tim

(RFP), and uses the key words to consult the Foundation’s database of outside experts to select an Expert Panel that will choose the winning proposal. If a key word in the grant matches a key words in the expert’s data file, the expert is selected for the panel. The grant begins in a pre-RFP stage, and once the Expert Panel is selected and the RFP is sent to potential Research Teams, it enters its RFP stage. After the deadline for proposal submission passes, if no proposals are received, the grant’s status is switched to failed and no more action is taken. If at least one proposal is submitted the grant enters its review stage. Each Research Team can only submit one proposal. During the review stage, the Program Officer forwards the proposals to the Expert Panel, which selects a winning Research Team. The grant then enters its active stage when the research is carried out. The team submits a draft final report to the Program Officer, who circulates it to the Expert Panel for review and comment. When the final report is acceptable to the Expert Panel, the grant is considered complete. If a Research Team fails to submit a final report, the grant is stopped and its status is shifted to failed. Research teams that successfully complete projects can win new grants, and those with failed projects will not be awarded new grants. The Board of Directors The Board initiates the grant process by determining the grant’s name, key words, and budget. The Board also is alerted by the Program Officer when a grant is completed or has failed. The Program Officer The Program Officer is responsible for all aspects of the grant-making process except selecting the name/keywords/budget (the Board of Directors does that), deciding which team is selected to do the work (the Expert Panel does that), and actually doing the work (the Research Team does that). (The Expert Panel also reviews and comments on drafts of the final report.) Program Officers can have from one to five grants at any time, and grants are assigned to only one Program Officer. After the Expert Panel selects the winning proposal, the Program Officer checks whether the winning Research Team has received grants in the past. If the team has received grants in the past, the Program Officer then checks to see if the grant was completed successfully or is still active, or failed. If a grant failed, the Program Officer asks the Expert Panel to select a different winning team. Later on, the Program Officer shares a draft of the Final Report with the Expert Panel. If the panel wants changes or edits, the Research Team must carry out the changes, submit a new draft, and the process repeats itself until the Panel is satisfied. Then the Program Officer adds the Final Report to the Final Report Database, updates the grant’s status to complete, and alerts the Board of Directors. One functionality of particular interest to Program Officers is a windows data system related to Expert Panels. It would begin with a screen that gives the Program Officer the

option of either creating a new Expert Panel or dissolving an existing Expert Panel (when a grant is completed). Clicking the “create” option would next provide a screen to enter the grant’s keywords, followed by a screen with a report of names of experts with matching keywords. The second option provides a screen to enter the name of the grant, followed by a screen with a report confirming that the Panel has been dissolved. The Expert Panel The Expert Panel members are either professors or government scientists who have detailed knowledge of the grant topic area. They receive copies of the RFP and all the proposals, evaluate them, and submit their top selection to the Program Officer. Sometimes they are asked for their 2nd pick. Later on, the Expert Panel receives copies of the draft final report from the Program Officer and sends comments back to the Program Officer (the Panel never communicates directly with the Research Team). The panel refers to the original RFP when determining whether the Final Report needs additional work. This process ends when the Panel is satisfied with the Final Report, and then the Expert Panel is dissolved. Program Officers become familiar with experts and often invite the same professors and scientists to serve on numerous different Expert Panels. Only one Expert Panel reviews proposals for a particular grant. The Research Team The Research Team is typically a combination of professors and students who apply for grants by submitting a proposal in response to an RFP. If the team wins, they carry out the research. The Research Team submits a draft Final Report explaining their research findings. The same Research Team can be working on and/or competing for more than one grant at a given time, but each grant only has one Research Team. Also, the Research Team can only submit one proposal to any grant. Archival Records The Foundation maintains databases of RFPs, Final Reports, Grants (including name, key words, budget, Program Officer, Expert Panel members, RFP, proposals, Research Team, Final Report, and final status), and Experts (including key words of their area of expertise, grants they have served on, and how many times in total they have served on Expert Panels). Additional Needs The Foundation’s board members, experts, and Research Teams are located all over the world and use a variety of client servers with different capacities. Therefore, the Foundation wants nearly all functionality located in the headquarters computers, and will not use any cloud services.

All of the Program Officers are located at the Foundation’s headquarters. Since the Program Officers run the vast majority of database queries, they would like a system architecture that can respond to database queries in less than 5 seconds. The Foundation wants the system to operate in a desktop environment (Windows or Mac). It is essential that proposals be kept in a secure environment so only the Program Officer and the Expert Panel can view proposals. The system should be backed up once per day. Because people associated with the Foundation have so many different national backgrounds, the name of any individual should be storable both in English and in the original alphabet/language of the person. The system should therefore be able to maintain both English and other-language capacity for name fields. Your Role You have been hired by the Moore Foundation’s Environmental Conservation Program to develop an information system that will:

(1) Track grants through all of their stages and maintain records of whether they have been completed successfully or failed;

(2) Help Program Officers keep track of their grants through all stages of the grant process.

(3) Maintain detailed database records on each grant, on experts, and on Research Teams.

To do so, produce one or more of each of the 14 elements listed above. How the exam will be graded. The exam is graded out of 140 points. Each of the 14 required elements is worth 10 points, as follows: Form/syntax: Up to 3 points. This includes the basic accuracy of each element – is it presented correctly based on examples in the book and in lectures? Semantics: Up to 4 points. Is your information consistent with what the Moore Foundation wants, and internally consistent (that is, balanced). Your first element will get full credit for consistency because it is the first element. But other elements could lose points if they are inconsistent with the first element or any other prior element. Elaboration: Up to 3 points. This concerns the level of appropriate detail provided, with more detail earning extra points. For example, a complete system description would

require more than one of several of the elements, and would require extensive detail within each element.