Transcript Document
Michael Darling Associate Director for Administration IU Simon Cancer Center
Challenges
•
Planning:
September due date with guidelines published in January impacted the planning stage •
Experience:
Several key members new to CCSG preparation and submission or in a new role since previous submission: Director; 4 out of 6 Associate Directors; 7 out of 10 Program Leaders; 2 new cores with new directors •
Guidance:
EAB in old guideline mode during construction of CCSG •
Logistics:
Difficulty in developing template for 12 page research narrative
Research Program Narrative
CCSG Guidelines: Briefly discuss the following
• How the interests, expertise and research approaches of the Program members facilitate achievement of the central themes listed in the description above (80-90 pages above!) • The most significant scientific accomplishments of the Program • Briefly describe how the cancer research relevant to the catchment area is addressed
But…
Our folks and the EAB asked “where are these items?”
• Response to summary statement critique • Value added to the Program from the Cancer center (also in review criteria) • Value added to the Cancer Center from the Program • Research Program Training and Education activities • Future Plans
The Problem
Page Limit: 12 Pages!
Template
Page 1
• Program Goals and Themes (restated from program description) • Response to Previous Summary Statement (brief and just the critical ones)
Pages 2-10
• Major Scientific Accomplishments
Pages 11-12
• Program Relevance to the Catchment Area • Research and Clinical • Education and Outreach Activities • Value Added to the Cancer Center from the Program • Vision and Future Plans
Value Added By Cancer Center
Retitled Section
• Value Added by the Cancer center to the Research Program: Shared Resource and Services Usage (also in review criteria for research program) • We added support through: – Seminars – Pilot projects – Grand Rounds speakers – Faculty recruitment
Formatting Shared Facilities
• Major services/equipment • Management Structure • Cost Effectiveness • Qualifications of personnel • Use of Service • Policies on Operation
Shared Facilities Review Criteria
• What are the quality and cost efficiency of the service provided, and how effective are accessibility policies governing institutional and other specialized shared resources?
• How appropriate are the qualifications of the staff and their time commitment?
BUT…
• FOA/Guideline Changes: More emphasis on support of science as opposed to usage metrics
FAO/Guideline Changes
Additions
• More emphasis on support of science as opposed to usage metrics
Template
• 6 pages addressing the formatting from above including response to summary statement • 6 pages on importance to Center’s Scientific Needs and Objectives; short science stories and publications
Other Hurdles / Lessons Learned
• Get everyone to know and use the new terms: e.g. Interventional therapeutic, Interventional non-therapeutic, Non-therapeutic and where they are used • Use an EASY mechanism to transmit files to internal and external reviewers: IU Box is too complicated • Clever ideas for metrics created 6-9 months earlier need an easy to find place for the data details
Other Things What I won’t miss
:
Lugging over 8,000 single sided pages of paper across campus to our Office of Research Administration