What can benchmarking teach us about research administration?

Get Started on Benchmarking: 

What can benchmarking teach us about research 

administration? 

December 7, 2012

Introduction

Millions ($) 

Importance of performance management in 

research administration 

Funding for research has experienced continued decline 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

NIH Extramural Funding 

Budget by Year - 

Unadjusted 

Budget by Year – 

Adjusted for Inflation 

Budget Fiscal Year 

C 

B 

A 

A. Budget sequestration in 

2013 is projected to 

reduce NIH extramural 

funding by as much as 

11% 

B. Research funding has 

not maintained the 

pace of biomedical 

cost increases. 

C. Potential effect will be 

30% less research 

buying power over the 

last decade 

© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 3

Importance of performance management in 

research administration 

Administrative pressures on research are high 

A 2009 study by FDP reported that 42% of faculty time spent on 

federally-sponsored research was actually spent administering 

projects (not including proposal writing!) 

Lack of funding has created hypercompetitiveness. 

Acceptance rates 

continue to drop and applications 

increase. Added applications equals 

added administrative effort 

Applications & Acceptance Rates 

60,000 

40% 

50,000 

40,000 

20% 

30,000 

20,000 

0% 

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 

Push for federal reporting requirements has increased, in pursuit of 

proven measures of accountability: ARRA, FFATA, DATA Act (proposed), 

FCOI 

© 2012 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 4

Metrics as a performance management tool 

Metrics measure and quantify the efficiency, effectiveness, cost and risk of institutional 

practices and processes. 

The use of metrics can assist an institution by: 

• Measuring efficiency of current processes and impact of process changes, 

• Discovering bottlenecks in existing business processes, 

• Defining clear and measureable performance goals, 

• Serving as the first step to improve performance 

© 2011 Huron Consulting Group. All Rights Reserved. Proprietary & Confidential. 

5

Why benchmark? 

A. Justify current or desired operational levels, e.g. “Is this reasonable?” 

B. Identify opportunities to deliver research more effectively or efficiently. 

“Why are other institutions more successful?” 

C. Measure and compare performance against a group of standard 

peers as well as aspirational peers – “Can we be the cutting edge?” 

B 

A 

C 


6

Benchmarking as a change element 

Benchmarking is an important step in the overall improvement process 

Set 

goals 

Gather 

data 

Benchmark 

Interpret 

Evaluate 

change 

Implement 

Measure 

Compare 

Adjust 

Benchmarking helps to define the result; 

next step is to determine the “how” 


7

Today’s discussion 

Benchmarking may be performed across a variety of levels, which have 

value based on the operating behavior being measured 

Internal Benchmarking 

External 

Benchmarking

Introduction 

Polling question! 

What metrics does your institution collect? 

• Compliance 

• Productivity 

• Satisfaction 

• Error Rates 

• Resources 

• Salary 


9

Institutional Internal Benchmarking

Institutional Internal Benchmarking 

Internal vs. External Comparison 

Benchmarking is the process of drawing comparison between an institution’s 

performance and identified best practice. 

Internal benchmarking is looking within 

an institution to compare performance of 

similar areas/departments rather than 

looking outward to other institutions for 

comparison. 

External benchmarking is looking outward 

to peer institutions or industry best 

practice data to compare performance. 


11


Benefits to internal benchmarking 

• Internal benchmarking much easier to 

accomplish than external benchmarking 

• More buy-in from departments on need 

for improvement (maximizes apples to 

apples comparisons) 

• Fosters collaboration and idea-sharing 

across departments 

• Can reinforce institutional service level 

expectations and performance standards 


12

Local Administrator Staff FTE 


Case study—benchmarking to improve performance 

Huron was asked to assess the performance of the local (departmental) research 

administration support function across the medical school of a large research institution 

and identify opportunities to improve the effectiveness of these units. As part of this 

assessment, Huron conducted an internal benchmarking initiative where we 

quantitatively measured performance across departments using existing data points. 

Local Administration Support Ratio (Expenditures/FTE) 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

$1.1 $1.1 

$1.4 

$1.6 

$1.8 

$2.6 $2.6 $2.7 

Avg: $3.4M 

$3.2 

$2.9 $3.0 

$3.8 $3.8 $4.0 $4.1 

$5.7 

$5.9 $6.0 

$6.1 

$6.3 

$7 

$6 

$5 

$4 

$3 

$2 

$1 

$0 

FY12 Sponsored Program Expenditures/Local 

Administrator (Millions) 

SP Expense/FTE 

LA Headcount 


13


Using internal benchmarking to monitor compliance 

• Better understand compliance area at 

institution and identify high risk areas 

• Monitor specific compliance issues within 

departments 

• Identify and prevent fraud and waste 

• Identify departments/units with overall 

high risk profile 

• Self-assess/monitor department 

performance 


14


Notable practice—benchmarking to improve compliance 

A forward-thinking research 

institution is using data analysis and 

internal benchmarking to better 

understand high-risk areas, monitor 

compliance issues within 

departments, and determine 

departmental risk profiles. 

Sample Metrics Used 

• Effort reporting (% completion) 

• Late salary transfers (# and $ volume) 

• Sponsor accounts in overrun status (# and 

$ volume) 

• Delinquent financial closeouts 

• Expenses past period of performance 

• Expired cost sharing accounts with 

unexpended balance 

• Active cost sharing accounts with low 

expenditure rate 

• RCR training overdue 

• Cost transfer volume (# and volume) 


15


How to start… 

Identify 

• Identify top-priority processes/areas to 

benchmark 

• Organize the benchmark assessment 

Collect 

• Which data? 

• Infrastructure needs 

Compare 

• Dashboards 

• Analytics/reports 

Implement 

• Identify opportunities, prioritize, change 

• Continuous improvement 


16



Do you conduct internal benchmarking at your institution? 

• Yes 

• No, but we might try 

• No, sounds too difficult 

• Not sure right now 


17

Institutional External Benchmarking

Institutional External Benchmarking 

Internal vs. External Comparison 

In order to draw a comparison between institutional performance and best practice – an 

institution must first determine what best practice is. 

External benchmarking can be industry 

wide - reaching farther than internal 

benchmarking. 

An outward view of peer institutions’ 

performance can identify industry best 

practice data for comparison. 

External benchmarking provides broader, industry-wide 

perspective, presenting a unique opportunity for an institution 

to measure and target improved performance in research 

administration. 


19


Benefits to external benchmarking 

There are unique benefits specific to externally benchmarking research administration 

in higher education. 

• Benefits: 

• Broader perspective for a reality-based “best 

practice” 

• Similar comparison basis 

Core research administration processes 

Difficulty of sponsored project environment 

• Willingness to share the play book 


20


Combating the criticisms of external benchmarks 

Be prepared to address the common criticisms of external benchmarking. 

• Criticism: 

• Institutional differences 

• “We are different” 

• “That won’t work for us 

because…” 

• Approach: 

• Maintain focus, keep the driving change mindset 

• Communicate the “likeness” of the research administration environment overall 


21


Using external benchmarking to attain balanced efficiency 

• Recalibrate your institution’s efficiency standards 

• Recognize what is possible 

• Set goals to achieve increased performance expectations 

• Challenge and enable process owners and performers 

• Achieve Balance 

• Cost-Benefit Considerations 

• Average vs. Above Average vs. Top Tier 

• Find new solutions for existing problems 

• Gain insight into peer institutions to bring fresh ideas to your institution 

• Define new performance metrics 

• Identify options for innovative supporting organizational structures 


22


Case Study: Borrowing “plays” to improve performance 

We recently worked with an institution that was focused improving the quality and 

efficiency of its research administration infrastructure. 

The recommendation to alter the expenditure monitoring process was analyzed to 

determine the opportunity balance. 

Ease unnecessary and local central burden by eliminating the use of a 

formal monthly expenditure review form to be completed by PIs. 

We used qualitative external benchmarking to survey peer institution’s alternate 

approaches to expenditure review and monitoring. 

University Expense Review/Approval Process Summary Central Audit? 

A 

B 

C 

D 

- Central post-award office requires physical reviews of selected expense categories at set threshold levels. 

- All other expenses are submitted by the PI, via the financial system, with the PI held accountable for accuracy. 

No 

- Central administration engages in periodic audit samples to ensure compliance. 

- Department administrators and Pis are held accountable for grant expenditures. 

Yes 

- Department administrators run financial reports to review with the PI for accurancy. 

- Central post-award adminsitration reviews selected purchases over a set dollar threshold and all non-salary cost 

transfers. - Central post-award performs a prospective review of most grant expenditures in addition to a monthly 

expenditure review. 

Yes 

Yes 


23


The steps and challenges to getting started…. 

Identify 

• Identify top-priority processes/areas to benchmark 

• Organize the benchmark assessment 

Collect 

• Identify peer institutions to target – current peers and aspirational peers 

• Quantitative data 

• Qualitative data 

Compare 

• Develop dashboards and reports 

• Adjust for external factors 

Implement 

• Identify opportunities 

• Balance the opportunity to prioritize change 

• Continuous improvement 


24


Third party data sources 

Institutions can address 

some of these challenges by 

leveraging third party data 

sources. 

These third parties take on 

some of the work for the 

Identification, Collection 

and Comparison steps. 

Third Party Benchmark Data Sources 

•COFHE: Consortium on Financing Higher Education 

(31 institutions) 

•IPEDS: Integrated Post Secondary Education Data 

System (Thousands of schools) 

•Regional/athletic conference university networks: 

e.g., Coalition of Urban Serving Universities 

•PRIM&R: IACUC/IRB performance metrics 

•EduCause: University IT 

•CUPA HR: Human Resources Spending and Staffing, 

Benefits 

•Small Niche Cooperatives or professional 

organizations measure data within specific functional 

areas (e.g. NCURA) 

•IACUC Handbook: Published survey results and 

overall guidance (J. Silverman) 


25


RADIUS Benchmarking Survey 

In cooperation with several trusted and prominent industry partners, 

Huron Education is pleased to offer the RADIUS Benchmarking Survey, a 

comprehensive, education and research benchmarking source. 

The survey focuses on spending, staffing and performance efficiency 

across several survey modules: 

• Sponsored Projects and Research Administration 

• Budgeting 

• Enrollment Management 

• Human Resources 

• Information Technology 

• Facilities 

• Library 

• Procurement 


26



• All participating institutions of the RADIUS Initiative will receive a 

detailed, customized report that includes: 

• An executive summary of industry-wide results, based on econometric modeling 

and analysis, that identifies emerging trends across peer groups 

• A customized benchmarking report comparing your institutional data against 

relevant peer groups 

• An extensive appendix of data tables showing quartiles and averages for various 

metrics 

• The option for a follow-up conversation with Huron Education’s industry and 

process experts 

• Altogether, the report highlights focused approaches to improve the business 

performance of their administrative functions. 


27



• The Sponsored Projects Administration component of RADIUS 

surveys the following topical areas. Which one are you most 

interested in? 

• Organization and Staffing 

• Training 

• Pre-Award Processes 

• Post-Award Processes 

• Technology Systems 


28



The RADIUS Benchmarking Survey is only available online. If you are 

interested in taking the survey, please visit us online at 

https://huronbenchmarkingsurvey.huronconsultinggroup.com/ 

or email RADIUS@huronconsultinggroup.com directly for more 

information. 


29

What can benchmarking teach us about research administration?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?