EXECUTIVE DASHBOARD SPONSORED PROGRAMS Issued: July 24, 2017

Transcription

1 JUN 7 EXECUTIVE DASHBOARD Issued: July, 7 SPONSORED FUNDING PERFORMANCE: Proposal and Award YTD Comparison Purpose: Represent summary information for each School on the number of proposals submitted and awards received fiscal year-to-date, as well as dollar amounts proposed and received, compared to the year-to-date proposal and award performance at this same time last year, in order to understand directionality of 's overall sponsored project activity for FY7. Note: This data is based on Sponsored Programs' (SP) preliminary reporting of activity for the previous month and is subject to minimal variances from the Sponsored Proposal and Award Activity Reports released mid-month due to on-going data review and potential reclassification. PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONS SPONSORED AWARDS CHANGE ($) FY7 YTD FY YTD CHANGE ($) FY7 YTD FY YTD FY7 vs. FY Count Value ($) Count Value ($) FY7 vs. FY Count Value ($) Count Value ($) % 7 8,77, ,77, -% 8,78,99 5,5,788 9% 57 8,5, 5 9,55,7 %,88, 7 59,5, 7% 77 9,79, ,9,87 % 9,9,7,95,5 5% 7,,88 8,9,8 -% 7,7,7 5,98, -% 9 58,78,77 8 8,, -5%,5,85,,8 GSDM -% 8,55,55 5,8,7-9% 7 7,,7,87,57 -% 9,5,7 58,97,55 7% 9,8,95,58, SED % 5 5,98,95 5 5,5,85 55% 8,,5 5,5,59 % 7 8,58,9 7,5,85-7%,8, 5,,988 NEIDL % 7,8,88 5,89,7-7%,5,7,57,8 QST 8% 5,,758,9,8-5% 5, 77, PAR -8%, 8,57,7 -%,,9 8,7, STH -5% 5,8 8, % 5,79 8, COM -8% 5, 55, -85% 9, , MET -% 58,7 % -78% 55,, 5,59,88 5% 9,,7 7,9 OTHER -% 9 7,, 9,77,58 9%,855,7,85,899 TOTAL -5% $,88,97,55 59 $,97,57, % $ 9,8, 788 $ 8,87,5. includes smaller volume submitting units and schools, including CFA, CGS, and WR. $,8 Millions$, $, $, $, $, $8 $ PROPOSALS AMOUNT REQUESTED (Cumulative YTD) $ Millions$5 $5 $ $5 $ $5 AWARDS AMOUNT RECEIVED (Cumulative YTD) $ $ $ $ $5 $ Cumulative Proposal Dollars 7 Cumulative Proposal Dollars Cumulative Award Dollars 7 Cumulative Award Dollars 7 Cumulative Award Dollars Minus CARB-X Compared to June of FY, the overall number of awards made to and contracts executed with Boston University for external funding increased by %. The funding associated with these awards represents an increase of % to $9M, due in part to the receipt of the CARB-X award. Without this award, award funding decreased from last year by 7%. There was an increase in the number of proposals submitted from July through June FY7 as compared to July through June FY ( more) and represented a decrease in requested funds by 5%.

2 SPONSORED FUNDING PERFORMANCE: Expenditure YTD Comparison Purpose: Represent summary information for each School on the level of sponsored expenditures, direct and F&A, for the fiscal year-to-date compared to the year-to-date expenditure levels for this quarter last year, in order to understand directionality of 's overall sponsored project activity for FY. Note: This data is based on SP's preliminary reporting of activity for the previous month and is subject to minimal variances from the Sponsored Proposal and Award Activity Reports released mid-month due to on-going data review and potential reclassification. SPONSORED EXPENDITURES CHANGE FY7 vs. FY June FY7 YTD. includes smaller volume submitting units and schools, including WR, and Financial Aid. June FY YTD DIRECT ($) F & A ($) TOTAL ($) DIRECT ($) F & A ($) TOTAL ($) % 9,7,8,, 9,9, 95,9,58,,7 7,7,859-5% 8,8,57 5,,57 5,8,5,878,575 5,98,9 5,87,58 5% 5,9,,7,59,,,975,55 9,5,,,5 % 5,,8 9,87,7 5,75,89,8,7 8,89,9,,8 9% 7,58,5,987,898,5, 7,58,57,55, 9,,778 GSDM -%,,955,7,99 9,8,95,58,99,,5 9,59,9 %,9,,878,87,7,9 9,7,9,89,7,,8 SED 7%,5, 89,9 5,,,9,5,9,5,9-7%,78,77 75,,75,,7,79 59,8,8,5 NEIDL %,5,,8,5,7,7,,589,95,89,5,978 QST -7% 9,97 59,5 99, 5,7,5 7,55 PAR % 9, 8,,,57 8,7,58 STH -%,75 8,5 9,9 5,7 5,87 58,77 COM -7% 9,99 8 5, 59, , MET -% 7, -,5-9,9 7%,,57,97,5,5,7,7,5 CFA 5%,9,9,, CGS % 9,789 9,789 OTHER %,98,57,8,,5,, 7,,9,7 TOTAL % $,7,5 $ 8,7, $ 9,57,99 $ 8,8,7 $ 78,779,5 $ 7,, $ Millions$5 $5 $ $5 $ $5 $ Cumulative Expenditures 7 Cumulative Expenditures The overall level of sponsored project expenditures for increased slightly and is up by % over June.

3 : Workload and Productivity Purpose: Represent the workload coming into and being completed by SP Team (Pre-Award Services, Industry Agreements, Outgoing Subawards and Account Set-ups) and transaction type for this month, compared to this same month last year, and across the last fiscal year (bar graphs below) to understand how workload and productivity of the SP Teams are trending over the last year. INCOMING TRANSACTIONS COMPLETED TRANSACTIONS SP Workload Transaction Type PROPOSALS AWARDS OTHER TRANSACTIONS PRE-AWARD SERVICES SUBTOTAL INDUSTRY AGREEMENTS OUTGOING SUBAWARDS ACCOUNT SETUP FY7 FY Volume Change % 7 8% 7 8 % 9 % 5 % 5-5% 79 5% 88 5% FY7 FY Volume Change % 5 % 5 % 98 7% 7 55 % 77-7% 59 5 % 7 % TOTAL 9 % % Pre-Award Services Subtotal Industry Agreements Outgoing Subawards Account Set-Up Transactions Pre-Award Services Subtotal Industry Agreements Outgoing Subawards Account Set-Up Transactions Incoming Transactions (by Month) 8 Completed Transactions (by Month) 8 The number of transactions for SP incoming workload is up by % compared to June FY. Completed transactions shows an overall increase of 9%. June FY7 shows SP completed 87 more transactions as compared to June FY. Compared to May FY7, incoming transactions increased by % and completed transactions increased by %.. Transactions included those additional items processed and managed by the SP Pre-Award Service Team, including Progress Reports, Pre-Award Documentation, Sponsor Approval Actions and Internal Actions.

4 : Workload and Productivity (continued) Purpose: Represent the workload in-progress at the end of this month as compared to the end of last month by the number of transactions actively being processed and the age of those transactions (pie charts below; age based on receipt in SP) by SP Team/transaction type to understand if backlogs are accumulating and to ensure older items are being processed and closed. SP WORKLOAD IN PROGRESS MONTH TO MONTH VOLUME & AGING COMPARISON Days In Progress June 7 May 7 June 7 May 7 PROPOSAL 5-8% INDUSTRY CONTRACTING -% AWARD % SUBAWARDS % OTHER TRANSACTIONS 5 % ACCOUNT SETUP 9 7 % PRE-AWARD SERVICES SUBTOTAL 5 9 -% All SP Teams have been focusing on addressing aged items and transactions aged 5-75 and 75+ days. Pre-Award Teams have eliminated all aging actions in the 75+ bucket. The Industry Contracting Team's aging items are primarily related to Clinical Trials which are waiting for budget negotiations between the study team and sponsor to complete or waiting on the Industry sponsor. The SP Subaward Team has been focused on routine follow-up and speedy execution of outgoing subawards as noted below. Since May the team has maintained an average turnaround time of days or under.. Transactions included those additional items processed and managed by the SP Pre-Award Service Team, including Progress Reports, Pre-Award Documentation, Sponsor Approval Actions and Internal Actions.

5 SCHOOL-BASED PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT: Submission Timeliness and Quality Metrics Purpose: Represent the timeliness of proposal submissions to SP for each School this month in conjunction with the quality of those proposal submissions (pie charts below); the percentage needing to go on-hold for some additional communication with the Principal Investigator (PI) or Department Administrator (DA) to understand which Schools are following the SP 5-Day Advance Submission Policy and what portion of proposals require further revisions and refinements once received by SP. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION TIMELINESS PROPOSAL SUBMISSION TO SP vs. SPONSOR DEADLINE PROPOSAL COUNT SAME DAY DAY DAY + DAYS GSDM 5 SED CRC 5 TOTAL Timeliness % of proposals were submitted to SP within the requested days prior to the sponsor submission deadline (down from 8% in May). Five schools (,, SED, and CRC) submitted 5% or more of proposals to SP within one day or less of the sponsor proposal deadline. Quality,,,, SED,, and CRC submitted at least half of proposals to SP ready for sponsor submission (not requiring to go back to the PI or Department Administrator). Note that this may be due to the lateness of proposal submissions to SP which receive reduced review in order to meet sponsor deadlines. PROPOSAL QUALITY WHEN RECEIVED BY SP SAME DAY DAY DAYS + DAYS PROPOSAL COUNT SUBMISSION TIMELINESS FIRST PASS YIELD (NO HOLDS) 5 DGET ADJUSTMENT MISSING INFORMATION OTHER HOLD 98 5% % % % 5 9% % 5% 9% 5% % % 5% 7% 8% % 9% 8 % % % % GSDM 5 % % % 8% SED % % % % % % % % % % % % CRC. CRC represents submitting schools in the Charles River Campus including: School of Theology, College of Communication, Pardee School of Global Studies, Questrom School of Business, College of Fine Arts, Metropolitan College, School of Law, School of General Studies. 5. First Pass includes proposals that did not need to be placed "on-hold" for information or additional data from the PI, Department or for any other reason and could be transitioned straight to submission.. Hold Types includes items that require follow-up with the department administrator and/or PI, not classified as budget issues or Missing Infomration. 5

6 TRANSACTION PROCESSING TIMES: SP Ownership vs. External Ownership Purpose: Graphs I-III: Represent the average number of business days it takes to process various transactions through the SP Pre-Award Services Team (dark colors) versus the number of business days on-hold with each School (light colors) and how this combines to a total transaction processing time. Graph IV: Represent the average number of business days it takes to process outgoing subawards through by each School (dark colors) versus the number of business days in process with the subrecipient institution (light colors). Graph V: Represent the average number of business days it takes to complete an account set-up for each set-up transaction type versus the SP Service Level I-III Cycle Days Start: Initial receipt of documents in SP, regardless of whether the materials are complete/ready for submission. I-III Cycle Days End: Confirmed submission to the sponsor or transaction completed/closed. SP processed proposals within 5.7 business days from initial receipt of documents on average. Of this, proposals were on-hold.8 business days requiring PI/Department or Sponsor input. SP processed Outgoing Subawards in. days on average, with.8 business days of processing time (versus the subrecipient institution's processing time), representing a 9% increase from May 7. The Account Set-Up Team has decreased their average processing time to.8 days, meeting the Service Level Agreement of processing awards within 5 business days or less. GSDM SED NEIDL QST COM I: PROPOSAL PROCESSING AVERAGE CYCLE DAYS (SP vs. Customer Holds) PROPOSAL COUNT OSP Processing Days PI/DA Hold Days II: AWARD PROCESSING AVERAGE CYCLE DAYS (SP vs. Customer Holds) III: OTHER TRANSACTIONS AVERAGE CYCLE DAYS (SP vs. Customer Holds) GSDM SED NEIDL AWARD COUNT GSDM SED NEIDL TRANSACTION COUNT. 5. QST. QST 7. COM. COM OSP Processing Days PI/DA Hold Days OSP Processing Days PI/DA Hold Days IV: OUTGOING SUBAWARD PROCESSING AVERAGE CYCLE TIME ( vs. Subrecipient) Advance Account V: ACCOUNT SETUP AVERAGE CYCLE DAYS (SP) 9.7 New SUBAWARD COUNT Continuation Increment Supplement Carryover Rebudget 9 SET-UP COUNT. NCE 5. 8 Processing Days Subrecipient Processing Days 59 8 Account Set-Up Service Agreement (5 Days) 8 Average SP Processing Days. Transactions included those additional items processed and managed by the SP Pre-Award Service Team, including Progress Reports, Pre-Award Documentation, Sponsor Approval Actions and Internal Actions. 7. New includes "Renewals" which specifically indicates NIH segments 8. Account Set-up Actions include miscellaneous non-monetary transactions, including, administrative change and corrections