Steps in the Approver Review Process
The Approver Review Process in the Sponsored Program Intake (SPI) system is a critical step for ensuring that all aspects of a proposal are thoroughly reviewed and approved by key stakeholders before submission to an external sponsor. This process involves multiple reviewers, each with specific roles and responsibilities, who must evaluate and approve the proposal based on compliance, resource allocation, and alignment with institutional goals. Here’s a detailed breakdown of how this process works:
Steps in the Approver Review Process
- Accessing the Proposal:
- Each designated approver receives a notification when a proposal requires their review.
- Approvers can click on each section in the SPI form to review details, attachments, and compliance information. For a comprehensive review, approvers can use the Export Proposal (PDF) button to download a complete PDF copy of the proposal.
- Roles and Responsibilities of Approvers:
- Pre-Award Director: Reviews proposal details to ensure it meets submission guidelines, budgetary compliance, and institutional policies.
- Department Head of PI: Confirms the proposal aligns with the department’s strategic objectives, resources, and personnel commitments.
- ORU (Organized Research Unit) Director: Reviews proposals linked with organized research units, ensuring compliance with specific unit guidelines and resource allocation.
- Dean of PI: Confirms that the proposal supports the academic and research goals of the school or college.
- AVP for Research Operations: Provides final institutional approval, ensuring the proposal adheres to all institutional policies and external sponsor requirements.
- Adding Comments and Feedback:
- Each approver has the option to leave Comments to document observations, suggest changes, or raise concerns.
- If an approver identifies issues or requires modifications, they may use the comments section to provide specific feedback to the proposal's principal investigator (PI) or research staff.
- Approval or Disapproval:
- Approval: If the approver is satisfied with the proposal, they can select “I confirm I have reviewed this proposal and I approve it for submission.” This indicates their endorsement, allowing the proposal to proceed in the review chain.
- Disapproval: If the approver has significant concerns or believes the proposal does not meet institutional standards, they can select “I do not approve.” This option requires a comment to explain the reason for disapproval, which allows the PI and research team to address issues.
- In cases of disapproval, the proposal may be routed back to the PI for revisions and resubmission.
- Sequential Approval Flow:
- The SPI system often requires sequential approvals, meaning that each approver must complete their review before the proposal advances to the next approver in the hierarchy.
- For instance, the Department Head of the PI might need to approve the proposal before it moves to the Dean or the AVP for Research Operations.
- Final Submission to Sponsor:
- Once all approvers have provided their endorsements, the proposal is marked as Approved for submission.
- At this stage, the proposal record in SPI reflects the “Submitted” status, indicating readiness for submission to the sponsor.
- The Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) then completes any final checks before formally submitting the proposal to the external funding agency.
Key Considerations in the Approver Review Process
- Transparency and Accountability: The approver review process ensures that each level of the institution has reviewed the proposal, fostering accountability and thorough vetting.
- Documentation: Comments and approvals are documented in the SPI system, creating an audit trail that can be reviewed later if necessary.
- Timeliness: Approvers are encouraged to complete reviews promptly to avoid delays in the proposal submission process. The sequential nature of approvals means that delays at one level can impact the overall timeline.
- Feedback Loop: If any approver disapproves the proposal, it creates a feedback loop where the PI and research team can address issues and resubmit. This iterative process helps strengthen the proposal’s quality and alignment with institutional expectations.