NIH Commons Working Group Meeting
January 11, 2001
Beckman Center - Irvine, CA

Attachments available below the minutes.

Members Present: Tolliver McKinney (St. Jude's), Lynette Arias (OHSU), Jill Keezer (Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center), Jeff Cheek (U. California), David Wright (UT Galveston), Bob Oster (OHSU), Ellen Beck (UCLA), Mareda Weiss (U. Wisconsin, Madison), Pamela Webb (Northwestern), Jim Randolph (U. Michigan), Tom Wilson (Baylor), Denise Clark (Cornell), Stephen Dowdy (MIT), Nancy Wray (Dartmouth), Kenneth Forstmeier (Penn. St.), John McGowan (NIH), George Stone (NIH)

Others Present: Diane Watson (NIH), Carol Tippery (NIH), Greg Millman (NIH), Michael LeBlanc (Fred Hutch), Lawrie Robertson (Fred Hutch), Paul Markovitz (NIH), Jerry Stuck (NSF), Bob Reifsnider (Microtechnologies Plus/NIH), Tim Twomey (NIH)

This represents the first meeting of the NIH Commons Working Group. The meeting was held in conjunction with the FDP meeting that was also being held at the Beckman Center on January 10-11, 2001.

1. George Stone began the meeting by welcoming Working Group members and thanking them for their formal expression of interest that lead to their selection. George reiterated the fact that the Working Group meetings were open and that formal members should see their role as representatives of the broad extramural grants community. The Working Group should be considered as a focused conduit to conduct business process requirements assessments and gathering, help establish eRA priorities, participate in outreach efforts, and assist with NIH eRA testing and deployment activities. NIH Staff in attendance were introduced. All present then introduced themselves and stated their affiliation.

2. Dr. John McGowan recapped the events at the NIH over the last 9 months that have led to the formation of the Working Group. A copy of his PowerPoint slides is attached to these minutes. His presentation included reference to NIH eRA objectives and differences in the eRA project organization and management strategy that have taken place recently. He spoke of how priorities for eRA have been determined including input received from the extramural community, how the priorities have been formalized through the development of "eRA Requirement Business Plans", and how these recommendations have been carried forward to the eRA Steering Committee and NIH Board of Governors for approval. He indicated that while a final approval for expansion of the eRA project funding has not yet been obtained, all indications are positive.

In anticipation of pending approval, Dr. McGowan sought to engage the Working Group to assist the NIH in next steps for eRA implementation. Such activities fall into two categories: further implementation of the FY2001 priorities, and establishment of plans for FY2002. FY01 funds will be used to support two purposes: maintenance of existing NIH Commons interfaces, and a redesign of the overall system architecture for eRA. This redesign will result in the introduction of state-of-the-art database and software applications technology in place of the 1996-based technology in the current system.

A role for the Working Group in this shorter-term endeavor will be to provide feedback as to the adequacy of the existing Commons interfaces. Dr. McGowan indicated that of the existing interfaces, Organization Registration and Accounts Administration (the Admin interface), and the Status interface will be retained. No enhancement or major modifications will be made to these interfaces. Instead, they will be reviewed and improved only to ensure that the current functionality is working as designed. The e-SNAP pilot is being used only by two institutions on any regular basis. In light of this, an analysis is underway to determine the extent to which this pilot should be retained. Conversations with the two active e-SNAP institutions suggest that termination of the e-SNAP pilot would be acceptable.

Based on input received as part of the Commons review that took place in April, 2000, a decision regarding the implementation of X-Train, the trainee appointment interface, must also be considered. X-Train is an all but completed part of the eRA system, and when implemented would represent a module that will allow for end-to-end processing of information: from submission by grantees via the Commons through NIH staff processing via IMPAC II interfaces. A pilot version of X-Train, the electronic form 2271 interface, has been available since 1996 as an end-to-end electronic process. It is currently being used by 12 institutions, as well as NIH institutes. Analysis is underway to determine how this functionality can be implemented more fully in the current eRA system.

The longer-term effort for the Working Group would be to consider priorities for FY2002. The most prominent issue is what respective effort should be applied to the design of competitive applications versus non-competing applications (Type 5 progress reports). The Working Group would be asked to evaluate not only how the respective business processes would be conducted in the eRA system, but to examine and consider how the basic business processes might be re-engineered prior to software design, development, testing and deployment. This will necessitate coordination between grants policy, grants administrators, and technology experts from grantee institutions as well as NIH.

Dr. McGowan completed his presentation describing new outreach activities that have been initiated as part of the new eRA project structure. A new eRA website ( http://era.nih.gov ) is under construction, and will include content that relates to the activities of the Working Group. As part of the discussion of outreach, Dr. McGowan inquired what role the Working Group felt it should play. Particular reference was made to the means by which the Working Group would ensure formal interactions with representative professional societies and organizations: FDP, COGR, NCURA, and SRA. The Working Group concurred that it must be a non-partisan Group, broadly soliciting information from and disseminating information to all of the cognizant professional societies and organizations.

3. As a segue from his presentation to an open discussion, John McGowan turned the meeting over to George. George began by describing several handouts that had been provided. In support of Dr. McGowan's presentation all who attended the meeting received:

· a copy of the agenda,
· two versions of the Working Group roster,
· a copy of Dr. McGowan's PowerPoint slides,
· a copy of the "Report of the Peer Review of the NIH Commons
April 10, 2000",
· a spreadsheet of the eRA Project Priorities for FY2001 including
recommendations for funding from both the eRA Steering Committee and NIH BOG,
· copies of the ERA Requirement Business Plans for 4 Commons
related priorities, and
· a graphic representation of the new eRA web site.

A copy of each of these documents is attached to these minutes. George reiterated the need for the Working Group to focus on making recommendations for FY01 priorities, and as a second area to consider the FY02 priorities. He asked that as an outcome of the meeting the Working Group develop an action item(s) to address the need for feedback in these two areas.

Discussion of longer-term eRA priorities: Development of competing versus non-competing eRA interfaces The discussion began with longer-term priorities: whether it would be in the best interest of the extramural community to have NIH re-visit the further implementation of the non-competing award interfaces, or devote resources to the further development and introduction of the competing applications.

In relation to the scope of work and approach that NIH might consider for competing applications, one suggestion was that the NIH might want to adopt the NSF FastLane system as a means to more rapidly deploy software for competing applications. It was acknowledged by both NIH and NSF staff that obvious differences in underlying policy would likely make modification of the current version of FastLane software difficult, if not impossible to adapt. Instead, it was acknowledged that both NIH and NSF are working together to derive a common presence on the Federal Commons that will allow for the submission to either agency of a competitive application using interactive web technology. The object-oriented database technology that is being used for Federal Commons development will allow for such a common interface that supports distinct sets of business rules attributable to the different funding agencies. The limitation of this approach as a means to allowing for NIH grantees to submit competitive applications is that it will still take several years for this software to be developed.

Notwithstanding this limitation, the Working Group agreed that the NIH Commons should continue development in a way that is completely complementary to what is being designed for the Federal Commons. Only by doing so will the NIH be able to meet the mandate in P.L. 106-107, as well as provide their grantee organizations with a plan that they can use as they further develop their respective eRA systems.

By contrast to the extended period that it will take to deploy competitive grant application software, much work has already been done with e-SNAP. When asked whether the NIH should devote additional resources to re-doing e-SNAP in preference to working immediately on the competing applications, the Working Group acknowledged that much could be gained if the non-competing application could be fully implemented to support end-to-end electronic processing. This continues to be an objective stated by the NIH. However, what with the need to re-evaluate the technology that should be used to support the eRA interfaces in general, it does not necessarily make sense to devote resources to expanding e-SNAP 'as is'. In light of this the Working Group recommended that non-competing applications be revisited - however, starting with an evaluation of the business process. In this way opportunities could be taken to consider re-engineering of the business process before software was developed. This preference is in keeping with the recent proposal made by the NCI to allow for submission of SNAP applications without the need for institutional approval. The Working Group agreed to play a role in furtherance of these types of proposed changes in policy that could lead to streamlined eRA solutions.

When asked to recommend priorities for development of competing versus non-competing applications, it was agreed that the non-competing applications: business process re-engineering followed by eRA interface development should occur prior to the competing applications.

Discussion of shorter-term eRA priorities: Maintenance and operations of existing NIH Commons interfaces and review of interface functionality The need for the Working Group to provide feedback regarding existing interfaces was discussed. It was agreed that this effort should involve both a review of the functionality associated especially with the Commons Admin and Status interfaces. It was resolved that effort in the area of e-SNAP should be deferred, given the decision to work toward re-engineering of the non-competing application process.

Action Item: Proposed creation of subgroups to address shorter- and longer-term priorities A proposal was put forward for the Working Group to establish two subgroups to address respectively shorter- and longer-term priorities.

· One subgroup, devoted to longer-term priorities would focus on grant applications: first on the re-engineering of the non-competing business process and related applications, followed by input on the competing application business process and related application technology options and interfaces.

· The second subgroup, devoted to shorter-term priorities, would focus on existing NIH Commons interface functionality. Their charge would be to review the Admin and Status interfaces to make recommendations for improved functionality.

All agreed that such subgroups should be established.

Toward this proposal, a straw vote was taken to ensure that there would be sufficient interest on the part of Working Group such that adequate numbers of individuals would serve on either or both of the subgroups. George agreed to develop an e-mail that would solicit from the Working Group for volunteers for each of the subgroups. Included in the solicitation would be an expression of any willingness for individuals to be willing to serve as leaders of the respective subgroups. George agreed to try to have the e-mail distributed within several days.

4. A further recommendation was made that the Working Group establish a listserv to support Group activities and communication. George Stone and Tim Twomey indicated that NIH would set up such a listserv. The listserv will initially be limited to members of the Working Group.

5. George noted that in order to keep the general extramural community apprised of the Working Group's activities, minutes and summaries of the Group's efforts would be made available on the NIH eRA web site.

6. The Working Group decided to defer selection of a Working Group Chair.

7. John McGowan and George Stone closed the meeting by thanking the assembled group for their time and efforts. The next meeting of the Working Group has yet to be determined. John McGowan did mention the possibility of Group members being reimbursed to travel to Washington in the March/April timeframe. The general scope of such a meeting would likely be further recommendations for the FY2002 budget.

Attachments