SESSION 5 - GROUP ACTIVITY

Case Study: The Central Evaluation Unit

The Central Evaluation Unit (CEU) of the XIII Directorate evaluated applications from academics
bidding for research grants available under the ‘cooperation and foundations’ scheme of the
European Union. This scheme distributed relatively small grants (less than A100,000) to fund
the early stages of cooperative research between universities in the European Union. Based in
Brussels, the CEU’s objectives were to make decisions that were consistently in line with
directory guide rules, but also to give as speedy a response as possible to applicants. All new
applications are sent to the CEU’s applications processing unit (CEUPU) by University Liaison
Officers (ULOs) who were based at around 150 universities around the EU. Any academic who
wanted to apply for a grant needed to submit an application form (downloadable online) and
other signed documentation through the local ULO. The CEUPU employs three ‘checkers’ with
three support and secretarial staff, a pool of twelve clerks who are responsible for data entry
and filing, ten auditors (staff who prepare and issue the grant approval documents), and a
special advisor (who is a senior ex-officer employed part-time to assess non-standard
applications).

Véronique Fontan was the manager in charge of the Central Evaluation Unit’s applications
processing unit (CEUPU). She had been invited by the Directory chief executive, Leda Grumman,
to make a presentation to senior colleagues about the reasons for the success of her unit. The
reason for her invitation to the meeting was, first, that the systems used for handling new grant
applications were well proven and robust, and, secondly, that her operation was well known for
consistently meeting, and in many cases exceeding, its targets.

Véronique set a day aside to collect some information about the activities of the CEUPU. She
first reviewed her monthly management reports. The information system provided an update
of number of applications (by week, month and year), the number and percentage of
applications approved, number and percentage of those declined, the cumulative amount of
money allocated, and the value of applications processed during the month. These reports
identified that the Unit dealt with about 200 to 300 applications per week (the Unit operated a
five-day 35-hour week) and all the Unit’s financial targets were being met. In addition most
operational performance criteria were being exceeded. The targets for turnaround of an
application, from receipt of an application to the applicant being informed (excluding time
spent waiting for additional information from ULOs) was 40 working days. The average time
taken by the CEUPU was 36 working days. Accuracy had never been an issue as all files were
thoroughly assessed to ensure that all the relevant and complete data were collected before
the applications were processed. Staff productivity was high and there was always plenty of
work waiting for processing at each section. A cursory inspection of the sections’ intrays
revealed about 130 files in each with just two exceptions. The ‘receipt’ clerks’ tray had about
600 files in it and the checkers’ tray contained about 220 files.

Processing grant applications

The processing of applications is a lengthy procedure requiring careful examination by checkers
trained to make assessments. All applications arriving at the Unit are placed in an in-tray. The
incoming application is then opened by one of the eight ‘receipt’ clerks who will check that all
the necessary forms have been included in the application. This is then placed in an in-tray
pending collection by the coding staff. The two clerks with special responsibility for coding
allocate a unique identifier to each application and code the information on the application into
the information system.

The application is then given a front sheet, a pro forma, with the identifier in the top left
corner. The files are then placed in a tray on the senior checker’s secretary’s desk. As a checker
becomes available, the senior secretary provides the next job in the line to the checker. In the
case of about half of the applications, the checker returns the file to the checkers’ secretaries to
request the collection of any information that is missing or additional information that is
required. The secretaries then write to the applicant and return the file to the ‘receipt’ clerks
who place the additional information into the file as it arrives. Once the file is complete it is
returned to the checkers for a decision on the grant application. The file is then taken to
auditors who prepare the acceptance or rejection documents.

These documents are then sent, with the rest of the file, to the two ‘dispatch’ clerks who
complete the documents and mail them to the ULO for delivery to the academic who made the
application. Each section, clerical, coding, checkers, secretarial, auditing or issuing, have trays
for incoming work. Files are taken from the bottom of the pile when someone becomes free to
ensure that all documents are dealt with in strict order.

Véronique’s confidence in her operation was somewhat eroded when she asked for comments
from some university liaison officers and staff. One ULO told her of frequent complaints about
the delays over the processing of the applications and she felt there was a danger of alienating
some of the best potential applicants to the point where they ‘just would not bother applying’.
A second ULO complained that when he telephoned to ascertain the status of an application,
the CEUPU staff did not seem to know where it was or how long it might be before a decision
would be made. Furthermore he felt that this lack of information was eroding his relationship
with potential applicants, some of whom had already decided to apply elsewhere for research
funding. Véronique reviewed the levels of applications over thelast few years which revealed a
decline of five per cent last year and two per cent the year before that on the number of
applications made. Véronique then spent about ten minutes with four of the clerks. They said
their work was clear and routine, but their life was made difficult by university liaison officers
who rang in expecting them to be able to tell them the status of an application they had
submitted. It could take them hours, sometimes days, to find any individual file. Indeed, two of
the ‘receipt’ clerks now worked full-time on this activity. They also said that university liaison
officers frequently complained that decision-making seemed to be unusually slow, given the
relatively small amounts of money being applied for. Véronique wondered whether, after all,
she should agree to make the presentation.
Instructions: This is a group activity. Read carefully the instructions below.
1. Choose your own team.
2. There should be three groups (1 with 10 members and 2 groups with 11 members).
3. Designate a team leader.
4. Team leaders should include a brief assessment of the participation and contributions of
their team members with an individual ratings of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest and 1 being
the lowest.
5. The team leaders will be the one to email. Two separate emails I expect from the team
leaders: first email is about the outputs, cc: your team members (follow the subject line
required); second email is about your member’s ratings (Subject Line: Session 5–Group
Activity-Ratings).

Questions
1 Analyse and evaluate the processing of new
applications at the CEUPU:
– Create a process map for new applications (Refer to the slide on process mapping symbols)
– Explain why it is difficult to locate an individual file.
2 Summarize the problems of the CEUPU process.
3 What suggestions would you make to Véronique to improve her process?