# Presentation: 030721

## NIH Electronic Research Administration:

-  Steering Committee Meeting
- February 15, 2001

## Today

**Announcements**
**New Plans for the Commons**
**Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project**
**Where are we:**
**Money**
**Space**
**Contractors**
**IV&V**
**Implementing Business Plans**
**Other Issues**

## Example Timeline (you can add features into Microsoft Project)

**January**
**Kick-off Commons Advisory Group**
**Decisions on Current Interface**
**Formation of Two Subgroups**
**February – April**
**Work with communities to:**
**Define enhancements to current screens for the administrative portions of the commons**
**Identify potential BPR for the application processes**
**March**
**Decide on the new architecture for the commons**
**May**
**Decide on primary changes to the screens for administrative modules**
**Discuss and prioritize BPR initiatives identified and determine next steps**

## Commons Functional Group

**Tolliver McKinney (St. Jude’s), Lynette Arias (OHSU), Jill Keezer (Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center), Jeff Cheek (U. California), David Wright (UT Galveston), Bob Oster (OHSU), Ellen Beck (UCLA), Mareda Weiss (U. Wisconsin, Madison), Pamela Webb (Northwestern), Jim Randolph (U. Michigan), Tom Wilson (Baylor), Denise Clark (Cornell), Stephen Dowdy (MIT), Nancy Wray (Dartmouth), Kenneth Forstmeier (Penn. St.), John McGowan (NIH), George Stone (NIH)**

## CFG Recommendations Current Commons Interface:

**Maintain production systems**
** ****I-edison -    ~290 organizations **
**Life-cycle redesign of the commons**
**CRISP -  ~30,000 queries a week**
**Improve data quality**
**Keep other existing interfaces **
**No enhancements or modifications**
**Stop the e-snap pilot **
**Focus on refining the requirements and redesign with new technology**

## Rebuild TechnologyChoice - Experienced or New

**Registration**
**Accounts Administration**
**Status – ****Application or Award**
**Profiles**
**Institutional**
**Individual**
**X-Train**

**E-SNAP **
**Noncompeteing applications**
**Competing Application**
**R01**
**Fellowships**
**Career**
**Complex Mechanisms**
**Federal Commons**

## CFG Recommends Two:    Functional Implementation Teams

**Improve upon the functionality in the existing NIH Commons interface so that it can be added in to the new underlying technology. **
**E-grants subgroup will re-engineer the business process for non-competing and competing grant applications in FY 2001-2002 and explore related application technology options and interfaces.  **

## Relative Position of the     NIH COMMONS Requirements

*increasing complexity and convergence requirements*

*Level of importance*

**SNAP**
**Non-competing**

**X-Train**

**Architecture**
**Infrastructure**

**Wireless**

**Admin**
**Modules**

**Competing Applications:**
**R01, SBIR, F32, R13**

*increasing complexity and convergence requirements*

*Level of importance*

**Complex**
**Competing**
**Applications:**
**T32-P01-U19**

***Relative Position of the******     NIH COMMONS Requirements***

**International**

**I-edison**

## A Viable Technical Solution Must Be:

**Open standards-based with wide support in industry**
**Vendor neutral**
**Adaptable to rapid changes in policy and business processes**
**Interact with different access media**
**Portable across multiple hardware and operating systems**
**Low in maintenance/operational cost**
**Have a wide deployment base in industry (maturity)**
**Able to enable large scale reuse thus shortening “time to market”**

## Web FormsCurrent 2 Tier Structure

***Web Forms******Current 2 Tier Structure***

**Relational  Database**

**Transaction manager**
**Stored Procedures**
**API’s**

## ObjectsNew 3 Tier Structure

***Objects******New 3 Tier Structure***

**Transaction manager**
**Presentation Manager**
**Session Manager**
**Server Administration**
**Messaging Server**
**Java Server Engine**
**Object oriented business objects**

**Application Tier**

**Relational Database**

## NIH ERA Deployment: 2001-2002

***NIH ERA Deployment: 2001-2002***

- CFG Recommendations
- Money Comes to the Project
- Decide Architecture for the Web
- Deploy X-Train – V1.5
- Deploy Commons – V2
-     Commons Registration
-    Accounts Administration
-    Application/Award Status
-    Institutional & Professional Profiles
- Deploy X-Train V2
- Re-engineer
-    E-SNAP
-    Non-competing complex
-    R01, F32, SBIR
- Pilot Competing Applications

## Today

**Announcements**
**New Plans for the Commons**
**Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project**
**Examples of what was provided last year**
**Quick review of the level of detail that will be made available to you**
**Your input as to what level to put on the **
**Web**
**Specialized reports for you**

## What was Provided Last Year

**Budget**
**Project according to the cost model**
**Organizational **
**CIT, OER**
**FTE’s **
**Which system they are supporting**
**Plans for change management to migrate to IMPAC II or the Commons**
**Contractor**
**TYC, Mitre Tek, Logicon/ROW**
**Project Status Reports**

## Cost Model  Adapted Last Year

***Cost Model  Adapted Last Year***

**Applications & Business Area**

**Applications, Software Infrastructure**
** ****& Database Design**

**Operations & Misc**

**COTS, HW, & CIT**

**Project Management**

## Details of the Cost Model

***Details of the Cost Model***

## What is Application Development  ?

**Notes:**
Developed by Netcomm Inc. to serve as a grants management tool in RPAB for initial and detailed scientific coding of funded NIAID research.  This database housed science information on extramural research grants, contracts, Interagency agreements,  training grants, and intramural projects. 

The coding system has become more complex because of the expansion in science research resulting in our need  to capture more specific information such as the Aids Related research, Clinical Research, Clinical Trials, Emerging diseases, Bioengineering, Congressional earmarks and  other targeted research.

The secondary level of review (of scientific coding) is by program staff.  This process is called the Verification reports which are generated for each council.  This review allows for staff input to maintain data integrity and to collect “prorations” for specific research areas targeted by the Budget Office [topical microbicides, clinical trials, gene therapy and so forth]

The MACS codes are used in the retrieval process called “search strategies”.  These “search strategies” are sent to MISB programmers via e-mail to select records meeting the search parameters using SAS language. The resulting output is the budget and ad hoc reports.

Reports are reviewed [when necessary] and then sent out to the original requestor. 

## In FY 2000:How Was the $13.826 Million Spent

**Commons Cost**

**OER Costs**

**CIT Costs**

**Contract Costs**

**IC Taps**

**Management Fund**

***In FY 2000:******How Was the $13.826 Million Spent***

## Slide 20

## Slide 21

## CIT Costs = Hardware / Service / Support

**$ 1.942 for IMPAC I**
**Wylbur charges**
**$ 0.139 for IMPAC II**
**Floor space for servers **
**Connectivity to NIH Backbone**
**$ 1.050 for Commons****	**
**Maintenance and operations of the 1 machine server needed for three   commons modules**

**CIT Costs**

## Turn to Your Notebooks

## Today

**Announcements**
**New Plans for the Commons**
**Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project**
**Examples of what was provided last year**
**Quick review of the level of detail that will be made available to you**
**Your input as to what level to put on the **
**Web**
**Specialized reports for you**

## To help start the discussion:

**Community Satisfaction with input-process-design-user friendliness, functionality**
**NIH staff responding to the implementation teams**
**Project Team**
**Monitoring Cost, Project, Scope Creep**
**Are recruitment-staffing-training goals being achieved**
**Group Advocates**
**Ability to maintain commitment**
**Delegations to Team Leaders **
**Formation of Functional Implementation Teams**
**Teams ability to define requirements**
**OER/Contractor**
**Ability to adhere to timelines within 20% of schedule and 10% of cost once the requirements defined (CDR sign off by Group Advocate)**

## Today

**Announcements**
**New Plans for the Commons**
**Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project**
**Where are we:**
**Money**
**Space**
**Contractors**
**IV&V**
**Implementing Business Plans**
**Other Issues**