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.
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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
Questions & Answers