RAxMI Research Administration Conference

U-M’s inaugural conference to elevate and advance research administration

April 28, 2026 • Michigan Union • Free and open to all U-M employees

Overview

Schedule

Speakers

Posters

Posters

All Things No Cost Extensions. The ORSP No-Cost Extension (NCE) Hub provides a single, coordinated pathway for processing NCE requests and amendments across U‑M research agreements—including grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and OTAs—improving speed, consistency, and sponsor compliance. As research timelines shift and sponsor requirements grow more complex, a structured, centralized approach helps ensure uninterrupted project support, clearer visibility for research teams and administrators, and reduced rework by routing each request to the appropriate ORSP group in eRPM. The Hub streamlines intake and coordination between the ORSP AMO Team and ORSP Contracts Team, supports engagement with thousands of sponsor types across the federal, nonprofit, industry, and other sectors, and results in a fully executed amendment and updated institutional record.

1. All Things No Cost Extensions

Patrick Case, Award Management Officer, Office of Research and Sponsored Projects

2. Backstage to Frontline: Collaborative Communication in the PAF Odyssey

Pre-Award Team, Office of Research and Sponsored Projects

Creating, Evaluating, and Improving a Compliance Program in Research. The University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) Controlled Substances Monitoring Program was established in 2015 to provide centralized oversight of controlled substances (CS) used in research and to help ensure faculty and staff can obtain, store, and use CS in compliance with institutional, state, and federal requirements across all research contexts (including animal, clinical, archival, and in vitro). The program launched by creating a dedicated oversight structure, developing baseline processes and training, and implementing a research registration and monitoring approach that supports safe practices, accurate recordkeeping, secure storage, and appropriate disposal. Program evaluation over time has focused on registrant participation, internal findings of noncompliance (e.g., licensing, storage, address, security, and recordkeeping), and the impact of outreach and training on improving compliance and faculty/staff engagement. As the program evolved, key lessons emerged about scaling a compliance program within a large, cross-disciplinary institution: resources, volume and variety of items, and differences in regulatory expectations across research contexts all shape implementation and outcomes. Looking ahead, planned improvements include expanded electronic recordkeeping for non-clinical research, consideration of automated dispensing cabinets, and enhanced training strategies to strengthen stewardship, reduce risk, and sustain a program that is continually evaluated and improved.

3. Creating, Evaluating, and Improving a Compliance Program in Research

Joshua West, Research Compliance Specialist Senior, Controlled Substances in Research Monitoring Program, Office of the Vice President for Research

Disclosure: When, Where, Why and How. Intellectual property (IP) is a creation of the mind—including data—that is protected by law and owned by its creators; it can be bought, sold, valued, or shared. In a research setting, disclosures should be considered early—often before proposals, publications, presentations, or reports—because public disclosure and sponsor terms can affect whether protection is possible, and federally funded projects may require disclosure within specific timeframes. At U‑M, Innovation Partnerships is the primary “where” for submitting an invention disclosure and getting guidance on next steps, including assessing whether “work for hire” applies, whether the invention arose under a sponsored project, and how “march‑in rights” may factor into government-funded innovations. Disclosure supports compliance with key regulations and policies (including Bayh‑Dole and related federal requirements) and helps determine the best protection strategy—patent, copyright, trademark, or trade secret—along with timelines for provisional/non‑provisional filings, prior art review, publication, and office action responses. Overall, early, accurate disclosure enables appropriate protection, licensing, and collaboration decisions, clarifies inventor roles and responsibilities, and positions innovations for responsible dissemination and impact.

4. Disclosure: When, Where, Why and How

Eva Ruff, Research Administrator Intermediate, Department of Radiology, Michigan Medicine

5. Don’t Do It Yourself! Getting Guidance on NIH & Clinical Trials Reporting Policies

Sara Samuel, Senior Associate Librarian, University of Michigan Library
Emily Fleming, Regulatory Specialist, Office of Regulatory Affairs, U-M Medical School

6. EdM: Streamlining the Challenges for Graduate Education Data and Reporting

Isaac Roussel, Educational Systems Manager for the Office of Training Grant Support, Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, U-M Medical School

eRPM AWD Setup. Award setup is a coordinated handoff between ORSP, the Shared Services Center (SSC), and Sponsored Programs to ensure a fully executed award becomes an accurate, usable financial structure. ORSP receives the executed award and creates the AWD record in eRPM, confirming key dates and funding; the AWD then moves to the SSC, which creates the project/grant (P/G) and associated shortcode(s) based on ORSP-entered information. Sponsored Programs reviews financial terms and compliance items in the award/proposal documentation, loads the budget, and provides the information needed to activate the account, after which the SSC creates chartfields and notifies the project team that setup is complete. Clear role definition supports efficiency and data integrity: ORSP can add funds and change dates on the AWD record in eRPM and approve UG requests, while Sponsored Programs can update the SAPOC in the financial system, make certain changes to the P/G, and establish a voluntary cost share shortcode. The workflow also accounts for unique cases such as restricted carryforward—where restrictions drive creation of a new P/G and shortcode—and participant support, which is identified in the budget and set up in restricted sub-P/Gs to keep participant support activity separate and compliant.

7. eRPM AWD Setup

Joey Burns, Senior Award Management Officer, Office of Research and Sponsored Projects

From Clicks to Clarity: Redesigning the ORSP Website Experience. The ORSP website redesign, “From Clicks to Clarity,” modernizes the site to improve security, efficiency, accessibility, and overall usability while aligning content with best practices in web design and user experience. The project is informed by data and user needs through interviews, a working-group assessment, focus groups, and benchmarking, enabling ORSP to evaluate existing content against analytics and what users most need to find and do. Key improvements include a more modern, easier-to-navigate experience; fewer pages supported by clearer in-page navigation; a new sponsored project lifecycle graphic and an expandable lifecycle menu; a filterable training section; and filterable lists of forms and checklists, along with redirects and consolidation for retired or redundant pages. The anticipated launch window is May–June 2026.

8. From Clicks to Clarity: Redesigning the ORSP Website Experience

Jessica Harper, Manager, Research Administration Communications, Office of Research and Sponsored Projects

Getting to Know the Research Data Stewardship Initiative. The Research Data Stewardship Initiative (RDSI) supports U‑M researchers in managing and sharing research data to increase the transparency, rigor, and impact of academic research. RDSI advances coordinated campus communication and education, develops resources and services, and helps align institutional approaches to data stewardship across disciplines in partnership with OVPR and many other units. The initiative maintains a central resource hub with guidance, funding and policy updates, and tools that help researchers and units meet evolving expectations for data management, sharing, and public access. A key foundation is U‑M’s Research Data Stewardship Policy (SPG 303.06), effective January 1, 2024, which clarifies institutional responsibilities for stewardship and access to U‑M–generated research data while supporting appropriate security, compliance, and responsible reuse. Current and future work includes improving data de‑identification and data services, strengthening campus outreach and community-building, supporting research continuity and data retention, and enhancing the RDSI website to make data stewardship guidance easier to find and apply. The RDSI timeline highlights major milestones from early U‑M data initiatives (2016) through public access and resource development efforts (2019), the RDSI launch and related campus programs and awards (2022), and continued policy and stewardship program expansion (2023 and beyond).

9. Getting to Know the Research Data Stewardship Initiative

Jess Peirson, Deputy Research Integrity Officer, Director – Research Integrity Office

Negotiating Payment Terms in Clinical Trial Budget Development: The Role of Quality Assurance. Integrating payment-term negotiations into clinical trial budget development can reduce start-up delays and improve financial and operational clarity for industry-sponsored oncology trials. At the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, the Oncology Clinical Trials Support Unit (O-CTSU) identified through internal quality assurance review that sequential budgeting and contracting workflows—combined with complex protocols, frequent amendments, intensive monitoring requirements, and varied treatment durations—contributed to restrictive or inconsistent payment terms, incomplete budgets, and misaligned sponsor expectations that slowed study start-up. This initiative evaluates the impact of conducting budget and payment-term negotiations together, with a focus on start-up timelines, negotiation efficiency, and reduced administrative burden for research and contracting teams. By addressing invoicing schedules, milestone payments, and holdbacks in parallel with budget negotiations, the integrated approach improves communication with sponsors, supports more predictable cash flow, strengthens collaboration between stakeholders, and streamlines study initiation while maintaining fiscal responsibility and transparency; standardized guidance on key budget and contract terms further helps ensure appropriate cost coverage, align terms with protocol requirements and patient care needs, and ultimately enables teams to focus on high-quality clinical care and advancing clinical research.

10. Negotiating Payment Terms in Clinical Trial Budget Development: The Role of Quality Assurance

Cindy Grau, Research Administrator Lead, Oncology Clinical Trials Support Unit

Preserving Scholarly Works in U-M’s Institutional Repositories: Deep Blue Documents and Deep Blue Data. Deep Blue Documents and Deep Blue Data are the University of Michigan’s institutional repositories for preserving and sharing scholarly outputs across all disciplines and all three campuses (Ann Arbor, Dearborn, and Flint). Deep Blue Documents is designed for human‑readable scholarly and creative works—such as articles, posters, presentations, and book chapters—while Deep Blue Data supports machine‑readable research data, including experimental, observational, qualitative, and simulation datasets. Using Deep Blue helps researchers make work discoverable, stable, and citable over the long term, often in ways that align with publisher and funder requirements, and it is free to use with support from real people who can help with deposits, metadata, and data curation.

11. Preserving Scholarly Works in U-M’s Institutional Repositories: Deep Blue Documents and Deep Blue Data

Joanna Thielen, Team Lead and Data Curation Specialist for Science and Engineering, U-M Library
Molly Hirst, Data Curation Specialist for Health Sciences, U-M Library

RAAC Communications Subcommitee. The RAAC Communications Subcommittee plans and delivers the Research Administrators Network (RAN) meetings, assesses the communication methods used across U‑M research administration, and recommends best practices by topic, purpose, and channel to strengthen how information is shared. The subcommittee also works to develop improved systems that support robust, consistent, and effective communications across the research administration community. Notable accomplishments include strong engagement in RAN programming (300+ average attendees across three meetings per year) and sustained community-building through virtual networking sessions (80+ average attendees from 2021–2026), as well as creating informational resources for units and launching a Slack-based RA forum to connect colleagues, share tools, and circulate opportunities. Research administrators interested in getting involved or learning more can explore RAN meeting information and join the RA Forum on Slack using the posted links/QR codes.

12. RAAC Communications Subcommittee

Becky Youmans DeMoss, Research Process Senior Manager, Pediatric & Communicable Diseases, U-M Medical School

RAAC Metrics Subcommitee. The RAAC Metrics Subcommittee supports the research administration community by helping users access and apply research administration data to meet strategic and operational needs. The group focuses on enabling colleagues to identify the reporting information they need, understand where to find reporting resources, and learn how to use available tools and datasets, while also advocating for the best possible availability and user experience of those resources. Notable accomplishments include developing 40+ reports and visualizations in BusinessObjects and Tableau for research administrators, creating a comprehensive web page that consolidates research administration data tools and resources, and building an AI “Maizey” prompt to help users quickly locate RAAC Metrics reports and dashboards. The subcommittee also responds to emerging data needs across U‑M research administration—such as those driven by policy changes—and invites colleagues to learn more through the posted RAAC Metrics Maizey prompt and Data Resources Page links/QR codes.

13. RAAC Metrics Subcommittee

Melissa Milligan, Manager of Research Administration II, LSA Finance

RAAC Process Subcommittee. The RAAC Process Subcommittee works to identify and promote improvements to research administration processes that benefit the Research Administration community, spanning pre-award, post-award, and related compliance activities. The subcommittee also serves as a resource to central offices by providing targeted input and intermediate feedback on initiatives that affect day-to-day research administration work. Notable accomplishments include developing seven documents that clarify research administration roles and responsibilities, providing ongoing business process guidance on eResearch Proposal Management changes, leading efforts to create an electronic subrecipient invoice approval process, and conducting a comprehensive review of the project financial closeout process. Research administrators who want to get involved, suggest process improvements, or learn more can use the posted links/QR codes to access resources on roles and responsibilities and the eRPM replacement project.

14. RAAC Process Subcommittee

Anne Thomson, LSA Director of Research and Compliance, LSA Dean: Dean’s OfficeMolly Hirst, Data Curation Specialist for Health Sciences, U-M Library

RAAC Training Subcommittee. The RAAC Training Subcommittee inventories and assesses training programs available within and beyond the U‑M research administration community, conducts needs analyses to identify training gaps, recommends new training, and contributes directly to the development of new learning opportunities delivered through multiple formats. Notable accomplishments include supporting more than 10 years of Navigate’s Research Administration Fundamentals training, engaging 225+ participants through the Research Administration Mentoring Program (RAMP), developing a research administrator onboarding checklist to assist managers and new staff, and continuing to expand the Navigate training catalog across instructor-led sessions, e-learning, and webinars. Research administrators who want to learn more or get involved can use the posted links/QR codes to explore Navigate trainings and workshops as well as professional organizations and certification pathways.

15. RAAC Training Subcommittee

Melissa Li, Research Administration Manager, Orthopaedic Surgery, U-M Medical School

Resources for Hiring Research Administrators. The U‑M Human Resources Talent Acquisition Bootcamp is a training program designed to help hiring teams strengthen inclusive, evidence-based recruiting and hiring practices through a deep dive into each stage of the process. Participants learn strategies and tools that increase consistency and objectivity, and they apply practical solutions to real, current hiring challenges. The bootcamp’s benefits include improving hiring outcomes across an organization, supporting skill-based and standardized decision-making, providing access to resources for continuous process improvement, and building leadership capabilities. Interested teams can register for upcoming sessions via the link/QR code (myumi.ch/uhr-TA-Bootcamp) or contact UHR Talent Acquisition (Angela Benke: acz@umich.edu; Alicia Baker: balicia@umich.edu).

16. Resources for Hiring Research Administrators

Angela Benke, Director of Talent Acquisition, University Human Resources, Talent Acquisition
U-M Talent Acquisition Team

Supporting Grant Operations at Small Colleges: The GUIDE Series Experience. The University of Michigan–Flint Office of Research developed the GUIDE Series (Grant Understanding and Instruction for Departmental Excellence) to strengthen grant operations in small-college environments where centralized staffing is limited and external funding activity is growing. Since 2019, UM‑Flint’s grant activity has increased substantially—yearly awards rising from 29 to 46 and proposals submitted increasing from 39 to 93 per fiscal year—driving the need for practical, scalable training in grant processes, compliance, and day-to-day departmental support. GUIDE launched with an introductory session offered once each academic term for department administrators, emphasizing core grant management concepts, U‑M tools, and hands-on examples; early sessions focused on Fundamentals (including distinctions between internal vs. external funding and gifts vs. grants) and Lifecycle & Tools (grant lifecycle from funding search through closeout, with M‑Reports training). Ongoing development is aimed at proactive error detection, reducing administrative burden through stronger documentation and fewer corrections, streamlining procurement by clarifying sponsor and funder guidelines, and sustaining knowledge so expertise remains within departments despite staff turnover. Expected outcomes include expanding topics based on participant needs (e.g., training on Uniform Guidance, monitored costs, common purchasing pitfalls, gift cards/incentives, additional pay, expense processing, helpful reports, indirect costs, and journal entries), improving post-session participation and feedback, and using participant Q&A to collaboratively shape future sessions; this initiative is supported by a SURGE award from NSF’s GRANTED program.

17. Supporting Grant Operations at Small Colleges: The GUIDE Series Experience

Jennifer Klimowicz, Research Administrator Intermediate, U-M-Flint Office of Research
Joanne DeVore, Research Administrator Senior, U-M-Flint Office of Research
Sarah Baker, Research Administrator Intermediate, U-M-Flint Office of Research

18. Training Grant Support: Meeting the Need for Timely, Effective Support for Submitting and Maintaining NIH Institutional Training Grants

Tina Creguer, Associate Director, Training Grant Support, Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, U-M Medical School
Inah Ko, Evaluation Specialist, U-M Medical School
Isaac Roussel, Educational Systems Manager for the Office of Training Grant Support, Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, U-M Medical School
Jessica Schwartz, Professor Emerita of Molecular and Integrative Physiology, Medical School, U-M Medical School

U-M as Single IRB – Best Practice, Compliance and Quality. U‑M’s Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) supports effective single IRB (sIRB) review through aligned policies, targeted training, and ongoing QA/QI oversight, with collaborative efforts that standardize IRB processes, forms, and workflows to ensure consistent, compliant multi-site research. As the sIRB, U‑M centralizes review and oversight across participating sites—including protocol and consent review, site approvals, and ongoing compliance monitoring—and encourages study teams to submit early (typically 6–8 weeks before deadlines), using study-wide (non–site-specific) documents while addressing site-specific materials and local context within site applications. Coordinated Services and Practices and the Office of Research Compliance Review conduct reviews and audits of sIRB studies to confirm adherence to policies and regulations, and use findings to strengthen guidance, training, and consultation support for multi-site teams. Key challenges in sIRB work include gathering and managing site-specific information, navigating local context requirements, establishing reliance agreements, and onboarding and educating study teams. To optimize sIRB review, U‑M IRBs have implemented the SMART IRB platform and master contractual relationships, adopted two-part consent forms, developed harmonized workflows across U‑M IRBs, created tools and guidance, and expanded 1:1 consultations and training to support research teams.

19. U-M as Single IRB – Best Practice, Compliance and Quality

Lana Gevorkyan, Director, Coordinated Services, Practices and Strategic Partnerships, U-M Human Research Protection Program (HRPP)
Kate Sasamoto, Associate Director, HRPP
Nicole Robson, sIRB Team Lead and QA/QI Specialist
Mary Donnelly, Senior Research Compliance Specialist, Health Sciences and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB-HSBS)

U-M Research Administration Degree Program. The University of Michigan–Dearborn Research Administration (RA) Degree Program, launching in 2026, is a bachelor’s-level pathway designed to strengthen the research administration workforce by developing students’ domain knowledge, critical thinking skills, and practical experience needed to contribute across the RA ecosystem. Developed for students who have already earned some college credits and are ready to complete their degree with a focused professional curriculum, the program combines nine core/major courses and a minor—covering topics such as introduction to research administration, communication and writing, ethics and accountability, organizational development and structure, accounting and finance, legal and regulatory frameworks, project management, and an internship—along with networking events, required internship experiences, and guest lectures that connect students with working professionals. The program responds to growing demand for RA talent and the need for clearer, more intentional career pathways into roles that support the full research lifecycle, including central sponsored projects offices, contracting, compliance, research security, and related functions. Graduates will be prepared to communicate effectively with diverse stakeholders, understand organizational structures, apply ethical and regulatory standards, use accounting principles to support research lifecycles, and collaborate and innovate in research settings. The Office for Research Administration Strategy will coordinate the internship experience, and units are invited to help develop the next generation of research administrators by serving as internship hosts, speaking or participating on panels, joining student networking events, and exploring additional partnership opportunities via the QR code/contact provided.

20. U-M Research Administration Degree Program

Tiffany Brutus, Ph.D., Associate Director, Office for Research Administration Strategy
Joseph Fraley, Policy and Planning Analyst, Office of Research and Sponsored Projects

21. Unlocking Innovation: How U-M Innovation Partnerships Supports Faculty and Research Administrators

Raymond Cluckey, Assistant Director, Corporate and Foundation Research Support, Innovation Partnerships
Ashwathi Iyer, Associate Director, Software, Content Licensing and Research Partnerships, Innovation Partnerships

Unlocking Non-Federal Philanthropy: CFR Resources for Research Administrators, Faculty and Staff. The University of Michigan Corporate and Foundation Relations (CFR) team partners with internal stakeholders and external funders to secure philanthropic support for projects, programs, and research that advance innovation, serve communities and patients, and address critical societal challenges. CFR serves as a strategic resource by providing funding counsel to faculty and staff, communicating philanthropic opportunities, coordinating a seamless web of relationships across U‑M, and building cohesion within complex funder partnerships with organizations such as the Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Pew, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Ford, and others. Through this coordinated approach, CFR helps connect U‑M priorities with funder interests and, at roughly $150M in submissions annually, plays a vital role in supporting the university’s mission.

22. Unlocking Non-Federal Philanthropy: CFR Resources for Research Administrators, Faculty and Staff

Joe Piffaretti, Senior Executive Director, Corporate and Foundation Relations

23. Virtues of the RACC-CRA Certification

Brianna Galli, Research Administrator Intermediate, Medical School Grant Services & Analysis