University of Delaware      Grants/Projects Module, Grants Subgroup Team Meeting Minutes    08/13/02

 

Grants Subgroup Team Members:

Becky Boutz:  OVPR (Team Leader)                                                   Van Adams:  IT/MIS      (Non-working member)

Chris Cook: Engineering                                                                                           Carol Rylee: Budget Office  (Non-working member)

Gerri Hobbs: OVPR

Jay Kelso: IT/MIS

Barb MacKenzie: OVPR

Dave McCarren: Marine Studies

Rachel Strickland: OVPR

  

Status of Tasks Assigned:

Pending Tasks Assigned

Status

Panel Assignments (Grants)

100% Complete

Document UD/GMS Table and Field Names

95% Complete

Document Panels & Fields for Review

100% Complete

Grants Module Set up

100% Complete

Mapping UD data into P.S. Grants Module

100% Complete

Interfaces(from/to/internal/external) (Grants)

Not assigned yet

Table Prioritization: Significant Tables to PeopleSoft App. And Significant Tables to UOD business processes

100% Complete

 

Update from Exec. Team + Team Leaders Meeting: None

Update of Facilities Sub-Team by Carol Rylee: None

 

Update from Billing Team- Rachel Strickland: None

Update from Communications and Training Team- Chris Cook and Dave McCarren:

Meetings were held with Focus groups and much was learned about how people are using data currently.

 

Ongoing Assignments to keep notebook of Special Concerns/Issues:

Billing:  Rachel Strickland

Departmental Issues: Chris Cook and Dave McCarren (individually)

OVPR/Proposals Issues: Gerri Hobbs

OVPR/Award Issues: Barb MacKenzie

Grants/Projects Interfaces: Becky Boutz

 

Update from Data Migration SubTeam:  Gerri Hobbs, Barb MacKenzie, Jay Kelso, Becky Boutz
Sub Team met for the first time.  The objectives of the Sub Team were discussed: legacy data cleanup for accuracy and consistency, preparation of data for migration to P.S., identification of programming requirements to filter legacy data during migration, identification of data feeds needed from other P.S. modules (H.R.) as an example- which will need to be developed, negotiation with Department when they wish to migrate data which they have kept locally into P.S. (requested by Chris Cook). 

The current plan is to focus cleanup on MVS tables- for consistency.  Jay Kelso got elevated MVS permissions for Gerri, Barb and Susan Tompkins to cleanup the Sponsors table.  The plan is to eliminate/delete approximately 800 sponsors, which haven’t been utilized in over 6 years. After the 800 have been deleted, Jay will create a parallel Sponsors table in MVS with the Sponsor field having a length of 40 characters (new P.S. length) instead of the 25 currently in MVS.  Where feasible, Jay will write a program which in order to get consistency, will search and replace the inconsistent spellings- such as Natl., Nat., and National to the consistent spelling.

 

Discussion of Grants Version 8.4:  The contracts module was still not working- but Van Adams has submitted a trouble-ticket to P.S. for correction.  The Team went through screens (in read-only fashion) and noted that most of the screens/pages are functionally the same.  The team feels that navigation between pages has improved in this version.  Perhaps that opinion will change when we begin to add records- and experience more pages.  A peculiar bug was noted (and reported to Van) that when navigating between Tabs on a page- if the Tab chosen has no data on it- the program throws the person back into a search screen, instead of just displaying the page with blank data. (However- this is inconsistent across computers- some do not do that).

 

Formation of Security Sub Team: Rachel Strickland, Chris Cook, Dave McCarren, Van Adams, Becky Boutz
The Sub Team was formed and will begin meeting separately over the next month. The objective of the Team is: Learn about the security options in each module (Grants, Projects and Contracts- has 4 different options!). With a written document, make a security scheme recommendation for each module with the reasons why.  Explain how each alternative scheme would have worked- and explain why that was not chosen.  When the contractors are here- discuss our recommendations and obtain the contractor’s input.