Appendix L

Metrics Applied by National Research Council Panels to Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory

Chapter 4, “Assessing Technical Quality,” provides a discussion of metrics in the assessment of research and development (R&D) organizations. This appendix provides a set of assessment metrics and criteria applied by National Research Council (NRC) panels that review the Army Research Laboratory (ARL).

1. Community

a. Papers in quality refereed journals and conference proceedings (and their citation index)

b. Presentations and colloquia

c. Participation in professional activities (society officers, conference committees, journal editors)

d. Educational outreach (serving on graduate committees, teaching/lecturing, invited talks, mentoring students)

e. Fellowships and awards (external and internal)

f. Review panel participation (Army Research Office, National Science Foundation, Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, etc.)

g. Recruiting new talent into ARL

h. Patents and intellectual property (IP) (and examples of how the patent or IP is used)

i. Involvement in building an ARL-wide cross-directorate community

j. Public recognition—for example, in the press and elsewhere for ARL research

2. Impact to Customers

a. Documented transfer/transition of technology, concepts or program assistance from ARL to research, development, and engineering centers (RDECs) or RDEC contractors for both the long term and short term

b. Direct funding from customers to support ARL activities

c. Documented demand for ARL support or services (Is there competition for their support?)

d. Customer involvement in directorate planning

e. Participation in multidisciplinary, cross-directorate projects

f. Surveys of customer base (direct information from customers on the value of ARL research)

3. Formulation of the Project’s Goals and Plan

a. Is there a clear tie to ARL Strategic Focus Areas, Strategic Plan, or other ARL need?

b. Are tasks well defined to achieve objectives?

c. Does the project plan clearly identify dependencies (i.e., successes depend on success of other activities within the project or outside developments)?



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 78
Appendix L Metrics Applied by National Research Council Panels to Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory Chapter 4, "Assessing Technical Quality," provides a discussion of metrics in the assessment of research and development (R&D) organizations. This appendix provides a set of assessment metrics and criteria applied by National Research Council (NRC) panels that review the Army Research Laboratory (ARL). 1. Community a. Papers in quality refereed journals and conference proceedings (and their citation index) b. Presentations and colloquia c. Participation in professional activities (society officers, conference committees, journal editors) d. Educational outreach (serving on graduate committees, teaching/lecturing, invited talks, mentoring students) e. Fellowships and awards (external and internal) f. Review panel participation (Army Research Office, National Science Foundation, Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, etc.) g. Recruiting new talent into ARL h. Patents and intellectual property (IP) (and examples of how the patent or IP is used) i. Involvement in building an ARL-wide cross-directorate community j. Public recognition--for example, in the press and elsewhere for ARL research 2. Impact to Customers a. Documented transfer/transition of technology, concepts or program assistance from ARL to research, development, and engineering centers (RDECs) or RDEC contractors for both the long term and short term b. Direct funding from customers to support ARL activities c. Documented demand for ARL support or services (Is there competition for their support?) d. Customer involvement in directorate planning e. Participation in multidisciplinary, cross-directorate projects f. Surveys of customer base (direct information from customers on the value of ARL research) 3. Formulation of the Project's Goals and Plan a. Is there a clear tie to ARL Strategic Focus Areas, Strategic Plan, or other ARL need? b. Are tasks well defined to achieve objectives? c. Does the project plan clearly identify dependencies (i.e., successes depend on success of other activities within the project or outside developments)? 78

OCR for page 78
d. If the project is part of a wider activity, is the role of the investigators clear, and are the project tasks and objectives clearly linked to those of other related projects? e. Are milestones identified, if they are appropriate? Do they appear feasible? f. Are obstacles and challenges defined (technical, resources)? g. Does the project represent an area in which application of ARL strengths is appropriate? 4. Methodology a. Are the hypotheses appropriately framed within the literature and theoretical context? b. Is there a clearly identified and appropriate process for performing required analyses, prototypes, models, simulations, tests, etc.? c. Are the methods (e.g., laboratory experiment, modeling/simulation, field testing, analysis) appropriate to the problems? Do these methods integrate? d. Is the choice of equipment/apparatus appropriate? e. Is the data collection and analysis methodology appropriate? f. Are conclusions supported by the results? g. Are proposed ideas for further study reasonable? h. Do the trade-offs between risk and potential gain appear reasonable? i. If the project demands technological or technical innovation, is that occurring? j. What stopping rules, if any, are being or should be applied? 5. Capabilities and Resources a. Are the qualifications and number of the staff (scientific, technical, administrative) appropriate to achieve success of the project? b. Is funding adequate to achieve success of the project? c. Is the state of the equipment and facilities adequate? d. If staff, funding, or equipment are not adequate, how might the project be triaged (what thrust should be emphasized, what sacrificed?) to best move toward its stated objectives? e. Does the laboratory sustain the technical capability to respond quickly to critical issues as they arise? 6. Responsiveness a. Have the issues and recommendations presented in the previous report been addressed? 79

OCR for page 78