eRA: Consensus Proposed Changes to SNAP Business Process

Consensus Proposed Changes to SNAP Business Process

On May 16, 2001 the Commons Working Group met with members of the NIH eRA Project Management Team to share ideas for how best to re-engineer the SNAP Business Process, with a focus on the E-SNAP application in the NIH Commons. Those recommendations were used to solicit comments/feedback from discussions within pertinent NIH functional groups. Discussions have been held with e-PUG (a Program Official User Group), POPOF, GMAC and the NIH Human Subjects Policy Liaison Committee.

The matrix below reflects the NIH recommendations to modify certain components of the SNAP business process. Some modifications are recommended as immediate changes to both the paper and electronic SNAP process. However, a number of changes are recommended just in the E-SNAP. In some cases, E-SNAP will be used as a pilot vehicle to test the changes. In other cases, the difference is intentional so that there is some incentive for grantees to use the electronic system. Eventually some of the recommendations may be incorporated into all progress reports, SNAP and non-SNAP.

The EPMC fully endorsed these recommendations at their July 18, 2001 meeting.

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
Progress Report (PR) Narrative	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.
	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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.

Other Issues	Current Process (SNAP)	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.