1

Research Administration Advisory Council (RAAC) Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 3:00-4:30 pm

College of Literature, Science and the Arts Conference Room 2001

Meeting Minutes

The Research Administration Advisory Council (RAAC) meeting was held on April 22, 2014, 3:00-4:30pm at the College of Literature, Science and the Arts.

The meeting was called to order at 3:03pm by Daryl Weinert

1. Introductions of Members and Guests

Thank you to Peggy Westrick and LSA for hosting us today.

2. Update: ITS (Cathy Handyside)

ITS is working on another update to the system. An update to eRPM has been scheduled for May 19, 2014. It will be mostly little bug fixes and a couple enhancements to UFAs. ITS is currently testing updates to eRPM so that Grants.gov will better work with our system. The update to OMB expiration templates is tentatively scheduled for May 3, so that it will be in place for the June deadlines.

3. Update: Sponsored Programs (Debbie Talley)

Sponsored Programs has new staff starting May 5, 2014 - 3 new accountants and 2 new interns. Sponsored Programs currently has four interns and three of those four are moving on. This past week ORSP, Sponsored Programs Internal Controls, and the Internal Auditors, kicked off a Uniform Guidance Task Group. Bryan Van Sickle and Craig Reynolds chair the task group. Eventually the task group will be reaching out for feedback. The Sponsored Programs Accounts Receivable staff will be moving to Shared Services some time this summer.

4. Update: ORSP (Daryl Weinert/Craig Reynolds) RAAC EC has been tackling a draft of bylaws to firm up operating procedures, selection of representatives, terms of service, etc. This was discussed at the last RAAC EC meeting. When ready, this document will be brought to RAAC. In addition, we will be adding a Faculty Advisory standing group. We are still working out exactly what that will be and how it will function.

2

Seventeen staff members from ORSP and seventeen staff from Sponsored Programs attended a customer service session last week for a half-day, held locally at Sandler Training. Those attending will be sharing what they’ve learned with co-workers. A reminder that the May 21st RAAC meeting will take place at the UM Flint. Yvonne Sturt has a map and directions that she will distribute closer to the date. The campus is small and very nice. Lunch is scheduled for 1:00 in the Ontario Room. 2:00 there will be a campus tour. The meeting will start at 3:00. Dr. Vahid Lotfi, Senior Vice Provost at Flint, will kick-off the meeting and say hello first. Terry Van Allen promises a nice lunch and nice weather! Parking is available at the Mill St parking garage. Parking is free with UM parking permit. Car-pooling can be arranged if people would like it. Craig Reynolds gave updates from ORSP. Reminder: to make sure we are all on the same page about the Award Acceptance Process and indirect cost rate. ORSP staff are trained and updated on new SOPs, but it is not electronic at this time. May 1 we will go live with new Indirect Cost Policy. This will be updated on the web as well. ORSP will no longer be acting as a policing group; schools/colleges should have their own policies and procedures in place. ORSP will assume if it is approved on the PAF, it is good to go. Heather Offhaus asked if there is any sort of notice going out? There has been one announcement, but there will also be follow on announcements made. Heather would like the announcement to direct people with questions back to the schools/colleges; that would be helpful. Craig noted that the Post Award Change Request Form was announced today. The form has been launched softly and has been tweaked as we learn. A new version of the form was posted today. Beginning May 1 the form will be required. We welcome continued feedback so that we are collecting the right information and approvals at the right time. Related to this, see the handout (attached to these minutes), which is a decision tree for determining whether or not to use “Request ORSP Action”. If a Project Representative is going to reassign the form to an Administrative Specialist, it will be posted as a comment so that the project teams know who is handling the request. See the decision tree for possible outcomes. PRs know to post a comment to Sponsored Programs to notify Sponsored Programs that the request is in their hands now. Heads up, the ORSP staff is starting to talk about when a new PAF is required. We are determining where the threshold should be set. We will reach out to RAAC Process Subcommittee to get feedback. We want to streamline the process and make the process consistent. The ORSP Strategic Improvement Team participated in a retreat, discussing Mission and Core Values. We rolled out our new Mission and Core Values at a recent staff meeting. We will be publicizing these shortly. Next steps: Vision for next 3-5 years and the Strategic Objectives we will need to achieve that Vision.

5. Presentation: Award Process Project Update from RAAC Process Subcommittee (Carole Bach) See attached PowerPoint presentation for reference. Carole is chair of the Award Process Task Force. Carole provided a status update of where the Task Force is in this project. The current path has not yet been endorsed and is still evolving.

3

The current question before the Task Force is when we say Post-Award Management what does that mean? Why? 18 months ago a survey was sent out to determine the top three priorities of the Task Force. These were identified as:

Resource commitments after an award; Non-financial activities that happen after an award is made; Approval of defined financial documents that need PI/unit approval.

Managing post award processes electronically was identified as a need. A wish list was created to determine scope and clarify needs. 44 items/tasks were identified. The tasks were prioritized. Carole gave examples. An Award Process Stakeholders Group was utilized with representatives from campus. Carole gave examples of tasks being considered. The group is now working through challenges inherent in the process to determine a construct to go forward.

Next Steps—by the May RAAC meeting the Task Force will be announcing a Focus Group for RAAC members to provide feedback on the proposed construct for the “award” process. This will be a one-time summer meeting. The Task Force would like to start the building process by mid-fall. ORSP will be asked their needs, too.

Daryl Weinert commented that it sounds like we are starting to come to some clarity about what this process will encompass. Jeff Keeler asked if we are talking about a new system or extending eRPM? Cathy Handyside answered that the hope is that it will be an extension of eRPM that will tie better to the FIN system. Cathy Seay-Ostrowski added that, “ some of us are beyond excited about this. To take eRPM to the next step to standardize post award actions will really help us so much in the future. “ Daryl Weinert added that it sounds like we are getting to the traction point where we will see some deliverables.

6. Presentation: RAAC Metrics Subcommittee Update (Jeff Keeler) See attached PowerPoint presentation for reference Jeff became the committee chair in October, 2013. The mission of the committee is to develop effective and efficient metrics that will provide measureable data for strategic and tactical decision-making. Phase one: focus on high-level metrics and reporting for Deans, Institute Director’s, Research Associate Deans and Administrative Directors. The Subcommittee will bring examples of metrics to key decision makers for feedback and discuss specific needs, based on school/college anomalies. The discussion will include particular needs to address problems and will talk about what the best way for individuals to receive information is. In addition, there will be discussion of questions and suggestions of data points and reports for the next phase which includes a “toolkit” for analysts to use to further drill down into the existing data.

4

The group will talk to various administrative directors across campus for input and feedback. Final Review: consult with UMOR to assess metrics and methodology for calculations; consider opportunities for standardization. Jeff identified some example reports for Pre-Award, some example reports for Post-Award, some example reports of Human Resources, and some example reports of Risk. Phase two: develop a toolkit for data analysis that provides data points for decision-making.

The current plan is to go forward with an eight-step plan to complete phase one. Hope to have some examples of reports by summer and actual feedback this summer.

Daryl noted that reporting tools and data can be manipulated far better these days, so we are at an exciting point right now, and it is a good time to think about these needs.

Matters Arising: Cathy Handyside: training task force—Amanda would like to hear from you if you have training needs for staff.

7. Future Meetings:

The next meeting will be hosted by Terry Van Allen at the Flint Campus. More details on this will follow.

Adjournment Daryl Weinert adjourned the meeting at 4:36 pm Minutes submitted by Lisa Kiel

PT Req ORSP Action Flowchart Document updated 4-10-14.docx

Process Map: Project Team Requests ORSP Action (Post-Award)

Research Administrative Advisory Council Metrics Subcommittee

April 2014 update to RAAC

Membership Jeff Keeler (Chair), School of Natural Resources and Environment

Chris Allan, Institute for Social Research

Roohi Bajeva, Medical School

Brandon Cachia, Sponsored Programs

Linda Forsyth, College of Engineering

Teri Grieb, Medical School

Jeff Longe, Office of Research & Sponsored Projects

Mike Randolph, ITS

Patricia Schultz, School of Dentistry

Cathy Seay-Ostrowski, UMOR Research Units

Dan Stanish, Office of Research & Sponsored Projects

Yvonne Sturt, Office of Research & Sponsored Projects and Sponsored Programs

Mike Yiu, Medical School

2

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

RAAC Metrics Subcommittee Change in Chair Position

• October 2013 change in Chair to:

Jeff Keeler, Director of Budget and Administration

School of Natural Resources and Environment

3

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Metrics Subcommittee Mission

Develop Effective and Efficient Metrics that will provide measurable data for strategic and tactical decision making

• Strategic Metrics are those that would be used for strategic planning and management decisions, Unit, College, VP or University.

• Tactical Metrics are those to guide/plan/improve day-to-day operations.

4

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Metrics Subcommittee Mission

Goals of metrics:

• Assist with identifying where we can accrue process efficiencies.

• Assist with managing workload.

• Assist with defining the quality of work performed.

5

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Subcommittee Activities Through Fall 2013

• Proposal Lead Time Report was developed

• RAAC members were solicited for ideas on additional metrics development. Nearly 50 suggestions were offered

• The Committee reviewed and condensed the suggestions

6

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Going Forward

• Phase one: focus on high level metrics and reporting for Deans and Institute Directors, Research Associate Deans, Administrative Directors.

• Phase two: develop a toolkit for data analyst that provides a multitude of data points that could explain trends identified in the high level metrics.

7

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Phase One: Next Step

Small Group or One-on-One meetings with members of the Business Administrators Group (BAG) or most relevant

representatives

• Bring examples of metrics to key decision makers from a set of units. Use the examples to generate a discussion about desired metrics. Each metric compares the unit to other units at the university.

• Discuss the school or institute specific anomalies that lead to bad metrics.

• Discuss any particular problems a school or institute would like to see addressed by the metrics subcommittee.

• Discuss best approach to disseminate reports (e.g. M-Reports, Email, BusinessObjects, Tableau).

• Discuss questions that come out of example reports and suggested data points and reports for the next phase analyst toolkit.

8

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Interviews

• Administrative Directors in the following areas were identified by the Metrics Subcommittee for interviews: • RAAC

• Life Sciences Institute

• College of Engineering

• UMOR

• Medical School

• Office of the Provost

• Institute for Social Research

• School of Public Health

• College of Literature, Science and Arts

• School of Information

9

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Final Review

• Consultation with UMOR to assess metrics and methodology for calculations

• Consider opportunities for standardization

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

10

Example Reports: PreAward

•Proposal Success Rate

•Average count of proposal status changes

•Average number of days for ORSP lead time

•Metric that demonstrates the degree of cross campus collaboration

11

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Example Reports: PostAward

• Effective IDC Rate

• Percent of payroll corrections that are 120 days or more from the original transaction date

• Percent of overdrafts to research volume

• Percent of deobligated funds to research volume

• Percent of receivables that reach the 120 day window

12

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Example Reports: Human Resources

• Ratio of Grant Staff to:

• Sponsored Grant Dollar Volumes

• Count of Sponsored Project Grants with activity

• Proposal Submissions

• General Ledger Sponsored Project Transaction Volumes

13

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Example Reports: Risk

• Count of different sponsors supporting sponsored awards

14

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Current Plan/Steps Overview

1. Develop the example reports

2. Conduct the interviews

3. Finalize the phase one level reports

4. Develop a dissemination process/system/site

5. Assess data points for an analyst toolkit

6. Data warehousing of data points

7. Toolkit report development

8. Dissemination of toolkit

15

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Example Reports

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

16

Example Reports cont.

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

17

Example Reports cont.

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

18

DRAFT: RAAC Metrics Effective Indirect Cost Rates

Date: 4/20/2014

Department 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

College of Pharmacy 0.44 0.48 0.44 0.42 0.45 $25,881,258 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.22 $4,184,979 0.41 $30,066,237

School of Dentistry 0.40 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.41 $60,743,686 0.22 0.14 0.23 0.17 0.19 $7,753,200 0.38 $68,496,886

Life Sciences Institute 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.43 $65,074,069 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 $8,486,135 0.38 $73,560,204

Medical School 0.37 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.37 $1,408,368,433 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17 $253,627,611 0.33 $1,661,996,044

College of Lit, Science & Arts 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.35 0.35 $283,091,875 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.10 $22,953,967 0.33 $306,045,842

UM Transport Research Institut 0.42 0.39 0.29 0.37 0.35 $48,882,746 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.24 $13,754,188 0.33 $62,636,933

School of Kinesiology 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.38 0.39 $11,332,242 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.28 $17,937,681 0.32 $29,269,923

College of Engineering 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.33 $575,277,569 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.27 $84,484,465 0.32 $659,762,034

Dbn Col of Engineering 0.28 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.34 $12,803,342 0.26 0.18 0.28 0.27 0.24 $5,008,531 0.31 $17,811,872

Institute for Social Research 0.34 0.36 0.34 0.37 0.35 $311,595,682 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.09 $42,156,628 0.31 $353,752,309

School of Public Health 0.28 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.33 $257,494,472 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.14 $40,838,035 0.30 $298,332,507

Center for Human Growth & Dev 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 $21,501,899 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.09 $167,149 0.30 $21,669,047

School of Nursing 0.36 0.35 0.29 0.31 0.32 $23,698,796 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04 $2,354,531 0.29 $26,053,326

School of Information 0.28 0.35 0.28 0.30 0.30 $16,397,410 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.13 $1,793,303 0.28 $18,190,713

School of Education 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.35 $35,147,696 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 $10,097,698 0.27 $45,245,394

Ford School of Public Policy 0.39 0.30 0.31 0.17 0.29 $9,665,880 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.08 $2,985,833 0.23 $12,651,713

University Library 0.42 0.43 0.39 0.32 0.39 $2,211,007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,237,394 0.22 $3,448,402

School of Nat Resource and Env 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 $47,324,284 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.14 $5,312,922 0.19 $52,637,205

VP Global & Engaged Education 0.43 0.23 0.21 0.24 0.25 $2,573,535 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.07 $1,107,921 0.19 $3,681,456

Vice President for Research 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.14 0.23 $28,391,835 0.07 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.03 $6,776,366 0.18 $35,168,201

School of Social Work 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.26 $9,011,448 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05 $4,588,595 0.18 $13,600,043

Affiliated IT Orgs 0.33 0.27 0.15 0.17 0.21 $1,142,188 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 $4,232,470 0.13 $5,374,658

Law School 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.06 $4,910,357 0.05 0.16 0.08 0.07 0.08 $2,794,174 0.07 $7,704,531

Rackham Graduate School 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.06 $31,015,953 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.05 $4,216,037 0.06 $35,231,991

Flint Hlth Profession Studies 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 $5,913,202 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $624,490 0.05 $6,537,692

Univ Hospitals & Health Center 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 $46,892,925 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $10,945,316 0.02 $57,838,241

Academic & Educational Affairs 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 $98,913,910 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2,521,843 0.00 $101,435,753

Flint Provost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $127,076 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $4,450,174 0.00 $4,577,250

Flint VC - Student Affairs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $56,988,770 0.00 $56,988,770

VP of Communications 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $70,262 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $3,438,860 0.00 $3,509,122

Exec VP Finance Univ Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$41,944 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $340,425,656 0.00 $340,383,712

Dbn Enrlmt Mgmt & Student Life 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $53,078,874 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $238,462 0.00 $53,317,336

Business Operations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $817,872 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2,611,565 0.00 $3,429,437

NOTES:

-Total Direct and Total Indirect Costs are summed at a Department Group Level and Federal (Fund 20000)/Non Federal (Fund 25000)

-Effective Indirect Cost Rate is calculated as Total IDC/Total Direct Cost

Total DC+IDC Total DC+IDC

Grand Total

DC+IDC

Total Effective

IDC Rate

Effective IDC Rate

=IDC/Direct Cost

Effective IDC Rate

=IDC/Direct Cost

Federal Non Federal

Avg Eff IDC RateAvg Eff IDC Rate

Other Questions/Thoughts?

19

Met

ric

Sub

com

mit

tee

Up

dat

e to

R

AA

C E

C, A

pri

l 22

nd

, 20

14

Disclaimer

0 We are in the early stages of this project. The information contained in this presentation could change or be altered as we move through this project.

0 What is contained in this presentation is the path we are currently on and what we envision might happen, but it is too early to be sure.

0 The project must work for not only the Units but ORSP, SPO and UMOR

Definition:

0 This Project will encompass post award management activities that happen starting with the issuance of the PAN through close-out activities of the award

0 When we say Post-Award Management what does that mean: 0 Resource Commitments after award

0 Non-Financial Activities that happen during the course of a project after it is awarded to closeout (i.e. NCR, NCTX, sponsor approval, etc.)

0 Approval of defined financial documents that need PI/unit approval. (i.e. financial reports, invoices, etc.)

Why Are We Doing This?

0 RAAC Process Subcommittee surveyed all the

schools/colleges/institutes/units for their priorities.

0 From that list there was some consensus around managing post the award research administration activities electronically

0 This is also a priority for ORSP,

0 This was one of the original long term goals of the process subcommittee

0 The goal is to bring improvement, streamlining and transparency to the Research Administration process once the project is accepted

Creation of a “Unit” Wish List

0 To come up with this wish list we did the following: 0 Besides the survey results, requests made through RASC and

SSCRAG for additional specific items

0 Process subcommittee team members also brought issues

0 Incorporated things from the old eRPM eGoverance team wish list

0 Once all items were gathered, the process subcommittee went through all the items and determined if they were in scope of this project and grouped like items. We also followed-up with units when further clarification on their requests when needed.

0 Our current unit wish lists stands at 44 different activities

“Unit” Wish List (cont.)

0 Once we had the list (end of July, 2013), we sent our list around to RAAC Executive Committee Members for a 6 week comment and feedback period. We also asked them for input for priority level on each item on the list.

0 The Process team then assigned priority to the tasks and that will be used in the future to know what tasks to focus on first, if possible

Examples of Tasks

0 The following is a sample of the many tasks on the wish list

0 Award administrative request and approval of items that are currently processed through ORSP.

0 Electronic 7471

0 Acceptance and/or reflection of actual commitments based on award and the ability to run reports with the data

0 Track Commitments for Graduate Students

0 Linking sub P/Gs to PAFs

0 Award History that shows funding by increment and date in the system

“Award” Process Stakeholder Group (APSG)

0 Was created to have discussion about this process with representatives from all campus groups that have a stake in this system and also to provide overall guidance and direction. These members are:

0 ORSP: Craig Reynolds

0 SPO: Bryan VanSickle

0 ITS: Cathy Handyside and Carolyn Pappas

0 Units: Carole Bach

0 Added recently: ORSP: Kate Strzempek and Dan Stanish

Work of APSG so Far

0 We began work in August to plan a course.

0 We are currently meeting every 2 weeks

0 Our initial tasks were to go through the units wish list so we could: 0 Understand the requirement

0 Obtain additional information where needed

0 Determine who the process owner(s) are

0 Determine if there is a business process in place or if needed

0 Group tasks together that logically relate for future work group development

0 Concur with the Scope of the Project

Group Task Example

0 The stakeholder group linked the following 4 related individual tasks for project from the wish list

0 Electronic routing, approval and storage of FSR

0 Manner to indicate that a project is done with spending and able to start FSR process, replace current closeout checklist

0 Grant Deliverable Notification or Calendar

0 Approval and storage of non financial close-out documents

0 This could be the basis for a work/task group focusing on close-outs

Challenges!

0 How do you define a project? & Who is the you?

0 How to connect multiple PAFs on the same P/G

0 How to connect multiple PAFs and Multiple P/Gs

0 How does data capture for reporting play into this?

0 How do we make this work to be able to increase compliance but not make it more burdensome?

0 How can we make it work for the needs of the Central Offices and the Units?

0 Just to name a few…

Building a Base to Make this Happen

0 So, a lot of work has been done on this already

0 the Current model we already have does not do allow us the flexibility meet the new requirements

0 We are coming up with a proposed construct to be the base on which to build

0 The base has to allow for different solutions for ORSP, SPO and Units

0 As part of the solution there will be process changes as well as system changes

0 The solution will also needs to facilitate data capture

How Do We Decide What Happens When?

0 Many factors go into this decision:

0 1. Is it a need for all stakeholders?

0 2. Does one task need to be done in order for another one to start?

0 3. Priority of the task assigned by the RAAC process subcommittee

0 4. Resources available

So What’s Next

0 So when we have a proposal we will want input from Research Administrators to look at the design

0 We will be announcing in May a Focus Group for RAAC members to provide feedback on the proposed construct for the “award” project.

0 This will be a one-time meeting this summer.

0 Opportunities for work/task groups, hopefully, starting this fall

Ideas or Thoughts?

0 This wish list is not set in stone, as we move forward through the process other needs or requirements may arise

0 If you have any thoughts on any additional items you may want to see in this project, just email me at bachcm@umich.edu

0 Consider volunteering yourself, or others in your units to our many work/task groups that will be happening around “award”

0 Questions??