NIH Electronic Research Administration:
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

NIH Electronic Research Administration: Steering Committee Meeting February 15, 2001 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

NIH Electronic Research Administration: Steering Committee Meeting February 15, 2001. Today. Announcements New Plans for the Commons Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project Where are we: Money Space Contractors IV&V Implementing Business Plans Other Issues.

Download Presentation

NIH Electronic Research Administration: Steering Committee Meeting February 15, 2001

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Nih electronic research administration steering committee meeting february 15 2001

NIH Electronic Research Administration:

Steering Committee Meeting

February 15, 2001


Today

Today

  • Announcements

  • New Plans for the Commons

  • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project

  • Where are we:

    • Money

    • Space

    • Contractors

    • IV&V

    • Implementing Business Plans

  • Other Issues


Example timeline you can add features into microsoft project

Example Timeline (you can add features into Microsoft Project)

  • January

    • Kick-off Commons Advisory Group

      • Decisions on Current Interface

      • Formation of Two Subgroups

  • February – April

    • Work with communities to:

      • Define enhancements to current screens for the administrative portions of the commons

      • Identify potential BPR for the application processes

  • March

    • Decide on the new architecture for the commons

  • May

    • Decide on primary changes to the screens for administrative modules

    • Discuss and prioritize BPR initiatives identified and determine next steps


Commons functional group

Commons Functional Group

  • 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)


Cfg recommendations current commons interface

CFG RecommendationsCurrent Commons Interface:

  • Maintain production systems

    • I-edison - ~290 organizations

      • Life-cycle redesign of the commons

    • CRISP - ~30,000 queries a week

      • Improve data quality

  • Keep other existing interfaces

    • No enhancements or modifications

    • Stop the e-snap pilot

    • Focus on refining the requirements and redesign with new technology


Rebuild technology choice experienced or new

Registration

Accounts Administration

Status – Application or Award

Profiles

Institutional

Individual

X-Train

E-SNAP

Noncompeteing applications

Competing Application

R01

Fellowships

Career

Complex Mechanisms

Federal Commons

Rebuild TechnologyChoice - Experienced or New


Cfg recommends two functional implementation teams

CFG Recommends Two: Functional Implementation Teams

  • Improve upon the functionality in the existing NIH Commons interface so that it can be added in to the new underlying technology. 

  • E-grants subgroup will re-engineer the business process for non-competing and competing grant applications in FY 2001-2002 and explore related application technology options and interfaces.


Relative position of the nih commons requirements

Relative Position of the NIH COMMONS Requirements

Competing Applications:

R01, SBIR, F32, R13

Architecture

Infrastructure

SNAP

Non-competing

Complex

Competing

Applications:

T32-P01-U19

I-edison

Admin

Modules

X-Train

Level of importance

Level of importance

Wireless

International

increasing complexity and convergence requirements

increasing complexity and convergence requirements


A viable technical solution must be

A Viable Technical Solution Must Be:

  • Open standards-based with wide support in industry

  • Vendor neutral

  • Adaptable to rapid changes in policy and business processes

  • Interact with different access media

  • Portable across multiple hardware and operating systems

  • Low in maintenance/operational cost

  • Have a wide deployment base in industry (maturity)

  • Able to enable large scale reuse thus shortening “time to market”


Web forms current 2 tier structure

Forms execute here!

PL/SQL

Forms Cartridge

J-Initiator

Web

Browser

Application Server

Web FormsCurrent 2 Tier Structure

  • Transaction manager

  • Stored Procedures

    • API’s

Relational Database


Objects new 3 tier structure

Middle Tier

Web

Browser

Web Server

ObjectsNew 3 Tier Structure

  • Transaction manager

  • Presentation Manager

  • Session Manager

  • Server Administration

  • Messaging Server

  • Java Server Engine

  • Object oriented business objects

Relational Database

Application Tier


Nih era deployment 2001 2002

CY2001

CY2002

CY2003

NIH ERA Deployment: 2001-2002

CFG Recommendations

Money Comes to the Project

Decide Architecture for the Web

Deploy X-Train – V1.5

Deploy Commons – V2

Commons Registration

Accounts Administration

Application/Award Status

Institutional & Professional Profiles

Deploy X-Train V2

Re-engineer

E-SNAP

Non-competing complex

R01, F32, SBIR

Pilot Competing Applications


Today1

Today

  • Announcements

  • New Plans for the Commons

  • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project

    • Examples of what was provided last year

    • Quick review of the level of detail that will be made available to you

    • Your input as to what level to put on the

      • Web

      • Specialized reports for you


What was provided last year

What was Provided Last Year

  • Budget

    • Project according to the cost model

    • Organizational

      • CIT, OER

  • FTE’s

    • Which system they are supporting

    • Plans for change management to migrate to IMPAC II or the Commons

  • Contractor

    • TYC, Mitre Tek, Logicon/ROW

  • Project Status Reports


Cost model adapted last year

Cost Model Adapted Last Year

Applications & Business Area

Applications, Software Infrastructure

& Database Design

Project Management

Operations & Misc

COTS, HW, & CIT


Details of the cost model

Details of the Cost Model


What is application development

RAE

Report./ Analysis/Eval.

Common

Applications

SITS

CMS Bridges

Conversion Mgt. System

GM / GPM

Committee Mgt.

ICO / IC Operations

Peer Review

Trainee Appt.

CRISP +

Receipt & Referral

Information Mgmt.

External Interfaces

QuickView

PowerView

TechView

GUM

People

Misc.

Requirements

Design

Development

Documentation and Training

Testing

Maintenance and Fixes

Independent Validation & Verification (IV&V)

What is Application Development ?


Nih electronic research administration steering committee meeting february 15 2001

IMPAC II Costs

Dollars in millions

In FY 2000:How Was the $13.826 Million Spent

Commons Cost

Contract Costs

IC Taps

CIT Costs

Management Fund

OER Costs


Cit costs hardware service support

Commons Cost

IMPAC II Costs

Dollars in millions

CIT Costs = Hardware / Service / Support

  • $ 1.942 for IMPAC I

    • Wylbur charges

  • $ 0.139 for IMPAC II

    • Floor space for servers

    • Connectivity to NIH Backbone

  • $ 1.050 for Commons

    • Maintenance and operations of the 1 machine server needed for three commons modules

CIT Costs


Turn to your notebooks

Turn to Your Notebooks


Today2

Today

  • Announcements

  • New Plans for the Commons

  • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project

    • Examples of what was provided last year

    • Quick review of the level of detail that will be made available to you

    • Your input as to what level to put on the

      • Web

      • Specialized reports for you


To help start the discussion

To help start the discussion:

  • Community Satisfaction with input-process-design-user friendliness, functionality

  • NIH staff responding to the implementation teams

  • Project Team

    • Monitoring Cost, Project, Scope Creep

  • Are recruitment-staffing-training goals being achieved

  • Group Advocates

    • Ability to maintain commitment

      • Delegations to Team Leaders

      • Formation of Functional Implementation Teams

      • Teams ability to define requirements

  • OER/Contractor

    • Ability to adhere to timelines within 20% of schedule and 10% of cost once the requirements defined (CDR sign off by Group Advocate)


Today3

Today

  • Announcements

  • New Plans for the Commons

  • Identifying the Level You Want to Monitor the Project

  • Where are we:

    • Money

    • Space

    • Contractors

    • IV&V

    • Implementing Business Plans

  • Other Issues


  • Login