The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

institutions, institutions must be motivated to act in ways that move them quickly to prepare for
electronic submission either through available service providers or by developing their own capabilities.
Success will depend on educating institutional officials about the advantages of electronic
submission, and providing incentives for active participation.
Our research is driven by the assumption that if we can understand what leading institutions do
to be successful in moving their eRA efforts forward, other institutions could learn from them and
apply some of those lessons to their own eRA efforts. In addition, government officials and service
providers may be able to use knowledge about the conditions necessary for eRA success in helping
their constituents and customers move forward.
The study is designed to explore and describe how leading institutions go about eRA planning,
development, and implementation. Phase I of the research consisted of a series of case studies
examining the practices of “leading institutions” with respect to eRA generally and eRA systems
implementation specifically. The authors, in consultation with NIH program officials, selected
three institutions recognized for their leadership in eRA and for having successfully implemented
significant systems supporting grants management: Pennsylvania State University, Colorado State
University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Site visits and interviews with officials
responsible for eRa and grants management were conducted at these institutions in late 2004 and
early 2005.
Phase II will consist of a second series of case studies designed to evaluate the transferability of
the “best practices” identified in Phase I to ERA systems implementation in small and mid sized
institutions.
While we did review the various eRA systems that were developed by these institutions, it is
important to emphasize that the focus of the research is on the characteristics of the processes
and approaches that move eRA efforts forward, and not on the technology employed or how the
technology is used.
The following outline was developed to provide a general framework for exploring a range of issues
associated with eRA development. The interviews were designed to be open ended, and the
outline was only used as a starting point and guidance for discussions. The first set of topics was
focused on general approaches to eRA. The second set was focused on how specific projects get
done. We understand that there is considerable overlap and interdependence among the topics.
INSTITUTIONAL ERA LEADERSHIP
What is the role and nature of leadership in driving institutional eRA planning and development?
• What are the primary characteristics of that leadership?
Papers
• Is the vision for eRA developed primarily from the top-down and driven by senior research
management (Chief Research Officer)? Or is it primarily “championed” by research administration
management/practitioners or others?
• What are the leadership factors that contribute most or have the strongest influence on success
with eRA?
• What processes are used to garner community and institutional support for eRA efforts?
2005 Symposium Proceedings Book 145