APPENDIX TO MINUTES OF 4/2/01

Below is a compilation of the notes on each suggestion. To streamline
the list, extraneous discussion points have been deleted from items
listed as CLOSED or DUPLICATE.

REV 1115 - 100 - In progress; replaces IMPAC I function. Greenleaf noted
that a focus group will need to be formed in the coming month to see
whether any changes should be considered in moving from IMPAC I
procedures to the IMPAC II environment.

REV 1113 - 100 - In progress and nearly completed; replaces IMPAC I
function.

REV 0310 and 0051 - 95 - CLOSED

REV 0177 - 95 - MODIFIED - There was considerable discussion on the
utility of this request and the programming required to implement it.
Greenleaf suggested that when the Assignment screen is redesigned, the
goals of this suggestion could be met more simply through a better
display of the scientific terms entered by the users.

REV 1194 - 95 - CLOSED

REV 0047 and 0046 - 95 - Sinnett described the issues. Greenleaf noted
that Quick Assign functionality is closely tied with the 1500 screen, so
it was agreed to leave these bundled with other 1500 screen issues.

REV 1207 - 95 - MODIFIED - There was considerable discussion on this
issue, with strong tastes being expressed on both sides of the issue.
Despite the additional programming required, the group felt that the
only way to satisfactorily address the issue would be to modify the
assignment reports so as to include a check box to allow users to select
whether or not designations such as P1, P2, S1, R1, etc will be
displayed on their reports. The default will be for the box to be
unchecked. The default WILL still cause a P to print next to primary
assignments.

REV 1587 - 95 - CLOSED

REV 0324 - 95 - CLOSED

REV 1680 - 95 - MODIFIED - Sinnett explained that the exact issue
described (lack of display of an IPF code in Reviewer Details) need not
be addressed (since the conflict checking procedures will access the IPF
codes whether they are displayed or not), but the larger issue of what
information on a reviewer is brought into the 1500 screen (and its
source) definitely does need to be addressed. There was agreement from
others on this point.

REV 1697 - 95 - There was agreement that a final \"edit check\" button
would be very useful. This would prevent assignment lists from being
mailed out with an inadvertent (non)conflict blocking the reviewer from
knowing that (s)he was actually assigned to review the application. In
the meantime, SRA vigilance is required!

REV 0347 - 95 - 1500 screen issue.

REV 1686 - 95 - ditto

REV 1703 - 95 - ditto

REV 1184 - 93 - DEFER

REV 0036 - 92 - While individual summary statements are now available
through the Grant Folder, the group felt that it would be very useful to
have a feature which would allow users to easily bundle the request for
all (or a selected list of) prior summary statements for a given meeting
into a batch job.

REV 1204 - 92 - CLOSED

REV 1633 - 91 - Discussion had not quite reached completion on this item
at the close of the last meeting. However, Ev Sinnett noted that, in
post meeting discussion, Daniel Fox mentioned receipt of a more detailed
plan, prepared by Sinnett and cleared through the CSR IRG Chiefs, for
carrying out this request.

REV 1181 - 91 - **ACTION ITEM -** Drs. Michael Sesma and Neil Musto will
confirm the conflict rules for making assignments on multicomponent
applications involving collaborations with other institutions so that
the required programming can be done properly.

REV 1116 - 91 - It was noted that the 901 module will be a common
module, integrated most especially with RR but also involving the GM and
IC modules. **ACTION ITEM -** Bobbi David and Scarlett Gibb agreed to
determine all of the present uses for 901s and to verify whether any of
the uses or rules for use have changed or will change in moving to the
IMPAC II environment.

REV 1705 - 90 - CLOSED

REV 1699 - 90 - In addition to the problems noted, Musto pointed out
that there is a problem in the Create Roster function with regard to
Mail Reviewers, with the Attendee Type coming in wrong in CM. **ACTION
ITEM -** Musto will submit a request to the Helpdesk and **this portion
of the problem will be addressed as a BUG.** There seemed to be
agreement that the larger issue of making the Create Roster function
work better might deserve a higher priority. \[NOTE - item REV 0327,
priority 80, should be combined with this item.\]

REV 1638 - 90 - **NON**-**ACTION ITEM -** Vish Kaliappan WAS to check to
see whether this item has been addressed already. Sinnett has verified
that the report in question, the CM \"MEETING ROSTER\" report, has NOT
been fixed.

REV 1187 - 88 - A related suggestion was that even yes/no columns to
indicate whether an individual has active grant support or has any
committee service history would be of significant value in scanning the
results of an Advanced Person search. There was a sense that this might
be of higher priority.

REV 0041 - 88 - Check box to coalesce list to go to GUM may be lower
priority.

REV 1273 - 88 - Include/exclude states for Advanced Person search may be
lower priority.

REV 1702 - 88 - CLOSED

REV 0045 - 88 - MODIFIED. Demonstration of the issue and discussion
brought the group to the consensus that a better solution would be to
shorten the summary statement status field to a single symbol and to
display the Sort Term column in a sortable manner, with blank Sort Terms
sorting to the top.

REV 0160 - 87 - This concept was well received, so long as the existing
query operation is maintained as well.

REV 1205 and 1179 - 86 - While there is some relation between a
\"Streamlining Module\" and the NIAID \"Electronic (or Web) Review\"
system, Bradley commented that the latter is NOT IMPAC II compatible.
The development of these two streamlining issues would not preclude
separate development of an IMPAC II version of Electronic Review,
although development of Streamlining capabilities should allow for an
interface with the Electronic Review. Those in the group who use
streamlining are currently handling this task by hand. While it would be
of use to over 100 study sections in CSR, it would not be universally
used by the ICs.

REV 1720 - 82 - MODIFIED - New selection item for sorting the Assignment
screen. \[Editorial Note/Modification - since User Preferences is at a
lower priority, this item should be linked with a similar request for
the Order of Review screen. You need to be able to work with a hard copy
of draft assignments which prints in the same order as the Assignment
screen displays.\]

REV 0327 - 80 - Combine with REV 1699 (priority of 90) above.

REV 0037 - 80 - CLOSED

REV 1701 - 80 - Simplest implementation would involve shortening other
fields.

REV 1226 - 80 - **ACTION ITEM -** Fox will obtain the reports in
question so that the users group can determine the need for them.

REV 1193 and 1192 - 80 - Discussion captured in the minutes re the need
for flexibility/alternative formats for reports.

REV 1760 - 80 - Discussion captured in the mintues. The developers note
that this would be a MAJOR programming effort. Once completed, it was
suggested that contract review staff could also make use of the Review
Module.

REV 0927 - 80 - User preferences were felt to be a worth idea.

REV 1698 - 80 - Option to print RFA/PA numbers on Master List.

REV 1210 - 75 - WITHDRAWN

REV 1121 - 74 - A printed report from an Advanced Person Search that
would allow efficient prospecting would be useful. Also see REV 1200,
priority 70, below.

REV 1160 - 74 - Addition of review assignments to the Admin Data sheets
may be lower priority.

REV 1200 - 70 - Combine with 1121, priority 74 above.

REV 1195 - 70 - CLOSED

REV 0284 - 70 - Automatic sequential numbering of vote sheets.

REV 1191 - 70 - MODIFIED - Some in the Users Group make use of these
reports in their present format, so deleting the report as suggested is
not warranted. HOWEVER, the competency field should be replaced with
Expertise.

REV 0741 - 70 - While it may be possible to address some of the issues,
some of the most glaring problems relate to data stored in the CM Person
Module.

REV 1201 - 65 - A table to display the office to which official
correspondence should be sent is being developed elsewhere. This screen
needs to be tied in to REV.

REV 0919 - 65 - MODIFIED - Phone extensions should print. Also, there
needs to be an option to print the Alternate Phone field on a reviewer
by reviewer (i.e., selectable) basis.

REV 1109 - 55 - Gender, Minority, and Children fields continue to be
displayed in one order on summary statements, new documentation on human
use, and reviewer guidelines (which use the above, traditional order) vs
the order currently in the GUM (Children, Minority, Gender). Further,
there are inconsistencies between screens in REV (e.g., Sweep Codes is
Minority, Gender, Children). Such inconsistencies invite error in
entering data and confusion in proofing.

REV 1189 - 50 - Hot link to person\'s e-mail

REV 0029 - 50 - MODIFIED - provide for standard, alternate, and
international phone number entry.

REV 1110 - 50 - CLOSED

REV 1188 - 50 - On line bug list - \"There are no bugs!\"

**UNNUMBERED RECENT ADDITIONS**

**REV NNNN - ?? -** From the last meeting, it was suggested that the
Grant History report available in the Grant Folder be enhanced to
include the Program Contact name, phone, and e-mail.

**REV NNNN - ?? -** A separate but related suggestion is the need to
replace the current IMPAC I \"Status\" report (from Module 51). A report
of this type should be accessible from multiple REV and CM screens and
should not require multiple screens to obtain it.