1 / 55

Evolution of ERA Issues and Good News Current progress-status Resources for the Project

1. Topics for Discussion. 2. Evolution of ERA Issues and Good News Current progress-status Resources for the Project FTE’s and Contract Dollars Model for tracking expenditures How to manage the beast Establishing Priorities Communicating Priorities and Progress

jescie-guerrero
Download Presentation

Evolution of ERA Issues and Good News Current progress-status Resources for the Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 1

  2. Topics for Discussion 2 • Evolution of ERA • Issues and Good News • Current progress-status • Resources for the Project • FTE’s and Contract Dollars • Model for tracking expenditures • How to manage the beast • Establishing Priorities • Communicating Priorities and Progress • Actions/Issues/Decisions for the SC • Discuss your issues

  3. In the beginning…………………..IMPAC I 3 CM GM REV RRA Snap Shot

  4. 4 IC referral Budget Reports Council operations Coding Evolution of IMPAC I CM GM Payline Projections REV RRA Snap Shot

  5. 5 Evolution of IMPAC Payline Projections IC referral Budget Reports Council operations Coding

  6. 6 Extension Systems ? Payline Projections IC referral Budget Reports Council operations Coding

  7. 7 IMPAC II : • New technology/more power/more complex • Expectations high • Built on existing business process and design • Low resources impacted on: • Critical path decision making to develop the modules • Sometimes collapsing functionality within a module • Minimal resources to outreach, communication, help desk, and training. • Lack of understanding decision making and priority setting • Enterprise not prepared for the migration of extension systems • Staff or time and knowledge to link and plan for the changes.

  8. 8 IMPAC II (cont ): • Integration of Commons Data into IMPAC 2 • Stability of the database • Budget reports needed • IMPAC 1 • 5-6 Standard formats in excel • Build query tools for budget in: • IMPAC 2 • Data Warehouse • Communications and Outreach

  9. Most Modules in Production 9 CM (Committee Management) GM (Grants Management) REV (Review) RRA (Receipt, Referral, Assignment) TA / Payback (Training Activities) ICO (IC Operations) Interface Module Production Date Infrastructure & Shared Modules April 98 April 98 GUM June 99 API May 00 People June 99/May 00 RAE June 99 UA Gaps in modules June 99 CP (CRISP Plus F&U) Nov 96 PV (PowerView) Query tools Nov 96 QV (QuickView)

  10. IMPAC 2 Good News-Current Progress 10 • Others in final stages of deployment • Review – summary statements in June • Receipt\Referral for CSR – May • Percentiles in the Fall • Release redesign for CM for GSA reports

  11. Logons the First Two Weeks of April 11

  12. Evolution of ERA Systems 12 IMPAC IMPAC II Edison Support NIH Grantee Requirements NIH Commons Interagency Edison Support Gov’t-wide Grantee Requirements Federal Commons 1965 1990 1995 2000 Support NIH IC Staff Requirements

  13. Commons an Interface to Integrate Data from Extramural Community to the NIH 13 Application Materials Final Reports - progress - financial - inventions Periodic Reports - progress - financial - inventions - women/minorities Other Support Assurances Project Specific Assurances Certifications Assignment Summary Statement Post-Award Correspondence Grants Policy Statement Application Specification Priority Score Notice of Grant Award Applicant/Grantee NIH

  14. A Process Overview 14 Scientific Proposals Periodic Reports - progress - financial - inventions - women/minorities Final Reports - progress - financial - inventions Other Support Project Specific Assurances Certifications Assurances Common File Summary Statement Post-Award Correspondence Assignment Grants Policy Statement Application Specification Priority Score Notice of Grant Award Applicant/Grantee NIH IMPAC 2 (and other granting agencies) Institutes and Centers

  15. Commons a Parallel Development 15 pilot works pilot pilot pilot works pilot pilot pilot

  16. Help Needed To Assess Priorities 16 Report of the Peer Review of the NIH Commons April 10, 2000 Report of the Peer Review of the NIH Commons April 10, 2000

  17. Involved Constituencies 17

  18. Recommendations (draft) 18

  19. Highlights of The Commons Review 19 • Urge NIH to consolidate all IC-based ERA activities into the Commons, they want a single site • Business practices of E-SNAP need to be redefined: • Changes in policy and in design • User group with NIH and the Extramural community needs to be established. • Focus efforts on: • Integration with IMPAC 2 • E-SNAP, X-Train, 194 data set transmission • Link the grantee community into priority setting.

  20. Highlights of The Commons Review (continued) 20 • Not financed sufficiently to meet objectives • Constituencies need to be better involved: • NIH IC’s, Grantee Community, other federal agencies, small business etc. • NIH needs to be aware and benefit from the commons • Pilots need to integrated with IMPAC 2 into the NIH community so direct benefits seen in IMPAC 2.

  21. NIH Commons Deployment Plan: 1998-2000 (pre-review) 21 CRISP on the Web Commons Registration Accounts Administration Application/Award Status Institutional & Professional Profiles e-SNAP Trainee Appointments (X-Train) Competitive Application Fellowships CY1998 CY1999 CY2000 FDP Pilot - 65 Grantee Organizations Pre-Prod. - ~ 120-150 Organizations Full Prod. - Open Deployment

  22. NIH Commons Deployment as a Result of Review 22 CY1998 CY1999 CY2000 CRISP on the Web I-Edison Commons Registration Accounts Administration Application/Award Status Inst. & Prof. Profiles e-SNAP Trainee Appointments (X-Train) Competitive Application Fellowships hold hold hold hold priority None transact with IMPAC 2 Pilot of commons interface with 65 institutions Expand pilot of interface Production

  23. Good News/Current Progress(Commons) 23 • CRISP on the Web • Public access - 35,000 queries a week • Interagency Edison (97) • 230 organizations registered • ~8,500 inventions & 3,800 patents on file (95) • 11 agencies now utilize it • Registration/Profiles/Status in Pre-Production • 142 Grantee Organizations Registered • 3,356 User Accounts created ~40 logons/day • E-SNAP • 15 Grantee Organizations ~160 grant applications

  24. The Matrix Must Be Built 24 Federal Commons NBS IMPAC II Grantee Community IC Extensions

  25. As Project Manager 25 • What resources are available? • FTE’s

  26. 52 FTEs Committed to the Project* 26 FTEs Effort System 30 63% L 12 26% I2 5 11% NC Jim Cain, DEIS 47 Total FTEs George Stone, CEITRB, DGP 5 Total FTEs FTEs Effort System 3.4 68% E 0.6 12% NC 1.0 20% FC L = Legacy, IMPAC I NC=NIH Commons FC=Fed. Commons I2 = IMPAC II E=Edison • 21 FTE’s under Dorrette Finch in the Office of Reports and Analysis • utilize the systems but are not part of development and support

  27. Division of Extramural Information Systems 27 L = Legacy, IMPAC I NC = NIH Commons I2 = IMPAC II Legend: James Cain Director, DEIS 25% L, 75% I2 Legacy Migration Coordination Dolly Sparkman (Matrix Team) 50% L, 50% I2 Software Development and Programming Branch Chief, Carla Flora User Support Branch Chief, T. Twoney System and Database Management Branch Chief, Kelly Landre, 90% System Quality Control and Interfaces Branch Chief, Emily Mitchell 50% L, 50% I2 100% I2 25% L, 75% I2 50% L, 50% I2 Software Engineering and Architecture Branch Chief, Vacant 4 FTEs 2 FTEs 50% I2, 50% NC 50% I2, 50% NC 100% I2 Enterprise Central Reporting, Sup., Virginia Moxley Ass’t to Chief, James Tucker 25% L, 75% I2 75% L, 25% I2 Software Quality Assurance, Sup., Lawrence Fanning Data Quality Assurance, Sup., Carolyn Stelle Team Blue, Supervisor, Vickie Fadeley Team Green, Supervisor, Vacant Team Orange, Deputy Chief, Sup., Mark Siegert 25% L, 75% I2 100% L 100%L 50%L, 50% I2 50%L, 50% I2 4 FTEs 3 FTEs 4 FTEs 56%L, 19%I2, 25%NC 67% L, 33% I2 100% L 4 FTEs 5 FTEs 5 FTEs 56% L, 44% I2 85% L, 15% I2 70% L, 30% I2 2 FTEs 50% I2, 50% NC

  28. Division of Grants Policy 28 NC = NIH Commons FC = Fed. Commons E = Edison Legend: Commons, Extramural Inventions and Technology Resources Branch Chief, George Stone 50% NC, 10% FC, 40% E Carol Tippery, Director, DGP 5 FTE’s reassigned to DEIS

  29. As Project Manager 29 Collations • What resources are available? • 52 - FTE’s • Contract dollars for FY 2000 • IMPAC 2 - 5.0 million • Commons - 1.0 million (needs endorsement for release) • Mitertek - 0.7 million • IC extension systems ? • Internet review, council, and reporting tools • ECB • Other Agencies ? • Outside community ? • Academic • Private sector Note of appreciation to: Martha Pine, NIGMS

  30. Future and Retro Cost Model (draft) 30 IMPAC 2 Costs Cur. Yr* Total Applications & Business Area $2.9 $16.2 $0.0 $ 1.1 $0.2 $ 1.3 $1.2 $ 6.3 $1.2 $ 8.5 Applications, Software Infrastructure & Database Design Project Management Operations & Misc COTS, HW, & CIT * Dollars in millions -costs from June to February and include include DEIS FTE’s

  31. Detail Tracking of Costs 31

  32. Commons Development, Deployment, & Costs 32 $1M $800K $600K $400K $200K $0 Dbase Admin CIT Charges $200K $150K $100K $50K $0 Development Operations $200K $150K $100K $50K $0 Operations Development ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 Commons Platform & Database $1.97M - TYC $1.13M - CIT CRISP $150K - Dev. $342K - Oper. Admin Interface & Profiles $192K - Dev. $154K - Oper. Projections for ‘00 as of Feb. 2000

  33. NIH Commons Development, Deployment, and Costs…cont. 33 $300K $200K $100K $0 Development Operations Development $400K $300K $200K $100K $0 Operations $50K $40K $30K $20K $10K $0 Operations Development ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 Status $456K - Dev. $146K - Oper. e-SNAP $831K - Dev. $479K - Oper. X-Train $66K - Dev. $41K - Oper. Projections for ‘00 as of Feb. 2000

  34. NIH Commons Development, Deployment, and Costs…cont. 34 $200K $150K $100K $50K $0 Development $200K $150K $100K $50K $0 Development $200K $150K $100K $50K $0 Development ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 Competitive Application $356K - Dev. Complex Noncompeting Application $188K - Dev. Fellowships $233K - Dev. Projections for ‘00 as of Feb. 2000

  35. How to Manage the Beast ? 35

  36. Project Management Structure 36 Federal Commons NIH Commons User Group Academic Institutions Private Sector NIH Community Federal Agencies IT Shared Design Group Management Team IC Representatives IT Board of Governors CIO ERA Steering Committee IC Director-Chair DDER, CIO, Project Manager, IC Rep, DDER Project Manager Daily Operations Manager Jim Cain CIT Tech Liason Donna Frahm Multiple Functional Groups CM GMAC RPC EPMC

  37. How to Set Competing Priorities ? 37

  38. Modules-Functional & User Groups 38 CM (Committee Management) GM (Grants Management) REV (Review) RRA (Receipt, Referral, Assignment) TA (Training Activities) ICO (IC Operations) Interface Module Functional Group User Group Infrastructure & Shared Modules CMO (Committee Management Org.) GMAC (Grants Mgmt. Adv. Comm.) GUM RPC (Review Program Committee) API CSR (Review Program Committee) People RAE TPC (Training Policy Committee) UA EPMC Gaps in modules CP (CRISP Plus F&U) PV (PowerView) Query tools QV (QuickView) CP (CRISP on the web) Public/Press/Scientists Edison Institution / NIH NIH Commons User Group Academic Institutions Private Sector NIH Community Federal Agencies E-SNAP Type 5’s / VP research X-Train T32’s – F32’s CGAP Applicants/VP Research

  39. Priority Setting at the User Level 39 User Group Recommends fixes and enhancements works with POC from OER responsible for the module ERA Module Functional Group Establish priorities and relative costs with input from the user group Project Team Determines priorities to fund within the framework of competing priorities Unfunded priorities used to build future budget requests Recommendations and priorities from the user and functional group, and project team posted on the web and community formed through newsletter.

  40. Give Authority to a Person(s) to Develop Trans NIH Need into Core Functionality 40 Modules CM GM REV RRA New Module SITS NBS TA ICO

  41. Provide a Process for Anyone Group or Organization to Obtain Input or Decide Whether to Incorporate a Function into a Trans-NIH Function 41 Electronic Council Book Internet Assisted Review CSR Check writing IC Enhancement IT Shared Design Group Leveraged Resources EPMC Recommend via rating system whether a system should be incorporated into the IMPAC 2 Project Team Seeks input from functional group when needed. Determines priorities to provide resources within the framework of competing priorities Unfunded priorities used to build future budget requests

  42. Structure forPriority Setting for ERA Projects 42 • Functional groups • User groups – consist of • Users of the system within IC’s to do their jobs, • Nominated by members of the functional groups • OER liaison and support contractor. • Develops cost estimates for priorities with support contractor • Helps the group advocate develop a business plan • Assures that issues raised by User and Functional Groups are being addressed and has ability to make minor fixes and enhancements • Provide feedback as needed to either group. • Group advocate – selected by the Project Manager • Is the person responsible for this subproject or module • Establishes priorities for fixes, enhancements or a total redesign with broad input and a process established with both groups . • Communicates the priorities of the groups to the project team and serves as a member of the project team. • ERA Project Management Team – leads the overall effort.

  43. 43 Criteria to Rank Projects for: Phasing and Funding Criteria Maximum Point Value Management Support 15 Business Risk of Not Doing It 10 Culture Change 10 Technical Risk 10 Scope of Change 20 Business Process Redesign 15 Business Model 10 Quality of Work Life 10 TOTAL 100

  44. Sample of Criteria 44

  45. Priority SettingEstablish Budgets and Phase Projects 45 Build Budget Next FY Business Plan Priority Set Budget Design & Review Pilot & Review Review & Establish Business Practice Production Time

  46. Priorities Will Turn Into Project Plan 46 • FY 2001 Project Plan submitted for the BOG Review last night • Next the Project Plan developed through the priority setting process • Current list is not prioritized but follows the cost model

  47. Life of a Module Expected to Be 4-6 Years 47 Policy Technology Process Users Committee Management Module

  48. Communications & Outreach Needed 48 • Redesign website • Establish a newsletter to keep all informed • Target e:mails • Standardizing formats for updates and changes • Staff and run focus groups with constituencies • Identify resources for this function

  49. Ensure All Are Informed as to Priorities/Decisions 49 Tracking of Specific Changes / CMO User Group

  50. Key Concerns At This Point 50 • Resources this and next fiscal year. • $2 million dollar drop in FY 2001 for contracts • The effect of shutting down the commons increases the risk for NIH to loose: • creditability with the grantee community • leadership in implementing the Federal Commons • the ability to meet the deadlines established in legislation

More Related