligibility for Open Access (OA) and Open Data (OD) compliance
Desired state
Adopt data standards for OA reporting. DOI and ORCID should be promoted and DOI could be included in references from researchers within CVs
Current state
Need to balance burden of monitoring visits with ROI - time, efficacy, detail, materiality
Desired state
Risk-based approach that reflects materiality
Materiality and applicability – extent to which the identified admin burden represents (in relation to risk and return on investment): ◦ An inappropriate requirement (does not result in the desired
outcome)◦ A disproportionate response to a risk◦ An undue impact on researcher time (e.g. in relation to risk)◦ High level of research administration time and costs
Breadth/reach of impact – e.g.: ◦ Proportion of research community affected◦ Type(s) of institutions affected◦ Specific communities affected within the institution
Feasibility of change: ◦ Scope for change at the institutional or funding agency level◦ Costs involved◦ Avoidance of undue risk or inadequate accountability◦ Likelihood of the necessary collaboration to implement the change
Convener of a neutral and diverse space for institutional input to issues and their solutions
Bridge for direct input to Industry Canada
Facilitator of working groups that will work towards practical solutions on priority issues
Source and repository of standards for issues requiring standards-based solutions
What are your burning issues in regard to unnecessary admin burden?
What issue do you see as a “low hanging fruit” – something that would make a perceptible difference yet relatively easy to tackle?
Are the criteria for choice appropriate?
What issue might you want to work on?
