Agenda for CWG Meeting, August 16, 2001

1. Status of Commons V 1.0, 1.5, 2.02. SNAP Reengineering Survey

Review of CWG recommendations NIH Reaction to CWG recommendations Next Steps

3. Interface Specification Survey Institutional Hierarchy Institutional Reports Commons User Roles and Rights DUNS, Single-point-of-Ownership

4. Next Meeting Topics Date

Commons Version 2.0 Implementation Schedule

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepApr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep20012001 20022002

Commons Version 2Phase 1 Infrastructure

Profiles

X-Train 2.0

Status

Admin Module

Phase 2

Phase 3

Competing Application (R01)

SNAP Progress Report

* * Includes business process reengineering and design

Legend: Analysis* Development DeploymentStart Continuing

BPR only

BPR only

X-Train X-Train Version 1.5Version 1.5

Version 2.0Version 2.0

Status of Commons Development

V 1.0 Status

Summary Statement fixes – done Move to pdf – Nov.

NIH Staff Contact information fixes – in dev.

V 1.5 X-Train

Pilot deployment in September V 2.0 – Start development after deployment

of V 1.5

V 2.0 J2EE Platform

Review of inception phase – done CDR Scheduled for August 20

Architecture document – handout Database design document Data Dictionary Promotion Plan GUI Screen Standards

V 2.0 Interfaces: Admin/Registration, Accounts/Profiles RUP Development Process - underway

Business Use Cases for each interface - done Activity Diagram example – handout

Technical Use Cases for each interface – done Implementation (development) - underway

GUI Screens – September/October

Status of Commons Development…cont

Rational Unified Process for Software Engineering

SNAP Survey Responses

May CWG meeting – development of consensus for possible SNAP business process changes for consideration by NIH

Current survey to confirm recommendations in light of further discussion with institutional staff/NIH staff

Finalize recommendations for implementation Introduce any changes into paper SNAP Incorporate changes as part of E-SNAP V 2.0

development Pilot late 2002

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Science Reporting

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E- SNAP

Other Notes

Abstract Part of Competing Application only. Available to the Public after funding via CRISP No updates during competitive segment

No change in current business practice. Abstract will only be required as part of the competing application

Would remain available to the public via CRISP

No change in current business practice. Abstract will only be required as part of the competing application.

Would remain available to the public via CRISP

As a separate COMMONS application, provide the ability for an abstract to be updated when the scope of the project changes because of study section and/or program recommendations

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Science Reporting

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations- Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E-SNAP

Other Notes

Annual Submission 2 months prior to start

No change in current business practice. Retain annual submission due 60 days before the start date.

Retain rolling submission throughout the year

Adjust submission time to 45 days before start (incentive)

Application requires signatures of both PI & Authorized Official date

No change in current business practice. While the delegation concept could eventually be incorporated into the paper process, feel we should avoid that by leaving it as an incentive to use E-SNAP

Allow submission of PR directly from PI as long as Authorized Business Official has delegated this authority to their PIs at the Institution level. This delegation would be part of the Institutional Profile stored in the COMMONS.

If the delegation idea is extended to the paper process, with the delegation being stored in the NIH Commons, it would be easy for NIH staff to double check any delegations indicated on a face page.

Progress Report (PR) Narrative

Is considered confidential; e.g., releasable only through FOIA

Would remain confidential; e.g., releasable only through FOIA

Would remain confidential; e.g., releasable only through FOIA

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Science Reporting (cont)

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E-SNAP

Other Notes

Research Accomplishments & Other Significant Changes

Currently an integral part of Progress Report narrative. As such, remains confidential; e.g., releasable only through FOIA

Suggest changing paper requirement eventually after pilot. Have as a separate area. Would be bullets of science highlights and other “Significant Changes” (This could ultimately be a recommendation for all T-5s)

Have as a separate data area. Would be bullets of science highlights and other “Significant Changes”

Require with PR but in E-SNAP only provide ability to provide interim updates as well

Would remain “confidential”; e.g., releasable only through FOIA

In E-SNAP only, provide a separate NOTES section

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Science Reporting (cont)

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E- SNAP

Other Notes

SNAP Questions

Currently involves 3 separate questions—Changes in Key Personnel, Changes in Other Support, and Large Unobligated Balances. Part of Progress Report

No immediate change in current business practice. Retain 3 Questions. Leave option to modify, add and/or delete to respond to changing trends

No immediate change in current business practice. Retain 3 Questions. Leave option to modify, add and/or delete to respond to changing trends

System functionality will be redesigned. No narrative explanation will be required if answer to Q is “No”

Program Officials may have specific questions that they will be recommending to add

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Science Reporting (cont)

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E-SNAP

Other Notes

Citations Listed in annual submission, & provide 1 hard-copy

No change in current business practice

If citation is published, allow link to on-line journal in lieu of submitting hard copy (incentive)

Assumes citations will be part of the Professional Profile (PPF) for each user. PPF & Progress Report will be linked so PI need only enter info once.

NIH to work with NLM to facilitate links to published citations

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Administrative Assurances & Certifications

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E-SNAP

Other Notes

Human Subjects Assurances

Assurance # & IRB Date required with annual progress report

No change in current business process

For E-SNAP, shift the burden of monitoring annual IRB review on a grant-by-grant basis to the grantee. System design could include an annual list based on our data that an authorized official would need to “certify” had received the appropriate review

Institutions would have the responsibility of assuring compliance before any funds have actually been drawn down.

As part of the pilot, participating Institutions would agree to provide a retrospective annual list for NIH review.

On the long term, monitoring of this could be handled as part of a compliance site visit by either NIH and/or OHRP.

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Administrative Assurances & Certifications

Current Process (SNAP)

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E-SNAP

Other Notes

Animal Subjects Assurance

Assurance # & IACUC Date required with annual progress report

No change in current business process

Same recommendations as Human Subjects

Other Administrative Assurances & Certifications

Authorized Official Signature on Face Page signifies compliance with all assurances & certifications.

No change in current business process immediately recommended.

May want to eventually incorporate the E-SNAP delegation of authority for a PI to submit a progress report (see PR section above).

Maintain as currently designed in NIH Commons; e.g., list of assurance & certifications as part of the Institutional Profile.

Enhance by including dates each requirement was assured

If a requirement changed or a new requirement was added, no COMMONS submission by the Institution would be permitted until the Institutional Profile was updated

SNAP Progress Reporting: Proposed Final Recommendations

Other Issues

Current Process

Consensus Recommendations - Paper SNAP

Consensus Recommendations - E-SNAP

Other Notes

Notice of Grant Award

Total Direct & F&A Costs for each grant. (Non-categorical)

No change in current business practice immediately recommended. Master Award concept discussed, but not embraced by NIH staff. Seems problematic for grantees too but are awaiting further CWG feedback.

No change in current business practice immediately recommended. Master Award concept discussed, but not embraced by NIH staff. Seems problematic for grantees too but are awaiting further CWG feedback.

Personnel Data Page

Required with every application. Lists all key personnel for the current budget period

No immediate change in current business practice. Eventually could consider this to be a “change-only” page

Store previous submission, allow access for updates.

Reconsider need for this at all once the PPFs are cleaned up

T-5 Notification

Grantees receive pre-printed face pages sent by NIH 2-months prior to the T-5 submission date (usually 4-month prior to the budget start date)

NIH will continue current business practice through FY2002. Beginning in FY2003, it will become an electronic notification only via the COMMONS Status system.

Same as Paper—switch to solely electronic notification in FY2003.

Interface Specifications Survey Responses

May CWG meeting – Introduction of various Commons user issues

for consideration Organizational Hierarchy Institutional Reporting Requirements Institutional Approvals: Commons User Roles and

Rights Single Point of Ownership DUNS Numbers as Unique Identifiers

Distribution of survey to determine requirements/preferences Identify additional areas for focus

Institutional Reporting Requirements

Requirements provided for 4 categories of “PI” report Pre-award Reports

Application receipt Assignment Review & Council Budget

Post-award Reports Deadlines for renewal NGA Funds remaining Level of effort

NIH Staff-related Information Names and contact information

Commons Administration Reports Status of works-in-progress Lists of delegations

Other Reports and Notifications Changes in award status, constraints, deadlines

Institutional Reporting Requirements …cont.

Requirements provided for 4 categories of “AO” and “SO” reports

AO Reports Similar categories as for PI Honors confidentiality of summary statement and score Provide reports for all applications/awards in account hierarchy

Lists sortable by grant #, name, grant type, award date, etc. Statistics: total award amount for institutional component, relative

rankings(?) SO Reports

Similar categories as for PI Honors confidentiality of summary statement and score Provide reports for all institutional applications/awards

Lists sortable by grant #, name, grant type, award date, etc. Possibility of award history reports Statistics: total numbers of awards, total amounts, averages,

relative rankings

SO

AO

PI PI PI PI PI PI PI

AO AO

Report Hierarchy

SO

Single Point of Ownership

Got it LOUD and CLEAR: PI’s will not maintain their own profile (unless there’s a clear and present danger if they don’t…i.e. link to award)

Need to offer delegation of this task (chore?) Commons profile system must allow for

interaction with third party software (e.g. COS) Integrate NIH Commons profile with Federal

Commons to increase value of information Possibly remind PI’s of “dormant” profiles

DUNS Numbers as Unique Identifier

DUNS is a relatively good choice for universal identifier Will require establishment of institutional DUNS Single DUNS for submission to NIH

Limitations due to familiarity and potential for modification by P.I.

New Commons won’t require institutional number for logon Not used for hierarchical identification

Would not want to use DUNS 9+4 for this purpose Excessive administrative burden

How to determine organizational hierarchy for sorting purposes?

Part of Role/rights specification?? i.e. include title of choice and organizational component

Why do we need Organizational Hierarchy?

Institutional Considerations Approval of binding decisions Control of budget/management, etc. Audit/report to sponsors and institutional

leaders NIH Considerations

Grantee compliance with policy and practice Reporting to congress on outcomes/benefits;

numbers of awards to types and components within organizations

Accountability!

Organizational Hierarchy Four basic organizational levels

Department Division Unit/School/College/Institute Institution/Hospital

Any category can be duplicated within levels Category typically serves common role across institution

Final approval usually delegated to one level For purposes of defining IPF, all levels should be

available for specification Changes in the hierarchy

People change frequently Roles are relatively stable, cut can change especially at the

department level

Organizational Hierarchy…cont.

Roles and rights in current Commons are not hierarchical

Some indicate they need to be Some are satisfied with current system

Commons needs to have flexibility in making awards to university-related foundations

Foundation hierarchy not important

Defining Organizational Hierarchy

Generic Institution NIH Data Type

Institution Hospital, Institution, Medical Center, Others

IPF -> Entity ID #’s

Standardized

SchoolSchool, College, Center, Others

ORG Component Code,Organization Type

Standardized

Division Unit, Division, Branch, Others

Major Subdivision Open Text, i.e.non-standard

Department

Department, Unit, Center

Dept., Service, Lab or equivalent

Open Text, i.e.non-standard

Institutional Approvals – User Roles and Rights

Platinum:Platinum: Make routing generic and programmable for each department/school for each institution, since no two institutional components are the same

Gold: Modify existing NIH Commons approach to add:

Delegation Authority for all role types WIP to be created by any role type Examine approach to provide additional customization of

rights within any role type: “rights menu” Silver: Current NIH Commons approach is adequate

Open routing for comments/input Vertical approval hierarchy: PI -> AO -> SO

Create S.O. & A.O. Accts. X XCreate additional A.O. Accts. X X XCreate P.I. Accts. X X XReview Sci. and Admin. Info. X X X XUpdate Sci. and Admin. Info. X X XReview Institutional Profile X X X XUpdate Institutional Profile X Review Professional Profile X X X XUpdate Professional Profile X X X XSubmit Appl. To NIH X

ERA Function/User Type S.O. A.O. A.A. P.I.

NIH Commons User Types - NIH Commons User Types - PermissionsPermissions

* Ability for SRO staff to prepare and/or edit scientific information is an option determined by individual grantee organizations.

Create NIH Commons Account

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Name Title Org. Component

Why have roles?…to maintain organizational partitionsi.e. not permit dept. of chemistry A.O. from affected dept of pharmacology accounts.

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

Ken Forstmeier Vice President School of Biol. Sci.

Name Title Org. Component

Create NIH Commons Account

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

Ellen Beck Administrative Asst. Dept. of Physiology

Name Title Org. Component

Create NIH Commons Account

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

Nancy Wray Chief Administrator OSR

Name Title Org. Component

Create NIH Commons Account

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

Steve Dowdy Dept. Intern OSR

Name Title Org. Component

Create NIH Commons Account

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

James Tracy Professor Dept. of Pharmacy

Name Title Org. Component

Create NIH Commons Account

S.O.

A.O.

A.A.

P.I.

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

James Tracy Assistant Dean Dept. of Pharmacy

Name Title Org. Component

Create NIH Commons Account

Modify NIH Commons Account

Create proposal

Edit science

Edit admin. Info.

Internal approval

Submit appl. to NIH

Modify IPF

Create/modify S.O. & A.O. accts

Create/modify P.I. Accts.

Ken Forstmeier Vice President School of Biol. Sci.

Name Title Org. Component

Ellen Beck Administrative Asst. Dept. of Physiology

Nancy Wray Chief Administrator OSR

Steve Dowdy Dept. Intern OSR

James Tracy Professor Dept. of Pharmacy

James Tracy Assistant Dean Dept. of Pharmacy

SO

AO

PI PI PI PI PI PI PI

AO AO

Why have Role Types?