P2Rx Winter
Meeting
San Diego, CA
Attendees:
Regions 1 & 2: Andy Bray
Regions 3 & 4: John Calcagni
Region 5: Jini Cook, Deb Jacobson, Gary Miller, Todd Schumacher
Region 6: Ed Gonzalez, Fernando Parra, Conrad Soltero
Region 7: Rick Yoder, Jean Waters
Region 8: Laura Estes
Region 9: Isao Kobashi, Peter Johnson, Charles Stratton
Region 10: Chris Wiley, Crispin Stutzman
US EPA: Beth Anderson
Wednesday, November 28, 2001
Content Sharing:
The Content Sharing solicitation by Region 6 was officially accepted prior to the meeting. The paperwork from the University of Illinois is in place to fund the project. Region 6 will receive $4000 from WMRC’s P2Rx Coordinator grant. The solicitation outlines the draft scope of work for the development of the content sharing tool. The goal of this project is to have a content sharing tool functioning and to teach the P2Rx Centers how to use it by February 1, 2002. The group agreed that the data will reside in a single location and that each Center can decide which pieces of the Hub they are going to use. With future funding of this project, the goal is to draft a process of how to share the tool with partners external to P2Rx and to develop other applications for current and future products .
Some issues that remain to be resolved or acted upon include:
The content sharing tool will be delivered to all of the P2Rx Centers by February 1, 2002. The Centers agreed to assess the tool during February and report any technical and/or design issues to Fernando by March 1, 2002.
Topic Hub Survey:
The Topic Hub Survey is intended for the users to assess the quality, completeness and usefulness of the Topic Hubs. Two basic questions discussed that need to be included in the survey are: 1) what were you looking for? and 2) did you find it?
Gary Miller presented the group with 2 types of surveys to review. The first survey that was presented was the PNEAC survey that is currently on-line. It is a short survey that only requires the user to click on the respective feedback options. The second survey requires the user to provide short answers. The group decided to provide Gary with feedback by December 10, 2001 on the surveys. The Survey Team (Laura, Chris and Gary) will integrate the comments into a second draft and resubmit it to the Admin Group by December 30. The goal for the survey is to have it available on-line prior to the NPPR Meeting in March.
Other ways/benefits of the survey were discussed besides quality assessment/completeness—
Feedback on Topic Hubs:
Centers were asked to
report-out on what feedback, if any, they have received on the Topic Hubs. The feedback was as follows:
Ø
Regions 1 & 2:
Very positive feedback on Mercury hub from their Regional Mercury workgroup,
the data standards and the vocabulary are good
Ø
Regions 3 & 4: Not
received feedback on Hubs, rather, received overwhelmingly positive feedback on
their Industry Sectors
Ø
Region 5: Very
positive feedback on Hubs, many regional partners are sending regional sector
resources to be included in the regional Hubs, asking and receiving feedback
via the listserv, newsletter, web searches, conferences and word-of-mouth
Ø
Region 6:
Overwhelmingly positive feedback, noticed that all topic hubs are not uniformly
populated, requests by reviewers to include hot news and legislative news
specific to the hubs
Ø
Region 7: Positive feedback
on the HHW hub, many reviewers are asking that certain documents be added
Ø
Region 8: Positive
feedback on the site navigation, some reviewers are asking that a full-text
search be integrated into the Hubs
Ø
Region 9: Positive
input from a community college—information was very helpful
Ø
Region 10: Not
received feedback on the Hubs
Version 2.0 of the Topic Hub:
A group met informally
earlier in the morning to brainstorm potential tools, design issues and
features that P2Rx might integrate into Version 2.0 of the Hub. Some recommendations include:
o Recraft narrative
o Full-text search
o Modification of subsections so the content is better
defined for the user prior to the user entering the specific subsection
o Restructure the population process for entering information
into the Hub
o How Centers identify which Topic Hubs they are going
to do in the future
o Determine a hierarchy for the Topic Hubs for
navigational purposes
Other ideas were recorded
from the morning meeting. The Web Group
will work to prioritize the features and address the Clean-up list for Version
1.0 on the Web Call, December 17.
Broken Link Database:
Paul Chalmer has created
a “Broken Link” database that includes information on broken links, where the
new link resides and the date that the new link was found. The project is beneficial to P2Rx because of
the large amount of links being tracked in the Topic Hub. P2Rx agreed to approach Paul and ask if we
could participate in this project. Rick
will contact Paul regarding P2Rx’s participation in this project.
The group also discussed
the need for a uniform function for checking broken links within their
sites. Currently, many of the Centers
check their links “whenever they have time.”
The Web Group will take a look at this issue and create a uniform
function for checking links, create a uniform list of filters, and assessing
what statistics that the Centers need to look at for Topic Hub Measurement.
Programs Directory:
The goal for the National
Programs Directory is to combine the regional programs databases that are
maintained by the Centers to populate the Programs Directory. The group agreed that the Programs Directory
content should reside in one place, just as the Topic Hub, for searchability
purposes. Region 7 agreed to draft an
XML tagging scheme for the national product.
Issues that need to be resolved/action to be taken to deliver a National
Programs Directory include:
o Decide where to store centrally
o Centers will tag their regional information
o Construct a retrieval process
o Send programs database Access file to Rick
o Draft instructions on how we are going to annotate
information
Most of the above work
will be addressed in the scope of work for the Content Sharing proposal. Yet, there remains additional software
development to be completed so that the Programs Directory works with the Where
to Go For Help section of the Hub. Jean
and Beth will pursue the need for additional funding for the Programs Directory
and other P2Rx products. The
goal to complete the first phase of the National Programs Directory is the
beginning of March.
Admin
Meeting
Thursday,
November 29, 2001
P2Rx Program Manager Report-Out:
Jean presented the
following summary of interviews with P2Rx members.
· Run interstate organization/regional information center
· Responsible for all IT for department
· Direct technical assistance
· Info Conduit – Nation-wide coverage with local (state) programs – understand the customer
· Lot of great people – well-intentioned, smart, good rapport, innovative, hard working
· Produced a good product
· EPA provides funding for “national” piece and coordination
· Bringing together disparate groups – establishing mechanism for working together has limited time available for actual work
· Show how value-added national projects help my local programs – don’t be duplicative
· Customer need (not well defined) doesn’t necessarily drive product development – need system to incorporate customer feedback
· Need more resources (money), also flexibility with existing money
· Get consensus and move forward
· Follow through on strategic plan
· Keep focus
· Assess quality and maintain current topic hubs (avoid Envirosense model –old documents without excellent content, hard to find)
· Market P2Rx topic hubs, measure use, make improvements
· Continue to deliver very high-quality products
· Define where we’re going and how we’re going to get there
· Retain regional status as resources, well respected and regarded, continue to build stronger ties, partner with other tech-assistance providers
· Strategically target information needs of customers. (Provide very high quality information within our capabilities. Can’t be all things to all people – find market niche.)
· Keep information well organized, easy to find what you need
· Continue tangible outputs (monthly)
· Become a true network, not a bunch of centers
· Develop diversified, stable funding
· Utilize systems approach to get P2 incorporated in industry
USEPA Report-Out:
Beth reported that EPA is
planning to fund P2Rx for one million dollars for FY’03, although a budget has
not yet been approved. John Cross is
also working on an OPPT project that would help connect companies to technical
assistance providers for the current funding year. Yet, there has been no speculation of additional money for this
project. The group might possibly learn
more about the project in February.
Beth encouraged the group to keep moving forward on the Programs Directory
because it might possibly play a role in the technical assistance providers project.
Beth also encouraged the
Centers to send information on regional resources, tools and innovations to
Karen Brown’s office to be included in the Small Business Alert (an electronic
newsletter). The contact person is
Delaine Anderson and updates are due January 15, 2002. Also, the SBAP/SBO meeting is in Chicago
this summer. GLRPRR is working with
Karen’s office on the conference.
Nominations have been
accepted for the Compliance Assistance Advisory Committee. Terri Goldberg and Gary Hunt put in their
nominations to serve on the committee. Also, Forum 2002 will be held in Austin,
TX in December. Topics under
consideration for the meeting include management and coordination, measurement
and tool development.
The P2 Pocketbook was
recently delivered. Beth encouraged the
Centers to help Alison keep the information current. Jini will contact Alison to determine the process for updating
the regional inserts. Alison would also
like P2Rx to include topic hub factsheets in the P2 Pocketbooks. The Marketing Committee will take a stab at
drafting a template for the Centers to fill-in their information.
Beth will also pursue the
SectorStar website. This might be an
area of collaboration for P2Rx and our Topic Hubs. P2Rx is very complimentary to OECA products and the Centers. We need to pursue these partnerships to
leverage our resources and reduce duplicative efforts. P2Rx also needs to pursue connections within
EPA including NIST and SBDC’s.
NACEPT is setting up a
toxics committee on the Chemically Safe America initiative. The group is trying to determine what to do
with all of the data they have gathered for toxicity. They have continually mentioned P2 in the initiative, but
currently the direction of the project is unknown.
Topic Hub Discussion Continued from Wednesday:
The group determined that
the Topic Hubs needed to go through an internal review. Gary Miller went through all of the Topic
Hubs to assess what subsections were in each Hub. The group asked the Survey Team (Chris, Gary and Laura) to draft
an internal survey of the Hub so that we all could review the Hubs in the same
manner.
The group also decided
that a Completion Checklist of what all topic hubs should include needs to be
drafted. Rick offered to create the
list. The group also expressed an
interest in tours of the Hubs by each Center.
This might be a possible item for discussion on a future Admin call.
The December Web Call
will include the following topics of discussion:
o Clean-up Version 1.0 list of action items
o Prioritize Version 2.0 potential features
An additional item that
was discussed was the need for a sorting system so that the user is able to
make a more informed decision of which hub to visit (instead of the current
alphabetized list). John, Kathy and Deb
agreed to look at the current draft of superheadings to determine a list for
sorting the Hubs and also determine where cross-links can be made.
The group briefly
discussed maintenance of the Hubs and agreed that we need to clearly outline
and define the maintenance of the Hubs for the FY ’03 proposals.
Marketing:
Rick and Laura
distributed a draft of the P2Rx Marketing brochure. It contained placeholders for 3 sheets to be drafted by the
individual Centers for regional information purposes. Laura asked that Centers give feedback to the Marketing committee
(Rick, Sharon, Bob, and Mike) prior to Christmas. The goal is to have the
brochure done prior to the Region 10 and 5 roundtables in February.
Clean Team Presentation:
Conrad presented
information on the new “clean team” program being instigated by the
manufacturing extension partnership (MEP) programs. He explained the Kaizen principle and how manufacturers could
benefit from both efficiency leaps due to changing technology and incremental
efficiency improvements due to workers given periodic training on a variety of
efficiency topics.
Web Breakout Session
Thursday, November 29, 2001
NEWMOA/PPRC Collaboration on the Metal Fab Hub:
Crispin discussed the
collaborative process that NEWMOA and PPRC followed to complete the Metal
Fabrication topic hub. PPRC had
numerous resources on the subject and NEWMOA had just completed a manual on
Metal Fab. The Centers agreed to take-
on different subsections and then swap the subsections for review
purposes. PPRC entered their links
first and NEWMOA filled in what PPRC did not have (resource-wise). The one hurdle that the Centers had to clear
was the fact that Metal Fab in the Northeast is addressed differently in the Northwest. The Centers cleared the hurdle by drafting
creative narratives to assist both customers in the Northeast and the
Northwest.
The Hub itself sits on
NEWMOA’s site. Both Centers agreed that
by collaborating on the Hub, valuable marketing opportunities are gained and a
collaborative spirit between the two centers strengthened. One issue that has not been addressed is how
the two Centers will collaboratively maintain the Hub.
Finding Your Way to the Appropriate Information in a Hub:
Peter Johnson encouraged
the group to find a way for appropriate information to best reach the
appropriate audience. Many of the
materials can be sorted by information that is fundamental information, “meat
and potatoes” information that contains a small amount of technical information
and technical documents. A sorted
system would enable the user to find the most appropriate information for
his/herself. Peter offered to draft a
sorting system to meet this need.
The Need for a “HOW-TO Populate the Hub” Document:
The group determined that
a document is needed for the steps in which a Topic Hub is to be
populated. If certain steps are not
done in the right order, then work that has already been done on the Hub might
get lost. Laura agreed to draft this
document.
Admin Breakout Session
When discussing the money
aspects of a single proposal on Thursday afternoon, several options were
considered. These included some sort of
pro-rating of money for the centers based on a minimum figure that would allow
the center to stay in operation, and awarding additional money based on
additional work – beyond the minimum required for a center. After a useful discussion, it was decided
that the minimum amount to run the centers (something greater than $118K) was
not enough different than an even split ($125K) to be worth the effort to
prorate the centers. Then individual centers could trade for work based on
their expertise. NEWMOA abstained from
the vote and GLRPPR can’t take their equal share ($125K) as they don’t have the
match for it. Therefore the group
decided to award every center $127K with GLRPPR taking $109.4K. This issue is not totally resolved. NEWMOA will see if they can get the money
through a state that won’t take too much out in overhead. Jean will look for additional money.
On Friday, the
administrative group reconfirmed their commitment to the P2Rx mission and goals
with the addition of “develop P2 information as necessary.” This is not expressly stated in the current
mission, “P2Rx is a national network of regional centers dedicated to improving
dissemination of pollution prevention information in the service provider
community.”
Jean read a summary of
national work being conducted by the centers for the current year. Jean will distribute the summary of national
and regional work to all the centers, along with detail from each center’s
proposal. From this information, the
administrative group can analyze the gaps between information (content) being
provided by P2Rx and information needed by the P2 community. Further, Jean will try and point out the
connection between work being done and P2Rx mission and goals. From this analysis, the administrative group
can determine activities that may need to be increased, decreased, added or
deleted. This exercise should help
everyone as they begin to plan for FY03, and it should help P2Rx tell a unified
story to EPA and other stakeholders.