eRA Project Team Meeting
Date: May 22, 2001
Time: 9:00 am
Location: 6700B Rockledge, Room 1205
Chair: James Cain

Next Meeting: June 12, 2001, 6700B Rockledge, Room 1205, 9:00 am

Action Items

1. Proposed Sunset of IMPAC I Functionalities (Emily Mitchell) - Draft recommendation for endorsement by Project Team and subsequent presentation to Steering Committee.

2. RPC Participation at Percentiling Presentation to EPMC (Megan Columbus) - Contact Carlos Caban to encourage RPC attendance at presentation to EPMC meeting on May 30.

3. Group Advocate for Budget (Megan Columbus) - Explore possibility with John McGowan.

4. Software Development Decision Process (Advocates/Sherry Zucker) - Advocates to provide feedback on proposed decision points. Sherry to incorporate suggestions and present revised process at Project Team Meeting on June 5.

5. IMPAC II Release Schedule (Sherry Zucker) - Prepare release schedule (including impact, training, documentation) in chronological order for distribution to Project Team.

6. Incorporation of Grant Close-Out System (Marcia Hahn) - Bring policy issues to the attention of Carol Tippery.

Presentations

1. Sunset of IMPAC I Functionalities
Based on an analysis of eight months of transaction data, Emily Mitchell reported that 10 ICs are still submitting batch updates to IMPAC I rather than using IMPAC II facilities for entering the data. Program Class Codes (PCCs) accounted for the largest number of transactions. This field can be updated using GUM from the GM and ICO modules. Other data items include Dual Program Class Code, To Be Paid Indicator, SBIR Topic Code, Discipline Specialty Field (DSF) and User Area. As long as users continue to populate these fields in the legacy system, the nightly bridge to IMPAC II must be maintained.
Emily has contacted NIA, NIAID, NCI, NEI and NHLBI about plans to turn off the IMPAC I functionality at the end of the calendar year. She has been offering DEIS assistance with the conversion to IMPAC II. NIDDK, NIGMS, NICHD, NINDS and NCRR will be contacted shortly. Emily commented that the challenge is to convince users to change procedures that have been in place for twenty years.
At the next Project Team meeting, Group Advocates will decide on the course of action to be recommended to the Steering Committee.

2. Percentiling Presentation
Daniel Fox presented the highlights the new Peer Review Percentiling capability scheduled for deployment in August. (See Attachment A.) Percentiles are currently calculated in IMPAC I.
The logic for determining percentiles will not change. What will change is the ability of authorized personnel (one super user and one alternate per IC) to update the software to define and refine rules for percentiling (e.g., creation of base, suppression of percentiles). At present, OER staff makes code changes to effectuate special requests.
Belinda Seto and Wally Schaffer questioned whether authorities granted to super users were consistent with NIH policy. Daniel gave assurances that the super user will only be able to set rules if grant review is controlled by his/her IC. Mark Siegert added that the designated super user will most likely be the same individual who now calls him to program special rules. Furthermore, Sherry Zucker stated that RPC has already approved the new percentiling software.
Percentiling is on the EPMC agenda for May 30. It was suggested that RPC members be present to participate in policy discussion at this meeting. Megan Columbus will inform Carlos Caban.

3. Enterprise/Extension Systems Workshop Debriefing
a. NIMH Grant Close-Out System (GCS)
Jim Cain indicated that GCS is under consideration for incorporation into IMPAC II. GM users need to determine if GCS has enterprise-wide utility. According to Marcia Hahn, automating the close out process is the #1 priority of her User Group; a GM lead user has already volunteered to spearhead the effort. Before a decision can be reached regarding GCS, several policy issues (e.g., mandatory use, link to Commons, minimal data requirements) must be addressed. Marcia will bring policy concerns to Carol Tippery's attention.
b. Portals
Given the significant user interest in portals, Jim Cain proposed to accelerate development using a two-phased approach. Within a 4 to 6-month timeframe, we can create portlets to deliver customized reports for Program. This initial system would be read-only (not tied to the real-time transaction system). In the second phase, we can incorporate additional functionality from NHLBI, NCI and NIAID extension systems.
Bud Erickson indicated that a group of twenty Program Directors will be looking at the TABS, CAAP and NOW extension systems to identify enterprise-wide functionality. He views portals as a good way to draw in the 1500 users in his group who are very excited about one-stop shopping and customization. The Program Users Group (EPUG) meets on the first Friday of each month. Sherry Zucker suggested that Chip Groh and Krishna Collie participate at EPUG meetings.
Tim Twomey pointed out that the budget group is not represented. He suggested that an Advocate be appointed.

4. Commons Working Group Debriefing (PM Session)
Due to the absence of George Stone, the discussion of the morning session has been postponed until June 5. Marcia reported on the afternoon session which addressed the streamlining of the non-competing process. She indicated that participants were all enthusiastic and happy to be involved in the planning. The next step is for the representatives to float the streamlining ideas through their ICs for feedback. Proposals also need to be presented to POPOF, GMPC and EPMC. Belinda Seto inquired about the group's reaction to progress reports being submitted straight from the PI. Marcia indicated that NSF is already bypassing the institution. The biggest hurdle to streamlining will be changing the mindset to separate the administrative and scientific reporting requirements.

5. eRA Software Development Decision Process
Sherry Zucker presented a draft methodology for Project Team consideration (See Attachment B). The process consists of eight major steps beginning with requirements analysis and concluding in production. At each step, decision points and deliverables are identified. The process defines the Group Advocate involvement at each phase and suggests Project Team signoff points.
Following are some of the comments from the follow-up discussion:
a. Show loop back for new initiatives.
b. Integrate role of FITS teams.
c. Include partnership of Analysts and Advocates.
d. Group Advocates appear to have too many responsibilities. Also, they don't make decisions on their own. Depict Group Advocate as a "module manager" with a support system (User Groups, FITS, OPAE, etc.)
Group Advocates were requested to email additional comments to Sherry. She will present a revised version at the next meeting.

6. Upcoming IMPAC II Releases
Jim Cain acknowledged the need to publicize new release information in a more timely manner. Sherry Zucker was tasked with preparing a list of upgrades scheduled for deployment in June and July.
Due to the constraints of time, Sherry Zucker was unable to cover the entire schedule of upcoming releases. She will reorder the list chronologically and prepare for distribution to the Project Team.

Announcements and Status Reports

1. The Steering Committee has approved plans for a new IMPAC II Population Tracking Module. $250,000 in funding is forthcoming.

2. On May 18, the following IMPAC II applications had mandatory upgrades: CM (3.9.5.0), REV (2.0.4.0), RR (1.2.5.0) and CRISP Plus (3.4.2.0). The following non-mandatory upgrades were executed: GM (1.9.3.0), ICO (2.7.4.0), QV (1.8.1.0), SITS (2.7.1.0) and TA (2.7.2.0). The deployment went smoothly, no problems have been reported. The planned switch to indexing of summary statements in PDF format has been delayed.

3. Sherry Zucker introduced Sara Silver (Z-Tech) who will serve as the Chief Analyst for R&R. She will also investigate data integrity problems.

4. Jan Heffernan of OPeRA's Project Clearance Branch will join the Project Team. She will add expertise in the area of forms and OMB compliance.

5. Megan Columbus reported that the draft of the next issue of Inside eRA will go out to the Project Team for review later this week. She encouraged the group to suggest articles for upcoming newletters.

6. James Cain floated the idea of eRA coffee mugs.

Attendees

Eileen Bradley, Carla Flora, Paula Mac Lellan, Wally Schaffer, Jim Cain, Daniel Fox, Paul Markovitz, Belinda Seto, Dave Carter, Donna Frahm, Gregory Milman, Mark Siegert, Megan Columbus, Ali Ghasemzadeh, Emily Mitchell, Sara Silver, Krishna Collie, Andy Greenleaf, Madeline Monheit, Jay Silverman, Zoe-Ann Copeland, Chip Groh, Bob Moore, Bobbi Spitzberg, Marlene Crowe, Marcia Hahn, Larry Morton, Jim Tucker, Bud Erickson, Steve Hausman, Pete Morton, Tim Twomey, Vickie Fadeley, Jan Heffernan, Richard Panniers, Virginia Van Brunt, Thor Fjellstedt, Mary Kirker, Bob Reifsnider, Sherry Zucker

Attachments