# eRA Project Team Meeting

**Date:** January 22, 2002

**Time:** 9:00 am

**Location:** 6700 B Rockledge, Room 1205

**Chair:** Jim Cain

**Next Meeting:** February 12, 2002

Jim Cain chaired the meeting for John McGowan, who was at a conference.
George Stone's recap of the January Commons Working Group meeting has
been postponed until the next Project Team meeting.

# Action Items

1.  (Software Branch) -- Analyze requirements to implement single point
    of ownership for NIH staff.

2.  (QRC, Sara Silver) -- Repeat data quality presentations for
    developers.

3.  (Kalpesh Patel) -- Present update on eRA architecture at future
    Project Team meeting.

# Agenda Items

1.  **Introduction to Data Integrity Initiative**

Belinda Seto explained that QRC would present their initial status
report on achieving the objectives of their three-year data quality
improvement contract. This is a critical time because Commons
registration is scheduled to reopen in the spring. The immediate goal is
to guarantee that the Commons account for each of the 2,000 grantees
already enrolled corresponds to a single, accurate IMPAC II profile. The
long-term goal is to correct all IMPAC II people data discrepancies and
to implement solutions that will minimize future errors. An integral
part of the solution will be to define the core data elements that
uniquely identify a person, i.e., that verify that John Doe is really
John Doe.

The solution also may require some loss of flexibility and may impose
restrictions on who can edit people data. One proposal is for each IC to
appoint an office/officer that will oversee data integrity. Dr. McGowan
has introduced this idea to EPMC. Regardless of the resolution, Belinda
assured the group that new data integrity safeguards would not impede
the NIH extramural business process.

Belinda then described the three tasks in the QRC statement of work and
introduced the task leaders. Belinda also introduced Mary Look, QRC's
senior manager for data analysis services.

  --------- ------------------------------------- -----------------------
  **Task    **Task Name**                         **Task Leaders**
  No.**                                           

  Task 1    Development of Data Quality Business  Richard Mantovani
            Model                                 

  Task 2    Correction of Existing Data           Don McMaster

  Task 3    Development of a Plan for Improvement Paul Gammill
  --------- ------------------------------------- -----------------------

The Data Integrity Advocacy group holds monthly meetings, which are open
to all interested persons. Belinda invited participation and asked the
Project Team to email her with comments and questions

2.  **QRC Status Report on Correction of Existing Data (Task 2)**

Don McMaster briefed the Project Team on his investigative analyses (see
attachment A, slides 1-10). He reported that within two to three weeks,
he would recommend corrective action for the 105 Commons accounts that
do not map to discrete IMPAC II profiles. Of the approximately 2000
principal investigators registered in the Commons, 308 records
presumably have been checked by authorized officials (AOs); these
validated Commons entries will be used to correct IMPAC II profile data.
QRC, in partnership with eRA staff, also will reconcile the remaining
1600 accounts before Commons registration reopens in the May/June
timeframe. Queries, guidelines and tracking mechanisms developed by QRC
to analyze and rectify the initial records will be used for the
enterprise-wide cleanup.

*[SSN Analysis]{.underline}* -- Of 346,000 profiles in the OLTP, 243,000
appear to have "valid-looking" SSNs. Sherry Zucker asked if missing SSNs
were considered valid or invalid. Don will revise his slide to show the
distribution of valid, invalid **and** missing SSNs. Of 7100 profiles
with shared SSNs, 73% appear to be candidates for collapse; the
remaining 27% with distinctly different names are candidates for
correction.

*[Names Analysis]{.underline}* -- Of 346,000 profiles in the OLTP, 77%
appear to be unique persons and 23% are possible duplicates. There are
over 20,000 sequential, multiple profiles, which were erroneously
created by payback and contract reloads from IMPAC I to IMPAC II. Carol
Martin inquired about the possibility of two different persons with the
same name but different SSNs. Don said the situation is rare, but does
exist. Belinda reiterated the need to establish the core data elements
to identify a unique person. Cathy Walker gave the example of two POs at
NIAID named Dennis Dixon. Every couple of months, their records have to
be uncollapsed. Don pointed out that QRC tasks 1 and 3 are looking at
ways to prevent data corruption. Carol then asked if the record
examination process were manual; Don replied yes.

*[Data Correction Example]{.underline}* -- Don explained the steps taken
to reconcile two profile records with the same first and last name but
different middle initial. Validation included going to an outside source
(CV posted on web). Jim Cain inquired about the number of staff hours
used to change the middle initial. Don replied that it took days;
however with procedures in place, future corrections will take far less
time. He added that QRC would do a cost/benefit analysis as part of
their tasking. Of concern is the possibility that without proper
controls, an NIH user can undo the correction.

*[Validation of NIH Profiles]{.underline}* -- Marcia Hahn asked if there
were plans to validate and freeze NIH profile records. Tim Twomey said
that the concept of single point of ownership should extend to internal
staff. Jim Cain agreed. Sara Silver inquired which interface would be
used. Sherry Zucker answered that there will be a free-standing module
for profile maintenance. Jim requested analysis of requirements to
implement single point of ownership for NIH staff.

*[Scope of Problem]{.underline}* -- Jim Cain asked for an estimate of
the percent of profiles with problems. Jim Tucker said 7.5%; Maria said
9%; Rich Mantovanni said that QRC's analysis of the last council round
revealed that 9% of profiles created were duplicates. Jim Cain said that
3-5% would be the upper limit of acceptability.

3.  **QRC Status Report on Development of a Data Quality Model (Task
    1)**

Rich Mantovanni reported on QRC's task 1 activities: analysis of the
database, interfaces and procedures; development of use cases; and
identification of business rules and a business model (see slides
11-21). QRC almost has completed these steps for R&R. His team has found
that type-over practices are introducing many data errors; there is
considerable confusion regarding the "Change PI" and "Edit PI" functions
(see screen GM1040). As a solution, QRC recommends restricted access,
data validation, and interface simplification.

4.  **QRC Status Report on Development of a Plan for Improvement (Task
    3)**

Paul Gammill assured the Project Team that eRA is not alone in
struggling with personal identifier issues. QRC will consider existing
government and private sector solutions when proposing identification
algorithms and procedures for eRA. Ultimately, the software development
contractor will implement approved algorithms; QRC will serve as
consultant and guarantor of algorithm efficacy.

As part of their tasking, QRC is developing a data quality white paper,
which addresses fundamental questions: What does data quality mean to
NIH? How valuable are our knowledge assets? What are the risks and
costs? How do we measure quality? See slides 22-26 for more details.

5.  **Data Integrity Business Plan -- Problems, Solutions, Concerns**

Sara Silver provided a qualitative analysis of eRA data integrity as a
whole and introduced the business plan (see attachment B). The desired
outcomes of the plan include: a single profile per individual; a
one-to-one relationship between the Commons account and IMPAC II
profile; single point of ownership; and improved structures and
interfaces for recording demographic, address and degree data. Jim Cain
noted that as stewards of the data, we are responsible for its
reliability.

Sara summarized the problems already cited by Belinda Seto and QRC and
proposed solutions. In addition to QRC's data correction project, Sara
described three other initiatives: cleanup of 10,000 orphaned records;
sunset of the forward bridge of people data from IMPAC I to IMPAC II,
and redesign of the Person module.

Sara presented a flowchart to explain how single point of ownership
would be incorporated into the Person module redesign. According to this
model, the only bodies empowered to update validated profiles would be
the OER Data Quality group and new IC Data Quality officers. Sherry
Zucker asked Sara to include an arrow showing how the Commons would
remain in synch with IMPAC II changes. The flowchart also needs to
depict the implementation of single point of ownership for NIH staff
profiles. Sara stressed the need for careful analysis to ensure that
single point of ownership does not impede the grant process.

In addition to single point of ownership, the new Person module will
include changes to business rules, screens, address, degree, and
role/profile structures. These modifications will be designed to clear
up confusion and satisfy business area requirements. The new module will
also adopt a consistent approach to people in Commons and IMPAC II.

Next, Sara presented a draft implementation schedule for sunsetting the
forward bridge (May/June 2002), locking validated profiles for existing
Commons registrants (March/April 2002) and implementing single point of
ownership (May/June 2002). The timeframe for the Person module redesign
has not been defined. In response to Tim Twomey's question about new
registrations, Sara said there have been a few registrations via
X-Train. Richard Panniers questioned the cleaning of existing data and
suggested starting fresh with new registrants. Both Belinda Seto and Jim
Cain responded that we need the historical context for reporting (e.g.,
on the success of the training program). Wally Schaeffer pointed out
legal implications for erroneous payback data.

Krishna Collie pointed out that correct person data for consultants is
also important, especially to the CM community. In fact, revising the
Person screen is CM's highest priority. Timing is critical since the CM
redesign is already behind schedule. Carol Martin also noted that
city-state-zip code fields need to be filled in IMPAC II.

Sara then discussed Person module implementation concerns. We need
policy decisions regarding single point of ownership and access
restrictions. Resources are very tight. There are also timing and
architecture considerations. QRC has a three-year contract; however,
business rule recommendations are needed soon. Furthermore, the Person
module has to be redesigned for multiple IMPAC II applications, which
means accommodating different platforms. Sherry Zucker pointed out that
our object-oriented approach is suited to this task. Jim Cain said that
soon there would be a presentation on eRA architecture to clarify plans.

Sherry Zucker praised all presentations and asked that they be repeated
for developers at Northup Grumman.

6.  **Status Reports/Announcements**

> *[IMPAC II Deployments]{.underline}* -- The following upgrades were
> deployed successfully on January 18: CM 3.9.10.0, GM 1.9.6.0, ICO
> 2.7.7.0, QV 1.8.4.0, REV 3.0.0.0, RR 1.2.9.0, CRISP+ 3.4.7.0, TA
> 2.7.5.0, and UADM 1.5.2.0. According to Tim Twomey, the only problem
> is that central printing is not working from ICSTORe. January council
> summary statements NEED to be released in IMPAC I. ECB will continue
> to access the longs; use of the PDF version is in test mode. Beginning
> with the May council round, summary statements should be released in
> IMPAC II, which will be the only comprehensive source of summary
> statements. Eileen Bradley said that she would test the IMPAC II
> release function.
>
> *[Changes to IRDB]{.underline}* -- Carol Martin reported that the
> migration of all \"person\" data from the Online Transaction
> Processing (OLTP) database to the Reporting Database (IRDB) was
> completed on December 28, 2001. Users now can query and report on
> current and historical role-level information. Previously, only
> current profile-level PI information was available.

**Attachments**

A. [QRC Data Quality Improvement
Presentation](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/A_QRC_Data_Quality_Report_01-22-02.ppt)

B. [Sara Silver's Presentation on Data
Integrity](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/B_Data_Integrity_01-22_ERA_Project_Team.ppt)

# Attendees

Lyn Albrecht

Patricia Austin

Carol Bleakley

Eileen Bradley

Maria Bukowski

Linda Castronovo

Jim Cain

Krishna Collie

Zoe-Ann Copeland

Bud Erickson

Thor Fjellstedt

Donna Frahm

Paul Gammill

Stefanie Geaney

Scarlett Gibb

Marcia Hahn

Della Hann

Steve Hausman

Stephen Hughes

Mary Look

Rich Mantovani

Paul Markovitz

Tom Mason

Carol Martin

Khalid Masood

Don McMaster

Madeline Monheit

Bob Moore

Larry Morton

Richard Panniers

Kalpesh Patel

Bob Reifsnider

Patti Rodbell

Christine Rumney

Wally Schaffer

Belinda Seto

Mark Siegert

Sara Silver

Tracy Soto

Jerry Stuck

Jim Tucker

Tim Twomey

Virginia Van Brunt

Catherine Walker

Sherry Zucker