NIH Electronic Research Administration: Commons Working Group

1. NIH Electronic Research Administration: Commons Working Group

2. Today • Define the eRA objective • Frame events that go us here • Discuss how you can contribute • Frame options and issues • Seek input for future directions • Address your issues and concerns

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 • Historical records 1973 to present • Reports and trend 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. How to Manage the Beast ?

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

9. Stress in any development Technical Schedule Cost

10. Impact of under funding Technical Schedule Cost

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:Full Electronic Grants Administration

12. ~ 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

13. Peer Review of the Commons • Not financed sufficiently to meet objectives • Development Work Stopped • Competitive Grant Application Process (CGAP) • Complex Non-Competing Award Process (CNAP) • Fellowships • Redesign E-SNAP with new business practices: • Changes in policy and in design • Focus efforts on: • Integration with IMPAC II • E-SNAP, X-Train, 194 data set transmission • Communications-outreach

15. 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.

16. What Changed in FY 2000: • Evaluate the status of eRA • New structure established for the project:

17. 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

18. What Do We Hope To Have? • Clear Individual: • Responsible for priority setting with their groups • Planning • Implementation • Monitoring Progress • 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.

19. What Changed in FY 2000: • Evaluate the status of eRA • New structure established for the project: • Functional Groups – Group Advocate • Project Team – Project Manager • Steering Committee – Chair - IC Director • Board of Governors – Chair • CIO - NIH Director • Established Priorities for FY 2001

20. Straw-man for Developing Priorities

21. Sample Criteria

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

23. Priorities Identified by Each Group

24. Priorities from the Project Team

25. ERA Requirement Business Plan Group Advocate: Belinda Seto/Carol S. Martin Person Responsible: Belinda Seto Title: Data Integrity (Cross Walk with Requirement # 3) Priority Number: 1 Query and Reports Sub-priority Number: 1.1 Check one: New: Original: Special: Check one: Budgeted: Funded: Time to complete: Cost: Year 1: Year 2: Year 3: Objective: Current business model and opportunities for redesign: What will happen if this requirement is not fulfilled? How will this requirement affect other modules while being fulfilled and after integration? What policy issues need to be addressed before design, or how can system be designed to adapt to future policy changes? Development of Business Plans

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

27. Results • Match expectations with reality • Involvement of all communities in the process • A clear set of needs and objectives that could be communicated openly • Credible business plans with budgets • Improved funding for the project

28. Next Steps • Continue to map expectations with reality • Implement the FY 2001 plans • Establish priorities & plans for the FY 2002

29. 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 Approx. 100 FTEs $15M Contract Staff Annual Budget FTEs $10M $5M 31 FTEs 31 Dec ‘00 Feb ‘01 Apr ‘01 June ‘01 Aug ‘01 Oct ‘01 Dec ‘01

30. 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

31. Resources Being Implemented • New Office of Planning and Evaluation for eRA within the Division • 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

32. Forms Cartridge J-Initiator Web Browser Application Server Web FormsCurrent 2 Tier Structure Transaction Manager Forms execute here! PL/SQL Relational Database

33. 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 Middle Tier Relational Database Application Tier

34. Next Steps Implement FY 2001 PlansCurrent Commons Interface: • Maintain production systems • I-edison - ~290 organizations • Life-cycle redesign • 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

35. Straw man for Discussion • Registration • Limit to current institutions • Accounts Administration • Status – Application or Award • Summary Statement retrieval in the status to be completed • Profiles • Institutional • Individual –professional profile • X-Train • E-Snap • Obtain feedback from 2 schools with heavy use of the impact of discontinuing until a more robust and integrated module provided in version 2 of the Commons.

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

37. Next StepsPriorities & Plans for the FY 2002 • Capitalize on previous investment • Competing grant applications • Business process associated with grant applications • Education materials and web tutorials • Interface technology options • Integrate functionality with the Federal Commons • Other-(Prototypes)

38. What Changed in FY 2000: • Evaluate the status of eRA • New structure established for the project: • Functional Groups – Group Advocate • Project Team – Project Manager • Steering Committee – Chair - IC Director • Board of Governors – Chair • CIO - NIH Director • Established Priorities for FY 2001 • Piloted a new planning and priority setting process • New outreach effort initiated

39. Coming October First

40. Coming October First

41. Role of the Working Group • Prioritization of user requirements: • What changes should be made in functionality of existing Commons interfaces? • What should priorities be for the next phase of Commons development? • Outreach: • What role should the Working Group play in coordinating deployment of Commons interfaces? • How should the Working Group coordinate with other professional organizations: FDP/NCURA/SRA/COGR? • How should the Working Group interface with third party vendors? • Responding to action items: • Should the Working Group establish an infrastructure to address/respond to specific issues?

42. It’s a work in progress!! Please provide feedback