Review User Group Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2001


MINUTES, REVIEW USERS GROUP
4/2/01

Eileen Bradley brought the meeting to order shortly after 1:00.

The meeting consisted entirely of working through the list of priorities for enhancements to familiarize the group with the issues, to identify redundancies in the list, and to delete items that have been completed or are no longer needed. Once this process has been completed, the next task will be to reassess the priorities for each item.

The procedure was to again use the detailed 33 page document which had been forwarded to the group by Bradley. In summarizing the discussions, these minutes will not attempt to capture all of the discussion which surrounded each item since, in several cases, explanations and comments at the meeting were aided by reference to displays of the screens in question. Should members who were not present for the discussion need additional detail, they are first referred to the PDF document; in cases where that is insufficient, Eileen Bradley, Richard Panniers (although absent for this meeting), Mike Sesma, or Ev Sinnett (the latter three being former JAD members) have agreed to provide additional details.

The format for reporting progress at the meeting will be to provide the reference number (e.g., REV 1115), followed by the initial (JAD produced) priority, followed by any comments or decisions.

NOTE - AN APPENDIX IS ATTACHED WHICH COMBINES BOTH MEETINGS AND FOCUSES SOLELY ON THE LIST OF SUGGESTIONS.

REV 1633 - 91 - Discussion had not quite reached completion on this item at the close of the last meeting. However, Ev Sinnett noted that, in post meeting discussion, Daniel Fox mentioned receipt of a more detailed plan, prepared by Sinnett and cleared through the CSR IRG Chiefs, for carrying out this request.

REV 1181 - 91 - ACTION ITEM - Drs. Michael Sesma and Neil Musto will confirm the conflict rules for making assignments on multicomponent applications involving collaborations with other institutions so that the required programming can be done properly.

REV 1116 - 91 - It was noted that the 901 module will be a common module, integrated most especially with RR but also involving the GM and IC modules. ACTION ITEM - Bobbie David and Scarlett Gibb agreed to determine all of the present uses for 901s and to verify whether any of the uses or rules for use have changed or will change in moving to the IMPAC II environment.

REV 1705 - 90 - In the end, the item was CLOSED, in that the programming for purging review assignments has already been put in place. Several pertinent points were raised in discussion which members of the group were urged to pass on to their constituents, both for purposes of providing an understanding for the need to implement this procedure as well as to assure that we can all continue to perform our duties:

- If information on assignments is stored in a "system of records" (such as the IMPAC II system) whereby assignment data can be retrieved based on the meeting date, the PI name, or the application number, it is accessible under the Privacy Act.

- Users do not currently need to use the "Release Meeting" function in IMPAC II, so assignment data need not be affected immediately (however, see the above note). However, it is likely that the Release Meeting function WILL need to be used for the June round of meetings.

- ACTION ITEM FOR PROGRAMMERS. The programmers have already deleted all assignment data for Council rounds up to and including the 2000/10 round (since users weren't doing so voluntarily). On April 16, they will delete all assignment data for the 2001/01 Council round.

- Review teams (SRAs and GTAs) need to be aware that new conflicts identified at the meeting need to be registered in IMPAC II as part of the immediate post-review activities, since the Conflict report (required for filing minutes) will need to be run during the first several days after the meeting (i.e., before the meeting is released). GTAs who work with SRAs not yet convinced of the value of IMPAC II will need to be especially vigilant and demanding of the needed information.

- In most cases, review teams will need a hard copy of the final assignment list as they work through the summary statement preparation process (long after the meeting release). So long as this hard copy is not kept in a "system of records," it can be used for this purpose and would be protected from a Privacy Act request. Suggestions were to keep the report in an unmarked or vaguely or generically marked folder or in a pile of papers on the corner of your desk (but NOT in a folder marked as, e.g., "March 8 - 9, 2001 RAP meeting").

- ACTION ITEM FOR PROGRAMMERS - The group felt strongly that the warning which appears when the Release Meeting button is pushed should be more strongly worded and should be much more visible (bigger font, bold, flashing, set off with big stars, etc).

- It was pointed out that program staff who use IMPAC II will have access to any changes made to application codes, etc, as soon as these changes are made in IMPAC II. Thus, the old requirement of having to release the workfile in IMPAC I within five days is irrelevant (at least for those who get their codes into IMPAC II in that time frame). On the other hand, consideration should be given to extending the three day time frame for score release to four days, since scores entered into IMPAC II within three days will need overnight to bridge to IMPAC I for release.

NOTES ON THE "TOUGH TWINKIES" SIDEBAR - The above discussion rambled into reasons why a number of review staff, especially SRAs, seem resistant to using the Review Module. This theme surfaced at a few other points during the meeting as well. While our Fearless Leader expressed the position that the values of the system were obvious and that given sufficient time, documentation, and training , the review staff would come to love the module, others pointed out two important impediments to the conversion of the resistant staff, especially SRAs.

The first problem related to the limitations in report options, especially assignments. Users would like to be able either to have options for more canned reports which would meet their needs, or they would like to at least have the ability to download the data into some other program (Excel or Word or WordPerfect) to allow further manipulation and reformatting.

The second issue (raised later) relates to the needs of IC staff to enter "place holders" in the system so that they can utilize the system before applications are processed through RR. As it is, they use spreadsheets and other systems to get the meeting largely set up and then have little reason to duplicate the work in IMPAC II for whatever minimal advantage the system would then offer.

With regard to the first point, Andy Greenleaf reported that the IMPAC II organizational structure includes a "Reports Advocate" (Carol Martin) and that the highest priority for this group, from across all of NIH, was the need to produce downloadable canned reports and also to allow "ad hoc" querying of IMPAC II data, with the capability of producing customized reports in a format which could be saved for future use. ACTION ITEM - Sherry Zucker is to report on this more fully, including a timetable, at the next meeting.

HOWEVER, it was also the opinion of the group that, while such reports are essential for more widespread acceptance of IMPAC II, the Review Users Group would also like to maintain control over the design, modification, and production of a substantial number of the reports which have already been designed for the Review Module. Since Review activities have a need for a wide variety of reports for multiple purposes, such control was felt to be essential.

With regard to the second point, see REV 1760 (initial priority of 80) below.

Finally, it was noted that more extensive outreach activities are planned to more fully involve the NIH community in using IMPAC II.


Back to business...

REV 1699 - 90 - In addition to the problems noted, Musto pointed out that there is a problem in the Create Roster function with regard to Mail Reviewers, with the Attendee Type coming in wrong in CM. ACTION ITEM - Musto will submit a request to the Helpdesk and this portion of the problem will be addressed as a BUG. There seemed to be agreement that the larger issue of making the Create Roster function work better might deserve a higher priority. [NOTE - item REV 0327, priority 80, should be combined with this item.]

REV 1638 - 90 - NON-ACTION ITEM - Vish Kaliappan WAS to check to see whether this item has been addressed already. Sinnett has verified that the report in question, the CM "MEETING ROSTER" report, has NOT been fixed.

REV 1187 - 88 - A related suggestion was that even yes/no columns to indicate whether an individual has active grant support or has any committee service history would be of significant value in scanning the results of an Advanced Person search. There was a sense that this might be of higher priority.

REV 0041 - 88 - Check box to coalesce list to go to GUM may be lower priority.

REV 1273 - 88 - Include/exclude states for Advanced Person search may be lower priority.

REV 1702 - 88 - CLOSED (sort of) - Discussion was that not all users will select Avery labels, so the size should be sufficient. However, an ACTION ITEM would be to enhance the documentation to better address this issue, since it often comes up in training, especially. Another ACTION ITEM for Bobbie David was to report as a bug that an address label size apparently does not exist.

REV 0045 - 88 - MODIFIED. Demonstration of the issue and discussion brought the group to the consensus that a better solution would be to shorten the summary statement status field to a single symbol and to display the Sort Term column in a sortable manner, with blank Sort Terms sorting to the top.

REV 0160 - 87 - This concept was well received, so long as the existing query operation is maintained as well.

REV 1205 and 1179 - 86 - While there is some relation between a "Streamlining Module" and the NIAID "Electronic (or Web) Review" system, Bradley commented that the latter is NOT IMPAC II compatible. The development of these two streamlining issues would not preclude separate development of an IMPAC II version of Electronic Review, although development of Streamlining capabilities should allow for an interface with the Electronic Review. Those in the group who use streamlining are currently handling this task by hand. While it would be of use to over 100 study sections in CSR, it would not be universally used by the ICs.

REV 1720 - 82 - MODIFIED - New selection item for sorting the Assignment screen. [Editorial Note/Modification - since User Preferences is at a lower priority, this item should be linked with a similar request for the Order of Review screen. You need to be able to work with a hard copy of draft assignments which prints in the same order as the Assignment screen displays.]

REV 0327 - 80 - Combine with REV 1699 (priority of 90) above.

REV 0037 - 80 - CLOSED - handled in Grant Folder (although limited to five years).

REV 1701 - 80 - Simplest implementation would involve shortening other fields.

REV 1226 - 80 - ACTION ITEM - Fox will obtain the reports in question so that the users group can determine the need for them.

REV 1193 and 1192 - 80 - Discussion captured above re the need for flexibility/alternative formats for reports.

REV 1760 - 80 - Discussion captured above. The developers note that this would be a MAJOR programming effort. Once completed, it was suggested that contract review staff could also make use of the Review Module.

REV 0927 - 80 - User preferences were felt to be a worth idea.

REV 1698 - 80 - Option to print RFA/PA numbers on Master List.

REV 1210 - 75 - WITHDRAWN - Setting up future meetings in CM is now officially discouraged, defeating previously perceived benefits. In discussion, it was noted that whether the Agenda shows the meeting as Open or Closed depends on data entered in CM. An ACTION ITEM is for the programmers to allow an empty line to be retained in the printing of the report.

REV 1121 - 74 - A printed report from an Advanced Person Search that would allow efficient prospecting would be useful. Also see REV 1200, priority 70, below.

REV 1160 - 74 - Addition of review assignments to the Admin Data sheets may be lower priority.

REV 1200 - 70 - Combine with 1121, priority 74 above.

REV 1195 - 70 - CLOSED (Duplicate)

REV 0284 - 70 - Automatic sequential numbering of vote sheets.

REV 1191 - 70 - MODIFIED - Some in the Users Group make use of these reports in their present format, so deleting the report as suggested is not warranted. HOWEVER, the competency field should be replaced with Expertise.

REV 0741 - 70 - While it may be possible to address some of the issues, some of the most glaring problems relate to data stored in the CM Person Module.

REV 1201 - 65 - A table to display the office to which official correspondence should be sent is being developed elsewhere. This screen needs to be tied in to REV.

REV 0919 - 65 - MODIFIED - Phone extensions should print. Also, there needs to be an option to print the Alternate Phone field on a reviewer by reviewer (i.e., selectable) basis.

REV 1109 - 55 - Gender, Minority, and Children fields continue to be displayed in one order on summary statements, new documentation on human use, and reviewer guidelines (which use the above, traditional order) vs the order currently in the GUM (Children, Minority, Gender). Further, there are inconsistencies between screens in REV (e.g., Sweep Codes is Minority, Gender, Children). Such inconsistencies invite error in entering data and confusion in proofing.

REV 1189 - 50 - Hot link to person's e-mail

REV 0029 - 50 - MODIFIED - provide for standard, alternate, and international phone number entry.

REV 1110 - 50 - CLOSED (Duplicate)

REV 1188 - 50 - On line bug list - "There are no bugs!"

UNNUMBERED RECENT ADDITIONS

REV NNNN - ?? - From the last meeting, it was suggested that the Grant History report available in the Grant Folder be enhanced to include the Program Contact name, phone, and e-mail.

REV NNNN - ?? - A separate but related suggestion is the need to replace the current IMPAC I "Status" report (from Module 51). A report of this type should be accessible from multiple REV and CM screens and should not require multiple screens to obtain it.

With the priority list now explained to the group, Bradley indicated that the next meeting would be devoted to re-establishing the priorities for each item.

Bradley indicated that the group should plan on weekly meetings for the foreseeable future, although she hopes to scale back to every other week and then monthly once the backlog of urgent work has been accomplished.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:40.

Many thanks to Dr. Sinnett for the preparation of these exceptional minutes

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
Appendix -- compilation of the notes on each suggestion MS Word 95 20 k