# ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.4166666666666667in" height="0.2972222222222222in"} Electronic Receipt Working Group

**Date:** February 12, 2002

**Time:** 1:30--3:30 p.m.

**Location:** Rockledge 2, Room 6199

**Chair:** Marcia Hahn

# Action Items

-   (All) Examine the *Commons v.1e-SNAP Report*. Email Cathy and Marcia
    if there are missing fields.

-   (Marcia and Cathy) Work with Patty Austin and Tim Twomey for GM
    training this summer at the GMAC Retreat (June 17--18).

-   (Marcia) Send chart showing the differences between paper Type-5 and
    e-SNAP processing to the working group.

-   (Cathy) Determine IC requirements for APIs for GMS Assignment and
    T-5 Receipt Date data fields. Work with Tracy Soto and Steve Hughes
    as necessary.

-   (Cathy and Marcia) Convey working group recommendations for
    Notification and GM Modifications through GM Lead Users to other
    analysts/developers.

# Introduction

Marcia Hahn opened the meeting by referring the paper she had sent out
electronically, [Notification of Electronically Received
Data](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/02Feb12_Notification_of_Electronically_Received_Data.doc).
She stated that the meeting's purpose was two-fold:

-   To prepare specific recommendations, from a Grants Management (GM)
    point of view, on the IMPAC II enterprise-wide internal and external
    electronic notification needs precipitated by the e-SNAP (electronic
    Streamlined Non-Competing Award Process) that will kick off this
    fall.

-   To discuss the GM business process refinements and IMPAC II updates
    and changes needed to prepare for the processing of e-SNAP data.

# Notification Events

As newly developed electronic elements of the grants submission and
management process are activated in IMPAC II, integration will be needed
with the current paper-based business processes. Key to this integration
is notification to internal personnel (GM, POs, SRAs, etc.) of events in
the lifecycle of the grant such as the receipt of electronic documents
or data.

Marcia reviewed the event categories that will precipitate notification
listed in the [Notification of Electronically Received
Data](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/02Feb12_Notification_of_Electronically_Received_Data.doc)
paper and asked if there were others. An additional type of event would
be a GM workflow checkpoint such as an IC's "intent to pay" or "paylist
approved" checkpoint.

Although outside the scope of this meeting, a short discussion ensued on
notification to the extramural community. Events that would trigger
external notification include:

-   Type-5 renewal is due

-   FSRs due/overdue

-   Closeout reports due/overdue

-   Just-In-Time information due

-   Institutional and/or Individual profile was changed.

# Notification Options

In the [Notification of Electronically Received
Data](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/02Feb12_Notification_of_Electronically_Received_Data.doc)
paper, Marcia set forth three options for internal notification of
electronic events. These are:

A.  Email to assigned Grants Management Specialist (GMS) and/or Program
    Official (PO)

B.  An IMPAC II Common Queue

C.  IC Dedicated Email Inbox.

For the *Option A* to work, several issues would need to be resolved.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Issue**                         | **Discussion**                    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| IMPAC II GMS assignment is        | The IMPAC II assigned GMS field   |
| currently optional.               | would need to become mandatory. A |
|                                   | grant would not be released       |
|                                   | without this field being filled   |
|                                   | in.                               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Stale assignment.                 | Events, such as closeout events   |
|                                   | and R15 mailers, can occur for    |
|                                   | grants that are several years     |
|                                   | old. The original GMS assigned to |
|                                   | the grant in IMPAC II may no      |
|                                   | longer be working on it. In this  |
|                                   | case, the notification for the    |
|                                   | event may need to go to another   |
|                                   | role. One IMPAC II system change  |
|                                   | that could help with this would   |
|                                   | be a change to the rules          |
|                                   | governing which records are       |
|                                   | revised when an assignment        |
|                                   | changes. Currently, if a GMS      |
|                                   | assignment is changed, it affects |
|                                   | only the current year and one     |
|                                   | previous FY record. It may be     |
|                                   | desirable to change this business |
|                                   | rule so that even more previous   |
|                                   | FY records are revised.           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| The assignment of tasks during    | -   Should we consider adding a   |
| the life of a grant is complex in |     GTA assignment? There was no  |
| the current paper process. Some   |     strong recommendation here;   |
| parts of the business process are |     the group felt other options  |
| handled by a GTA rather than a    |     could solve the problem.      |
| GMS. GTA assignments are not      |                                   |
| currently available in IMPAC II.  | -   Notification business rules   |
|                                   |     are distinct from grant       |
|                                   |     assignment business rules.    |
|                                   |     These could be used to assign |
|                                   |     certain events to GTAs        |
|                                   |     instead of GMSs.              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

*Option B* was then discussed. For this option, a queue of events would
be available in IMPAC II when a user logged onto the system. The same
assignment issues as discussed in *Option A* apply. Other issues
discussed:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Issue**                           **Discussion**

  Not all ICs respond to every GM     Flexibility would be needed so that
  event in the same way.              ICs could queue certain events to a
                                      GTA rather than an assigned GMS.

  Old events.                         Business rules would be created to
                                      deal with old queue items that have
                                      not been addressed. Management
                                      would need the ability to run aging
                                      reports.

  Assignment of work.                 In a multi-layer queue structure,
                                      each IC could have a main queue
                                      receiving all its events. This
                                      queue could be automatically
                                      filtered. The queue events could
                                      also be assigned by the team
                                      supervisor to the individual
                                      assignees' queues. With a flexible
                                      level of granularity, ICs could
                                      tailor their queue structure.

  Program personnel will not          While GM personnel would interact
  routinely logon to IMPAC II.        closely with an IMPAC II queue,
                                      personnel from other groups would
                                      not logon onto IMPAC II. Email
                                      notification would work best for
                                      events assigned to these groups.
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

*Option C* was also discussed. This option would call for one unique,
dedicated email address per IC. All notification emails would be sent to
this address to be manually sorted and sent to individual assignees. The
MS Outlook auto-forwarding feature could aid this process.

The consensus for a long-term solution was a combination all three
options. The queue system would be the best solution for some GM
personnel. For other groups, such as program management, the email
solutions would be better. The proposed enterprise-wide solution would
allow flexibility. IC's could opt to receive email notification either
to individuals or to a default email inbox for the entire IC, instead of
using IMPAC II event queues.

Marcia asked Sherry what could be put in place before August. Sherry
replied that *Option C* could be implemented by that time. Minimum
requirements to support this option must be gathered. Issues to be
addressed by August to facilitate this implementation:

1.  Every IC must establish a dedicated inbox distinct from the NGA
    inbox.

2.  When electronically received Type-5 documents are available in
    ICSTORE, GMS personnel will be able to retrieve them when
    electronically notified of their receipt. Using a process similar to
    Summary Statements, a nightly batch of Type-5 PDF documents could be
    zipped and sent to each IC's inbox with the e-SNAP notifications.
    ICs will eventually need to be educated on their "electronic
    distribution" options and about how their internal business
    processes may need to be modified.

3.  Basic data elements in the notification email should include:

-   Full grant number

-   Principle Investigator (PI) name

-   Program Class Code (PCC)

-   Assigned GMS

-   Assigned Program Officer (PO)

# Notification Recommendations

-   Implement *Option C* by August to prepare for the processing of
    e-SNAPs.

-   As a first, interim step, have each IC establish one dedicated inbox
    to receive all electronic event notifications.

-   Future rollout of the enterprise-wide internal notification system
    will comprise a mixture of IMPAC II queues and individual and IC
    emails.

-   Mandate GMS assignment.

# GM Preparation for e-SNAP

The discussion then turned to the preparation of the Grants Management
organization for e-SNAP. Cathy Walker presented the *Commons v.1 e-SNAP
Report*. When an electronically submitted application or progress report
is received, GM users will be able to view the data in a PDF format by
clicking the "*View* *e-APP*" button on the GM Award screen. This button
will remain grayed-out unless data is either submitted electronically or
scanned.

There was a discussion on how to flag Type-5 electronic receipt. An "E"
flag or an "E" column should appear on the GM Search Screen, Admin
screen, the GM worksheet, and Type-5 receipt and workload screens. When
an e-SNAP Type-5 is received, the received date field should be
automatically populated and locked. This flag is a new IMPAC II DB
element and is not a trivial change.

There will need to be special business rules for e-SNAPs. Certain edit
checks will no longer apply. Approval cycles and document due dates are
different. Institution Administration Officers (AOs) can delegate
functions to PIs for e-SNAP submission. GM personnel will need to be
educated on the differences between paper and e-SNAP policy and
processing. Marcia and Cathy will work with Patty Austin and Tim Twomey
to provide GM training this summer at the GMAC Retreat. Marcia also said
that she would send out a
[chart](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/Summary of E-SNAP Changes for the Department.doc)
showing the differences between paper Type-5 and e-SNAP processing.

Type-5 receipt is not logged the same way in each IC. The group
recommended the mandatory use of the IMPAC II *Type-5 Receipt Screen* in
GM to track receipt enterprise-wide. Mandatory use will also be critical
for the Commons Status system. Eventually notifications of "due" T-5s
will be in the form of a report that grantees will access via the
Commons. It will be essential for ICs to log these applications in as
"received" so that they fall off of the "due" list. Cathy will first
assess IC need for an API for this data field and work with Tracy Soto
and Steve Hughes as appropriate.

As the group reviewed the *Commons v.1 e-SNAP Report,* it was noted that
in the box entitled, *Title and Address of Administrative Official*, the
phone number and fax number from the incoming Type-5 address field are
missing. The group was asked to continue to review this report and send
Marcia and Cathy an email if any other information is missing.

# Summary of Recommendations for Preparing for E-SNAP

### Business Process Changes

-   Mandate use of GMS Assignment no later than July 2002. Will need a
    new edit check.

-   Mandate use of T-5 Receipt Screen no later than August 2002 (FY2003
    progress reports). *How will we enforce this one?*

### IMPAC II GM Application Changes

-   New Database data element---E-Flag. Need a flag on the record to
    indicate an application/progress report has been received
    electronically via the Commons. This would automatically populate
    upon receipt of the data. This is required because different
    business rules will apply to electronically received
    applications/progress reports.

-   Add the E-Flag to the Search Screen---Hit List (similar to the SITs
    flag). (*Will we want this to eventually be up in the search
    criteria as well?*)

-   Add the E-Flag to the Workload Screen.

-   Add the E-Flag to the T-5 Receipt Screen.

-   Add the E-Flag to the GM Worksheet.

-   On the T-5 Receipt Screen have the Receipt date field automatically
    populate when data is received.

-   New edit check requiring GMS Assignment. This should be a failure,
    not a warning.

-   *New edit check for T-5 receipt data field????*

-   Create new e-SNAP Business rules for Human Subjects Assurance Field.

### Other

-   Assess need for API for GMS Assignment field.

-   Assess need for API for T-5 Receipt date field.

-   Notification System---see separate list of recommendations.

-   Training (coordinate with User Support):

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Recommend holding a session on all of this at the GMAC Retreat in
    June 2002.

-   Recommend holding training session(s) on T-5 Receipt Screen
    including writing Filters and Sorts.

-   Recommend holding training session(s) on using the Assignment Batch
    Rules.

# For Future Consideration

-   Design electronic workflow for redoing a progress report.

-   Implement electronic receipt of PI Just-In-Time information.

# Attendees

Albrecht, Lyn

Bourques, Sharon

Christman, Monika

Courtney, Don

Ellis, Joe

Hahn, Marcia (Chair)

Morse, Michael

Nichols, Aaron

Ratnanather, Chanath

Reifsnider, Robert

Rosenberg, Mary Kay

Smith, Karen

Walker, Cathy

Zucker, Sherry