September 28, 2011

• Agenda
– Introductions, eRA team and eRA User Group Team
– Background to eRA and vision for the future
– Where we are now and where we need to go
– Tips, techniques and Shortcuts
– Known Issues
– Open floor to Q&A and discussion

• Introductions
– eRA team
• Krunal Cholera – Technical Manager
• Ming-Hui Chou – eRA Instructional Technologist and QA
• Robert O’Malley – eRA Project Manager
– Other eRA Support
• Keith Osterhage - Associate Vice Provost Research Administration
• Rob Gage – Director, Sponsored Research Programs
• Rosemary Dillon – Director, Sponsored Research Programs

• Introductions
– eRA User Group Planning Committee
• Gina Barnes – Assistant Director-PreAward Services College of Liberal
Arts
• Chrissy Blewett – Assistant Director, Sponsored Programs
• Rosemary Dillon – Director, Sponsored Programs
• Sema Enchauteguis – Sr. Finance Accountant, School of Medicine
• Kim Fahey – Director, Office of Research, College of Liberal Arts
• Robert Gage – Director, Sponsored Programs
• Janice Milewski – Cardiovascular Research Center/Physiology
• Diane Omdal – Director, Research Administration, School of Medicine
• Roseanne Wallin – Director, Contract Administration and Compliance,
Sponsored Programs

• Why eRA?
– External Factors:
• Sponsor Mandate - Sponsoring agencies, particularly federal agencies, have begun to mandate use of electronic systems for submission and management of grants
– Grants.Gov reports System-To-System submissions have fewer errors and are accepted at a higher rate
• Accountability and Compliance - Increasing federal regulatory burden and auditor oversight of University systems will require that Temple be able to demonstrate consistency of practices, adherence to regulatory compliance guidelines and proper stewardship of funds at the institution level.
– Using the same codes, rates, exceptions etc,. Across the University
• Competition for Funds – Most of Temple's peer research institutions are addressing
ERA. These universities have invested heavily in both research infrastructure and electronic research administration. The Temple University needs to maintain and enhance its position to compete for research funds as well as becoming an integral partner in shaping the future of research and research administration

• Why eRA?
– Internal Factors:
• Risk Management - There are strategic, financial, operational, compliance and reputational risks in the administration, management and reporting for sponsored research
– Consistency, accuracy
• Reduced Administrative Infrastructure - A goal of the University must be able to increase the time that investigators spend on research and decrease the time spent on the administration of their grants.
– Using templates etc
• Accessibility of Information - As the volume of research grows, there is an increasing demand for data to assist with decision-making at all levels within the
University.
– We must be able to store the data here as well as report on it.

• What makes up eRA@TU (core)
– Proposal Tracking
– Proposal Development
• Development
• eSPAF
• Approval and routing
• Electronic submissions
– Protocol Tracking
• IRB
• IACUC
– Technology Transfer
– SPIN/SMARTS/GENIUS

• Our vendor is InfoEd International (RFP Awardee)
• Some Other institutions using the same software:
– University of Pennsylvania - Mount Sinai School of Medicine
– Columbia University - Northwestern University
– Yale University - University of Connecticut
– University of Miami - University of Hawaii
– Oregon Health Sciences - University of Pittsburgh
– Notre Dame University - New York University
– UCSD Research Foundation - Dana Farber Cancer Institute (Harvard)
– Johns Hopkins - Partners Health (Boston)
– University of Vermont - Institutions in
– University of Colorado - England
– Virginia Commonwealth University - Canada
– University of Illinois - Australia
– University of Texas Medical Branch - South Africa
– Rockefeller University

• Linking of all related research materials for a submission under one parent proposal record
– Proposals, protocols, non-competes, extensions, supplementals
• A “paperless” office
– Electronic versions of all proposals, protocols, training certifications, patent disclosures, etc.
– The ability for any PI, approver, reviewer to perform their job, no matter where they are in the world, any time of day.
• The eRA@TU project vision encompasses more than software; it is also business process reengineering.

• Nearly 2,000 proposals created in eRA@TU and successfully submitted to
Grants.Gov
• Over 200+ proposals routed and approved electronically
• Over 200+ eSPAFS completed
– Electronic record of who approved and when and how long it took
• 100% of all IRB and IACUC correspondence created and distributed via eRA@TU
– Attached to protocols
• All new records in PT have submission packets scanned and attached to records
– SPAF, Contracts, NOA documentation etc
• All new records in IRB/IACUC have submission packets scanned and attached to protocol records
– Protocol, amendments
• All CITI and EHRS training records attached to faculty profiles
• Tens of thousands of alerts delivered to faculty on a just-in-time basis
– Expirations of training, protocols. Notification of available help when starting proposals

• Discussion: Mitigating differences in research capacity between schools
• Background: Institutions typically fall within 2 support models
– Centralized support – MIT
• Most of the work in creating and submitting proposals is done in either the central OSP office or at the college level.
– Decentralize support – University of Pennsylvania
• Most of the work in creating and submitting proposals is done at the department level. School level research offices and central OSP support departments in creating/reviewing proposals
– Temple currently uses both models.

• Can eRA@TU support both models?
– What would that entail?
– Access to proposals from initial creation to routing by members of the PI’s research support team.
• That could be at the Department, School or University level.
• Send an email to appropriate research experts, whether they are at the department, school or University level when a proposal is begun.
• Currently, those experts have access to the proposal (today) and can do as much or as little as is customary in that school.

• Discussion: Moving the entire university to have all Federal submissions system-to-system by January 1, 2012 as per Dr. Blank’s challenge.
– Exceptions include:
• NSF
• Program projects
• Transfers
• Any opportunity that explicitly requires a paper submission
– All non-Federal submissions using the eSPAF by the same date
– What do we do when there is a mix of faculty from the SPAF and eSPAF worlds?

• Salary exposed during routing
– Why doesn’t the vendor address this?
• For all Federal submissions, Adobe Forms makes no attempt at hiding salary.
• For NIH, anyone named on the proposal can log on and see salary information as it is required.
– What are other schools doing?
• Penn makes no attempt to hide the salary
• State schools it isn’t an issue since many publish all salaries anyway.
– What can we do since it is a valid issue?

• What can we do?
– Will never be able to stop someone from using a calculator to backdoor into salaries.
• But we can make sure they have a calculator.
• Use 424 budgeting model and enter 0 for Base Salary but will still have to enter the full amount for Federal sponsors that require it.

• B1 vs B2 forms
– B2 Forms address a series of bugs in the B1 forms at Grants.Gov
– We have the ability to use the new B2 forms in eRA.
• However, we are waiting for the software patch to allow us to change them while the proposal is “Under Development” – ETA – Next week .
• If you start a proposal in B1 you cannot change it to a B2 form…today…However, remember that B1 Forms will be accepted by NIH until January 7 th .

• FedNonFederalBudget form for some Non-NIH submissions
– Known bug in our software.
– If you find a proposal using this form, you must submit using Adobe
Forms and a paper SPAF. ETA for fix 2 weeks

• I just discovered a bug in the software, what do I do?
– “If you see something, say something”
– Report all bugs, no matter how inconsequential they may seem. Never
“hoard” bugs, it helps no one.
– Send as much information to us as possible including:
• Proposal # in the subject line of the email
• A screen shot helps
• Very importantly, what you were doing when it occured
– Issues related to live proposals are usually resolved in hours.
era@temple.edu
OR omalley@temple.edu
AND mhchou@temple.edu

• How can I check a proposal for issues before we submit it for final review?
– Using XML Validate
• Will build the XML datastream to check for any issues.
• Popup screen will display status of each part of proposal. Look for all green checkmarks

• I just started a proposal yesterday but don’t see it today
• System defaults to the PI’s Primary Appt for the Associated Dept
• Make sure you set the Associated Department to one that you have access to.

Documentation
– Available online video tutorials and hardcopy on our login screen
• Over 20 chapter-based video tutorials eRATV
– Live webinar every other week eRA@TU Training
– In person or via webinar, individualized to your needs

New Look for Sponsored Programs Website

Send and email to listserv@listserv.temple.edu
In the body of the email enter
Subscribe era yourfirstname yourlastname