[APPENIDX D]{.underline}

BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH

The CME SIM Project Team looked for systems that were in widespread use,
were current and based on current technology, and either could be
adapted for use by the Department of Energy (DOE) or offered important
lessons for DOE in designing its system for electronic management of
scientific research. This appendix, which is divided into four areas of
study, summarizes the best practices research and findings of the Team.

-   Section D.1 contains charts that represent views of the flow of
    activities in administering research projects. The CME SIM Project
    Team first developed and agreed upon two views of the research
    project management process. The charts presented in Section D.1
    break down the project administration process into the minimum
    number of steps required to administer science. A clear and
    transparent view of the research management process is essential for
    designing a new project administration system. Any new project
    administration system at DOE should simplify the process of handling
    projects and minimize the number of steps required.

-   Section D.2 discusses the context for any Collaborative Management
    Environment (CME) activity provided by Federal government-wide
    activities in the project administration arena. The section
    discusses the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and its
    significance for the CME. It also describes the Interagency
    Electronic Grants Committee (IAEGC), which coordinates multi-agency
    efforts on systems development and serves as a clearinghouse for the
    exchange of information among the Federal agencies and with the
    research institutions. It is responsible for the Federal Commons
    system. The Interagency Edison system is used for reporting
    inventions developed with Federal funding to the government and is
    an example of the government-wide initiatives that this committee is
    overseeing. This system deserves close attention as most of the
    institutions that carry out research for DOE are already linked to
    it. The CME SIM Project Team believes that all DOE initiatives in
    science project management must be consistent with government-wide
    policies. Consultation with and coordination through the IAEGC in
    every stage of system development is strongly recommended. In
    addition, the new system must enable DOE compliance with the letter
    and the spirit of the GPRA.

-   Section D.3 describes systems in use at other Federal agencies that
    DOE might emulate: the National Science Foundation (NSF) FastLane
    system and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ERA Commons
    system. These systems will cover every aspect of science management
    when they are fully implemented. Between them, they currently offer
    essentially complete coverage, each with some elements still under
    development. FastLane offers electronic submission of applications,
    electronic review, and electronic execution and reporting/tracking.
    It is an excellent prototype for the Department of Energy. The ERA
    Commons does not yet allow electronic submission, but it will
    eventually do so. It has special relevance for DOE, because NIH has
    a similar annual budget as DOE and is comparable to DOE in its
    organizational complexity, multiplicity of funding mechanisms, and
    management of intramural and extramural research projects. The CME
    SIM Project Team urges a close look at these two systems. They offer
    many features that DOE will want to incorporate into its system. In
    addition, the research institutions funded by DOE, including the
    national laboratories, are already interacting with the NIH and NSF
    systems and will not be enthusiastic about a DOE system that is not
    compatible with them. The Team believed that the DOE system will
    have to have common data dictionaries and other features that allow
    institutions to develop a minimum of internal systems for
    interacting with the Federal government.

-   Section D.4 provides a review of several systems that are in use or
    coming into use in DOE that will become part of the new information
    technology environment. It includes descriptions of several
    initiatives within DOE, starting with the CME Pilot. These
    initiatives are being implemented in stages and will become a part
    of the new environment. They incorporate the best thinking about the
    state-of-the-art in electronic technologies in the DOE environment.
    They will undoubtedly become a part of the new CME developed for
    DOE. The systems that are presented include the Industry Interactive
    Procurement System (IIPS), which covers procurement activities
    outside the science management arena, but nevertheless offers an
    excellent example of how management of funding by DOE can be greatly
    improved in efficiency, timeliness of actions, and complete
    accessibility of information for all parties concerned, inside and
    outside the agency. The success of this system offers encouragement
    that science management by DOE can also be improved with a proper
    system in place. The Strategic Management System (EERE), Technology
    Management System (EM and possibly other parts of DOE), and
    Information Management for the Office of Science (IMSC) are internal
    systems that cover many of the desired project management processes.
    These systems are being developed and implemented in stages. They
    are intended to mesh with systems in other elements of the
    Department as they are put in place. Relevant features from these
    systems should be included in any project management system
    developed for the Department.

The CME SIM Project Team identified a number of project management
system features that can be described as "best practices". These
features include:

-   A single comprehensive system for data management, avoiding
    duplicate data entry.

-   A fully electronic system.

-   A high level of security.

-   Use of technologies that for the research performers are platform
    independent.

-   Offer complete compatibility and interoperability across the
    government.

-   Comprehensive data dictionaries that are consistent with Federal
    standards and while managed by DOE are developed with input from all
    stakeholders.

-   Rapid execution of funding decisions (making it possible for the
    research to start within days of the funding decision, rather than
    months).

-   Elimination of paper reporting.

### **D.1 The Science Management Work Flow at DOE**

The group suggests two views of the flow of projects through the DOE
system. These are given in Figures D-1 and D-2. The first view shows the
central database system and how each stage of the process interacts with
it. The segments of project management are color-coded to indicate
whether they are performed by DOE or by the research organization. The
process proceeds from the "Call for Proposals/Applications"
counter-clockwise. The second view delineates the distinct actions that
are taken. This chart provides the perspective of where and by whom the
actions are taken, and emphasizes the action points that link with each
other.

The charts break down the overall process into elements that are
distinctly different in nature. They provide a focus on the functions
involved in funding of science at DOE, as opposed to the details of the
procedures that one office or another might use in carrying out its part
in the overall process. Thus it allows for flexibility in designing a
new system by specifying the minimum set of functions that any new
system would have to address without specifying the exact mechanisms
that one program or another might wish to use. For example, the box
"Administrative, Merit, Relevance Review" will be managed differently by
the various programs, but the basic function of "Review" represented by
this box is a requirement for all science projects, regardless of
program.

This is consistent with the viewpoint that DOE needs a framework that
offers clarity to the research institutions and investigators without
constraining different parts of the agency in their internal management
of research funding.

The flowcharts also are completely general in applying to all types of
research institutions. Every step that is identified in either chart is
needed for every project, whether it is from a DOE laboratory, another
Federal agency, or the private sector. All external institutions
interact with DOE in the same fundamental ways, and this is recognized
in the organization of the two charts.

![](media/image1.wmf)

***Figure D-1***

***Conceptual System Data Flow***

***Figure D-2***

##### Flow Chart for Science Projects![](media/image2.wmf) 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **[Explanations for Figure D-2:]{.underline}**                        |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  Hexagonal boxes and dotted lines are considered beyond the scope  |
|     of this study.                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Rectangular boxes represent activities that are at least in part  |
|     within the CME SIM Project scope.                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  Some rectangular boxes are comprised of more than one step, but   |
|     for simplicity's sake they have been combined, since the steps    |
|     are similar in nature.                                            |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  Different elements within DOE will carry out various steps        |
|     differently, and the chart is intended to allow for such          |
|     variations. For example, the review activities will be carried    |
|     out in different ways for different kinds of projects and in      |
|     different program offices.                                        |
|                                                                       |
| 5.  The principal investigators (PI) and research institutions appear |
|     both above and below the horizontal line, as the functions are    |
|     considered different for proposal preparation and submission on   |
|     the one hand and management of funded R&D on the other.           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**D.2 Interagency Activities**

***D.2.1 Government Performance and Results Act Issues***

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report "Evaluating Federal
Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) 1999" has been evaluated to determine its impact and
relevance to the CME SIM Project. The full text of the NAS report,
including full text of the GPRA, is at
*[http://books.nap.edu/books/0309064309/html/index.html.]{.underline}*

The GPRA, a Congressional mandate enacted into law in 1993, encourages
greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in Federal
programs and spending. It requires all agencies to: develop a strategic
plan which sets general goals and objectives over a 5-year period;
develop a performance plan which translates the strategic plan into
annual targets; and report annually to Congress, in terms of performance
outcomes, to demonstrates whether the targets were met.

The NAS evaluation and report on Federal R&D in terms of GPRA provides
six conclusions and six recommendations that are all relevant at some
level to our best practices exercise. Here is an example that is
especially relevant to the CME SIM Project, as it points out the need
for any DOE project management system to be interoperable with systems
of other science agencies for the purposes of coordination and
cross-cutting exercises:

-   NAS report Conclusion 5 (page 7): Mechanisms for coordinating
    research programs in multiple agencies whose fields or subject
    matters overlap are insufficient. It is common and valuable for
    agencies to approach similar fields of research from different
    perspectives. Indeed this pluralism is a major strength of the U.S.
    research enterprise. But, better communication among agencies would
    enhance opportunities for collaboration, help keep important
    questions from being overlooked, and reduce instances of inefficient
    duplication of effort. Present mechanisms need strengthening.

-   NAS report Recommendation 5 (page 11): Although GPRA is conducted
    agency-by-agency, a formal process should be established to identify
    and coordinate areas of research that are supported by multiple
    agencies. A lead agency should be identified for each field of
    research and that agency should be responsible for assuring that
    coordination occurs among the agencies.

Summarized below are the NAS Executive Summary and the six conclusions
and recommendations.

*[NAS Executive Summary]{.underline}*: The GPRA enacted in 1993, focuses
agency and oversight attention on the performance and results of
government activities by requiring that all Federal agencies measure and
report on the results of their activities annually. Agencies are
required to develop a strategic plan that sets goals and objectives for
at least a 5-year period, an annual performance plan that translates the
goals of the strategic plan into annual targets, and an annual
performance report that demonstrates whether the targets are met. The
Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) and the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and
the Institute of Medicine has addressed the issue of measuring and
evaluating research in compliance with the requirements of GPRA. (pg. 1)

*[Conclusions:]{.underline}*

-   Both applied research and basic research programs supported by the
    Federal government can be evaluated meaningfully on a regular basis.
    (pg. 4)

-   Agencies must evaluate their research programs by using measurements
    that match the character of the research. Differences in the
    character of the research will lead to differences in the
    appropriate time scale for measurement, in what is measurable and
    what is not, and in the experience needed by those who contribute to
    the measurement process. (pg. 4)

-   The most effective means of evaluating Federally-funded research
    programs is expert reviews. Expert review -- which includes quality
    review, relevance review, and benchmarking -- should be used to
    assess both basis research and applied research programs. (pg. 5)

-   The nation cannot benefit from advances in science and technology
    without a continuing supply of well-educated and well-trained
    scientists and engineers. Without such a flow, the capability of an
    agency to fulfill its mission will be compromised. Agencies must pay
    increased attention to their human-resource requirements in terms of
    training and educating young scientists and engineers and in terms
    of providing an adequate supply of scientists and engineers to
    academe, industry, and Federal laboratories. (pg. 7)

-   Mechanisms for coordinating research programs in multiple agencies
    whose fields or subject matters overlap are insufficient.

-   The development of effective methods for evaluating and reporting
    performance requires the participation of the scientific and
    engineering community, whose members will necessarily be involved in
    expert review.

*[Recommendations:]{.underline}*

-   Because both applied and basic research can be evaluated
    meaningfully on a regular basis and are vital to research and
    mission agendas, research programs should be described in strategic
    and performance plans and evaluated in performance reports. (pg. 8)

-   For applied research programs, agencies should measure quality,
    relevance, and leadership. In addition, agencies should conduct
    periodic reviews of the overall practical outcomes of an agency\'s
    overall past support of applied and basic research. The use of
    measurements needs to recognize what can and cannot be measured.
    Misuse of measurement can lead to strongly negative results; for
    example, measuring basic research on the basis of short-term
    relevance would be extremely destructive to quality work. (pg. 9)

-   Federal agencies should use expert review to assess the quality of
    research they support, the relevance of that research to their
    mission, and the leadership of the research. Expert review must
    strive for balance between having the most knowledgeable and the
    most independent individuals serve as members. Each agency should
    develop clear, explicit guidance with regard to structuring and
    employing expert review processes. The most effective way to
    evaluate research programs is by expert review. (pg. 9)

-   Both research and mission agencies should describe in their
    strategic and performance plans the goal of developing and
    maintaining adequate human resources in fields critical to their
    missions both at the national level and in their agencies. Human
    resources should become a part of evaluation of a research program
    along with the program\'s quality in terms of research advancement,
    relevance in terms of application development, and leadership in
    terms of the ability to take advantage of opportunities when they
    arise. (pg. 10)

-   Although GPRA is conducted agency-by-agency, a formal process should
    be established to identify and coordinate areas of research that are
    supported by multiple agencies. A lead agency should be identified
    for each field of research and that agency should be responsible for
    assuring that coordination occurs among the agencies. (pg. 11)

-   The science and engineering community can and should play an
    important role in GPRA implementation. As a first step, they should
    become familiar with agency strategic and performance plans, which
    are available on the agencies' web sites. (pg. 11)

**Conclusion:** GPRA is mandated by law. Best practices necessarily
require that GPRA principles and requirements be contemplated as part of
any R&D system enhancements.

***D2.2 The Interagency Electronic Grants Committee***

*Note: Throughout this discussion where the word "grant" is used, it is
intended to cover all types of projects whether supported by a grant or
under a contract or other mechanism.*

The IAEGC (*http://www.financenet.gov/iaegc.htm*) \"was established to
coordinate, promote, and facilitate the effective use of electronic
commerce (EC) throughout the Federal grants community. This
responsibility includes encouraging and assisting Federal agencies in
developing electronic grants systems and standardizing EC methodologies
throughout the Federal government." The Government Information
Technology Services Board recommended in 1997 that the IAEGC be
established. The Federal EC Program Office carried out this mandate,
resulting in adoption of the IAEGC charter by the participating agencies
in July 1997.

The IAEGC has a vision: "A seamless, continuously improving,
government-wide grants environment achieved through the coordination of
technology, unified policy, streamlined business practices, improved
management techniques, and vigorous participation by all stakeholders."

An early activity was to survey all agencies on key aspects of
electronic administration of projects. A report ( was issued in June
1998 that covers several topics of interest to the CME. For example, 40%
or more of the 21 agencies that responded reported that they already had
automated systems for applications receipt and processing, awards
processing, grants administration, accounting, and payments. Thirteen of
the agencies had plans to develop electronic grants systems. Eight
agencies were sharing their development efforts with other agencies,
with the Department of Health and Human Services Interagency Edison and
SmartLink payment systems being widely used. The survey indicated that
the highest degree of automation was in the payments area. Interagency
cooperation on systems design, adoption of a standard data dictionary,
and joint evaluation of commercially available software in systems
implementation were identified as priority opportunities for the
immediate future.

The IAEGC is an element of the Federal Commons which is being developed
by the Federal Grant Electronic Commerce Committee
*(http://www.ec.fed.gov/)*. The Electronic Commerce Project Plan, Third
Edition *(* (March 1999) is a comprehensive document on all aspects of
Federal coordination on research and procurement administration. It can
be read on line or downloaded.

The IAEGC Five-Year Action Plan is available on the web and covers
activities from 2000 onward *()*. It is organized around four goals,
each of which has several objectives.

Goal 1 -- Establish a comprehensive, one-stop, Federal gateway for all
electronic grants processing. The first objective is to establish the
Federal Commons as the common interface for granting agencies and
institutions. NIH, NSF, ONR, DoED, HHS, USDA have already approved this
and the target is for 15 agencies to sign up by the end of FY 2001.
Sharing of grant-related data among the agencies is a priority, as is
development of an electronic posting system for solicitations, and
application/proposal submission module, a status-checking module, and an
award notification module. Progress reporting and post-award
administration activities are still under discussion. However, the
Interagency Edison invention reporting system has been implemented and
ten agencies are using it (see the description provided below).

The second objective under this goal is to implement e-commerce for
information exchange across all aspects of the project life cycle. A
major task is to establish common data standards for each proposal
processing activity. Submission standards, award notification standards,
and professional profile standards have been adopted. Standards for
application and award notification, organizational profile,
announcement/solicitation, progress and technical reporting, post-award
administration, and SBIR/STTR are being developed. The data dictionary
is being maintained and efforts are under way to map jointly determined
data elements to individual agency policies and systems.

The third objective under the first goal is to provide a forum for
exploring and exploiting new technologies. New systems are highlighted
as they are implemented by various members' agencies and new
multi-agency initiatives are identified.

Goal 2 -- The second goal is to coordinate a unified Federal electronic
grant policy. This involves joint development of responses to major
issues, such as interoperability, electronic files as official
government records, digital signatures and other security issues, and
common graphical user interfaces. Under this goal the committee is
coordinating the response to pending legislation and working with the
Office of Management and Budget on implementation of OMB guidelines and
meeting statutory and regulatory requirements. Also, the committee is
coordinating with the CFO Council's Grants Management Committee, the CIO
Council, the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program, the Federal
Demonstration Partnership, the Federal Agency Information Architecture
Working Group, and state, local, and private-sector organizations.

Goal 3 -- The third goal is to conduct outreach to make the larger
community aware of the efforts under way to implement electronic
commerce in science project administration. This is carried out within
the Federal government and through participation in the National Council
of University Research Administrators, Society of Research
Administrators, and other organizations.

Goal 4 -- The final goal is to improve management consistency and
performance metrics for electronic project administration. This is
intended to ensure unified objectives and products among all the varied
activities under way and to provide a means of measuring progress toward
meeting milestones and objectives.

### 

### 

### **D2.3 Interagency Edison: A System for Reporting Inventions to the Government**

**System Description:** Interagency Edison supports a "common face" for
invention reporting to the government. The system has been designed to
facilitate grantee/contractor institutions with the compliance of laws
and regulations mandated by the Bayh-Dole Act, the purpose of which is
to ensure the transfer of technology from the research laboratory to the
commercial/public sector. An Interagency Edison user can create a test
account and practice using Interagency Edison in a test environment.
They can also create a formal account and access the secure production
server. Interagency Edison includes instructions on submitting
information and reference materials relating to the regulations on
inventions funded by the government.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   This is a database for inventions that insures all the specific
    cases and details are input, but access to the data is restricted,
    as might be expected for patent information. The main concern of
    this database is that all contingencies are covered. Security issues
    are well addressed.

-   The system is very flexible in allowing single entries and also
    accommodating organizations, such as the DOE labs, that might have
    large numbers of items to submit at one time.

-   The system is being used by many of the Federal agencies that fund
    R&D, and thus the organizations funded by DOE will be familiar with
    it if and when DOE adopts it.

[Disadvantages]{.underline}: None identified.

### **D.3 Systems at Other Federal Agencies**

### **D3.1 National Science Foundation: FastLane**

**System Description:** This is an interactive real-time system used to
conduct NSF business over the Internet. All of the following are done
online in one place using a web browser and incorporating sufficient
security:

-   Proposal preparation and electronic submission

-   Proposal review and comment including panel review and travel
    information.

-   PI and institutional information maintenance.

-   Proposal status.

-   Funding status.

-   Business office functions.

-   Continuation funding status.

-   Project report preparation and submission on line: routine, annual,
    and final.

-   Project reports system.

FastLane is a UNIX-based system. This contributes to its power but does
cause some configuration and coordination requirements. For example, at
this time Adobe Acrobat's latest version does not work on the FastLane
system. Users have to be instructed to use the previous version until
the latest one is available in a Unix version.

User administration is complicated for this system. Passwords, privacy,
notification by e-mail and list servers, etc. requires significant
attention. Currently, passwords are being changed every six months. The
system is supported by a network of directors in NSF, all available by
telephone. This may contribute to its success.

Since the system is centered on principal investigators, it offers many
capabilities for communicating with the principal investigators (PIs).
Customized news reports can be subscribed to by e-mail, discussion
groups, and "what\'s new" pages are also available. A Help Desk
(1-703-306-1142) is also available. There are currently 3000 registered
institutions with many principal investigators from each institution.

An awards search function is available. Funding trends and other
information reports are available. Principal investigators can search
flexibly for research opportunities, notifications, research
announcement schedules, and proposal requirements. In the notifications
and requests section there are links to the Grants Policy Manual that
describes the requirements for submitting proposals.

The proposal process and the execution process are tightly coupled. A
principal investigator will not be approved for a new proposal if
reports from existing research are delinquent. Revisions to proposals
can be made immediately to accommodate funding restrictions. The program
manager and principal investigator can negotiate and immediately update
required documentation.

Proposal review is done completely online. Selection of reviewers,
distribution of proposals, collection of comments, and scheduling are
all done within the integrated system. Proposal status is available,
maintained, and can be reviewed online.

Integrated business office functions enable institutions to draw down
funds online so the funds will be available to the principal
investigator the day after an award is made. Principal investigators can
request automatic time extensions up to 12 months online. Institutions
can maintain data about themselves and their principal investigators
online.

The project reports system is very flexible and multifunctional. The
principal investigator can create other authorized users so that his
time is not always required for using the system or entering data.
Annual, final, and interim reports can be created and submitted directly
online. Detailed participant information is also available and
searchable. Multiple users are allowed, but it is the principal
investigator\'s responsibility to assure that only one user modifies
specific information at a time, since only the changes of the last user
will be retained.

Scientific notation cannot be entered online. However extensive use of
attached media files (PDF) is available. Data can be entered, reviewed,
submitted, unsubmitted, files attached, and released all online.
Reviewing past submissions is available. The principal investigator can
also maintain PIN numbers and work on multiple awards.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   This system would appear to offer much of what DOE seeks in an
    advanced technological form.

-   Personal comments indicate that the system has some downtime
    problems, but for a new system, it has great potential.

-   Training classes are available, but the system is very easy to use
    and intuitive.

[Disadvantages:]{.underline}

-   The system can be slow during peak hours.

-   Initially there was disruptive downtime, but that problem appears to
    be solved.

-   The system is PI-centric, and it is therefore complicated to
    administer.

### 

### **D3.2 National Institutes of Health - Commons**

**System Description**: For the purposes of exchanging research grants
administration information, the NIH provides the Commons. The Commons is
a virtual meeting place where NIH extramural grantee organizations,
grantees, and the public can receive and transmit information about the
administration of biomedical and behavioral research. The Commons is
divided into both unrestricted and restricted portions that provide for
public and confidential information, respectively.

The Commons is a relational client/server database that provides
alternative means by which grantee organizations can communicate with
the NIH electronically for the purposes of extramural research
administration. Once grantee organization and/or applicant information
is received in the Commons and the information is validated, the Commons
interacts with the NIH enterprise database (IMPAC II). Through this
database-to-database interface the information will be provided to NIH
staff for further processing.

The NIH is in the midst of developing the Commons. The pieces will be
implemented as they are completed. Thus competing application submission
is not yet enabled, nor is the notice of award of a grant. However, the
existing modules will be compatible with the completed system. In
addition, some elements are being implemented in stages. For example,
the Status Interface permits institutions and investigators to determine
the status of pending applications. It will eventually permit PIs to
view the review summary statements. It will also allow persons
interested in being considered as reviewers or consultants to provide
personal information.

The Commons is set up in a hierarchical fashion. Each research
institution has a primary Signing Official (SO), who can designate one
or more Administrative Officials (AO) who review applications for
accuracy prior to submission to NIH by the SO and one or more Account
Administrator (AA) who maintains all types of accounts for the
institution. One person can serve in more than one role, depending on
the workload at the institution. In addition, an institution with
several distinct organizational units may have separate SOs, AOs, and
AAs for each unit. This arrangement is similar to the organization that
would best suit several DOE laboratories.

Each institution has an Institutional Profile that is referenced as
proposals are submitted. The profile contains information about the
address, institution type, departments, indirect cost data, assurances
for human and animal subjects and other certifications that must be a
part of each proposal. Each PI also has an account and a Professional
Profile that includes personal information, address information,
education and degrees, employment information (such as current and past
employers, positions, start/end dates) and publications. These records
are records are referenced when an application is submitted, so that the
information need not be prepared separately for each application by the
PI or from the institution. Since information is in the database for
many investigators, a PI can assemble an application by referencing the
personal information for co-PIs and other key staff members and
indicating the level of effort of each on the particular project.
Updating can be done independent of submission of applications.

Institutions are notified of awards by electronic mail. The policy on
electronic Notification of Grant Award is available at:
*[http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice‑files/not98‑129.html.]{.underline}*

A list of all such awards made during the previous week is available on
the Web ( for institutions and individuals to check.

The Commons permits submission of non-competing award information, in
which the PI prepares and the AO approves the information needed for NIH
to release continuation funding.

The Commons permits two formats for interchange of information, HTML and
EDI. There are extensive definitions of data elements for each.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   The Commons deals with an agency comparable to DOE with regard to
    budget, organizational complexity, and variety of science project
    performers. The NIH has an annual budget of approximately \$17
    billion, most of which is used to fund research projects. The NIH
    has many components, at least as many as DOE, and thus the demands
    on the Commons to suit the needs of diverse organizational units are
    comparable to those within DOE. NIH also has a large variety of
    funding mechanisms (including grants, cooperative agreements and
    contracts; individual investigator projects and program projects,
    major instrumentation funding and construction projects), and funds
    most of the institutions that are funded by DOE.

-   It links to existing databases, demonstrating how this can be done.
    The Commons serves as the interface between research institutions
    and the agency. Data is submitted through the Commons into various
    existing databases. IMPAC II, for example, is the NIH enterprise
    database, which is used to handle data for all aspects of evaluation
    and funding of projects. The CRISP database includes data on all
    projects funded by NIH and is accessible to the public. These
    systems also include each component of multi-investigator program
    projects. Thus the system must handle funding units that have
    identifiable subunits, and permit deposition and retrieval of
    information at both the full project and the subproject level. This
    situation is often the case in DOE project funding.

-   It automates transmissions between institutions and the agency. The
    system includes most transactions between research institutions and
    the agency, with the exception for the moment of submission of
    competing applications. It is comparable in this respect to any
    system that DOE would develop to handle research project
    administration.

[Disadvantages:]{.underline}

-   It does not appear to handle intramural research as yet. The NIH
    intramural research program is managed by each of the institutes.
    The scientists are Federal employees, so the parallel with DOE is
    limited, and this is not a real issue.

-   Submission of full applications is not yet enabled. The Commons does
    not accept the full text of applications. Thus it is not as yet a
    complete system for DOE to emulate.

**Conclusion:** The system provides an excellent example of how complex
research management tasks can be integrated. In addition, it will be
essential for DOE to have a common data dictionary and institutional and
investigator profile system with the other Federal agencies funding
science, so that DOE would have the same information on hand, rather
than DOE establishing a different format for storing such basic
information.

**D.4 Department of Energy Systems**

***D.4.1 Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS)***

**System Description:** The purpose of this system is to enable fully
automated procurement by the Department. The IIPS carries out the
following functions: issue solicitations and related documents via the
Internet; receive proposal or bid information electronically; provide
access to proposal information to authorized personnel through a web
browser; conduct negotiations or obtain clarifications; issue award
documents. Organizations can register and then submit proposals with
minimal duplicate information requested. The registration is valid for
any future solicitation. Organizations can subscribe to an electronic
alerting system in which the company designates its interests by the
same standard classifications used in the solicitations. The entire
proposal creation and submission process is carried out using the Web
(component documents are created at the company and attached to the
submission forms).

The system allows interaction between the company and the government
after the proposal has been submitted. The program staff can clarify
issues, negotiate terms, or send requests for additional information.
The offerors/applicants receive an e-mail notification, log in to IIPS,
and proceed to the solicitation, where they view the Government Response
document, and create their response.

Program staff can view and save: solicitations, messages, documents, and
proposals. The access is controlled through a "Reader List" found on
proposals in the database. Only the Contracting Officer and the Contract
Specialist can create or modify the list. It provides access to specific
proposal documents, and a notification provided to "readers". The awards
are also created and processed electronically.

The system was adapted from the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics
Command (CECOM) Business Opportunities Page, sharing knowledge and work
products with the U.S. Army, State Department, and the U.S. Navy
(SPAWAR). Applications are available to other DOE offices at no charge.
IIPS can be utilized by other offices without the installation of the
application at the site. U.S. CECOM has successfully managed the State
Department's site and will perform this administration for 21 other
commands, indicating the application is scaleable. Integration with
BMIS-FM and other DOE business applications is to be considered in all
future phases of design.

***D.4.2 Program Management Tracking System (PMTS)***

**System Description:** This system allows a PI to electronically enter
Field Work Proposal (FWP) information on a web-based form. This
information can be accessed by other Principal Investigators (PIs),
administrative personnel, or management. Accounting personnel can then
produce budget reports from the submitted FWP information. The FWP
information can be searched and reported on.

The PMTS provides four main categories of options:

> 1\) Projects - allows the user to search for projects by specifying
> search criteria.
>
> 2\) Reports - allows the user to tailor a report by specifying one or
> more criteria. Three types of reports are available: Elements of Cost
> Summary, Elements of Cost Details, and Budget Authority/Budget Outlay
> Summary.
>
> 3\) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) - allows the user to search
> for one or more MOUs by specifying one or more search criteria.
>
> 4\) Other - includes business calendars, budget instructions, and user
> profiles.

Each page of PMTS provides a set of menu options in the PMTS Topics
table at the bottom of the page. Options change based on the current
page. On general information or high-level pages, the PMTS Topics table
provides navigation to Projects, Reports, MOUs, and reference
information. When the user selects a specific project, the PMTS Topics
table provides navigation to subprojects and revisions and to a variety
of project topics, including summary, TFIS form, FWP, costs, milestones,
research categories, scores, Environment Safety and Health (ES&H)
activities, ES&H drivers, capital equipment, etc.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   The system has been in use at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for a
    number of years and is being deployed at Lawrence Berkeley National
    Laboratory.

-   The system is easily accessible from the CME system.

-   The system has a proven track record of meeting the needs of
    principal investigators, laboratory management, and laboratory
    budget and accounting personnel.

[Disadvantages:]{.underline}

-   The move to PMTS is slow and can be expensive.

***D4.3 DOE Collaborative Management Environment (CME) Pilot System***

**System Description:** The CME Pilot system is a secure web environment
to view and report on DOE research proposals. Two key challenges
presented themselves in the development of the CME system. First, due to
the distributed, heterogeneous nature of the DOE business process, and
due to the sensitive nature of the proposal data, it was decided that
control of the research proposal information remain with the originating
laboratories. Second, due to the lack of motivation for the laboratories
to invest in the construction and maintenance of traditional enterprise
information systems, it is necessary to investigate a low-cost,
distributed information management system.

There are several well-published ways of dealing with distributed and
heterogeneous data including distributed databases and object request
brokers. The novelty of the CME approach is in the cost-efficiency
gained by both the developers and the data owners. This cost-efficiency
was achieved by designing and implementing a flexible, low-cost,
eXtensible Markup Language (XML)-based, distributed storage layer within
the information management system. The CME team has developed a process
that converts laboratory data into a common XML information format and
maps the format onto the distributed storage layer. The data owners
(i.e., the DOE research laboratories) are only required to represent
their data using the laboratory-specific format, while the developers
are responsible for operation of the low-maintenance XML-based storage
layer.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   The system currently works with four DOE laboratories: ORNL, Los
    Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
    and Sandia National Laboratories. Others could be added to the
    system with relative ease.

-   The labs control who has access to lab data. The FWP forms can be
    kept at the originating lab, and password protected if they desire.

-   The system is web enabled, using Java servlet technology to avoid
    firewall difficulties.

-   Information is fully encrypted within the system

-   The system can run on either a Unix or windows platform

-   No changes are required to the existing laboratory or DOE business
    processes.

[Disadvantages:]{.underline}

-   This current state of this system covers only the submission portion
    of the research proposal process. With its highly flexible design it
    may be combined with PMTS, or EWAS, or IMSC to form a much broader
    system that can work within DOE immediately, without sweeping
    process changes.

**D.4.4 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy's Strategic
Management System**

**System Description:** The EE Strategic Management System (SMS) is a
new initiative that is currently in the process of being implemented.
The SMS was launched on January 4, 2000. EE developed the SMS to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of its business management
functions of planning, budget formulation, budget execution, and program
analysis and evaluation. These efficiencies are accomplished by linking
each of the business processes in an orderly, systematic fashion while
at the same time, increasing the responsiveness of EE programs by
considering the insights, interests, and requirements of EE customers
and stakeholders. Figure D-3 reflects SMS links to EE processes,
products, and customers.

***Figure D-3***

***SMS Links EE Processes, Products, and Customers***

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.493055555555555in"
height="4.868055555555555in"}

The SMS is intended to provide the right information for timely
decision-making. Information is to flow from one process activity to the
next. Here are the key decision points for the current year:

FY 2000 Monthly Management Reviews Oct 1999-Sep 2000

FY 2002 5-Year Fall Planning Guidance Issued Dec 1999

Strategic Plan Finalized Dec 1999

FY 2001 Congressional Budget Request Submission Feb 2000

FY 2002 Spring Budget Summit Mar 2000

FY 2001 Final Financial Assistance & Direct Apr 2000

Procurement Plan Approved by EE-1

FY 2002 Final EE-1 Resource Decisions for Apr 2000

Preparation of the Corporate Review Budget Request Jul 2000

FY 2001 Final Laboratory Procurement Plan by E-1 Aug 2000

FY 2002 OMB Budget Request & Performance Plan Submission Sep 2000

FY 2001 Input to Secretary's Agreement with the President Nov 2000

FY 2003 5-Year Fall Planning Guidance Issued Nov 2000

With each new fiscal year cycle, the SMS documentation will be updated
to reflect the new schedule as each SMS cycle proceeds. Lessons learned
will lead to improvements in the next cycle.

EE commitment to performance-based management and improved business
practices has resulted in the development of the SMS. Performance-based
management uses performance measurement information to help set
agreed-upon performance goals, to allocate and prioritize resources, to
inform managers so they can manage program activities to meet those
goals, and to report on their success. It also offers the opportunity to
learn from any failures in performance and to continuously improve
management practices. Most of the elements in the SMS already exist, but
are currently carried out in a piecemeal fashion. These elements will
now be integrated into a cohesive whole, based on common terms and
definitions and applied using a consistent set of principle, procedures,
and information management systems.

SMS provides the foundation on which to build reliable performance
management information. It establishes the feedback processes needed to
monitor and meet performance goals. In addition, the SMS complies with
the Government Performance and Results Act, the Government Management
Reform Act, the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, OMB
directives, Executive Orders on customer service and performance
management, and Congressional requests.

The SMS is designed to determine and then satisfy customer requirements
through key processes and products. Both internal customers and external
customers are central to each element of the SMS. Internal customers are
EE employees, including field staff, whose knowledge, skills, and
abilities are needed to plan, budget, implement, and evaluate EE
programs. External customers, partners, and stakeholders are from the
private sector, State, local and other Federal government agencies, the
international community, non-governmental organizations, OMB and
Congress, and the American public. The insight, interests, and
requirements of these customers help set the direction of EE programs as
well as offer suggestions on how best to implement them and how to
improve them.

The analysis of how well EE has implemented its programs and is
progressing to achieving its goals will include collection and regular
review of a balanced set of performance information. The balanced
scorecard will include measures of mission success, including
accomplishments and estimate future benefits of increasing the supply
and use of clean energy resources and of increasing the efficiency and
reliability of the energy system. Program performance will include goals
and commitments in the Annual Performance Plan and progress measures and
milestones in the budget.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   This is a significant effort in developing a business model that
    appears to be very similar to CME. There should be many things that
    can be learned from EE.

-   There is a high level of consistency and standardization in this
    development effort. It should thus improve the efficiency and
    quality of the entire planning, execution, and reporting elements of
    EE business.

-   The effort is highly focused on first improving and reengineering
    the business processes rather than starting by developing electronic
    tools. This is very critical and essential since developing
    electronic tools to use on a broken business process will not work.
    This approach is correct: define and engineer the business, then
    work on electronic tools to meet those needs.

[Disadvantages:]{.underline}

-   This model is specifically designed to accommodate EE. Thus there
    may be portions of the SMS that will not work universally.

### 

### **D4.5 Office of Environmental Management's Technology Management System**

**System Description**: The Technology Management System (TMS) consists
of two primary technical components, an SQL database and a graphical
user interface (GUI). The GUI is designed to be accessed through an
Internet browser, e.g., Netscape. Each user of the system is tracked
using the Internet Protocol (IP) address and is reported through the
administrative components of the system. A full technical description
can be provided upon request.

The TMS is a web-based system that enables tracking, managing, and
communicating technology development projects and programs from their
inception and into the future. TMS provides a central historical
perspective on Office of Science and Technology (OST) projects by
including data retrospectively to 1989. Included are data on funding,
project status and maturity levels, descriptive materials at varying
technical levels, technology benefits, deployment records, points of
contact, images, etc. TMS generates Technology Summary Sheets,
Deployment Fact Sheets, performance measure reports, and other analyses
and products for use by various audiences. Data retrieved through TMS
can be downloaded into a variety of formats including Microsoft Word,
PowerPoint, and Excel. TMS has incorporated planning capabilities and
modules allowing for review and comment by special interest groups such
as state regulators and those involved with peer reviews of technology
projects. TMS was developed by Sandia National Laboratories for OST and
is now managed through the EM Corporate Information Officer (EM-7.2).

Other groups within the Office of Environmental Management (EM) have
begun using TMS for their specific use. For instance, the Office of
Waste Management (OWM) technology development portfolio has been
included in the TMS data set, thereby allowing the integration of
OST/OWM technology portfolios. In addition to the OWM effort, the Office
of Nuclear Materials and Facility Stabilization (EM-60) is using the TMS
for technology project portfolio management. Training on TMS has been
conducted at all major DOE field offices to support these efforts across
EM.

TMS is compliant with the EM Integrated Planning Accountability and
Budgeting -- Information System (IPABS-IS) information infrastructure
and is operational as a component of IPABS-IS. TMS is also used to
enter, store, and seed information on Focus Area Technical Responses,
Work Packages, and technologies into an EM-wide needs management module;
and is thereby in keeping with the EM principle of one data entry to
many applications.

TMS has been cited by the DOE Inspector General as "A Departmental
Benchmark" in their audit report of July 1999 titled The Office of
Defense Programs Robotics and Intelligent Machines (RIM) Projects (page
4).

For benchmarking purposes, we obtained information from the Office of
Environmental Management on reporting systems and other controls it used
to analyze and control Robotics and Intelligent Machines project costs.
The Office of Science and Technology within Environmental Management
centrally managed approximately \$7.6 million of RIM activities from
Headquarters in Fiscal Year 1998. This office provided the control and
direction and made the fundamental decisions regarding RIM activities
although the field sites carried out actual RIM projects. Further, the
Office of Science and Technology implemented a reporting system to
ensure that information regarding the funding, number, and locations of
the projects was maintained and readily available for review.

The Office of Defense Programs has been subsequently studying TMS for
possible adaptation to their specific needs.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   World Wide Web based

-   Standardized data entry available DOE-complex wide

-   Accessible from disparate geographical locations

-   Guest user access supported

-   Scaleable system architecture

-   Real-time data entry and report generation

-   Data can be batch loaded (data import)

-   Multiple security levels

-   Data attribution, user tracking

-   Real-time analytical capabilities

-   Data can be downloaded into Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, and Excel

-   Direct generation of outreach products, reports, charts

-   System is already in use in the Office of Environmental Management
    (EM).

[Disadvantages]{.underline}: None identified.

**D4.6 Information Management for the Office of Science (IMSC)**

#### **System Description:** This Office of Science (SC) system is intended eventually to support all of the science funding, including construction projects, in SC. The initial version of the system will become available in March 2000, and will manage solicitations under 10 CFR 600 and 605 (as well as Laboratory Program Announcements), applications for grants, and awards. Future versions will incorporate proposals, Approved Funding Plans, and electronic submissions. IMSC will be revised to interface with the planned BMIS-FM system as this corporate system is developed. The system will facilitate electronic data transfer among units of SC and with the DOE CFO. The SBIR/STTR program will be included. The system is intended to interface with existing systems (such as the SC Financial Management Information System (FMIS)) and with the operations offices, Congressional Affairs Office, and research institutions seeking and receiving funding. It will essentially be used by all SC staff. 

IMSC plans to adopt any recommended CME technology standards that will
facilitate electronic proposal processing and/or interface
recommendations in the future based on the working groups'
recommendations. SC will need to define if and how it plans to do
business electronically once research is awarded and this is a future
set of interfaces to be developed under IMSC and this position will be
impacted by other methods of electronic commerce under development in
similar research-based Federal agencies, such as NIH and NSF.

The requirements for IMSC grew out of the Office of Science's five-year
strategic plan. The Strategic Information Plan (SIP) is based on
Enterprise Architecture Planning methodology. Following the EAP
principles, two systems development projects were selected as
requirements for SC: 1) the Integrated Research and Procurement Project
(IRP3); and 2) the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMP).

As defined by SIP, the Integrated Research Project and Procurement
Project (IRP3) will:

-   Provide SC with an integrated SC-wide capability to identify,
    evaluate and assess new and on going scientific work.

-   Be based on the capabilities that have been identified through
    several existing pilot projects: IPS, RIMS and EDI and the
    development and operation of the SBIR/STTR systems.

-   Record new scientific programs, manage the solicitation/RFP process,
    evaluate proposed scientific work, assess ongoing projects, track
    program guidance, and assess programmatic goals.

-   Specifically take into account SC wide nature, transaction volume
    and regulatory requirements of the SBIR/STTR program.

And the Integrated Financial Management Project (IFMP) will:

-   Extend the budget formulation and budget execution functions found
    in FMIS to all SC organizations. SC Program Office budget
    formulation and execution functions will be handled by IFMP.

-   Be based on existing FMIS functionality as FMIS is an existing
    system that is fully compatible with the SIP architecture.

In January 1998, based on updated recommendations from the SC Strategic
Plan, a decision was made to combine the two projects into one corporate
systems development effort -- Information Management for the Office of
Science (IMSC). Also during this time period, the IMSC Program Office
Representative teams were formed.

The first step taken in building IMSC was to lay the foundation on which
all system functionality is to be built. The following modules were
identified as necessary for this foundation effort:

-   **Institution** - Maintains data related to institutions (government
    organizations, businesses, laboratories, and universities). For
    IMSC, these are entities are external to DOE.

-   **Organization -** Maintains data related to DOE organizations and
    field offices. These are internal to DOE.

-   **Person** - Maintains information related to all stakeholders
    associated with IMSC. This includes SC users, principle
    investigators, reviewers, program managers, funds verifiers, to name
    a few.

-   **Program** **Area -** Provides access to view and manipulate
    information related to program areas, B&R codes, cross-cuts,
    research areas.

-   **Work** **Elemen**t - Provides the ability to maintain discrete
    packages of work and sub-work elements (scientific work,
    construction, or any other type of work SC is undertaking).

The first version of IMSC will:

-   Manage the production of Solicitations for Grants and Contracts for
    R&D that fall under the Office of Science Grant Program Rule-10 CFR
    Part 605, SC Grant 600, and associated Laboratory Program
    Announcements. This will also involve workflow routing for
    concurrence and approval of the solicitation.

-   Enter and maintain New, Renewal, and Supplemental Applications for
    grants. This will include the ability to generate Procurement
    Request (PR Forms) to establish the associated grants.

-   Manage Award information relating to work authorized via a PR Form.

-   Maintain work elements that are tasks associated with awards.

The Financial Management Division, SC-63, is the central organization in
the budget formulation process. They use a legacy system called FMIS to
compile and manipulate financial budget data. The IMSC budget module
will initially serve as a shell around FMIS, enabling electronic
transfer of budget data between SC-63 and a variety of other
organizations. This approach streamlines the processing of budget data
and extends budget processing tools outward to other organizations
within the Office of Science.

**System Advantages and Disadvantages:**

[Advantages:]{.underline}

-   Built on web technology. The system is platform-independent.

-   Comprehensive. The system is intended to cover all major groups of
    users inside and outside SC and their requirements for information
    about SC projects.

-   Expandable. The current IMSC will have additional components added
    to it. For example, the following are planned for implementation in
    FY 2001: SBIR/STTR; Program Direction; Construction Projects.

-   Will link with whatever overall system DOE adopts. The IMSC
    Corporate Environment is intended to work with numerous offices
    outside SC and outside DOE, so it should readily mesh with the
    system recommended by the CME SIM Project. As noted above, it is
    intended that IMSC be revised to agree with the standards and
    procedures adopted as a result of the CME SIM Project.

[Disadvantages]{.underline}: None identified.