September 23, 2003
Identify administrative disparities that currently exist at Rutgers University and UMDNJ which hinder the progress of joint programs, research collaboration and academic excellence. Priority should be given to developing a process for addressing disparities so that greater inter-institutional cooperation and collaboration can be achieved. Consideration should be given to defining the problem and describing the impact of the administrative issue on institutional objectives and academic programs. Also, suggestions should be made for overcoming any administrative disparities that may be readily changed.
Although both Rutgers University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in New Brunswick and Piscataway have been successful in the development of joint academic programs and research efforts, effective collaboration has been significantly limited by disparities between the two institutions on a range of dimensions. This report by the Subcommittee on Administrative Disparities attempts to contribute to our efforts to facilitate greater cooperation and collaboration between the two institutions in New Brunswick and Piscataway by:
· Identifying a comprehensive list of administrative disparities and opportunities for more effective organization and administration of collaborative efforts
· Recommending the creation of committees to address key issues for collaboration
· Identifying additional key issues that hinder collaboration
Although the creation of this Subcommittee arose from the process initiated by the Governor to consider reorganization of the research universities in New Jersey, our focus has been on issues that hinder collaboration across the institutions independent of the reorganization process. We are pleased that the proposed reorganization has made it possible to take this careful look at the ability of the two institutions to work together more effectively in New Brunswick and Piscataway, but the findings and recommendations made in this report are intended to aid both institutions to achieve their shared missions for greater excellence regardless of where the reorganization process may lead. Indeed, we encourage the administration of both institutions in New Brunswick and Piscataway to join the University Committee Central in supporting the Subcommittee's recommendations since they target improvement in both institutions independent of the reorganization process.
Attached to this report (Appendix A) is a list of administrative disparities, opportunities where greater collaboration are possible, and, in some cases, places where important steps for effective cooperation have been achieved and that might provide guidance and lessons for doing so in other areas, as identified by the Subcommittee through its study of the existing structures and operations at the two institutions in New Brunswick and Piscataway. Items have been divided into five major areas:
· Academic Programs and Professional Training
· Research Initiatives
· Institutional Infrastructure
· External Relations
The Subcommittee believes that this list can serve as an important guide in efforts by the administration of both institutions to help the students, faculty, and staff achieve greater excellence in their missions of teaching, research, and service, as well as to aid the University Committee Central in its work for the Governor.
In the remainder of this report we provide details on our key findings and recommendations. When possible, we highlight issues that the Subcommittee identified as being particularly important for improving our efforts at collaboration in bold face font. A glossary of abbreviations is provided in Appendix B.
The Subcommittee studied many different ways in which the two institutions operate both singly and jointly, sometimes effectively, other times not. A small number of issues were identified as particularly challenging difficulties that we confront in our attempts at cooperation and collaboration.
Graduate Student Disparities
There has been a long and successful history of joint graduate programs between the two universities in the biomedical sciences. Nevertheless, a range of challenges continue to hinder the ability of the two institutions to develop new joint academic programs and to manage existing ones effectively. A key issue that limits our effectiveness on joint academic programs is the significant difference in student resources and support services across the institutions. Students who might otherwise be in identical academic circumstances and only differ in terms of the academic institution to which they belong can have vast differences in stipend amounts, tuitions, benefits, and the like. This is a problem that is often raised during site visits, it impacts our ability to recruit students, and most fundamentally serves as a barrier to students making academic choices based solely on scholarly considerations. In a number of joint programs, programmatic issues have been resolved but the key issue is student resource differentials as a barrier to student parity across the programs. The Subcommittee identified this as one of the key disparities that we face in achieving greater collaboration between the institutions.
The Subcommittee thus makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 1: The University Committee Central should create a jointly staffed committee to identify the differences that exist in student resources and support services and, more importantly, to define steps that will enhance student services and resources for students at both institutions by removing these differences.
This committee should be comprised of members from both institutions, and should include both faculty and students, as well as members who can effectively address the economic difficulties and propose financially feasible solutions for erasing the differentials now faced by our students. The issues to be discussed should include stipend amounts, tuition charges for GAs, benefits, student fees, recreational facilities, housing, computing access, parking, counseling, career guidance, and access to TAships and GAships. One solution that the committee should consider is the extent to which imposition of similar fee structures for students across both institutions is possible, passing along the appropriate funds to whichever institutions provide the relevant services. For example, fees for recreational facilities or computer services could be imposed on UMDNJ students, with the collected amounts passed on to Rutgers, with Rutgers thereby offering access to recreational facilities or computer services to UMDNJ students.
Postdoctoral training is a key element of successful research universities. (Due to differences in the definition of a "postdoctoral fellow" in different institutions, we will use the term "postdoctoral appointee" in this report.) Collaboration on cross-institution postdoctoral recruitment and training has been a challenge for both Rutgers and UMDNJ not only due to cross-institutional differences, but also intra-institutional difficulties. A joint effort to improve postdoctoral recruitment and training and to provide better services and benefits to postdoctoral appointees would likely be of help not only for collaborative research and education programs, but also for each institution's individual efforts. An understanding of how to recruit, appoint, and fund joint postdoctoral appointees will also be advantageous in dealing with other joint staff positions, such as joint and courtesy faculty appointments across the institutions.
The Subcommittee therefore makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2: The University Committee Central should create a jointly staffed committee to review the policies governing postdoctoral appointees of each institution and develop more uniform procedures that will advance the goals of joint academic and research programs by improving recruitment of postdoctoral appointees and enhancing their training through access to the benefits of University services.
This committee should be staffed by members from both institutions, and should include faculty, postdoctoral appointees, and administrators knowledgeable about the human resources aspects of postdoctoral appointees. The participation of faculty and administrators involved in graduate student training may also be helpful, in that the subcommittee noted that some of the procedures and lessons developed in effective management and training of graduate students may be helpful for postdoctoral appointees as well. Topics to be discussed should include differences in visa policies, idiosyncrasies in position titles, support and benefit differentials, establishing explicit training processes, and career advising. Recommending the assignment of explicit responsibility for postdoctoral training to an existing administrative office or unit, such as an appropriate graduate school, may be in order. Methods for jointly recruiting and funding postdoctoral appointees should be designed with attention to the extent to which they may be generalized to aid in recruitment and funding of other joint positions, such as joint faculty.
One of the most successful dimensions of collaboration across the institutions in New Brunswick and Piscataway has been the creation of joint research institutes and centers staffed by members of both institutions and their collaborators. However, there is much still to be done to improve on this dimension, in terms of establishing new centers, jointly managing existing collaborative ventures, and enhancing collaboration between faculty of both universities. Resources are often accorded to centers that provide asymmetric benefits to the institutions and without careful consideration of its impact on other aspects of the universities' missions. Centers must often face duplication and delays in addressing regulatory matters that must be considered by both institutions. Assignment of intellectual property ownership can be complex when inventions arise out of work taking place in a joint center, both when inventors may belong to a single institution while working in a joint center, and also when the inventors may be from across the institutions.
It is important that all those who participate in the conduct and administration of large research efforts play a central role in identifying the complexities of establishing and managing joint research centers. The Subcommittee therefore makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 3: The University Committee Central should create a jointly staffed committee to review procedures governing research administration for externally funded proposals and to develop more uniform practices in such areas as indirect cost return, IRB/IACUC protocols, intellectual property, and other procedures that will advance joint research initiatives, research collaboration, and the objectives of joint centers and institutes.
This committee should be comprised of members of both institutions involved in the establishment, conduct, and support of large-scale research efforts. This would include directors of joint centers, PIs of large grants not affiliated with centers, business managers from both centers and large departments, legal expertise in intellectual property matters, key university staff in the institutions' sponsored programs office, those with responsibility for each institutions' IRB and IACUC, researchers in both health and social sciences that require IRB review, grant administrators, and administrators of the Rutgers Environmental Health and Safety (which services researchers at both institutions). Among the challenges that this committee would address are:
indirect cost return (ICR) rates -- providing to the research center receiving
an award significant portions of the indirect costs received by the institution
for that award -- is a valuable resource that can facilitate greater
accomplishments by a research center, and it is often mandated by granting
agencies. It also has great value to
investigators' home academic departments and units, often being used to support
start-up funds for new faculty or as support for other matters where the
department's operating budget might not be sufficient. However, each institution handles ICR
differently. At Rutgers 10.5% is
typically returned to investigators' home academic units, whereas at RWJMS it
is 20% (corresponding to different models of funding for departments at each
institution more generally). Moreover,
special ICR rates for centers create a tension between the academic needs of
the investigator's home academic unit and the research needs of the
investigator's research unit, in that decisions to give special ICR rates to a
center can result in decreased ICR for its investigators' academic units. Agreements concerning these funds are often
made focused on the needs of the investigator's research unit, without
sufficient consideration of the decision's impact on the investigator's home
academic unit. These tensions are amplified when, in addition, multiple
institutions may vie for the indirect costs that would be obtained by a funded
ICR is thus a difficulty faced by each institution in isolation, and it is particularly difficult for joint centers when they must confront this problem two-fold. The Subcommittee has therefore identified ICR as one of the key challenges that we face in achieving greater collaborations between the institutions. The committee should strive for a policy that minimizes asymmetries and disparities in the treatment of ICR at the two institutions -- to avoid the creation of incentives for submission of grants through one particular institution or center, and that accords due deliberation to the impact of special ICR rates on the resources needed to fully support both institutions' academic, research, and service missions.
· The committee should strive to define a streamlined process for the creation and administration of joint projects and centers. One key target of the committee's efforts should be the definition of processes that decrease the need for subcontracts between the institutions or the problems associated with them. The Subcommittee identified this as a key goal for improving support for creating and operating joint centers and other collaborative efforts.
· The committee should define a default reporting structure for directors of newly created research centers and institutes that accords centers with similar scopes of institutional participants similar organizational structures. The committee should assess the feasibility of structures in which relevant academic chairs and deans play a role in decisions that concern members of their faculty who participate in such centers.
· Joint research that involves human subjects is often hindered by the fact that it involves two separate IRBs, one for each institution. The committee should strive for a model by which only a single IRB would be necessary. One approach would be to establish reciprocal recognition of each institution's IRBs. Given the legal ramifications of IRBs, a more likely option would be to establish a process by which joint centers would have a jointly agreed upon single IRB. Establishing this for an existing center, such as EOHSI, would be one route towards achieving this, with the plan that the resulting IRB could be the basis for IRBs for other joint centers and institutes.
· The committee should also consider issues concerning joint IP rights. For example, one desirable result could be the establishment of default terms by which reciprocal royalty-free rights to intellectual property could be established, coupled with proportional royalty income divided between the institutions based on proportions of ownership by the inventors at the respective institutions. This might also enable on a longer time frame joint administration of a single office handling intellectual property matters.
· The committee should review both the pre- and post-award processes at each institution to determine best practices, with a goal to create a more effective and efficient process for applying for and reporting on awards to joint centers and collaborative efforts.
Institutional Infrastructure Disparities
Given two large organizations with separate infrastructure and support systems, it is a surprise when systems or procedures are found to be in common. More commonly, disparity is expected to be the rule rather than the exception. However, even in cases of great disparity, collaboration and cooperation is desirable. In some cases, such as purchasing, legal services, monitoring compliance with regulations, and maintenance, both institutions have such facilities but there is little or no collaboration between them. In other cases, such as information technology, one has invested far more in infrastructure (and thus provides better services) than the other. In still others, such as housing, one provides services that the other does not. Creating cooperation in infrastructure and support services is a desirable goal that will benefit collaborative efforts, both by removing distinctions that joint centers or programs might face in receiving services from one institution or the other, as well as economies of scale and greater opportunities for improved contracts for larger-scale services. Achieving such collaboration requires a commitment by administration members of both institutions. The Subcommittee therefore makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 4: The University Committee Central should create a joint committee to identify infrastructure and administrative services where greater collaboration between the two institutions can contribute to more effective support of teaching, research, and service and to identify steps to achieve them.
The members of this committee should include personnel from the respective institutions responsible for a range of administrative services, covering such areas as parking, computer services, physical plant, telecommunications, human resources, legal services, and purchasing. It should also include those with knowledge about the various financial aspects of supporting these services. Finally, it should have significant representation by "users" of these services: faculty, researchers, students, and office managers.
Although this topic covers many things, a number of infrastructure issues received significant attention by the Subcommittee as key issues and should be the high-priority topics addressed by this committee:
Parking: Although the New Brunswick
and Piscataway campuses of Rutgers University and UMDNJ are in close proximity,
even intra-institutional collaborations are often challenged by the separation
of research and academic facilities between New Brunswick and Piscataway and
the difficulties members of one institution have parking at the other. Even the meetings of this Subcommittee have
been impacted by parking. One of the
key issues that must be confronted to foster greater collaboration between
members of the two institutions is simply providing sufficient parking for
members of one institution to visit the other. This is particularly difficult given that both institutions have
parking deficits. In the long-term the
only solution to this problem is to create additional parking. For the short-term, however, more limited
reciprocity will be a significant help.
Parking has been a long-standing challenge for both institutions. However, the Subcommittee has identified parking as one of the key challenges to effective collaboration between the institutions in New Brunswick and Piscataway, and we encourage the University Committee Central and the administration of both institutions to tackle this problem anew despite the well-established difficulty of the task.
· Purchasing: One of the key support functions provided by each institution for its research efforts is purchasing. Research supplies and equipment, whether funded by grants or the institution, must be acquired through the purchasing offices of the appropriate institution. Each institution has its own procedures and rules, such as the amount that is considered capital equipment ($500 for UMDNJ vs $5000 for Rutgers). In the case of joint centers this creates great challenges. Efforts to make purchasing procedures better aligned across institutions will likely depend upon UMDNJ being willing to "decentralize" some of its services so that its New Brunswick and Piscataway units can work with their corresponding Rutgers units.
Computing Services and Information Technology: Our society now relies significantly on information technology
(IT). Effective operation of the
academic, research, and service programs at either institution depends on the
existence of a suitable IT infrastructure.
In the course of our investigations we found that UMDNJ in New Brunswick
and Piscataway has not invested in IT to the same extent to which Rutgers has,
and it is thus unable to provide computing services in as effective a manner to
its students, faculty, and staff as does Rutgers. The matter is further complicated by UMDNJ IT being centered in
Newark. Finally, sharing of electronic
information and provision of online services is complicated by lack of common software
platforms. The Subcommittee believes that collaborative research efforts and
support of joint academic programs are seriously impacted by the asymmetries in
computing services across the two institutions. This was identified by the Subcommittee as one of the key issues
for effective collaboration between the institutions.
The Subcommittee understands that the system-wide steering committee for the proposed reorganization of the State research universities has established a subcommittee to explore disparities in computing and IT between the two institutions. At the time of this report, however, details of this subcommittee's findings and recommendations were unavailable. The committee recommended above should be urged to consult with the relevant system-wide subcommittee on this matter.
· Libraries: The core of both institutions' academic and research missions is built on our universities' libraries. It is important that any consideration of infrastructure include significant attention to our institutions' libraries. Fortunately, the libraries at Rutgers and UMDNJ have a long tradition of collaboration, and are already working towards further transparency in library usage across the institutions. We applaud the libraries at both institutions for their focus on truly serving the diverse needs of our joint populations. The Subcommittee understands that there is a system-wide subcommittee exploring further opportunities for collaboration between the libraries, especially in light of the possible reorganization of the State's research universities. The committee recommended above should be urged to consult with the relevant system-wide subcommittee during its consideration of library matters.
Given the geographic proximity of the two institutions, the committee should evaluate an approach to decreasing infrastructure disparities by having one institution provide its services to the other in exchange for financial remuneration. There are precedents for such arrangements between Rutgers and UMDNJ, both in UMDNJ contracting from Rutgers for library services, as well as for support from Rutgers Environmental Health and Safety.
We anticipate that there will be a significant asymmetry here, in that Rutgers will likely have more infrastructure and services that will be of value to UMDNJ than the reverse due to greater investment in infrastructure improvements at Rutgers. Examples include information technology, libraries, and the inter-campus bus system. Although during this time of budget difficulties we do not anticipate easy availability to such funds, identifying cases where disparities can be solved solely by financial outlay will make it possible to identify the funds that would be necessary to address the disparity. Indeed, although it will always be possible for an institution to create such services on its own, we believe contracting between institutions will usually be a more economical solution due to economies of scale. In some cases, such as student services (as discussed above), the costs will not be borne by the institutions but rather funded by fees obtained elsewhere, such as student fees.
In the eventuality that there is a merger of institutions, it will be important to be aware that such a solution will likely require greater outlay of funds for UMDNJ, so as to fund its end of the acquisition of these services, than for Rutgers. Since one of the concerns that have been expressed concerning the proposed reorganization of the public research universities is that State funds for higher education will be disproportionately given to one institution over the other, we acknowledge that this solution may yield criticism about a merger among those who have expressed this concern.
Additional Key Findings
The Subcommittee identified a number of other issues that require further discussion and review to achieve greater collaboration between the universities in New Brunswick and Piscataway. We discuss these additional key findings in this section.
· It remains desirable to simplify the budgetary and administrative processes in establishing joint and courtesy appointments across institutions. Such difficulties also arise with joint postdoctoral appointees, and therefore the recommendations of the committee on postdoctoral appointees may also address problems that arise with faculty appointments. We recommend that the University Committee Central revisit the issue of joint funding and recruitment of faculty once the committee on postdoctoral appointees has fulfilled its charge, to see how joint positions might be better facilitated not only for postdoctoral appointees but also for faculty.
faculty responsibilities can differ greatly between institutions, and even
between units and departments in a single institution, faculty are the means by
which each institution achieves its shared missions of teaching, research, and
service. However, effective performance
on all three responsibilities can often be challenging. Having faculty associated with a unit whose
focus is on only one of these missions makes it difficult for faculty to
perform tasks in service of the institution's other missions. For example, academic departments with
significant undergraduate teaching responsibilities often must focus on
staffing their undergraduate courses, with little support of a faculty member's
graduate advising responsibilities.
Academic departments with significant responsibilities for medical
student education often do not receive support or recognition for graduate
student education. Clinical faculty are
often rewarded for medical student education or income-creating clinical
activities, leaving little time for advancing research programs or performing
graduate education. It is essential
that academic administrators provide an environment that supports all
dimensions of a faculty member's responsibilities to teaching, research, and
The Subcommittee recognizes the forces that lead an institution to focus faculty's efforts on only a subset of these responsibilities, but believes that it is crucial for the institution to ensure an environment that enables significant attention by faculty to all of the university's missions. The Subcommittee encourages the administrators responsible for academic programs at the two institutions in New Brunswick and Piscataway to establish an incentive structure that ensures faculty participation in all aspects of teaching, research, and service. This may involve explicit assignment of research and graduate-student education responsibilities to all faculty. More fundamentally, there is a need to acknowledge graduate student education as a legitimate responsibility for faculty even when the unit in which a faculty member resides may not have graduate student education as a focus.
Achieving this will likely require closer supervision and coordination of graduate programs by the administrative units in which faculty reside. We believe this will be much more easily accomplished once the UMDNJ graduate school administrative functions are decentralized to the New Brunswick and Piscataway campuses Indeed, without it the Subcommittee is concerned about the extent to which effective efforts on graduate education are inherently achievable.
· To improve excellence in graduate education we should know where disparities in our graduate programs occur. There is at present no comprehensive list of overlapping and duplicate academic programs across the two institutions. The compilation of such a list would greatly help our efforts to collaborate more effectively on graduate education.
Joint Telephone Book
· Collaboration between institutions requires communication between the institutions. At present there is no routine availability of phone books from one institution at the other. Although an apparently mundane issue, it was identified by many as a key issue hindering collaboration. The Subcommittee therefore encourages the administration of both institutions to find cost-effective ways to share telephone directories between the institutions. This could involve distribution of directories for each institution to the other, or the preparation of a joint directory. Most likely this may simply result in the provision of a shared online directory that members of either institution could access from their own computing resources.
Administrative Disparities and Opportunities for Promoting Greater Collaboration
Academic Programs and Professional Training
· Collaborate on joint academic programs:
o Identify overlap and duplication in courses and programs
o Synchronize, merge, or collaborate on joint offerings (More efficient use of resources, less student confusion, improved student experience, improved faculty recruitment)
o Create new joint undergraduate/graduate programs
o Create new interdisciplinary initiatives between public health & medicine and statistics, engineering, computing and information sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities
o Enable cross-institutional access to current single-institution programs
o Injecting more medical education in undergraduate education (examples: scientific opinions on alternative medicine, creationism)
o Provide reward structure for participation of faculty (see Faculty below)
o Graduate programs given teaching resources (see Faculty below)
· Address student resource differentials: (Students would be freer to make educational and research choices based solely on scholarly considerations.) (In many cases the challenge is that UMDNJ provides funds for things that Rutgers does not, so resolving the differentials will mean either UMDNJ switching to the Rutgers way of doing things, or the need to find additional funds for Rutgers to switch to the UMDNJ way.)
o Stipend amounts
o Tuition charges (UMDNJ provides tuition subsidies; Rutgers would need additional funds to do the same, or can agree to charge resident rates for all GAs as is done at other institutions)
o Benefits (such as health, dental, access to health services) (UMDNJ provides insurance, Rutgers does not)
o General student fees
o Access to and charges for computing (UMDNJ provides students with computing services without a fee, Rutgers students pay a fee)
o On-campus housing (Rutgers capitalizes housing for graduate students, UMDNJ does not provide housing)
o Recreational facilities
o Access to and charges for parking (see Institutional Infrastructure below)
· Coordinate academic policies and standards, especially for joint programs:
and degree requirements (especially for joint programs)
(Rutgers requires continuous registration until degree completion, UMDNJ does not)
o Differences in grading
(UMDNJ offers it, Rutgers Graduate School New Brunswick does not)
(Rutgers maintains records of all courses, even if retaken, UMDNJ does not)
o Grade changes
o Transfer procedures
· Improve cross-institution accessibility:
o Access to GAships and TAships (UMDNJ who want Rutgers TAships must transfer to Rutgers to get benefits and tuition remission)
o Teaching opportunities for students across institutions
o Cross-institution advising
o Instructors should be able to give assignments without worrying about whether students from each institution can access all relevant resources
· Improve cross-institution administration of programs:
o Standardize joint-program management structure
o Assignment of faculty workloads
o Balance administration of joint programs (recruiting and admissions, workload, course scheduling, provision of computing services, database entry and management, student transfers)
o Joint recruiting and admissions
o Registration system/process coordination
o Student records/transcript coordination
o Coordinate course scheduling, course periods and durations, and academic calendars (this will be very difficult to do: UMDNJ courses are much longer than Rutgers courses -- 10 hours per week versus 4.5, 15 weeks versus 13; the UMDNJ Medical Physiology course is offered to Rutgers students as a 7-credit course)
o Funding cross-institutional programs (UMDNJ and Rutgers share below-the-line costs of joint programs, but all staff, space, and equipment is provided by Rutgers)
o Coordinate role of professional education across institutions (such as GSAPP, GSE at Rutgers)
· Postdoctoral appointees
o Differences in visa policies
o Idiosyncratic position titles
o Support and benefit differentials
o Institutionalize training process (place under the Graduate School)
o What IS a postdoc?
· Decrease faculty differentials:
o Performance incentives and promotion criteria that reflect cross-institution contributions
o Pay structure
o Benefits (health, dental, retirement)
o Advising across institutions
o Labor contracts
o Personnel policies and procedures
§ Example: Who votes on tenure decisions? (Only those in teaching track and in rank or above at Rutgers; research track faculty at associate and professor rank participate in tenure votes at UMDNJ)
o 9-month versus 12-month salaries
o Salary differential both inter- and intra-institution
o Coordinate academic calendars, course periods and durations, and faculty responsibilities and teaching assignments
o Better solutions to joint positions (at present if a position is joint and the line sits in UMDNJ, benefits are from UMDNJ, and Rutgers pays half of the salary in cash)
o UMDNJ members of RU Graduate Faculty lose access to RU resources on retirement
· Guarantee teaching resources for all academic programs (UMDNJ faculty reward structure aligned with medical school education and clinical income, other academic programs have no guaranteed faculty instruction)
o Tie faculty appointments and reappointments to graduate programs and performance incentives for graduate program service
o Establish reward structure for medical faculty for teaching in graduate and undergraduate programs
o Explicitly associate teaching resources with graduate programs
· Improve faculty and postdoc recruitment:
o Decrease competition
o Make opportunities more available and visible in each institution when recruiting faculty in the other institution
· Improve infrastructural differentials:
o Minimize needs for subcontracts between institutions
o Establish a streamlined process for subcontracts specifically for joint centers
o Differences within and across departments, centers, and institutes in how faculty recruitment packages are funded
o ICR policy coordination -- A KEY ISSUE
§ Inter-institutional: differences impact resources available to researchers at each institution on joint work
§ Intra-institutional (ICR structure rewards centers but in the process takes resources away from departments)
§ Set up single institution number with funding agencies with a single ICR (since ICR rates are similar)?
§ Impacts faculty recruitment, research funding, grants
o Coordinate allocation of institutional resources
o Renovation, faculty recruitment packages, etc., are absorbed by depts. in UMDNJ, by University more commonly at RU
o Negotiate shared IP rights
§ Establish reciprocal IP rights
§ Create a shared IP office
§ Streamline processes
o Coordinate proposal preparation
o GAship differentials (see above)
o Performance and promotion differentials (see above)
o Improve methods to resolve inter-institutional intellectual property issues.
o Ease negotiations between technology transfer offices; execute transfer agreements more expeditiously and resolve disposition of patent rights to enhance opportunities
o Improve cross-institutional parking accessibility (see Institutional Infrastructure below)
o Create effective cross-river IT infrastructure (tele-conferencing, etc.)
o Disparity in visa policies (much harder to get an H1 at Rutgers, means we lose good postdocs to other institutions who can offer an H1)
· Coordinate administration functions:
safety/REHS is an example where this is already done effectively
(RWJMS pays RU for services)
o Institute processes for joint identification of priority areas
o Coordinate information management and facilitate information sharing (reporting, budgeting, accounting and record keeping)
o Coordinate accounting standards, reporting requirements, and grant management
o Coordinate grant application procedures
o Coordinate animal protocols and IRB reviews
§ Mismatch in IRB priorities across institutions
§ Animal protocols/IACUC likely to be less difficult
§ Proposal: Create a single IRB for joint efforts (this is more likely to be successful than attempting to encode some form of mutual reciprocity of IRB decisions) -- could be initiated by setting one up for EOHSI
o Create a joint Research Projects Office
· Centers and institutes:
o Establish procedures, agreements between RU and UMDNJ to minimize the need for subcontracts between institutions (make it possible for direct funding from either institution, etc.)
o ICR issues (see above)
o Standardize/coordinate/clarify reporting structures
o Coordinate allocation of institutional resources
§ Matching funds
§ Continuing support funds (especially when equipment from a joint initiative sits physically in one institution, both still need to support it)
o Catalyze joint efforts for large grants (especially those requiring broad, multidisciplinary teams)
o Coordinated hiring
o Develop and enhance joint management boards with senior management
· Create new cross-institutional research initiatives:
o Create new interdisciplinary initiatives between public health & medicine and statistics, engineering, computing and information sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities (especially likely in areas of big health challenges, social problems, public policy issues) (examples: obesity, medical errors, GCRC)
o Undergraduate participation in research
· Proposals for large equipment usually requires a minimum number of people to use the equipment. If that number is achieved by personnel across two institutions but where neither has enough people on its own, it is typically not recognized as meeting the requirements for the minimum number of people.
o There is already a committee coordinating/evaluating collaboration between libraries, we commend them on their efforts, thank them for their input, and believe this committee should be designated as the one to move forward on this issue for the UCC
o RU and UMDNJ share a key priority, and are working on achieving it together: Full text access to electronic information
o Need better collaboration on offering resources for students in joint courses: RU and UMDNJ offer different resources (electronic reserves, databases, study space, etc.) even when students are in a class together
o Faculty at UMDNJ (such as in Public Health) need access to more than science resources, such as social science, education, psychology, and business databases
is a technical challenge -- Each institution knows its own students and staff,
but cross-institution sharing is nearly non-existent
(and even within UMDNJ it is hard for the libraries to obtain records of all legitimate users)
o Cross-institutional access to print collections and study space important, needs to be improved
hours are awkward for cross-institutional access due to different term
schedules, holidays, etc.
(This is a funding issue)
o Orientation for new students requires better coordination
§ How to even reach all students
§ Identification and orientation on collective resources
o Identify common priorities
o Communicate available resources better to all constituencies (many resources are unknown to library users who might use them, such as free inter-library loan service)
(This is a funding issue -- more users mean higher subscription prices for e-journals, etc.)
· Parking and transportation
o Difference in costs (UMDNJ faculty: $350-800; RU: a function of salary, usually < $400)
o Need more at both institutions! (At RU there is a deficit of 2,500-3,000 spaces)
· Information technology
o CABM and EOHSI get RU networking, technical support, other centers/institutes don't
o RU IT significantly more advanced than UMDNJ's due to RUNet 2000
o UMDNJ IT servers and management located in Newark, difficult to cooperate with RU IT centered in NB/Piscataway
o UMDNJ network is 10 Mbps hubs in NB, Piscataway is 10/100 Mbps switched, with some 1 Gpbs between nearby buildings; RU is generally 100 Mbps to the desk, 1 Gbps backbone, with isolated 10 or 100 Mpbs
o Can UMDNJ contract for IT services, especially email, from RU?
o To what extent can both institutions use shared software, platforms, databases, etc., when sharing of information and resources would be achieved?
o Shared intranet? Forms control?
· Maintenance of operations, plant, and capital improvement
o (At least) 4 separate organizations:
§ RU student housing -- not in state budget
§ RU construction management and renovation
o Different prefixes even for neighboring offices in joint institutes
o Cross-institution distribution of phone books
o Joint phone book?
· Human resources
o Inability to advertise positions at one institution at the other -- provide links across the two institutions' job listing sites?
o Different benefits for staff and faculty
§ Tuition remission for staff, children of staff, at RU, not at UMDNJ
o Different length work weeks (37.5 vs 40)
o Seniority (reciprocity possible?)
o Job classifications
o Staff visas
o Staff labor contracts
o Different holiday system
health (on-job health, flu shots, etc.)
(UMDNJ for all employees, RU for student health with complementary services occasionally to faculty and staff (flu shots, etc.)
· Monitoring compliance with relevant laws and policies (discrimination, harassment, affirmative action, record keeping, accreditation)
· Legal services
o Differences in procedures
o Capital equipment: $500 at UMDNJ, $5000 at RU
o Online purchasing
· Information access and sharing (reporting, budgeting, accounting, record keeping, knowledge management)
· Recognize disparities in what investments in large-scale infrastructure each institution has made (for example, greater investment in IT infrastructure, on-campus housing at Rutgers, bond and debt differentials, etc.)
press offices, especially when joint efforts are involved (rather than having,
for example, press releases for joint efforts only mentioning those from the
institution preparing the press release)
Press releases concerning joint centers should be issued jointly
· Coordinate Foundation efforts, credit assignment, fundraising
representation and collaboration (and non-competition) on statewide initiatives
(Some success has been achieved in responding to the recent Bond Initiative)
· Joint maintenance of shared external relations
· Joint cultivation and management of partnerships with industry
· Joint community outreach and partnerships
· Coordinated alumni affairs
Glossary of Abbreviations
Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine
(a joint Rutgers/UMDNJ center)
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute
(a joint Rutgers/UMDNJ institute)
· GA: Graduate assistant
· GAship: Graduate assistantship
Gigabit per second, a billion bits per second
(a measurement of network speed)
General Clinical Research Center
(NIH-supported center that provides infrastructure for federally funded clinical research)
Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology
(a graduate school at RUNB)
Graduate School of Education
(a graduate school at RUNB)
Indirect Cost Return
(also referred to as "Facilities and Administration" (F&A) or "overhead")
(the institutional costs associated with sponsored research that cannot be precisely assigned to an individual project, usually charged to the funding agency as a negotiated, fixed percentage of qualifying budget items of an award; portions of these funds are often assigned to the home academic and research units of project investigators)
Institutional Review Board
(reviews and approves research involving human subjects)
Institutional Animal Care and Use
(reviews and approves care and treatment of animals in research)
· IP: Intellectual property
· IT: Information technology
Megabit per second, a million bits per second
(a measurement of network speed)
· NB: New Brunswick
· NIH: National Institutes of Health
Rutgers Environmental Health and Safety
(a Rutgers support unit that provides services to UMDNJ under contract)
· RU: Rutgers University
· RUNB: Rutgers University New Brunswick/Piscataway
· RWJMS: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
· TAship: Teaching assistantship
University Committee Central
(the committee to which the Subcommittee on Administrative Disparities reports)
· UMDNJ: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey