# eRA Project Team Meeting

**Date:** December 11, 2001

**Time:** 9:00 am

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

**Chair:** Jim Cain

[**Next Meeting:** January 8, 2002]{.mark}

## Action Item

(John Salzman) Give iEdison briefing to the Project Team at a future
meeting.

## Agenda Items

1.  **Recap of Commons Working Group CWG) Meeting on November 14-15**

Marcia reported on the CWG meeting held immediately following the 43^rd^
Annual NCURA Conference in Washington, D.C. (See attachment A for
complete minutes.) The primary purpose of the meeting was to continue
the BPR beyond SNAP to the competitive application, i.e., streamlining
data requirements and the business process. The group devoted a
substantial portion of both sessions to reviewing most of the sections
of the current R01 application; the research plan, appendices and R&R
issues will be discussed at the next meeting on January 6 in Austin.
Brent Stanfield and Suzanne Fisher will attend to represent the CSR
perspective. CWG recommendations for the competing application then will
be vetted through the same NIH groups that reviewed the SNAP BPR.

On the second day of the CWG meeting, JJ explained the planned SBIR
initiative inviting third-party vendors to develop applications and
services that will assist the research community with electronic grant
application submission. The CWG voted to endorse the concept of
partnering. JJ distributed the draft RFA; Marcia said that many comments
have been received.

George Stone also provided an update on other eRA initiatives:

-   The X-Train Version 1.5 pilot will be extended to maximize
    understanding of user requirements. Delaying 2.0 development will
    also enable resources to be diverted to e-SNAP implementation, which
    is ahead of schedule. NIH has asked staff to ensure that all 2271
    information is current in TA so that reappointments can be
    processed.

-   The first (internal) release of Commons Version 2 is on target for
    January 20, 2002. Summary Statements in PDF will be available to
    Version 1 users in January. All Commons Version 2 artifacts can be
    viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer at
    <http://commons2.oer.od.nih.gov/>.

-   The eRA Commons team has been working with the IM (formerly IPF)
    team to incorporate four standard levels of institutional hierarchy.

-   eRA is working on the development of a Grants Closeout System (GCS)
    and the migration of Financial Status Report (FSR) functionality
    from IMPAC I to IMPAC II. The CWG discussed the three mandatory
    reports for closeout: the FSR, the Final Progress Report and Final
    Invention Certification; members questioned the need for dual entry
    and reconciliation of data on the Final Invention Report and in
    Interagency Edison (iEdison).

The CWG agenda also included a preview of draft Commons screens
incorporating the group's recommended interface specifications. A Human
Factors Analyst (HuFA) assisted with screen design. As a next step,
George will disseminate a self-contained prototype for comments.

Andy Greenleaf inquired if iEdison will use the same GUI standards;
Jerry Stuck replied affirmatively. Jim Cain commented that Commons
screens are far less dense than those in IMPAC II. Furthermore, Commons
screens are already in HTML. The HuFA has established the groundwork for
screens; standards will continue to evolve over time.

Carlos Caban asked if IMPAC II screens will be expandable to fit the
computer screen. Andy said the standard screen size is 17", but Jim
noted that many users now have larger screens. Is there a preference for
more granularity and smaller fonts? Display issues need to be
readdressed.

Carol Martin mentioned that she can move IMPAC II screens, but they pop
back to the left corner. Andy responded that this problem has been fixed
in the Review module. Users need to report problems in other modules.

2.  **New Production Environment (See Attachment B)**

Ali Ghassemzadeh reported that on the first work day in January, eRA
will roll out a more robust production and development environment that
will increase system speed, enable faster backups and recovery, and
support additional database instances. The new configuration includes a
release-training instance that will enable IC technical staff to test
new releases fully before deployment to the entire community.

Two new Compaq GS160 AlphaServers have been acquired for the OLTP and
IRDB. The current production hardware will be dedicated to training and
testing. Carlos Caban inquired about expectations for increased
performance. Jim responded that the processors are twice as fast and
there are two. The system should be able to support a greater load with
faster response time.

At the end of December, eRA will also migrate to an enhanced storage
area network (SAN) that will provide the additional capacity and
complexity required to support full application scanning and J2EE
development. With the implementation of the first SAN, eRA will have 3.9
terabytes of storage (2.2 for data), enough to handle the first nine
months of scanning. A second SAN is on order and will expand capacity to
5.7 terabytes. If all slots are filled, the maximum additional capacity
will be 11 terabytes. Mike Cox asked about redundancy. Jim answered that
the SANs use RAID technology; the system can rebuild lost or damaged
drives.

Ali thanked CIT for their support and assistance with special
recognition of Tom Mason who implemented the firewall.

Khalid Masood asked about the extent of testing. See the last two slides
of attachment B for detailed test plans. Ali said that the migration to
the new production environment would be transparent to users.

3.  **Scanning Update and Draft Business Plan (See Attachments C&D)**

Steve Hausman updated the Project Team on the eRA scanning project; he
will update EPMC on December 19. Beginning in CY02, all applications
received by CSR will be scanned by ORS and converted to PDF by a
contractor. Applications will then be viewable and searchable in IMPAC
II; CDs can be ordered online. During 2002, scanning will be a learning
opportunity in preparation for the receipt of electronic applications in
2003. During this interim period, the paper file will remain the
official file.

Steve then raised some important policy issues about the disposition of
paper files, standards for electronic files, stewardship of the
electronic applications, conversion of supporting documentation (e.g.,
faxes), FOIability, record retention and disposal, and conflicts of
interest (digital rights management). Policy may be determined at levels
higher than NIH. Steve also raised some technical questions regarding
file format and stability, image quality, bandwidth and connection
speed, and document management. Steve spoke of the potential use of
eBooks, digital paper and a new tool, the online HP digital sender that
converts paper to a .pdf. Finally, he expressed some practical concerns
about financing the scanning project and providing necessary training.

Megan Columbus asked if all scanned applications will be available via
the Grant Folder. Steve said yes, 72 hours after receipt by CSR. Belinda
Seto inquired about the Personal Data page of the PHS 398. Since this
page currently is not duplicated, it will not be scanned.

Pete Morton commented that it would be prudent to resolve the issues
before going live. There may be risks in moving ahead (e.g., in
distributing CDs to reviewers). Steve replied that CDs are merely media
for transportation that replace paper. Bud Erickson commented that
Program will not read applications on the screen; they will print them.
Richard Panniers said the quality of the display will be very important
in driving a culture change. Bud Erickson added that e-signatures
present another hurdle. Steve reminded the group that the primary
reviewer still will receive a paper copy. Thor Fjellstedt believes that
scanning will push major changes in business practices. Policy has not
caught up to technology; for this reason, Steve will advocate at RPC and
EPMC meetings.

Carlos Caban asked if users will be able to print selected pages from
several applications. Jim Cain replied that it is possible, but that the
Project Team would have to prioritize this capability in order to assign
programmer resources. Adding requirements contributes to "scope creep".

Next, Steve presented the Scanning Business Plan. Key assumptions and
cost/benefits are listed below. See attachment D for details.

-   Scanning is a first step in the migration to e-applications.

-   All grant applications will be scanned during CY2002.

-   75% will be scanned in CY2003; 25% will be received via the Commons.

-   50% will be scanned in CY2004; 50% will be received via the Commons.

-   5% will be scanned in CY2005 and beyond: 95% will be received via
    the Commons

-   Imaging costs for CY2002 are estimated at \$1,369,961.

-   Imaging costs for CY2003 are estimated at \$1,381,810.

-   The cost of doing business in a paper environment for CY 2002 and
    2003 would be \$58,193,492.

-   With imaging, the net cost avoidance for CY2002 and CY2003 would be
    \$29,161,961.

Pete Morton asked if storage costs were included in the cost avoidance
computation. Steve replied no, but storage is getting cheaper all the
time. Dave Carter added that numbers do not include record disposal
costs. The \$29 million savings is a "broad brush" estimate. Even if no
dollars were saved, scanning would be worth it just for the opportunity
to learn to deal with e-grants. Jim Cain added that we will never again
lose an application.

In response to Carlos' question, Mike Cox responded that CDs can be
ordered from the Review module and from ICSTORe, which is available from
all modules. Carlos then asked about ordering parts of applications
(e.g., pp. 1-2 and the research plan or progress report). Steve
responded that, at the present time, only the full application can be
ordered. This is another example of "scope creep". Dave said that
Carlos' request will be easier to satisfy when applications are received
as a datastream.

4.  **Status Reports/Announcements**

*FY02 Business Plans* -- Megan Columbus reminded Analysts/Advocates that
business plans are due to Patti Rodbell by the end of December. Marcia
Hahn and Sherry Zucker requested clarification; Megan will provide.

*New iEdison Users* -- Tim Twomey said that increasing trans-agency
usage of iEdison represents a coup for NIH. He praised John Salzman for
working to bring more users on board. We currently are negotiating MOUs
with the Agricultural Research Service (USDA) and the Air Force Materiel
Command, a major weapons developer. John will brief the Project Team on
iEdison at a future meeting.

**Attachments**

A. [Minutes of the CWG Meeting on November 14--15,
2001](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/A_CWG_Minutes_11-14-01_final.doc)

B. [New eRA Production
Environment](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/B_New_Production_Environment.ppt)

C. [Update on Scanning](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/C_Scannin_ Update.pdf)

D. [Scanning Business
Plan](http://era.nih.gov/Docs/D_Scannin_ Business_Plan.pdf)

Attendees

Benfer, Claire

Bradley, Eileen

Caban, Carlos

Cain, Jim

Carter, Dave

Columbus, Megan

Collie, Krishna

Copeland, Zoe-Ann

Cox, Michael

Erickson, Bud

Fjellstedt, Thor

Flora, Carla

Ghassemzadeh, Ali

Greenleaf, Andy

Hahn, Marcia

Hann, Della

Hausman, Steve

Hughes, Stephen

Jocktane, Katina

Martin, Carol

Masood, Khalid

McGowan, John

Monheit, Madeline

Moore, Bob

Morton, Pete

Panniers, Richard

Porter, Yvette

Rodbell, Patti

Rumney, Christine

Schaffer, Wally

Seker, Chris

Seppala, Sandy

Seto, Belinda

Silverman, Jay

Soto, Tracy

Stuck, Jerry

Tucker, Jim

Twomey, Tim

Van Brunt, Virginia

Zucker, Sherry