Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
James Bartholomew, Jenna Benkula, Molly Conley, James Grossman, Mary Hourihan, Becca Jewell, Patti Long. Team Office of Sponsored Programs. Road Map. Scope, Goal, & Overview of Project Assumptions & Constraints of Model Model Demonstration Possible Solutions Recommendations & Conclusion. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
James Bartholomew, Jenna Benkula, Molly Conley, James Grossman, Mary Hourihan, Becca Jewell, Patti Long
Scope, Goal, & Overview of ProjectAssumptions & Constraints of ModelModel DemonstrationPossible SolutionsRecommendations & Conclusion
Evaluate the front-end proposal submission process by: Identifying System Constraints Identifying methods of exploiting
constraints to increase throughput and improve customer service
Desired outcomes• More proposals awarded• More money coming into the University• Improve customer relations
Research the OSP grant and contract process
Gather and build a base of dataBuild Arena Simulation of processesVerify the process with Dr. MetlenValidate the process with OSPSimulate alternative scenariosPresent findings to OSP
DraftFullDraft Turned FullPre-ProposalPre-Proposal turned Full Proposal
Electronic Hardcopy▪ SPA1▪ SPA2▪ SPA3
50% of AA’s time pre-processNo pre-proposal as draftOnly one AA on at a timeNo SPA ever helps another SPA
Constraint: no specific business ruleData issues
Incorrect AssumptionsCommunication
Decision modules 14% are already awarded 25% have due dates 80% of proposals to post are awarded Decision modules within SPA’s process
Duration times SPAs, AAs, and Polly process times
Business Rules SPAs only work one proposal Earliest due date first Four day stamp for proposals without due date
Arrival rates Based on last years numbers Addition of entities randomly distributed
An overview of the entire process Flow Entities Sub-models Sequencing Assigning Values/Properties End Values
BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE
# to Post
# Pre-proposals
# Late
# Denied
# Already Awarded
# Drafts
$ to Post & Already Awarded $ Late $ Denied
910.867 18.767 236.567 19.33 42.43 17.33 $243,211.23
$ 64,791,325.3
9
$ 4,425,172.7
1
Each of these models were run for one year 30 times to show the possible variation, thus these values are averages of a normal distribution.
Total of above coded as “A” in status (awarded) 448Total of above coded as “R” in status (in review) 111Total of above coded as “S” in status (submitted) 338Total of above coded as “I” in status (inactive) 79Total of above coded as “D” in status (declined) 123Total of above coded as “P” in status (presumed rejected) 1Total of above coded as “C” in status (cancelled in house) 6Total of above coded as “W” in status (withdrawn by PI) 5
TOTAL 1111
OSP Results:448(A) + 123(D) = 571448/571 = 78.459%
Model Results:910.867(A) + 236.567(L) + 19.333(D) = 1166.767910.867/1166.767 = 78.067%
BASE BASE BASE
# to Post # Late # Denied
910.867 236.567 19.33
Total coded as “A” in status (awarded) 448
Total coded as “D” in status (declined) 123
OSP 2008: $65,000,000Base Model: $232,397,418.76Partial FundingFunding Over TimePossibility of Not Being FundedData IntegrationAverage per proposal from raw data:
$244,807.61Average per proposal from model:
$255,138.79
Inputs are not consistent. Inability to model SPAs assisting other
SPAs due to lack of Business Rule.
BASE BASE BASE BASE BASESPA 1
UtilizationSPA 2
UtilizationSPA 3
UtilizationAA
UtilizationPolly
Utilization
48.114% 71.032% 76.243% 41.485% 0.1%
Each of these were run for 30 years, but these values are averages.
Developed 14 scenarios Scenarios were based on:
Our knowledge of the process Current OSP process improvement
initiatives PI suggestions
Scenarios sought to: Increase number of proposals awarded Increase money coming into the university Improve PI relations
Implementing four day ruleElectronic ESF formHiring someone to look for proposals
and encourage PIs to submit to themResolving Workflow issues: Cayuse or
SavvionVarious combinations of these
4 Day Rule: OSP will not accept proposals that are due in less than 4 days
BASE
BASE with 4 Day Rule
Number Awarded
911 No statistically significant difference
Number Late
237 36
All proposals go through due date distribution
BASE BASE with E-ESF
Number Awarded
911 854
Number Late
237 294
Institute 4 day rule to try to improve results
Assuming no change in due date distribution
BASE BASE with E-ESF
Adding 4 Day Rule
Number Awarded
911 854 599
Number Late
237 294 1
Increase in money coming from Washington Hire another person to:
Research proposal opportunities Identify appropriate PI Identify opportunities for cross functional
endeavors Results:
Increase in proposal inputs Demand planning for SPAs Increase number of PI’s who respond to RFPs Give OSP a positive face in the University
community
Modeled using 30-40% increase in proposal input
BASE BASE with 30-40% increase
Number Awarded
911 598
Number Late
237 846
Institute 4 day rule to try to improve results
BASE
BASE with 30-40% increase
Add 4 Day Rule
Number Awarded
911 598 928
Number Late
237 846 598
Implement a workflow systemBenefits:
It will decrease process significantly for all participants
Spot real time process errors Increase PI satisfaction Increased transparency of the process Could also help with post award process Real time data collector
BASE BASE with 50% decrease in process times due to better WF
Number Awarded
911 1110
Number Late
237 36
Modeled using 50% decrease in all process times due to better Work Flow
Modeled using 50% decrease in all process times due to better Work Flow & 30-40% increase in proposal input BASE BASE
with 50% decrease
Base with 50% decrease & 30-40% increase
Number Awarded
911 1110 1452
Number Late
237 36 >1
Short term: Implement e-ESF
Long term:Consider using a system to manage
workflow betterHire someone to research proposal
opportunities
Cayuse424: $37,000/year Decreases all process times by AT LEAST
50% Detects real time errors Customizable for non grants.gov proposals Tracks data & data entry Also aids in post award process
Savvion: $200,000 outlay; $80,000 for person to run/year, $3000 for licensing Similar to Cayuse with more broad based
implications across the University
Define job of OSP: find grants? write grants?
Apply for grant to do training seminars Sit down with new PIs before they write
their first proposal Have feedback mechanism for PIs &
other users of OSP Look at FA – incentive to do research Measure things that are important Start HAC after process Demand forecasting
Suggest PI’s utilize Sarah more
Hiring someone to search for proposals and notify PIs
Implement work flow system: Cayuse? Savvion?
