260515 SPARC OS Ops Agenda

Date

May 15, 2026

11:00 am EST

Participants

Releases

• UPGRADE SPARCFulfillment v.3.7.0 - Spring 2026 - update Ruby/Rails 8

  • Members can view currently planned stories on SPARCFulfillment Dashboard Current Release

• FEATURE RELEASE SPARCRequest v3.15.0 - Summer 2026

  • Members can view currently planned stories on SPARC OS Development Dashboard Current Release or filter SPARC OS v3.15.0 Stories

• FEATURE RELEASE SPARCFulfillment v.3.8.0 - Fall 2026

  • Members can view currently planned stories on SPARC Fulfillment v3.8.0 stories

  • Main feature - time tracking module in lieu of Klok integration

• UPGRADE SPARCRequest v3.16.0 - Fall 2026 - update to Rails 8

  • Members can view currently planned stories on SPARC OS v3.16.0 Stories

Update

Discussion

• https://sparcrequest.atlassian.net/browse/SPOSDEV-1301

  • Key Points:

    • Separate from primary service provider role

    • Avoid reliance on study teams for notifications

    • Potential future enhancement:

      • Notify based on document type (e.g., protocol vs. consent form)

  • Feedback:

    • General agreement to move forward

    • Approach may evolve after implementation

    • Must ensure:

      • Users only receive notifications for documents they can access

      • Clear behavior when no watcher is assigned

  • Next Steps:

    • Refine requirements

    • Bring back for formal approval before development

• Satisfaction Survey Discussion

  • Current survey reduced to 2 questions (Likert scale)

  • Fewer questions → higher response rates

  • Allowed UF to take a screenshot of “SCTR Customer Satisfaction” Survey

• Policy & Legislative Metrics Discussion (UF Question)

  • Question: Policy and legislative benefits that were seen from MUSC and how you're able to kind of get to those metrics?

  • Identified using Overton (third-party tool)

    • MUSC uses RPPR recording template.

      • Evaluation that we do is we create a template for each program that aligns to the metrics that they that we said for the grant.

      • then we also include any kind of like internal programmatic goals or aims that they have that are not necessarily explicit to the grant that they would like to be able to use for their own program. And so we kind of tie those all together.

    • Pulls links between research outputs and policy impact

    • Access depends on institutional licensing for Overton

• Installation / Integration Issues

  • Some documentation gaps identified (installation complexity)

  • Need for:

    • Developer support sessions

    • Improved step-by-step documentation

  • Actions:

    • Prathik to coordinate with developer (Andrew)

    • Schedule working session with implementation team

    • Gather feedback on where installation steps are unclear

• RMID (Research Master ID) Discussion

  • Strong interest from UF

  • Benefits:

    • Links IRB, IACUC, and other research identifiers

    • Enables cross-system reporting and tracking

  • Key Insights:

    • Implementation took years; requires institutional buy-in

    • Improves data integration and evaluation efficiency

    • Highly valuable but involves governance and ownership challenges

Institutional Updates

• Case ~

• Children’s National ~

• Iowa ~

• OHSU ~ Nothing to report for now

• LA CaTS ~

• Stony Brook ~

• Morehouse ~

• UF~ Implementation underway.

  • Add institutional logos to SPARCRequest map visualization.

  • Logos must be submitted officially (not pulled from public sources).

• USC~ Contracts finalized; proceeding with development and operational support.

  • Add institutional logos to SPARCRequest map visualization.

  • Logos must be submitted officially (not pulled from public sources).

• MUSC ~