1. 1 Agenda for CWG Meeting January 6, 2002 1.Update on Commons V 2.0 schedule 2.Close Out/FSR Interface Requirements 3.Discussion of Competitive Application  Current process for receipt and referral of paper applications  Benefits of datastreams for data/process validation through business rules  Opportunities for reengineering receipt, referral, and the research plan

2. Commons Version 2.0 Implementation Schedule Jan Jul Dec Jan Jul Dec Jan Jul Dec Commons Version 2 Phase 1 Infrastructure Phase 2 Phase 3 SNAP Progress Report * * Includes business process reengineering and design Legend: Analysis*DevelopmentDeployment StartContinuing BPR only200120022003 Competing Application (R01) CGAP (XML Datastream) Status V 2.0 E-SNAP X-Train V 2.0 Profiles X-Train 2.0 Status V1.0 Admin Module 1.5 BPR only In RUP Elaboration Phase: See Scope Document

3. 3 Status on X-Train V1.5 Deployment 12 Grantee Organizations Participating BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DUKE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE & DENTISTRY OF NJ NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR, GALVESTON PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SW MED CTR, DALLAS DARTMOUTH COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON 35 trainee appointments processed since October 1, 2001 Proceed to Production Deployment of V 1.5 by May 2002 Issues/Feedback Delegation – Alter “AA” Role to allow X-Train data entry and submission: interim until Commons V 2.0 Include notification/warning prior to submission to minimize unauthorized submissions Other avenues for feedback?

4. 4 Other Commons V 2.0 Functionality Status V 1.0 Summary Statements in PDF – February 2002 Complete NIH Staff contact information – February 2002 New Role/Rights Model Feedback to be requested soon… Commons GUI Standards Final Standards Document due in February V 2.0 User Interface Survey now in your hands… Need feedback by February 1, 2002 SBIR Initiative Funding committed by NIH ICs to meet scope RFA nearing completion, proposed publication by end of January

5. 5 Other Commons V 2.0 Functionality…2 Standardized institutional hierarchy Incorporated into SNAP V 2.0 scope Incorporated into Admin V 2.0 scope Single Point of Ownership for PPF and IPF Registration for everyone Creation of profiles for all P.I.’s Allow for synchronization of paper and electronic submissions with drastic improvement of data quality Propose implementation commensurate with deployment of Commons V 2.0 (May-June, 2002)

6. 6 Planning the Close Out/FSR Module Scope of Module Close out = FSR, Final Invention Report, Final Progress Report FSR = Stand alone interface Security authentication via Commons account/role. EIN to be retained as data element of each FSR. FSR User Requirements Interface to be interactive Data entry/queries for reports on grant-by-grant basis Requirement for datastream version? System to include Work-in-Progress feature 90 days prior to budget end date proposed Will users actually start a WIP before the budget end date?

7. 7 Planning the Close Out/FSR Module…2 FSR User Requirements…cont. Data access requirements Who at the grantee institution should be able to view submitted data? PI? Only authorized submitter? Requirement for others to view particular data items; e.g., carryover balance or reported program income? Reporting requirements FSRs pending (due within 90 days)/due/overdue Historical reports # of reports submitted on time, late, revised Others?

8. 8 Reengineering the Competitive Application Streamlining data requirements Advantages offered by implementation of profiles Advantages offered by recategorizing of information Opportunities to question need for information Streamlining business process Receipt, referral, review Just-in-time submissions Application schedule and content Solicitation of CWG to formalize recommendations and seek consensus Yep…one of those wonderful Excel workbooks Discussion to follow at next CWG meeting

9. 9 NIH ~47,000 applications/year n Receipt – paper handling/tracking n Referral – sorting and assignment according to discipline n Review – objective assessment of merit n Council – further evaluation & funding considerations n Award – postaward administration Applicant The Competitive Application Process: Plain and Complex… n Receipt – paper handling/tracking n Referral – sorting and assignment according to discipline n Review – objective assessment of merit n Council – further evaluation & funding considerations n Award – postaward administration

10. 10 Application Receipt The current paper world… Date stamp Accession number Open and count letters Separate bulky appendices Identify RFAs, other applications for special handling The electronic datastream submission… Embedded business rules to automate Date stamp Accession number Special handling considerations Letters/instructions included in datastream Potential for links to appendices

11. 11 Project Control - Unit 1 & Referral Data and process validation afforded by datastream submission… Form page data validated by NIH Commons system page 1, budget, Checklist, Personal Data page Special handling requests acknowledged as part of datastream receipt ARAs (Awaiting Receipt of Application) Eligibility controlled by datastream business rules Budget limits, modular grant/budget formats A2/2 year limit, Virtual A3s Other issues also controlled by datastream business rules and/or IMPAC II software Duplicates, New vs. revised vs. supplements Text format, page limits Variation in paper form version Need to print PI application history Changes in policy

12. 12 Critical Participation by NIH Staff and Grantees post-datastream Critical assessment/decisions by NIH Staff Determine if NIH or other agency application CSR or IC review Assignment Study Section Value-added by face-to-face discussion of applications Error Resolution Interaction between NIH Staff and P.I. or Institutional Administrators Assignment changes Errors of omission in research plan, letters of reference, etc. Deadline issues Application outside scope of NIH funding

13. 13 Potential for Reengineering the Application Process Potential Issues Adjustment of receipt dates Self-referral, electronic referral Potential to shorten cycle Electronic review Mixed electronic/study sections (à la NIAID contracts) Portal technology to “push” information, allow for faster turn-around Just-in-time information opportunities Human/animal assurances, other support Others?

14. 14 Potential for Reengineering the Research Plan Potential Issues Page limits Appendices Just-in-time vs. embedded links Rich Text PDF and other file formats (Word) XML Literature cited Links Text format size, font color considerations, viewing/printing Others?

15. 15 Creation of PPF and IPF Electronic transactions IMPAC II Commons NIH Receipt Paper application (with profile info.) If no match… for IPF, set to “-1”…  for PPF, create new profile in IMPAC II…  Single Point of Ownership: Improving Data Quality while streamlining application processing Query IMPAC II for IPF and Profile Preregistration for both paper and electronic transactions If no match… for IPF, set to “-1”…  for PPF, create new profile in IMPAC II…  If no match… for IPF, set to “-1”…  for PPF, create new profile in IMPAC II… 