CASRAI introduces a new initiative to support and inform efforts at Industry Canada and the funding agencies to achieve a tangible reduction in the adverse impacts of research administration burden in the Canadian research ecosystem. The end goal is to allow researchers to spend more time on research. This collaborative project will focus on the various issues that contribute to undue administrative burden in the various research management processes shared between the research-performing and the research-funding sectors in Canada. The participating organizations will partner with Industry Canada and with the federal agencies in initiatives to reduce undue burden in related federal programs and identify institutional processes that could be streamlined.

1. CASRAI ReConnect 2015
October 27, 2015

2. The STI Strategy 2014
 Our Government will work with the post-
secondary sector and other research-funders
to reduce the administrative burden
associated with research so it will be the
lowest in the G7, while maintaining a strong
commitment to uphold our high standards of
research excellence and accountability and to
govern the conduct of research and protect
the health, safety and privacy of Canadians.

3.  To accomplish this, we will:
◦ Expand the current efforts of funding agencies
supported by the federal government to improve client
service, harmonize and simplify administrative
requirements as well as align and integrate funding
opportunities.
◦ Reach out to research funders and administrators as well
as standard-setting organizations and regulatory bodies
outside the federal family to identify and pursue
opportunities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of our research enterprise.
◦ Investigate actions such as aligning reporting
requirements, adopting common standards and
promoting mutual recognition or harmonization of
regulatory requirements where possible.

4. The CASRAI-led ABC project is designed to
support and inform efforts at Industry Canada
and the funding agencies to achieve a tangible
reduction in the adverse impacts of research
administration burden in the Canadian research
ecosystem.
The end goal is to allow researchers to spend
more time on research.

5. ABC Core Group (co-chairs Janet Halliwell &
Heather Woermke)
 Researchers and their institutions through:
◦ CARA
◦ CAUBO
◦ CAGS
ABC Collaborating Groups
 Industry Canada
 The funding agencies – at the moment via IC

6.  Review of successful CFI process 2011-2012
 Review of US activities
 Good interactions with Industry Canada
 Inventory of issues identified (the
expansionary phase initiated)
 Criteria drafted for selection of priorities – yet
to be confirmed
 NOW – the tough part …tightening our focus
and working towards solutions!

7.  Working group established October 2011 –
with external participants
 Survey November 2011
 Identification of a limited number of
initiatives to pursue
 Staff work to address challenges through
2012
 Ongoing internal mandate for reform

8. Working smarter and reducing burden – increasing
effectiveness and efficiency:
 Transitioning to a risk-based management approach
 Shifting from individual project management to a
portfolio-management approach
 Revisiting other requirements and practices to
increase effectiveness and reduce burden
Addressing challenges to ensure we remain highly
accountable
Continuing to improve on our requirements and
practices to ensure we achieve expected results

9. But
 CFI process involved only one agency; many issues
involve a lack of inter-agency coherence of approach
and requirements
 The TC3 deals with a more complex set of programs
and compliance issues (and then there are health
charities, provincial funders and ….)
 Some issues result from institutional assumptions of
requirements that may not be valid or are “overkill”
 Until now, there has been no single forum to identify
and discuss those issues that are tractable to change
without compromising accountability

10.  The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) - a
program convened by the Government-University-
Industry Research Roundtable of the National
Academies in 1986. Its purpose is to reduce the
administrative burdens associated with research
grants and contracts.
 NSB Report – 2015 Reducing Investigators’
Administrative Workload for Federally Funded
Research. Report benefited from extensive work done
by the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB)
 Estimate – 42% of a researchers time spent on admin
burden – some inevitable, some targets for change

11. Under the FDP – addressed:
 Streamlined terms and conditions for research grants
 Increased budget flexibility
 No cost time extensions
 Carry-forward across continuation years
 Technical progress reports/minimal continuation
proposals
 Electronic Research Administration
 Cost Sharing and Effort Reporting
 Award Terms and Conditions
 Sub-awards
 …..

12. The NSB 2015 report recommends:
1. Focus on the science (require only those aspects
essential for merit review)
2. Eliminate or modify ineffective or inappropriate
regulations (deals with many compliance issues
such as human subjects, animal care, safety)
3. Harmonize and streamline requirements (with
and among agencies)
4. Increase university efficiency and effectiveness
(avoiding unnecessary requirements, sharing
best practices, provision of effective support to
researchers)

13.  Industry Canada is committed to seeing
action on this front and has:
◦ initiated discussions with the TC3+
◦ supported this CASRAI initiative to engage the
community
 The ABC Steering Committee is poised to
move into the operational phase of this
initiative… so let’s look at where we are today

14. 1. International Recruitment
2. Program Design
3. Apply for Funding
4. Funding Awards
5. Research procurement
6. Conduct of Research - Ongoing Reporting
7. Conduct of Research – Compliance
8. Post-Award audits
9. Scholarly Communications
10. Payments
11. Eligibility rules/process

15. Current state
 Proliferation of program modalities without
sufficient rationale. Programs and priorities
often developed by multiple agencies around
converging goals but with differing
mechanisms, deadlines and approaches
among agencies
Desired state
 Coordinated actions among funding agencies
with deadlines aligned and synergy of
approach

16. Current state
 Lack of interoperability of peer review across
programs. Need for improved interoperability
of peer review to reduce burden on peer
reviewers - eg: NSERC/Mitacs/ NCEs/CRC/CFI
Desired state
 Standardized information formats for
flowing/reusing funding application data
between review panels

17. Research Support Program(RSF)
Current state
 Undue time spent in allocating legitimate research
costs to a cost centre. The eligibility rules for RSF are
quite limited, while restrictions on what may be
charged as a direct cost of research have tightened.
Significant time is spent in finding appropriate cost
centers for such charges.
Desired state
 Extend eligibility to allow some of the low dollar
items no longer eligible under direct costs to be
eligible under RSF (e.g. printing & stationery costs)

18. Current state
 No agreed or common standards for publishing
funding results. There is an explosion of different
extranet sites that require research offices to to
master and use different protocols in order to access
information from each agency
Desired state
 Funders publish results in a standard, software-
readable format
Solution pending
 Casrai standards for announcing funding results
established; implementation pilot to run 2015-2016
(NSERC, SSHRC, UofT, uSask, Research Manitoba)

19. Current state
 Lack of clarity on requirements and funding
eligibility for Open Access (OA) and Open
Data (OD) compliance
Desired state
 Adopt data standards for OA reporting. DOI
and ORCID should be promoted and DOI
could be included in references from
researchers within CVs

20. Current state
 Need to balance burden of monitoring visits
with ROI - time, efficacy, detail, materiality
Desired state
 Risk-based approach that reflects materiality

21.  Materiality and applicability – extent to which the
identified admin burden represents (in relation to risk and
return on investment):
◦ An inappropriate requirement (does not result in the desired
outcome)
◦ A disproportionate response to a risk
◦ An undue impact on researcher time (e.g. in relation to risk)
◦ High level of research administration time and costs
 Breadth/reach of impact – e.g.:
◦ Proportion of research community affected
◦ Type(s) of institutions affected
◦ Specific communities affected within the institution
 Feasibility of change:
◦ Scope for change at the institutional or funding agency level
◦ Costs involved
◦ Avoidance of undue risk or inadequate accountability
◦ Likelihood of the necessary collaboration to implement the change

22.  Convener of a neutral and diverse space for
institutional input to issues and their
solutions
 Bridge for direct input to Industry Canada
 Facilitator of working groups that will work
towards practical solutions on priority issues
 Source and repository of standards for issues
requiring standards-based solutions

23.  What are your burning issues in regard to
unnecessary admin burden?
 What issue do you see as a “low hanging fruit”
– something that would make a perceptible
difference yet relatively easy to tackle?
 Are the criteria for choice appropriate?
 What issue might you want to work on?

24. Janet Halliwell
(250) 537-5383 (BC)
jehalli@telus.net