Project Management Team Meeting Minutes
May 8, 2001


eRA Project Team Meeting
Date: May 8, 2001
Time: 9:00 am
Location: 6700B Rockledge, Room 1205

Next Meeting: May 22, 2001, 6700B Rockledge, Room 1205, 9:00 am

Action Items

1. ECB/QVR Training (Thor Fjellstedt) - Give status report at May 22 meeting.

2. Feedback on Draft Workshop Slides (All) - Provide Dr. McGowan with input on eRA history, workshop goals and project implementation slides.

Decisions

1. The Project Team voted to endorse the concept of DUNS numbers as unique identifiers for grantee organizations.

2. The Project Team voted to endorse the concept of single point of ownership of Personal Profiles (PPFs).

Presentations

1. Commons Working Group (CWG) Meeting on May 16

a. Agenda - George Stone
See Attachment A (slides 1 & 2).

b. Streamlining the Non-Competing Process - Marcia Hahn

Marcia previewed her presentation for the upcoming CWG meeting on May 16. She began with a summary of mandated scientific reporting and fiscal monitoring requirements (slides 4-6) and then provided a history of streamlining efforts from 1989 to the present (slides 7-13). The proposed revised 2590, which eliminates the concept of "application" and changes its name to "progress report", is currently at OMB for clearance.

Following her presentation, Marcia will lead a brainstorming session to generate additional streamlining ideas. She prepared a chart to serve as a springboard for discussion. For each section of scientific reporting (e.g., abstract, progress report), the chart describes the current (SNAP) requirements in comparison to those proposed by the Master Agreement, the Institutional Funding Agreement (IFA) and the NIH Reinvention initiative. The chart provides a similar comparison of requirements for administrative assurance and certifications and other SNAP issues (slides 14-18).

The Project Team then provided Marcia with the following input for her CWG session:
1) Let institutions know that the NIH would support progress reports signed by the PI (without requiring institution's signature).
2) Modules can be built with sufficient flexibility to accommodate different approval (signature) requirements.
3) Software development will not be delayed pending streamlining decisions. Modules will be designed to accommodate changes to progress reporting requirements.
4) The current software is based on the application form; the new software will be based on progress report requirements.
5) Paul Markovitz will be present to provide the federal perspective on PL106-107 Pre and Post-Award Working Group efforts.

c. DUNS Number as a Unique Identifier for Grantee Organizations - George Stone

George began with a discussion of the limitations of the Institutional Profile (IPF) number, which has served as the basic NIH identifier for grantee institutions for over 20 years (slides 19 & 20). He then provided background on DUNS numbers and proposed implementing them as unique identifiers for NIH grantee organizations. See http://www.dnb.com/dunsno/dunsno.htm, Attachment A (slides 21 & 22) and Attachment B for more details.

George then explained the current process for entering and verifying IPF numbers (slides 23 & 24) followed by his proposed implementation of DUNS via the Commons registration process. Registered organizations would be able to add their DUNS number to their existing Organizational Profile; new organizations would be required to provide their DUNS number with a description of each subsidiary organizational component. Although both IPF and DUNS numbers would be supported during a transition period, ultimately access to the Commons would require the DUNS. See slides 25 & 26 and Attachment B for implementation plan.
Belinda Seto noted that institutions require reporting by division/department. There is an optional 4-digit extension to the DUNS which can be used to designate subgroups. Belinda anticipated reporting problems if we allow the institutions to assign these four digits.

Following additional discussion, the Project Team voted to endorse the concept of DUNS numbers.

d. Single Point of Data Ownership - George Stone

George presented the concept of singly-owned Personal Profiles (PPFs), previously championed by John Mathis in 1996. PPF information is similar to that found in a curriculum vitae. Single point of ownership is based on the premise that the PPF is personal property and should not be modified without the owner's approval.
George then discussed the benefits of this concept -- data accuracy, data timeliness, elimination of duplicate profiles, streamlining of Commons/IMPAC II replication and simplified interagency exchange of information. See slides 27-32 and Attachment C for more details.

Following George's presentation, the Project Team voted to endorse the concept of singly-owned PPFs.

2. NIH Enterprise/Extension Systems Workshop on May 10

a. Workshop Plans - Thor Fjellstedt

Thor stated that he has been personally excited and energized by the planning process and would like to thank all those who are helping him. He emphasized that the workshop really belongs to the users, and he hopes that it will inspire participants to "buy into" the eRA process.

The workshop has been promoted via email, by the Advocates, by articles in Inside eRA and the NIH Record and with a very effective poster designed by Jen de la Cruz. Thor also plans to contact Executive Officers. Chip Groh reported that 350 persons had registered for the workshop as of May 7.

The IMPAC II modules are the core of the workshop and will be demonstrated in the main auditorium and centrally-located suites. See Attachment D for more information on agenda and floor plan. Thor was pleased to announce that Wendy Baldwin will lead off the closing plenary session.

Thor plans to stimulate interest by mentioning new features on the horizon ("teasers"). These include electronic grant applications, e-progress reporting, electronic grant folders, virtual meetings and links from progress reports to publications. He asked the team to suggest additional teasers.

b. eRA Accomplishments, Expectations and Goals - John McGowan

Dr. McGowan previewed several draft slides from his presentation and asked for comments/validation.
eRA Accomplishments (Past 15 Months)-It was suggested that major achievements be highlighted and that the time scale be altered so that the completion markers (ยจ) do not slope downward.

Workshop Goals-Dr. McGowan's list includes opportunity for users to request 1) fixes and enhancements; 2) new features; and/or 3) incorporation of an extension system. Users will also be able to share their own "gems" and to volunteer to work on the eRA project.

Implementation Timelines -These charts present an alternative to the Gantt chart format. Tasks (e.g., scan all grants) are listed on the vertical axis; fiscal years on the horizontal axis, with bullets marking intersection points. Project Team input included: 1) reverse order of percentiles and summary statements; 2) group related tasks (e.g., reporting); 3) make tasks clearer (e.g., what does comm. stand for?); 4) highlight those for which there are demos.
Megan Columbus suggested that there be a handout listing the Advocates, their area of responsibility and contact information.

c. Portal Technology Demo - Kalpesh Patel

Kalpesh met with representatives from GM, REV and Program on May 2 to go over functional requirements for the demos. He will present customized initial screens for these three business areas.

3. IRDB Redesign - Donna Frahm

Donna reported on the meeting she chaired on April 17 to address problems with the IRDB, IMPAC II's decision support system. She presented the group with five options:
Option 1 -- Don't do anything.
Option 2 -- Create Power Tables against existing IRDB structure to improve performance.
Option 3 -- Redesign IRDB in OLTP image, keeping all existing data structures.
Option 4 -- Redesign the IRDB in OLTP image without retaining existing IRDB views.
Option 5 -- Support three schemas: the OLTP, an IRDB in OLTP image with five years of data, and an historical IRDB with existing data structure.

The IRDB Redesign Group decided to implement Option 2 and then reevaluate performance and utilization. The plan of action follows:
a. Determine missing/inaccurate data in the IRDB.
b. Develop plan for integrating missing data.
c. Fix bridge problems (if any) that result in inaccurate data in the IRDB.
d. Create Power Tables to replace Power Views.
e. Update and improve user documentation.

One objection to using the IRDB is that the data is not real-time. For example, Thor commented that knowing when summary statements become available is very important at Council time. It was suggested that summary statement pointers be updated at frequent intervals.

Tim thinks that in addition to converting Power Views to Power Tables, we should be polling the users about requirements for new Power Tables.

4. Minutes of eRA Meetings - Megan Columbus

Megan announced that Project Team minutes will be posted at eRA.nih.gov with links to the attachments. Attachments will no longer be emailed to team members. Megan distributed a handout to illustrate how attachments for all eRA meeting minutes will be handled on the website. The link from the body of the minutes will connect to a table, listing the file format and size of each attachment. Wherever possible, the file will be "saved down" to a widely-accessible version; there will also be links to download free viewers. The following disclaimer accompanies all attachments: "The attachments listed below were current as of the meeting date. Information in these documents may no longer be valid. Final versions of project documentation will be posted separately on the website."

Announcements
1. John McGowan announced that the Quantum contract has been awarded.
2. A Group Advocate is needed to represent OD/DEA.

Attendees

Eileen Bradley, Donna Frahm, Carol Martin, Bobbi Spitzberg, Jim Cain, Andy Greenleaf, Gregory Milman, Brent Stanfield, Megan Columbus, Chip Groh, Bob Moore, George Stone, Krishna Collie, Marcia Hahn, Madeline Monheit, Jim Tucker, Zoe-Ann Copeland, Steve Hausman, Pete Morton, Tim Twomey, Marlene Crowe, Mary Kirker, Richard Panniers, Virginia Van Brunt, Michael Cox, Paula Mac Lellan, Bob Reifsnider, Liz Weiner, Thor Fjellstedt, John McGowan, Wally Schaffer, Carla Flora, Paul Markovitz, Belinda Seto

Attachments


Attachments

NOTE:

The attachments listed below were current as of the meeting date. Information in these documents may no longer be valid. Final versions of project documentation will be posted separately on the website.

Many of the attachments are large Microsoft Office files. Check the file format and file size to decide if you want to download.

Visit the external Microsoft accessibility website for more information on accessibility and Office documents. There is also a text-only version of their site available.


Attachment File format File size
A. Commons Working Group Meeting on May 16 (George Stone, Marcia Hahn) MS Powerpoint 2000 100 k
B. DUNS Number Implementation Plan (George Stone) HTML
(Word version also available)
C. Commons PPF Replication Diagram (George Stone) MS Word 2000 108 k
D. NIH Enterprise and Extension Systems Workshop Plans (Thor Fjellstedt)
E. Presentation for the NIH Enterprise and Extension Systems Workshop (John McGowan) MS PowerPoint 2000 8,111 k