1 / 16

Collaborative Management Environment: R&D Tracking and Electronic Proposal Submission

This project aims to merge R&D tracking and electronic proposal submission systems, allowing for collaborative management of data and streamlining the proposal process. The project has gone through three stages of evolution - prototype, pilot, and extended pilot - and has demonstrated successful management of financial data and gathering of FWP data from multiple labs. The project has received positive feedback and is poised for successful deployment. Estimated annual savings are projected to be $1 million.

shoemake
Download Presentation

Collaborative Management Environment: R&D Tracking and Electronic Proposal Submission

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collaborative Management Environment:Merging R&D Tracking and Electronic Proposal Submission R&D Council Meeting March 12, 1999 Dr. Thomas E. Potok

  2. Three Stages of Evolution • 1) Prototype: Data supplied, demonstrate financial management (Complete) (Late summer 96-6/97) • 2) Pilot: Data gathered from selected lab databases (Complete) (7/97-9/98) • 3) Extended Pilot: Data to be gathered from multiple labs (In progress) (10/98- on going)

  3. Prototype Demonstration • Based on hand formatted real data from ORNL and Ames • Demonstrated • To R&D Council • Searchable FWP description information • Comparison for requested, allocated, and cost information for one or a series of FWPs • Collaborated with Ames • If the data is available, then a robust management system over DOE is feasible

  4. CME Pilot Goals • Plan to develop a pilot based on FWP data from three labs • ORNL • LANL • FNL • Gathering lab data • Different formats • Very limited resources from the labs • Initial software commitment problems • Lab feedback • We want the capability of CME, however…they have “been burned before…” • We will be unable to provide data in needed format due to lack of resource.

  5. New Approach • Data model developed with LANL, FNL, ORNL, and OSTI • Reviewed by business systems experts as well as technical experts • Pioneered use of XML as a means of storing, querying, and presenting FWP information. • Simple distributed data storage technology • Very low costs to the labs, integration work done by CME team • Very well received article at XML’98 • Web access using commercial Infoseek’s spider

  6. Gathering Data from the Labs Original Lab FWP Lab HTML Format Infoseek HTML Registry Keyword and Schema Search Lab XML Formats CME Title PI LANL Common SQL Format Date Common XML Format ORNL

  7. Key Pilot Milestones • 1998 ORNL and LANL data in CME Pilot • Distributed information using XML • Low-cost participation by ORNL and LANL, (only 2 person-days from the lab is required!) • Lab information presented in lab FWP format • Capable of adding a new lab in 1 month or less • Very strong interest in CME, limit lab resources • Fermi participation delayed • Berkeley is very interested • PPPL will participate in the future

  8. Pilot Demo

  9. Keyword Search

  10. Another Keyword Search

  11. Extended Pilot Overview

  12. Extended Pilot Goals • Add three labs to the CME system • Strive for a wide representation over the DOE laboratory system • Add OSTI to the development team • Begin transition to production through training, and development of key database components • Begin merger of CME and R&D Tracking data models • Prototype CME and R&D Tracking interaction

  13. Pilot Findings • Not all labs have data in database format, • Full databases (ORNL, SNL) • Partial databases (LANL) • MS Word template (LBNL, PNNL, LANL) • Scanned images (PNNL) • General situation • First page of the FWP created from a word processing package by the PI, then printed. The source file is lost. • Financial data is manually entered into a financial database

  14. Extended Pilot participant labs • Currently we are working closely with: • ORNL • LANL • Sandia • PNNL • Have contacts with: LBNL, Fermi, PPPL, and, SLAC • These labs represent a broad range of differing formats, and approaches to FWPs • The lab representatives are very supportive of the extended pilot approach! • Major issue are business related rather than technical

  15. Summary of CME Background • Prototype demonstrated the management of financial data for two labs • Pilot demonstrated the gathering of FWP data from two labs • Extended Pilot to add three labs to the CME system • Supporting all lab FWP formats • Partnering with OSTI • Merging with R&D Tracking Database • Estimated annual savings to $1M • Poised for a successful deployment of CME

  16. R&D Council • Approval to proceed • Endorse lab collaboration (lab representatives) • Need representatives from each program to form a team to resolve the business issues, and help insure a successful implementation for next year’s unicall

More Related