# Presentation: 658511

## 1

**1**

## Topics for Discussion

- Evolution of ERA
- Issues and Good News
- Current progress-status
- Resources for the Project
**FTE’s and Contract Dollars**
**Model for tracking expenditures**
- How to manage the beast
**Establishing Priorities**
**Communicating Priorities and Progress**
**Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC**
- Discuss your issues

***Topics for Discussion***

**2**

## In the beginning.......................IMPAC I 

*In the beginning.......................IMPAC I *

**GM**

**CM**

**RRA**

**REV**

**Snap **
**Shot**

**3**

## Evolution of           IMPAC I

***Evolution of ******          IMPAC I***

- Payline
- Projections

**GM**

**CM**

**RRA**

**REV**

**Snap **
**Shot**

**4**

## Evolution of           IMPAC  

***Evolution of ******          ******IMPAC****** ****** ***

- Council
- operations

**Budget**
**Reports**

- Coding

- IC
- referral

- Payline
- Projections

**5 **

## Extension    Systems  ?           

***Extension ******   Systems  ?         ****** ****** ***

- Council
- operations

**Budget**
**Reports**

- Coding

- IC
- referral

- Payline
- Projections

**6**

## 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.**

**7**

## Integration of  Commons Data into IMPAC 2
Stability of the database
Budget reports needed
IMPAC 1
5-6 Standard formats in excel
Build query tools for budget in:
IMPAC 2
Data Warehouse
Communications and Outreach

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

- Integration of  Commons Data into IMPAC 2
- Stability of the database
- Budget reports needed
**IMPAC 1**
**5-6 Standard formats in excel**
**Build query tools for budget in:**
- IMPAC 2
- Data Warehouse
- Communications and Outreach

**8**

## Most Modules in Production 

**QV ****(QuickView)**

**PV ****(PowerView)**

**CP ****(CRISP Plus F&U)**

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

**    ****Interface Module**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**Query tools**

**Gaps in modules**

**    ****Production Date**

**   ****April 98**

**   ****April 98**

**   ****June 99**

**   ****May 00**

**   ****June 99/May 00**

**   ****June 99**

**   ****June 99**

**   ****Nov 96**

**   ****Nov 96**

**9**

**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. 

## IMPAC 2 Good News-Current Progress

- Others in final stages of deployment
**Review – summary statements in June**
**Receipt\Referral for CSR – May**
**Percentiles in the Fall**
- Release redesign for CM for GSA reports

**10**

## Logons the First Two Weeks of April

**11**

## Evolution of ERA Systems 

***Evolution of ERA Systems****** ***

**1965**

**1990**

**1995**

**2000**

- Support NIH IC Staff Requirements

**12**

## Commons an Interface to Integrate Data from Extramural  Community to the NIH  

**Applicant/Grantee**

**NIH**

***Commons an Interface to Integrate Data from Extramural  Community to the NIH  ***

**13**

## A Process Overview

**Applicant/Grantee**

**           ****NIH IMPAC 2 ****(and other granting agencies)**

**Institutes and Centers**

***A Process Overview***

**14**

## Commons a Parallel Development

***pilot***

***pilot***

***pilot***

***works***

***Commons a Parallel Development***

***pilot***

***works***

***pilot***

***pilot***

***pilot***

**15**

## Help Needed To Assess Priorities 

**16**

## Involved Constituencies 

**17**

## Recommendations (draft)

**18**

##  Highlights of The Commons Review 

- Urge NIH to consolidate all IC-based ERA activities into the Commons, they want a single site
- Business practices of E-SNAP need to be redefined:
**Changes in policy and in design**
**User group with NIH and the Extramural community needs to be established.**
- Focus efforts on:
**Integration with IMPAC 2**
**E-SNAP, X-Train, 194 data set transmission**
- Link the grantee community into priority setting.

**19**

##  Highlights of The Commons Review (continued)

- Not financed sufficiently to meet objectives
- Constituencies need to be better involved:
**NIH IC’s, Grantee Community, other federal agencies, small business etc.**
- NIH needs to be aware and benefit from the commons
**Pilots need to integrated with IMPAC 2 into the NIH community so direct benefits seen in IMPAC 2.**

**20**

## NIH Commons Deployment Plan: 1998-2000 (pre-review)

***NIH Commons Deployment Plan: 1998-2000 ******(pre-review)***

**Full Prod. - Open Deployment  **

**FDP Pilot - 65 Grantee Organizations**

**Pre-Prod. - ~ 120-150 Organizations**** **

**21**

## NIH Commons Deployment as a Result of Review

***NIH Commons Deployment as a Result of Review***

- CRISP on the Web
- I-Edison
- Commons Registration
- Accounts Administration
- Application/Award Status
- Inst. & Prof. Profiles
- e-SNAP
- Trainee Appointments (X-Train)
- Competitive Application
- Fellowships

- None transact with IMPAC 2
- Pilot of commons interface
-   with 65 institutions

- Expand pilot of interface
- Production

***priority***

***hold***

***hold***

***hold***

***hold***

**22**

##  Good News/Current Progress(Commons)

- CRISP on the Web
**Public access - 35,000 queries a week**
- Interagency Edison (97)
**230 organizations registered **
**~8,500 inventions & 3,800 patents on file (95)**
**11 agencies now utilize it**** **
- Registration/Profiles/Status in Pre-Production
**142 Grantee Organizations Registered**
**3,356 User Accounts created ~40 logons/day**
- E-SNAP
** ****15 Grantee Organizations ~160 grant applications**

**23**

## The Matrix Must Be Built

*The Matrix Must Be Built*

**IC **
**Extensions**

**24**

## As Project Manager 

- What resources are available?
**FTE’s **

**25**

## 52 FTEs Committed to the Project*

**L = Legacy, IMPAC I**

**I2 = IMPAC II**

**NC=NIH Commons**

**E=Edison**

**FC=Fed. Commons**

** **

**  **
**FTEs     Effort     System**
**   ****3.4        68%        E**
**   ****0.6         12%       NC**
**   ****1.0         20%       FC**

**Jim Cain, ****DEIS**
**47 Total FTEs**

**George Stone, ****CEITRB****,**** DGP**
**5 Total FTEs**

**21 FTE’s under Dorrette Finch in the Office of Reports and Analysis **
**  ****utilize the systems but are not part of development and support**

**26**

## Division of Extramural Information Systems

- 2 FTEs

- 50% I2, 50% NC

**27**

## Division of Grants Policy

***Division of Grants Policy***

**Carol Tippery,**
**Director, DGP**

**5 FTE’s reassigned to DEIS**

**28**

## As Project Manager 

- What resources are available?
**52 - FTE’s **
**Contract dollars for FY 2000**
- IMPAC 2  - 5.0 million
- Commons - 1.0 million (needs endorsement for release)
- Mitertek    - 0.7 million
**IC extension systems ?**
- Internet review, council, and reporting tools
- ECB
**Other Agencies ?**
**Outside community ?**
- Academic
- Private sector

***Note of appreciation to:***
***Martha Pine, NIGMS***

**29**

## Future and Retro Cost Model (draft)

***Future and Retro Cost Model ******(draft)***

**Applications & Business Area**

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

**Operations & Misc**

**COTS, HW, & CIT**

**Project Management**

**$2.9****	****  $16.2 **
**$0.0****	****  $  1.1**
**$0.2****	****  $  1.3**
**$1.2****	****  $  6.3**
**$1.2****	****  $  8.5**

-    IMPAC 2  Costs
-  Cur. Yr*   Total

*** Dollars in millions -costs from June to February and include include DEIS FTE’s**

**30**

## Detail Tracking of Costs

**31**

## Commons Development, Deployment, & Costs

***Commons Development, Deployment, & Costs***

**Admin Interface & Profiles**
- $192K - Dev.
-  $154K - Oper.

- Projections for ‘00 as of Feb. 2000

**  ****Commons**
**  ****Platform &**
** ****Database**
-   $1.97M  - TYC
-   $1.13M - CIT

-        **CRISP**
- $150K - Dev.
- $342K - Oper.

- ‘96	   ‘97	      ‘98            ‘99             ‘00

**32**

## NIH Commons Development, Deployment, and Costs...cont.

**X-Train**
- $66K - Dev.
-   $41K - Oper.

- Projections for ‘00 as of Feb. 2000

**Status**
- $456K - Dev.
-   $146K - Oper.

**    ****e-SNAP**
- $831K - Dev.
- $479K - Oper.

- ‘96	   ‘97	      ‘98            ‘99             ‘00

***NIH Commons Development, Deployment, ******and Costs...cont.***

**33**

## NIH Commons Development, Deployment, and Costs...cont.

**Fellowships**
- $233K - Dev.

- Projections for ‘00 as of Feb. 2000

**Competitive**
**Application**
- $356K - Dev.

- ‘96	   ‘97	      ‘98            ‘99             ‘00

***NIH Commons Development, Deployment, ******and Costs...cont.***

**Complex**
**Noncompeting**
**Application**
- $188K - Dev.

**34**

## How to Manage the Beast ?

**35**

##  Project Management Structure

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

**IT Board of Governors**

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

**DDER**

**Project Manager**

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

**CIT Tech Liason**
**Donna Frahm**

**CIO**

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

**36**

## How to Set Competing Priorities ?

**37**

## Modules-Functional & User Groups 

**QV ****(QuickView)**

**PV ****(PowerView)**

**CP ****(CRISP Plus F&U)**

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

**Functional Group**

**    ****Interface Module**

**GMAC**
**(Grants Mgmt. Adv. Comm.)**

**CMO**
**(Committee Management Org.)**

**RPC**
**(Review Program Committee)**

**TPC**
**(Training Policy Committee)**

**GUM**

**People**

**API**

**UA**

**RAE**

**CSR**
**(Review Program Committee)**

**Query tools**

**CP ****(CRISP on the web)**

**User Group**

**Edison**

**Gaps in modules**

**E-SNAP**

**X-Train**

**CGAP**

**Public/Press/Scientists**

**Type 5’s / VP research**

**T32’s – F32’s**

**Applicants/VP Research**

**Institution / NIH**

**EPMC**

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

**38**

**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. 

## Priority Setting at the User Level

**ERA Module**

**Functional Group **
**Establish priorities and relative costs with input from the user group**

**User Group**
**Recommends fixes and enhancements works with POC from OER responsible for the module**

**Project Team **
**Determines priorities to fund within the framework of competing priorities**
**Unfunded priorities used to build future budget requests**

**Recommendations and priorities from the user and functional group, and project team posted  on the web and community formed through newsletter.**

**39**

**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. 

## Give Authority to a Person(s) to Develop Trans NIH Need  into Core Functionality

**GM**

**Modules**

**CM**

**RRA**

**REV**

**TA**

**SITS**

**NBS**

**New Module**

**ICO**

**40**

**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. 

## Provide a Process for Anyone Group or Organization to Obtain Input or Decide Whether to Incorporate a Function into a Trans-NIH Function

**EPMC**
**Recommend via rating system whether a system should be incorporated into the IMPAC 2**

**Project Team **
**Seeks input from functional group when needed.**
**Determines priorities to provide resources within the framework of competing priorities**
**Unfunded priorities used to build future budget requests**

**41**

**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. 

## Structure forPriority Setting for ERA Projects

- Functional groups
- User groups – consist of
**Users of the system within IC’s to do their jobs, **
**Nominated by members of the functional groups **
- OER liaison and support contractor.
**Develops cost estimates for priorities with support contractor **
**Helps the group advocate develop a business plan **
**Assures that issues raised by User and Functional Groups are being addressed and has ability to make minor fixes and enhancements**
**Provide feedback as needed to either group.**
- Group advocate – selected by the Project Manager
**Is the person responsible for this subproject or module**
**Establishes priorities for fixes, enhancements or a total redesign with broad input and a process established with both groups .**
**Communicates the priorities of the groups to the project team and serves as a member of the project team.  **
- ERA Project Management Team – leads the overall effort.

**42**

## Phasing and Funding

***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**

**43**

## Sample of Criteria 

**44**

## Priority Setting Establish Budgets and Phase Projects 

***Priority Setting****** ******Establish Budgets and Phase Projects****** ***

***Time***

- Priority Set

- Review & Establish   Business Practice

- Business Plan

- Production

- Pilot & Review

- Design & Review

- Budget

**45**

## Priorities Will Turn Into Project Plan

***Priorities Will Turn Into Project Plan***

- FY 2001 Project Plan submitted for the BOG Review last night
- Next the Project Plan developed through the priority setting process
- Current list is not prioritized but follows the cost model

**46**

## Life of a Module Expected to Be 4-6 Years 

***Life of a Module Expected to Be 4-6 Years ***

**Committee Management**
**Module**

**47**

## Communications & Outreach Needed

- Redesign website
- Establish a newsletter to keep all informed
- Target  e:mails
- Standardizing formats for updates and changes
- Staff and run focus groups with constituencies
- Identify resources for this function

**48**

## Ensure All Are Informed as to Priorities/Decisions

***Tracking of Specific Changes / CMO User Group***

**49**

## Key Concerns At This Point

- Resources this and next fiscal year.
**$2 million dollar drop in FY 2001 for contracts**
- The effect of shutting down the commons increases the risk for NIH to loose:
**creditability with the grantee community**
**leadership in implementing the Federal Commons**
**the ability to meet the deadlines established in legislation**

**50**

## IDEA’s for Resources

- NCRR Idea Program
- Other NCRR infrastructure mechanisms
- BISTI
- SBIR Program
- OMB Separate line item
- Open for suggestions

**51**

## Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC

- Is the Steering Committee, BOG, NIH is committed to the Commons?
- Endorsement and help towards:
**Establishing the funding for the project using the existing process and using alternative grant mechanisms**
**Implementing the structure and process outlined in the presentation to establish priorities and to manage the project**

**52**

## Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC

- Is the model for priority setting acceptable to the Steering Committee? To recap in the model:
**Priorities are decided within a module by the Group Advocate with input from the user group, functional group and the community.  **
**Across modules by the Project Leader with input from the group advocates, project team members, and the community.  **
**The project leader will seek advice from the Steering Committee for more complex issues and those that impact significantly in a shift of resources between the grantee community and internal NIH operations.**

**53**

## Topics for Discussion

- Evolution of ERA
- Issues and Good News
- Current progress-status
- Resources for the Project
**FTE’s and Contract Dollars**
**Model for tracking expenditures**
- How to manage the beast
**Establishing Priorities**
**Communicating Priorities and Progress**
**Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC**
- Discuss your issues

***Topics for Discussion***

**54**

## It’s a work in progress!!

**It’s a work in progress!!**

**Please**** provide feedback**

**55**