Business Analysis (Implementation) Team

This team, with representatives appointed by the RADs, has been meeting since mid-April to learn the new Proposal Development user-interface and to discuss business processes in major research administration functional areas that will lead to more consistency across campus. While there are more discussions and topics to come, the initial discussions have led to the following recommendations as campus-wide courses of action for the new system. There are some major changes in business processes that will require the endorsement of the CRAD.

  • Margi Cech – CNS
  • Catherine Douras – CAG
  • Stephanie Ouren – CHHS
  • Dana Schwartz – CVMBS
  • Shannon Irey – Engineering
  • Kim Melville-Smith – WCNR
  • Chris Carsten – OSP Team 5
  • Tracey Trujillo – OSP Team 2
  • Andy Reynolds – OSP Team 3
  • Claudia Amos – OSP Office Coordinator
  • Diane Barrett – OSP

What proposals will be logged into the Kuali Research? Currently, not all proposals are logged into PASS.

Recommendation: The team agrees that all proposals should be logged going forward.

  • By placing all proposals in the system, a PI’s full level of sponsored research activities can be tracked for promotion and tenure
  • A distinction can be made between Pre-proposals, or any pre-application that requires some sort of formalized budget, and Letters of Intent (LOI), where no budget is required. The team suggests that Pre-proposals be tracked but Letter of Intent be optional.

Routing and Approvals. Over time, the SP-1 routing form has become somewhat obsolete as standards have relaxed. Many proposals are now submitted without the SP-1 being fully signed, or the SP-1 is signed for PI, College, and Dean by one individual. This has led to a discussion of what approvals are actually needed at each level, and the conclusion is that we do need the current approval levels going forward into KR.


  • At a minimum, PIs and Co-Is be required to personally fill out the Person Certification at the time they approve the proposal
  • Routing for PIs and Co-Is will follow the same basic and parallel path:
    1. Proposal is submitted into routing (by PI or preaward support staff)
    2. PI and Co-Is approve proposal as ready to submit, and answer certification questions.
    3. For departments that choose to have a pre-approver, this person approves after the PI and before department and college approvals.
    4. Proposal is routed to each department head/delegate for approval
    5. Proposal is routed to each dean/delegate for approval
    6. Proposal is routed to Extension when applicable
    7. Proposal is routed to OSP to complete submission process.

Budget functionality. The system allows the input of budgets in two basic ways:

  • The full budget is developed in the system
    •  Advantages:
      1. Applicable rates are loaded into the system and updated en masse, leading to more consistency in budgeting.
      2. Multiple budgets may be developed for scenario planning
      3. It is easy to see when a rate (idc, fringe, inflation, etc) has been changed and what the impact on the budget is
      4. Calculation of cost-share on salaries and non-personnel items in the cost-share total field in the ‘periods’ section
      5. Ability to track unrecovered indirect costs if this functionality is enabled
      6. Ability to generate more detailed more reports.
    • Disadvantages:
      1. Learning curve – there are multiple screens that must be navigated
      2. Export options are limited (currently non-existent)
  • Only direct and indirect costs are entered into the budget module and a spreadsheet or other document is uploaded as an attachment
    • Advantages:
      1. Easy data entry
      2. Familiar interface (spreadsheets)

Recommendation: The team recognizes that there will be a learning curve and that support will need to be provided to units that have no research admin support. However, the advantages of having a common campus system for budget development outweigh the difficulties. The team recommends that ALL budgets be developed fully in KR with the following exception: for those few sponsors with a requirement to use a specific spreadsheet that does automatic calculations, an uploaded copy of the sponsor spreadsheet will be acceptable, though this will require an extra step of entering the amounts into the summary budget version. The team further recommends that functionality enabling the collection of cost-share account information be enabled.

  • Attachments. The attachments currently added to PASS vary greatly depending on college and sponsor, and requiring the inclusion of attachments in KR will, in some cases, be perceived as double-entry. Therefore, the attachment list will be kept to a minimum.

Recommendation: The following attachments are required in KR if they are pertinent to the project, regardless of how the proposal will be submitted:

  1. Budget if done on an approved agency/sponsor budget form
  2. Budget justification
  3. SOW or summary attachment, or brief summary entered as an abstract.
  4. Forms or other documents required by the sponsor
  5. Subrecipient information:
    1. Commitment letter signed by an institutional official
    2. Statement of Work (SOW)
    3. Budget and budget justification 
  6. CSU internal financial commitment forms/info (such as cost-sharing or additional space request)

NOTE: System-to-System (S2S) submissions: All attachments as required by the opportunity must be in KR.


Comments are closed.