Members of the PIDP Implementation Task Force included:

Donna Bliss, School of Nursing
Leo Furcht, Medical School, Chair
Marcus Kjelsberg, School of Public Health
Matthew Mescher, Medical School
Harry Orr, Medical School
Charles Schachtele, School of Dentistry
Stephen Schondelmeyer, College of Pharmacy
Lawrence Schook, College of Veterinary Medicine
Ed Wink, ORTTA

Currently, programs are developed with the following characteristics:

• Initiation is ad hoc and occurs usually through the efforts of a few individual faculty members and/or heads of departments
• The development process differs for each program initiated, i.e., there is no systematic process
• The acquisition of resources, including space, faculty time and support staff occurs through a recurring negotiation process between the faculty and others who control resources, with no systematic process or review of performance
• Current programs are dependent on the continued support of the "parent" units. A change in one head of department can have severe consequences on the staffing and funding of an inter-departmental program
• The negotiation process creates both an additional demand of time to assure resource availability and an increased level of uncertainty that affects program management
• Strategic plans may or may not exist or they may be loosely constructed
• Programs may or may not be consistent with larger AHC goals
• There is a marked absence of financial and other evaluative data specific to program activities
• No defined mechanism exists for ending programs that are no longer appropriate for the AHC
• There are few institutional incentives for interdisciplinary programs despite the fact that interdisciplinary activity is increasingly important for scientific and competitive reasons

While the AHC includes some of the best researchers, educators and clinicians in their fields, the current system of developing inter-disciplinary programs inhibits them from using their talents to their fullest potential. The current system creates incentives for unit managers to protect the interests of their own units, sometimes at the expense of the interests of the AHC as a whole. Dealing with administrative barriers, in the form of repeatedly negotiating for resources from associated units, takes much of the program director's time. In addition, no methodology exists to bring either financial or operational data together effectively. The significant obstacles encountered by developers of inter-disciplinary programs cause faculty and staff to look primarily within their immediate units when attempting to contribute to the goals of the AHC and the University. This reduces the frequency of collaboration between leading edge researchers and educators solely because they work on different sides of collegiate/business unit boundaries.

Implementation of a structure for establishing, operating and reviewing PIDPs will benefit both the faculty and the institution in a variety of ways, including:

• create the capacity to support programs based on objective criteria of quality and merit
• give each faculty member an equal opportunity to pursue their own ideas and seek new resources
• create the capacity for faculty to pursue new ideas that have a high potential for achieving the strategic goals of the faculty, the Schools and the AHC in a focused, goal oriented manner
• remove barriers that limit interactions among faculty
• formalize agreements regarding funding, responsibility, accountability and faculty participation in programs
• provide a mechanism for more rapid development of programs and provision of resources by the administration to support new opportunities in education, research, clinical activities or service
• establish a mechanism for evaluating and phasing out programs that no longer meet quality and/or strategic goals criteria, thereby allowing efficient reallocation of limited resources
• establish a mechanism that insures that decision making functions of faculty and administrators are accompanied by authority and accountability

The Graduate School currently has a mechanism for supporting the establishment of multidisciplinary Centers at the University, the 'Interdisciplinary Research and Postbaccalaureate Education' program. This provides a maximum of $50,000 per year for two years to establish new Centers that involve faculty from more than one college. The proposed PIDP effort of the AHC is broader in scope, and will provide for both initiating new programs and supporting ongoing programs at various levels of support. Implementation of the AHC PIDP effort should be done in a manner that is independent of and avoids conflict with the existing Graduate School program. We see no reason why a meritorious program might not receive support from both the AHC and the Graduate School.

It is important that the AHC and its colleges and schools foster and support the development of interdisciplinary programs, programs that represent cutting edge efforts in education and in basic and clinical research. One important aspect is that they bring together faculty with diverse expertise. At the same time, there can be great value to the faculty and the institution in fostering and supporting high quality programs that may not necessarily be broadly interdisciplinary. Thus, the Task Force has not attempted to define what an 'interdisciplinary' program is, and has developed recommendations that will be applicable to both broadly interdisciplinary programs as well as programs that may be limited to a single issue or discipline in one department or school. An assessment of the extent of interdisciplinary interactions within a proposed program will be one of the criteria applied to its review and evaluation. This is much like NIH program project application where one criteria for evaluation is an "integrated effort". It may be that the AHC would determine that broadly interdisciplinary programs would receive a higher priority in this regard.

Existing and anticipated programs within the AHC vary greatly with respect to the number of participating faculty, the administrative responsibilities of the program, and the size and scope of the programs' missions. The names given to these such as 'program', 'laboratory', 'center', 'institute', do little to define these parameters. In order to facilitate discussion of program implementation, and how the mechanisms may vary depending on the scope of the program, the Task Force developed definitions for five categories of programs. A description of each category is given here, along with some examples of existing programs in each category.

Programs are defined as Categories 5 through 1, Category 5 being the least complex. In the descriptions below, the additional complexity of advanced level categories is described. In general the more advanced categories would also include many functions of the programs at lower levels of program complexity, but these are not repeated in the definitions. Thus, a Category 3 program might include most or all of the functions of Category 4 and 5 programs but only the additional functions of the Category 3 are described in its definition.

The function of a Category 5 PIDP is to provide identity to a single investigator or group of investigators. This may be for the purposes of fund raising (grants, foundation or private donations); other reasons might exist. No institutional resources are committed beyond the current salary for faculty and no administrative or formal governance structures are required. Approval for use of a particular name should nevertheless be required at the AHC level to avoid duplication of names that would lead to confusion internally or externally. An example of a Category 5 PIDP might be an investigator studying a particular disease, who may have private individuals or groups interested in making donations in support of the research.

Examples:

Equine Resource Center (College of Veterinary Medicine)
Bob Allison Ataxia Research Center (Medical School)
Leukemia Task force (Medical School)
ECG Reading Center (School of Public Health)

The function of a category 4 PIDP is to provide coordination of the efforts of a group of faculty representing a particular field. It could provide for communication among the group (e-mail lists, WWW page, newsletters, seminar series, retreats), as a voice for the group within the AHC (e.g.. requests for shared equipment or resources, input into recruitment of faculty in the represented area, etc.), as a vehicle for enhancing recognition of the field at the AHC (both internally and externally), as an entry point for companies with interests in the field, and as a fund raising vehicle. Institutional resources committed to the PIDP would be small (typically less than $100,000 which might be for things such as seminar support and administrative support). Administration might consist of a director responsible for the PIDP and a faculty advisory group, and no formal governance structure would be required. Space would not be assigned to the PIDP beyond a small amount that might be needed for administrative support functions. Approval of the formation of a level 4 PIDP would require approval of the Dean or Provost , depending on the faculty involved and the source of resources committed to the PIDP.

Examples:

Food Animal Biotechnology (College of Veterinary Medicine)
Environmental Pathology (Medical School)
Cranio-Facial Pain Group (School of Dentistry)
Center for Research in Agricultural Safety & Health (School of Public Health)
Minnesota Area Geriatric Education Center (School of Public Health)

The function of a Category 3 PIDP would be to provide the support functions needed by a group of faculty with shared education, research or service/clinical interests and generally (ideally) occupying contiguous space. A Category 3 PIDP would have space assigned to it, and a formalized administrative mechanism (including a director with administrative responsibility appointed or confirmed out of the Provosts office). Institutional resources committed to the PIDP would be small to moderate (typically ranging from $100,000 and over), and would be used to provide for clerical support and shared equipment needs of the group of investigators.

Examples:

Center for Immunology (Medical School)
MN Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics (School of Dentistry)
MN Oral Health Clinical Research Center (School of Dentistry)
Clinical Outcomes Research Center (School of Public Health)

The primary distinctions between this category and those above is with respect to administrative responsibilities and the ability for faculty to have joint appointments (with the possibility of some salary commitment from the PIDP). Additional administrative responsibilities might include grants administration and accounting, and assigned academic responsibilities. A category 2 program would not be the primary tenure granting unit for any faculty member, but would have formal input into the tenure/promotions process in the home department of faculty that receive partial salary support from the PIDP.

Examples:

Institute of Human Genetics (Medical School)

Cancer Center (Medical School)

Biomedical Engineering Center (BMEC) (Medical School)

Veterinary Research Center (College of Veterinary Medicine)

A category 1 PIDP would be essentially equivalent to existing departments, with the exception that faculty within the PIDP might have appointments in different schools. It would have the ability to grant tenure and provide all the infrastructure to support faculty that a department provides.

Example:

Biomedical Engineering Institute (BMEI) (Medical School and Institute of Technology)

The original IDP Committee, in their final report, included a list of a series of options for providing funding for programs. The Task Force reviewed these and developed the following recommendations:

A. The task force recommends that a pool of funds be set aside for program development, prior to the approval of any new programs. This pool of funds will be held by the Provost's office and be made available only to PIDPs submitted, evaluated and funded by a standardized process. The source of this pool of funds may be new funds provided to the AHC or reallocation of existing funds to achieve this end. Contributions to this pool might also include (1) excess revenues over expenses generated by operations of programs (e.g. clinical and service), (2) a set percentage of royalty or licensing income of the AHC consistent with University policy, and (3) external sources (e.g. corporate seed money, Medical Alley, insurers/health care systems, foundations, etc.).

B. The Task Force strongly recommends that for PIDPs having faculty with significant external grant support and located in PIDP space (Category 3 and above), a formula-based approach be developed for distribution of support funds to the PIDP. The formula would be tied to revenues generated by the program (e.g. research grant dollars, etc.) and to the support services provided by the PIDP. As an example, if grants were to be administered through the PIDP then it would receive a formula-based fraction of the revenue amount from the AHC to pay the costs of providing this service. The PIDP could elect to develop those services themselves or "outsource" them elsewhere in the AHC to derive the best cost or service. Alternatively, if the grants of the faculty within the PIDP are administered through their home Departmental units, the PIDP would not receive this portion of the formula based dollars. Other functions that might be included in this formula based approach could include clerical support, faculty and staff telecommunication costs, computers and shared equipment.

The Task Force did not attempt to address the issue of clinical Practice Plan income and how this might affect funding of PIDPs. This issue can better be addressed after the Fairview merger and faculty practice plans are completed. In principal, some sharing of responsibility for faculty salary, space, infrastructure, support costs and clinical or service income should occur between departments and PIDPs with faculty belonging to both.

The Task Force has developed a process for review and approval of new program proposals that will provide for the application of objective, scholarly, scientific and AHC, school or college programmatic criteria, with appropriate peer review input from both faculty and administrators. To a considerable extent, the process is analogous to the National Institutes of Health system for reviewing and approving proposals. If we view the proposed process akin to the manner used in the NIH grant model this has the advantage that it clearly defines the mechanisms of faculty and administrative input and the overall process. As with NIH, faculty can be equated with principal investigators, Study Section members and Council members. Faculty initiate new program proposals, provide objective peer review of merit, and contribute to formulation of programmatic goals. Importantly, as with other granting agencies each and every faculty member will have equal opportunity to make the case to secure the resources to develop their programs. University faculty/administration overseeing the PIDP program can be equated with NIH Program personnel, Council and administration. They are the group responsible for administrating the PIDPs and will be responsible for formulation of programmatic goals and have final authority and accountability in the approval and oversight of programs. Overall we believe that this is a model that most faculty involved in peer review funding to support their research understand well.

The process for initiation, review and approval of new programs is diagrammed below. Pre-proposals ('letters of intent') will all be reviewed at the AHC level, and based on this preliminary screen then full proposals would be submitted and be reviewed at either the AHC level or the School level. The decision as to whether review will be at the AHC or School level will depend upon the funding sources and the "home units" of the faculty involved in the program. If all of the faculty are within a single School and only School resources are being requested, review will be within the School. If there are faculty from multiple Schools involved in the proposal and funds are being requested from the AHC, review will be at the AHC level. It is strongly recommended that parallel structures for this process be established at the AHC level and in each School so as to standardize the whole process.

In order to optimize flexibility and the ability to respond to new opportunities in a timely manner, it is recommended that there be two submission, review and funding cycles per year. Deadline dates for proposal submission should be established that do not coincide with NIH proposal application deadlines. Firm dates for application submission, review, funding decision and clear delineation on the part of the AHC or schools regarding funds availability should be established. Faculty should know that there is a reasonable chance for funding if they are going to go to the effort of submitting a proposal.

PROGRAM INITIATION: THE PRE-PROPOSAL PROCESS

A PIDP pre-proposal will be prepared by one or more faculty, with the proposal initiating from the faculty or in response to a request for application (RFA) from heads, deans or the Provosts' office. The initiating group will identify the category level they deem appropriate for the proposed program based on the function, administration, and requested resources for the program. This identification will then provide guidance as to major items that need to be addressed in the proposal. The pre-proposal format and detailed description is included in the Appendix. Deadlines for twice yearly submission of pre-proposals will be established.

Pre-proposals will be reviewed by the PIDP Council to determine whether there are competing units within the AHC (existing or proposed), whether there is a fit with school, college or AHC strategic goals and whether the proposed budget is feasible with regard to available resources. As a part of this initial review process, the Council may request an interview with a representative of the group that submitted the pre-proposal. The review will result in one of three outcomes: (1) not invited to submit a full proposal (with written reasons provided), (2) requested to resubmit a pre-proposal with modifications, or (3) invited to submit a full proposal.

A pre-proposal will not be approved (not invited to submit a full proposal), if it is the judgment of the PIDP Council that even with modifications it would not result in a successful review. In this case, however, a group may nevertheless submit a revised pre-proposal. A request to resubmit a pre-proposal would occur when review by the Council identifies ways in which the proposal might be improved, for example by the group including additional faculty with similar interests. Finally, when a pre-proposal is approved the group will be invited to develop a full proposal for complete review, with any suggestions resulting from the initial review being provided in writing to the group. The format for a full proposal is included in the Appendix. In cases where a group is invited to submit a full proposal, the PIDP Council will also determine the level at which it will be reviewed, either at the AHC or School level. For those to be reviewed at the AHC level, the Council will also determine which PIDP Review Panel (Education, Research or Clinical/Service) will conduct the review, depending upon the primary functions and missions of the proposed program. It is acknowledged that there will be overlap in a program's functions, but one area might predominate. In cases where there is about equal weighting of areas the PIDP council will assign the proposal to one of the PIDP Review Panels.

Planning Funds. The Task Force recommends that some funds be made available to support planning efforts that will lead to submission of a PIDP proposal. These would be distributed based on a request from a group in the form of an abbreviated pre-proposal and planning budget, and approval by the PIDP Council (see below). Such funds might be used for clerical support, consultants, etc. and would normally be less than $10,000.

PIDP REVIEW GROUPS OF THE AHC

The Task Force recommends that two types of review groups be established for review of PIDPs at the AHC level, a single PIDP Council and three PIDP Review Panels (Education, Research and Clinical/Service). These groups will function similarly to NIH Council and Study Sections, respectively. The makeup and functions of these groups are described below.

PIDP Review Panels. Three PIDP Panels will be established to review PIDP proposals whose primary functions and missions are in Education, Research and Clinical/Service. The Review Panels will function in essentially the same way as an NIH Study Section, carrying out an in-depth review of the scholarly and scientific merit of each of the proposed PIDPs. These reviews will result in a written critique and priority scores for (1) scholarly/scientific quality, (2) extent of interdisciplinary interactions, and (3) relevance to AHC or school strategic goals, for each proposal. These written reviews and priority scores will be used by the PIDP Council in determining funding recommendations. The chairs and members of the Review Panels will be faculty members appointed by the PIDP Council in consultation with the Deans, with the goal of achieving a broad representation of AHC expertise in each area. Review Panels might have fifteen to twenty members so that no one school or area becomes disadvantaged. Also, not all people will be available at the time of the reviews. Terms of PIDP Panel membership will be three years, with the possibility of a member serving two terms. Review Panels will have discretion in enlisting the aid of ad hoc reviewers in cases where additional expertise in a particular area is needed.

PIDP Council. A single, AHC-wide PIDP Council will be established to function in much the same way that NIH Institute Councils function. Responsibilities of the Council will include among other things:

1. Review of pre-proposals and, for those invited for submission as full proposals, assignment of reviews to either AHC or School level.

2. Assignment of each proposal to one of the three PIDP Review Panels, for those proposals to be reviewed at the AHC level.

3. Determination of final recommendations for PIDP establishment and funding, based on the priority scores from the Review Panels, along with considerations of funds availability, need, availability of other resources, distribution of programs among areas (Education, Research and Clinical/Service) and Schools, novelty and innovativeness, and fit or alignment with school/college and AHC strategic goals.

4. Assembling the chairs and faculty membership of the PIDP Review Panels, in consultation with the deans and following a general solicitation of interest from faculty.

Depending on the final organization of the AHC, The PIDP Council will be made up of the Vice Provosts of Research, Education and Clinical Affairs, selected Associate Deans (or the equivalent) from the various schools, and faculty members. It is recommended that this group include approximately seven Associate Deans and eight faculty members, in addition to the Vice Provosts. Faculty members of the Council will be appointed by the Vice Provosts in consultation with the Provost and Deans' Council and will serve for a period of three to five years. If the size of the group proves unwieldy a more abridged version could be constructed.

PROGRAM APPROVAL

Full proposals, submitted for twice yearly deadlines following review and approval of pre-proposals, will be reviewed either at the AHC or School levels. For AHC review, proposals will first be reviewed by one of three PIDP Review Panels (i.e. Study Sections), Education, Research or Clinical/Service. For each proposal, the Review Panel will determine priority scores in three categories, (1) scholarly/scientific quality, (2) extent of interdisciplinary interactions, and (3) fit or alignment with AHC strategic goals. A second level review will then be done by the PIDP Council, and will include consideration of the priority scores of the Review Panels, along with considerations of funds availability, need or demand for other resources e.g. space, balance or distribution of programs among areas (Education, Research and Clinical/Service) and Schools, and fit with AHC strategic goals. As a result of this review, the Council will develop funding recommendations and forward them to the Provost/Deans' Council. Final approvals will be done by the Provost/Deans' Council. Given what may amount to some fairly significant time demands, the Provost/Deans' Council might consider delegating this responsibility to the PIDP Council after some experience and comfort with the process has been gained .

Level of Review Depending on PIDP Category

The extent of the review process will vary depending on the category level of the proposed PIDP. Category 5 proposals that request no institutional funds (i.e. no funds over and above those already committed to the involved faculty through their home units) will only proceed through the pre-proposal process, primarily to insure that the name being used does not overlap with existing or proposed PIDPs (to avoid internal and/or external confusion) and to insure entry into an AHC-wide database of PIDPs. These can be reviewed and approved administratively, and the outcomes simply reported to the PIDP Council and Provost/Deans' Council. This streamlined review will facilitate instances where a group of faculty require an institutionally recognized 'Center' or some similarly denoted entity in order to respond to an external funding opportunity. There may be cases where proposals aren't approved even when there is no request for resources. It is intended that in order for a center, program, or institute within the AHC to use the University of Minnesota name it must go through this process. If it fails to get this approval it will be unable to use this designation.

Proposals for Category 4 through 1 PIDPs will proceed through the entire review process (see flow chart), but the extent of the review will likely differ. For Category 2 or 1 PIDPs which involve substantial institutional funds or other resources it may be desirable to obtain an objective external review, either in the form of solicited written reviews or a site visit by experts from other institutions. Recommendation for this would be made by the PIDP Council as a result of the pre-proposal review, and the outcome of the external review made available to the PIDP Review Panel that subsequently reviews the proposal. External review of Category 4 or 3 PIDPs would be rare, and probably only occur if there is little or no local expertise to assess the merit or if unusually high levels of institutional funding or other resources were being requested.

Review and Approval of PIDPs at the School Level

The Task Force strongly recommends that structures paralleling those of the AHC be established in the individual Schools for review of PIDP proposals at the School level. For the Medical School, the structure would likely be very similar to that of the AHC, given its size and complexity. For the smaller Schools, a modified form of the structure consistent with the scale and complexity of the PIDPs being considered would be appropriate.

FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN PIDPS: MEMBERSHIP AND JOINT APPOINTMENTS

PIDPs of Category 3 and above (1 and 2) might have three types of faculty membership:

1. Member. Faculty not located in the PIDP space but having affiliation with the PIDP. The PIDP would not have formal input into P&T for faculty having this status.

2. Member occupying PIDP space. This would include all faculty located within space assigned to the PIDP. The PIDP would not have formal input into P&T for faculty having this status.

3. Member with Joint appointment. Faculty holding a joint appointment in the PIDP, and with the PIDP having formal input into P&T for faculty having this status. These would in most cases be faculty located within the PIDP space. It would include, but not be limited to, faculty for whom the PIDP has a commitment to provide partial salary support.

The Task force strongly recommends that a formal joint appointment status be established for faculty in PIDPs, with faculty of the PIDP having formal input into the P&T decisions regarding those faculty holding a joint appointment. It is further recommended that there be formal written agreements between units for faculty having joint appointments, with regard to salary sources, how raises would be determined, who has responsibility for faculty support staff and infrastructure needs, etc. This includes any arrangements that would be made with Faculty Practice Organizations, departmental or school based practice groups or external parties.

Arbitration of disputes regarding faculty involvement in a PIDP will be the responsibility of the Dean, in the case of School-based PIDPs, or the appropriate Vice Provost and the involved Dean or Deans in the case of AHC-wide PIDPs.

GOVERNANCE

The PIDP proposal will include a proposed governance process for the PIDP that is appropriate for its Category and activities. This will include mechanisms for faculty input into:

1. Membership decisions
2. Joint appointment decisions
3. P&T evaluations

The Director of the PIDP (see below) will be responsible for insuring that the appropriate governance processes are established and that they function in a timely manner.

ADMINISTRATION

Every PIDP will have a Director with management and administrative authority and accountability. The Director will be expected to be the leader in developing the program and to be responsible for:

1. Assuring and enhancing the scholarly excellence of the program. This will include establishing an external advisory board where appropriate (Categories 1, 2 and 3).

2. Establishing Governance processes

3. Fostering the development of faculty leadership within the program, i.e. a leadership mentoring program to create a cadre of faculty who could be PIDP leaders or leaders in their field elsewhere.

4. Budget oversight and reporting

The PIDP proposal will include a proposed management structure that will provide for faculty input and advice into administrative decisions.

The Director of the PIDP will be appointed by the Dean (if School based) or the Provosts Office (if AHC based) and will involve either a search or administrative approval process consistent with University policy. The faculty of the PIDP will have input into the decision of the Provost/Deans Council in filling this position. A rigorous review of the Director's performance will be done at the time of the cyclic review of the Program (see below, Program Performance and Oversight).

ADMINISTRATION

The Director of the PIDP will report to the appointing authority. This will be the Dean, for a School-based PIDP, or an AHC Vice Provost or the Provosts Council, or a 'Lead Dean' designated by the Council, for AHC-based PIDPs.

FUNDS FLOW

Funds will flow from the Provost's Office, likely via a designated Vice Provost, to the Director of the PIDP for programs supported by AHC funds. For School-based PIDPs supported by School funds, funds will flow from the Dean to the Program Director. The mechanisms discussed above should provide for equal faculty ability to access and compete for funds. It will also provide for School based or more "local" autonomy for establishing program priorities. Another overarching objective of the PIDP Task Force was to improve the ability of University of Minnesota faculty to establish and gain national and international recognition for truly interdisciplinary programs. To accomplish this we must assure that we are reviewing and monitoring programs in clear, measurable ways.

The Task Force strongly recommends that written agreements regarding financial obligations (with duration of terms specified) be established for all units involved in providing resources for operation of the PIDP, including Faculty Practice Organizations and external parties where applicable. For example, for a faculty member receiving partial salary support from their home department and from the PIDP, this arrangement should be in the form of a written agreement between the Department Head and the Program Director. Other arrangements involving written agreements might include IDC sharing, grants administration, etc. The Task Force strongly argues that the old way of doing business must change to a more open one with unambiguous processes and open peer review.

For the School based PIDPs some decision making process which engages others to work with the dean is recommended. The period of funding approval for PIDPs will normally be 3 to 5 years, with the period determined by the Dean (School-based) or PIDP Council (AHC-based) based on the review of the proposal. During the period of active funding, a PIDP may submit a supplemental proposal requesting an increased level of funding or other resources such as space and/or movement to a higher level category, for example from a category 3 to a category 2 PIDP. Supplemental proposals will be reviewed by the same mechanism as new proposals.

YEARLY PROGRESS REPORTS/BUDGETS

The Director of the PIDP will submit yearly Progress Reports and Budgets, essentially equivalent to an NIH non-competing renewal application. These will be reviewed by the responsible administrator (Dean's or Provost's office). Copies of all yearly Progress Reports and Budget requests will be provided to the Provosts office; these could be then put in a data base for the Dean's Council, Provost's office to review. Also, the benefits could be weighed of having these, or edited versions of them, put on a web page for anyone in the organization to review. This might also aid outside sponsors looking to work with faculty in a given area.

COMPETITIVE RENEWAL OF PIDP FUNDING

At least one funding cycle before the end of the approved funding period, a full proposal for continuation of the PIDP may be submitted. This will be reviewed in the same way as new proposals (Fig. 1). Outcomes of this review could include:

• Continuation of the PIDP - maintenance of the status quo.

• Movement to the next level category, where greater commitment, responsibilities, etc. occur (e.g., category 3 to 2), as a result of outstanding performance on the part of faculty, changing needs, positive review, shift in institutional strategic goals or successes in securing financial or other resources from outside of the institutions (e.g., grants, contracts, philanthropy, etc.). This would occur if requested by the PIDP in the renewal proposal and approved by the PIDP Council following review.

• Movement to a lower level category (e.g. category 2 to 3) as a result of changing needs, negative review, shift in institutional strategic goals, funding limitations, constraints on other resources, etc. This could occur either at the request of the PIDP in the renewal proposal (although somewhat unlikely), or upon recommendation of the PIDP Council as a result of the review.

• Elimination or the "sunset" of the PIDP as a result of changing needs, negative review, shift in institutional strategic goals, funding limitations, etc. This could occur either at the request of the PIDP (unlikely), or upon recommendation of the PIDP Council as a result of a negative review of the renewal proposal.

PRE-PROPOSAL FORMAT

Before full strategic planning is undertaken by a group intending to submit a plan for an PIDP, a pre-proposal should be submitted to the Provost Council for preliminary review. The pre-proposal should be succinct (2-3 pages), clear, and written for non-specialists. It should include the following sections:

Executive Summary:

This is a summary of the program elements, the program mission and goals, and a description of the relationship to the goals of the AHC. It should include information about the expected duration, the constituencies to be served, the magnitude of the resources required, and a statement of the need being addressed by the program. It should indicate the PIDP category level being proposed.

Program Description:

This is a brief description of the proposed program including its goals and objectives and its scientific, scholarly or clinical/service importance. There should be a description of the current status of the program, or in the case of a newly formed unit, the status of program-related activities in the AHC.

Program Potential:

This is a summary of the likely "productivity" of the proposed program in the various ways the faculty believe it will contribute to the AHC. The faculty should also define to the greatest degree possible the ways in which these contributions could be measured. The proposal should indicate the projected outcomes including academic impact, the potential for excellence, and the projected revenue flow to the AHC/School from the Program's activities, e.g. research, clinical/service and or education. An assessment should be given of how the program's success would be determined.

Program Resource Projections:

This section should include in summary form the fiscal, personnel and space needs of the program along with likely sources for these items. Assumptions made in the projections should be identified in such a way that they can be used to examine the financial risks associated with the program. Use of existing resources should be indicated. This will facilitate assessment of the performance of the PIDP in light of its projections.

PROPOSAL FORMAT

Cover Page- Title, Category, Period of request, Year 1 and total funds requested, list of participating faculty

Mission statement - A brief statement of the mission of the proposed program

Executive summary

Background

1. Description of existing efforts in the Program area
2. Participants in the Program - include Biosketches of faculty involved in the proposed Program

Description of proposed Program

1. Proposed category and rationale
2. Functions of program
3. Governance structure
4. Administrative structure
5. Potentials for Program revenue (e.g. Training grants, clinical/service income, private and corporate donations, etc.)
6. Requested funds and other resources and their planned uses - a narrative discussion of proposed budget and resource requests (i.e. budget/resource justification)

Proposed Budget

Proposed budgets for years one through five of the proposed program (include funds available to the Program from sources other than this request (e.g. Training Grants, clinical/service income, etc.)

Resources Request - space, etc.

Strategic Plan/Timeline for Program Development

Goals and benchmarks for progress

Relation to missions of the School/AHC/University

Statements of support

Letters of support from relevant department heads, Deans, Directors of other Programs