1.2 Managing the research grant

1.2.9 Modification of grant

To be a successful research manager you need to be able to respond to the changes that are likely to occur during the life of a research project. We have already covered the common problem of under-funding (refer back to sub-topics 1.2.2 Researcher/project goals, and 1.2.4 Managing your budget), and have seen how this can force you to re-think your approach to the research problem and re-direct funding to support activities from which you expect to gain maximum benefit. The departure, for whatever reason, of one of the project investigators is yet another setback that you may have to overcome.

Whenever you are faced with the need to modify your grant, always keep in mind the fact that the grant has been awarded to the institution. Hard as it may be to accept, it is not 'your' grant; therefore if changes need to be made, or you wish to transfer it to a new university, you need to advise your Research Office.

It is unlikely that anyone will erect barriers to prevent you from making changes, as all stakeholders want you to maximise the potential of the grant. The funding agency wants to see you lead the project to a successful outcome, but you will, of course, need to provide them with a persuasive argument as to why changes are necessary.

In all instances, when considering the extent of the changes to be made, bear in mind the skill mix of investigators (such as when one of the team is leaving and taking crucial expertise them), and how the project can continue into the future. As soon as you become aware that the grant requires modification, communicate the changes to all stakeholders and keep them informed of progress. By doing this you will minimise the time it takes for the changes to take effect.

Sometimes, but it is a rare occurrence, changes to a grant cannot be accommodated. The most likely scenario is when the lead CI/PI on a sole-investigator grant either retires or is made redundant as a result of restructuring. If other researchers in the field are close to or are already at their grant limit, they may have no capacity to take on an additional grant. In such instances, the institution will have to relinquish the grant.

The following provides general advice on how to manage the departure of an investigator.

Departure of a named (not lead) investigator

If a named investigator on a multi-investigator grant leaves the project, their role and responsibilities will have to be covered either by the remaining investigators or by appointing an eligible replacement. In either case, you must obtain approval from the funding body. The funding body will need to be convinced that a replacement investigator is able to bring similar or comparable expertise in order to maintain the viability of the project. If a replacement is to be appointed to the project team, the process for seeking approval follows that outlined under the heading ‘Change of investigators’ (below), except that the request will be for a replacement investigator, not the lead CI/PI.

Departure of the lead investigator

What happens if the lead (first-named) CI/PI leaves the administering institution? Remember, the grant is awarded to the institution in the expectation that the first-named CI/PI will lead and co-ordinate the project for the duration of the grant. That person’s knowledge, skills, expertise, and experience are regarded as being key to the project’s success, and his or her departure will have enormous impact on the project. It will result in one of four outcomes outlined below.

Transfer of the grant. If the lead CI/PI leaves the administering institution to take up a position with another Australian university (or organisation considered by the funding body to be eligible to administer the grant), he/she can apply to transfer the grant to the new institution. The transfer will be handled by the administering institution’s Research Office in accordance with the funding body’s instructions. Transfer instructions are usually contained in the funding agreement, but if this is not the case, the Research Office will contact the funding body for advice. As a general rule, the following information is required by the funding body in order to approve the transfer of a grant to a second institution:

A letter from the first-named CI/PI advising the reason for the request.
Written agreement to the transfer from all named investigators, collaborators, and partner organisations.
A letter from the administering institution agreeing to the transfer.
A letter from the second institution agreeing to take over administration of the grant.
A financial statement indicating the balance of funds to be transferred to the second institution.

If the first-named CI/PI is a sole investigator and there are no project personnel employed on the grant, the transfer is a simple process.

If co-investigators, project personnel, and students will remain at the first institution, an agreement must be executed between the first and the second institutions covering the continuing management of the project and the distribution of project funds.

Change to the order of investigators. If the first-named CI/PI on a multi-investigator grant moves to a second, eligible administering organisation, but a consensus decision is taken that administration of the grant should remain at the first institution, the order of investigators must change. This is because a grant is always administered by the institution that employs the first-named CI/PI. As a general rule, the following information is required by the funding body in order to approve a change in the order of investigators.

A letter from the first-named investigator advising the reason(s) for the request.
A letter from the nominated CI/PI agreeing to take over as lead investigator.
Written agreement to the request from all named investigators, collaborators, and partner organisations.
A letter from the administering institution supporting the request and confirming the new order of investigators.

An agreement must be executed between the administering institution and the university to which the investigator has relocated covering his/her continuing involvement in the project and the distribution of any project funds.

Change of investigators. If the first-named CI/PI departs to work overseas, or to become the employee of an organisation that is not eligible to administer a grant, he or she will no longer be eligible to hold the grant. (If the departure is due to retirement, the CI/PI should seek to secure a formal, honorary position at the administering institution which, in most cases, will ensure that he or she remains eligible to hold the grant.)

(a) Sole investigator grant
If the CI/PI is the sole investigator, the grant may have to be relinquished. However, there may be a well-qualified investigator(s) working at the administering institution, in the same research field, who could take over the project. In this instance an application can be made to the funding body to transfer the grant to the new investigator(s). (Read the scheme funding rules to confirm that your chosen researcher complies with the eligibility criteria.) If the project has made good progress and is close to completion, it is worth exploring this option. As a general rule, the following information is required by the funding body in order to transfer a sole-investigator grant to a new investigator(s):

A letter from the departing sole investigator advising the reason(s) for the request.
A letter from the replacement investigator(s), together with curriculum vitae and track record, requesting approval to become an investigator on the grant.
A letter from the administering institution supporting the request.

(b) Multi-investigator grant
Where there is more than one investigator on the project and the first-named CI/PI is no longer eligible to hold the grant, approval can be sought for the role of lead investigator to be taken on by one of the remaining investigators. Before this can happen, the institution must seek advice from the project team as to how the project will proceed without the skills and expertise of the departing CI/PI. Sometimes the loss can be covered by the combined expertise of the remaining investigators and other project personnel, but usually this is not the case and an eligible replacement needs to be identified and appointed to the team. As a general rule, the following information is required by the funding body in order to approve a new lead CI/PI and/or a replacement investigator.

A letter from the departing investigator advising the reason(s) for the request.
A letter from one of the existing CIs/PIs seeking approval to take over as lead investigator.
A letter from the replacement investigator, together with curriculum vitae and track record, requesting approval to become an investigator on the grant.
Written agreement to the request from all named investigators, collaborators, and partner organisations.
A letter from the administering institution supporting the request.

Depending on the scheme, it may be possible for the departing researcher to change his/her status to that of a Partner Investigator. You need to refer to the scheme funding rules and funding agreement/conditions of award to see if this is possible.

Relinquishment of grant. If none of the above solutions are available, regrettably the grant will have to be relinquished. Advise the funding body and provide them with a final report and a statement of financial acquittal.

Activity

Case study: Professor Stupendous wins a Laureate Fellowship (this is an extension of the Safeguarding the Murray–Darling case study)

Halfway through the ARC Linkage – Projects grant, the lead investigator, Professor Stupendous, is delighted to learn that his application for a prestigious ARC Laureate Fellowship has been successful. The application was lodged through a different university, i.e. not the university administering Safeguarding the Murray–Darling Basin. After the initial euphoria, he realises that he needs to re-assess how his changed circumstances will affect the management of this large project. Should he apply to take the grant with him?

The grant employs a number of postdocs, technical staff, and research assistants, as well as providing training to several PhD students. (He is principal supervisor of one of the students – will this be a problem?) He must consider what is best for the project, and he must make sure his Partner Organisations agree with the decisions he makes. He has to consider:

Will his changed status have any impact on the budget? His current institution is providing in-kind support to the project, beyond Professor Stupendous's salary component. In particular, the university has agreed to provide the services of a statistician. If he moves his grant to the second university, will the current university continue to support the project in this way?
His re-location means that he will no longer be in the same regional area as most of the researchers or the major Partner Organisation, Cozinca. How will this affect the overall management of the project?
If any of the Partner Organisations are unhappy with the proposed changes, would they want to withdraw support from the project?

What would you do if you were Professor Stupendous? Make some notes on what you think his strategy should be and bring them to the workshop.

Read the commentary on these questions:

Professor Stupendous wins a Laureate Fellowship: Case study explanation/commentary.

The ARC Linkage – Projects provides advice in the Funding Agreement about the mechanics of changing personnel or transferring a grant to a second institution. Refer to Clauses 15 and 16. The Agreement can be accessed on-line at: http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/LP11_fundingagreement.pdf

He must first decide whether he should remain as first-named investigator, taking the grant with him to his new institution, or whether the best interests of the project would be served by reversing roles with Professor Prolific, currently second-named investigator. In this way the project would remain at the current institution.

The decisions that need to me made about the future of the project must include all stakeholders – that is, the ARC and all signatories to the Partner Organisation Agreement. Professor Stupendous's first action should be to meet and discuss all options with his research team and representatives of his Partner Organisations, remembering to keep the Research Office advised of the outcome of the meeting.

If the grant is to be transferred, then a new Partner Organisation Agreement must be entered into by all parties, with the agreement of the ARC and the current institution. If the grant remains at the current institution, then Professor Stupendous's new university will need to become a party to the original agreement.

If a Partner Organisation were to withdraw its support from the project, under the Funding Agreement with the ARC the administering institution must find a replacement. If they cannot find another organisation willing to fund the grant to the same level, then the university is in breach of its agreement with the ARC, and the ARC may terminate the grant.

To summarise, when the lead CI/PI moves to a new institution a grant will require modification. Make sure you understand the university's contractual obligations, apprise all stakeholders of the potential impact on the grant, and seek advice from the Research Office. Don't delay! Act as soon as you can so that the project does not lose momentum.

At your University

(Note that on the final subtopic page of each topic, the Next > link in the navigation bar below returns you to the first page for this topic, so you can review the topic as a whole and complete any activities listed there before moving on to the next topic via the Organiser page.)

Module 6: Grant and Contract Administration