306 Florida Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001 www.tcg.com | 202-986-5533 Perspectives on Federal Grants Management Systems D...
Agenda <ul><li>Grants Management Line of Business </li></ul><ul><li>Grants.gov </li></ul><ul><li>Back-end Systems </li></u...
<ul><li>Agencies must accommodate a broad portfolio of grant programs into consolidated solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Improv...
<ul><li>Use enterprise class technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Use structured development methodologies (e.g. Rational Unifie...
<ul><li>Recommended segmentation of grants line of business into cross-agency service centers (“Centers of Excellence”) </...
<ul><li>Three GMLOB COE’s were identified: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Science Foundation:  Research.gov </li></ul></ul...
<ul><li>A single portal for grant applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Find’ and ‘Apply’ functionality are well-establishe...
<ul><li>Issued RFI for ‘cloud computing’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actual objective: Outsource the system </li></ul></ul><ul><...
<ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Create your own world, in your own climate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Translate your b...
<ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many COTS and GOTS solutions available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretically lower ...
<ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addresses OMB’s GMLOB strategy recommendation – create commonality </li></ul></ul><ul>...
Questions & Answers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Federal Grants Management Systems Landscape, April 30, 2009

2,044 views

Published on

An overview of the federal grants management landscape, as delivered by me at the Compusearch PRISM Educational Conference on April 30, 2009.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,044
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
87
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Federal Grants Management Systems Landscape, April 30, 2009

    1. 1. 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
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Grants Management Line of Business </li></ul><ul><li>Grants.gov </li></ul><ul><li>Back-end Systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Custom Built </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commercial Off-the-Shelf </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Components </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Questions? </li></ul>06/09/09 TCG - Yes, it can be done!
    3. 3. <ul><li>Agencies must accommodate a broad portfolio of grant programs into consolidated solutions </li></ul><ul><li>Improve transparency to public and management </li></ul><ul><li>Consolidate grants business processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimize functional overlap and redundant data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consolidate on one grant application instrument </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Migrate from legacy systems; consolidate disparate systems </li></ul><ul><li>Tighter integration with financial management systems </li></ul>Major Business Drivers
    4. 4. <ul><li>Use enterprise class technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Use structured development methodologies (e.g. Rational Unified Process) </li></ul><ul><li>Promote sharing of functional components </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grants management is an enterprise activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage functionality for other enterprise activities, e.g. financial management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Service-oriented architecture </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Align with the Federal Enterprise Architecture </li></ul>Major Technical Drivers
    5. 5. <ul><li>Recommended segmentation of grants line of business into cross-agency service centers (“Centers of Excellence”) </li></ul><ul><li>“ No ‘silver bullet’ for an end-to-end business and/or technical solution for Grants management emerged” </li></ul><ul><li>Suggested “Operating Model evolves modularity and commonality” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Feasible, valuable, affords quick wins, and accommodates decentralized and evolving technological support” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>10 year timeframe for the common solution </li></ul><ul><li>Completely focused on ‘back office’ grants processing </li></ul>Grants Management Line of Business
    6. 6. <ul><li>Three GMLOB COE’s were identified: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Science Foundation: Research.gov </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Partners: DOD, NASA, USDA CSREES </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HHS / Administration for Children & Families: GATES </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Partners: CNCS, DOT, EPA, IMLS, State, Treasury, VA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Education: G5 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Partners: Interior, DOJ/COPS </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Additional COE’s were expected but none announced </li></ul><ul><li>Additional GMLOB groups were defined: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic Partnership Group : NEH, NARA, NEA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative Solutions Group : HHS/NIH, DOE, SBA, USAID </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All except NIH using Compusearch PRISM-Grants </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agencies Yet to Align : DHS, DOC, DOJ/OJP & OVW, DOL, HUD, SSA, USDA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future of GMLOB in doubt </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bush Administration initiative; has not demonstrated significant cost savings; facing significant antipathy and skepticism among agencies </li></ul></ul>Grants Management Line of Business
    7. 7. <ul><li>A single portal for grant applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Find’ and ‘Apply’ functionality are well-established </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Functionality for grant review, award, reporting, and closeout was once planned but now seems unlikely in the short-to-medium term </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ Round-robin’ funding model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Economically advantageous for agencies take advantage of Grants.gov’s available functionality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No distinct funding leaves system in financial limbo </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Desire to move to transaction fees / fee for service </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most agencies are now integrated with Grants.gov </li></ul>Grants.gov
    8. 8. <ul><li>Issued RFI for ‘cloud computing’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Actual objective: Outsource the system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Improve cost accounting and obtain per-transaction pricing for agencies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Enable government staff to focus on requirements and not on technology management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>System has suffered poor performance, especially lately </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consequence of current system architecture / business strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OMB directed agencies to use alternatives to Grants.gov for Recovery Act funding, if possible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Short-term measure to support system stability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Agencies expected to routinely use Grants.gov for non-Recovery Act funding </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agencies instructed to provide $12m in immediate funding to shore up Grants.gov and stabilize for the future </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional pilot projects planned to establish alternative architectures for “Grants.gov 2.0” </li></ul></ul>Grants.gov 06/09/09 TCG - Yes, it can be done!
    9. 9. <ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Create your own world, in your own climate </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Translate your business process into electronic environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opportunity to re-engineer processes with implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buyer owns the requirements definition/implementation process </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reliance on your domain experts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business process may be fundamentally flawed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Re-engineering costs could be higher than expected </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher cost of acquisition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased buyer responsibility for project failure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability for change can translate into tendency for compulsive, repetitive, or self-defeating change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Difficult to justify in light of OMB’s GMLOB strategy </li></ul></ul>Back-end Systems: Custom build
    10. 10. <ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Many COTS and GOTS solutions available </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretically lower maintenance costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretically lower implementation costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offloads requirements definition to vendor / buying agency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit from “best practices” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Packages have historically been either process definitive or agnostic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proprietary platforms create ties to one vendor for lifetime of product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low acquisition costs offset by high re-engineering costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All grants systems need customization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Satisfying requirements becomes vendor or buying agency’s option, not yours </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other’s “best practices” may not be your own </li></ul></ul>Back-end Systems: Complete Solutions
    11. 11. <ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Addresses OMB’s GMLOB strategy recommendation – create commonality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquire the best tool for a specific task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deployable across the enterprise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrated to your own specifications for each line of business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower acquisition costs; economies of scale over long-term </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Theoretically lower maintenance and implementation costs per functional area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benefit from vendor’s intellectual property for every functional area </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cons: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Packages are process-agnostic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No immediate solution for any one line of business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tied to one vendor for lifetime of product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Low acquisition costs may be offset by re-engineering costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires significant due diligence to ensure good fit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potentially tied to a vendor or buying agency </li></ul></ul>Back-end Systems: Components
    12. 12. Questions & Answers

    ×