|
|
 |
||||||||||
Procedures for Creating and Managing Research and Public Service ORPSUREG 10.10.4 October 9, 1995 Archived Version (Effective October 9, 1995 through January 8, 2007)Research Administration |
||||||||||||
|
Table 1. Criteria to be Satisfied Before a CIL will be Established |
|
a. A CIL's mission, goals, and objectives must be consistent with the general mission of, and provide a direct benefit to, the University. b. A CIL (particularly a Research CIL) must support a substantial educational component, especially at the graduate level. c. A CIL must have an identifiable group of faculty (primarily multidisciplinary) brought together to do research or perform public service in a common area of interest. d. While there may be some areas of overlap, a proposed CIL must not duplicate the research or public service function of existing CILs or the programs of existing departments, colleges and/or schools across UNC. e. A CIL must have a solid financial base, with identifiable funding for at least five years. f. If required, a CIL must be able to identify sources of cost matching or cost sharing funds. g. A CIL should attain goals not otherwise achievable by the efforts of individual faculty (space, equipment, etc.) or sponsors, have an integrating impact (where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts), and have a clear benefit to society. |
Note: It is an established procedure of NCSU that the approval of all newly formed CILs (and the appointment of its director) will be for a five (5) year period. Before the end of that period, a formal request to continue the CIL and reappoint the director must be made by the AD to the Vice Chancellor. This usually will be done in conjunction with the review procedures discussed below.
2.3.1a. Requesting Authorization to Plan
Faculty interested in creating a CIL will discuss, in general terms, all of the items listed in Table 1 with their appropriate department head(s) and dean(s).
If more than one college or school is substantially involved in the proposed CIL, the deans of those units will identify the AD and notify the Vice Chancellor in writing of the intention to request planning authorization for the CIL. With the approval of the AD, department heads and faculty may consult with the Coordinator about the planning process and requirements at any time during the planning period.
Note: If there is disagreement among the deans on one or more of the items in Table 1, or who will act as AD, that should be indicated in the intention notice. It is at this point in the planning process, before a formal request is forwarded, that the decision to continue the process will be made by the Vice Chancellor.
In consultation with appropriate department heads, the faculty involved in the proposed CIL will prepare a printed and disk copy draft of the body of a letter (in the format shown in Appendix A). The letter should include detailed statements about all of the items required in Table 2, and be forwarded, with department head's endorsement, to the AD's office for approval. If approved by all participating deans and department heads, the AD will forward the CIL proposal (and the disk-copy) to the Vice Chancellor requesting that planning authorization be sought.
Table 2. Items Required in the Letter Requesting Authority to Plan a CIL (extracted from Memorandum 373)
a. The relationship of the CIL to the mission of NCSU or UNC.
b. An outline of the goals and objectives of the proposed CIL.
c. Why these goals and objectives cannot be achieved within the existing structure of NCSU or other CILs.
d. Information about any similar units that exist elsewhere in UNC and the state, and any proposed relationships with them.
e. Organizational structure [including the college(s) involved and the advisory committee(s) required].
f. The departmental and college and/or school makeup of the faculty to be involved (including the name of the proposed director).
g. A statement about the graduate training to be accomplished in the proposed CIL.
h. The sources, amounts, and duration of funds required to initiate and sustain the research or public service function, if authorized [should be for at least five (5) years].
i. The identification of required matching or cost sharing funds.
j. Space and capital equipment requirements.
The initial review of the proposal will be conducted internally within RGS under the direction of the Coordinator and, if necessary, the proposal will be sent back to the AD for revision. When approved internally, the proposal will be forwarded to the Research Operations Council Executive Committee (ROCEC) for review and comment. If a major revision to the proposal is required after the ROCEC review, the Coordinator will resubmit it to the ROCEC for final review. After final review by the ROCEC, the Vice Chancellor will consult with the Coordinator and decide whether to continue. With a favorable decision, the Vice Chancellor will submit the proposal to the OP formally requesting Authorization to Plan the CIL. An unfavorable decision will be communicated in writing by the Vice Chancellor to the AD.
Upon receipt by the Vice Chancellor of the OP's decision concerning the proposed CIL, the Coordinator will forward the notification to the AD for distribution to the faculty involved.
2.3.1b. Requesting Authorization to Establish
The AD will be responsible for evaluating the continued potential of the CIL during the planning period and, in consultation with all participating department heads and deans, deciding if the proposed CIL should be established (using the criteria listed in Table 3).
Table 3. Criteria to be Satisfied Before Requesting Establishment of a Proposed CIL
a. Have CIL faculty been identified?
b. Has anticipated funding been committed for at least five (5) years?
c. Do the goals and objectives of the proposed CIL conflict with those of other established or planned CILs? If so, can the proposed CIL be absorbed into one of those CILs, or should all of the CILs be consolidated into one CIL?
d. Have resources required for matching funds or capital equipment been identified?
e. Are the capital resources required for establishment of the CIL available?
If these criteria are met, and all participating department heads and deans support the proposed CIL, the AD may obtain from the Coordinator a disk copy of the draft Charter (and Bylaws and Membership Agreement when appropriate) contained in Appendix B, and have the faculty involved prepare a printed and disk copy draft of the Charter (and Bylaws, and Membership Agreement, if required). The draft must include all of the items given in Table 4. The AD will forward these documents (with written endorsement from participating department heads and deans) to the Vice Chancellor, requesting the establishment of the CIL.
The Coordinator and the ROCEC will review these documents with the same procedures used in the planning phase, and the Coordinator will make recommendations to the Vice Chancellor. If establishment is supported by the Vice Chancellor, the final Charter (and Bylaws and Membership Agreement, as required) will be forwarded to the OP with a formal request for Authorization to Establish the CIL. If the decision is to discontinue planning, the Vice Chancellor will notify the AD and OP, in writing, of the decision.
Table 4. Items Required in the Charter Requesting Authority to Establish a CIL (extracted from Memorandum 373)
a. The name of the proposed CIL.
b. The specific mission, objectives, and goals of the proposed CIL.
c. The CIL’s relationship to or potential impact upon the existing academic departments, colleges and/or schools, and other CILs at the proposing institution.
d. The name of the proposed director, and a detailed description of any proposed advisory committees or directive boards.
e. Budget estimates for the first (1st) year of operation, projections for the following four (4) years, and anticipated sources of funding.
f. A description of immediate space needs, and realistic projections of future space needs.
g. A statement of other needs such as capital equipment and library resources.
h. A statement about anticipated effects of the proposed unit on the instructional programs of NCSU, and the provisions for advanced or graduate training or degree programs.
i. A description of the proposed CILs administrative structure, including an organizational chart showing the relationship of the proposed CIL to the existing organizations of NCSU and the internal organization of the proposed CIL.
j. Any additional information that may bear directly upon the proposal.
When the University is notified by the OP that the Board of Governors has approved establishment of an institutional CIL, the Coordinator will notify the AD, and the name of the nominated director will be forwarded by the AD to the Vice Chancellor for appointment. If an interinstitutional CIL has been approved for establishment, the Vice Chancellor will forward the name of proposed director to the OP for appointment by the UNC Board of Governors. The AD will supervise the start-up of the CIL.
2.3.2. Managing an Established CIL
Management of an established CIL is an oversight function with many facets and at several levels. Specifically, this management includes monitoring and reviewing CIL activities and plans through periodic contact (site visits, AC meetings, internal and external professional evaluations, etc.) and reporting (annual University and CIL written reports), modifying CIL activities and plans as required, or when warranted, disestablishing a CIL.
These elements are detailed below:
2.3.2a. CIL Reports
As a general rule, each CIL is required to submit annual reports to RGS, to granting agencies, and to ADs. The RGS report will be submitted each October to the Coordinator for inclusion in the University’s report to the OP, using the format shown in Appendix C. To avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, participating deans are encouraged to incorporate the information from the formatted CIL report into their college and/or school report. Copies of all CIL reports will be sent to the Chancellor, Provost, other University administrators, and participating college and/or school deans and department heads, and to the OP with each revision of the NCSU long-range plan.
Note: Additional items or categories not included in the formatted report, that would be useful for the college and/or school reports, should be forwarded to the Coordinator for consideration.
2.3.2b. Periodic CIL Evaluations
Though circumstances may require an immediate review, normally each CIL and CIL director will be evaluated once every five (5) years, analogous to that required of departments and department heads. This evaluation may be made by an external review panel assembled by the Vice Chancellor, or by an internal review panel assembled by the AD, and may include a financial audit. Additional or more frequent audits or evaluations may be necessary if mandated by the Charter, Bylaws, or a funding agency.
There are three (3) possible kinds of evaluations that may be used in the review of a CIL:
(1) Financial audit. When required by the RGS, AD, or sponsor, a financial audit will be conducted by auditors selected by the RGS or sponsoring agency. When no external audit is required, an internal audit may be conducted by the NCSU Internal Audit Division.
Table 5. Criteria for the Professional Evaluation of an Established CIL
a. Is current funding of the CIL sufficient to continue its operation?
b. Are support, training, and graduation rates of students consistent with the CIL's stated goals and objectives?
c. Is faculty participation sufficient to continue CIL operations?
d. Is the quality of scholarly activity by faculty, professional staff, and students reflected in its output (publications, patents, copyrights, etc.)?
e. Do current operations of the CIL agree with the most recent Charter, goals, and objectives of the CIL? (Does it duplicate the efforts of other CILs?)
f. Does the financial audit and professional evaluation demonstrate that the CIL is being managed properly? (Were any serious problems discovered?)
g. Are required matching funds, start-up funds, or capital equipment still appropriate and available? (If the CIL was originally funded with finite-term [three (3) year, five (5) year, etc.] start-up funds from the University or other granting agencies, has it been able to attract sufficient outside funds to continue without additional institutional support?)
h. Is space required for operation of the CIL available?
i. Are the CIL clients being served?
(2) External professional evaluation. The functions and activities of CILs may be assessed by an external professional/technical review panel [of at least three (3) members] appointed by the Vice Chancellor from outside the University, college and/or school, or CIL. Nominations for this panel will be solicited from the AD, the director, and/or the Chairman of the AC. Some CILs, such as those funded by NASA, NOAA, and NSF [e.g., Engineering Research Center (ERC) or Industry/University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) or State/ IUCRC], usually satisfy this evaluation requirement, because these agencies normally require a CIL to submit renewal proposals every three (3) to five (5) years, and defend their performance annually at a site visit -- though their Charters (and Bylaws and Membership Agreements, if necessary) should be revised at least every five (5) years. All other CILs may be evaluated, using the criteria in Table 5.
(3) Internal evaluation. An AD may conduct an internal evaluation of a CIL at any time. This evaluation may be in response to a request by participating deans, department heads, or faculty to change the mission, goals, organization, or title of the CIL. The Vice Chancellor may also request that the AD conduct an internal evaluation in lieu of an external review, to satisfy the five (5) year review schedule. This review will follow the form and include the summary information described above for the external review.
2.3.2c. Outcomes of CIL Review
Upon completion of the review, the Coordinator will meet with the AD and other appropriate departmental personnel and recommend one of the following three possible courses of action to the Vice Chancellor:
(1) Continue the CIL. If the review demonstrates that the CIL continues to meet the established criteria, then the decision to reappoint the director and to make changes (if any) in the title, mission, goals, objectives or organization of the CIL will be made. An updated Charter (and Bylaws and Membership Agreement, as required) must be prepared using the format given in Appendix C. After the normal review described earlier, the revised Charter is forwarded by the Vice Chancellor to the OP. Normally, changes in the mission and goals will require approval by the UNC Board of Governors, though a simple title change may not.
(2) Combine with Existing CILs. If the review demonstrates that two or more CILs have similar specific missions and goals, then it may be decided to consolidate these CILs into a single unit. This will also require a new Charter (and Bylaws and Membership Agreement).
(3) Disestablish the CIL. If there is a loss of funding or key faculty, or the CIL is otherwise deemed to no longer be viable, or the mission, goals, or objectives of an established CIL are superseded by a new CIL, the decision may be made to disestablish a CIL. As outlined in Memorandum 373, a CIL recommended for disestablishment normally will have one (1) year in which to close down operations. This decision should not be made without the crucial involvement of the department head, who may have to make decision concerning positions, space, and/or support. The disestablishment request also will be forwarded to the OP by the Vice Chancellor.
2.3.2d. Information and Schedule for Evaluations
The Coordinator will work with the AD and director to set up either the two day external or internal panel review schedule, and to solicit summary information about the CIL to be given to the panel.
For either review, the summary should include:
a. List of current CIL faculty.
b. List of courses or other training offered (as appropriate) by the CIL.
c. Narrative description of the goals, objectives, and accomplishments of the CIL.
d. For the last five (5) years:
e. Detailed list of all CIL external grants and contracts (and for Membership Centers, a complete list of all Members).
f. Complete list of refereed and non-refereed publications for research done in or through the CIL.
Complete list of graduate students who have done their thesis and/or dissertation research at the CIL, showing all those who received financial support from the CIL, and their current status (showing their degree, and graduation date or their anticipated graduation date).
This summary, along with a copy of the Procedures and other relevant information from the RGS, will be sent to the panel at least one (1) month prior to their arrival.
Usually, the panel will arrive in the late afternoon or early evening the day prior to the review. An External panel will normally meet with the Vice Chancellor and Coordinator that evening to discuss the parameters of the review and the format of the final report, receive their charge, and ask background questions about the University, College(s) or School, the CIL, or the review process they are about to begin. An Internal review will normally proceed in the same manner, but the panel will meet with the AD and other appropriate deans. At the discretion of the AD, the Coordinator may be invited to attend this initial internal panel meeting.
Most of the first day of the either review will be spent at the CIL, touring the facilities, meeting individually with the director, each key staff member and the AD, and with groups of students and clients (as appropriate). The end of the first day will include University administrators and other deans or department heads who have a vested interest in the CIL.
The panel will meet in executive session most of the second day to discuss and outline their report and to decide how they will work together to produce the final report. Usually, at mid-afternoon in the second day of the review, the panel will discuss its preliminary findings and recommendations in separate meetings with the director, the AD, and the Vice Chancellor (for external reviews) and the Coordinator.
When the Vice Chancellor (or AD for internal review) has received the final report, he/she will send copies to the AD and the director and will schedule a meeting in which the Coordinator and the AD (and other participating deans, as appropriate) will discuss the review and decide upon future actions.
2.3.4e) Periodic Meetings with Directors
Periodically, directors of CILs and college and/or school research deans will meet as a group with the Vice Chancellor and the Coordinator. In addition, the Coordinator will meet individually with each CIL director at least one (1) time per year. These meetings will address items of mutual concern, with the objective of enhancing coordination and communications between CIL directors, research deans, the Coordinator, and the Vice Chancellor.
3. NCSU CONSORTIA
3.1. General Discussion
The consortia governed by these Procedures are those that require written approval by the Vice Chancellor and, in general, require a contractual arrangement between members of the consortium and the University. For all practical purposes, a consortium will be structured in a similar manner to a CIL, but usually for a fixed period of time [e.g., one (1) to five (5) years] and usually with a more limited scope than a OP approved CIL.
3.1.1. Membership Consortia
Membership Consortia are structurally and functionally very similar to Membership CILs. Each must have common Bylaws and a Membership Agreement; companies pay annual fixed or periodically assessed fees; and each has an AC. Often, a Membership CIL, which has been approved for planning by the OP, will be set up during the two (2) year planning period as an interim Membership Consortium to enable it to attract the industrial members.
3.1.2. Consortia Performing Service Testing
These consortia are usually set up to perform specific proprietary service testing of a specific class of products, and each test usually requires a separate contract between the University and the consortium member requesting the service.
3.1.3. Consortia with other Universities
The structure of these consortia is very diverse. Though a consortium may not involve actual contractual obligations between institutions, or with private or government entities outside the consortium, faculty or administrators at this University wishing to set up a consortium with several other universities and/or government agencies, must get approval from the Vice Chancellor.
3.1.4. Consortia within CILs
Under very limited circumstances, an established CIL may be given permission to form a consortium within an established CIL. Usually, this is permitted only for a non-membership CIL, where the mission of the consortium is consistent with that of the umbrella CIL and in no way conflicts with any agreements the CIL may have with the University or other corporate or government sponsors.
3.2. Responsibilities
3.2.1. Vice Chancellor for Research, Outreach and Extension
The Vice Chancellor has been delegated the responsibility to approve establishment of consortia. The Vice Chancellor has delegated day-to-day oversight to the Coordinator.
3.2.2. College and School Deans and Department Heads
As is the case for a CIL, administrative oversight of a consortium will rest solely with a single NCSU college or school dean (also referred to as AD). If more than one college and/or school is involved, the AD will normally come from the college or school that provides the greatest resources. All requests to establish a consortium will be coordinated through the AD's office. Oversight responsibilities may be delegated, and the AD must include department heads and other deans (as appropriate) in all phases of the establishment and the management of consortia.
The AD will have the responsibility of ensuring that consortium financial accounts are properly maintained, and generally will have the overall responsibility of monitoring the status and performance of each consortium under the AD's administrative oversight.
3.2.3. The Director and Advisory Committee
All consortia must have a director (or chairperson) and at least one (1) AC -- Membership Consortia will have at least two (2) ACs. The specific duties of the director and AC(s) may vary according to the goals and objectives of the consortium, but will be fully explained in the Bylaws.
The director must provide leadership to the consortium, and has first line responsibility for:
a. All personnel.
b. Ensuring that research is conducted consistent with the consortium's mission and goals; for seeing that all required reports are submitted as required.
c. Ensuring all agreements are met.
Directors normally will be chosen from the program through which the consortium has evolved and will be heavily involved in the planning process. In most instances, the logical candidate will be one of the principal investigators whose continued leadership would best contribute to the consortium's success.
The AC has only advisory responsibilities to the consortium and gives immediate assistance to the director and to the AD in the form of recommendations. It is the AC chair’s responsibility to see that the deliberations of the AC are detailed in the minutes. The Coordinator and representatives of the participating college(s) and/or school, should be invited to, and should attend, on-site AC meetings.
3.3. Creating and Managing Consortia
3.3.1. Creating a Consortium
Creating a consortium is a one step process requested by the AD to the Vice Chancellor. Faculty interested in establishing a consortium will discuss, in general terms, the mission, structural plan, faculty and industrial participants (as appropriate) of the proposed consortium with their appropriate department head(s) and dean(s). With the approval of the dean(s) and department head(s), the faculty may consult with the Coordinator about the procedures and processes they will need to follow to establish the consortium. Membership Consortia will use as models, the CIL Bylaws and Membership Agreement contained in Appendix B.
Criteria for establishment of a consortium are almost identical with those for a CIL, and are given below in Table 6.
The initial review of the proposal will be conducted internally within the RGS under the direction of the Coordinator. Particularly with Membership Consortia, the initial review will likely involve expanded meetings of the faculty and research dean(s) with representatives from Office of Sponsored Programs and Regulatory Compliance (SPARCS), the Office of Technology Transfer (OTT), and the NCSU Legal Office.
|
Table 6. Criteria to be Satisfied Before a Consortium will be Established |
|
a. A consortium's mission, goals, and objectives must be consistent with the general mission of, and provide a direct benefit to the University. b. A Research consortium must support a substantial educational component, especially at the graduate level. c. A consortium must have an identifiable group of faculty brought together to do research in a common area of interest. d. While there may be some areas of overlap, a proposed consortium must not duplicate the research of existing CILs, consortia, or the programs of existing departments, college and/or schools. e. A consortium must have a solid financial base, with identifiable funding for the full term of its projected existence. f. A consortium should attain goals not otherwise achievable by the efforts of individual faculty (space, equipment, etc.), have an integrating impact (where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts), and have a clear benefit to society. |
After the internal review is complete, the AD will get approval of the planned consortium by all participating department heads, and forward the final consortium proposal to the Vice Chancellor, requesting that the consortium be established. When approved by the Vice Chancellor, the AD will supervise establishment of the consortium.
3.3.2. Managing Consortia
Management of an established consortium is an oversight function with very few of the facets used for OP-approved CILs. As outlined in the responsibilities section above, the prime oversight responsibility of a consortium rests with the AD. Disestablishment of a consortium normally will be in accordance with the timetable prescribed by the establishment authorization. If warranted, the Vice Chancellor and/or the AD may initiate an internal review of a consortium prior to that date, and in the rare instance where a consortium must be terminated for cause, the disestablished decision will be the responsibility of the Vice Chancellor.
4. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Many terms defined in this document have different meanings for university and college administrators, faculty, and ORPSU directors. This glossary is included in this document to standardize these definitions for the benefit of all persons involved in the creation and management of ORPSU.
4.1. Definitions of Centers, Institutes, Laboratories, and Consortia
A general description of what differentiates centers from institutes, laboratories and consortia is included in this document to provide guidance in the designation of a proposed ORPSU. Not all existing CILs conform to these definitions, but future designations should be made using these definitions. Any of these CILs may be mandated by an act of Congress or the North Carolina State Legislature. Finally, Memorandum 373does not address the creation and management of Laboratories, and not all laboratories need to be created using these Procedures.
4.1.1. Institute
In general, an institute has a much larger-scale mission and set of goals and objectives than a center and usually involves a greater interinstitutional involvement of faculty. Usually, UNC-wide units are designated as institutes. If no comparable academic program exists at NCSU, it also may be authorized to offer academic degrees. An institute may create centers or programs as administrative units within its organization. If funding is given to an institute with the specification that it be used for a center, that center must be established as a separate unit of the institute using these Procedures and Administrative Memorandum 373.
4.1.2. Center
Some centers also have interinstitutional participation, but usually the scope of work done by a center is smaller than that of an institute. They should be multidisciplinary and may involve faculty in more than one department. Centers also, as much as possible, should be Membership Centers, and/or seek industrial support to maximize technology transfer.
4.1.3. Laboratory
The main function that separates a laboratory from the other two CILs is the degree of specific service that it performs. Usually, a laboratory has specialized equipment which is used to provide a specific service to a “customer” (which may be a company, institution, or individual) who needs the specific service provided by the laboratory. A laboratory may also be a member CIL (see definition below), providing its service is mainly to that clientele, or it may provide “walk-in” service to anyone.
4.1.4. Consortium
A consortium requires establishment approval only of the Vice Chancellor, but it will be structured in a similar manner to a CIL. Usually, a consortium is set up for a fixed period of time up to five (5) years and has a more limited mission than a OP approved CIL. Often, a Membership CIL, which has been approved for planning by the OP, will be set up during the two (2) year planning period as an interim Membership Consortium to prove it can attract the industrial members.
4.2. Membership ORPSU
Membership ORPSU derive the bulk of their research funds from fees or assessments paid by corporate or other private and governmental entities and deposited into a common core account. Membership CILs may have more than one class of membership (Member, Affiliate, etc.), each with a different set of fixed fees, responsibilities, and rights. Membership Consortia usually only have one type of membership. Each member in a single Membership ORPSU must have a common set of Bylaws and a Membership Agreement (cf. Appendix B) that clearly define these issues and the types of projects that may, or may not, be funded by the ORPSU.
Usually, members are entitled to a voting seat on the Industrial Advisory Board (IAB), or other such advisory committee (with duties as described earlier), and share equally in the results of any research funded from core and enhancement funds, while affiliates may not. Normally, Membership ORPSU will, in addition to the IAB, have an Academic Advisory Committee (or a committee of similar name) that has the responsibility of seeing that University policies are being followed, particularly with respect to training and education of graduate and undergraduate students.
To insure that ORPSU faculty obtain credit from their deans and department heads for ORPSU related research or public service, proposals submitted for internal funding by the Membership ORPSU, and the resulting awards and rejections, will follow normal University procedures. Only internal processing forms and abstracts, however, need to be submitted.
4.2.1. Internal Projects
Members of Membership ORPSU (with some exceptions) share equally in the results and intellectual properties of any core project funded from membership fees and of any enhancement project funded by 'extra funds' from members in addition to their membership fees. Core projects and three types of enhancement projects are described below:
4.2.1a. Core Projects
Core projects are funded from the core fund of membership agreement fees paid by ORPSU members, and require IAB and AD approval. Core projects to be funded for the next year normally are approved at the annual meeting of the IAB.
4.2.1b. Enhancement Projects
(1) Acceleration of core project. When CIL members want to provide additional funds specifically to enhance or accelerate a currently funded core project they may do so as an enhancement project. No further IAB approval is required.
(2) Funding of secondary core project. Sometimes, not all projects considered worthwhile by the IAB may be funded from the available pool of core funds. At their annual meeting, the IAB may, therefore, also approve a list of secondary core projects that can be initiated by the CIL director, without further IAB approval, when enhancement funds are provided by a member for that purpose.
(3) New projects. When, between IAB meetings, CIL members want to fund a project that was not considered or selected as a core project or as a secondary core project at the annual meeting, the new project must have IAB approval. The approval of new projects may be obtained by Telefax or mail balloting between IAB meetings, and if approved the new project would become an enhancement project.
Limited exclusive rights to any intellectual property resulting from core or enhancement funding (as detailed in the Membership Agreement) may be requested by a member, but approval must be obtained from the IAB and the University. Except in those instances involving limited exclusive rights, enhancement projects do not require additional approval of the IAB, though the director generally will keep the IAB informed.
Note: New projects are not to be confused with external projects.
4.2.2. External Projects
Under certain very limited circumstances, faculty in a Membership CIL (not usually allowed for a Membership Consortium) may conduct externally funded research that is separate from the CIL core research. Research results from external projects normally do not need to be shared with CIL members.
However, if external projects are to be run through a Membership CIL they are subject to the following conditions:
a. The practice itself and qualifying conditions must be approved by the IAB and AD.
b. The projects must be consistent with the mission, goals, and objectives of the CIL.
c. If funded by any source other than a member, the research may not exploit ideas generated by, nor use resources purchased by membership fees.
d. External projects will be treated by the University in the same way as one submitted by any faculty member in the University not affiliated with a CIL [i.e., routed through departments, college(s) and/or school, and SPARCS and will be subject to University negotiated Indirect Cost Rates].
4.2.3. Bylaws and Membership Agreements
Model Bylaws and a Membership Agreement are given in Appendix B and are to be used when preparing these documents for a Membership ORPSU.
Bylaws and Membership agreements are coupled, and the terms and conditions in the Membership Agreement must be consistent with provisions in the Bylaws. All original and revised Membership Agreements and Bylaws must be approved by the AD and forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for final approval. The Vice Chancellor will ask the Coordinator, Director of SPARCS, and the Director of the OTT to review these revised documents to ensure they remain in agreement. Approved revised documents for a CIL will be forwarded to UNC OP to update the CIL's files. Agreements may contain a clause that stipulates that the member agrees to remain a member for multiple years [usually three (3)], but membership fees are to be paid on an annual basis.
A Membership agreement must be routed, using the Internal Processing Form, through the appropriate department(s) and college(s) and/or school to SPARCS for the assigning of an NCSU contract number and the signatures of the University before being sent to the member company. Once signed and returned by a member company, an award notice will be prepared by SPARCS, and fees may be deposited with the Office of Contracts and Grants. The original agreement does not have to be executed each year, with new start- and stop-dates, and/or membership fees -- it may be modified each year, stipulating changes as an amendment to the original agreement. These modifications also require signatures of the University and member company (see Appendix B for the format of an Agreement Modification letter).
4.3. Intellectual Property
All copyrights, patent disclosures, and patent applications from ORPSU will be treated in the same manner as those from individual investigators and will be prepared and forwarded to the Director of OTT in accordance with standard NCSU intellectual property procedures. When patent, option, and/or licensing terms are to be developed in official ORPSU documents (e.g., research agreements, member or industry affiliate agreements, etc.), such terms shall be presented to the Director of OTT for review. Computer software will be treated in accordance with established University policy. Intellectual property provisions must be included in the Bylaws and Membership Agreement (see Appendix B for details).
4.4. Advisory Committees
ACs are advisory in nature and make recommendations to the director and/or AD. No two ORPSU have exactly the same number or kind of ACs. As discussed earlier, only Membership ORPSU must have an IAB plus an AC that provides oversight from the University perspective. Some ORPSU have three (3) or four (4) ACs.
Listed below are brief generic descriptions of four advisory groups that may be useful in setting up and managing an ORPSU -- as described for an actual ORPSU, however, much more detail about makeup and duties will be necessary.
4.4.1. External Advisory Board
This Advisory board of outstanding individuals will be selected from organizations with goals relevant to those of the ORPSU. It will measure the Center’s accomplishments against its goals and provide long-range guidance for the Center's major direction and strategy.
4.4.2. Industrial Advisory Board
This is the most important board of a Membership ORPSU and normally will include a representative from each of the ORPSU members. It will elect its chairperson from among its members, monitor the ORPSU's financial status, help in the recruiting of new members, make recommendations about the expenditure of ORPSU funds and the goals and new directions of the unit, and approve changes to the Bylaws.
4.4.3. Academic Advisory Committee
The Academic Advisory Committee is normally chaired by the AD (or designee) and made up of the deans of each of the colleges and/or school (or their designees) with a vested interest in the ORPSU. It may include the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies (or designee). It will be the responsibility of this committee to provide academic oversight for the ORPSU and ensure that the activities of the ORPSU are conducted in ways consistent with the mission and policies of the University and the laws of the State of North Carolina.
4.4.4. Technical Committee
The Technical Committee will give advise to the director and IAB concerning internal projects to be funded from core funds (for Membership ORPSU) or from block funds set aside for that purpose in a funded research project. Members of this committee will be selected by the director from among highly competent professionals in the field, and normally approved by the Academic Advisory Committee, the IAB, and the AD.
