How is internal approval supported in Worktribe?
The standard route is shown below, however some Departments / Divisions may have opted to include an additional internal approval step.
Faculty Approval forms part of internal approval, and will be automatically requested if the ‘FEC Recovery’ (price as proportion of cost) or the ‘Contribution to Overheads’ is below minimum levels for the Funder (see table below). Proposals above defined values (default £3m) will also escalate to Faculties.
Faculty Escalation Logic
|Industry, Commerce and Public Corporations||Escalated if recovery <100%||Escalated if contribution < 30%|
|Research Councils, UK Government Bodies / Local Health & Hospital Authorities||Escalated if recovery <70%||Escalated if contribution < 30%|
|Non EU Other and Other Sources||Escalated if recovery <100%||Escalated if contribution < 15%|
|EU Government Bodies and EU Other||No escalation logic||Escalated if contribution < 15%|
|Charities (Open competitive process)||No escalation logic||No escalation logic|
|Charities (Other)||Always escalate||No escalation logic|
Faculty Approval will also be sought for proposals where the Principal Investigator is the Head of Department / Division Director. This process is not currently automatic in Worktribe, so is managed by Research Services.
All relevant approvers (including delegates) will receive system email notifications of projects awaiting approval. Alternatively approvers may view projects assigned to them within Worktribe, under status ‘Projects Assigned to Me’, or by clicking on Notifications. From 17th October 2016, Worktribe will be accessible to all staff anywhere, anytime via the Research Services website using Single Sign-on.
Research Services has developed a series of short videos for approvers, which are hosted by Mediacentral and accessible via Worktribe or the Research Services website. To access these videos you must be logged in to Mediacentral and ensure that playback is set to "HD" quality.
- Departmental/ Divisional Manager approval
- HoD/ Divisional Director approval
- Faculty Dean/Manager approval
Where to look in Worktribe?
Internal Approval is confirmation from the Head of Department(s) / Division Director(s) (or their delegates) of the viability and acceptability of a research proposal in terms of capacity & infrastructure, financial recovery, strategic fit, and ethical & regulatory requirements. As such, approvers may wish to review some or all of the following sections within the project record:
- Summary: can be selected to show ‘All’ or individual Departments / Divisions. The summary includes information of the FEC recovery (project Surplus / Deficit) and the Contribution to Overheads. It may also include a red or amber alert, recommending review of the risk assessment
- Details: high level project details including project description / abstract
- Budget: detailed budget breakdown
- Partners: details of any Collaborators, Subawardees, Partners and other relationships
- Documents: any project related documents e.g. case for support, application, supporting statements
- Proposal Risk Assessment: summary of responses, initially approvers may find it helpful to refer to the template questionnaire.
- Comments: Record of actions and decisions
Definition of key terms
|Cost to HEI||Full Economic Cost (FEC)|
|Cost to Funder||the FEC adjusted for Funder inflation rules|
|Price to Funder||the amount the funder will pay, if successful|
|FEC Recovery Surplus / Deficit||= Cost to HEI - Price to Funder|
|FEC Recovery %||= (Price to Funder / Cost to HEI)*100|
|Contribution to Overheads||= Price to Funder – Directly Incurred Costs|
|Contribution to Overheads %||= [(Price to Funder – Directly Incurred Costs) / Directly Incurred Costs]*100|
|Collaborator||co-applicant organisations applying directly to Funder|
|Subawardee||co-applicant organisations applying through UCL|
|Partner||organisations not in receipt of funding, but contributing in-kind, cash, or other|
This is a mandatory questionnaire held within Worktribe which consists of 12 ‘yes’ / ‘no’ questions designed to flag risk and capture key information to help support and inform Departmental and Divisional approval. Positive response to certain questions will flag a warning (red or amber) on the project summary page to alert Departmental / Divisional approvers, and subsequently Research Services
Red alert questions
- Infrastructure Needs: Does the project require: acquisition of new space, modifications to existing space, installation of equipment, creation of new buildings, other capital investment?
- Institutional Commitment: Does the project require any type of Institutional Commitment to be funded by UCL in addition to any standard FEC under-recovery? Examples could include matched funding for equipment, UCL funded studentships etc.
- Risk to Environment or Reputation: Is there any aspect of the project that could be perceived to breach social or cultural expectations of university research, or be considered otherwise environmentally or reputationally sensitive (including third party or funding relationships)?
- Human Participants, Tissue or Data: Does the project involve human participants, their tissue and / or their data (including data provided by third parties such as HSCIC)?
Amber alert questions
- Conflict of Interest: Does the project involve persons whom could be perceived as having a conflict of interest (e.g. an Investigator in receipt of an associated consultancy)?
- Material Transfer: Will the project require materials to be exchanged between project partners or collaborators, and / or imported from third parties?
- Intellectual Property: Will the project need access to non-UCL intellectual property, involve students, or generate new intellectual property?
No alert questions
- Overseas Research: Will any UCL-led research activity take place outside of the UK?
- Research Computing and Data Storage: Will the project necessitate access to high performance computing and / or is it likely to generate data > 1TB?
- Translational Research: Does the project include any element of translational research?
- Internal Peer Review: Has this proposal been through internal peer-review (or is the process of doing so)?
- Other comments: Are there any additional issues, risks, or requirements that you wish to flag at this stage?