An Coiste Feabhais Riarachán agus Seirbhísí
The Committee on Administration and Services Quality
Improvement
The Administration and Services Quality Assurance
Programme 2010 – 11
REVIEW OF RESEARCH OFFICE
(16th-18th February 2010)
FINAL REPORT
24th March 2010
Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a review group to the Research Office of the
National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) on 16th-18th February, 2010. The
Research Office had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report'
that, with other documentation, was made available to the review team in advance of
the visit.
The Review Group consisted of: Dr John Rogers, Director of Research and
Enterprise, University of Stirling (Chair); Professor Eugene Kennedy, Vice President
for Research, Dublin City University; Professor Pat Dolan, NUIG, and Mr Seamus
Bree, Director West Region, Enterprise Ireland, with Ms. Carmel Browne, Deputy
Director Human Resources, NUIG acting as Rapporteur.
The review group wishes, at the outset of this report, to recognise and commend the
dedication and professionalism of the staff of the Research Office, and to
acknowledge their considerable achievement in delivering an exceptional quality of
customer service. This is all the more notable as it has been achieved in very
challenging circumstances characterised by staff vacancies and turnover, absorption
of additional (above grade) responsibilities to cover for vacant posts, and a rapidly
changing and volatile external funding environment. These issues are discussed in
greater detail below. The review group also wishes to record its gratitude to all
colleagues from NUIG who readily and freely made available their time and
knowledge, and all additional information which was requested, to the reviewers.
The review group were initially asked to focus on the work of the Research Office. It
rapidly became apparent, however, both from the self-assessment and related
documentation, and from the discussions undertaken during the review visit, that the
scope of the review also needed to encompass other administrative support for
research, and issues of strategic leadership and management for the Office of the
Vice President for Research (OVPR). This report, therefore, reflects the wider
deliberations of the review group.
It is the firm opinion of the review group that, for NUIG to succeed in achieving its
strategic objectives in research, it requires to give urgent attention to both:

Enabling and supporting the Vice President for Research in providing
strategic leadership and management for research;

Fundamentally redesigning its administrative support for research to make it
clearly aligned with strategic objectives and fit for purpose.
There is, in the opinion of the review group, a significant risk that the University will
fail to achieve its strategic research objectives if both areas are not attended to as a
matter of urgency.
The report is structured to cover the following main topics regarding the Research
Office and research support more generally:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Aims and Objectives
Strategic Context and Developing Needs
Service Delivery, Organisation and Management
Summary of Recommendations and Concluding Remarks
2
1.
Aims and Objectives
The aims and objectives set out for the Research Office in its self assessment
document are wide ranging and contain much which is commendable. They
represent a strong vision of the University’s requirements for research support.
Nevertheless, they raise a number of significant issues:
1.
There is substantial confusion in the aims and objectives between support
requirements for the strategic leadership and management role of the Vice
President for Research, and for operational management and administration of
research. This reflects the clear need, as indicated above, for both areas to
receive attention, but equally fails to distinguish sufficiently between them. The
two areas are clearly intimately related, but do require distinctive aims and
objectives.
2.
The VPR and staff resources in the Research Office have been overstretched
for some considerable time as a result of vacancies in key positions and loss of
experience through turnover. This has produced unsustainable workload
pressures and a clear lack of time for the more developmental work on both
strategic and operational issues which the aims and objectives propose. There
seems little prospect of the aims and objectives being achieved in full until and
unless an adequate and stable staffing position is attained.
3.
Because a number of the aims and objectives relate, in whole or in part, to
activities currently undertaken outside the Research Office in other parts of the
University, they are unlikely to be achievable within the current Research
Office/OVPR structure. Many of the academic colleagues who the review
group met with talked of their requirement for effective, integrated support
across the research funding lifecycle. This requirement is reflected in the aims
and objectives of the Research Office. There are, however, significant parts of
the lifecycle which are currently supported from outside the Research Office,
leading to customer dissatisfaction and operational inefficiencies.
Despite these issues, it is obvious from the aims and objectives that the Vice
President for Research and Research Office staff have a strong and clear
understanding of the research support requirements of the internal and internal
customers. That understanding will serve the University well as it pursues the
recommendations in this report. The key issue, therefore, is not about the
appropriateness of the aims and objectives, but rather about the capacity of current
structures and arrangements to deliver them.
2.
Strategic Context and Developing Needs
The University, in its Strategic Plan 2009-14, places central importance on research
success and performance. This was a key point of reference for the review group as
it sought to assess the fitness for purpose of research support arrangements.
Despite clear high level statements about the strategic importance of research,
however, the review group were unable to identify a clearly articulated, current and
detailed research strategy. Evidence of the need for such a strategy, and for
attention to be given to policy and strategic management actions derived from it, was
abundant in discussions conducted by the review group.
The Vice President for Research has a central role in addressing this issue, and
providing strategic leadership and management of research. Under current structural
arrangements, and in the light of persistent staffing vacancies, however, he has had
to devote far too much of his time and energy to operational issues. This has
undoubtedly been to the detriment of academic leadership for research, and of
3
effective strategic engagement with the University’s research community and senior
academic managers. A good example of the consequences of this situation is the
nature of the debate on the use of “overhead” income. This issue was raised
repeatedly with the review group by academic colleagues. It appeared, however, to
be characterised by inadequate understanding, poor communication, and suspicion
of lack of transparency. Awareness of the University’s considerable investment in
strategic development through the Research Support Fund, for instance, was low.
A further strategic issue which requires to be addressed is the changed environment
for research development and funding. This, of course, is a key component in the
environmental analysis which will underpin the research strategy, but it also raises
significant issues for both policy and strategy, and service delivery. The shift from
the situation of the last decade, which has been characterised by very substantial
government investment in research capacity and infrastructure through major
programmes, to one characterised by much more competition for funding from a
greater diversity of sources is profound. This was the one area where the review
group found relatively little evidence of thinking, both strategically and operationally,
within the self-assessment document and review discussions. Again, the relative
lack of attention to this is likely to be a product of the severe constraint on resources
available to the Research Office and the OVPR.
Recommendation 1: the Vice President for Research should, as a matter of the
highest priority, lead through a widely consultative process the development of a
detailed University Research Strategy and Implementation Plan. Thereafter, he
should take responsibility for leading delivery of the Implementation Plan. He should
be properly and effectively supported in this work through the OVPR (see further
below on organisation and management).
Recommendation 2: the new University Research Committee should be
established as a matter of urgency, with a membership designed both to support the
Vice President Research in his leadership role, and to ensure broad engagement
with senior academic managers.
Recommendation 3: A clear and transparent policy on, and approach to, the use of
the University’s Research Support Fund should be developed, implemented, and
clearly communicated. At least annual reports on the use of the Fund should be
disseminated widely to the University community, as part of an overall enhanced
communications strategy.
3.
Service Delivery, Organisation and Management
As has already been indicated, many of the academic colleagues who the review
group met with talked of their requirement for effective, integrated support across the
research funding lifecycle. This view was also held by many administrative
colleagues who the review group met. This was often expressed in a desire for a
“one stop shop” for support with all aspects of the research lifecycle, both pre- and
post-award and, indeed, commercialisation and knowledge exchange. The recent
co-location of the Research Office and the Technology Transfer Office was seen
universally as a positive step in this direction. Considerable frustration was evident
with cumbersome and inefficient bureaucratic processes and arrangements, which
often involved paper-based rather than electronic procedures, visits to multiple
administrative offices, perceived administrative obstacles, and inadequate or
erroneous management information In addition, many colleagues expressed a
desire for (from academic staff), or to deliver (administrative staff) more pro-active
support than was currently available. This was particularly in recognition of the
changing funding environment, and the opportunities, currently not being exploited, to
facilitate interdisciplinary working, research-lead teaching, and more effective
4
communication and collaboration between Research Institutes and Centres, Schools
and Colleges..
The review group were concerned that, against a general background of very positive
comment on the staff of the Research Office, including through the customer survey
included in the self-assessment document, a number of service users commented
that service had deteriorated over the last few months. This was believed by users to
be a direct consequence of reduced staff resources, and confirmed the Review
Group’s analysis of the current staffing situation. It was also notable that, while user
comments regarding the Research Office (and Technology Transfer Office) were
characterised by commendation for their helpful and customer-focused approach,
comments regarding Research Accounts centred around perceptions of bureaucratic
obstacles, a culture of “blaming” users for problems which arose, and a lack of
customer focus. A small number of users indicated that they were bypassing the
various administrative offices when developing research funding proposals and
projects, our of frustration with inadequate processes. This must be regarded as a
serious risk issue in terms of institutional governance.
Many of these issues should not be a surprise to the University, as they have been
raised in a number of previous quality reviews which were available to the review
group. Principally, these are the 2003 Research Accounts Quality Review, the 2009
Bursar’s Office Quality Review (specifically with regard to Research Accounts) and
the 2009 Quality Review of the Technology Transfer Office. The persistence of some
of the concerns from service users suggests that attempting to resolve them in
isolation is unlikely to be successful and tends to confirm the review group’s opinion
that a fundamental redesign is required.
The review group was mindful of the challenging resource situation facing NUIG, as
other universities, and that additional resource for research support is unlikely to be
available. Nevertheless, the group believes that the current disposition of resources
across research support services is sub-optimal, and that scope exists for achieving
fundamental redesign by better utilisation of resource. The numbers of staff in
Research Accounts and the Technology Transfer Office appear generous by
comparison with those in the Research Office. It is notable in this regard that some
functions which more properly belong in the Research office are undertaken by
Technology Transfer Staff, as highlighted in the Quality Review of the TTO. Current
vacancies in the Research Office and Technology Transfer Office offer an important
and timely opportunity for reconfiguration. Furthermore, there appears to be scope
for considerable efficiencies, for both service users and providers, through the
effective deployment of IT systems and replacement of paper-based processes.
Recommendation 4: The University should undertake a fundamental redesign of its
support for research and technology transfer activities, to make them fit for purpose.
In doing so, it should draw on this and other relevant Quality Review reports, and on
examples of good practice from elsewhere. Key reference points for the redesign
should be the University’s strategic objectives in research, and a detailed lifecycle
mapping of the research and technology transfer process. Leadership for the
redesign work should rest with the University’s Executive Director of Operations.
Recommendation 5: Concurrently, the University should conduct a thorough review
of the capacity of IT systems to improve research support and deliver efficient, fit for
purpose services for both providers and users. The outcomes of that review should
inform the redesign of service, and organisation of staff resources.
Recommendation 6: The need for a full staffing complement within the OVPR is
clearly urgent. Equally, the opportunity to use vacant posts to support the
recommended redesign should not be lost. Accordingly, with one exception (below),
vacant posts should not be filled until the redesign proposals are completed.
5
Recommendation 7: the one exception to recommendation 5 relates directly to the
support for the Vice President for Research. The current arrangement for providing
PA support to the VPR is through a temporary secondment which is due to conclude
on 31 March 2010. Any reduction to this support would have a major detrimental
effect on the capacity of the VPR to address recommendations 1 to 3 on the required
timescale, and to undertake other work. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
secondment be made a permanent arrangement with immediate effect.
It is, of course, for the University to determine how best to achieve its optimum
support arrangements. The review group, however, wishes to offer some comments
on this in the hope that these may be helpful to the University.

In the opinion of the review group the ideal service configuration would
involve full integration and co-location of Research Office, Research
Accounts, and Technology Transfer within the Office of the Vice President for
Research. This would, among other benefits, facilitate the positive customerfocused approach in the Research Office and TTO becoming embedded in
Research Accounts. Equally, it would enable a number of “quick wins to be
achieved” including establishment of a one-stop shop help desk function
shared between the three offices, a comprehensive set of web-based FAQs
and other resources covering the whole research life-cycle to be developed,
and more rapid deployment of user-friendly, integrated, performance
management information.

Within the staffing of the OVPR resource should be available at an
appropriate level to support the strategic leadership and policy work of the
Vice President for Research. This should be clearly distinct from, but
obviously closely related to, resource focused on operational service delivery.
The review group has in mind a post such as a Research Policy Officer for
this purpose.

The role of the Vice President for Research should be clearly distinct from the
role of research support service management. There is, however, a need for
the latter to be undertaken by an officer of appropriate seniority who can take
responsibility for implementation of the redesigned service and operate on
equal professional terms with senior academic staff. The vacant post of
Director of the Technology Transfer Office seems to the review group to
present an ideal opportunity, through reconfiguration of the role, to recruit an
appropriate member of senior professional staff to lead the development and
delivery of an integrated research support service. Such posts are becoming
increasingly common in other Irish and UK universities.
Recommendation 8: while the objective of a fully integrated service will inevitably
take some time to achieve, notwithstanding its urgency, the review group believes
that the current location of the Research Accounts Office is a significant weakness in
service delivery. Accordingly, it is recommended that Research Accounts are
immediately co-located with the Research Office and Technology Transfer Office.
The review group were not persuaded by arguments that this cannot currently be
achieved within the Science & Engineering Technology Building.
4.
Summary of Recommendations and Concluding Remarks
The review group wishes to recognise and commend the dedication and
professionalism of the staff of the Research Office, and to acknowledge their
considerable achievement in delivering an exceptional quality of customer service.
This is all the more notable as it has been achieved in very challenging
circumstances. The review group also wishes to record its gratitude to all colleagues
6
from NUIG who readily and freely made available their time and knowledge, and all
additional information which was requested, to the reviewers.
The review group were initially asked to focus on the work of the Research Office. It
rapidly became apparent, however, that the scope of the review also needed to
encompass other administrative support for research, and issues of strategic
leadership and management for the Office of the Vice President for Research
(OVPR).
It is the firm opinion of the review group that NUIG requires to give urgent attention to
both:

Enabling and supporting the Vice President for Research in providing
strategic leadership and management for research;

Fundamentally redesigning its administrative support for research to make it
clearly aligned with strategic objectives and fit for purpose.
There is, in the opinion of the review group, a significant risk that the University will
fail to achieve its strategic research objectives if both areas are not attended to as a
matter of urgency.
The review group was mindful of the challenging resource situation facing NUIG, as
other universities, and that additional resource for research support is unlikely to be
available. Nevertheless, the group believes that the current disposition of resources
across research support services is sub-optimal, and that scope exists for achieving
fundamental redesign by better utilisation of resource. Furthermore, there appears to
be scope for considerable efficiencies, for both service users and providers, through
the effective deployment of IT systems and replacement of paper-based processes.
Recommendation 1: the Vice President for Research should, as a matter of the
highest priority, lead through a widely consultative process the development of a
detailed University Research Strategy and Implementation Plan. Thereafter, he
should take responsibility for leading delivery of the Implementation Plan.
Recommendation 2: the new University Research Committee should be
established as a matter of urgency, with a membership designed both to support the
Vice President Research in his leadership role, and to ensure broad engagement
with senior academic managers.
Recommendation 3: A clear and transparent policy on, and approach to, the use of
the University’s Research Support Fund should be developed, implemented, and
clearly communicated, as part of an overall enhanced communications strategy.
Recommendation 4: The University should undertake a fundamental redesign of its
support for research and technology transfer activities, to make them fit for purpose.
Leadership for the redesign work should rest with the University’s Executive Director
of Operations.
Recommendation 5: Concurrently, the University should conduct a thorough review
of the capacity of IT systems to improve research support and deliver efficient, fit for
purpose services for both providers and users. The outcomes of that review should
inform the redesign of service, and organisation of staff resources.
Recommendation 6: The need for a full staffing complement within the OVPR is
clearly urgent. Equally, the opportunity to use vacant posts to support the
recommended redesign should not be lost. Accordingly, with one exception (see 7
below), vacant posts should not be filled until the redesign proposals are completed.
Recommendation 7: The current arrangement for providing PA support to the VPR
is through a temporary secondment which is due to conclude on 31 March 2010.
Any reduction to this support would have a major detrimental effect on the capacity of
the VPR. Accordingly, it is recommended that the secondment be made a
7
permanent arrangement with immediate effect.
Recommendation 8: The current location of the Research Accounts Office is a
significant weakness in service delivery. Accordingly, it is recommended that
Research Accounts are immediately co-located with the Research Office and
Technology Transfer Office.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The review group wish to thank and commend NUIG for a thorough, rigorous, and
very well organised review process, in which all staff engaged willingly. A minor
criticism is that the schedule of meetings was so full that inadequate time was
sometimes available to pursue discussions as fully as the review group might have
liked. This, however, did not prevent the review group from assembling all the
evidence it required to support its conclusions. The opportunity to present a
separate, confidential report is welcome, although the review group chose not to
exercise that option on this occasion.
Dr John Rogers (Chair)
Professor Eugene Kennedy
Professor Pat Dolan
Mr Seamus Bree
Ms Carmel Browne (Rapporteur)
Date: 24th March 2010
8