Voice of Experience.

Second, there is a base level of service problem. There is a certain critical number of people that are needed to manage an externally sponsored research program, even a very small one. There is no consensus on how many people you need just to get your first grant or contract, but I am guessing its more than one person. This base level is driven in the US by Federal agency compliance and accountability requirements, and the magnitude of the research development job with multiple funding sources. For the sake of example, let's say the base number is four people. This staff should be able to cope with a program from $0-$20 million; or from 1 -25 researchers (those who apply for or live from external support) (NOTE: these numbers are mine alone, not an accepted benchmark). This means that any ratio applied to a program of small size would be meaningless. Kirby and Waugaman's benchmarking data support this. Staffing and cost ratios for institutions with smaller programs are higher than those for larger institutions.

Third, the "expected level of service" differs from academic institution to academic institution; and differs from academic institutions to independent research organizations. IRO's tend to be a bit leaner in research management staffing in our experience because indirect cost recovery must cover all central expenses whereas academic institutions often have and use other sources of central staff funding. Expectations of service differ widely and influence what institutions are willing to invest in central and support staff.

Finally, understanding what functions are included in research administration is important when counting noses or full-time equivalents. Many institutions include technology transfer, managing IRB's, research-related procurement and contracting, and financial management in their research administration head count. Others do not. Kirby and Waugaman approached this issue by establishing fairly conservative definitions for their participants which tend to understate the numbers but relate them closer to the output numbers.

The bottom line is there currently are few yardsticks or benchmarks which can be used objectively. The best approach is to look objectively at staffing levels at a handful of "peer institutions that do things the way you do, and count staff the same way you do in order to develop fair comparisons. be advertised.

2006 Coordinator and Senior Writer:

Lynne Chronister, MPA

2006 Authors/Contributors:

Elliott L. Kulakowski, PhD

Victoria J. Molfese, PhD

J. Michael Slocum, JD

Clifford J. Studman, PhD

Paul G. Waugaman Fig. 1 Median Total Central Staff FTE Median value in quartiles by sponsored program dollar volume All Participants (53) 23.6 SP expenditures over $195 million (14) 44.2 SP expenditures between $75 and $195 million (13) 32.7 SP expenditures between $25 and $75 million (15) 13.4 SP expenditures under $24 million (13) 7.5 Kirby, W.S. Waugaman, P.G. Performance Benchmarking in Sponsored Programs Administration: Using the Web to Analyze Results from the FY 1998 and FY 2000 Nationwide Data Collection. Journal of Research Administration (Vol 33, No 1, 2001, pp. 37-40) Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure. 2-1 Number of Funded Principal Investigators per Central Sponsored Projects Administrative FTE Median value by quartiles by sponsored program dollar volume All Participants (53) 36.3 SP expenditures over $195 million (14) 56.6 SP expenditures between $75 and $195 million (13) 40.7 SP expenditures between $25 and $75 million (15) 33.9 SP expenditures under $24 million (13) 20.5 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure. 2-2 Number of Awards per Central Sponsored Projects Administrative FTE Median value by quartiles by sponsored program dollar volume All Participants (53) 63.5 SP expenditures over $195 million (14) 109.0 SP expenditures between $75 and $195 million (13) 62.1 SP expenditures between $25 and $75 million (15) 62.1 SP expenditures under $24 million (13) 28.2 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure. 2-3 Central Post-Award Financial Administrative Cost per Active Project Median value by quartiles by sponsored program dollar volume All Participants (54) $445 SP expenditures over $195 million (14) $311 SP expenditures between $75 and $195 million (13) $465 SP expenditures between $25 and $75 million (15) $429 SP expenditures under $24 million (13) $671 Note: Table made from bar graph. Figure. 2-4 Central Sponsored Projects Administrative Cost per Proposal Submitted Median value by quartiles by sponsored program dollar volume All Participants (54) $676.5 SP expenditures over $195 million (14) $401.0 SP expenditures between $75 and $195 million (13) $642.0 SP expenditures between $25 and $75 million (15) $710.0 SP expenditures under $24 million (13) $1,418.5 Kirby, W.S., Waugaman, P.G. The National Sponsored Programs Administration Benchmarking Project; an Update. Presentation, SRA International Annual Meeting, October, 2003 Note: Table made from bar graph.