Date: Friday June 1, 2001
Time: 9-11:30 am
Location: Room 9116/9112 Rockledge 2
Next Meeting: Friday July 6, 2001 Time: 9:00 a.m.

Bud Erickson - purpose of the group is to develop recommendations for the redesign of ICO to include the best functionality from each of the IC extension systems relating to program activities. Part of this redesign effort will include identifying and building functionality to handle type 5s as well as competing applications electronically. Dr. Erickson emphasized the importance of getting program input on how to streamline SNAP and to focus on new ways to improve the system for all involved.

Re-engineering SNAPS: On May 16, 2001 the Commons Working Group met with members of the NIH eRA Project Management Team to share ideas for how best to re-engineer the E-SNAP business process. Carol Tippery summarized recommendations from this discussion and she is taking it to the various NIH functional groups for discussion. (See attachment for summary of recommendations.) Ms. Tippery urged Program staff to take this opportunity to ask the same questions as Grants Management regarding what should be included in a type 5 and whether is it doing what Program Staff need it to do.

Last year E-SNAP was first piloted and although discontinued, much was learned from it.

· ABSTRACT: The NIH proposed to have abstracts updated annually which met with a cool reception from the Commons Working Group. ePUG members had varying thoughts on updating the abstracts, some Program Officials believe it to be very valuable, others thought that the abstract served a different purpose. Experience from the initial pilot tells us investigators do not update abstracts given the opportunity.
A.) Action Item: Clarification is needed on the definition of abstract.
B.) Decision (Recommendations): Do not change business practice. It might be useful to have a way to update abstracts. A change in the abstract when there is a change of scope as a result of review/funding of the project is reasonable.

· PROGRESS REPORTS: The question was raised whether it would be feasible to require progress reports to be submitted 30 days instead of 60 days ahead of the non-competing award date if done electronically?
A.) Action Items: 1.After a pilot of the new system, ePUG would like participating program staff to come in and talk to group about the experience.2. Provide end-to-end testing of planned system for users. 3. Email any suggestions to Carol Tippery, Marcia Hahn, Mary Kirker or Tim Twomey.

B.) Recommendation: A forty-five day window was deemed acceptable for notification of turning in a progress report. This assumes that the Program Official and Grants Management Specialist receive the progress reports immediately upon submission.

· SNAP QUESTIONS: The proposal from the Commons Working Group recommended that the three SNAP questions be included in the instructions regarding change of scope and not be broken out individually.
A.) Decision: 1. ePUG members believe the questions to be very important and, infact, would be inclined to expand the number of questions to provide greater oversight ability.
B.) Action Item: 1. Derrick Tabor offered to convene a sub-committee to make recommendations for additional SNAP questions. 2. Ms. Tippery recommended that as the group considers questions they remember that definitions are very important. For example, clarification on "significant" accomplishments

· CITATIONS: The Commons Working Group recommended that citations be linked both to professional profiles as well as to progress reports. The Commons Users need the ability in the PPF to designate which citations are relevant to a particular project. There should also be the ability to link to online journals for published citations.
A.) Action Items: 1. ePUG members expressed interest in bringing NLM into this discussion to explore the feasibility of updating PUBMED entries. NLM has a representative on ePUG to help explore this possibility. 2. Examine possibility of feeding citations directly from the Commons into CRISP. 3. Explore a possibility of creating a button in the eSNAP to update personal profile to encourage investigators to update their profiles.
B.) Recommendation: ePUG members were enthusiastic about the citation proposals and are interested in using this feature to provide oversight capability of their projects.

· ADMINISTRATIVE ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS: NIH proposes to no longer collect review date for IRB & ACUC committees. The requirements that the reviews be done before award would still be in place, but the date would not be required on the SNAP. This proposal would provide grantees with four additional months to get the review done. Ms. Tippery indicated that they would pilot an annual review of all projects and leave it to the institution to assure the appropriate reviews were done. It shifts the responsibility from NIH tracking reviews to the institution. The SNAP would still address any significant changes in humans or animals. Only the dates would not be provided. When proposed to OHRP and OLAW, they were quite receptive. This proposal would allow a greater ability to identify system wide problems.
A.) Decision: Review has to be done, but we don't need date.
B.) Action Items: Email Carol Tippery with issues members would like to take back to Commons Working Group.

· Origin of Progress Report: Ms. Tippery introduced the concepts of having progress reports come directly from PI s without requiring that they go through institution's business offices. This ideas is still in it's initial stage and being run through NIH's legal department. This is something that the institution would decide whether to allow on an individual basis.
A.) Recommendation: ePUG members expressed no problems with this proposal.

· Master Agreements: Ms. Tippery discussed the Master Agreement concept in which Institution would get all TYPE 5 commitments in one award for the year. Would eliminate needs for individual awards. Still requires progress report to allow funds to get drawn down. PI approval of PR would trigger notice to grantees that they could draw funds down. EPUG made no recommendations on this topic.

· Other Recommendations:
A.) Biohazards need to be tracked and should be incorporated into the IMPAC system

Future Agenda Items:
1. Public Law 106 - 107.
2. Recap and discussion on May 10, 2001 Workshop
3. Followup on items from last meeting
4. Discuss need for comprehensive presentations of TABS, KAAP, Paris, NCI-NOW, ICO
5. Other topics

Members in Attendance:

Bud Erickson (NCI, Chair), Carlos Caban( OER), Everett Carpenter (NCI), John Cole (NCI), David Finkelstein (NIA), Richard Fisher (NEI), Anne Heath (NCI), William Sharrock (NIAMS), Jennifer Strasburger (NCI), Derrick Tabor (NIGMS), Della Hann (OER), Carol Martin (NHGRI), Tim Twomey (OPeRA), Marcia Hahn (OPeRA), Carol Tippery (OPeRA), Mary Kirker (NIAID), Megan Columbus (OER), Paula MacLellan (OER, Recorder)