ePIAF:
Ditching the Paper and Ink
David Gindhart
Research Information Systems
2011 ACOR Retreat
Topics
• Background
• New process
• Review of prototypes
Background
• Project chartered by URC Subcommittee on Research
Administration Innovation
• Vision: Implement electronic proposal routing system to
replace paper and ink signatures
• Replace current PIAF with new “smart form”
• Key features
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Parallel, electronic approvals to reduce signature time
Simplified form and questions
New data fields (abstract, budget, NSF categories)
Paperless – all attachments uploaded
Notifications and reminders
Accurate record of approvals
FedEx-like status tracking
Started as soon as opportunity identified
Completed prior to proposal submission
IDEA
PI can expedite
award process by
starting compliance
activities early
Research
Admin
starts
ePIAF
Compliance
Checklist
Research Admin
completes
additional
required info
PI & co-PI’s
answer
few
questions
Completed not later
than 10 business days
after submission
AOR
reviews
and
approves
PI, co-PI’s,
Dept Head(s),
Research Dean(s)
review and approve
PI completes
compliance
activities
(IRB, IACUC, etc)
PI, co-PI,
Dept Head(s),
Research Dean(s)
review and
approve
(if necessary)
Compliance offices
review and approve
OSP negotiates
award
OSP
accepts
award
Key Changes
• Faculty will have to login and provide
information prior to proposal submission
• AOR must review and approve prior to
proposal submission
• Compliance issues addressed prior to award
acceptance instead of account setup
• AIAF process replaced by ePIAF
• Clear rules on when new budget and/or ePIAF
is required
Overall Project Schedule
• Front-loaded with prototypes and reviews
with URC, OSP, Colleges, Compliance Offices
• Goal: Pilot in January with few colleges
• Training following pilot
• Full rollout in 2012
Development Schedule
July
Task
Documentation
7/4
7/11
Initial prototypes
August
7/18
7/25
8/1
8/8
8/15
September
8/22
8/29
9/5
9/12
October
9/19
9/26
10/3
10/10
10/17
November
10/24
10/31
11/7
11/14
December
11/21
11/28
12/5
12/12
12/19
Prototype revisions
Detailed business rules
Presentation development
Final review of questions
Software Development
Instructions, emails, etc.
Initial training and help screens
Document upload
Database design/coding
Screen development
Testing
Internal testing/fixes
Pre-pilot user testing
Reviews
OSP
URC
OSP
Colleges
URC
myResearch Demos
ACOR
URC
URC
12/26
Prototypes
• Pictures of what we envision the system to be
• Will review from perspective of:
– Research administrator and AOR
– PI and Co-PI
– Department Head and Research Dean
Research Administrator Perspective
• Tasks
– Creating ePIAF’s
– Review and approve (AOR)
– Checking status of ePIAF
Entry Page
First page after user logs in (unless
they clicked URL from email)
Action Required: List of proposals
and awards that are in work and
awaiting user’s approval.
In work: List of proposals and
awards that the user is associated
with (creator or approver)
Completed Proposals: List of
proposals that have completed
workflow process and are
awaiting funding decision.
Completed Awards: List of awards
that have completed workflow
process and PSU has accepted.
Submission Type
Accessed when user clicks
“Create ePIAF” from top
menu.
Three Options
1. Create blank proposal.
2. Copy an existing
proposal or award. Note
that some fields will
intentionally not copy
over.
3. When a proposal has
been funded, create an
award from a proposal.
Note that you can also
create award from
Completed Proposals tab
on login screen.
This screen will likely change
to “wizard.”
Proposal Basics
First page of ePIAF data entry.
Many fields can be prepopulated from SIMSbudgets.
Required fields must be filled
out before the ePIAF can be
saved for the first time.
Other tabs should be disabled
before this one filled out or at
least a warning that doesn’t
let the user leave until
required fields filled out.
Budget
Can be pre-populated from
SIMSbudgets, otherwise
requires manual data entry.
Budget with salary details
(file) not accessible to co-PI’s
and their Department Heads
and Research Deans when
reviewing and approving.
Budget without salary details
accessible to all approvers.
Personnel
Names and % credit can be
pre-populated from
SIMSbudgets.
Department is not editable.
% effort is from first period.
Check box if % effort varies
across periods.
Waivers
Not viewable by PI and co-PI.
Waiver approval form only
required if F&A is completely
waived.
Proposal Info
Abstract or SOW should be
cut and paste.
Proposal’s science should be
allocated against the NSF
categories by %, adding to
100%.
Human Subjects
When first entering, only top
question is visible. If
answered yes, rest of page
appears.
Protocol #’s are optional at
proposal time and required at
award time.
Clinical trial questions only
appear if type of research is
Clinical Trial.
AOR Review
When a PI, co-PI, Department
Head, or Research Dean is
reviewing the ePIAF, a review
interface is provided.
Header includes days to
deadline (proposal) or days
since award notification
(award) to reinforce time
constraints.
Approve Proposal button
takes user to approval screen.
PI/co-PI’s do not see Waivers
tab.
Investigators (and their
Department Head and
Research Dean) see only their
financial/business interest
answers.
Co-PI’s and their Department
Head/Research Dean don’t
see detailed budget.
AOR Approval
Approver will be presented
list of approval/assurance
statements based on their
role and the details of the
proposal/award.
For example, protection of
human subjects assurance
statement only appears to PI
and co-PI’s if human subjects
question is Yes.
Check boxes next to each
approval/assurance
statement default to
unchecked.
Entry Page
First page after user logs in (unless
they clicked URL from email)
Action Required: List of proposals
and awards that are in work and
awaiting user’s approval.
In work: List of proposals and
awards that the user is associated
with (creator or approver)
Completed Proposals: List of
proposals that have completed
workflow process and are
awaiting funding decision.
Completed Awards: List of awards
that have completed workflow
process and PSU has accepted.
Workflow Status
Shows who is required and
when they completed their
action.
PI and co-PI Perspective
• Tasks
– Answering PI and co-PI-only questions
– Review and approve
PI Inputs
Only PI will see this page.
Each PI and co-PI will see
their own page, not each
others.
Only page that PI must fill out
prior to proposal submission.
All others can be filled out by
research administrator.
co-PI Inputs
Only co-PI’s will see this page.
Each co-PI will see their own
page, not each others.
Only page that co-PI(s) must
fill out prior to proposal
submission. All others can be
filled out by research
administrator.
Proposal Review (PI)
Header includes days to
deadline (proposal) or days
since award notification
(award) to reinforce time
constraints.
Approve Proposal button
takes user to approval screen.
PI does not see Waivers tab.
PI can edit if needed. AOR
will be notified of their
changes.
Investigators (and their
Department Head and
Research Dean) see only their
own financial/business
interest answers.
Proposal Review (co-PI)
Header includes days to
deadline (proposal) or days
since award notification
(award) to reinforce time
constraints.
Approve Proposal button
takes user to approval screen.
co-PI’s do not see Waivers
tab.
Investigators (and their
Department Head and
Research Dean) see only their
financial/business interest
answers.
Co-PI’s and their Department
Head/Research Dean don’t
see detailed budget.
PI Approval
Approver will be presented
list of approval/assurance
statements based on their
role and the details of the
proposal/award.
For example, protection of
human subjects assurance
statement only appears to PI
and co-PI’s if human subjects
question is Yes.
Check boxes next to each
approval/assurance
statement default to
unchecked.
PI will be shown protocolrelated answers to verify that
those are correct.
Co-PI Approval
Approver will be presented
list of approval/assurance
statements based on their
role and the details of the
proposal/award.
For example, protection of
human subjects assurance
statement only appears to PI
and co-PI’s if human subjects
question is Yes.
Check boxes next to each
approval/assurance
statement default to
unchecked.
Department Head and Research Dean
Perspective
• Tasks
– Review and approve
– Delegation
Proposal Review (Dept
Head and Research Dean)
Header includes days to
deadline (proposal) or days
since award notification
(award) to reinforce time
constraints.
Approve Proposal button
takes user to approval screen.
Investigators (and their
Department Head and
Research Dean) see only their
financial/business interest
answers.
Co-PI’s and their Department
Head/Research Dean don’t
see detailed budget.
Approval (Dept Head and
Research Dean)
Approver will be presented
list of approval/assurance
statements based on their
role and the details of the
proposal/award.
For example, protection of
human subjects assurance
statement only appears to PI
and co-PI’s if human subjects
question is Yes.
Check boxes next to each
approval/assurance
statement default to
unchecked.
Delegation
Department Heads and
Research Deans can delegate
their approval authority to
multiple people.
DH/RD decided whether a
delegate receives the same
notification emails that
DH/RD do.
Delegation can be for no
more than one year at a time.
System sends out an email
notification to delegate when
a delegation is made.
Confirmation screen will popup because of sensitive
nature of delegation.
Future Plans
• Monitor metrics on approval timelines
• Streamline and automate account setup
process (AURA)
• Track all pending reviews during negotiation
period (not just compliance offices)
• Incorporate related processes (subcontract
request, waivers, etc.)