Kuali Coeus Implementation

Steering Committee MeetingJune 10, 2011

1

2

Agenda• Introductions• Background• KC Implementation plan • Current Status• The role of the Steering Committee• KC Demo• Questions

“Research Administration” (RA)

• The necessary and enabling “non-scientific” activities required to conduct research

• Successfully compete for, negotiate, and manage research projects

• Provide compliance and support functions to ensure integrity and safety of research

• Inform management decision making and planning• Deliver required government and regulatory agency

reporting

Cornell’s Need for a RA System• Administrative burden on faculty at all-time high impeding

ability to spend time on research– Processes performed manually or with disparate systems – Limited self-service – requires inefficient interactions with staff– Processing and information not designed to support researchers

• Lack of meaningful and integrated data, and of intelligent workflow poses significant barrier to meeting compliance requirements

– Higher education under growing scrutiny– Number, complexity of regulatory requirements continues to grow– Cornell must ensure the integrity of its research and protect the reputation

of its faculty, students, and other researchers– Lack of information necessary to support researchers in meeting regulatory

requirements– Gap in meaningful data for faculty and management– No modern workflow or process management tools

Best Available Solution

• Kuali Coeus• Built to meet needs of higher education• Cornell a founding development partner, Mellon Foundation Grant

- $2.5M; now 10 university contributors• Based on proven MIT Coeus system currently used by 48

research institutions• Leverages Kuali Financial System (KFS) infrastructure• Built to interface with KFS which provides post-award financial

management functionality• Sustainable business model using best of Coeus and KFS models

KC Provides

• Single system and interface, automated workflow infrastructure– Reduce administrative burden for faculty and staff; improve

processing and approval timelines

• Functionality to support life cycle of research projects• Ability to monitor and manage regulatory compliance

– Meet current and emerging regulations and federally mandated electronic processes

• Greatly improved management information– Data delivered accurately and in a timely manner to support

business decisions

Project Goals

• Deliver an integrated research administration system that meets researcher and institutional needs

• Work collaboratively with faculty to deliver a tool that works for them

• Develop processes that increase efficiency and reduce administrative burden

• Ensure an efficient and economical implementation

Project Scope• Functionality

• Data Warehouse, Reporting• Custom and standard reporting for campus and central users• Interface to KFS to facilitate financial reporting

• Proposal Development • IRB (Human participants)

• Budget Development • Conflict of Interest

• Award Management • IACUC (Animal use)

• Sub-awards • Biosafety

• Negotiations • Export controls

KC @ Cornell: Planned Implementation• Total budget estimated at this time: $11.96M

– Capital budget $10.46M, Reallocated department staff $1.5M

Five modules over six years– Generally follow KC development product releases– Phased Rollout of modules as they (and CU) are ready– Proposal and Budget Development scheduled for 2011

• Readiness Assessment & Discovery- Q1 through August 2011• Pilot Go-live – Target Q4 2011

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Proposal and Budget Development

IRB (Human Subjects)

Awards, Negotiations, Sub-Awards

Conflict of Interest

IACUC (Animal Use)

Bio-Safety

Export Controls

9

KC @ Cornell

KC Development

KC

Implementation

KC

@ Cornell

Vanilla “out of the box” product• Meets critical needs

common to all institutions

• Development based on maximizing cost-benefit for all- consensus, compromise

• Backed by the Foundation infrastructure

• Core product documentation

Make KC & Cornell work together• Understand the Product

• Functionality• User interfaces• Terminology

• Assess Campus needs• Functionality• Workflow• Reporting• Training and

Documentation• Develop solutions to meet

campus needs

Better Research Administration @ Cornell• Interconnected• Consistent• Streamlined• User friendly features• Enable compliance with

policies/regulations• Reporting to enable

decision making

10

Project Team

11

Steering Committee

Project SponsorsRobert Buhrman

Ted DoddsCathy Long

Project DirectorAmita Verma

Project ManagerChristopher Lyons

Functional Team Technical Team

Faculty Advisory Council

Andy Bass (Chair)

Proposal and Budget development-before and afterFunction Current With Kuali Coeus

Proposal development -Off line collaboration-Manual version management-no standard template-Each proposal is a new document

- Online collaboration- Version control- Can copy proposals or portions of- Latest template available

Budget development - Offline process- Rates offline- No standard template

- Multiple versions can be created- On-line Collaboration- Institutional rates pre-populated and updated- Standard templates: same for all sponsors- Account codes populated by budget item type

Form 10 - Paper- Manual routing

- No separate form- Proposal driven compliance routing

Submission to OSP - Manual, no standard process- OSP manually assigns number- OSP enters data into EZRA and

submits to sponsor

- PI/Department creates proposal and submits- OSP# generated at proposal creation- Error checks and validation prior to submission

OSP review and processing - OSP Review offline- All correspondence offline- Lack of Standardization of review

- OSP review documented in KC- All review workflow in KC

Proposal Submission - OSP submits to grants.gov and other sponsors

- Interface to Grants.gov for submission from KC- Submission to other sponsors unchanged

Compliance/Awards - Manual data entry, compliance lookup (Down the road)- link to awards and KFS, compliance cross reference

12

13

Institutional Proposal and Awards -before and afterFunction Current With Kuali Coeus

Institutional Proposal ----Manual entry of proposal

- Proposal Log- .- .- Auto Feed from Proposal Module

Award - .- .- .

- .- .- .- .- .

Award Budget - .- .

- .- .

Time and Money - .- .- .

- .- .- .

Subawards - .- .- .

- (Module available 4th qtr 2011)

- .

Negotiations - Treated as project and attached to Proposals

- Special module to handle all negotiations with link to Award. (Module available 4th qtr 2011)

- .

COI/IRB/ - . - .

13

14

KC Implementation at Cornell

Key Participants and Stakeholders– Faculty and other researchers– Associate Deans for Research– College and department research administrators– Directors and staff of OSP, ORIA, Research IT– Compliance committees (IRB, IACUC, IBC, FCOI)– Other Enterprise System executives (HR PS, Finance KFS,

etc.)– Sponsored Funds Accounting– College and department IT– Other

KC Implementation Project- Principles

Campus Engagement: – Engage Campus stakeholders from the beginning– Engage faculty early, seek advice and guidance– Listen, document, validate– Develop solutions collaboratively– Communicate: right message to the right people at the right time

Product:– Configure product to meet reasonable campus needs– Enable and promote consistency in processes and reporting– No (or minimal) Customization of the core product– Integrate with KFS where needed– Develop and deliver timely, effective training and documentation

15

KC Implementation -Risks– Availability of technical resources– Ability to integrate to other enterprise systems when in flux– Ability to acquire campus resources in light of multiple enterprise projects – Ability to effectively and efficiently engage faculty– Ability to effectively configure KC for the Cornell campus– Implementing a successful post implementation dept/central staff support

model– Part of KC success tied to KFS effectiveness of data/mgmt information

delivery

16

First KC Implementation:Proposal and Budget DevelopmentA complete system solution for the collaborative development, automated review and limited online submission for proposal and budgets.

17

Develop the proposal

Develop the

budget

Route for Internal review

Route for OSP

review

Submit to

sponsor

Web applicationRole based permissions and accessAbility to track progress and status

Links to external and internal resources

Project Status and immediate plans• Assessing campus and product “Readiness”

– Does KC have the essential functionality to meet Cornell needs?

– What is the overall solution- system, processes, workflow management, reporting?

– What are the key processes on campus that KC must support, and which processes will need to change?

– What is the minimum functionality needed for a pilot? – What is the project plan for the rest of the implementation?

• Key activities – Engage campus stakeholders from most colleges engaged in sponsored

research- processes, pain points, reporting needs, etc.– Benchmark with other KC implementing schools to learn from

experiences- successes and difficulties– Learn the intricacies of system

18

Steering Committee (SC)• Provide guidance to the team in making the key decisions on the major

issues and key project decisions that will impact the campus community, such as-

- The overall objectives for the project - Project roll out strategy and timeline- Making the critical go-live decisions- Effective outreach, communications and training strategies- Decisions involving large expenditures

• Partner with the project leadership in negotiating effective solutions to issues that have a potential to impede progress of the project

• Serve as an ambassador for the KC project to the University administration and research communities

• Meet approximately once a month, unless there is a critical project need

19

Kuali Coeus Tour

20

Menu

21

Proposal

22

Proposal Personnel

23

Narratives (Science)

24

Budget

25

Special Review

26

Workflow: Approval (Form 10)

27