ORU Five-Year Review Process

UCSC Office of Research ORU Five-Year Review Process


  1. POLICY GUIDANCE:

    1. UCOP Administrative Policies and Procedures Concerning Organized Research Units (1999).

    2. Compendium, Section V.A., Organized Research Units (ORUs) (2010)

    3. Compendium, Section V.A., Organized Research Units (ORUs) September 2014

    4. UCSC Office of Research, Campus Guidelines for Organized Research Units (2005)

    5. UCSC Academic Senate, Committee on Research Charge, 13.27.2

  1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

    1. Responsible Administrator:  Per UCSC Campus ORU Guidelines, the Responsible Administrator is the officer who has day-to-day management authority and oversight for the ORU under review.  Review process responsibilities include:  contributing to substance of self-study charge; with Reviewer, appoint Ad Hoc Review Committee members; contribute to committee charge; participate in review activities; and respond to the committee report.

    2. Reviewer:  Per UCSC Campus ORU Guidelines, the Reviewer is the officer (either VCR or Dean depending on where the ORU reports) who is tasked by the EVC with conducting the five-year review.  Responsibilities of the Reviewer include setting and managing the schedule, initiating the review, selecting the ad hoc review committee along with the responsible administrator, charging the self-study, charging the review committee, coordinating the review activities, coordinating post review activities, and disseminating the report and recommendations.

    3. ORU Director:  Responsibilities include managing the self-study effort, coordinating with ORU advisory committee, participating in and helping to coordinate review, responding to review report.

    4. Ad Hoc Review Committee Chair:  A member of the committee, who will manage committee report development and production.  Selected by the Reviewer based on recommendations from responsible administrator and COR.

    5. Ad Hoc Review Committee Member:  Appointed by Reviewer, can be either internal or external to campus.  Agrees to accept the schedule and associated responsibilities, including reading background material, meeting with reviewer and responsible administrator, participating in review day events, delivering a draft report and final report according to schedule and in compliance with charge.

    6. Committee on Research (COR):  Reviews and comments on Ad Hoc Review Committee Charge, recommends Review Committee nominees, responds to Committee Report, recommends continuation or disestablishment of ORU, and continuation or replacement of current ORU Director.

  1. ORU SELF-STUDY GUIDELINES:

    1. The self-study charge should anticipate the Ad Hoc Review Committee charge.  Per UCOP guidance, reviews should address “original purpose, present functioning, research accomplishments, future plans and continuing development to meet the needs of the field…the review should assess the adequacy of space and other resources made available to the unit…budget…including sources of funds and expenditures…the review should make recommendations, if appropriate for improvements in the mission, budget, administration, research focus, space and other resource requirements, and programs and activities of the unit.” (UCOP ORU Policy, 10a, 2010).

    2. The ORU will prepare a self-study document, which will consist of three main parts:

      1. Original purpose and present functioning:  The first section provides the ORU’s assessment of its current direction in research.  Appropriate questions are along these lines:  What are the mission and goals of the ORU? Has the ORU been successful in meeting them? How has the research evolved from the establishment of the unit up to this point? How do the ORU’s activities create engagement with the affiliated department(s) and contribute to graduate student training and mentorship and financial support? Discuss evolution in resources (e.g., growth in budget, research and administrative staffing) to the current levels.

      2. Research accomplishments:  Over the five-year time period covered by the review, what have been the extramural awards garnered and significant research accomplishments in the field?  Comment on the continuing productivity and influence of ORU participants, locally as well as nationally and internationally.  Comment on the ORU’s collaborative/interdisciplinary work, its quality, and impact on the ORU’s research efforts and the campus.  Describe the possible sources and availability of extramural funds to support the ORU’s research.

      3. Future plans and continuing development:  This section, building from the ORU’s assessment of the current functioning, should address issues important to the progress within the next five years. These issues may be specific resource goals, space constraints, and planned growth of engagement with faculty or graduate support, and cultivating new or reinforcing existing external partnerships.  Strategies for pursuing plans should be proposed within available or foreseeable resource allocations.

      4. Self-Study Appendices:

        1. Link to a comprehensive unit website, or a list of individual researcher links, that provides current research focus and CV for each researcher who has held an appointment in the past three years.  Include an organizational chart to illustrate the administrative structure of the ORU.

        2. Total extramural research funding proposed and awarded (public and private) by year since the last review.  The Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) will provide a baseline report; units may augment this report with data not captured by OSP.

        3. History of ORU director appointments (at least since the previous review) and plans for succession.

        4. Postdoctoral fellows: sources of support (fellowships, external grants, other) and number of fellows by year since previous review.

        5. Graduate students: by area or cluster if relevant, five-year history of doctoral and/or master’s students, including thesis (and/or project) title, principal advisor, and year degree was awarded, and job placement.

        6. List of non-PI research and administrative staff.

        7. Budget: five-year history of revenues and expenditures

        8. Equipment inventory, with age and plans for retirement, upgrading, or replacement.

  1. BASIC FEATURES OF THE ORU AD HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT:

    1. Introduction and Executive Summary (including mission statement, evaluation of overall scholarly quality, evaluation of self-assessment, and assessment of Director’s performance).

    2. Evidence of Accomplishment (in research, undergraduate/graduate research training, external recognition, diversity, and public service/outreach).

    3. Budget (effective use of campus funds, extramural funding success, critical unmet funding needs).

    4. Space and Resources (adequacy, appropriateness, reasonableness).

    5. Governance and Administration (structure and effectiveness, leadership, advisory committee contribution, succession planning, as well as faculty participation)

    6. Five-Year Projections (commentary on the Director’s budget and plan for the next five years)

    7. Conclusion and Recommendations  


UCSC Office of Research ORU Five-Year Review Process

Process Step

Owner

Key Dates

Initiate the review

Reviewer, i.e., either VCR or Dean as designated

January

Set Review Process Dates

Reviewer

Charge the Self-Study (notify ORU Director to begin Self-Study)

Reviewer, with inputs from Responsible Administrator

Meet with ORU Director to go over the Review Process

Reviewer

Receive and Distribute Self-Study with Advisory Council Report

Reviewer

April 1

Solicit and receive Responsible Administrator’s response to self-study

Reviewer

April 15

Appoint ad hoc review committee

Reviewer, COR

February

Solicit committee nominations from ORU Director, COR, Responsible Administrator

Reviewer

Appoint members from list of nominees

Reviewer with COR

Charge the review committee

Reviewer, with input from COR, CPB, and Responsible Administrator

April 30

Distribute initial charge to academic committees and Responsible Administrator

Reviewer

Solicit and receive additional questions from COR and CPB, and  Responsible Administrator

Reviewer

Conduct the review

Reviewer

Oct./Nov.

     Provide inputs to review committee

Review Day Agenda

After review process

Reviewer

Distribute report to Reviewer, Responsible Administrator, ORU Director, other Deans (if and where deemed appropriate)

December

ORU Director returns written response (along with comments from advisory committee)

January

Responsible Administrator and Dean(s) return comments to Reviewer

January

Reviewer solicits and receives COR recommendations

January

Campus-Level Closure Meeting held

February

Reviewer and Responsible Administrator meet with ORU Director

February

    Report and letter to Director with Reviewer recommendations delivered to Responsible Administrator, EVC, and Chancellor

February

Letter with recommendations and final report delivered to ORU Director

February

Status Update Report requested for either one year or two and a half years after review