eRA Steering Committee
Minutes

October 19, 2000

Attendees: Marvin Cassman, Ph.D. NIGMS, Chair
Yvonne duBuy, NIDCR
Gahan Breithaupt, NINDS
Ellie Ehrenfeld, Ph.D., CSR
Marvin Kalt, Ph.D., NCI
Wendy Baldwin, Ph.D., OER
John McGowan, Ph.D., NIAID/OER
Ed Donohue, NHLBI
Dona Lenkin, CIT (for Al Graeff)
Don Preuss, CIT (for Al Graeff)
Fred Walker, OD
Sally Lee, NIGMS, (for Martha Pine, Executive Secretary)

Dr. Cassman reported that the committee's recommendations resulting from its September 28 meeting were forwarded to Dr. Steve Katz, who serves as the chair of the NIH IT Board of Governors (BOG). The BOG's next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 25. Dr. Cassman then turned the floor over to Dr. McGowan.

Dr. McGowan began his presentation by distributing copies of: 1) the FY 2001 eRA Budget; 2) FY 2001 eRA Project Priorities; and 3) eRA PowerPoint Presentation (updated slides that were presented to the EOs on October 17) - all of which were previously provided to the BOG members. The first page of the FY 2001 eRA Budget document was meant to provide the BOG members with a clearer understanding of the key components that encompass Maintenance and Operations (M&O). Page 3 of this document provides an explanation as to why cost projections for the eRA initiative will probably not significantly decrease. Attached to this narrative are ongoing cost projections, in a spreadsheet format. Referring to page 2 of the document, Dr. McGowan explained that the following three major distinctions must be made when identifying costs for a project of this size: 1) M&O; 2) Required Development; and 3) New Development.

Ms. Lenkin explained that "required development" includes those activities that are necessary to keep a system up and running, while "new development" often refers to system enhancements. Dr. McGowan cited an example of M&O whereby an interface may be needed so those system modules may be operational. However, he further explained that a required add-on enhancement would be categorized as a new development.

Dr. Cassman reminded the group that one of its key roles is to examine the resources devoted to the eRA effort, and once a sound budget has been developed, to reassure the rest of the NIH community about the need for the specified level of expenditures. With this in mind, he cited the following three goals: 1) developing IMPAC II; 2) developing users' capabilities; and 3) developing eRA and community outreach. Dr. Cassman emphasized the importance of simplifying the manner in which costs associated with the eRA initiative are presented so that they may be appropriate for a variety of audiences. This is particularly important since NIH is now requesting twice as much funding for the eRA project as was initially projected. It is also likely that Dr. Cassman, as chair of the eRA Steering Committee, will have to present and defend this information before the ICs and a number of other NIH constituencies.

Dr. Cassman then proceeded with the agenda for the meeting, which was outlined in his October 13 e-mail to the committee members.

Question #1a: How can we validate the proposed costs for the programs which we approved at the last meeting?

Question #1b: What are the future year commitments that are required to maintain the systems that we will put in place?

In response to question #1a, Dr. McGowan proposed that an IC, such as NCI or NHGRI (both of which have Oracle "shops") conduct an independent review of projected eRA costs. He explained that benchmarking based on NSF assessments has already been completed for some of these costs. Ms. duBuy stated that the biggest concern within the EO community focuses on the substantial increases in costs associated with eRA over time. She further explained that an overall "big picture/long-term" approach is needed, rather than the current practice of requesting stop-gap funding support from the ICs.
Dr. McGowan stated that the contractor has primarily provided the monetary projections that he has been reporting.

Ms. Lenkin suggested that an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) be conducted to examine the proposed work and provide an assessment of whether eRA costs are accurately projected. An IV&V would likely take three months to complete, at a cost of about $500,000. Ms. Lenkin mentioned that it would probably take a month to six weeks to procure a contractor to perform the IV&V, but that CERTAN (a CIT procurement mechanism) may be used to expedite the contracting process, once a Statement of Work (SOW) is prepared. She also suggested that criteria in the SOW include a stipulation that the contractor have no past or current affiliation with the IMPAC/IMPAC II project, since this would present a conflict of interest situation.

The group agreed that the IV&V is the preferable method for validating costs and that funds be devoted to support this independent assessment. Dr. Cassman indicated that he would present this recommendation to the BOG at its next meeting for concurrence and approval. Dr. Cassman also emphasized the importance of citing measurable data, rather than anecdotal evidence when justifying costs associated with the eRA effort.

Action Item: In response to this request for measurable data, Dr. Baldwin agreed to provide such information in the form of a brief report.

The group then directed its attention toward discussing the future year commitments that are required to maintain the systems that will be put in place. Dr. McGowan referred the group to pages 3 and 4 of the eRA Project Priorities spreadsheets and indicated that, if "flat-lined," about $32 million is needed per year, over the next five years. In response to a question raised by a committee member, Dr. McGowan explained that universal software licenses were already included in previous cost estimates. The group also agreed that the results from the IV&V would be invaluable when determining future year commitments.

Question #2: What is the time value of the investments, i.e., what is the cost of delaying programs?

Ms. Lenkin said that it would be important to identify added costs that may occur, should the eRA initiative be delayed. Ms. duBuy stated that NIH's expenditures of $14 billion per year in grants support the need for funding of the eRA initiative. Dr. Cassman concurred with this sentiment and noted that his recent discussions with the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding were sympathetic with NIH's needs in this area. Ms. duBuy reminded the committee members that the NIH IT Enterprise System Funding Workgroup, chaired by Martha Pine, was charged with two major tasks: 1) developing recommendations for allocating enterprise IT costs among the ICs for both FY 2000 and FY 2001; and 2) developing recommendations for a long-term NIH-wide IT funding strategy(ies). Ms. duBuy further explained that the working group's recommendations report was recently distributed within the EO community.

The group then discussed the possibility of using a methodology similar to the one used by many private sector organizations, whereby a percentage of operations' income is used to support IT enterprise systems. Mr. Preuss stated that 2% to 5%, on average, is set aside for this purpose in most private sector firms, depending upon the nature of the organization's line of business.

Action Item: Ms. duBuy agreed to provide some narrative to include in the report (previously mentioned) to be prepared by Dr. Baldwin. Ms. Lenkin and Mr. Preuss also suggested that data/figures provided by the Gartner Group would likely be helpful to include in the report.

Question #3: Given that we are recommending a doubling of current investments, what management and oversight procedures will be required to insure that appropriate progress is being made, so as to reassure those who may be concerned that we will not use the money wisely?

Dr. McGowan began the discussion by emphasizing the importance of buy-in and participation from the ICs throughout the eRA effort. He proposed that about four IC IT staff members devote approximately 20% of their time to help with the eRA project. These individuals could assist ICs in developing their extension systems, and would be an integral part of the project. In addition, these IC representatives would work closely with OER staff, group advocates, and contractor staff. Dr. McGowan also cited an example of how development of the ECB proved to be successful through a similar collaborative effort. When asked about the absence of similar business rules across the ICs and how this may adversely impact a collaborative process, Dr. McGowan clarified that IT ground rules, as well as business rules would be established and vetted by the various functional groups and advocates.

Action Item: Dr. Cassman suggested that a flowchart be developed to assist in visualizing how this collaborative effort might work. Dr. McGowan agreed to provide such a document.

Another option recommended by Dr. McGowan was the hiring of external consultants to facilitate ongoing development and progress of the eRA initiative. Dr. Ehrenfeld expressed concern with the proposal to employ outside consultants and felt that the eRA project warrants input by government employees, particularly those with an IT background. Dr. Baldwin suggested that flexibility in compensation afforded by the Title 42 and "special expert" appointment mechanisms may be alternative approaches for employing talented and exceptionally experienced individuals. She also reminded the group that both personnel mechanisms would not result in permanent commitment to FTEs, and would likely be less expensive than procuring the services of a contractor.
Ms. duBuy stated that the expertise sought for these individuals be broadened to include those with project management experience. Dr. Baldwin emphasized the importance of employing individuals who demonstrate a good understanding of the NIH environment, particularly knowledge of the NIH grants mission. Dr. Cassman felt that knowledge of the NIH culture was not an absolute requirement, since what was needed was some project management expertise.

Action Item: Dr. Cassman asked Dr. McGowan to prepare a schema for what types of expertise are needed, where it is required, and for what purpose. The schema would encompass an overall view of eRA/IMPAC II, and may be used as a tool for persuading others of the staff requirements in support of eRA.

Additional costs for project management and IT staff will need to be added to the initial $32 million projection. The group estimated that an additional $1.5 to $2 million may be needed per year for this purpose.

In response to a number of questions, Dr. McGowan explained that existing funds for the eRA project will last until the end of November, and that, consequently, additional funds would be needed in FY 2001 to provide ongoing support. Ms. Lenkin explained that while the BOG makes recommendations regarding IT funding, it does not possess final decision-making authority as to where these monetary resources are to be obtained. In follow-up to the September Leadership Forum, it appears that the proposal to establish a Funding Review Board will not be in place until FY 2002.

Dr. McGowan estimated that a minimum of $16 million would be needed to keep the eRA project up and running. In addition, he stressed that NIH needs to demonstrate a commitment for long-term funding for the eRA project in order to secure the services of a contractor.

Dr. Cassman then reported on the proposed agenda for the October 25 BOG meeting.
Dr. McGowan will present an update of the eRA project and explain the urgency for continued funding. (Dr. McGowan will modify his presentation to include the IV&V proposal, need for additional project management and IT staff, etc.) It appears that the BOG will then provide its recommendations and advise Dr. Kirschstein on the aggregate cost estimates of each of the NIH IT enterprise systems (e.g., CRIS, NBS, etc.). The group also discussed whether the recommendations would need to go through the Central Service Committee for review/approval and agreed that there is some confusion surrounding this process. Dr. Cassman noted that he and Dr. Katz would try to schedule a meeting with Dr. Kirschstein following the October 25 BOG meeting to discuss eRA funding options. Ms. duBuy again emphasized that the ICs are interested in knowing the long-term cost implications for the eRA effort in terms of budget planning purposes.
Mr. Walker concurred that a lack of long-term cost projections also causes complications in managing the OD budget, since many of these charges are made against the OD appropriations. Currently, the Management Fund and IC taps support the funding for the eRA project. Lastly, the group agreed that an emphasis on NIH's grants stewardship, as well as compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and Public Laws 106 and 107 be used to support funding for the eRA initiative.

Dr. Cassman concluded the meeting by announcing that Dr. Kalt would chair the group's next meeting (November 16) in Dr. Cassman's absence.

Attachments

No attachments.