306 Florida Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001 www.tcg.com | 202-986-5533 Perspectives on Federal Grants Management Systems David G. Cassidy, TCG | 202-742-8471 | david.cassidy@tcg.com April 2009 | PRISM Education Conference

Agenda Grants Management Line of Business Grants.gov Back-end Systems Custom Built Commercial Off-the-Shelf Components Questions? 06/09/09 TCG - Yes, it can be done!

Grants Management Line of Business

Grants.gov

Back-end Systems

Custom Built

Commercial Off-the-Shelf

Components

Questions?

Agencies must accommodate a broad portfolio of grant programs into consolidated solutions Improve transparency to public and management Consolidate grants business processes Minimize functional overlap and redundant data Consolidate on one grant application instrument Migrate from legacy systems; consolidate disparate systems Tighter integration with financial management systems Major Business Drivers

Agencies must accommodate a broad portfolio of grant programs into consolidated solutions

Improve transparency to public and management

Consolidate grants business processes

Minimize functional overlap and redundant data

Consolidate on one grant application instrument

Migrate from legacy systems; consolidate disparate systems

Tighter integration with financial management systems

Use enterprise class technologies Use structured development methodologies (e.g. Rational Unified Process) Promote sharing of functional components Grants management is an enterprise activity Leverage functionality for other enterprise activities, e.g. financial management Service-oriented architecture Align with the Federal Enterprise Architecture Major Technical Drivers

Use enterprise class technologies

Use structured development methodologies (e.g. Rational Unified Process)

Promote sharing of functional components

Grants management is an enterprise activity

Leverage functionality for other enterprise activities, e.g. financial management

Service-oriented architecture

Align with the Federal Enterprise Architecture

Recommended segmentation of grants line of business into cross-agency service centers (“Centers of Excellence”) “ No ‘silver bullet’ for an end-to-end business and/or technical solution for Grants management emerged” Suggested “Operating Model evolves modularity and commonality” “ Feasible, valuable, affords quick wins, and accommodates decentralized and evolving technological support” 10 year timeframe for the common solution Completely focused on ‘back office’ grants processing Grants Management Line of Business

Recommended segmentation of grants line of business into cross-agency service centers (“Centers of Excellence”)

“ No ‘silver bullet’ for an end-to-end business and/or technical solution for Grants management emerged”

Suggested “Operating Model evolves modularity and commonality”

“ Feasible, valuable, affords quick wins, and accommodates decentralized and evolving technological support”

10 year timeframe for the common solution

Completely focused on ‘back office’ grants processing

Three GMLOB COE’s were identified: National Science Foundation: Research.gov Partners: DOD, NASA, USDA CSREES HHS / Administration for Children & Families: GATES Partners: CNCS, DOT, EPA, IMLS, State, Treasury, VA Education: G5 Partners: Interior, DOJ/COPS Additional COE’s were expected but none announced Additional GMLOB groups were defined: Strategic Partnership Group : NEH, NARA, NEA Alternative Solutions Group : HHS/NIH, DOE, SBA, USAID All except NIH using Compusearch PRISM-Grants Agencies Yet to Align : DHS, DOC, DOJ/OJP & OVW, DOL, HUD, SSA, USDA Future of GMLOB in doubt Bush Administration initiative; has not demonstrated significant cost savings; facing significant antipathy and skepticism among agencies Grants Management Line of Business

Three GMLOB COE’s were identified:

National Science Foundation: Research.gov

Partners: DOD, NASA, USDA CSREES

HHS / Administration for Children & Families: GATES

Partners: CNCS, DOT, EPA, IMLS, State, Treasury, VA

Education: G5

Partners: Interior, DOJ/COPS

Additional COE’s were expected but none announced

Additional GMLOB groups were defined:

Strategic Partnership Group : NEH, NARA, NEA

Alternative Solutions Group : HHS/NIH, DOE, SBA, USAID

All except NIH using Compusearch PRISM-Grants

Agencies Yet to Align : DHS, DOC, DOJ/OJP & OVW, DOL, HUD, SSA, USDA

Future of GMLOB in doubt

Bush Administration initiative; has not demonstrated significant cost savings; facing significant antipathy and skepticism among agencies

A single portal for grant applications ‘ Find’ and ‘Apply’ functionality are well-established Functionality for grant review, award, reporting, and closeout was once planned but now seems unlikely in the short-to-medium term ‘ Round-robin’ funding model Economically advantageous for agencies take advantage of Grants.gov’s available functionality No distinct funding leaves system in financial limbo Desire to move to transaction fees / fee for service Most agencies are now integrated with Grants.gov Grants.gov

A single portal for grant applications

‘ Find’ and ‘Apply’ functionality are well-established

Functionality for grant review, award, reporting, and closeout was once planned but now seems unlikely in the short-to-medium term

‘ Round-robin’ funding model

Economically advantageous for agencies take advantage of Grants.gov’s available functionality

No distinct funding leaves system in financial limbo

Desire to move to transaction fees / fee for service

Most agencies are now integrated with Grants.gov

Issued RFI for ‘cloud computing’ Actual objective: Outsource the system Improve cost accounting and obtain per-transaction pricing for agencies Enable government staff to focus on requirements and not on technology management System has suffered poor performance, especially lately Consequence of current system architecture / business strategy OMB directed agencies to use alternatives to Grants.gov for Recovery Act funding, if possible Short-term measure to support system stability Agencies expected to routinely use Grants.gov for non-Recovery Act funding Agencies instructed to provide $12m in immediate funding to shore up Grants.gov and stabilize for the future Additional pilot projects planned to establish alternative architectures for “Grants.gov 2.0” Grants.gov 06/09/09 TCG - Yes, it can be done!

Issued RFI for ‘cloud computing’

Actual objective: Outsource the system

Improve cost accounting and obtain per-transaction pricing for agencies

Enable government staff to focus on requirements and not on technology management

System has suffered poor performance, especially lately

Consequence of current system architecture / business strategy

OMB directed agencies to use alternatives to Grants.gov for Recovery Act funding, if possible

Short-term measure to support system stability

Agencies expected to routinely use Grants.gov for non-Recovery Act funding

Agencies instructed to provide $12m in immediate funding to shore up Grants.gov and stabilize for the future

Additional pilot projects planned to establish alternative architectures for “Grants.gov 2.0”

Pros: Create your own world, in your own climate Translate your business process into electronic environment Opportunity to re-engineer processes with implementation Buyer owns the requirements definition/implementation process Cons: Reliance on your domain experts Business process may be fundamentally flawed Re-engineering costs could be higher than expected Higher cost of acquisition Increased buyer responsibility for project failure Ability for change can translate into tendency for compulsive, repetitive, or self-defeating change Difficult to justify in light of OMB’s GMLOB strategy Back-end Systems: Custom build

Pros:

Create your own world, in your own climate

Translate your business process into electronic environment

Opportunity to re-engineer processes with implementation

Buyer owns the requirements definition/implementation process

Cons:

Reliance on your domain experts

Business process may be fundamentally flawed

Re-engineering costs could be higher than expected

Higher cost of acquisition

Increased buyer responsibility for project failure

Ability for change can translate into tendency for compulsive, repetitive, or self-defeating change

Difficult to justify in light of OMB’s GMLOB strategy

Pros: Many COTS and GOTS solutions available Theoretically lower maintenance costs Theoretically lower implementation costs Offloads requirements definition to vendor / buying agency Benefit from “best practices” Cons: Packages have historically been either process definitive or agnostic Proprietary platforms create ties to one vendor for lifetime of product Low acquisition costs offset by high re-engineering costs All grants systems need customization Satisfying requirements becomes vendor or buying agency’s option, not yours Other’s “best practices” may not be your own Back-end Systems: Complete Solutions

Pros:

Many COTS and GOTS solutions available

Theoretically lower maintenance costs

Theoretically lower implementation costs

Offloads requirements definition to vendor / buying agency

Benefit from “best practices”

Cons:

Packages have historically been either process definitive or agnostic

Proprietary platforms create ties to one vendor for lifetime of product

Low acquisition costs offset by high re-engineering costs

All grants systems need customization

Satisfying requirements becomes vendor or buying agency’s option, not yours

Other’s “best practices” may not be your own

Pros: Addresses OMB’s GMLOB strategy recommendation – create commonality Acquire the best tool for a specific task Deployable across the enterprise Integrated to your own specifications for each line of business Lower acquisition costs; economies of scale over long-term Theoretically lower maintenance and implementation costs per functional area Benefit from vendor’s intellectual property for every functional area Cons: Packages are process-agnostic No immediate solution for any one line of business Tied to one vendor for lifetime of product Low acquisition costs may be offset by re-engineering costs Requires significant due diligence to ensure good fit Potentially tied to a vendor or buying agency Back-end Systems: Components

Pros:

Addresses OMB’s GMLOB strategy recommendation – create commonality

Acquire the best tool for a specific task

Deployable across the enterprise

Integrated to your own specifications for each line of business

Lower acquisition costs; economies of scale over long-term

Theoretically lower maintenance and implementation costs per functional area

Benefit from vendor’s intellectual property for every functional area

Cons:

Packages are process-agnostic

No immediate solution for any one line of business

Tied to one vendor for lifetime of product

Low acquisition costs may be offset by re-engineering costs

Requires significant due diligence to ensure good fit

Potentially tied to a vendor or buying agency

Questions & Answers