C
Traceability of Mission-Enabling Activities from Strategic Goals

A detailed example, following a single hypothetical thread in the Planetary Science Division, is illustrated in Figure C.1. Each major division goal is broken down into scientific tasks and subtasks, and the requirements for particular scientific capabilities and activities are then identified for each subtask. In that way, mission-enabling activities spanning the general scope of knowledge base, technology development, and workforce maintenance are identified at the activity level. The process of translating top-level goals into more detailed objectives, requirements, and activities can benefit by drawing on research community input via the advisory committee process.

Once a mission-enabling traceability matrix is generated for each Science Mission Directorate (SMD) division, the resultant mission-enabling activities can be compared with those activities contained within the program elements identified in an inventory used to enhance budget transparency. Ultimately, these should converge. Initially, this exercise is likely to identify areas of necessary mission-enabling activities that are not currently supported within SMD.

Traceability obviates the practice of restoring overall mission-enabling funding cuts or expanding mission-enabling funding primarily through the creation of new programs. The committee heard that there is the perception within SMD that the Office of Management and Budget will not approve the expansion of existing programs (even to restore a prior cut in funding). The result is program element proliferation and subject redundancy, which decreases efficiency in management and increases the need to write more proposals and subsequent multiple submissions of the same proposals by members of the science community. Appropriately sizing a mission-enabling activity within a single program element, instead of fragmenting its funding across several program elements, offers benefits to both managers and scientists.

Having identified firmly grounded funding levels for all mission-enabling activities and programs, all linked to and flowing from strategic goals, comparisons with existing budgets will likely reveal a range of disparate results from substantial funding to no funding at all. The worst response to such a scenario would be a sudden reallocation of resources across all programs to achieve a common level of underfunding.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 54
C Traceability of Mission-Enabling Activities from Strategic Goals A detailed example, following a single hypothetical thread in the Planetary Science Division, is illustrated in Figure C.1. Each major division goal is broken down into scientific tasks and subtasks, and the requirements for particular scientific capabilities and activities are then identified for each subtask. In that way, mission-enabling activities spanning the general scope of knowledge base, technology development, and workforce maintenance are identified at the activity level. The process of translating top-level goals into more detailed objectives, requirements, and activities can benefit by drawing on research community input via the advisory committee process. Once a mission-enabling traceability matrix is generated for each Science Mission Directorate (SMD) division, the resultant mission-enabling activities can be compared with those activities contained within the program ele - ments identified in an inventory used to enhance budget transparency. Ultimately, these should converge. Initially, this exercise is likely to identify areas of necessary mission-enabling activities that are not currently supported within SMD. Traceability obviates the practice of restoring overall mission-enabling funding cuts or expanding mission- enabling funding primarily through the creation of new programs. The committee heard that there is the percep - tion within SMD that the Office of Management and Budget will not approve the expansion of existing programs (even to restore a prior cut in funding). The result is program element proliferation and subject redundancy, which decreases efficiency in management and increases the need to write more proposals and subsequent multiple sub - missions of the same proposals by members of the science community. Appropriately sizing a mission-enabling activity within a single program element, instead of fragmenting its funding across several program elements, offers benefits to both managers and scientists. Having identified firmly grounded funding levels for all mission-enabling activities and programs, all linked to and flowing from strategic goals, comparisons with existing budgets will likely reveal a range of disparate results from substantial funding to no funding at all. The worst response to such a scenario would be a sudden realloca - tion of resources across all programs to achieve a common level of underfunding. 

OCR for page 54
 APPENDIX C Gain scientific Advance scientific Advance scientific STRATEGIC knowledge of the knowledge of the origin knowledge of the GOALS hazards and resources and history of the solar potential for life relevant to human system elsewhere space exploration Community Input Understand the physical Determine Determine the Determine the TASKS processes operating within evidence of past physical state of content of the Priority: TBD the solar system and on processes in the objects in the solar system Cost: Sum of subtask and within its components solar system solar system costs Assessment Criteria: Community Estimate completeness Input of solar syst em content Determine the Determine the Determine the Determine the SUBTASKS Priority: Depends on interplanetary population of sm all population of objects in population of congressional m andate, environment bodies in the solar major planet systems in NEOs to d>140m knowledge of 140m + NEO system the solar system population compared to Community other solar components. Input Cost: Sum of costs to meet Requirements Assessment Criteria: Known population Theoretical modeling of Ground-based Space-based completeness, rate desired REQUIREMENTS population sources, telescopic search telescopic search level is being achieved sinks, and predicted number and distribution Community Priority: Depends on the Input importance of a gr ound-based contribution relative to space based. Appropriate Detector Observer and Survey Cost: Sum of Activity costs telescope ACTIVITY technology analysis design and Assessment Criteria: NEOs facilities, with and software workforce execution discovered in number and as range of development developm ent fraction of expected population. apertures Rate of discovery/desired rate. Priority:Essential, but depends on the desired level of subtask completion over what timescale. Priority for building new facilities depends on the number of existing facilities and the im pact of that availability on the anticipated co mpletion time. Cost:Expense of facility usage and construction . Duration: The predetermined time to complete subtask to desired level. Assessment Criteria: W hat fraction of the required facilities is operational? Cross-discipline:Yes, the same facilities can simultaneously address other subtasks. Program Element: Planetary Astronomy FIGURE C.1 Sample Science Mission Directorate Planetary Science Division traceability matrix (thread).