Project Management Team Meeting Minutes May 22, 2001 |
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
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 |
A. Percentiling (Mark Siegert, Daniel Fox) | MS Powerpoint 2000 | 316 k |
B. Draft eRA Development Decision Process (Sherry Zucker) | MS Powerpoint 2000 | 108 k |