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?
Top Related