# Presentation: 148958

## Presented by:
Greg Long, Technical Manager

- Greg Long, Technical Manager

- The Department of Energy’s E–government Solution for R&D Portfolio Management JCCB SCR Status June 14, 2005

## Agenda

- Software Change Request Process - Where are We?
- Joint Change Control Board (JCCB)
- JCCB Meeting Outcomes

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## SCR Process – Where are We?

***End User***

***SAM***

***SCR Coordinator***

***Technical Evaluator***

- Contacts SAM with issue

- Evaluates the issue with the end user. If support, SAM resolves or sends to Helpdesk. If SCR, SAM completes SCR form and e-mails to Helpdesk.

- Posts SCR status to project Web site. Forwards in-scope SCR to Technical Evaluator. Forwards out-of-scope to Technical Mgr. E-mails SAM regarding status.

- The Technical Evaluator reviews the SCR to determine the feasibility and level of effort necessary to implement the change and provides a recommendation.

***Joint Change Control Board***

- The JCCB meets and reviews all in-scope SCRs and recommendations. Creates list of proposed changes.

- SAMs and ePME Project Team review the list of proposed changes.

***Status Webinar***

***Joint Change Control Board***

- The board reviews the comments and approves final changes. SCR Coordinator posts status changes to Web site.

***Helpdesk***

- Addresses support need or screens SCR to determine status: in-scope or out-of-scope, Helpdesk or duplicate. Forwards to SCR Coordinator.

***Technical Mgr***

- Validates SCR is out-of-scope.

**OUT-OF-SCOPE**

**IN-SCOPE**

- Contacts end user regarding status

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Joint Change Control Board (JCCB)

- The JCCB oversees the software change request process and is responsible for evaluating change requests, verifying that changes adhere to established standards, and approving or denying SCRs. The Board is comprised of individuals from the ePME project team and has representation from the user community.
- JCCB members are:
**Greg Long,** Office of Science, JCCB Chair – ePME Technical Manager
**Dave Boron** – Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
**Pete Muchunas** – Office of Fossil Energy
**Steve Eckstrand** – Office of Science, Program Management
**Sharon Betson** – Office of Science, Administration
**Carol Ingram,** Site Office Representative – Berkeley Site Office
**Mark Herrling** – ePME Project Management Office (non-voting)
**Steve Ducharme**  – ePME Technical (non-voting)
**Vince Dattoria**  – Office of Science, ePME Project Manager (votes only to break a tie)

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## JCCB SCR Review Methodology

- The JCCB considered which SCRs would benefit the largest number of users and the technical feasibility of the SCRs
- 80-20 rule
- Looked at the intent of an SCR as opposed to design aspects
- Interaction with users through the Helpdesk gave the team a feel as to how the application was being used and possible problem areas
- Asked if other changes in the application could achieve the same results
- Also considered:
- If the SCR is possible to achieve within the development time allotted
- If the SCR would streamline or benefit the overall process
- If the SCR would take away functionality at the expense of flexibility
- The Board held informal and formal development/support team meetings to discuss all aspects of requests and possible ways of achieving results
- The JCCB grouped SCRs by functional area where applicable–some areas were “hotter” than others

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## SCRs by the Numbers

- Received 82 SCRs
- 20 SCRs Closed
- 6 Changes made
- 10 Duplicates
- 2 Helpdesk issue
- 2 Out-of-scope
- 62 Reviewed by the JCCB
- 37 Approved for Dec 05 Release
- 7 Deferred
- 18 Rejected

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved

- Of the 37 Approved for the December 2005 release, they fall into the following categories
- Admin Page
- Email
- Proposal Print
- Setup Team
- Task List
- Workflow
- Other

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved SCRs

| Group | Main Goals | SCRs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Admin Page | Add Project Start Date | 0015 |
| Email | More identification information in the email about the proposal. Examples are proposal title, laboratory, and PI | 0017, 0031, 0075 |
| Proposal Print | Add Budget Years and External Comments in proposal printout | 0016, 0065 |
| Setup Team | Assign same team to multiple proposals | 0013, 0014, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0041, 0070
 |
|  | Standard team |  |
|  | Sort team members by last name |  |
| Task List | Sort task list by column headings | 0020, 0022, 0030, 0038, 0039 |
|  | Add other information in task list that is more meaningful |  |
|  | Delete columns that are not beneficial |  |
|  | Give number of items in task list |  |
| Workflow | Ability to delete proposal at start of lab workflow | 0005, 0006, 0027, 0033, 0055, 0076, 0077, 0078 |
|  | More flexibility – ability to add additional reviewers (technical, management, and budget) |  |
|  | Develop standard process to close circle on Budget Call proposals |  |
|  | Ability to have multiple signoffs by upper management |  |
|  | Eliminate or reduce problems with ‘overdue logic’ |  |

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved SCRs - Other

| Group - Application Area | SCR Title | SCR |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Other - Admin Page | Information on Admin Screen | 0059 |
| Other - Copy | Create new proposal from copy of existing proposal in repository | 0018 |
| Other - External Attachments and Instructions, Workflow | Pop-up window for the External Comments and Instructions for the user to enter why they are sending the proposal back | 0080 |
| Other - Groups, Repositories, Workflow | Add Chicago Operations Office | 0012 |
| Other - Internal Attachments | The system shall include a 'Close' or 'Cancel' button on the Add Internal Attachments screen. | 0082 |
| Other - Internal Comments and Instructions | Internal Comments save function | 0046 |
| Other - Milestones | Projected Milestone dates cannot be earlier than the Beginning FY | 0081 |
| Other - Password | Forgot Password button | 0043 |
| Other - Reference Data | Drop down list in error | 0074 |
| Other - Subscriptions | Subscriptions | 0054 |

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Deferred

**0029****	****Attachment Handling**
- Request for providing an “automated” handling process for the attachment contents.
**	****Reason for Deferment**
**	**Security issues regarding laboratory systems necessitate more research to determine if technically feasible. Attachments can be added now.
**0047****	****Team Setup Process**
- Setting up teams individually is a very tedious process. Some potential solutions might include:    1. Labs using a data upload process likely collect the information needed to set up a team. Why can’t this data be part of the data upload, thus uploading the proposal in an approved state? 2. Allow the option of setting up a default team that could easily be assigned to one or many proposals at one time, eliminating the need for the repetition of setting up the same team over and over, especially for labs whose approval process is limited to a known set of staff members. For this option it would be helpful to be able to submit the PI name as part of the XML upload.
**	****Reason for Deferment**
- 	Proposed enhancements in the streamlining of the Setup Team process should mitigate issues in creating and assigning teams.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Deferred (cont.)

**0067****	****Approval of Multiple Proposals**
- It would be helpful for the Top Official to have a mechanism that would allow selection of multiple proposals for simultaneous approval. The top official is not reviewing the contents of the proposal; this is done at a lower level.
**	****Reason for Deferment**
- 	Evaluation of changes to Setup Team process for assigning multiple proposals is needed to determine if it is possible to use the same technology for proposal approval.
**0008****	****Single Proposal Print Out**
- The current proposal printout runs from 4-6 pages without page breaks. It would be easier and neater to design the report so that it breaks at the same place each time and at the same place.
**	****Reason for Deferment**
- 	Large text fields add complexity as they may be varied lengths. Emphasis is given to areas concerning electronic routing of proposals.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Deferred (cont.)

**0050****	****Proposal Detailed Report Formatting**
- The individual proposal reports need to be cleaned up and reformatted. Right now they are unusable due to their length. (Five plus pages per proposal, and most of the fields are empty.)
**	****Reason for Deferment**
- 	Large text fields add complexity as they may be varied lengths; empty fields are dependent on laboratory processes. Emphasis is given to areas concerning electronic routing of proposals
**0057****	****Print to PDF File**
- I would like the ability to print the Admin/Budget/Technical information as well as any attachments to one PDF file. This would enable us to easily circulate the information that is in ePME to non-users for their review, comments, etc.
**	****Reason for Deferment**
- 	PTC does not have software that accomplishes this, but we are researching other packages which may accomplish this.
**0058****	****Need summary report of FWP**
- The present ePME system does not give a program manager the ability to see or print a simple summary of an FWP. What is needed is the same information that is available on the title page and the budget page of the old FWP form. This includes such information as the title, PI, abstract, etc.
**	****Reason for Deferment**
- 	All information needed is in the current printout.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Rejected

**0079****	****Proposal's full and short title shall be grouped together on the Technical page**
- The proposal's full and short title shall be grouped together on the Technical page (original FB said Admin page). Also, on view, draw long title in header area.**Reason for Rejection**
- 	This SCR was initial feedback from pilot. User feedback has determined short title not beneficial in other areas of proposal.
**0052****	****Attachments****	**
- I doubt that individual files will ever be used for all the attachments. It’s impractical to create ten separate files for each proposal. Can we rethink the attachments page to make it more practical, simple and more standard? We are currently using the Other attachment category and are attaching a Word document which contains our various attachments within it. **Reason for Rejection**
- 	Laboratories use multiple attachments. The current ePME application allows for single or multiple attachments. Removing the categories would eliminate this flexibility.
**0062****	****Negative Obligations**
- Add the ability to reflect deobligations in both obligations for operations and equipment. In order to get a complete picture of the obligations requested/needed by the laboratory, the take backs need to be included.**Reason for Rejection**Research with HQ personnel indicates that this is not standard practice or use of a FWP. This information is from program and budget personnel.
**0028****	****Design a complete solution for the Budget Call**
- Request you provide a separate handling process for the batch upload scenario like the budget call in April.**Reason for Rejection**
- 	Redesigning the application to develop a new process would exceed the time allotted for developing the next release. Changes in corporate culture regarding using ePME versus the old paper process may mitigate the need for this recommendation.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Rejected (cont.)

**0021****	****Non-Required Administrative fields that are really Required!**
- "There are a number of Administrative fields in ePME which the system/schema designates as Non-Required, yet the system enters/stores default values or minimal values in them. This practice by the ePME system does in fact does make the fields required. Since LANL, and other institutions likely do not have the ability to collect all ePME elements systematically/electronically via their legacy systems, we are using your Required/Non-Required designations as a basis for those columns which our legacy systems must collect and submit to ePME. By not allowing Nulls in these Non-Required fields, you are making them Required, and are adding additional burden and administrative labor on the laboratories. Our request then is that the following fields, and any other similar ones, be allowed to contain Nulls, and that ePME does not set default boolean values or minimal values in them.                                                                                                                                                                                                   Fields: Number of Postdoc Fellows, if any: Default Value = 0Number of Graduate Students, if any: Default Value = 0Number of Undergraduate Students, if any: Default Value = 0CRADAs  Default Value = FalseDoes work involve animal research? Default Value = False Does work involve human research? Default Value = False Is this a Proposal to do work that includes a security interest? Default Value = False“
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	Though numeric fields may be adjusted to null, Boolean fields (yes, no) cannot be changed. Headquarters wants data collected with current defaults (0 and No).
**0034****	****Check up duplicate entries****	**
- Request for providing constraint to check up duplicate entries (e.g. by Internal ID)
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	The processing needed to implement this would severely impact the proposal upload process and make the eIDK process ineffective.
**0032****	****Emails for batch upload**
- Request for flexibility to turn off email function for batch upload or reduce emails.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	Email is either off or on in the application and notification is essential to processing. This issue can be mitigated by the use of rules in the user's email to place the emails in designated folders for future processing and users performing fewer roles in the workflow process.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Rejected (cont.)

**0048****	****Excess Email Correspondence**
- Laura received approximately 300 emails in the past week due to the budget submission. This is overwhelming, and difficult to respond to. Could the emails be issued as a daily report, rather than individual emails? If Yahoo news groups can do it, ePME can too.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	In ePME, each individual user has differing tasks dependent on their role. This is contrary to the way listservs operate in a news group. To make this change in the application every user would have to receive a customized "digest" of only their personal emails, which is not technically practical. This issue can be mitigated by the use of rules in the user's email to place the emails in designated folders for future processing and users performing fewer roles in the workflow process.
**0009****	****Create ability to delete external comments**
- It is not possible to delete or edit a comment entered as an external comment. A functionality is needed to enable editing or deletion of these comments. It is possible to add another comment to disregard the first but that gets untidy.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	If the delete is added back into the External Comments, then any user with write access to the proposal could delete any comment. OOB (out-of-the box) functionality would have to be rewritten for External Comments. There are viable workarounds for this, such as putting in another comment at a peer level or underneath the comment the user wants disregarded.
**0066****	****Sign In Requirements**
- When using the email notification to access a task, it is frequently necessary to sign in each time, even if you currently have ePME windows open. This is both time consuming and leads to multiple windows open to ePME. If a programming solution is not possible, directions on how to avoid this would be helpful.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	The system is unable to manipulate a person's email application to know how many browser windows are open or determine which browser window will be used when a link is processed.  Additionally, it is unable to determine from one browser to another what the security information from one session is to another. This will be addressed as a training issue.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Rejected (cont.)

**0037****	****Counts of Proposals on Repository**
- Request for providing the total count of the proposals on Repository.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	The count of the proposals in the repository can be determined by use of the Search function in the application. This, combined with users gaining more experience in using the application, mitigates this need.
**0069****	****Complete Repository**
- The ability for someone to have access to the entire repository without the need to give them a role on every proposal would enhance the Laboratory's ability to verify a complete budget submission. Without this, it is necessary to maintain a manual tracking system.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	This contradicts the original basis of repository security determined during requirements. Suggest adding an admin person in addition to Top Official as part of the team to fulfill this responsibility.
**0019****	****Spell check****	**
- Spell check needs to be available in the Work Proposal Title, Description and Abstract fields that are in the Technical section of the proposal. These fields are "free-form" and spell check would be very helpful in catching spelling errors before the proposal leaves the lab.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	Spell check capability would be counterproductive with the number of non-conventional terms used in technical descriptions and abstracts. Users can check the spelling outside of the application using word processor and spreadsheet software, then cut/past text into the fields.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Rejected (cont.)

**0044****	****Multiple Subscriptions**
- Currently, one must enter into each proposal before one can Subscribe. Is it possible to allow one to select multiple proposals and then execute the same subscribe to the same events for all the selected proposals?
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	Out-of-the box functionality allows multiple subscriptions on one proposal at a time. Implementing this functionality increases optional emails when users want less email.
**0010****	****Make contact information editable**
- Phone numbers for Non-Licensed PIs can change frequently. Please make phone numbers an editable field so that we don't have to go through the Helpdesk to get changes made. It would also be beneficial to make email addresses editable, although they don't change as often as phone numbers.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	The current model is based on central administration, not distributed administration, because of security reasons. Users cannot be given this functionality without making the users system administrators, which violates the security stated in the requirements.
**0036****	****View Records on Home**
- Request for view at least 10 records without the need to click "View All”.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
- 	The number of records displayed under the Recent Tasks list is OOB functionality from PTC. All tasks can be viewed on the task list.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Rejected (cont.)

**0071****	****Reduce Buttons**
- There are currently too many instances when the user has to verify a choice, accept a message (Task has been successfully completed), select and confirm, etc. Suggestions: The team assignment could allow for a double click on the desired user after search rather than clicking on the name and then on the save button. Allow the task complete message to pop up but not require clicking on the "OK". Eliminate the "Are you sure" message.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
-  	The message after a task is complete allows the user to determine if they made the correct choice, and was inserted to mitigate the need for recalling an Approval, etc., and is a direct result of feedback from the pilot. Some of this may be mitigated with changes to Setup Team. ePME is consistent with the industry standard and other web applications in doing this.
**0064****	****Special Characters**
- Enable special characters in the abstract and objective description. This, more than anything else, was the cause of upload failure.
**	****Reason for Rejection**
**	**Not technically feasible. The text fields in the database do not allow for special characters.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## ePME - What’s Next

- Finalize build requirements for December 2005 release
- Approved SCRs
- New Program Guidance requirements
- Investigate adding proposal aggregation functionality for EE, FE,  and NE
- Training for December 2005 release
- December 2005 release deployment
***Keep sending in your SCRs to help improve ePME!***

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Thank You!

**Thank You!**

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## FeedbackQuestions and Answers

- FeedbackQuestions and Answers

## BackupClosed and Approved SCRs

**Backup**Closed and Approved SCRs

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Closed

**0001****	****CLOSED-change made****	****Add Organizations: Albany RC, SRNL, OSTI**
- Add the Albany Research Center and the Savannah River National Laboratory as Laboratory Organizations. Add the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (SC-43) as a Headquarters Organization.
**0002****	****CLOSED-change made****	****DOE organization names no longer accurate**
- The problem is that the original list of organizations provided for the pilot of the ePME application is no longer accurate. The organizations list is needed to accurately reflect the DOE organizations in order for the production application to process proposals in the expected workflows.
**0003****	****CLOSED-change made****	****PI phone number**
- When PI is selected in the Set Up Team task and saved, the proposal shows the PI phone number is Not Available. We provided the PI Phone number when the User Access Request Forms were submitted to ePME. The ePME tool is filling in the PI's email address, but not the PI phone number.  Please change the tool to fill the PI phone number. It would be nice if the phone numbers were editable so that they could be changed, if incorrect.
**0004****	****CLOSED-bug in system fixed****	****Cannot remove (or change to zero) budget data**
- Budget numbers were entered for an incorrect year. Both the Admin and Budget Reviewer assigned to the proposal were unsuccessful in their attempted to delete the numbers. Note that with the user (Admin or Budget Review) were in the Budget Edit screen, the numbers appear to have been changed to zero and the user clicked on the option SAVE. However, in reviewing the proposal the data had not been changed.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Closed (cont.)

**0007****	****CLOSED-limits increased to 50MB****	****Allow attachments in excess of 5MGs**
- We have been unable to attach files in excess of 5MGs to the proposal using the attachment function. We have been able to use the external comments and attachments function but this means that either the attachment fails and it is necessary to try again using the other function or we must check the size of the attachment before attempting an attachment. This is a time issue.  This system is already very time consuming, this just makes it take longer.
**0011****	****CLOSED-change made****	****Add Organization: Savannah River Operations Office**
- Add the Savannah River Operations Office. The Savannah River Operations Office will receive and approve proposals from the Savannah River National Laboratory.
**0060****	****CLOSED-duplicate****	****	****Team Assignment Changes**
- The ability to change the team assignments at any point in the process would be useful. The requirement to send the proposal back to the creator in order to make a change is inconvenient and time consuming.
**0053****	****CLOSED-duplicate 0006****	****Deleting a proposal**
- Why can’t an Admin delete a proposal? It is a waste of effort to have to setup a team and then forward it to the Budget Reviewer in order for the proposal to be deleted. A proposal should be able to be deleted at any point after it is uploaded into the system.
**0049****	****CLOSED-duplicate 0015****	****Proposal Start Dates and Milestones**
- Why do proposals for ongoing work submitted as part of the Budget Book have to have the first day of the Budget Year as the start date? Many of these programs have already been in place for some years. Wouldn’t it be better to submit accurate data? As a result of this issue Budget Book proposals could only accept milestones that were planned for the Budget Year (in this case 2007).  This won’t be an issue if we allow the actual program start date to be used for Budget Book proposals for ongoing work. Shouldn't a complete set of milestones be entered?

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Closed (cont.)

**0063****	****CLOSED-duplicate 0022****	****Sort Task List**
- The task list is currently in no particular order and the order changes each time it is called up.  It would be very helpful to be able to control the order. Suggested sort options: date of creation, date added to task list, proposal number, internal lab number, creator.
**0061****	****CLOSED-duplicate 0031****	****ePME proposal # on notification emails**
- It would be helpful to include the ePME proposal # on the notification email. There are times when you want to expedite a proposal and it would be easier to find the correct notification if you could hunt the email descriptions rather than the task list which is in no particular order.
**0073****	****CLOSED-duplicate 0031****	****email notifications**
- Please identify the proposal name in the Subject Line of the email notification for these items: "Assign Team Members Task“, "Budget Review Task”, and "Site Office Top Official Review Task". The current notifications are generic and uninformative. Adding the proposal name is useful information to the reader in several ways; it would add urgency to the notification to see the name of the proposal, it would serve as a "TO DO" listing that the user could choose to prioritize.
**0056****	****CLOSED-duplicate 0046****	****Internal Comments and Instruction Field**
- Need to save comments.	Internal Comments and Instruction Field - Users would like to save their comments even though they are not making a selection in the log or task complete. If you just type comments in the field and exit out, when you go back in your comments are not there. It does not save them.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Closed (cont.)

**0035****	****CLOSED-duplicate of 0006****	****Delete logic****	**
- Request for capability to delete without the need to setup team.
**0072****	****CLOSED-duplicate of 0022****	****Be able to sort**
- The ability to sort the task list by Title, alpha, etc. Also we need to take out "proposal" at the beginning of every title. This would inhibit the ability to sort by title.
**0040****	****CLOSED-duplicate of 0039****	****Remove column**
- Remove Priority column on the task list...useless.
**0051****	****CLOSED-Helpdesk handled****	****Screen Size****	**
- I’m not sure if this problem is due to the way I have my computer set up, or to my screen resolution. When working within a specific task such as budget review, there is an awful lot of empty white space which makes it necessary to page down in order to view/select the task options.  Can the update screens be reorganized so that more data can be viewed in a single screen? If this is a problem with computer settings, please make the correct settings available in the FAQ.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Closed (cont.)

**0068****	****CLOSED-Helpdesk handled****	****Reports**
- It would be helpful to have reports generated from the ePME system. Without them, reporting has to be maintained manually or in another system external to ePME.
**0042****	****CLOSED-out of scope****	****	****Cosmetic changes for SCR form**
- Naming convention for the SCR form is unnecessarily cumbersome. All of the information in the name is already contained in the form and besides, if you follow it strictly there's no way to differentiate multiple SCR's filed on the same date. Why not make it easier on the users, and develop a macro connected to a "Submit" button on the form that saves it with the Short Title name and mails it to the SAM and ePME Support?
**0045**	 **CLOSED-out of scope** 	**HQ level Budget entry into ePME**
- Currently ePME is not configured to allow a HQ Program Office to enter its FY07 Budget at a top level down. Rather ePME is congured for the FY07 Budget Call to be entered from the Labs/Sites up to HQ. There are two PSOs I'm aware of that want to enter Budget from the top down, namely NE and EE. ePME should accommodate this method of input.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved - Admin Page

**0015****	****Project Start Date**
- Many of the projects at LLNL are on-going and have been receiving funding for a long time. It is useful to the project managers to track the actual start date of the project.  ePME will not currently allow a start date prior to the budget year. It would be useful to have a field for tracking the actual start date. This also creates a problem when a program wants to communicate a milestone for the CY or BY-1.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved - Email

**0017****	****Email notification**
- Email notifications that are created with a ePME user as the "from" should have the word "ePME" in the subject line. Right now I am receiving emails with a description of "Setup Team" or something to that effect, and it would be helpful to know that the email is related to ePME without having to open it. The concern is that we are told to be wary of opening emails that you are not expecting because of viruses, and the first time I got the email, I was leery of opening it for just that reason. I have also received emails from the ePME system about tasks overdue, and since they are from ePME Support I know what they are relating to. But for some reason the first email after a proposal is created and in draft form is from me and it is not as clear.
**0031****	****Email Subject**
- Request for a more informative email subject to ease navigation. For example, it provides both Proposal ID and Internal ID.
**0075****	****Email notification**
- The email notification should provide basic information about the project referred to.  As it stands there is nothing for the receiver to guess whether they need to look at this today or can ignore it for now. List info like:  Lab, PI, KP would be good starts.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved – Proposal Print

**0016****	****Budget Data Headings**
- Budget Data prints on a page that lists data for CY, BY-1, BY, BY+1, etc. It would be helpful if the year (ie.: 2006, 2007) also appeared. This would eliminate any confusion.
**0065****	****External Comments and Attachments reflected on printout**
- The current format of the printed proposal does not include the external comments and attachments. It would be helpful to list the names of the attached files and the external comments.  This would provide more complete information in the printed record.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved – Setup Team

**0013****	****Filter User by Group Sort Order for Assign Team Members Function**
- Search Results list is ordered by First Name - should be ordered by Last Name
**0014****	****Workflow: Setup Team at Lab**
- Request for global “Setup Team” functionality. Due to the volume of proposals to be submitted, a setup team for each proposal requires a manual effort and is intensive and redundant. In search of an “automate” and/or efficient global solution, we hope that the budget reviewer, for instance, will be able to review all proposals under his/her programs without the need of a “Setup Team” for each proposal created.
**0023****	****Setup Team**
- Because of the firewall issue, there needs to be an easier way to either change a team member or reassign a task. If a top official is out of the office, he can not access ePME remotely to either approve tasks or reassign tasks. And the process to change the team by demoting it all the way back through the process is VERY TIME CONSUMING!!!! Either the remote access needs to be fixed or setup team needs to be a function that can be done by the creator at any time the task is in their list.
**0024****	****Fix the Assign Proposal Review Team function**
- What used to take less than 1 minute when the FWP's came as paper will now take most of a day. The Assign Team process has GOT to be fixed to allow bulk assignments (i.e., click a whole bunch and assign them all to the same people ONCE). In addition, having to search each time for team members takes way too long. Team members for a particular office’s roles should be in an instantly accessible drop-down pick list.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved – Setup Team (cont.)

**0025****	****Setup Team**
- If the lab has a standard "team" (Budget Review, Top Official and PI) that will exist on all of its proposals, there should be a way to setup the entire team in one step, rather than having to go through all 20+ proposals and set up all 3 team members individually. What could be done in one step takes 3 or 4 steps.  Even better, you should be able to select multiple proposals and process the same team to all of them at one time. Additionally, the search function seems to take a very long time. Perhaps a drop down box would be more appropriate, one that is reduced to only those people that are affiliated with a particular lab.
**0026****	****Setup Team**
- I would like the ability to select multiple proposals and process the same team to all of them at one time. Additionally, the search function seems to take a very long time. Perhaps a drop down box would be more appropriate, one that is reduced to only those people that are affiliated with a particular lab.
**0041****	****Cosmetic changes to Assign Proposal Review Team process**
- Each and every step of the Assign Proposal Review Team process requires scrolling to get to the areas on the form needed to assign team members, leading to frustration and inefficiencies. Pop up screens should either be full sized or optimized for the screen resolution. Initial screen should be redesigned to put important functions at top of screen. Order that team members are assigned should follow work flow (ie. PM, Top Official and then Budget Reviewer - not PM, Budget Reviewer, Top Official).
**0070****	****Standing Teams**
- The ability to create standing teams (and partial standing teams) and then assign those teams using a single radio button would save significant amounts of time and many keystrokes. PIs may still need to be assigned individually because they vary at a higher rate than the other team members.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved – Task List

**0020****	****Task List**
- Can you add something to the heading of the task list that provides the number of items in the list?  Perhaps even a grand total with subtotals by status? I am near the end of entering all my proposals for the FY07 budget call and I know how many I need to enter, but I have to manually count up how many are in my task list to see if I overlooked one.
**0022****	****Task List**
- Can you make the task list sortable by name, due date, task type or some sort of logic? Right now, I can't figure out what the order is and when there are 20+ proposals it is very hard to find what you are looking for.
**0030****	****Attachment Flag**
- Request for a flag on the home page after the proposal is provided with attachment(s).
**0038****	****Ability to know that I've already looked at something**
- It would help to have the ability to know that I've already looked at something. You could have a task list show up in bold (like email) and then when I've looked at it, unbold it. Or a comments field on the task menu to make a note.
**0039****	****Take "Priority" column off task list**
- Take "Priority" off the task list and possibly save this space for KP# or Program Manager name.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved - Workflow

**0005****	****Change workflow to NOT send back to PI or Lab Admin prior to going to lab top official**
- Proposals are currently going back to the PI or lab admin (whoever created it) once the budget reviewer sends it forward. The PI or lab admin must then send to the lab top official. This is redundant. Once the PI or lab admin sends forward to the budget reviewer, unless the budget reviewer has an issue, they should have the option to send on to the lab top official.
**0006****	****Ability to Delete Proposal without first assigning a team**
- Please allow proposal deletion before the team has been assigned. It is not productive to assign a team when it is evident that the proposal will need to be deleted. It is a time issue, not a functional issue.
**0027****	****Need to be able to select more that one program manager when selecting the members of the team.**
- The program manager should have the option of selecting another program manager to review the proposal if they feel it is necessary. The first selected program manager would select the second program manager, after the second program manager has reviewed the proposal and made their comments, it is then returned to the first program manager.
**0033****	****Enhance “Overdue” logic**
- Request for enhancing the overdue logic (currently receive a proposal overdue email after 3 days, including weekends, from when the proposal is initiated).
**0055****	****Allow Capability to Add More Than One Program Manager to Team at HQ**
- End user is requesting the capability to have more than one Program Manager review a proposal at HQ through the system, versus having to send an email to the second Program Manager to review through the repository. FE-30 has several proposals where this capability is needed.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved – Workflow (cont.)

**0076****	****Add radio button for status of proposal**
- Be able to choose a radio button to say "Progress Report received & guidance forthcoming" and add a radio button to add comments about the action taking place.
**0077****	****Change wording of radio button**
- Change wording of Concur to Recommend for funding. Concur can mean many different things to people and the wording needs to be more specific to each action.
**0078****	****The system shall have a new status called “Approve-Pending Guidance”**
- The system shall have a new status called “Approve-Pending Guidance”

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved - Other

**0018****	****Create new proposal from copy of existing proposal in repository**
- For those proposals that are ongoing and done for each year’s budget call, it would be nice to be able to take the proposal created from the previous year and copy it to a new proposal for the new year. You could then just edit the fields that have changes, primarily budget and FTE figures. This would be a tremendous time saver for the Lab Administrator.
**0080****	****Pop-up window for the External Comments and Instructions for the user to enter why they ****	****are sending the proposal back**
- If user has chosen "Does not concur", "Send back for rework" or "Pending - waiting for instructions and comments", provide a pop-up window for the External Comments and Instructions for the user to enter information on why they are sending the proposal back.
**0012****	****Add Chicago Operations Office**
- An Operations Office role needs to be added in the structure. For the purposes of Chicago Operations we need read rights to the FWP's for all the labs for which we provide services. These labs include Ames, ANL, BNL, Fermi, LBNL, PPPL, and SLAC.  The read rights are required at the time the labs submit the FWPs to the site office. We do not require reviewer rights, administrative rights or top official rights since the site offices perform those tasks. However, after the budget is submitted to HQ we have responsibility to validate each lab's budget. This task requires access to the FWPs by CH budget staff members. In addition questions periodically arise in which reference to the FWPs is helpful to formulate an answer.
**0082****	****The system shall include a “Close” or “Cancel” button on the Add Internal Attachments screen**
- The system shall include a “Close” or “Cancel” button on the Add Internal Attachments screen.
**0046****	****Internal Comments save function**
- I would like to be able to save my internal comments even before a function/task is completed. Example;  the internal comments box that appears within the "Assign Team Members" task does not allow me to save my comments until the task is complete. I was able to save my partial team members without completing the task, but my comments were deleted and had to be re-entered at the point that I was able to complete the "Assign Team Members" task. Having to re-enter several internal comments was irritating.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL

## Approved – Other (cont.)

**0081****	****Projected Milestone dates cannot be earlier then the Beginning FY**
- Users need to be able to input existing milestones for ongoing work. I tested this and the system would not allow a projected milestone date earlier then the beginning FY. We could say it works as designed except for one issue. If we had copying in the application, we would have brought forward the old milestones for the new proposal and allowed them to pass as new milestones. The old milestones would have had the Is Approved checkbox marked. However, with this check, we would have run into this issue and found the need to correct the application to allow earlier dates on the Projected Milestone Date since it would not have allowed the earlier dates. Therefore, I suggest we treat this as a defect and change the validation on the milestones to allow dates earlier then the Beginning FY. This would allow users to input milestones for ongoing work and give us a quick victory.
**0043****	****Forgot Password Button**
- Several of my end users have misplaced/forgotten their user passwords. Please make available a "Forgot Password Button" on your entry forms into ePME for the user to request a new password. This would save me (the SAM) time, and would facilitate the end user communicating directly with the Helpdesk.
**0074****	****Drop down list in error**
- The field choices are not complete nor totally correct in the "Contractor Org Code and Name" drop down listing. For example, none of the listed M&Os for the Idaho Site are current, i.e., none of the current M&O contracts at Idaho are in the drop down list.
**0054****	****Subscriptions**
- Please include a drop down list or search function for the names/ids/teams on the subscription screen. It is very difficult to subscribe team members for the notification emails if the exact spelling of the names is not known.
**0059****	****Information on Admin Screen**
- The information on the Admin screen is not sufficient for the Administrator to determine which program manager should handle a given FWP. Some labs are putting what seems to be a contractor code into the Short Name line.  There needs to be a separate entry for this contractor code. The "Short Name" line should be renamed "Descriptive Title" to make it clear what is wanted here. Also, the PI should be listed on the Admin screen. These two items should make it possible to route the FWP to the proper program manager without the time consuming task of opening the attachments.

- ePME JCCB SCR Status (Jun 14 05) 6-14-05b FINAL