Expansion of RCR Training Requirement:

1
NIH Electronic Research Administration NUCRA
Video Cast
2
Today

• Define the eRA objective?
• What is involved to achieve the objective
• Process, systems, policy, business practices
• What's happened
• FY 2000 A year to regroup
• FY 2001 A year to ramp up
• FY 2002 Effects of re-engineering and new
  technology begin to take effect
• Next steps

3
eRA Objective

• Convert the NIH application, initial peer review,
  secondary council review, award and post award
  administrative process from a paper to an
  electronic medium.
• Integrate eRA NIH with the Federal Commons

4
Whats Involved

• 200 million pieces of paper
• 46,000 new or competing applications
• Operate 3,166 study section meetings
• Support the 80 Council meetings
• 60,000 Grant Awards
• Maintain historical records (1973-2000)
• Multiple reports and analysis

5
eRA Three Systems

• IMPAC II 1996
• IMPAC I (legacy) - 1964
• Commons - 1996
• Federal Commons - 1999

6
eRA ObjectiveFull Electronic Grants
Administration
7
What Changed in FY 2000

• Evaluate the status of eRA

8
Stress in any development
Technical
Schedule
Cost
9
Impact of under funding
Technical
Schedule
Cost
10
eRA ObjectiveFull Electronic Grants
Administration
11
eRA Objective Not Achieved - Yet
12
FY 2000

• Spring
• Peer Review of the NIH Commons

13
(No Transcript)
14
FY 2000

• Spring
• Peer Review of the NIH Commons
• New management structure put in place

15
Priorities Identified by Each Group
16
What Do We Hope To Have?

• Clear Individual
• Responsible for priority setting with their
  groups
• Makes decisions and recommendations for the
  design based on group input
• Group and Process to
• 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.

17
Key Facts for FY 2000

• 13.826 million was made available for IMPAC I,
  IMPAC II, and the Commons
• Only 0.7 million was available for application
  development
• 13.126 million was for maintenance and
  operations.
• This summer almost all funds that had been
  available for application development were
  redirected to keep I-Edison and CRISP on the WEB
  operating.

18
Priorities Begin with Users
19
FY 2000

• Spring
• Peer Review of the NIH Commons
• New management structure put in place
• Straw man of priorities provided to the
  functional groups for verification / modification

20
Project Management Team
RPC Advocate Eileen Bradley
TPC Advocate Wally Schaffer
PI Advocate
GMAC Advocate Marcia Hahn
CMO Advocate Claire Benfer
Daily Operations Manager Jim Cain
CIT liaison IC Tech Advocate Donna Frahm
POPOF/Program Advocate Christopher Beisel
Reports Advocate Carol Martin
Data Integrity Belinda Seto
ECB Advocate Thor Fjellstedt
Research Institution Advocate George Stone
IT Design/Arch. Advocate Donna Frahm
Project Manager John McGowan
Receipt and Referral Brent Stanfield
OER Liaisons
FDC/ROW Liaison Jay Silverman
21
Advocates Took the Job Seriously

• Cornell
• Dartmouth
• Emory
• Florida
• Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
• Michigan

• MIT
• North Carolina State
• Northwestern
• Penn State
• St. Jude
• Wisconsin

22
Priorities from the Project Team
23
Next Version of the Commons
Priority Title
Total
Commons

Cost Cost
Total Cost For FY 01 ---- 6,191,860.00
24
FY 2001

• Fall
• Steering Committee reviews and modifies the
  recommendation of the Project Team
• Steering Committee recommended budget to the
  Board of Governors (BOG)
• November - Continuing Resolution
• December a budget is passed

25
Results

• Match expectations with reality
• Involved all communities in the process
• Clear objectives and needs communicated openly
• Credible business plans with budgets
• Improved funding for the project (?)
• New technologies to improve the ability to work
  with all partners have been examined initial
  concept design open for discussion.

26
Web FormsCurrent 2 Tier Structure
Relational Database

• Transaction manager
• Stored Procedures
• APIs

27
ObjectsNew 3 Tier Structure
Relational Database
28
ObjectsNew 3 Tier Structure

• Transaction manager
• Presentation Manager
• Session Manager
• Server Administration
• Messaging Server
• Java Server Engine
• Object oriented business objects

Relational Database
Application Tier
29
FY 2001 (continued)

• Winter 2001
• Establish a new structure in DEIS for planning,
  analysis and evaluation

30
Responsibility

• New Office of Planning, Analysis and Evaluation
  for eRA
• Newsletters-Website-Outreach
• 4-7 Contract Staff who will
• Facilitate your functional group meetings
• Help you build consensus and bring issues to
  closure for priorities or design
• Document actions
• Monitor progress versus established goals
• Develop reports and documentation

31
FY 2001 (continued)

• Winter 2001
• Establish a new structure in DEIS for planning,
  analysis and evaluation
• First meeting of the Commons Advisory Group (CAG)

32
Commons Advisory Group

• Tolliver McKinney (St. Judes), Lynette Arias
  (OHSU), Jill Keezer (Sidney Kimmel Cancer
  Center), Jeff Cheek (U. California), David Wright
  (UT Galveston), Bob Oster (OHSU), Ellen Beck
  (UCLA), Mareda Weiss (U. Wisconsin, Madison),
  Pamela Webb (Northwestern), Jim Randolph (U.
  Michigan), Tom Wilson (Baylor), Denise Clark
  (Cornell), Stephen Dowdy (MIT), Nancy Wray
  (Dartmouth), Kenneth Forstmeier (Penn. St.), John
  McGowan (NIH), George Stone (NIH)

33
Rebuild TechnologyChoice - Experienced or New

• Registration
• Accounts Administration
• Status Application or Award
• Profiles
• Institutional
• Individual
• X-Train
• E-Snap

• Competing Application
• R01
• Fellowships
• Career
• Complex Mechanisms
• Federal Commons

34
CAG Recommendations Current Commons Interface

• Maintain production systems
• I-edison - 290 organizations
• Life-cycle redesign of the commons
• CRISP - 30,000 queries a week
• Improve data quality
• Keep other existing interfaces
• No enhancements or modifications
• Focus on refining the requirements and redesign
  with new technology
• Get feedback from the Commons Working Group

35
Current Interface

• Registration
• Limit to current institutions
• Accounts Administration
• Status Application or Award
• Summary Statement retrieval in the status to be
  completed
• Profiles
• Institutional
• Individual
• X-Train (decision deferred)
• E-Snap
• Stop until business practices redesign and new
  technology is available to implement.

36
CAG Recommends TWO Subgroups

• E-grants subgroup will re-engineer the business
  process for non-competing and competing grant
  applications in FY 2001-2002 and explore related
  application technology options and interfaces.
• Improve upon the functionality in the existing
  NIH Commons interface so that it can be added in
  to the new underlying technology. 

37
FY 2001 (continued)

• Winter 2001
• First meeting of the Commons Advisory Group (CAG)
• January (last week) BOG budget presented to NIH
• When budget received than we can begin the ramp
  up to implement the plans established last summer
  next steps

38
Next Steps

• Continue to map expectations with reality

39
Phase In Growth Process
100
20M
Annual Budget
Approx. 100 FTEs
Contract Staff
15M

• Full time recruiter goal 4 individuals month
• Facilities on site to accommodate growth
• Re-organized to meet the project needs
• Already 6 new people added

Annual Budget
100
FTEs
10M
5M
31 FTEs
31
Dec 00
June 01
Feb 01
Oct 01
Apr 01
Aug 01
Dec 01
40
Next Steps Map Expectations with Reality

• A year to ramp up resources to the project
• New people advisory, contract, staff
• general knowledge of process
• orient them to the project
• Integrate into management structure
• Increased oversight and management support to
  facilitate and monitor the project
• New architecture and design being established

41
Next Steps

• Continue to map expectations with reality
• Implement the FY 2001 plans
• Group Advocates currently
• Reexamining Priorities with their community
• Overall implementation timelines to be
  established in February
• Establish priorities plans for the FY 2002

42
Weve Only Just Begun
43
All Welcome to Participate
44
Thank You for Your Time