# Presentation: 660291

## NIH Electronic Research Administration:

- Executive Officers Meeting
- October 3, 2000

## Topics for Discussion Today

- What is Electronic Research Administration
- Brief overview of the required systems
- New management structure for NIH enterprise systems
- Management of the Beast
**Initial diagnosis – resources – funding – open up process**
**Priority setting process**
**Give you a sample of the priorities and the estimated cost for NIH to have functional eRA systems to meet its stewardship and oversight responsibilities in the funding and monitoring over ~ $13 billion dollars of the taxpayers monies.**
- Brief overview of the website and communication strategy
- Get your comments and feedback

## The NIH Extramural Process:

- Receives, Copies, Ships, and Stores at a minimum 164 million pages of paper to in the business processes associated with  competing and non-competing grants each year.*

- **	This number is a minimal number.  It does not include duplicate files for council versus grants management; program staff file system, paper that moves internally for different IC practices.  Nor does it account for time spent managing, pulling, distributing of finding files.

## A Lot of Paper to Receive, Copy, Ship and Store*

- *Does not include:
- Committee Management, Review, Reports, Budget, Coding and other processes within Academic Institutions or NIH.  Stratified sample of 3,000 grants used for the data.

## Some of the ERA Benefits to Grantee & NIH Staff

|  | Grantee Users | NIH staff |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Improved Resource Allocation |   Reduction in paper 
     & handling costs |   Reduction in  
   duplication/disposal costs
  Fewer staff required for   
    processing and oversight |
| Improved Work Efficiency |   Ad lib. monitoring of 
   status information
  Improved information 
   retrieval |   Reduction in number of 
    telephone inquiries
  Improved information 
    retrieval |
| Improved Quality of Data |   Most accurate  
   grantee representation
 Prof./Inst. profiles
  Data validation 
 User interface & system |   Minimize duplicate  
   versions of people

  Minimize grantee contact 
    to verify information  |
| Improved Response Time |   Rapid, confidential 
   viewing of documents
 Sum. Stmt./Score |   Purposeful notification of 
    cognizant staff |

## Four Basic Systems

- IMPAC I (legacy)
**Began 1964 **
**Many extension system added over 25 years**
- IMPAC II
**Began 1996**
**Most modules deployed**
**Several in need of a life cycle redesign**
- Commons
**Began 1996**
**2 modules in full production**
- I-Edison
- CRISP on the web
**Most of the systems not developed or integrated into IMPAC II**
- Federal Commons
**One face for applicants for all agencies**

## ERA Objective = Full Electronic Grants Administration 

**Commons File**

**IMPAC II -   NIH Transactional Database**

**3,500 Users / OD & 25 - NIH Institutes and Centers**

***ERA Objective = Full Electronic Grants Administration ***

**(Fed.Commons) **

**(FADEX) **

**~ 100,000 Applicants / 2,000 Grantee Institutions Worldwide**

## Modules -- Functional & User Groups 

**Infrastructure **
**& Shared**
** ****I2 Modules**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

** ****Shared**
** ****Commons **
**Modules**

**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. 

## Modules -- Functional & User Groups 

**eRA Interface Modules**

**Grants Management**

**IC Operations (Program)**

**Committee Management**

**Receipt, Referral, Assignment**

**Review**

**Training Activities**

**CRISP on the Web**

**Infrastructure **
**& Shared**
** ****I2 Modules**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**I-Edison**

**E-SNAP**

**X-Train**

**Comp. Grant Appl.**

**Electronic Council Book**

** ****Shared**
** ****Commons **
**Modules**

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

**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. 

## Modules -- Functional & User Groups 

- 25 Machines
**Windows NT**
**Unix**
- Sun Solaris
- Reliant
- Tru64
- 28 COTS Products
- Custom designed software
- Web environment
- Client-server  environment

**eRA Interface Modules**

**Grants Management**

**IC Operations (Program)**

**Committee Management**

**Receipt, Referral, Assignment**

**Review**

**Training Activities**

**CRISP on the Web**

**Infrastructure **
**& Shared**
** ****I2 Modules**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**I-Edison**

**E-SNAP**

**X-Train**

**Comp. Grant Appl.**

**Electronic Council Book**

** ****Shared**
** ****Commons **
**Modules**

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

**To support the system**

**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. 

## What Kind of Volume is Involved in FY 00

- System to monitor and process the receipt, review (initial and council), fund, administer and steward:
**Receive ~ 46,000 competing (1 & 2) grant applications**
**Establish 3,166 meetings to review those applications.**
**Support the 128 meetings of the National Advisory Councils to provide the second level of review**
**Award ~ 60,000 competing and non-competing grants. **
**Maintain historical records 1973 to present **
**Report on trends and analysis for all grants awarded internally and to the press, public and scientific communities**

## What Does this Mean in Terms of Data ?

## What’s Happening Now-This Year

## The Matrix Must Be Built

*The Matrix Must Be Built*

**IC **
**Extensions**

##  Project Management Structure                                         March 2000

**IT Board of Governors**

**ERA Steering Committee**
**IC Director-Chair**
**DDER, CIO, Project Manager, IC Rep, **

**DDER**

**Project Manager**

**Daily Operations Manager**

**CIT Tech Support**

**CIO**

**Multiple Functional Groups**
**CM**
**GMAC**
**RPC**
**EPMC**

## How to Manage the Beast ?

## Project Management

- Business
- Management

- Users, Customers,
- Team & Management

- Technical
- Management

## What Resources Are Available? 

- What resources are available to NIH eRA?
**53 – NIH FTEs **
- 23.20 FTEs or 43.7 %- Legacy System (IMPAC I)
- 20.75 FTEs or 39.2 % - IMPAC II
-   3.35 FTEs or   6.3 % - Commons
-   1.20 FTEs or   2.3% - Federal Commons
-   4.50 FTEs or   8.5% - I-Edison
**Contract dollars for FY 2000**
- IMPAC II  - 5.0 million
- Commons - 1.0 million
- Miterek (Acceptance Testing)    - 0.7 million
**IC extension systems ?**
- Internet review, budget, council, and reporting tools
- Other Agencies ?
**Outside community ?**
- Academic
- Private sector

***Coalitions***

## Project ManagementQuestions that you have asked:

- Are the contractors charging appropriately for services rendered?  Yes:
**Independent review – Martha Pine**
- How are costs being monitored?
**New Cost Model established monthly vouchers map to the cost model**
- Is the system technically sound? Yes:
**Peer review of the system **
**IC - Shared Designed Group review CDRs**
**Budget request for review of the software design process**

## Project Management

- Business
- Management

- Users, Customers,
- Team & Management

- Technical
- Management

## New technology/more power/more complex
Expectations high  
Built on existing business process and design
Low resources impacted on:
Critical path decision making to develop the modules 
Sometimes collapsing functionality within a module
Minimal resources to outreach, communication, help desk, and training.
Lack of understanding decision making and priority setting
Enterprise not prepared for the migration of extension systems
Staff or time and knowledge to link and plan for the changes.

***IMPAC II : ***

- New technology/more power/more complex
- Expectations high
- Built on existing business process and design
- Low resources impacted on:
**Critical path decision making to develop the modules **
**Sometimes collapsing functionality within a module**
**Minimal resources to outreach, communication, help desk, and training.**
**Lack of understanding decision making and priority setting**
- Enterprise not prepared for the migration of extension systems
**Staff or time and knowledge to link and plan for the changes.**

## Integration of  Commons Data into IMPAC 2
Stability of the database
Budget reports needed
Communications and Outreach

***IMPAC II ******(cont )******: ***

- Integration of  Commons Data into IMPAC 2
- Stability of the database
- Budget reports needed
- Communications and Outreach

## Help Needed to Assess Priorities 

- Not financed sufficiently to meet objectives
- All Development Work Stopped as of March 1, 2000
**Competitive Grant Application Process (CGAP)**
**Complex Non-Competing Award Process (CNAP)**
**Fellowships **
- Detailed Designs Complete
- Redesign E-SNAP with new business practices:
**Changes in policy and in design**
**User group with NIH and the Extramural community needs to be established.**
- Focus efforts on:
**Integration with IMPAC II**
**E-SNAP, X-Train, 194 data set transmission**
- Communications-outreach

***Effects of IT Review on NIH Commons ***

## Status of NIH Commons Deployment...as of July 10, 2000

- Operations, Maintenance of Existing Interfaces has Continued
**No major expansion of deployment **
**Only minimal enhancements**
**No increase in user support **
- I-Edison = Production Deployment
**Business as Usual**
- ~240 grantee/contractor organizations registered
- > 90% of organizations that routinely submit reports
- Submission via interactive web or datastream
- ~9,000 inventions & 4,000 patents since Oct. ‘95
- CRISP = Production Deployment
**Business as Usual with Minimal Enhancements**
- ~30,000 CRISP queries per week
-  Records include 1985 thru Current Awards
-  Promotion to 1973 thru Current Awards to occur

## Status of NIH Commons Deployment...as of July 10, 2000

- Registration/Profiles/Status = Pre-Production
**Existing Interfaces Maintained **
**No Additional User Support **
- 158 Grantee Organizations Registered
- 3,750 User Accounts created
- Average of ~30 logons/day
- e-SNAP via Interactive Web = FDP Pilot Deployment
**No Active Recruitment or Increase in Deployment**
**No Additional User Support **
- 15 Grantee Organizations Participating
- 185 e-SNAPs processed since July 1999

## NIH ERA Deployment: 1998-2001

- Interagency Edison
- CRISP on the Web
- Commons Registration
- Accounts Administration
- Application/Award Status
- Institutional & Professional Profiles
- e-SNAP
- Trainee Appointments (X-Train)
- Competitive Application
- Fellowships
- Federal Commons

**FDP Pilot - 65 Grantee Organizations.............. **
**Pre-Prod. - ~ 120-150 Organizations...............**** **
**Full Prod. - Open Registration.......................**
**Suspended Further Deployment....................**
**Development Stopped prior to deployment.....**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

**X**

***hold***

***hold***

***hold***

***hold***

***hold***

***hold***

## Technical, Schedule, and Cost Performance are Opposing Forces that Require Compromise?

***Technical, Schedule, and Cost Performance are Opposing Forces that Require Compromise?***

## Overall Performance Measurements

- Appropriate funding
**Participatory planning / prioirty setting process**
**Gap of 15% is a red flag effecting quality and scope of the project ****(G Kapur-Center for Project Management, 1998)**
- Establish and communicate clear critical path measure milestone and deliverable (within the next two months) hit rates
- Evaluate cost to date versus estimated cost to date
- Recognition and health of the project team
- Effectively manage issues

## Modules -- Functional & User Groups 

**eRA Interface Modules**

**Grants Management**

**IC Operations (Program)**

**Committee Management**

**Receipt, Referral, Assignment**

**Review**

**Training Activities**

**CRISP on the Web**

**Infrastructure **
**& Shared**
** ****I2 Modules**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**I-Edison**

**E-SNAP**

**X-Train**

**Comp. Grant Appl.**

**Electronic Council Book**

** ****Shared**
** ****Commons **
**Modules**

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

**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. 

## Modules -- Functional & User Groups 

**I2 Functional Group**

**eRA Interface Modules**

**Grants Management**

**IC Operations (Program)**

**Committee Management**

**Receipt, Referral, Assignment**

**Review**

**Training Activities**

**CRISP on the Web**

**Infrastructure **
**& Shared**
** ****I2 Modules**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**I-Edison**

**E-SNAP**

**X-Train**

**Comp. Grant Appl.**

**Public, Press, Scientist**

**Type 5, VP research**

**T32, F32**

**Applicants, VP Research**

**Institution, NIH**

**Electronic Council Book**

**Commons Advisory Group**

** ****Shared**
** ****Commons **
**Modules**

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

**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. 

## Modules -- Functional & User Groups 

**I2 Functional Group**

**eRA Interface Modules**

**Grants Management**

**IC Operations (Program)**

**Committee Management**

**Receipt, Referral, Assignment**

**Review**

**Training Activities**

**CRISP on the Web**

**Infrastructure **
**& Shared**
** ****I2 Modules**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**I2 User Groups**

**I-Edison**

**E-SNAP**

**X-Train**

**Comp. Grant Appl.**

**Public, Press, Scientist**

**Type 5, VP research**

**T32, F32**

**Applicants, VP Research**

**Institution, NIH**

**Electronic Council Book**

**Commons Advisory Group**

**Commons User Groups**

** ****Shared**
** ****Commons **
**Modules**

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- I2

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

- COM

**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. 

##  Project Management Team Structure

**TPC Advocate**
**Wally Schaffer**

*** ******Project Management Team Structure***

**Project Manager**
**John McGowan**

**CMO Advocate**
**Claire Benfer**

**GMAC Advocate**
**Marcia Hahn**

**ECB Advocate**
**Thor Fjellstedt**

**RPC Advocate**
**Eileen Bradley**

**CIT liaison & IC Tech Advocate**
**Donna Frahm **

**PI Advocate**

**POPOF/Program Advocate**
**Christopher Beisel**

**Research Institution Advocate**
**George Stone**

**Reports Advocate**
**Carol Martin**

**Daily Operations Manager**
**Jim Cain**

**IT Design/Arch. Advocate**
**Donna Frahm**

**Data Integrity**
**Belinda Seto**

**Receipt and Referral**
**Brent Stanfield**

**FDC/ROW Liaison**
**Jay Silverman**

**OER Liaisons**

##  NIH IT Project Management Structure

**NIH Commons Advisory Group**
**Academic Institutions**
**Private Sector**
**NIH  Community**
**Federal Agencies**

**Federal Commons**
**IAEGC**
** ****ECC**
** ****Fed Commons Working Group**

**IT Shared Design Group**

- eRA Project
- Management
- Team

**IC Representatives**

*** ******NIH IT Project Management Structure***

**IT Board of Governors**

**ERA Steering Committee**
**IC Director-Chair**
**DDER, CIO, Project Manager, IC Rep,**** **

**Deputy Director for**
**Extramural Research**

**eRA**** ****Project Manager**

**Daily Operations Manager**

**CIT Tech Liaison**

**CIO**

**Multiple Functional Groups**
**CM**
**GMAC**
**RPC**
**EPMC**

## What Do We Hope To Have?

- Clear:
**Person responsible**
**Set of identified priorities**
- Phasing process:
**Establish budgets and needs**
**Project future directions**
**Allow time for business/policy redesign and the communication needed at the design stage to integrate with other systems (IC, NBS, Institutions, Fed Commons) and their processes.**
**Design and implement projects with business plans using the funds made available with target milestones.**

## How to Set Competing Priorities?

## Priority Setting Begins With User Group

***Priority Setting Begins With User Group***

**Functional Group **

**User Group**

**Project Team**

**Recommendations and priorities posted on Web; community informed through newsletter.**

**Group Advocate**

**Steering Committee **
** ****Reviews and sets priorities**

**ERA Module**

**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. 

## Straw-man for Developing Priorities

***Straw-man for Developing Priorities***

- FY 2001 Project Plan submitted to the steering committee and the BOG.
- Next, Project Plan will be developed through the priority setting process.
- Current list not prioritized but follows the cost model.

## Sample Criteria for Evaluating Projects

## Criteria need improvement

***Phasing and Funding***

***Criteria******	******	******            ******	******Maximum Point Value***
**Management Support****	****	****15**
**Business Risk of Not Doing It****	****	****10**
**Culture Change****	****	****	****10**
**Technical Risk****	****	****	****10**
**Scope of Change****	****	****	****20**
**Business Process Redesign****	****	****15**
**Business Model****	****	****	****10**
_**Quality of Work Life**__**	**__**	**__**10**__	_
- 	**TOTAL                             ****	****                       100**

**Criteria need improvement**

## Nomenclature for Requirements

- NR 	= new requirement with no budget
- NBR = new budgeted requirement (planned)
- NFR = new funded requirement (financed)
- OBR = original requirement budgeted for and would be added in the release of software upgrades when the money becomes available
- OFR = original requirement that has been funded and will be added in the schedule for release of software upgrades
- ST 	= special requirements established outside the normal priority setting process

## Advocates Took the Job Seriously 

- Cornell
- Dartmouth
- Emory
- Florida
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
- Michigan
- MIT
- North Carolina State
- Northwestern
- Penn State
- St. Jude
- Wisconsin

## Slide 43

## Priorities as Established by the Project Team7/18/00

## Development of Business Plans

## ERA Needs $27 Million in Contracts

***ERA Needs $27 Million in Contracts***

## ERA Needs $27 Million in Contracts

## It’s No Joke 	Without Proper Funding 		  NIH is at Risk			Of Not Meeting its Mandate*

*** G.P.E.A. (NIH must be electronic by Oct. 2003)**
**   ****P.L. 106-107 (Plan for single gov’t system by May 2001)**

## It’s Unanimous – Query and Reports are Number 1

- Reporting is complex
**Review needs at least 28 different reports**
**Grants needs at least 5**
**Budget and Coding (see examples)**
- Need different level tools
- Need different report options
**Word, Worperfect, PDF**
**Excel**
**Print**

## Brief Overview of Items

## We Need to Prepare for ~80,000 Users

- $1.6 million for ~ 80,000 users
**Average user with screens**
**Technical help with IC or Institutions **
**DBA to probe technical problems in the database**
- $ 0.4 million for outreach – website – newsletter – organizational change
- Training and documentation
- $0.5 million for tech manuals, tip sheets, guides to the tools to use, and to train OER and IC staff

## Error Rates an Example

- Data from receipt and referral from May 15, 2000 till September.
- Data elements for 14,000 records entered into the system.
- 375 duplicate records were created or a 2.7% error rate.
- Cost to fix the duplicate errors will be ~ $37,500 dollars.
- Each module where data is being entered errors are introduced.

## An Continuous IssueLack of Creditability to Congress – Press - Community

- Short term:
**$2 Million a Year to clean up bad **
- Long term solutions
**Finish the commons**
**Public unique identifier for applicants**
**Algorithms check multiple data elements**
**Track where to see if systemic or specific to IC’s or individuals**
**Tighten down the business rules**
- Freeze a data set for each FY for consistency in data reporting

## To Comply with Federal Law:The Commons Needs to Be Completed 

***To Comply with Federal Law:******The Commons Needs to Be Completed ***

**Priority #                                 Title                                                          Total              Commons **
**                                                                                                                      ****Cost                    Cost**

**Total Cost For FY 01 ---- 6,191,860.00**

## Connect the Commons to IMPAC II

## Committee Management Out of Date – Not Cost Effective to Modify

- Provide new web design to improve workflow, connectivity and usability with flexibility to accommodate IC needs.
- Detailed surveys and analysis has been done over the summer.

## Benefit of Completing the Migration of IMPAC 1

**OER Costs**

**CIT Costs**

**Maintenance contract costs**

**IC Taps**

**Management Fund**

**Current Base**

** ****Dollars in millions**

**IMPAC II Costs**

## A Reminder

**OER Costs**

**CIT Costs**

**Maintenance contract costs**

** ****Dollars in millions**

**Last Year Costs**
**$13.826 M**

**No monies with this budget this year for application development**

**Current Base**

**IMPAC II Costs**

## OER Costs – FTE Breakout by Project

**Legacy **** 43.7%**
**23.2 FTEs**

**IMPAC 11 ****39.2%**
**20,75 FTEs**

**Commons**
**17.0%**
**9.05 FTEs**

**Operational maintenance**
**Database Administration**
**User Support**
**Documentation training**
**Software maintenance**
**COTS upgrades**
**Software modifications **

**OER Costs**

** ****Dollars in millions**

**IMPAC II Costs**

## NIH will Benefit by Retiring the Legacy System

***IMPAC I Function******	****** ******	******FTE Gain ******	******	******ERA ***
***Still to Migrate   ******	******    ******	******	******to ERA ******	******	******	******Function***
- FSR			        	2.5 FTE	    		Commons
- Accounting Transaction	        	2.5 FTE
-  & Release System
- Population Tracking	     	2.5 FTE	  		Commons
- DFM/IMPAC Error Report		1.0 FTE
-  & HEDOUT (Higher Education Database Output System)
- IMPAC I - Update Error Listing	1.0 FTE
- CUPID				2.5 FTE	     		Query & Reports
- SNAPSHOT						Quickview
- Review Module		       	1.7 FTE	     		Review Module
- Type-5 Shells		       	2.0 FTE	     		GUM/Bridge
- Percent ling		      	2.0 FTE	     		GUM/Bridge/Review
- Contracts-entry		       	2.0 FTE	     		NBS-Data Warehouse
- Council Books		       	2.5 FTE	     		ECB - Summary Statements
- Score & Assignment Mailers	1.0 FTE	     		Review Module

## CIT Costs – Hardware – Service - Support

- $ 1.942 for IMPAC 1
- $ 0.139 for IMPAC 2
- $ 1.050 for Commons

**CIT Costs**

**IMPAC II Costs**

## Benefit of Completing the Migration of IMPAC 1

- Spending $827 thousand will net $3.69 million in dollars or staff resources can be redirected to IMPAC 2 and the Commons
**$1.94 million to support IMPAC 1**
**$1.75 million in salaries to pay FTE’s to support IMPAC 1**

## Life-cycle Redesign of ECB

- Business practices and technology have changed considerably in the last 5 years.  The system will be redesigned with the addition of a Council Administration Module.

## Four Areas First Year Needs Identified Below

***Four Areas First Year Needs Identified Below***

## Slide 65

## Needs Not in the Priority Process

## 34 Million Needed to Meet Requirements

**OER Costs**

**CIT Costs**

**Maintenance contract costs**

**Cost to keep building the Commons**

**User defined requirements**

** ****Dollars in millions**

**Percent of $24 million**

**Management Fund**

**$~ 20 million needed in addition to the current resources to get project completely on track**

**Commons Cost**

**IC Taps - Current Contract Resources**

***34 Million Needed to Meet Requirements***

**IMPAC II**

## Is $34 Million Appropriate to Build and Support the Systems to Support and Monitor the 13.5 Billion Dollars the NIH spends in Extramural Research ?

## Phasing Projects 

***Phasing Projects ***

***FY 2001***

***Nov***

***Sept ***

## No New Money  No Projects 

***No New Money  No Projects ***

***FY 2001***

***Nov***

***Dec***

## Phasing Projects with No New Money

***Phasing Projects with No New Money***

***FY 2001***

***July /Aug***

***Sept***

***Oct***

***Nov***

***Dec ***

- Summary Statement---Design & Review------Production------

- Percentile---Design & Review-------Production------

**Analysis of Review of Design of e-SNAP integ-IMPAC 2**

**Production**
**Parallel process of dual applications **

- Council deferrals---Design & Review------Production------

**Migration to Oracle 8i**

## Priority Setting Begins With User Group

***Priority Setting Begins With User Group***

**Functional Group **

**User Group**

**Group Advocate**

**ERA Module**

**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. 

## The Steering Committee 

-  Marvin Cassman, NIGMS, ChairAllen Spiegel, NIDDKYvonne duBuy, NIDCRTerrie Wetle, NIAGahan Breithaupt, NINDSEllie Ehrenfeld, CSRAlan Graeff, CITMarvin Kalt, NCIWendy Baldwin, ODJohn McGowan, NIAIDMartha Pine, NIGMS, Exec. Secretary

## The Board of Governors 

** ****Stephen Katz, M.D. Ph.D., NIAMS, Chair**
**Yvonne Maddox, M.D., **
**James Battey, M.D., Ph.D.**
**MaryAnn Guerra**
**Alan Graeff**
**Wendy Baldwin, Ph.D.**
**Colonel John Silva **
**Collen Barros**
**David Lipman, M.D**
**David Margulies, M.D., Ph.D.**
**Anthony Itteilag**

## Priority Setting Begins With User Group

***Priority Setting Begins With User Group***

**Functional Group **

**User Group**

**Group Advocate**

**ERA Module**

**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. 

## Coming October First

## Coming October First

## Slide 78

## Basic Information About the Modules

## Slide 80

## Slide 81

## Slide 82

## Slide 83

## Slide 84

## It’s a work in progress!!

**It’s a work in progress!!**

**Please**** provide feedback**

## Project Management