National Academies Press: OpenBook

Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations (2012)

Chapter: Appendix D Example of Peer Advice During the Planning Phase of R&D

« Previous: Appendix C Validating the Assessment
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Example of Peer Advice During the Planning Phase of R&D." National Research Council. 2012. Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13529.
×

Appendix D

Example of Peer Advice During the Planning Phase of R&D

This appendix describes a successful example of an assessment of program content during the program planning phase. This assessment occurred when the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) involved invited experts during the formulation of a request for proposal for two multiscale modeling programs.

The ARL wished to initiate a complex, multi-organizational attack on problems deemed critical to future Army needs in areas requiring advanced materials. Influenced by developments in this field as reflected in the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s Accelerated Insertion of Materials (DARPA AIM) program of the early 2000s and many subsequent efforts by other agencies, the ARL elected to focus on the development of computational tools to assist the effort. This multiscale modeling approach had recently been codified in a report of the National Research Council (NRC) on integrated computational materials engineering1 and supported by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) through its Materials Genome Initiative.

The ARL scoped its needs in two areas, electronics and high-speed deformation, and developed a conceptual framework for addressing these areas. Broadly speaking, the program envisioned was to include both extramural and intramural entities working in partnership. The funding of the extramural entities would arise from a competition stimulated through the conventional process of the release of a program announcement. The intramural programs would span the areas of structural materials and functional materials and would include extensive computational expertise. The centers of excellence for these three areas are located in three different directorates in the ARL, ensuring that a cross-organizational effort would be required.

Of great significance to the consideration of best practices was the inclusion of extramural assessment in the development of the program announcement of funding opportunity. Members of the NRC panels that conduct the usual peer assessments of the ARL were invited to participate in the public forum that preceded finalization of the call for proposals. This group of invited visitors offered, as individuals rather than as representatives of the NRC panels, observations that were deemed valuable by ARL management and that led directly to modification of the program scope and characterization in the final call for proposals. The selection of experts from a known and highly credible set of peer reviewers was a key factor in the successful planning activity described here—the experts were already familiar with those elements of the intramural research that would be impacted by the planned program; they knew the overall mission, structure, and operational procedures of the ARL and could assess how the new proposed activities might fit. Because these individuals were already well known and respected by ARL senior management, their advice perhaps carried with it more credibility than might have been accorded an ad hoc group of strangers, no matter what their credentials. To protect against conflict of interest, no member of the advisory group nor their colleagues were permitted to submit proposals for the multiscale modeling work.

____________________________

1 National Research Council, 2008. Integrated Computational Materials Engineering: A Transformational Discipline for Improved Competitiveness and National Security. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D Example of Peer Advice During the Planning Phase of R&D." National Research Council. 2012. Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13529.
×
Page 56
Next: Appendix E Relevant Statutes and Requirements Documents for U.S. Government Laboratories and U.S. Government Research »
Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $37.00 Buy Ebook | $29.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Research and development (R&D) organizations are operated by government, business, academe, and independent institutes. The success of their parent organizations is closely tied to the success of these R&D organizations. In this report, organizations refers to an organization that performs research and/or development activities (often a laboratory), and parent refers to the superordinate organization of which the R&D organization is a part. When the organization under discussion is formally labeled a laboratory, it is referred to as such. The question arises: How does one know whether an organization and its programs are achieving excellence in the best interests of its parent? Does the organization have an appropriate research staff, facilities, and equipment? Is it doing the right things at high levels of quality, relevance, and timeliness? Does it lead to successful new concepts, products, or processes that support the interests of its parent?

This report offers assessment guidelines for senior management of organizations and of their parents. The report lists the major principles of assessment, noting that details will vary from one organization to another. It provides sufficient information to inform the design of assessments, but it does not prescribe precisely how to perform them, because different techniques are needed for different types of organizations.

Best Practices in Assessment of Research and Development Organizations covers three key factors that underpin the success of an R&D organization: (1) the mission of the organization and its alignment with that of the parents; (2) the relevance and impact of the organization's work; and (3) the resources provided to the organization, beginning with a high-quality staff and management.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!