Agenda for CWG Meeting January 6, 2002

1. Agenda for CWG Meeting January 6, 2002 • Update on Commons V 2.0 schedule • Close Out/FSR Interface Requirements • Discussion of Competitive Application • Current process for receipt and referral of paper applications • Benefits of datastreams for data/process validation through business rules • Opportunities for reengineering receipt, referral, and the research plan

2. Commons Version 2.0 Implementation Schedule 2001 2002 2003 Admin Module Profiles Status V1.0 1.5 X-Train 2.0 BPR only Jan Jul Dec Jan Jul Dec Jan Jul Dec Commons Version 2 Phase 1 Infrastructure Phase 2 In RUP Elaboration Phase: See Scope Document Phase 3 BPR only SNAP Progress Report E-SNAP Competing Application (R01) CGAP (XML Datastream) Status V 2.0 X-Train V 2.0 Legend: Analysis* Development Deployment Start Continuing * Includes business process reengineering and design

3. Status on X-Train V1.5 Deployment • 12 Grantee Organizations Participating BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DUKE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE & DENTISTRY OF NJ NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR, GALVESTON PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR, DALLAS DARTMOUTH COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON • 35 trainee appointments processed since October 1, 2001 • Proceed to Production Deployment of V 1.5 by May 2002 • Issues/Feedback • Delegation – Alter “AA” Role to allow X-Train data entry and submission: interim until Commons V 2.0 • Include notification/warning prior to submission to minimize unauthorized submissions • Other avenues for feedback?

4. Other Commons V 2.0 Functionality • Status V 1.0 • Summary Statements in PDF – February 2002 • Complete NIH Staff contact information – February 2002 • New Role/Rights Model • Feedback to be requested soon… • Commons GUI Standards • Final Standards Document due in February • V 2.0 User Interface Survey now in your hands… • Need feedback by February 1, 2002 • SBIR Initiative • Funding committed by NIH ICs to meet scope • RFA nearing completion, proposed publication by end of January

5. Other Commons V 2.0 Functionality…2 • Standardized institutional hierarchy • Incorporated into SNAP V 2.0 scope • Incorporated into Admin V 2.0 scope • Single Point of Ownership for PPF and IPF • Registration for everyone • Creation of profiles for all P.I.’s • Allow for synchronization of paper and electronic submissions with drastic improvement of data quality • Propose implementation commensurate with deployment of Commons V 2.0 (May-June, 2002)

6. Planning the Close Out/FSR Module • Scope of Module • Close out = FSR, Final Invention Report, Final Progress Report • FSR = Stand alone interface • Security authentication via Commons account/role. • EIN to be retained as data element of each FSR. • FSR User Requirements • Interface to be interactive • Data entry/queries for reports on grant-by-grant basis • Requirement for datastream version? • System to include Work-in-Progress feature • 90 days prior to budget end date proposed • Will users actually start a WIP before the budget end date?

7. Planning the Close Out/FSR Module…2 • FSR User Requirements…cont. • Data access requirements • Who at the grantee institution should be able to view submitted data? PI? Only authorized submitter? • Requirement for others to view particular data items; e.g., carryover balance or reported program income? • Reporting requirements • FSRs pending (due within 90 days)/due/overdue • Historical reports • # of reports submitted on time, late, revised • Others?

8. Reengineering the Competitive Application • Streamlining data requirements • Advantages offered by implementation of profiles • Advantages offered by recategorizing of information • Opportunities to question need for information • Streamlining business process • Receipt, referral, review • Just-in-time submissions • Application schedule and content • Solicitation of CWG to formalize recommendations and seek consensus • Yep…one of those wonderful Excel workbooks • Discussion to follow at next CWG meeting

9. NIH ~47,000 applications/year The Competitive Application Process: Plain and Complex… Applicant • Receipt – paper handling/tracking • Referral – sorting and assignment according to discipline • Review – objective assessment of merit • Council – further evaluation & funding considerations • Award – postaward administration • Receipt – paper handling/tracking • Referral – sorting and assignment according to discipline • Review – objective assessment of merit • Council – further evaluation & funding considerations • Award – postaward administration

10. Application Receipt The current paper world… • Date stamp • Accession number • Open and count letters • Separate bulky appendices • Identify RFAs, other applications for special handling The electronic datastream submission… • Embedded business rules to automate • Date stamp • Accession number • Special handling considerations • Letters/instructions included in datastream • Potential for links to appendices

11. Project Control - Unit 1 & Referral Data and process validation afforded by datastream submission… • Form page data validated by NIH Commons system • page 1, budget, Checklist, Personal Data page • Special handling requests acknowledged as part of datastream receipt • ARAs (Awaiting Receipt of Application) • Eligibility controlled by datastream business rules • Budget limits, modular grant/budget formats • A2/2 year limit, Virtual A3s • Other issues also controlled by datastream business rules and/or IMPAC II software • Duplicates, • New vs. revised vs. supplements • Text format, page limits • Variation in paper form version • Need to print PI application history • Changes in policy

12. Critical Participation by NIH Staff and Grantees post-datastream • Critical assessment/decisions by NIH Staff • Determine if NIH or other agency application • CSR or IC review • Assignment • Study Section • Value-added by face-to-face discussion of applications • Error Resolution • Interaction between NIH Staff and P.I. or Institutional Administrators • Assignment changes • Errors of omission in research plan, letters of reference, etc. • Deadline issues • Application outside scope of NIH funding

13. Potential for Reengineering the Application Process • Potential Issues • Adjustment of receipt dates • Self-referral, electronic referral • Potential to shorten cycle • Electronic review • Mixed electronic/study sections (à la NIAID contracts) • Portal technology to “push” information, allow for faster turn-around • Just-in-time information opportunities • Human/animal assurances, other support • Others?

14. Potential for Reengineering the Research Plan • Potential Issues • Page limits • Appendices • Just-in-time vs. embedded links • Rich Text • PDF and other file formats (Word) • XML • Literature cited • Links • Text format • size, font • color considerations, viewing/printing • Others?

15. Preregistration for both paper and electronic transactions Paper application (with profile info.) NIH Receipt • If no match… • for IPF, set to “-1”…  • for PPF, create new profile • in IMPAC II…  • If no match… • for IPF, set to “-1”…  • for PPF, create new profile • in IMPAC II…  Single Point of Ownership: Improving Data Quality while streamlining application processing Creation of PPF and IPF Electronic transactions Query IMPAC II for IPF and Profile Commons • If no match… • for IPF, set to “-1”…  • for PPF, create new profile • in IMPAC II…  IMPAC II