Pre-Meeting Review Process • Appropriate reviewers recruited by SRO; minimum of 3 “interactive” reviewers per application • Conflicts of interest identified • Applications made available to reviewers ~6 weeks prior to meeting • Critiques and preliminary scores posted by assigned reviewers on NIH web site at least 2-3 days prior to meeting • Critiques and preliminary scores (excluding conflicts) available to review group prior to meeting
View full slide show




Schedule Update ID Task Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 1 Initial Project Review 1.1 Review General Air Foil Theory 1.2 Preliminary Senior Design Coordinator Meetings 1.3 Examine Existing RC Planes 1.4 Review Competition Requirements 1.4.1 Select Competition Class 1.4.2 Review Selected Class Requirements 1.5 Establish Requirements Matrix 2 Research & Development 2.1 Wings 2.1.1 Review Existing Wing Designs 2.1.2 Select Basic Wing Layout 2.1.3 Theoretical Design of Wing 2.1.4 Computer Aided Wing Analysis 2.1.5 Physical Modeling Stereo-Lithography Session 2.2 Propeller 2.2.1 Existing Technology Review 2.2.2 Theoretical Propeller Design 2.2.3 Computer Aided Propeller Analysis 2.2.4 Physical Modeling 2.3 Fuselage 2.3.1 Aerodynamic Review 2.3.2 Theoretical Fuselage Design 2.3.3 Computer Aided Fuselage Design 2.3.4 Physical Modeling 3 Testing 3.1 Combine Wing, Propeller, Fuselage Models 3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing 3.3 Analyze Results 4 Reporting 4.1 Written 4.1.1 Project Proposal Written Project Proposal Due 4.1.2 Semester Report Written Semester Report 4.2 Oral 4.2.1 Project Proposal Oral Project Proposal 4.2.2 Semester Report Oral Final Report Duration August 2004 Start September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 28 31 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 2 5 8 11 14 17 14 days? Tue 8/31/04 3 days? Tue 8/31/04 2 days? Tue 9/7/04 5 days? Tue 8/31/04 6 days? Tue 9/14/04 3 days? Tue 9/14/04 3 days? Tue 9/21/04 1 day Tue 9/28/04 23 days? Tue 10/5/04 23 days? Tue 10/5/04 2 days? Tue 10/5/04 3 days? Tue 10/12/04 6 days? Tue 10/19/04 6 days? Tue 11/2/04 5 days? Tue 11/16/04 0 days Tue 11/16/04 11.25 days? Tue 10/5/04 2.25 days? Tue 10/5/04 3 days? Tue 10/12/04 3 days Tue 10/19/04 3 days Tue 10/26/04 11 days? Tue 11/2/04 2 days? Tue 11/2/04 4 days? Thu 11/4/04 3 days? Tue 11/16/04 2 days? Tue 11/23/04 3 days? Tue 11/30/04 1 day Tue 11/30/04 1 day? Wed 12/1/04 1 day Thu 12/2/04 30.75 days? Tue 9/28/04 30 days? Tue 9/28/04 1 day? Tue 9/28/04 0 days Thu 9/30/04 13 days? Tue 10/5/04 0 days Tue 12/7/04 29.75 days? Wed 9/29/04 2 days? Wed 9/29/04 0 days Tue 10/5/04 9.75 days? Thu 10/28/04 0 days Wed 11/3/04
View full slide show




Progress Schedule Performance Index Project Proposals Background Research Tech nical Paper (Abstract/Intro) Tech nical Paper (Background) Tech nical Paper (Current Work) Tech nical Paper (Design Analysis) Tech nical Paper (Final Correlations) Design Proposals Design (Detail Spec Drawings Pro-E) Design (Data Computations) Design Software Analysis Machining (Casing) Machining (Turbine) Machining (Final Assembly) Testing (Initial) Testing (Modifications) Testing (Final) Project Status Report/Demonstration Final Presentation Overall Av erage = 102.68 % (21 days/21 days) * 100 = 100% (21 days/28 days) * 100 = 75% (14 days/14 days) * 100 = 100% (14 days/28 days) * 100 = 75% (14 days/21 days) * 100 = 67% (14 days/7 days) * 100 = 200% (42 days/42 days) * 100 = 100% (28 days/28 days) * 100 = 100% (28 days/28 days) * 100 = 100% (28 days/28 days) * 100 = 100% (14 days/21 days) * 100 = 67% (7 days/7 days) * 100 = 100% (14 days/14 days) * 100 = 100% (14 days/7 days) * 100 = 200% (7 days/7 days) * 100 = 100% (14 days/14 days)* 100 = 100% (14 days/21 days)* 100 = 67% (14 days/14 days)* 100 = 100% (7 days/7 days) * 100 = 100%
View full slide show




UMMSM CURRICULUM (MD) (5 weeks) P B L Epi 2 Fdn Onc Nov/Dec Renal System (5 weeks) Doctoring GI & Nutritio n Sept/Oct P B L (5 weeks) Patient Safety Transitio n to Wards Core Clerkships (8, 6 or 4 weeks)  Feb Mar Apr P B L Endocri ne & Repro System Hem e -Onc (4 Weeks) (5 weeks) Doctoring IV  Core Clerkships (8, 6 or 4 weeks) OSCEs Required Clerkship/Electives Required Clerkship/Electives Graduation May Winter Break June Year 4 an ( 8 weeks) June Winter Break Year 3 Orientation June J Respiratory System Doctoring III  Orientation Year 2 (2 weeks) Aug Doctoring II Neuroscie nce & Behavior al Science May P B L  Competency Assessment Week USMLE Preparation Doctoring I  B L Spring Break (8 weeks) June P PB L Vacation (4 weeks) B L Apr/May Cellul Cardioar vascular System Functi (8 weeks) on & Epidemiolog Reguy lation (concurrent (4 CVS) weeks) w/ Competency Assessment Week (8 weeks) P PB L Spring Break Molecu lar Basis of Life Human Struct ure Host Defens es Pathog en & Patholo gy Feb/Mar (4 weeks) Jan CBL Inflam/DI Nov Competenc y Oct Winter Break Orientation Year 1 Orientation DermOphtho Doctoring Courses • Clinical Skills • Communication Skills • Health Informatics & Info • Ethics/ Professionalism • Geriatrics/Pallia tive/ Pain • Population Health Problem • Special Based Learning Populations • Patient & Infection Safety/QI Inflammation • Rheumatology Systems Based • Infectious Care Diseases Organ System Modules  Core Modules  Aug Winter Break • Embryology • Histology • Gross Anatomy • Medical Genetics • Biochemistry • Cell Biology • Cellular Biophysics • Intro to Pharmacology • Immunology • Microbiology • Intro to Pathology Core Clerkships IM 8 weeks Surgery 8 weeks OB/GYN 6 weeks Psychiatry 6 weeks Pediatrics 6 Required weeks clerkship/Electives ElectivesA 6 4 Subinternship weeksweeks GPC Subinternship B 4 4 weeks weeks Family Med 4 Geriatrics 4 weeks weeks EMed 4 weeks Radiology 4 weeks Neurology 4 weeks Anesthesia 2
View full slide show




Extreme Questionnaire An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of replacing the moderately worded SUS with versions with the neutral SUS Wording statements replaced by statements that were worded in an extremely positive or an extremely negative fashion. The System Usability Scale (SUS) The Extremely Positive System Usability Scale (XP-SUS) The Extremely Negative System Usability Scale (XN-SUS) 1. I think that I would like to use 1. I think that this is one of my all1. I think I never want to use the web this system frequently. time favorite web sites. site again. 2. I found the system unnecessarily 2. I found the web site was really 2. I found the web site to be horribly complex. straightforward. complex for no good reason. 3. I thought the system was easy to 3. I thought the web site was 3. I thought the web site was very use. amazingly easy to use. difficult to use. 4. I think that I would need the 4. I think that technical support 4. I think that I would need a permanent support of a technical person to services are just not required for hot-line to the help desk to be able to be able to use this system. the web site. use the web site.* 5. I found the various functions in 5. I found the various pages on the 5. I found all the pages on the web site this system were well integrated. web site worked together very to be an ugly mess. 6. I thought there was too much smoothly. 6. I thought the inconsistency in the web inconsistency in this system. 6. I thought the web site was site would kill it. 7. I would imagine that most people consistent throughout. 7. I found the web site to be completely would learn to use this system 7. I would imagine anybody could use impossible to use. very quickly. the web site like a pro from day 8. I found that this web site was 8. I found the system very one. extremely awkward to use. cumbersome to use. 8. I found the web site was a delight 9. I felt utterly confused by the web site. 9. I felt very confident using the to use. 10.Absolutely nothing about the web system. 9. I felt completely confident using the site worked 10.I needed to learn a lot of things web site. before I could get going with this 10.Everything to know about A set of volunteersI needed was asked to evaluate a website, with one-third CS 321 system. using the website was there for me. Lesson Twenty-Two Questionnaires Page 6 of the volunteers randomly assigned the traditional SUS questionnaire, one-third randomly assigned the XP-SUS questionnaire, and the final one-third randomly assigned the XN-
View full slide show




Timeline Timeline from July 18, 2004 (proposal due date).  Identify Objectives – August 1 (2 weeks)  Outline Content  General outline – August 8 (3 weeks)  Content written – August 22 (5 weeks)  Content revised and final – September 5 (7 weeks)  Outline Navigation  General outline – August 22 (5 weeks)  Navigation mapped – August 29 (6 weeks)  Navigation revised and final – September 8 (7 ½ weeks)  Storyboard Site  First storyboard session – September 6 (7 weeks+)  Rough storyboards due – September 12 (8 weeks)  Storyboard revision session – September 13 (8 weeks+)  Final storyboards due – September 19 (9 weeks)     Develop Site  First development session – September 20 (9 weeks+)  Last development session – October 10 (12 weeks) Test Site  Internal tests performed – October 11 (12 weeks+)  External tests performed – October 19 (13 weeks+) Modify Site (if needed)  Ongoing modifications as tests indicate.  Final modifications done – October 31 (15 weeks) Publish Site – November 1 (15 weeks) Total time from proposal due date to site publication: 15 weeks
View full slide show




The NIH Peer Review Process Pre-Meeting SRG Procedures • SRO – Performs administrative review of applications – Recruits reviewers, arranges for meeting date and site – Assigns 3 SRG members to each application – Makes applications available to reviewers • Internet Assisted Review (IAR) site or on CDs • Usually about six weeks before the SRG meeting – Instructs reviewers in review procedures – Monitors posting of initial scores and critiques in IAR Documents for Reviewers are available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines.htm#general_guidelines 30 30
View full slide show




NIH Expedited Reporting • Requirements for reporting vary by institute Institute NCCAM: NCI: NEI: NHLBI: NIA: NIAID: NIAMS: NICHD: NIDA: NIDCR: NIDDK: NIMH: NINDS: Data and Safety Monitoring Policies http://nccam.nih.gov/research/policies/datasafety/ http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/grantspolicies/datasafety.htm http://www.nci.nih.gov/clinical_trials/conducting/ http://www.nei.nih.gov/funding/policy/policy6.htm http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dsmb_est.htm http://rover2.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dsm-12.htm http://rover2.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dataqual.htm http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dsmb_othr.htm http://www.nia.nih.gov/funding/policy/humint.htm http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/pdf/clinterm.pdf http://www.niams.nih.gov/rtac/clinical/dsmb3.html http://www.niams.nih.gov/rtac/funding/grants/datasafe.htm http://www.nichd.nih.gov/funding/datasafety.htm http://www.nida.nih.gov/Funding/DSMBSOP.html http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/research/ctp/data_safety_monitoring_boards.pdf http://www.niddk.nih.gov/patient/patient.htm#policy http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/safetymonitoring.cfm http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/ninds_patient_safety_guidelines.htm
View full slide show




11-40 Quick Check  A A TQM TQM team team at at Narton Narton Corp Corp has has recorded recorded the the following following average average times times for for production: production: Wait 3.0 Move Wait 3.0 days days Move 0.5 0.5 days days Inspection Queue Inspection 0.4 0.4 days days Queue 9.3 9.3 days days Process Process 0.2 0.2 days days What What is is the the throughput throughput time? time? a. a. 10.4 10.4 days. days. b. b. 0.2 0.2 days. days. Throughput time = Process + Inspection + Move + Queue c. c. 4.1 4.1 days. days.= 0.2 days + 0.4 days + 0.5 days + 9.3 days d. d. 13.4 13.4 days. days.= 10.4 days
View full slide show




Biology Department (past participants in red) Field Biology/Ecology/Classical Genetics: Dr. Gordon Brown: Terrestrial plant ecology, ecology and evolution of interactions between plants and herbivores, Web site * Dr. Philip Chu: ornithology, systematics, Web site Dr. Larry Davis: geology, paleontology,Web site *Dr. William Lamberts: aquatic ecology, phycology, Web site (next year’s director) Dr. Jeanne Marie Lust OSB: amphibian deformities, hematology, Web site Dr. James Poff: entomology, behavioral ecology of social wasps, Web site Dr. Charles Rodell: ecological genetics, evolution of sexual reproduction, Web site Dr. Steven Saupe: plant taxonomy, secondary metabolism of plants and fungi, Web site Dr. Shawn Thomas: animal behavior and sociobiology using evolutionary theory to test hypotheses regarding mate choice and sexual selection, Web site Dr. Marcus Webster: physiological ecology, energetics of birds, Web site Cell/Molecular/Biochemistry *Dr. Barb May: immunology, microbiology, cell and molecular biology, Web site Dr. Manuel Campos: signal transduction in cells and its relation to disease, Web site Dr. Ellen Jensen: virology, biology of fungi, immunology, Web site Dr. David Mitchell: protein structure, biochemistry, Web site Dr. Michael Reagan: molecular biology, DNA repair mechanisms, Web site Dr. Elizabeth Wurdak: biology of rotifers, histology, cell biology, Web site
View full slide show




Building a Sample Project Enter Tasks • For this sample project enter these tasks: TASK Foundation Framing Roof Electrical Sheetrock Interior Paint Exterior Paint Landscaping Optimistic Duration Expected Duration Pessimistic Duration 1 week 2 weeks 1 week 1 week 1 week 1 week 1 week 1 week 2 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 3 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks Urban and Regional Studies Institute 3 weeks 7 weeks 3 weeks 3 weeks 5 weeks 4 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 27
View full slide show




11-44 Quick Check  A A TQM TQM team team at at Narton Narton Corp Corp has has recorded recorded the the following following average average times times for for production: production: Wait 3.0 Move Wait 3.0 days days Move 0.5 0.5 days days Inspection Queue Inspection 0.4 0.4 days days Queue 9.3 9.3 days days Process Process 0.2 0.2 days days What What is is the the delivery delivery cycle cycle time time (DCT)? (DCT)? a. a. 0.5 0.5 days. days. b. b. 0.7 0.7 days. days. c. c. 13.4 13.4 days. days. d. d. 10.4 10.4 days. days. DCT = Wait time + Throughput time = 3.0 days + 10.4 days = 13.4 days
View full slide show




Before the Review Meeting Reviewers’ Task: • Examine assignments (~ six weeks in advance) • Often participate in an SRO orientation teleconference • Read applications, prepare written critiques • Enter preliminary scores and critiques into NIH website • Read and consider critiques and preliminary scores from other Study Section members Generally, the bottom 50% of applications are not discussed Understanding NIH Slide 21 8 November 2018
View full slide show




The NIH Peer Review Process Pre-Meeting SRG Procedures • Reviewers – Examine assignments – Submit Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality voucher – Read applications, prepare written critiques in templates – Enter preliminary scores into IAR – Read and consider other critiques and preliminary scores – Make travel and hotel arrangements Preliminary scores and critiques may be due several days or a week in advance! 33 33
View full slide show




The NIH Peer Review Process Types of Reviewers • Regular reviewers – permanent and temporary – Preliminary impact/priority scores, criterion scores, written critiques – Final impact/priority scores • Other Contributing Reviewers (“mail” reviewers) – Written critiques, criterion scores, preliminary impact/priority scores – Cannot submit final impact/priority scores 10 10
View full slide show




Building a sustainable infrastructure NetworkInfrastrastructure YEAR1 YEAR2 DataCenterMove YEAR3 32 Weeks Backbone / Cabling Infrastructure Closets and Switches Wireless Infrastructure Communications and Collaboration 24 Weeks 16 Weeks 12 Weeks 18 Weeks NetworkSecurityPlan 16 Weeks 4 Weeks 12 Weeks 8 Weeks 16 Weeks Network Management and Performance Voice over IP – Telephone update and expansion Network Monitoring Solutions ImplementDistrict Intranet HardwareInfrastructure Ellucian ERP Library Refresh Upgrade Printing Systems Bond Management Process for acquiring Hardware and Software Lifecycle Management Process and Inventory 12 Weeks 16 Weeks 6 Weeks 18 Weeks 4 Weeks 14 Weeks
View full slide show




Before the Meeting • Reviewers ‒ Examine assignments (~ six weeks in advance) ‒ Often participate in an SRO orientation teleconference ‒ Sign Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality certifications ‒ Read applications, prepare written critiques ‒ Enter preliminary scores and critiques into secure website ‒ Read and consider critiques and preliminary scores from other Study Section members Understanding NIH Slide 31 8 November 2017
View full slide show




Gantt Chart Task Duration Start Finish Project Introduction 87 days 08/31/06 12/29/06 Study Airfoil Theory 5 days 08/31/06 09/06/06 Observed Previous Competition Planes 6 days 09/06/06 09/13/06 SAE Competition Specs Review 10 days 09/04/06 09/15/06 Determine Competition Class 4 days 09/04/06 09/07/06 Study Determined Class Restrictions 1 day 09/15/06 09/15/06 Modeling 11 days 09/18/06 10/02/06 Compile Decision Matrix 2.5 days 09/18/06 09/20/06 2 days 09/27/06 09/28/06 Technical Model 1.5 days 09/29/06 10/02/06 Development 48 days 09/08/06 11/14/06 Airfoils 34 days 09/08/06 10/25/06 Study Standardized Foil Designs 3 days 09/08/06 09/12/06 Determine wing layout 8 days 09/13/06 09/22/06 Analyze Wing Layout 5 days 09/25/06 09/29/06 Construction of Wing 11 days 10/11/06 10/25/06 Propeller 13 days 10/02/06 10/18/06 Study existing technology 5 days 10/02/06 10/06/06 Propose propeller selection 3 days 10/10/06 10/12/06 Analyze Propeller selection 1 day 10/18/06 10/18/06 Fuselage 24 days 09/28/06 10/31/06 Study aerodynamic designs 7 days 09/28/06 10/06/06 Draft fuselage design 5 days 10/09/06 10/13/06 Computer Render design 1 day 10/18/06 10/18/06 Needs Matrix
View full slide show