Collaborative Management Environment CIO Technical Presentation Thomas E. Potok and Mark Elmore Collaborative Technologies Research Center Computer Science and Mathematics Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Collaborative Management Environment: Goals and Objectives n Create an environment to financially manage and analyze research funding u Minimal impact to the laboratories u Provide complete and consistent data to DOE n Gain an order of magnitude efficiency in the proposal submission process n Provide a safe and trusted environment for researchers and program managers n Reuse information from proposals to populate the R&D tracking database

Current situation n Field Work Proposals (FWPs) submitted to DOE are in paper books n Weeks and thousands of dollars are spend in collating, copying, binding, and shipping these books n The books provide very limited query and search capability n This paper system makes management of research programs very difficult

CME Pilot Goals n Plan to develop a pilot based on FWP data from three labs u ORNL u LANL u FNL n Gathering lab data u Different formats u Very limited resources from the labs n Initial software commitment problems n Lab feedback u We want the capability of CME, however…they have “been burned before…” u We will be unable to provide data in needed format due to lack of resource.

Information Integration Alternatives n Distributed relational databases (Data Warehouse) u Too expensive for labs to setup and maintain n Object Request Brokers u Too expensive for labs u Too complex for our needs n Groupware (Lotus Notes) u Too expensive for the labs u Lack of flexibility in formats supported n HTML and internet u Difficult to store and manage structured data u XML provides a possibility

Distributed Information through XML n Strengths - We are at the ground level of this technology u XML is the de-facto standard, accepted by Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and the software industry in general u XML allows simple storage of structured, distributed data u XML allows queries and data presentation n Weakness - We are at the ground level of this technology u XML is an evolving standard u The tools to support XML are limited, and weak u Supporting standards for data presentation are very limited

Approach n Data model developed with LANL, FNL, ORNL, and OSTI u Reviewed by business systems experts as well as technical experts n Pioneered use of XML as a means of storing, querying, and presenting FWP information. u Simple data storage technology u Very low costs to the labs, integration work done by CME team u Very well received article at XML’98

Sample FWP

CME Data Mapping Example

CME Pilot Data Model Sample

CME Information Model

Same XML Data Type Definition

Sample XML file

Keyword Search

Gathering Data from the Labs Original Lab FWP Lab XML Formats Common XML Format Lab HTML Format Common SQL Format Infoseek HTML Registry Keyword and Schema Search LANL ORNL CME Title PI Date

New CME Tools Developed Original Lab FWP Lab XML Formats Common XML Format Lab HTML Format Common SQL Format Infoseek HTML Registry Keyword and Schema Search LANL ORNL CME Title PI Date Data Translation to XML XML To HTML Generator XML to SQL Generator

Future Vision Original Lab FWP Lab XML Formats Common XML Format Lab XSL Format Common SQL Format Keyword and Schema Search LANL ORNL CME Title PI Date

Full CME System CME Client CME Server Web Browser Oracle Database Logic Socket Data Socket Data Socket Netscape Web Server CME Data Model XML Data HTML Data Infoseek HTML Registry DTDs Manual Automatic Operational Data Socket Lab FWP Report CTRC Phthia CTRC Nenad NT

Key Pilot Milestones n 1998 ORNL and LANL data in CME Pilot u Distributed information using XML u Low-cost participation by ORNL and LANL, (only 2 person-days from the lab is required!) u Lab information presented in lab FWP format u Capable of adding a new lab in 1 month or less n Very strong interest in CME, limit lab resources u Fermi participation delayed u Berkeley is very interested u PPPL will participate in the future

Extended Pilot Goals n Add three labs to the CME system u Strive for a wide representation over the DOE laboratory system n Add OSTI to the development team u Begin transition to production through training, and development of key database components u Begin merger of CME and R&D Tracking data models u Prototype CME and R&D Tracking interaction

Pilot Findings n Not all labs have data in database format, u Full databases (ORNL, SNL) u Partial databases (LANL) u MS Word template (LBNL, PNNL, LANL) u Scanned images (PNNL) n General situation u First page of the FWP created from a word processing package by the PI, then printed. The source file is lost. u Financial data is manually entered into a financial database

How to get ALL labs into CME? n Scan paper documents into CME u Benefit: All labs can participate u Drawbacks: F Another step and more cost is added to the process F Limited searching capability F Limited presentation capability n Require labs to present information in database report format u Benefit: Pilot can be moved into production immediately for some labs u Drawback: A heavy burden for a number of labs that may take years to support n Capture electronic information from PIs u Benefit: PI’s original information is captured u Drawback: F The structure of the information is lost F Central control of the data is lost

Word Processor Support n Benefits u Richer description for the Program Manager F In the current paper based system, an FWP is limited to text only. F CME will allow a proposal to contain any of the following: Equations,Equations, Graphs,Graphs, Audio,Audio, Video,Video, VR,VR, Any future web presentation technologies.Any future web presentation technologies. u The FWPs are keyword searchable u The information resides at the labs under lab control u PI has full control over how an FWP looks

Word Processor Support n Drawbacks u The FWPs are not field searchable, only keyword searchable u Labs and PIs need to slightly change their processes to: F Save the word processor files as HTML F Post the FWP page at the site u PI has full control over how an FWP looks

Extended Pilot participant labs n Currently we are working closely with: u ORNL u LANL u Sandia u PNNL n Have contacts with: LBNL, Fermi, PPPL, and, SLAC n These labs represent a broad range of differing formats, and approaches to FWPs n The lab representatives are very supportive of the extended pilot approach! n Major issue are business related rather than technical

Summary n Pilot demonstrated the gathering of FWP data from two labs n Extended Pilot to add three labs to the CME system u Supporting all lab FWP formats u Partnering with OSTI u Merging with R&D Tracking Database n Estimated annual savings to $1M n Poised for a successful deployment of CME