Welcome to the Applicant System to System Interface Pilot Workshop

1
Welcome to the Applicant System to System
Interface Pilot Workshop

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• University of Minnesota
• University of Texas (Austin)
• University of Texas (Southwestern Medical Center)
• State of Maryland
• Cayuse Software
• ERA Software Systems

2
Origins of the AS2S project

• Encouraged by Federal Demonstration Project.
• Applicant S2S Workshop, March 2004
• Solicit requirements input from the Grant
  Community
• Determine the feasibility of the S2S interface
• Discuss the readiness of the Grant Community

3
Defining the scope--Applicant workshop
findings/recommendations

• Applicant S2S Interface is doable and there is
  high interest in the Applicant Organization
  community.
• Applicant Organization systems are adaptable.
  The large investments involved can be justified
  by
• Targeting schemas with highest expected usage
  (RR).
• Agency willingness to limit collection of
  agency-specific data.
• Establishing data set/forms change management
  processes to schedule changes predictably.

4
Defining the scope...identified interface
requirements

• Adequate Security
• Use of technical industry standards
• Stressed the importance of limiting the
  collection of varying agency specific data
• Standardize and freeze data submission
  requirements
• RR Data Set
• Schema Management
• Adequate System Capacity

5
What is the project expected to accomplish?

• Allow Applicant Organizations to submit
  electronic applications via an XML file rather
  than PureEdge.
• Eliminate the need to re-enter data into the
  Applicant Organizations back-office grant
  system.
• Support better integration with the Applicant
  Organizations grants management systems.
• Decentralize user verification requirements.
• Promote usage of the RR forms set.

6
What is the focus of todays workshop?

• Introduce project staff and pilot participants.
• Assure that participants are ready for Phase II
  of the pilot.
• Identify scope and actions to be taken in Phase
  II.
• Discuss Grants.govs understanding of how AS2S
  will impact on our and on Agency actions.
• Share MITs insights from its pilot
  participation.
• Obtain a better understanding of the potential
  scale of utilization to factor into capacity
  planning efforts.
• Plan for the March workshop.

7
Status of the development effort

• Applicant S2S Specification Document developed
• Applicant Reference Implementation developed
• Preliminary Conceptual Confirmation with MIT
• Testing of Phase I web services by MIT COEUS
  group completed December 2004.

8
Project status (continued)

• Pilot project expansion January 2005
• InFlow Suite development in late testing.
• Pilot workshop February 24.
• General user workshop March 31-April 1.
• Project roll out to begin in April.

9
Products completed

• Applicant Reference Implementation and
  Installation Guide.
• Applicant Web Services Integration.
• Applicant Web Services Security.
• Applicant Services Integration Test Plan.
• Web Services Definition Language (WSDL).
• Opportunity Schema.

10
Implications for Grants.gov

• Applicant System to System Interface
  out-sources some activities currently performed
  by Grants.gov
• Validation of AOR.
• Editing now done in PureEdge forms.
• Submission of XML file.
• To leverage investments, Applicant Organizations
  need stable, streamlined, consolidated data
  sets/forms from Agencies.
• New data sets/forms require a systems change for
  the Applicant Organization to continue to use the
  Applicant System to System interface.
• Agencies need to accelerate usage of the RR
  forms set.
• Exploring the roles of State Grants Offices.

11
Change Management

• Mary Rexford
• February 24, 2005

12
Change Management Goal

• To provide a stable processing environment to
  enable Grants.gov, agencies and applicant
  organizations to promote usage and to make
  effective IT investments.
• Workshop discussion
• Managing the change approval process
• Managing the deployment of change
• With the emphasis on communication
• What do you need to know and when?
• What is the channel and format of communication?

13
Manage Change Approval

• Current
• Internal Control Board (ICB) in place to review
  and approve changes to Grants.gov software
• Change requests are operational and developmental
  in nature
• Underway
• User groups to provide a mechanism for agency
  and applicant input into the change process
• Change requests related to enhancing and
  expanding system capabilities
• Responsibilities to include review and
  prioritization of change requests

14
Manage Change Deployment

• With the deployment of Grants.gov APPLY October
  2003, made the following commitments
• Not to change the Discretionary SF-424 form or
  the global schema for at least a year
• To revisit the SF-424 D after a year of use for
  the purpose of improving usability, and to revise
  the global schema, if necessary
• Schema and form changes have been identified.
• Revised SF-424 D (version 2) to be deployed
  October 2005.
• Revised schema to be released simultaneously with
  3-6 timeframe envisioned to update
  agency/applicant systems
• No further changes anticipated for this form for
  at least three years.

15
Manage Change Deployment

• Will follow this same pilot process for three
  additional government-wide forms
• Deploy new government-wide form with same
  commitments
• Revisit form after a year of usage make changes
  as appropriate, which may include schema changes
  obtain clearance for additional three years
• Anticipate global schema will be static once we
  complete the form pilot periods.

16
Manage Change Deployment

• Developing the strategy for deploying schema and
  form revision changes
• Change related technical issues include
• Co-existence of Version 1 and Version 2 forms and
  schemas until all version 1 forms are processed
  out of the system.
• Changes to the global schema now are implemented
  by creating new data types with V2 in the data
  type name allowing existing forms to continue
  with the current definitions and all new forms to
  use the V2 definition.
• Change related communication issues include
• Need to communicate changes to the agencies and
  applicants as soon as possible to allow time for
  business process and system updates
• How much lead time do you need?
• How do you want to receive this type of
  information?

17
Open discussion...

• Capacity planning and workshop preparation.

18
Capacity planning factors to consider

• To date, Apply has received over 400 packages and
  more than 1,600 electronic applications.
• Usage is accelerating due to greater Agency
  acceptance however, some key agencies are late
  adopters. Many of these will be heavy users of
  the RR form set.
• OMB will require Agencies to post the higher of
  25 of all packages in Find or all packages using
  the basic SF 424. That target will be raised in
  future fiscal years.
• Grants.govs target for electronic applications
  received is 15-16,000 by June 30, 2005. The
  total application pool may be as high as
  250-300,000 per year.

19
Capacity planning some questions to ponder

• How many Applicant Organizations will likely be
  using the Applicant System to System Interface?
• Are there any early guesstimates of the number
  of annual electronic submissions? Estimated
  average file sizes?
• What are your current volumes with agencies such
  as NSF and NIH?
• Will Applicant Organizations batch submissions?
• Should transmission scheduling be considered?
• A SWAG will do.

20
Planning for the March 31-April 1 workshop at AIA

• Currently our Contact List is focused on FDP
  participants. How can we expand participation?
  (Total capacity at AIA is a little over 100.)
• Day 1 will be for presentations in auditorium
  setting. We expect a mix of policy and technical
  issues.
• Day 2 will use two breakout rooms. We could
  offer a mix of technical themed workshops and
  scheduled meetings with technical staff on a sign
  up basis.
• What topics would be most useful?
• How would pilot participants best be able to
  share experiences and expertise?