1 / 44

NIH Electronic Research Administration: NUCRA Video Cast

NIH Electronic Research Administration: NUCRA Video Cast. Today. Define the eRA objective? What is involved to achieve the objective: Process, systems, policy, business practices What's happened FY 2000 – A year to regroup FY 2001 – A year to ramp up

Leo
Download Presentation

NIH Electronic Research Administration: NUCRA Video Cast

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NIH Electronic Research Administration: NUCRA Video Cast

  2. Today • Define the eRA objective? • What is involved to achieve the objective: • Process, systems, policy, business practices • What's happened • FY 2000 – A year to regroup • FY 2001 – A year to ramp up • FY 2002 – Effects of re-engineering and new technology begin to take effect • Next steps

  3. eRA Objective: • Convert the NIH application, initial peer review, secondary council review, award and post award administrative process from a paper to an electronic medium. • Integrate eRA NIH with the Federal Commons

  4. What’s Involved • ~ 200 million pieces of paper • ~ 46,000 new or competing applications • Operate 3,166 study section meetings • Support the 80 Council meetings • ~ 60,000 Grant Awards • Maintain historical records (1973-2000) • Multiple reports and analysis

  5. eRA = Three Systems • IMPAC II – 1996 IMPAC I (legacy) - 1964 • Commons - 1996 • Federal Commons - 1999

  6. ~ 100,000 Applicants / 2,000 Institutions Commons File (Fed.Commons) (FADEX) IMPAC II - NIH Transactional Database 3,500 Users / OD & 25 - NIH Institutes and Centers eRA Objective:Full Electronic Grants Administration

  7. What Changed in FY 2000: • Evaluate the status of eRA

  8. Stress in any development Technical Schedule Cost

  9. Impact of under funding Technical Schedule Cost

  10. ~ 100,000 Applicants / 2,000 Institutions Commons File (Fed.Commons) (FADEX) IMPAC II - NIH Transactional Database 3,500 Users / OD & 25 - NIH Institutes and Centers eRA Objective:Full Electronic Grants Administration

  11. ~ 100,000 Applicants / 2,000 Institutions Commons File (Fed.Commons) (FADEX) IMPAC II - NIH Transactional Database 3,500 Users / OD & 25 - NIH Institutes and Centers eRA Objective Not Achieved - Yet

  12. FY 2000 • Spring • Peer Review of the NIH Commons

  13. FY 2000 • Spring • Peer Review of the NIH Commons • New management structure put in place

  14. Priorities Identified by Each Group

  15. What Do We Hope To Have? • Clear Individual: • Responsible for priority setting with their groups • Makes decisions and recommendations for the design based on group input • Group and Process to: • Establish budgets and needs • Project future directions • Allow time for business/policy redesign and the communication needed at the design stage to integrate with other systems (IC, NBS, Institutions, Fed Commons) and their processes. • Design and implement projects with business plans using the funds made available with target milestones.

  16. Key Facts for FY 2000: • $ 13.826 million was made available for IMPAC I, IMPAC II, and the Commons • Only ~$ 0.7 million was available for application development • $ 13.126 million was for maintenance and operations. • This summer almost all funds that had been available for application development were redirected to keep I-Edison and CRISP on the WEB operating.

  17. Priorities Begin with Users

  18. FY 2000 • Spring • Peer Review of the NIH Commons • New management structure put in place • Straw man of priorities provided to the functional groups for verification / modification

  19. Project Management Team RPC Advocate Eileen Bradley TPC Advocate Wally Schaffer PI Advocate GMAC Advocate Marcia Hahn CMO Advocate Claire Benfer Daily Operations Manager Jim Cain CIT liaison & IC Tech Advocate Donna Frahm POPOF/Program Advocate Christopher Beisel Reports Advocate Carol Martin Data Integrity Belinda Seto ECB Advocate Thor Fjellstedt Research Institution Advocate George Stone IT Design/Arch. Advocate Donna Frahm Project Manager John McGowan Receipt and Referral Brent Stanfield OER Liaisons FDC/ROW Liaison Jay Silverman

  20. Advocates Took the Job Seriously • MIT • North Carolina State • Northwestern • Penn State • St. Jude • Wisconsin • Cornell • Dartmouth • Emory • Florida • Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center • Michigan

  21. Priorities from the Project Team

  22. Next Version of the Commons Priority # Title Total Commons Cost Cost Total Cost For FY 01 ---- 6,191,860.00

  23. FY 2001 • Fall • Steering Committee reviews and modifies the recommendation of the Project Team • Steering Committee recommended budget to the Board of Governors (BOG) • November - Continuing Resolution • December a budget is passed

  24. Results • Match expectations with reality • Involved all communities in the process • Clear objectives and needs communicated openly • Credible business plans with budgets • Improved funding for the project (?) • New technologies to improve the ability to work with all partners have been examined initial concept design open for discussion.

  25. Forms execute here! PL/SQL Forms Cartridge J-Initiator Web Browser Application Server Web FormsCurrent 2 Tier Structure • Transaction manager • Stored Procedures • API’s Relational Database

  26. Middle Tier Web Browser ObjectsNew 3 Tier Structure Relational Database

  27. Middle Tier Web Browser Web Server ObjectsNew 3 Tier Structure • Transaction manager • Presentation Manager • Session Manager • Server Administration • Messaging Server • Java Server Engine • Object oriented business objects Relational Database Application Tier

  28. FY 2001 (continued) • Winter 2001 • Establish a new structure in DEIS for planning, analysis and evaluation

  29. Responsibility • New Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation for eRA • Newsletters-Website-Outreach • 4-7 Contract Staff who will: • Facilitate your functional group meetings • Help you build consensus and bring issues to closure for priorities or design • Document actions • Monitor progress versus established goals • Develop reports and documentation

  30. FY 2001 (continued) • Winter 2001 • Establish a new structure in DEIS for planning, analysis and evaluation • First meeting of the Commons Advisory Group (CAG)

  31. Commons Advisory Group • Tolliver McKinney (St. Jude’s), Lynette Arias (OHSU), Jill Keezer (Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center), Jeff Cheek (U. California), David Wright (UT Galveston), Bob Oster (OHSU), Ellen Beck (UCLA), Mareda Weiss (U. Wisconsin, Madison), Pamela Webb (Northwestern), Jim Randolph (U. Michigan), Tom Wilson (Baylor), Denise Clark (Cornell), Stephen Dowdy (MIT), Nancy Wray (Dartmouth), Kenneth Forstmeier (Penn. St.), John McGowan (NIH), George Stone (NIH)

  32. Registration Accounts Administration Status – Application or Award Profiles Institutional Individual X-Train E-Snap Competing Application R01 Fellowships Career Complex Mechanisms Federal Commons Rebuild TechnologyChoice - Experienced or New

  33. CAG RecommendationsCurrent Commons Interface: • Maintain production systems • I-edison - ~290 organizations • Life-cycle redesign of the commons • CRISP - ~30,000 queries a week • Improve data quality • Keep other existing interfaces • No enhancements or modifications • Focus on refining the requirements and redesign with new technology • Get feedback from the Commons Working Group

  34. Current Interface • Registration • Limit to current institutions • Accounts Administration • Status – Application or Award • Summary Statement retrieval in the status to be completed • Profiles • Institutional • Individual • X-Train (decision deferred) • E-Snap • Stop until business practices redesign and new technology is available to implement.

  35. CAG Recommends TWO Subgroups • E-grants subgroup will re-engineer the business process for non-competing and competing grant applications in FY 2001-2002 and explore related application technology options and interfaces. • Improve upon the functionality in the existing NIH Commons interface so that it can be added in to the new underlying technology. 

  36. FY 2001 (continued) • Winter 2001 • First meeting of the Commons Advisory Group (CAG) • January (last week) BOG budget presented to NIH • When budget received than we can begin the ramp up to implement the plans established last summer – next steps

  37. Next Steps • Continue to map expectations with reality

  38. Phase In Growth Process • Full time recruiter – goal 4 individuals –month • Facilities on site to accommodate growth • Re-organized to meet the project needs • Already 6 new people added ~ 100 $20M Annual Budget Contract Staff Approx. 100 FTEs $15M Annual Budget ~ 100 FTEs $10M $5M 31 FTEs 31 Dec ‘00 Feb ‘01 Apr ‘01 June ‘01 Aug ‘01 Oct ‘01 Dec ‘01

  39. Next StepsMap Expectations with Reality A year to ramp up resources to the project • New people – advisory, contract, staff • general knowledge of process • orient them to the project • Integrate into management structure • Increased oversight and management support to facilitate and monitor the project • New architecture and design being established

  40. Next Steps • Continue to map expectations with reality • Implement the FY 2001 plans • Group Advocates currently: • Reexamining Priorities with their community • Overall implementation timelines to be established in February • Establish priorities & plans for the FY 2002

  41. http://era.nih.gov/ We’ve Only Just Begun

  42. All Welcome to Participate

  43. Thank You for Your Time

More Related