Date: August 3, 2001
Time: 9:00 am
Location: Rockledge 2, Rooms 9116/9112
Chair: Mr. Burdette W. Erickson
Next Meeting: September 7, 2001, Rockledge 2, Rooms 9116/9112, 9:00 am

Action Items

1. (All) Determine how many program directors use the ICO module and obtain feedback about their experience, including a problem list. Mr. Erickson estimates that 10-33% of the program directors on campus currently use ICO.

2. (All) Provide input to Derrick Tabor and the Type 5 ESNAP subcommittee on how program officials do their jobs.

3. (IC representatives) If your IC provides grantees supplemental instructions for completing progress reports, send a copy of the instructions to Derrick Tabor and the Type 5 ESNAP subcommittee.

4. (Derrick Tabor and ESNAP subcommittee) Make a list of design issues for SNAP.

5. (Derrick Tabor and ESNAP subcommittee) Obtain input from grants management officers about the accuracy of time and effort reporting by PIs.

6. (Derrick Tabor) Conduct a meeting with ePUG volunteers within the next two weeks to discuss the draft MC 4444 Monitoring Grant Progress Reports.

7. (Krishna Collie) Bring a matrix of ICO users to the September 7 ePUG meeting.

8. (Krishna Collie) Invite Oracle developer Michael Martin to attend the September 7 ePUG meeting to discuss development of the IMPAC II Program module.

9. (Michael Martin) At the September 7 ePUG meeting, discuss the viability of creating a pop-up window that displays all NIH grants for each PI and provides links to all outside support. Each PI would be required to update this information.

Presentations and Discussion Topics

1. ICO Survey from NIAID - Dr. Opendra Sharma (See Attachment A)
Dr. Sharma presented a list of ICO problems compiled by Blanche O'Neill during her survey of NIAID program officers. The following issues were highlighted:

a. At NIAID, the system often is unstable and freezes, requiring users to shut down and restart. During the subsequent discussion of this problem, other institutes reported fewer problems. Institute-specific time-out settings or bandwidths could be responsible for some of the problems.

b. After a user selects the approval check box, it is impossible to edit, correct, or resume entry of a project summary. Users sometimes cannot complete the summary in one sitting and need to be able to continue at a later time.

c. NIAID would like to add word processing capabilities or be able to activate Word or WordPerfect from the project summary section. Users are hampered by the lack of a spell check function and also experience inconsistent transfer of punctuation characters between word processing applications and ICO. Mr. Erickson noted that NCI's shadow system enables users to access Word when entering supplementary information.

d. Users would like program notes to be part of the permanent record. The original author of the program notes should be able to edit them; currently, once the notes are saved, no changes can be made.

e. The size of the sign notes section should be increased. Although the program notes section provides additional space, it is inefficient to enter information in two sections. It would be more useful to have a single text-entry area for both brief and long documents.

f. Incorporation of streaming video or other computer-based instruction would help first-time and infrequent users to use the system more efficiently.

g. Users would like to be able to reverse a signoff.

In the discussion following Dr. Sharma's presentation, Mr. Erickson stressed that by documenting user responsibilities and current functional area process flows, ePUG can help design user-friendly tools that reflect users' needs. If a system is difficult to use or does not help users to perform their required tasks, then it will not be accepted or used.

Data integrity is another vital aspect of system acceptance. Serious data problems in the IMPAC I system have created user mistrust. The eRA project has awarded QRC a contract to verify data integrity and recommend procedures for safeguarding data reliability in IMPAC II.

Each institute has its own business practices, and most institutes have an investment in shadow systems. System requirements must reflect business practices and may help make those practices more efficient. Making ICO and shadow system functionality available across NIH will aid in the development of the IMPAC II Program module critical design features. Extension systems eventually may be tied into the IMPAC II database to ensure data accessibility.

To encourage institute buy-in to IMPAC II, eRA must build an enterprise system that enables users to obtain and modify inter-related information across functional areas like Peer Review and Grants Management. Users need automatic email or a tickler system that informs the next person in the grants approval process when a step has been completed. For example, when a program officer approves a grant, the system should automatically inform Grants Management of this action so that the next step in the process can be performed.

Because all data eventually will be in IMPAC II tables, it is necessary to determine any critical data elements that are not already there, and then consider how best to enter and retrieve this information. After population tracking is incorporated into the ICO module, program directors will be required to use it and IMPAC II.

2. Report from the Type 5 ESNAP Subcommittee - Dr. Derrick Tabor (See Attachments B and C)

a. Web links to information about Program Officer responsibilities
ePUG must ensure that the new Program module enables program directors to fulfill their legal obligations. For additional information on the laws and regulations governing Program Officer responsibilities, Dr. Tabor recommended the links available on the NIH Grants Policy Statement (10/98) web page at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/master_list.htm and on the GrantsNet web page at http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet . Dr. Caban noted that the Project Officers/Program Officers Forum (POPOF) web page at http://odoerdb2.od.nih.gov/oer/committees/popof/popof.htm also provides information.

b. Subcommittee recommendations
Dr. Tabor presented recommendations from subcommittee meetings held on June 25 and July 26. The following points were raised during discussion of Attachment B: