NIH Electronic Research Administration:

1
NIH Electronic Research Administration Executive
Officers Meeting October 3, 2000
2
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

3
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.
4
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.

5
Some of the ERA Benefits to Grantee NIH Staff
6
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

7
ERA Objective Full Electronic Grants
Administration
100,000 Applicants / 2,000 Grantee Institutions
Worldwide
Commons File
(Fed.Commons)
(FADEX)
IMPAC II - NIH Transactional Database
3,500 Users / OD 25 - NIH Institutes and Centers
8
Modules -- Functional User Groups
Infrastructure Shared I2 Modules
GUM
API
People
RAE
UA
Shared Commons Modules
9
Modules -- Functional User Groups
eRA Interface Modules
I2
Infrastructure Shared I2 Modules
Committee Management
I2
Grants Management
I2
Review
GUM
I2
Receipt, Referral, Assignment
API
People
I2
Training Activities
RAE
I2
IC Operations (Program)
UA
Electronic Council Book
I2
Shared Commons Modules
CRISP on the Web
COM
COM
I-Edison
E-SNAP
COM
COM
X-Train
COM
Comp. Grant Appl.
10
Modules -- Functional User Groups
eRA Interface Modules
I2
Infrastructure Shared I2 Modules
Committee Management
To support the system
I2
Grants Management

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

I2
Review
GUM
I2
Receipt, Referral, Assignment
API
People
I2
Training Activities
RAE
I2
IC Operations (Program)
UA
Electronic Council Book
I2
Shared Commons Modules
CRISP on the Web
COM
COM
I-Edison
E-SNAP
COM
COM
X-Train
COM
Comp. Grant Appl.
11
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

12
What Does this Mean in Terms of Data ?
13
Whats Happening Now-This Year
14
The Matrix Must Be Built
IC Extensions
15
Project Management Structure
March 2000
IT Board of Governors
CIO
ERA Steering Committee IC Director-Chair DDER,
CIO, Project Manager, IC Rep,
DDER
Project Manager
Daily Operations Manager
CIT Tech Support
Multiple Functional Groups CM GMAC RPC EPMC
16
How to Manage the Beast ?
17
Project Management
Users, Customers, Team Management
Business Management
Technical Management
18
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
19
Project ManagementQuestions 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

20
Project Management
Users, Customers, Team Management
Business Management
Technical Management
21
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.

22
IMPAC II (cont )

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

23
Help Needed to Assess Priorities
24

Effects of IT Review on NIH Commons

• 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

25
Status of NIH Commons Deploymentas 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
• gt 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

26
Status of NIH Commons Deploymentas 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

27
NIH ERA Deployment 1998-2001
Interagency Edison CRISP on the Web Commons
Registration Accounts Administration Application/A
ward Status Institutional Professional
Profiles e-SNAP Trainee Appointments
(X-Train) Competitive Application
Fellowships Federal Commons
hold
X
hold
X
hold
X
hold
X
hold
X
hold
X
X
X
FDP Pilot - 65 Grantee Organizations.....
Pre-Prod. - 120-150 Organizations... Full
Prod. - Open Registration.. Suspended
Further Deployment.. Development Stopped
prior to deployment..
X
X
28
Technical, Schedule, and Cost Performance are
Opposing Forces that Require Compromise?
29
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

30
Modules -- Functional User Groups
eRA Interface Modules
I2
Infrastructure Shared I2 Modules
Committee Management
I2
Grants Management
I2
Review
GUM
I2
Receipt, Referral, Assignment
API
People
I2
Training Activities
RAE
I2
IC Operations (Program)
UA
Electronic Council Book
I2
Shared Commons Modules
CRISP on the Web
COM
COM
I-Edison
E-SNAP
COM
COM
X-Train
COM
Comp. Grant Appl.
31
Modules -- Functional User Groups
I2 Functional Group
eRA Interface Modules
I2
Infrastructure Shared I2 Modules
Committee Management
I2
Grants Management
I2
Review
GUM
I2
Receipt, Referral, Assignment
API
People
I2
Training Activities
RAE
I2
IC Operations (Program)
UA
Electronic Council Book
I2
Shared Commons Modules
Commons Advisory Group
Public, Press, Scientist
CRISP on the Web
COM
Institution, NIH
COM
I-Edison
Type 5, VP research
E-SNAP
COM
T32, F32
COM
X-Train
Applicants, VP Research
COM
Comp. Grant Appl.
32
Modules -- Functional User Groups
I2 Functional Group
eRA Interface Modules
I2 User Groups
I2
Infrastructure Shared I2 Modules
Committee Management
I2
Grants Management
I2
Review
GUM
I2
Receipt, Referral, Assignment
API
People
I2
Training Activities
RAE
I2
IC Operations (Program)
UA
Electronic Council Book
I2
Shared Commons Modules
Commons User Groups
Commons Advisory Group
Public, Press, Scientist
CRISP on the Web
COM
Institution, NIH
COM
I-Edison
Type 5, VP research
E-SNAP
COM
T32, F32
COM
X-Train
Applicants, VP Research
COM
Comp. Grant Appl.
33
Project Management Team Structure
TPC Advocate Wally Schaffer
RPC Advocate Eileen Bradley
GMAC Advocate Marcia Hahn
PI Advocate
CMO Advocate Claire Benfer
Daily Operations Manager Jim Cain
POPOF/Program Advocate Christopher Beisel
CIT liaison IC Tech Advocate Donna Frahm
Reports Advocate Carol Martin
Data Integrity Belinda Seto
Research Institution Advocate George Stone
ECB Advocate Thor Fjellstedt
Project Manager John McGowan
IT Design/Arch. Advocate Donna Frahm
Receipt and Referral Brent Stanfield
OER Liaisons
FDC/ROW Liaison Jay Silverman
34
NIH IT Project Management Structure
IT Board of Governors
CIO
ERA Steering Committee IC Director-Chair DDER,
CIO, Project Manager, IC Rep,
Deputy Director for Extramural Research
Federal Commons IAEGC ECC Fed Commons Working
Group
eRA Project Manager
NIH Commons Advisory Group Academic
Institutions Private Sector NIH
Community Federal Agencies
Daily Operations Manager
CIT Tech Liaison
Multiple Functional Groups CM GMAC RPC EPMC
IT Shared Design Group
eRA Project Management Team
IC Representatives
35
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.

36
How to Set Competing Priorities?
37
Priority Setting Begins With User Group
ERA Module
Functional Group
User Group
Group Advocate
Project Team

• Steering Committee
• Reviews and sets priorities

Recommendations and priorities posted on Web
community informed through newsletter.
38
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.

39
Sample Criteria for Evaluating Projects
40
Criteria to Rank Projects for 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
41
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

42
Advocates Took the Job Seriously

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

43
(No Transcript)
44
Priorities as Established by the Project
Team7/18/00
45
Development of Business Plans
46
ERA Needs 27 Million in Contracts
47
ERA Needs 27 Million in Contracts
48
Its 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 govt system by
May 2001)
49
Its 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

50
Brief Overview of Items
51
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

52
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.

53
An Continuous IssueLack 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
  ICs or individuals
• Tighten down the business rules
• Freeze a data set for each FY for consistency in
  data reporting

54
To Comply with Federal LawThe Commons Needs to
Be Completed
Priority Title

Total Commons


Cost Cost
Total Cost For FY 01 ---- 6,191,860.00
55
Connect the Commons to IMPAC II
56
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.

57
Benefit of Completing the Migration of IMPAC 1
Maintenance contract costs
IC Taps
IMPAC II Costs
Current Base
CIT Costs
Management Fund
OER Costs
Dollars in millions
58
A Reminder
Maintenance contract costs
Last Year Costs 13.826 M
IMPAC II Costs
Current Base
CIT Costs
No monies with this budget this year for
application development
OER Costs
Dollars in millions
59
OER Costs FTE Breakout by Project

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

Commons 17.0 9.05 FTEs
IMPAC 11 39.2 20,75 FTEs
IMPAC II Costs
Legacy 43.7 23.2 FTEs
OER Costs
Dollars in millions
60
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

61
CIT Costs Hardware Service - Support

• 1.942 for IMPAC 1
• 0.139 for IMPAC 2
• 1.050 for Commons

IMPAC II Costs
CIT Costs
62
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 FTEs to support
  IMPAC 1

63
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.

64
Four Areas First Year Needs Identified Below
65
(No Transcript)
66
Needs Not in the Priority Process
67
34 Million Needed to Meet Requirements
User defined requirements
20 million needed in addition to the current
resources to get project completely on track
Percent of 24 million
Cost to keep building the Commons
Commons Cost
Maintenance contract costs
IC Taps - Current Contract Resources
IMPAC II
CIT Costs
Management Fund
OER Costs
Dollars in millions
68
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 ?
69
Phasing Projects
Sept
Nov
FY 2001
70
No New Money No Projects
Dec
Nov
FY 2001
71
Phasing Projects with No New Money
Summary Statement---Design Review------Productio
n------
Percentile---Design Review-------Production-----
-
Analysis of Review of Design of e-SNAP
integ-IMPAC 2
Migration to Oracle 8i
Production Parallel process of dual applications
Council deferrals---Design Review------Productio
n------
July /Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
FY 2001
72
Priority Setting Begins With User Group
ERA Module
Functional Group
User Group
Group Advocate
73
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

74
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

75
Priority Setting Begins With User Group
ERA Module
Functional Group
User Group
Group Advocate
76
Coming October First
77
Coming October First
78
(No Transcript)
79
Basic Information About the Modules
80
(No Transcript)
81
(No Transcript)
82
(No Transcript)
83
(No Transcript)
84
(No Transcript)
85
Its a work in progress!!
Please provide feedback
86
Project Management