Strategic Action Group Committee on National Competitiveness
An invitation for input
Please review the following report and offer your input before April 22, 2009.
This report presents proposed "Aims" and "Actions" for possible implementation at the University of Houston. These are intended to assist UH to achieve this goal:
You are invited to review this report and offer recommendations, comments, and suggestions to the Committee at: uhstrategicgoal1@gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT, as of March 30, 2009
The term “Tier One” is not precisely defined. The State of Texas has no formal definition, though the topic of “Emerging Research Universities” in Texas is under active discussion, and the term is used in that context. The most widely-accepted national criteria are the top classifications of the ASU Center for Measuring University Performance (http://mup.asu.edu/index.html) and its annual Top American Research Universities (TARU) report, and the system used by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org). By the TARU measures for externally-funded research, we are approximately $80 million short, or about half the criterion level, and this report primarily focuses on ways to increase external research support.
We recognize that external funding for research is not necessarily synonymous with scholarship, and that many forms of superior scholarship are not eligible for external funding. However, we believe that in many fields the two are strongly correlated, that designation of UH as a Tier One/Nationally Competitive Research University will require substantial increases in our funded research and that such a designation would benefit every activity and person on campus. We also devote some thought to ways of increasing the level of technology transfer, IP licensing and spin-offs on the campus, because of the recently enhanced interest of the Government of the State of Texas in these topics.
The most direct way to increase externally-funded research is to hire research-active faculty. While hiring will be essential to reaching our goal, without consideration of other factors hiring alone would be an inefficient way to achieve sustainable Tier One levels of research funding. UH cannot afford to hire its way to Tier One status without addressing various organizational and cultural factors that make our faculty less productive in bringing in research support.
Every mystery novel tells us the three factors essential to making things happen: Motive, Opportunity, and Means. UH faculty could be better Motivated to pursue external research support; they could be given more Opportunity to do so; and they can be provided with the Means to do so. Addressing these issues will result in a more productive and pleasant research environment for current faculty, and will enhance the productivity of new faculty hires, substantially reducing the expenditures necessary to bring UH to Tier One status.
We seek to Motivate faculty performance in research through the reward and recognition systems. We would urge an overall review of the reward system, not just for the research part of our mission, but also for our teaching and service aspects. There’s some sense that there are inadequate distinctions being made for strong performance at UH. In addition, we believe that all levels of leadership must support and communicate the importance of our research mission.
We seek to provide Opportunity by strengthening support services so faculty time can be concentrated on those activities that faculty are uniquely qualified to conduct. We note that average-funded science and engineering faculty in Tier One universities bring in research funding at over $300 per hour devoted to raising research funds; this time is well worth saving. We seek to free faculty time from less productive activities and to reduce frustrations by improving research infrastructure.
We seek to provide the Means for research productivity by increasing our research profile and by increasing our research faculty both from within and through new hires. Taken together our Aims and Action Steps should greatly enhance UH’s level of funded research.
Action Step A.1.(i). Increase the number of endowed chairs and allocate them to current faculty based on research funding.
Endowed chairs add prestige and resources for top researchers. UH will need to increase its number of endowed chairs (See also F.3.ii.) and then allocate them in a strategic manner. To do so will attract, motivate, and retain the most productive researchers. The goal should be to add at least 50 endowed chairs over the next five years that can be allocated to existing faculty who demonstrate the necessary productivity.
The metrics could include the number of endowed chairs allocated internally per year and the increase in grant and contract activity.
Action Step A.1.(ii). Establish a faculty workload policy that establishes benchmarks for teaching, research, and service. Include in that policy overload stipends for teaching, research, and service levels above the maximum benchmark.
Faculty workload is a complex matter not easily reduced to simple procedures. However, it will be important for UH to establish norms for levels of teaching, research, and service. These norms must be linked so that an overall norm can be determined. For example, a faculty member may have high teaching levels, average research levels, and low service levels that constitutes a normal workload. Faculty who exceed both the overall norm and one or more norms for teaching, research, and service should receive one or more “overload stipends”. The research “overload stipends” could be tied to the previous year’s indirect cost recovery (IDC).
The metrics could include the percentage of the faculty earning overload stipends and the increased productivity that results.
Action Step A.1.(iii). Develop and implement a uniform UH framework for funded-research merit salary increases.
A well-developed and well-understood research merit salary increase policy could provide a significant incentive for funded researchers. A policy could also be developed for non-funded research merit salary increases. The funded research element could be based on a three-year review of external IDC generated faculty funding. The policies and framework should be established through the Faculty Senate governance process. Any committees established to set the standards should include at least an important majority of faculty who have been Principal Investigators (PIs) or Co-PIs within the past three years. A similar committee could be formed to advise on IDC issues.
The metrics could include percentage increases in submitted research external funding proposals (e.g., in year 1 a 10% increase over the previous 3 year average). It could also include increases in funded proposals (e.g., an increase of 15% in year 2, 20% in year 3, 25% in year 4, and 30% in year 5).
Action Step A.1.(iv). Provide PIs an increasing sliding scale percentage of IDC return based on the average level of IDC generated research funding over a three-year period for the following two years.
In year one, (PIs and Co-PIs) will receive 2.5% of IDC provided to each college or Center.
If the previous three years of IDC generated funding is above the average for PIs for their college during the following two years, the PIs will receive 5% of total PI’s IDC generated funding. The process will be followed every year until PI reaches a 25% level. The increases would be in the form of a research merit increase for that year and would not be a permanent base salary increase. IDC for the following two years for a two-year period based on the previous three years IDC in funded proposals form the previous year for external funding. The PI/Co-PI may request in writing that any research funds be allocated to a professional development cost center to be used for travel, staffing RAs or other support appropriate under State and University Policies.
The metrics could include the percentage of faculty with various levels of IDC returns.
Action Step A.1.(v). Provide a teaching load reduction for select faculty to work across departments and/or Centers to write and submit grants for external funding.
More and more grantors have expectations that proposals will be interdisciplinary in nature. Working across departments, colleges, and Centers can be complex and time-consuming, especially the first-time such a partnership is formed. Therefore, providing faculty with additional time to develop such proposals will increase the number of proposals submitted and should increase the number of proposals actually funded. The teaching load reduction could be developed on a course basis or on a summer funding basis.
The metrics could include percentage increases in submitted research external funding proposals (e.g., in year 1 a 10% increase over the previous 3-year average). It could also include increases in funded proposals (e.g., an increase of 15% in year 2, 20% in year 3, 25% in year 4, and 30% in year 5).
Action Step A.1.(vi). Develop and consistently implement a research project space policy based on the average last three years of IDC/external funding, with a three-year hold-harmless period after which research space will be reallocated.
Each college with research space and funded research may wish to establish a Lab/Office Space utilization committee to set standards for space utilization in the college based on research productivity and projected research needs.
The metrics could include research space reallocated by college.
Action Step A.1.(vii). Develop and consistently implement policies to support and encourage research productivity through provision of research-support resources.
There should be mechanisms by which faculty who participate in funded research over an extended period (measured retroactively from the present, and then going forward) have routine (not negotiated ad hoc) access to challenge-based IDC return, equipment replacement funds, “rainy day” funds to survive inevitable downturns in research support, laboratory renovations, office space and renovations, secretarial support, and access to Faculty Development Leave.
The metrics could include number of faculty reaching the levels of performance required to receive this support.
Action Step A.2.(i). Ensure that all levels of academic leadership from the President to the department chairs consistently and forcefully express the expectation that UH will become a Tier One research university.
Leadership matters. Faculty deserve to know the University’s expectations and must not receive mixed messages. We clearly intend to ensure greater student success and a stronger research profile. Faculty can contribute to one or both of these goals in multiple ways. Going forward the expectation for hiring should include faculty with either a record of research or strong indicators of potential for research. Department chairs need to be supported in their efforts to increase research in their departments and should be chosen, in part, for their ability to motivate and support their faculty’s research activity.
The metrics could include evaluations based in part on research leadership. They could also include increased numbers and percentages of faculty engaged in research and the success in research of new hires.
Action Step A.2.(ii). College, departmental, and individual resource allocations should be guided, in part, by research performance and productivity.
The budget sends strong messages. Therefore, if it is clear that budget allocations and reallocations occur based in part on research performance and productivity, there is likely to be more activity. Across-the-board allocations (or even cuts) do not create the culture of expectations that top research universities take for granted.
The metrics could include a summary report of the link between budget allocations and reallocations to research productivity.
Action Step A.2.(iii). Increase the socialization of faculty to the grant-making process through mentoring, promotion and tenure criteria, and visits to and by funding agencies.
The socialization process to grant writing could begin with the development and implementation of a proposal-writing mentoring program that links successful grant-writing faculty with junior faculty and interested tenured faculty. In addition, promotion and tenure criteria at the University, college and department level should be reviewed to ensure that, where appropriate, they are aligned with successful proposal-writing activity. Teams of faculty new to the grant process should also be supported to visit and consult with various funding agencies (e.g., NIH, NSF, DOD, and DOE); visits from funding agencies should also be supported.
The metrics could include: the percentage of faculty being mentored; the revision of promotion and tenure criteria; and the number of teams that visit funding agencies each year. They could also include a targeted percentage increase in grant submissions and awards by faculty involved in the mentoring program and/or agency visits.
Action Step A.2.(iv). Increase the number of recognition events for research.
What we recognize and celebrate reflects our culture. Thus more events, awards, and publications focused on research will reinforce the desired culture and further motivate faculty performance.
The metrics could include increases from a baseline of current research events, awards, and publications.
Action Step A.3.(i). Improve the working environment for staff with competitive salaries, increased networking opportunities, and more flexible career paths.
Productivity is a key issue and staff productivity directly and indirectly impacts the research enterprise. If UH becomes the employer of choice then the productivity of staff and faculty will increase. UH needs to complete the benchmarking of faculty salaries, benefits, and working conditions to those of preferred local employers and to those at Tier One institutions. It also needs to provide more networking opportunities for staff, especially among staff in related positions such as those supporting the research enterprise. In addition, UH must increase its flexibility to promote, reassign, increase salaries, and remove staff as needed to create the optimal overall working environment.
The metrics could include reaching competitive levels for salaries, benefits, and working conditions within five years and the revision of relevant employment policies.
Action Step A.3.(ii). Strengthen child care at UH.
The availability of quality child care also impacts productivity for both faculty and staff, often disproportionately for female faculty and staff. It can also have a major impact on the ability to recruit faculty and staff. UH will need to survey targeted faculty and staff to assess the level of satisfaction with present services. Following that assessment, a plan needs to be developed and implemented that responds to the findings. Areas that may need exploring include facilities, services, costs, and possible collaborations with the private sector. The current taskforce on childcare should also be consulted.
The metrics could include user satisfaction surveys.
Action Step A.3.(iii). Improve the reliability of electrical power by working with providers strengthening back up systems, identifying an accountable point of contact, and by benchmarking.
In addition to creating safety issues, the lack of reliable electrical power has an impact on research productivity. Interruptions in electrical service can disrupt or even destroy ongoing research, can ruin stored reagents, and can damage equipment and computers. Power failures of main systems and backups seem to be beyond the norm at UH, which could be assessed by benchmarking with select Tier One universities. That information should be helpful in meeting with providers to seek long-term solutions. It would also be helpful for faculty and academic leaders to have one point of contact for the issue and to have access to a fund to repair or replace equipment and supplies damaged by electrical interruptions.
The metrics could include reliability at above select Tier One institutional averages.
Action Step A.3.(iv). Improve Information Technology (IT), telecommunications, and computer support services by benchmarking, by exploring outsourcing, and by identifying an accountable person.
Telecommunications and IT, particularly internet and wireless access, are essential elements of any efficient, modern enterprise. They have become critical tools for university researchers, so when they fail productivity and morale suffer. Unreliable email and internet connections disrupt all teaching and research functions, as well as present potential safety issues (as immediate emergency notifications have proved to be life and death matters). Again, UH should benchmark against select Tier One universities for the effectiveness and quality of these services. It should also examine the extent of outsourcing at such institutions and assess the service and cost effectiveness of outsourcing such functions as hosting and PC maintenance and repair services. A single point of contact would assist communications and accountability.
The metrics could include user satisfaction surveys and benchmark results above the average of select Tier One institutions.
Action Step A.3.(v). Provide manuscript and proposal editorial and review assistance to faculty.
Faculty spend a large portion of their research time preparing documents, and teaching graduate and postdoctoral fellows students to write manuscripts and proposals. Many talented faculty and other researchers are not native speakers of English. Assistance with the mechanics of document preparation would increase the number and quality of research manuscripts and proposals produced by the faculty. Grantsmanship review of proposals would increase the level of research support received by UH. This assistance could take the form of staff employed for these purposes and/or the outsourcing of these services, depending on an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of various options. In addition to assistance with preparation, UH should encourage a culture of mutual review of draft proposals by faculty and/or develop internal or external reviewers at the draft stage.
The metrics could include the percentage of faculty who use those services and a user-satisfaction survey. They could also include a targeted percentage increase in grant submissions and awards by faculty who receive these services.
Action Step A.4.(i). Improve and increase the services of the Office of Contracts and Grants (OCG).
The first step would be to conduct a user-satisfaction survey that could include questions on desired additional services. Such services might include: a single, all-electronic integrated system for tracking proposals within OCG; timely availability, billing, and reconciliation of grant funds; and further strengthening oversight of research involving human subjects.
The metrics could include the results from the user-satisfaction survey.
Action Step A.4.(ii). Develop a strong grant assistance component within the Division of Research.
To increase the productivity of existing faculty and to improve the attractiveness of UH to prospective faculty with strong research agendas, we must provide grant assistance, training and grantsmanship assistance at not only the college and department level, but also at the University level. This function would be aimed at assisting faculty, especially new faculty and those faculty who have not previously engaged in proposal writing, to identify opportunities and to assist them in being successful.
The metrics could include the results from the user-satisfaction survey and the success of faculty who use this particular service.
Action Step A.4.(iii). Continue the establishment of grants-preparation-assistance offices across the campus.
There has been a very positive response to this initiative, and it appears to be increasing research productivity as faculty time can be concentrated on the substance of the proposal. The goal would be to have one such staff person for every 15 research-active faculty members, which we estimate would cost about 3% as much as the faculty being supported.
The metrics could include the ratio of research-active faculty per grants-assistance-officer.
Action Step A.4.(iv). Provide timely and accurate accounting for research funds and ensure all eligible grant funding is counted in UH’s total grant funding.
Currently a number of “shadow” accounting systems exist, perhaps out of concern for timely and accurate information at the college, department, or researcher level. Such systems create budget inefficiencies at a time when the budget needs to be directed towards strategic actions. These “shadow” systems could be eliminated if the central accounting system met user needs consistently. In addition to accurate accounting, we must also optimize the counting of research grants, including eligible research support that is funded through the Office of Development.
The metrics could include results of a user-satisfaction survey on grants accounting and the reduction of “shadow” systems. They could also include an increase in total grants as a result of full counting of eligible funding.
Action Step A.4.(v). Strengthen the capacity of Facilities Planning and Construction (FPC) to support the research enterprise.
The first step would be to conduct a user-satisfaction survey that could include questions on desired additional services. Any significant increase in funded research will require the construction and renovation of large amounts of research space. To manage existing and new projects, FPC will need to operate in a highly efficient, cost-effective, and communicative manner. A Renovation Services User Advisory Group, reporting to the Vice President for Finance and Administration would probably be a good next step, especially for strengthening communication. This group should explore such issues as reviewing and expanding the list of outside contractors used by UH and the methods of oversight of performance by contractors. In addition, it could examine what level of projects might be handled at the college or even departmental level.
The metrics could include the results of a user-satisfaction survey; the establishment of a Renovation Services User Advisory Group and the results of its initiatives.
Action Step A.4.(vi). Make the completion of the SERC building a priority.
For a variety of reasons, not all of them well understood by most research faculty, completion of the SERC building has been spectacularly delayed. This not only has practical consequences for available research space, it also has enormous negative symbolic consequences. The delays, the constant changing of plans and the absence of final use policies have all damaged faculty confidence and may even have contributed to the loss of a number of research-active faculty. To restore confidence, the administration must make SERC completion (all but occupant-specific items) a visible priority by publicizing and keeping to the important new deadlines. It should also establish deadlines for the Division of Research and the SERC Advisory Committee to complete and communicate occupancy and use policies and to announce initial occupants.
The metrics could include the completion of SERC and SERC occupancy and use policies by a firmly established and communicated deadline.
Action Step A.5.(i). To increase UH participation in multi-institutional research centers and to create UH-based national research centers.
Major research centers bring in large quantities of support for particular areas of research, provide positive environments for research, and enhance University visibility and reputation. Success in this arena requires the commitment of faculty time and the development of robust clusters. UH should identify and share “the best practices” from its own successful clusters (e.g., energy) and those at peer and aspirant universities. It will also need to continue targeted hiring (See also Aim A.6) in areas of current strength, so as to build the critical mass necessary to attract federal centers. We will also need an infrastructure, perhaps equivalent to three FTE, to help prepare major center proposals and to build relationships with potential multi-institutional partners.
The metrics could include the establishment of the infrastructure. They could also include a targeted number of center proposals submitted per year and a goal of at least one national center funded within 5 years.
Action Step A.5.(ii). Develop distinguishing research resource(s) at UH and make UH a destination for research conferences and visitors.
UH should invest in at least one major research resource to add to its research reputation and increase the possibilities for collaborations with other institutions and researchers. Examples of such resources include major archives, world-class NMR or computer installations, or specialized measurement or characterization tools; regional interests and prospects for support should be considered. We should also make UH a favored destination for research conferences by providing superior (possibly UH subsidized) conference accommodations. We should also increase the number of very high profile lectures (Nobel-caliber) at UH on research topics and market them extensively to build reputation. Such a lecture series has funding and naming potential.
The metrics could include the number and type of academic/research conferences and distinguished lectures hosted (that number could be benchmarked against peer and aspirant universities) and the evaluations of those events. They could also include the implementation of at least one major distinguishing research resource within 5 years.
Action Step A.5.(iii). Enhance UH technology transfer, licensing, and spin-off activities (See also C.4.ii. and C.4.iii.).
Technologies and copyrightable materials developed at UH contribute to our reputation and address the Governor’s mandate that Texas universities serve as engines of economic development. Effective management of intellectual property issues is also essential for corporate and SBIR/STTR funding of research. We support the launching of two new initiatives, the creation of a Cougar Innovation Fund to support proof-of-concept development and the establishment of a Cougar Entrepreneur-in-Residence program to support Ph.D. graduates and postdocs to develop UH technologies and spin-offs.
The metrics could include a specified annual increase (e.g., 20%) in: number of license agreements; amount of research funding from corporate/industrial sources; number of new UH spin-off companies; and the number of patents filed.
Action Step A.6.(i). Implement Aims 1-5.
Aims 1-5 are primarily aimed at increasing the productivity of current UH research-active faculty; at encouraging current UH faculty who are not research-active to become so (including consideration of having some Ph.D. faculty classified as “Instructional” become involved in research, where appropriate); and at creating an environment and infrastructure that will prove attractive to new research-active faculty. We cannot efficiently simply hire our way to a doubling of research expenditures, nor would it create a healthy campus climate to simply emphasize the next generation of faculty. It is hard to estimate the impact of Aims 1-5 precisely, but they could improve current faculty productivity from 10-30%.
The metrics could include increases in research expenditures resulting from expanded research productivity of the current UH faculty.
Action Step A.6.(ii). Hire substantial numbers of research-active faculty each year for at least the next 5 years, with an emphasis in areas of cluster focus.
Doubling of external research support will, however, still require very significant investments in the hiring of research-active faculty over a sustained period of time. Priority should be given to hires in areas of cluster focus, especially Energy and Health, but other areas that provide substantial strength and potential for funded research should also be considered for investment. Class should not be overlooked as a place for highly-funded faculty. While the scale of hiring, for example 50 research-active faculty in each of the next 5 years, may sound ambitious, Texas’ economy provides a relative competitive advantage compared to other states and this could be a unique opportunity to catapult our research profile.
The metrics could include the number of research-active faculty hired each year for the next five years.