Interlab 2004_Revjgt

8/8/2019 Interlab 2004_Revjgt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/interlab-2004revjgt 1/24

R. E. Gibson Library & Information Center

1

Automating the Public Release

Review Process at the Johns

Hopkins Applied Physics Lab

Peter LePoer & Judith Theodori Interlab 2004 10/27/2004




2

Today¶s Presentation«.

Overview of APL and Existing Public

Review Process

Motivators for Change

Design Requirements

New automated process & UI

Design Process & Back End Modifications to Support PR

Results & Future Directions




3

JHU Applied Physics Laboratory




4

Overview of JHUAPL-The Facts

Not-for-profit division of Johns

Hopkins University

Major sponsors are Navy and NASA

Staff of 3,350. 66% engineers &

scientists

130 specialized research and test

facilities

Located on 360 acres in Laurel, MD




5

Overview of JHUAPL-Cool Stuff

1942 ± VT Proximity Fuze

1948 ± First photo of Earth from Space

1957 ± Analyzed Doppler signals,developing first GPS

Ingestible temperature pill; disposable

syringe; bridge corrosion sensors

2001 ± NEAR satellite landed on asteroid

2004 ± MESSENGER successfully

launched




6

Manual Public Review Process

Staff

Member

Information to be

Reviewed, 5-511,

PR Form

Dept. Public

Release Reviewer

Check for

Proprietary,

Sponsor Sensitive

Information

Check for

Contract Pre-Pub

Restrictions,

NDA¶s

If DODK

Visitor

Control

Paper, 5-511(check # of copies

Required)

Sponsor

Check for Export

Controlled,Military Critical

Technology

OPC, OTT, IP

Disclosure Form,

OTT website for

patent check

Contracts,Grants Office

Legal (NDA¶s),

If Non

DoD K

Export Office,

DFOISR,MCTL

Make Determination

And Sign FormArchive

5 Years

Form, Sponsor

Approvals,

Changes

?

Paper, Cover

Letter

If Military

RelatedDFOISR

Paper, DD1910,

Cover Letter

(5 copies)

?




7

Motivators for Change

Complex system

Audit requirements

Desire for central repository

Revised APL internal policy




8

Why Utilize Existing DM System?

Archival function for document

retention

Security

Utilize existing resource

Because Bob said so




9

PRIST




10

Summary Page




11

Author Form




12

Confirmation Screen




13

Email Alert




14

Reviewer Form




15

Design Requirements

Make use of Existing DM system for storage of PR proposals

Store both In Process and Archival

Proposals Limit Access to In Process, while

providing general access for Archival

Simplified Front End for creation and

editing of metadata Support 1-1 workflow between Author and

Reviewer

Single status page for Authors and

Reviewers




16

Hummingbird DM Architecture

Web Interface

(ASP)

Javascript Library

API

DCOM API

DM Server

Process

SQL Server

Database




17

PRIST Architecture

I t rf c

( ) r r

t s




18

Relevant DM Tables




19

Profile Table Additions

Field to track review status

PR_RevStat

Reviewer Info Fields

PR_Reviewer

PR_RevEmail

Review Task Check Box fields

Sponsor Info Fields

Reviewer Comment Field




20

Proposal Creation Process

Author Inputs

Proposal using

Web Form

Document

Uploaded to

Repository

Profile Record

Created with

document

description

Security Table

updated

Document

location table

updated

Needs Indexing

Table updated

Email sent to

reviewer

Unique # table

updated




21

Proposal Review Process

Summary Page

Retrieves

Proposal

Document

Updates

Reviewer Form Profile Table

Updated

Email to Author

Generated

Security Table

updated if status

= approved




22

Results & Feedback

Mixed reviews

Slow to take hold

Departments independentlychanging process




23

Future Directions

Additional Work Flow capabilities

³Reviewer Proxy´ ± additional person

designated by reviewer who canperform reviewer function

³Task Reviewer´ ± ability for reviewer to

route proposal to 3rd party for a specific

review function.




24

For More Information:

Peter LePoer, Systems Librarian

[email protected]

Judith Theodori, Project Manager

[email protected]

Documents

Interlab 2004_Revjgt