# Commons/Data Integrity Meeting

**Date:** September 26, 2001

**Time:** 9:00 am

**Location:** Rockledge I, Room 1113

### Action Items

1.  (Mark) Provide Maria with names of 5,000 persons currently
    registered in the Commons.

2.  (Maria) Check data integrity of profile records for persons above.

3.  (Bob R./Al) Document proposed changes to UPA; present requirements
    for approval.

4.  (George) Get formal NIH approval for concept of single point of
    ownership.

5.  (Bob R./Al) Develop use cases.

6.  (Maria/Sara) Set up mechanisms for verifying profiles of new Commons
    registrants and locking the profiles.

### Discussion Items 

1.  **New Commons Project Manager**

> George introduced Jerry Stuck who has been appointed to the new
> Commons Project Manager position. Jerry's understanding of community
> issues and his experience with the recent implementation of the NSF
> FastLane (200,000 registered users) will be extremely valuable in
> planning and deploying Version 2.2 of the NIH Commons.
>
> Jerry will interact with Sherry Zucker on a formal basis to coordinate
> Commons and IMPAC II initiatives to ensure one seamless end-to-end
> electronic system. They will also take advantage of opportunities to
> transfer knowledge and reuse code. For example, lessons learned from
> J2EE development for the Commons will facilitate the same effort for
> IMPAC II.

2.  **Coordination of Data Improvement Strategies**

> George presented a 3-phase approach (see attachment) for implementing
> single point of ownership as a means of preserving the integrity of
> the unique personal profile. This concept was approved by the eRA
> Project Team and presented to the Commons Working Group (CWG) at their
> August meeting.
>
> Using a water-based analogy, George proposes to 1) fix "leaks" in the
> existing system which permit the introduction of duplicate profiles;
> 2) cleanse existing "waters" which contain problem records; and 3)
> filter incoming flow for positive identification of grantees and key
> personnel.
>
> Bob Moore noted that George's approach closely maps the tasking on
> QRC's statement of work. QRC recently won a 3-year contract to clean
> up people data in the IMPAC II OLTP and IRDB. Bob, Maria and Sara have
> been facilitating the QRC effort. All agreed that Commons and IMPAC II
> strategies need to be closely coordinated.

Although the Unique Person Algorithm (UPA) is not a concern for Commons
Version 2.1 (which will serve as a proof of concept for J2EE), the UPA
will be critical for Version 2.2 planned for Spring 2002, when 175
institutions and 5,000-10,000 users are expected to register (George's
estimate).

3.  **Highlights of Data Quality Discussion**

-   (Maria) While duplicate profiles are the obvious problem,
    incorrectly collapsed records present a more insidious problem.

-   (Mark) It would be better to change the nomenclature from
    "incorrectly collapsed" to "inconsistent."

-   (Maria) Audit trails were not completely online until the Spring
    of 2000. Records changed prior to that time may have incomplete
    audit trails.

-   (Bob M.) At the outset, grant data only (not application data)
    should be presented to grantees for profile verification.

-   (George) The Commons will need to include a mechanism for PIs to
    delegate update authority for their profiles. The CWG concluded that
    PIs cannot be expected to maintain their own records.

-   (George) We need to define what combination of elements (name,
    DOB...) constitutes a unique person.

-   (Maria) In response to Mark's question about scope, Maria stated
    that data cleanup includes all personnel and not just PIs.

-   A locking mechanism needs to be developed to prevent unauthorized
    update of verified profiles.

-   (Maria) In general, grants and status data in OLTP role records are
    OK; however, the same grants in the IRDB may not be correct since
    profile records are used.

-   (Bob M.) Historical records are more likely to contain errors than
    recent records.

-   (Bob M.) We need a permanent Department of Data Quality.

-   It was suggested that Maria/QRC begin by checking the profiles of
    those already registered in the Commons Version 1.

-   (Tim) Although Commons registration is currently closed, we will be
    registering new users via TA and X-Train.

-   QRC's recommendations will not be in time for the new Commons UPA;
    however, their recommendations can be implemented in R&R.

-   (Jerry) In response to Sara's concern about the possibility of
    negative public relations if we present incorrect data to the user,
    Jerry believes it's OK if the outcome is clean data.

-   (Maria) IMPAC II profile records (not role records) should be used
    to establish a match.

4.  **New UPA Logic**

> The UPA is being revisited for several reasons: to facilitate the
> integration of the Commons and IMPAC II into one enterprise system; to
> accommodate the transfer of profile maintenance to the external
> community; and to improve data quality.

#### Logic of Version 1 UPA

> The criteria for establishing a match are name, email address, DOB,
> grant number and institution. The DOB and grant number are optional;
> however if the user does not enter a DOB, there will not be a match.
> If no match is found, a new profile is generated. If there are
> multiple matches, the user is instructed to call the Help Desk.

#### Proposed Logic for Version 2 UPA

> \--Have you been awarded a grant by the NIH or do you have an
> application in process?
>
> \--If yes, provide ROLE LEVEL grant number, PROFILE name, PROFILE
> email, PROFILE DOB (optional) and ROLE LEVEL institution.
>
> \--If grant number matches ROLE grant number, and first or last name
> matches IMPAC II PROFILE name, link to the relevant profile.

\--If grant number and first or last name do not match IMPAC II PROFILE
name/ROLE grant combination, do second test:

(ROLE DOB or ROLE email address) + (ROLE first or ROLE last name)

\+ (ROLE grant-related institution) = match

\--If no match, generate a new profile. If one or more matches, present
list for confirmation/ selection. For each possible match, present
PROFILE name, ROLE LEVEL email address, ROLE LEVEL institution
involvements, and most current awarded grant for each institution
involvement.

\--User selects one match or selects one match and indicates possible
problem (text box for explanation) or searches again. If user does not
confirm a match, generate new profile.

\--Profile match must be verified by NIH person before user can update
profile. If user indicates a problem, notify user of resolution.

### Attendees

Bukowski, Maria

D'Amico, Al

Dilawari, Leena

Goodman, Mike

Markovitz, Paul

Monheit, Madeline

Moore, Bob

Reifsnider, Bob

Silver, Sara

Stone, George

Stuck, Jerry

Twomey, Tim

Weiser, Mark

### Attachment

eRA and People Profiles: Plan for Implementation of Single Point of
Ownership