A Comprehensive Space Management Model for Facilitating Programmatic Research

Libecap, Ann; Wormsley, Steven; Cress, Anne E.; Matthews, Mary J.; Souza, Angie Thaisa da Costa; Joiner, Keith A.

doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181636f54

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We uncovered very little about F&A cost recovery through our Google and PubMed database searches, and the few articles and books we did find simply indicated that recovering F&A costs was a “recognized barrier” to interdisciplinary research,5,7–9,11,12 described the role of F&A cost recovery in allocating space,40 or noted that universities are not adequately reimbursed for the indirect costs of conducting research 41. We located one proceedings article that offered a detailed description of one university’s methods for assigning credit and distributing the return of F&A in order to break down barriers to interdisciplinary research 11.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Facilities and Administrative Cost Recovery to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research

Kulage

Larson²,

Begg³

2011

Academic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-Despite increasing interest in interdisciplinary research, researchers consistently cite institutional barriers as deterrents. Researchers, administrators, and others have suggested developing processes for sharing facilities and administrative (F&A) cost recovery as one way to support collaborative research. Therefore, the authors reviewed current policies for sharing F&A cost recovery and user satisfaction with them.Method-In 2010, through reviewing institutional Websites and surveying researchers and grants administrators from a range of institutions, the authors identified a number of different policies currently employed and assessed user satisfaction with them.Results-While most respondents (80.7%, 205/254) agreed that a standard policy for sharing F&A cost recovery would facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, only 35.4% (90/254) reported that their institutions had such a policy. Among the 85 respondents whose institutions had a policy, most (66 [77.6%]) reported that the policy applied to grants with multiple principal investigators or co-investigators across departments or schools, and 68 (80.0%) reported satisfaction with the policy. Respondents from institutions with policies were significantly more likely to endorse the notion that policies are helpful compared to those who reported that their institutions did not have such policies or were unsure of their existence (89% versus 76%, P = Correspondence should be addressed to Ms. Kulage, Columbia University School of Nursing, 630 West 168 th Street, Box 6, New York, NY 10032; telephone: (212) 305-5495; fax: (212) 305-6020; kk729@columbia.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.Other disclosures: None.Ethical approval: The survey was approved by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board as an exempt protocol.Disclaimer: The content of this report is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Columbia University or the National Council of University Research Administrators. Conclusions-These data support the need for institutions to establish formal policies for sharing F&A cost recovery as a way to promote interdisciplinary research collaboration. NIH Public AccessDespite increasing interest in interdisciplinary and translational research on the part of researchers and funding agencies,1 -3 researchers have consistently cited inst...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sharing Facilities and Administrative Cost Recovery to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research

Kulage

Larson²,

Begg³

2011

Academic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For space management, one approach is to make the space allocation process one that focuses on a block of space assigned to a department or center, or for programmatic interdisciplinary research, and in which metrics are developed and applied for the entire block rather than being applied at the level of the individual faculty member. 3 While the authors comment that department chairs are expected to implement the space allocation process, which shares some overlap with the approach just described, there are other ways in which the approach used at the authors' institution does not seem organized with this goal at the forefront. First, the metrics seem to put a premium Commentary on the individual.…”

Section: Philosophy Of the Approachmentioning

confidence: 94%

Commentary: Evaluating Faculty Productivity in Research: An Interesting Approach, but Questions Remain

Joiner¹

2009

Academic Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic institutions must have strategies for evaluating research productivity by faculty. Such strategies are useful in guiding resource allocations for the research enterprise, for decisions on faculty promotions, and for broader institutional planning, including program development. Commonly, decisions about research space utilization, and funding to support the space, are considered within the purview of the institutional administration. Peer review, in manuscript and grant submissions and the promotions process, is more commonly used to evaluate the impact of faculty research. The article by Iyengar et al in this issue of Academic Medicine takes an interesting approach to evaluate research productivity of individual faculty by integrating benchmarks for research funding and publication impact. The strategy of using these benchmarks to partition faculty into quadrants to guide faculty development activities is clever and useful. Less clear are the philosophy and long-term utility of the approach. The applicability to the stated goal of promoting multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary translational research is not obvious, nor is it apparent that faculty will continue to view decisions as transparent and fair over the longer term. Nevertheless, the authors' article is a welcome contribution at a time when many institutions are struggling with issues of evaluating faculty investigators and allocating resources for research.

show abstract

“…Institutions monitoring cost-efficiency and adequacy of overhead support for space utilization (whether wet lab, dry lab, office, educational space, or otherwise) invariably use calculations derived from internal data because there are limited publicly available data for comparisons across institutions. 25 In fact, precise categorization of quantity and quality of research and education space is included in A21 reports to the Office of Management and Budget, conducted using highly detailed and uniform definitions for all AHCs. In conjunction with the data on funding (grant, tuition, state support, and other) used to support the space, also defined in precise fashion, ratios for dollars/ net square foot are readily comparable across AHCs.…”

Section: Implications For Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resource Allocation in Academic Health Centers: Creating Common Metrics

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimizing resource allocation is essential for effective academic health center (AHC) management, yet guidelines and principles for doing so in the research and educational arenas remain limited. To address this issue, the authors analyzed responses to the 2007-2008 Association of Academic Health Centers census using ratio analysis. The concept was to normalize data from an individual institution to that same institution, by creating a ratio of two separate values from the institution (e.g., total faculty FTEs/total FTEs). The ratios were then compared across institutions. Generally, this strategy minimizes the effect of institution size on the responses, size being the predominant limitation of using absolute values for developing meaningful metrics. In so doing, ratio analysis provides a range of responses that can be displayed in graphical form to determine the range and distribution of values. The data can then be readily scrutinized to determine where any given institution falls within the distribution. Staffing ratios and operating ratios from up to 54 institutions are reported. For ratios including faculty numbers in the numerator or denominator, the range of values is wide and minimally discriminatory, reflecting heterogeneity across institutions in faculty definitions. Values for financial ratios, in particular total payroll expense/total operating expense, are more tightly clustered, reflecting in part the use of units with a uniform definition (i.e., dollars), and emphasizing the utility of such ratios in decision guidelines. The authors describe how to apply these insights to develop metrics for resource allocation in the research and educational arenas.

show abstract

A Comprehensive Space Management Model for Facilitating Programmatic Research

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

Sharing Facilities and Administrative Cost Recovery to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research

Sharing Facilities and Administrative Cost Recovery to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research

Commentary: Evaluating Faculty Productivity in Research: An Interesting Approach, but Questions Remain

Resource Allocation in Academic Health Centers: Creating Common Metrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About