eRA Steering Committee
Minutes

September 28, 2000

Attendees: Marvin Cassman, Ph.D., NIGMS, Chair
Allen Spiegel, M.D., NIDDK
Yvonne duBuy, NIDCR
Gahan Breithaupt, NINDS
Ellie Ehrenfeld, Ph.D., CSR
Alan Graeff, CIT
Ed Donohue, NHLBI
Marvin Kalt, Ph.D., NCI
Wendy Baldwin, Ph.D.
John McGowan, Ph.D., NIAID/OER
Martha Pine, NIGMS, Executive Secretary

Dr. Cassman opened the meeting by welcoming Ed Donohue to the Committee.
Mr. Donohue replaces Dr. Wetle, who has left the NIH. The Committee then discussed scheduling its future meetings and agreed to meet the third Thursday of each month from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Dr. Cassman assured the group that, if monthly meetings proved unnecessary, he would cancel specific meetings. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Thursday, October 19, in Natcher, 2AS.10.

Dr. Cassman then explained the urgency of the Committee's discussions of eRA funding priorities. He reported that Dr. Katz, the chair of the NIH IT Board of Governors (BOG), had called him, requesting that the Committee expeditiously forward to the BOG the funding priority package. This will enable the BOG to conclude its work and send its recommendations concerning NIH IT enterprise system funding to the NIH Director. Dr. Cassman conceded that all of the projects presented in the eRA priorities notebook are worth doing. However, to shape the discussions, Dr. Cassman stated his preference that the Committee rank the proposed eRA projects according to the following scheme:

High Priority - Those projects which, if not initiated now, would result in "disaster." The Committee will include these in its recommendations for funding for FY2001.

Lower Priority - Those projects which, if not initiated now, would result in "distress" or "inconvenience." The Committee might consider excluding these from its recommendations for funding in FY2001.

Dr. McGowan highlighted some of the slides in his prepared presentation. The full presentation is attached below.

In his early slides, Dr. McGowan presented various statistics about the volume of paperwork that NIH is presently dealing with in its grant application and administration processes. He also pointed out that the General Accounting Office (GAO) thinks that eRA would facilitate more rigorous stewardship of grants. He mentioned that further opportunities for business process redesign as IMPAC II modules are redesigned and the Commons is more completely implemented should also benefit both the NIH and extramural communities. With regard to management of the eRA effort, Dr. McGowan mentioned that the contractor's monthly vouchers now map to the cost model, making it easier to track the costs of various aspects of the effort. He noted that a critical design review of the Commons had pointed out some data structure flaws that need attention.

In describing the priority setting process to date, Dr. McGowan mentioned that in the months of June and July 2000, the group advocates had taken to their respective functional and/or user groups a "straw man" priority list. (That "straw man" list had been developed by the IMPAC II Project Management team from an accumulation of "wish lists" and other "pending tasks" information.) The groups reacted to the list and added other items. A number of representatives from Federal Demonstration Project institutions also ranked the priorities. Once the Project Management Team, including all of the group advocates, met to rank the proposed priorities, the group advocates were asked to prepare the business plans that were gathered into the eRA priorities notebook for the Steering Committee's consideration. Dr. McGowan conceded that his staff had accepted all of the business plans "as is;" this explains the great variability in how thorough each business plan is.

Dr. McGowan reminded the group that Congress had established a date of October 2003 by which the NIH and other government agencies must be doing its business electronically. By October 2001, the Federal Commons interface is to be designed and in place. He also reminded the Committee about FY2000 eRA costs:

· $6.7 million had been devoted to IMPAC II project maintenance;
· $3.1 million had been devoted to CIT costs for both IMPAC I and IMPAC II functionality; and
· $3.9 million represented OER costs, largely for the staff working on IMPAC I and IMPAC II.

He explained that costs within these categories are likely to shift, but that any savings realized are likely to be directed toward other needs in those same areas. For example, as IMPAC I is phased out, both CIT and OER savings are likely to be redirected to IMPAC II and eRA-related tasks. Hence, this $13.7 million is probably the minimum baseline cost for maintaining the eRA project. Dr. McGowan stated that costs of additional priority items among those being discussed by the Committee are likely to be redefined as part of the "baseline" activities in the future. Dr. McGowan also reminded the Committee that excluded from the priority process are $1.2 million in "Project Needs." He explained that these include funds for:

· new hardware to support a new version of ORACLE. This should also enhance the stability of IMPAC II;
· an independent software review so that future IMPAC II design efforts can address major data design inadequacies; and
· funds to meet special requirements that can not be anticipated.

Dr. McGowan hastened to point out that the latter does not mean that the eRA project will entertain "ad hoc" requests outside the priority setting process on any broad scale. Rather, these modest funds will allow the Project Manager to address compelling needs that inevitably arise in a project of this complexity and size.

Dr. McGowan conceded that the Chief Information Officer and the BOG will require him to develop a five (5) year plan for the eRA project. He thinks that this year's priority setting process will help refine the baseline level for this project and will enable him to project other future needs as he develops the multiyear plan.

Discussion of Priorities

Priority #1 - Query and Reports

The Committee felt that the importance of Priority #3 - Data Quality to the utility of this first priority could not be overemphasized. They go hand in hand. With the following exceptions, the Committee endorsed proceeding with the subpriority tasks delineated under this heading:

Subpriority 1.3 - ORA Indexing Coding Project could wait, in the opinion the Committee, so this was given lower priority. ($250,000)

Subpriority 1.9 (and/or 1.12?) - New Pre-Programmed Reports, Design/Redesign of Report Request Screens will probably be done as part of other Priority #1 efforts. Hence, the Committee thought this separate priority area is unnecessary. ($414,120; $90,480)

Priority #2 - User Support, Outreach, and Change Management

The Committee acknowledged that this area is of critical importance to the success of the eRA project. Dr. McGowan explained that in arriving at the costs for subpriorities 1.1 and 1.3, he had benchmarked the NIH effort with the NSF FastLane effort.

Subpriority 2.1 - Increase User Support for Commons/IMPAC II and Help Desk
Mr. Graeff urged Dr. McGowan to include the funding of the Database Administrator position in the baseline project costs as it is a standard requirement of IT enterprise efforts like this.

Subpriority 2.3 - Training and Documentation
The Committee asked that the costs of training itself be born by charges to IC staff through the Service and Supply Fund mechanism, just as most NIH training is funded. Dr. McGowan agreed to examine what residual costs for designing the training might still need to be included in this subpriority's cost estimate. ( $100,000)

Priority #3 - Data Quality

The Committee reemphasized how important this effort is. In response to questions,
Dr. McGowan explained that the high cost of Subpriority 3.1-Data Integrity stems from having to clean up or "scrub" not only current data but the historical data as well.
Dr. Kalt asked whether the contract information mentioned in the business plan for Subpriority 3.3 - Data Integrity: Reporting System would truly represent comprehensive contract information. Dr. McGowan responded that only data on contract awards would be included. This entire priority area was deemed of high priority.

Priority #4 - Commons Integration

Note: Dr. McGowan said that he inadvertently had omitted a Subpriority 4.10 for integrating EDISON with IMPAC II at a cost of $800,000.

The Committee expressed some puzzlement about this Priority area being distinct from Priority #8 - Analysis Planning to Complete the Commons which also seems urgent.

Subpriority 4.2 - X-Train Extension to Permit Reporting of Appointment Information for NIH-Supported Research Assistants
The Committee thought this could be deferred since the NIH has not yet reached a policy decision about whether information on NIH-supported research assistants will indeed be collected. Further refinement of this requirement is likely to follow such a policy decision. ($27,800)

Subpriority 4.6 - Status System for Notification that a Type 5 is Due
The Committee wondered about the importance of this but agreed to honor the interest in this functionality expressed by the members of the extramural community.

Priority #5A - Life Cycle Redesign of the IMPAC II Committee Management Module

Dr. McGowan explained that this will be the first of the inevitable redesigns of each IMPAC II module, something he expects to be on a 4-5 year cycle. The reasons for starting with this module are that it needs to move to the web from the client-server, it needs to address unmet requirements, and must be better integrated with the Review Module of IMPAC II. The Committee said that a much-enhanced Committee Management Module, which is seamlessly integrated with the Review Module and is more user friendly, might be just the sort of success that will help convince the ICs of the real potential and value of IMPAC II. Furthermore, it will educate the user community about the inevitable cyclic redesign of IMPAC II modules to address both new technological demands and user requirements for functionality. This entire priority area was deemed of high importance.

Priority #5B - Migration of Core Functions to IMPAC II

The Committee acknowledged the general importance of this priority area, but expressed reservations about the urgency of Subpriority #5B.5 - OER Technical Module.
Dr. McGowan agreed to discuss the timing of this with the Project Management team and report back to the chair. Depending of this information, this subpriority might be delayed. ($440,000)

Priority #6A - Electronic Council Book

The Committee acknowledged that this has become an essential tool in many IC extramural operations and should proceed. Mr. Graeff said that this sort of "grass roots" development of IMPAC II functionality with widespread utility is important to the success of the overall project. Dr. McGowan anticipates folding into the eRA effort in the future some other IC "extension system" functionality with enterprise-wide utility. This entire priority area was deemed of high importance.

Priority $6B - New Review Module

The Committee discussed the fact that this title was perhaps a misnomer. Instead, much of what is presented as subpriorities are helpful enhancements to the existing Review Module functionality. The Committee wondered if these should, in fact, be viewed as part of the normal maintenance and enhancement "tweaking" that occurs after initial release of a new IMPAC II module.

Note: Dr. McGowan distributed a revised eRA Project Priorities list for FY2001 that listed the following items as commencing in FY2002. Funds for some of these had inadvertently been included in the FY2001 year:

Subpriority #6B 1-CR4 Quick Assign Modification ($5,220)
Subpriority #6B 1 - CR5 Select Meeting Screen Modification
Subpriority #6B 1 - CR6 Change Gen Roster Button
Subpriority #6B 1 - CR7 Modify Conflicts Report
Subpriority #6B 1 - CR8 Numbered Vote Sheets
Subpriority #6B 1 - CR9 Flags for Special Council Actions

Subpriority #6B 2 - NF4 Electronic 901 Changes ($20,880)
Subpriority #6B 2 - NF5 Streamlining Module
Subpriority #6B 2 - NF6 Format for Telephone Data

Subpriority #6B 3 - OG3 Construction of Comma-Delineated Output Files
For Assignment List ($52,200)

Subpriority #6B 4 - SC3 Addition of Checkbox on List of Applications
Screen
Subpriority #6B 4 - SC4 Sort Flexibility with Scientific Terms Assigned to
Application
Subpriority #6B 4 - SC5 User Preference Facility
Subpriority #6B 4 - SC6 Secondary Sorts of Applications
Subpriority #6B 4 - SC7 Special Review Roles for Training Grants ($348)

Subpriority #6B 4 - UO2 Executive Education ($20,000)
Subpriority #6B 5 - UO3 Online status/buglist

Priority #7 - Real Time Crosscut Functionality

The Committee discussed Subpriorites 7.1 and 7.2 and agreed that neither rose to the level of high priority since neither would result in "disaster" if not initiated promptly. Instead, their delay would cause some "distress."

Subpriority #7.1 - Single Point of Entry ($250,000)
Subpriority #7.2 - Life Cycle Redesign of SITS Module ($89,175)

However, the Committee agreed that it is imperative to proceed with Subpriority 7.3 - Electronic Grant Processing, largely because it constitutes a "pilot" of how the NIH would handle electronic submission of grant applications through the Commons at some point in the future.

Priority #8 - Analysis Planning to Complete the Commons

The Committee viewed this as essential, but asked that an analysis of the projected costs be done in order to validate and refine them. This discussion expanded into a discussion of the Committee's interest in having an expert analysis done, by an independent consultant or entity, of the costs of all aspects of the eRA project.

Priority #9 - Capitalize on Current or Innovative Technologies

The Committee endorsed proceeding with Subpriority 9.1 - Electronic Signatures. However, the Committee also felt it would be acceptable to delay one of the other two subpriorities and part of another as follows:

Subpriority #9.2 - Pilot Studies for Electronic Grants ($250,000)
This needs to be undertaken soon; however, the Committee felt it was not necessary to initiate this in full force in FY2001. Instead, a smaller scale pilot may begin.

Note: This partial, rather than full delay reflects subsequent discussions between the Chair and the Project Manager. They agreed that a case can be made for this smaller piece of this effort to complement another Subpriority, namely 7.3 - Electronic Grant Processing, that the Committee thought was essential to begin in FY2001.

Subpriority #9.3 - IPDF/XML ($200,000)
This needs to be fleshed out more and can be delayed a bit.

Priority #10 - Federal Commons

The Committee felt that proceeding with this is essential to the effort to comply with the mandate to engage in electronic grant commerce by October 2003.

Priority #11 - One Stop Shopping

The Committee thought that this could be delayed. ($300,000)

Priority #12 - Original Budgeted Requirements of Current Modules (OBR)

The Committee thought that all but one of the Subpriority proposals were essential. In agreeing to the very costly Subpriority 12.4 - Receipt and Referral, the Committee members thought that they were ill-equipped to "second guess" the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) leadership regarding how important the nine (9) efforts being requested are to the efficient functioning of CSR. The Committee judged it acceptable to delay the following:

Subpriority 12.2 - QuickView Changes ($12,180)

Priority #13 - Federal Agency Data Exchange (FADEX)

The Committee thought that this could be delayed. ($250,000)

10/2/2000 eRA Steering Committee Minutes Sept. 28, 2000

Attachments