Perspectives On Federal Grants Management Systems

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

Agenda   

Grants Management Line of Business Grants.gov Back-end Systems o Custom Built o Commercial Off-the-Shelf o Components



Questions?

TCG - Yes, it can be done!

05/04/09

2

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 o Minimize functional overlap and redundant data o Consolidate on one grant application instrument



Migrate from legacy systems; consolidate disparate systems

3

Major Technical Drivers  



Use enterprise class technologies Use structured development methodologies (e.g. Rational Unified Process) Promote sharing of functional components o Grants management is an enterprise activity o Leverage functionality for other enterprise activities, e.g. financial management Service-oriented architecture



Align with the Federal Enterprise

4

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”

o

 

“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 5

Grants Management Line of Business 

Three GMLOB COE’s were identified:

o National Science Foundation: Research.gov Partners: DOD, NASA, USDA CSREES

o HHS / Administration for Children & Families: GATES Partners: CNCS, DOT, EPA, IMLS, State, Treasury, VA

o Education: G5 Partners: Interior, DOJ/COPS  

Additional COE’s were expected but none announced Additional GMLOB groups were defined: o Strategic Partnership Group: NEH, NARA, NEA o Alternative Solutions Group: HHS/NIH, DOE, SBA, USAID All except NIH using Compusearch PRISM-Grants

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

Future of GMLOB in doubt o Bush Administration initiative; has not demonstrated significant cost savings; facing significant antipathy and skepticism among agencies 6

Grants.gov 

A single portal for grant applications o ‘Find’ and ‘Apply’ functionality are well-established o 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 o Economically advantageous for agencies take advantage of Grants.gov’s available functionality o No distinct funding leaves system in financial limbo o Desire to move to transaction fees / fee for service



Most agencies are now integrated with Grants.gov 7

Grants.gov 

Issued RFI for ‘cloud computing’ o 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 o Consequence of current system architecture / business strategy o 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 nonRecovery Act funding

o Agencies instructed to provide $12m in immediate funding to shore up Grants.gov and stabilize for the future o Additional pilot projects planned to establish alternative TCG - Yes, it can be done! 05/04/09 8 architectures for “Grants.gov 2.0”

Back-end Systems: Custom build Pros: 

o Create your own world, in your own climate o Translate your business process into electronic environment o Opportunity to re-engineer processes with implementation o Buyer owns the requirements definition/implementation process 

Cons: o Reliance on your domain experts o Business process may be fundamentally flawed Re-engineering costs could be higher than expected

o Higher cost of acquisition o Increased buyer responsibility for project failure o Ability for change can translate into tendency for compulsive, repetitive, or self-defeating change o Difficult to justify in light of OMB’s GMLOB strategy

9

Back-end Systems: Complete Solutions 

Pros: o Many COTS and GOTS solutions available o Theoretically lower maintenance costs

o Theoretically lower implementation costs o Offloads requirements definition to vendor / buying agency o Benefit from “best practices” 

Cons: o Packages have historically been either process definitive or agnostic o Proprietary platforms create ties to one vendor for lifetime of product o Low acquisition costs offset by high re-engineering costs All grants systems need customization

o Satisfying requirements becomes vendor or buying agency’s option, not yours o Other’s “best practices” may not be your own

10

Back-end Systems: Components Pros: 

o Addresses OMB’s GMLOB strategy recommendation – create commonality o Acquire the best tool for a specific task o Deployable across the enterprise o Integrated to your own specifications for each line of business o Lower acquisition costs; economies of scale over long-term o Theoretically lower maintenance and implementation costs per functional area o Benefit from vendor’s intellectual property for every functional area 

Cons: o Packages are process-agnostic o No immediate solution for any one line of business o Tied to one vendor for lifetime of product o Low acquisition costs may be offset by re-engineering costs o Requires significant due diligence to ensure good fit o Potentially tied to a vendor or buying agency

11

Questions & Answers

12