eRA Project Team Meeting
Date: April 24, 2001
Time: 9:00 am
Location: 6700B Rockledge, Room 1205

Next Meeting: May 8, 2001, 6700B Rockledge, Room 1205, 9:00 am

Action Items

1. Implementation Gantt Charts and Cross-Walk to Priorities (Advocates and Analysts) - Review the cross-walk (see Attachment A) and validate that priority tasks are represented on the Gantt charts in an appropriate level of detail for your business area. Send corrections to Megan Columbus.

2. Comments on J2EE Project Management Plan (All) - Review the plan prepared by Logicon/ROW and provide feedback to Megan Columbus by April 27. Plan to be discussed at next meeting.

3. Type 5 Non-Competing Process (George Stone, Marcia Hahn, Bud Erickson) - Report on Commons Working Group initiative to streamline business processes. Agenda item for next meeting.

4. eRA Web Site (Advocates) - The web site redesign will provide Advocates some control over their area. Think about how you would like to display your information.

Presentations

1. OPAE eRA Project Meeting Support - Megan Columbus
Megan Columbus introduced Liz Weiner who will coordinate efforts for Inside eRA. Megan then explained that three LTS writer/editors will be available to prepare minutes for user group meetings. A sign-up sheet was circulated for Advocates to request meeting support. Megan suggested that the Advocates provide some orientation since the writers are new to NIH and the eRA project. Administrative support for meetings is not available at this time; however, there is an electronic group calendar for scheduling eRA meetings.
To access:
From Outlook, select Calendar, then File, then Open Other User's Calendar, then OD-eRA-Staff Calendar.

2. Presentation for Enterprise/Extension Systems Workshop - John McGowan
John McGowan asked for a show of hands to determine how many plan to participate in the May 10 workshop. Megan Columbus circulated a sign-up sheet. Dr. McGowan then previewed some of his presentation slides for the workshop (see Attachment B). Following are the topics he addressed.

a. eRA Web Site Redesign

The web redesign work is underway with an expected completion date of September 2001. To achieve a uniform look and feel, Chip Groh and Jenny de la Cruz created a matrix where each business area will be listed with links to description, points-of-contact, minutes, Gantt charts, documents and a window for reporting problems and requests. Colored lights will indicate project status: green (on track); yellow (caution); or red (budget variance of 10% or schedule variance of 20%). There will also be a comprehensive calendar for posting all eRA-related meetings and events.

Although a standard template is proposed, each business area will be able to request special features. Dr. McGowan encouraged Advocates to consider how the web site content and format can best serve their needs.
Inside eRA and Inside eRA for Partners (circulation to expand to 46,000 in early June) are currently available online.

b. The Universal Module and IC Flexibility

Dr. McGowan presented screen shot mockups of this innovative idea to generate discussion and enthusiasm for the project. He used the 901 Transfer Request to illustrate how a universal module can be engineered to resolve workflow differences among the ICs. For example, the initiating institute X may have a different chain of approval than the receiving Institute Y. The flexibility of the planned system (projected for 2002/2003) will enable both ICs to retain control of their own business rules for 901 processing. Without this capability, ICs will continue to turn to other software or build extension systems.

c. Oracle 9iAS - New Paradigm

Dr. McGowan explained how the implementation of 9iAS technology by early 2002 will enable user access to all eRA applications with a single log in (one-stop shopping). In the future, all authentications will be based on the NIH Enterprise Directory (NED) which contains a unique ID for each user and identifies the services and facilities authorized for use.

The repackaging capability of the new portal technology further enhances the concept of one-stop shopping. To illustrate, Dr. McGowan previewed a customizable "My Portfolio and Action" screen with standard drop-down menus (Grant Info-Query Tools-Council-Status-Reports-Financial). This screen can be personalized to deliver the specific reports and facilities a user needs to get his/her job done. Reports are tied to the real-time transaction system, enabling the user to extract details, modify the view, and perform updates.

Portal technology will also facilitate the sharing of information with the extramural community. Institutions and PIs can be authorized to access and validate their own documents and records. Dr. McGowan sees this as an opportunity for improving data quality.

d. Definition of Roles

The Group Advocate works with the community to identify requirements and establish priorities, makes decisions at critical points, monitors the project and serves as leader, liaison and spokesperson.

The Analyst works with the advocate to develop implementation plans, translates the business plan into technical specifications and resource requirements and monitors the project.

The Development Team develops the modules according to the specifications, implements, and monitors the system.
Planning and Evaluation facilitates the groups, documents actions/decisions, monitors the project and communicates issues, decisions and actions through the newletter, web site and other vehicles.

3. Portal Technology Overview and Live Demo - Kalpesh Patel (Oracle Corporation)

Kalpesh Patel began with a brief overview of portal technology (see Attachment C) which enables users to log in through a single point of entry to access their customized initial screen ("launch pad"). Depending on user type (e.g., Help Desk staff, Program Official, SRA), the system delivers different content, different views, different applications and/or different links from portlets on the launch pad. Thus portal technology consolidates the user's entire business world onto one page. With appropriate permissions, each user can further personalize the launch pad by hiding or adding portlets. The screen can be tailored according to the activities performed at different times of the year. Customization is also possible within a portlet.

Mr. Patel then gave a live demo of a proof of concept developed for NCI. The launch pad contained several portals: one portlet contained favorite links to external sources; another displayed a summary YTD chart with clickable links to more detailed views; a third portlet accessed a personnel directory; a fourth launched a business application from a report of action items; there was also an interactive form.

Questions can be directed to Mr. Patel at kxpatel@us.oracle.com or 703-625-7622.

4. Summary Statement Deployment - Sherry Zucker

Dr. McGowan indicated that the Steering Committee will support IMPAC II summary statement deployment by issuing a letter to executive officers and institute directors to establish sunset dates for legacy summary statements.

Sherry Zucker provided an update on summary statement deployment. At this time (Phase 2), IMPAC I or IMPAC II can be used to create summary statements, but the IMPAC I version (plain text) is still the summary statement of record. IMPAC II-originated summary statements are being uploaded to IMPAC I. All summary statements have been converted to PDF, stored in IMPAC II Bfiles, and are printable. With the May release of Peer Review, users will be able to print central, merge PDFs for local printing, or request a zip file of PDFs.

Sherry reported that there are 65 users participating in the Peer Review pilot; 48 attended training in the new summary statement process (which replaces the upload to IMPAC I). Comprehensive documentation (release notes) is also being written.

The transition to Phase 3 represents a critical decision point because all applications and extension systems will have to use the IMPAC II PDF versions of the summary statements. Only IMPAC I-originated summary statements will be available for printing from IMPAC I. Sherry stated that there are eleven different methods for printing and distributing summary statements from IMPAC I; there is also email notification. Users have been surveyed regarding IMPAC I print/notification features which need to be replicated by IMPAC II. We cannot proceed to Phase 3 until these requirements are satisfied.

5. Commons Working Group (CWG) Meeting on May 16 - George Stone

The CWG meeting on May 16 will follow upon the Federal Demonstration Partnership meetings on May 14 and 15 at the National Academy of Sciences. Megan distributed the FDP announcement; a registration form can be downloaded from fdp3.org.

The CWG meeting will be held at the State Plaza Hotel. The morning session will be devoted to a discussion of the NIH Commons interface specifications, an update on J2EE architecture for the next version of Commons, and a review of timelines for development and deployment. The group will provide feedback on current Commons screens (registration, administration and status) and suggest enhancements for future versions. Using the DUNS number as an identifier for institutions will be revisited.
The afternoon session will be devoted to an analysis of the Type 5 noncompeting policy and process. The group will discuss ways to further streamline the process in order to reduce the burden for both the extramural community and the NIH. A certification program for grantee institutions will be considered.

Dr. McGowan requested that George Stone, Marcia Hahn, Bud Erickson report on the CWG streamlining initiative at the next Project Team meeting.

Announcements

1. John McGowan stated that we are in the final stages of negotiating a contract with Denali and Associates to do an assessment of the eRA project.

2. Attendees received a list of Inside eRA articles proposed for April and May. John McGowan views the newsletter as an excellent vehicle for soliciting user input and validation. We may begin preparing two issues per month next fall. Megan Columbus is the POC.

3. John McGowan reported that the Steering Committee approved funding for Population / Tracking.

4. John McGowan suggested a 1 or 2-day retreat in the fall to reflect on eRA before the BOG submission process begins next January.

Status Reports

1. Implementation Schedule Gantt Charts - Megan Columbus circulated the final drafts for review. The charts have been reorganized by business area as per Sherry Zucker's suggestion. Attachment A contains a matrix that maps the business tasks to priorities. Validate that the cross-walk and charts are in synch. Provide feedback to Megan. The finalized charts will be published on the eRA web site next week.

2. Oracle 9iAS Tool Selection - Jim Cain stated for the record that the Commons redesign using J2EE architecture has been approved. After two months of evaluating tools, his team recommends Oracle 9iAS as the J2EE server for building eRA's web-based applications. Support for portals is one of the presentation services included in Oracle 9iAS. Following Commons, internal IPF and CM are in line for J2EE redesign.

Attendees
Claire Benfer, Carla Flora, John McGowan, Belinda Seto, Eileen Bradley, Donna Frahm, Paul Markovitz, Jay Silverman, Carlos Caban, Ali Ghassemzadeh, Carol Martin, Bobbi Spitzberg, Jim Cain, Scarlett Gibb, Gregory Milman, George Stone, Dave Carter, Cassandra Gibbs, Bob Moore, Jim Tucker, Megan Columbus, Andy Greenleaf, Madeline Monheit, Tim Twomey, Krishna Collie, Chip Groh, Pete Morton, Virginia Van Brunt, Zoe-Ann Copeland, Marcia Hahn, Richard Panniers, Liz Weiner, Bud Erickson, Mary Kirker, Bob Reifsnider, Sherry Zucker

Attachments