Evolution of ERA

1
1
2
Topics for Discussion
2

• Evolution of ERA
• Issues and Good News
• Current progress-status
• Resources for the Project
• FTEs 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

3
In the beginning..IMPAC I
3
CM
GM
REV
RRA
Snap Shot
4
4
Evolution of IMPAC I
CM
GM
Payline Projections
REV
RRA
Snap Shot
5
5
Evolution of IMPAC
Payline Projections
IC referral
Budget Reports
Council operations
Coding
6
6
Extension Systems ?
Payline Projections
IC referral
Budget Reports
Council operations
Coding
7
7
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.

8
8
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

9
Most Modules in Production
9
Interface Module
Production Date
Infrastructure Shared Modules
April 98
April 98
GUM
June 99
API
May 00
People
June 99/May 00
RAE
June 99
UA
Gaps in modules
June 99
CP (CRISP Plus FU)
Nov 96
PV (PowerView)
Query tools
Nov 96
QV (QuickView)
10
IMPAC 2 Good News-Current Progress
10

• 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

11
Logons the First Two Weeks of April
11
12
Evolution of ERA Systems
12
1965
1990
1995
2000
Support NIH IC Staff Requirements
13
Commons an Interface to Integrate Data from
Extramural Community to the NIH
13
Applicant/Grantee
NIH
14
A Process Overview
14
Applicant/Grantee
NIH IMPAC 2 (and other granting
agencies)
Institutes and Centers
15
Commons a Parallel Development
15
pilot
works
pilot
pilot
pilot
works
pilot
pilot
pilot
16
Help Needed To Assess Priorities
16
17
Involved Constituencies
17
18
Recommendations (draft)
18
19
Highlights of The Commons Review
19

• 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.

20
Highlights of The Commons Review (continued)
20

• Not financed sufficiently to meet objectives
• Constituencies need to be better involved
• NIH ICs, 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.

21
NIH Commons Deployment Plan 1998-2000
(pre-review)
21
FDP Pilot - 65 Grantee Organizations
Pre-Prod. - 120-150 Organizations
Full Prod. - Open Deployment
22
NIH Commons Deployment as a Result of Review
22
CRISP on the Web I-Edison Commons
Registration Accounts Administration Application/A
ward Status Inst. Prof. Profiles e-SNAP
Trainee Appointments (X-Train) Competitive
Application Fellowships
hold
hold
hold
hold
priority
None transact with IMPAC 2 Pilot of commons
interface with 65 institutions
Expand pilot of interface Production
23
Good News/Current Progress(Commons)
23

• 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

24
The Matrix Must Be Built
24
IC Extensions
25
As Project Manager
25

• What resources are available?
• FTEs

26
52 FTEs Committed to the Project
26
Jim Cain, DEIS 47 Total FTEs
George Stone, CEITRB, DGP 5 Total FTEs

FTEs Effort System 3.4 68
E 0.6 12 NC 1.0
20 FC
L Legacy, IMPAC I
NCNIH Commons
FCFed. Commons
I2 IMPAC II
EEdison

• 21 FTEs under Dorrette Finch in the Office of
  Reports and Analysis
• utilize the systems but are not part of
  development and support

27
Division of Extramural Information Systems
27
2 FTEs
50 I2, 50 NC
28
Division of Grants Policy
28
Carol Tippery, Director, DGP
5 FTEs reassigned to DEIS
29
As Project Manager
29

• What resources are available?
• 52 - FTEs
• 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
30
Future and Retro Cost Model (draft)
30
IMPAC 2 Costs Cur. Yr Total
Applications Business Area
2.9 16.2 0.0 1.1 0.2
1.3 1.2 6.3 1.2 8.5
Applications, Software Infrastructure Database
Design
Project Management
Operations Misc
COTS, HW, CIT
Dollars in millions -costs from June to
February and include include DEIS FTEs
31
Detail Tracking of Costs
31
32
Commons Development, Deployment, Costs
32
96 97 98 99
00
Commons Platform Database 1.97M -
TYC 1.13M - CIT
CRISP 150K - Dev. 342K - Oper.
Admin Interface Profiles 192K - Dev. 154K -
Oper.
Projections for 00 as of Feb. 2000
33
NIH Commons Development, Deployment, and
Costscont.
33
96 97 98 99
00
Status 456K - Dev. 146K - Oper.
e-SNAP 831K - Dev. 479K - Oper.
X-Train 66K - Dev. 41K - Oper.
Projections for 00 as of Feb. 2000
34
NIH Commons Development, Deployment, and
Costscont.
34
96 97 98 99
00
Competitive Application 356K - Dev.
Complex Noncompeting Application 188K - Dev.
Fellowships 233K - Dev.
Projections for 00 as of Feb. 2000
35
How to Manage the Beast ?
35
36
Project Management Structure
36
IT Board of Governors
CIO
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
Multiple Functional Groups CM GMAC RPC EPMC
37
How to Set Competing Priorities ?
37
38
Modules-Functional User Groups
38
Functional Group
Interface Module
User Group
Infrastructure Shared Modules
CMO (Committee Management Org.)
GMAC (Grants Mgmt. Adv. Comm.)
GUM
RPC (Review Program Committee)
API
CSR (Review Program Committee)
People
TPC (Training Policy Committee)
RAE
UA
EPMC
Gaps in modules
CP (CRISP Plus FU)
PV (PowerView)
Query tools
QV (QuickView)
CP (CRISP on the web)
Public/Press/Scientists
Edison
Institution / NIH
NIH Commons User Group Academic
Institutions Private Sector NIH
Community Federal Agencies
E-SNAP
Type 5s / VP research
X-Train
T32s F32s
CGAP
Applicants/VP Research
39
Priority Setting at the User Level
39
User Group Recommends fixes and enhancements
works with POC from OER responsible for the module
ERA Module
Functional Group Establish priorities and
relative costs with input from the user group
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.
40
Give Authority to a Person(s) to Develop Trans
NIH Need into Core Functionality
40
Modules
CM
GM
REV
RRA
New Module
SITS
NBS
TA
ICO
41
Provide a Process for Anyone Group or
Organization to Obtain Input or Decide Whether to
Incorporate a Function into a Trans-NIH Function
41
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
42
Structure forPriority Setting for ERA Projects
42

• Functional groups
• User groups consist of
• Users of the system within ICs 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.

43
43
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
44
Sample of Criteria
44
45
Priority Setting Establish Budgets and Phase
Projects
45
Business Plan
Priority Set
Budget
Design Review
Pilot Review
Review Establish Business Practice
Production
Time
46
Priorities Will Turn Into Project Plan
46

• 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

47
Life of a Module Expected to Be 4-6 Years
47
Committee Management Module
48
Communications Outreach Needed
48

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

49
Ensure All Are Informed as to Priorities/Decisions

49
Tracking of Specific Changes / CMO User Group
50
Key Concerns At This Point
50

• 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

51
IDEAs for Resources
51

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

52
Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC
52

• 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

53
Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC
53

• 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.

54
Topics for Discussion
54

• Evolution of ERA
• Issues and Good News
• Current progress-status
• Resources for the Project
• FTEs 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

55
Its a work in progress!!
55
Please provide feedback