Agenda for CWG Meeting, August 16, 2001

1. Agenda for CWG Meeting, August 16, 2001 • Status of Commons V 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 • SNAP Reengineering Survey • Review of CWG recommendations • NIH Reaction to CWG recommendations • Next Steps • Interface Specification Survey • Institutional Hierarchy • Institutional Reports • Commons User Roles and Rights • DUNS, Single-point-of-Ownership • Next Meeting • Topics • Date

2. Commons Version 2.0 Implementation Schedule 2001 2002 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Commons Version 2 Phase 1 Infrastructure Phase 2 X-Train 2.0 Admin Module Profiles Status Phase 3 BPR only SNAP Progress Report BPR only Competing Application (R01) X-Train Version 1.5 Version 2.0 Legend: Analysis* Development Deployment Start Continuing * Includes business process reengineering and design

3. Status of Commons Development • V 1.0 • Status • Summary Statement fixes – done • Move to pdf – Nov. • NIH Staff Contact information fixes – in dev. • V 1.5 • X-Train • Pilot deployment in September • V 2.0 – Start development after deployment of V 1.5

4. Status of Commons Development…cont • V 2.0 • J2EE Platform • Review of inception phase – done • CDR Scheduled for August 20 • Architecture document – handout • Database design document • Data Dictionary • Promotion Plan • GUI Screen Standards • V 2.0 Interfaces: • Admin/Registration, Accounts/Profiles • RUP Development Process - underway • Business Use Cases for each interface - done • Activity Diagram example – handout • Technical Use Cases for each interface – done • Implementation (development) - underway • GUI Screens – September/October

5. Rational Unified Process for Software Engineering

6. SNAP Survey Responses • May CWG meeting – development of consensus for possible SNAP business process changes for consideration by NIH • Current survey to confirm recommendations in light of further discussion with institutional staff/NIH staff • Finalize recommendations for implementation • Introduce any changes into paper SNAP • Incorporate changes as part of E-SNAP V 2.0 development • Pilot late 2002

7. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

8. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

9. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

10. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

11. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

12. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

13. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

14. SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

15. Interface Specifications Survey Responses • May CWG meeting – • Introduction of various Commons user issues for consideration • Organizational Hierarchy • Institutional Reporting Requirements • Institutional Approvals: Commons User Roles and Rights • Single Point of Ownership • DUNS Numbers as Unique Identifiers • Distribution of survey to determine requirements/preferences • Identify additional areas for focus

16. Institutional Reporting Requirements • Requirements provided for 4 categories of “PI” report • Pre-award Reports • Application receipt • Assignment • Review & Council • Budget • Post-award Reports • Deadlines for renewal • NGA • Funds remaining • Level of effort • NIH Staff-related Information • Names and contact information • Commons Administration Reports • Status of works-in-progress • Lists of delegations • Other Reports and Notifications • Changes in award status, constraints, deadlines

17. Institutional Reporting Requirements …cont. • Requirements provided for 4 categories of “AO” and “SO” reports • AO Reports • Similar categories as for PI • Honors confidentiality of summary statement and score • Provide reports for all applications/awards in account hierarchy • Lists sortable by grant #, name, grant type, award date, etc. • Statistics: total award amount for institutional component, relative rankings(?) • SO Reports • Similar categories as for PI • Honors confidentiality of summary statement and score • Provide reports for all institutional applications/awards • Lists sortable by grant #, name, grant type, award date, etc. • Possibility of award history reports • Statistics: total numbers of awards, total amounts, averages, relative rankings

18. Report Hierarchy SO SO AO AO AO PI PI PI PI PI PI PI

19. Single Point of Ownership • Got it LOUD and CLEAR: PI’s will not maintain their own profile (unless there’s a clear and present danger if they don’t…i.e. link to award) • Need to offer delegation of this task (chore?) • Commons profile system must allow for interaction with third party software (e.g. COS) • Integrate NIH Commons profile with Federal Commons to increase value of information • Possibly remind PI’s of “dormant” profiles

20. DUNS Numbers as Unique Identifier • DUNS is a relatively good choice for universal identifier • Will require establishment of institutional DUNS • Single DUNS for submission to NIH • Limitations due to familiarity and potential for modification by P.I. • New Commons won’t require institutional number for logon • Not used for hierarchical identification • Would not want to use DUNS 9+4 for this purpose • Excessive administrative burden • How to determine organizational hierarchy for sorting purposes? • Part of Role/rights specification?? • i.e. include title of choice and organizational component

21. Why do we need Organizational Hierarchy? Accountability! • Institutional Considerations • Approval of binding decisions • Control of budget/management, etc. • Audit/report to sponsors and institutional leaders • NIH Considerations • Grantee compliance with policy and practice • Reporting to congress on outcomes/benefits; numbers of awards to types and components within organizations

22. Organizational Hierarchy • Four basic organizational levels • Department • Division • Unit/School/College/Institute • Institution/Hospital • Any category can be duplicated within levels • Category typically serves common role across institution • Final approval usually delegated to one level • For purposes of defining IPF, all levels should be available for specification • Changes in the hierarchy • People change frequently • Roles are relatively stable, cut can change especially at the department level

23. Organizational Hierarchy…cont. • Roles and rights in current Commons are not hierarchical • Some indicate they need to be • Some are satisfied with current system • Commons needs to have flexibility in making awards to university-related foundations • Foundation hierarchy not important

24. Defining Organizational Hierarchy

25. Institutional Approvals – User Roles and Rights • Platinum:Make routing generic and programmable for each department/school for each institution, since no two institutional components are the same • Gold: Modify existing NIH Commons approach to add: • Delegation Authority for all role types • WIP to be created by any role type • Examine approach to provide additional customization of rights within any role type: “rights menu” • Silver: Current NIH Commons approach is adequate • Open routing for comments/input • Vertical approval hierarchy: PI -> AO -> SO

26. NIH Commons User Types - Permissions ERA Function/User Type S.O. A.O. A.A. P.I. Create S.O. & A.O. Accts. X X Create additional A.O. Accts. X X X Create P.I. Accts. X X X Review Sci. and Admin. Info. X X X X Update Sci. and Admin. Info. X X X Review Institutional Profile X X X X Update Institutional Profile X Review Professional Profile X X X X Update Professional Profile X X X X Submit Appl. To NIH X * Ability for SRO staff to prepare and/or edit scientific information is an option determined by individual grantee organizations.

27. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component S.O. A.O. A.A. P.I. Why have roles?…to maintain organizational partitions i.e. not permit dept. of chemistry A.O. from affected dept of pharmacology accounts.

28. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component Ken Forstmeier Vice President School of Biol. Sci.  S.O. Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts.  A.O.   A.A.   P.I.  

29. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component Ellen Beck Administrative Asst. Dept. of Physiology S.O. Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts.  A.O.  A.A. P.I.  

30. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component Nancy Wray Chief Administrator OSR  S.O. Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts.  A.O.   A.A. P.I.  

31. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component Steve Dowdy Dept. Intern OSR S.O. Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts. A.O.  A.A. P.I.  

32. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component James Tracy Professor Dept. of Pharmacy  S.O. Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts.  A.O.  A.A. P.I.

33. Create NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component James Tracy Assistant Dean Dept. of Pharmacy  S.O. Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts.  A.O.   A.A. P.I.  

34. Ellen Beck James Tracy James Tracy Nancy Wray Ken Forstmeier Professor Chief Administrator Vice President Administrative Asst. Assistant Dean Dept. of Pharmacy Dept. of Physiology School of Biol. Sci. Dept. of Pharmacy OSR  Create proposal Edit science Edit admin. Info. Internal approval Submit appl. to NIH Modify IPF Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts Create/modify P.I. Accts.      Modify NIH Commons Account Name Title Org. Component  Steve Dowdy Dept. Intern OSR

35. Why have Role Types? SO AO AO AO PI PI PI PI PI PI PI