1 / 26

Commons Enhancement and Implementation Plans

This meeting discusses new plans for the NIH Electronic Research Administration Commons system, including identifying project monitoring levels, financial status, space requirements, contractors, and implementation of business plans. The timeline for implementing changes is outlined.

lbotkin
Download Presentation

Commons Enhancement and Implementation Plans

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: Steering Committee Meeting February 15, 2001

  2. Today • Announcements • New Plans for the Commons • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project • Where are we: • Money • Space • Contractors • IV&V • Implementing Business Plans • Other Issues

  3. Example Timeline (you can add features into Microsoft Project) • January • Kick-off Commons Advisory Group • Decisions on Current Interface • Formation of Two Subgroups • February – April • Work with communities to: • Define enhancements to current screens for the administrative portions of the commons • Identify potential BPR for the application processes • March • Decide on the new architecture for the commons • May • Decide on primary changes to the screens for administrative modules • Discuss and prioritize BPR initiatives identified and determine next steps

  4. Commons Functional 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)

  5. CFG 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 • Stop the e-snap pilot • Focus on refining the requirements and redesign with new technology

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

  7. CFG Recommends Two: Functional Implementation Teams • Improve upon the functionality in the existing NIH Commons interface so that it can be added in to the new underlying technology.  • 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.

  8. Relative Position of the NIH COMMONS Requirements Competing Applications: R01, SBIR, F32, R13 Architecture Infrastructure SNAP Non-competing Complex Competing Applications: T32-P01-U19 I-edison Admin Modules X-Train Level of importance Level of importance Wireless International increasing complexity and convergence requirements increasing complexity and convergence requirements

  9. A Viable Technical Solution Must Be: • Open standards-based with wide support in industry • Vendor neutral • Adaptable to rapid changes in policy and business processes • Interact with different access media • Portable across multiple hardware and operating systems • Low in maintenance/operational cost • Have a wide deployment base in industry (maturity) • Able to enable large scale reuse thus shortening “time to market”

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. CY2001 CY2002 CY2003 NIH ERA Deployment: 2001-2002 CFG Recommendations Money Comes to the Project Decide Architecture for the Web Deploy X-Train – V1.5 Deploy Commons – V2 Commons Registration Accounts Administration Application/Award Status Institutional & Professional Profiles Deploy X-Train V2 Re-engineer E-SNAP Non-competing complex R01, F32, SBIR Pilot Competing Applications

  13. Today • Announcements • New Plans for the Commons • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project • Examples of what was provided last year • Quick review of the level of detail that will be made available to you • Your input as to what level to put on the • Web • Specialized reports for you

  14. What was Provided Last Year • Budget • Project according to the cost model • Organizational • CIT, OER • FTE’s • Which system they are supporting • Plans for change management to migrate to IMPAC II or the Commons • Contractor • TYC, Mitre Tek, Logicon/ROW • Project Status Reports

  15. Cost Model Adapted Last Year Applications & Business Area Applications, Software Infrastructure & Database Design Project Management Operations & Misc COTS, HW, & CIT

  16. Details of the Cost Model

  17. RAE Report./ Analysis/Eval. Common Applications SITS CMS Bridges Conversion Mgt. System GM / GPM Committee Mgt. ICO / IC Operations Peer Review Trainee Appt. CRISP + Receipt & Referral Information Mgmt. External Interfaces QuickView PowerView TechView GUM People Misc. Requirements Design Development Documentation and Training Testing Maintenance and Fixes Independent Validation & Verification (IV&V) What is Application Development ?

  18. IMPAC II Costs Dollars in millions In FY 2000:How Was the $13.826 Million Spent Commons Cost Contract Costs IC Taps CIT Costs Management Fund OER Costs

  19. Commons Cost IMPAC II Costs Dollars in millions CIT Costs = Hardware / Service / Support • $ 1.942 for IMPAC I • Wylbur charges • $ 0.139 for IMPAC II • Floor space for servers • Connectivity to NIH Backbone • $ 1.050 for Commons • Maintenance and operations of the 1 machine server needed for three commons modules CIT Costs

  20. Turn to Your Notebooks

  21. Today • Announcements • New Plans for the Commons • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project • Examples of what was provided last year • Quick review of the level of detail that will be made available to you • Your input as to what level to put on the • Web • Specialized reports for you

  22. To help start the discussion: • Community Satisfaction with input-process-design-user friendliness, functionality • NIH staff responding to the implementation teams • Project Team • Monitoring Cost, Project, Scope Creep • Are recruitment-staffing-training goals being achieved • Group Advocates • Ability to maintain commitment • Delegations to Team Leaders • Formation of Functional Implementation Teams • Teams ability to define requirements • OER/Contractor • Ability to adhere to timelines within 20% of schedule and 10% of cost once the requirements defined (CDR sign off by Group Advocate)

  23. Today • Announcements • New Plans for the Commons • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project • Where are we: • Money • Space • Contractors • IV&V • Implementing Business Plans • Other Issues

More Related