Underground Mine Disaster Survival and Rescue: An Evaluation of Research Accomplishments and Needs (1981)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX II. THE USBM-MSHA PROCEDURE FOR RANKING PROPOSED RESEARCH PROJECTS. The following material has been extracted from a memorandum sent by the Director, Minerals Health and Safety Technology, Bureau of Mines, to the Directors of the Bureau's 10 research centers, on January 4, 1980. -107-

United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES 2401 E STREET. NW. IN «wv MFE* TO: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20241 Memorandum for Record Subject: FY 1981 Project.Proposal Evaluation The criteria and methodology used for joint ranking of FY 1980 health and safety project proposals has been reviewed. The majority of the MS HA research chairmen and Bureau coordinators were satisfied with the FY 1980 procedures, and only a very few comments requesting changes were offered. These were minor in nature and did not represent a consensus view. Thus, the criteria and methodology to be used for FY 1981 will be identical to that used for FY 1979 and 1980. This document, dated January 1980, will be used for evaluating and ranking the,FY 1981 health and safety project proposals. Robert L. Marovelll Bureau of Mines Edwin M. Thomasson MSHA -103-

January 1980 FT 81 Procedure for Ranking Project Proposals 1. BOM & MSHA will exchange project descriptions as far in advance of •valuation meetings as possible. 2. Meetings of evaluation committees will take place during March and April. The Bureau Coordinator and MSHA Chairman will establish the dates of the meetings. General meeting agenda is as follows: a. Committee discusses projects, combines any remaining duplicative projects, and arrives at a master project list for evaluation. b. THe committee reach mutually acceptable definitions for the meaning of rating levels (such as low, medium, high) that are applied to each of the 12 rating factors. c. Using the rating for A, the members of the committee either in- dividually rate each project, or arrive at a group consensus rating for each project. d. When evaluations are completed, summary form B will be completed to reflect the committee's rating of each proposal. If the committee members Individually rated each proposal, the final rating is determined by averaging the individual project ratings. If the committee rated each proposal on a group consensus basis, this arrived at rating is the proposals final rating. e. The committee develops a priority ranked project list (in de- creasing priority) from the group rating using form C . From budget guidelines for Fy 81, the cutoff point on the ranked list will be established. Committee members may comment on differ- ences between the group ranking and their individual ranking of projects (limited to 1 page per member). Particular attention should be paid to those projects within _+ 10 percent of the budget cutoff line. f. The committee will deliver to the committee coordinator the following items: (1) all evaluation forms A containing raw evaluation data. (2) summary for B containing group ratings. (3) ranked list of projects on form C (4) any written comments provided by committee members. 3. It is anticipated the above described evaluation meetings will occupy one to three days per research area. -109-

4. The evaluation committee Is constituted with equal representation from MSHA and the Bureau. Should members be absent, separate averages of the MSHA representatives and the Bureau representatives will be used to derive a final project score. 5. A reminder: when rating projects, examine each rating factor as it applies only to the research area under evaluation, e.g. Ground Control; do not attempt to relate factors between areas, e.g. Respirable Dust versus Radiation. 6. The Bureau Program Manager responsible for programming a research Area, or MSHA representative, may attend the evaluation meetings if he chooses. His active participation would be in the discussion of projects; he will not rate the projects. 7. While differences will always exist in personal opinions as expressed in project ranking, objectivity remains an Important criteria for all evaluators. At the conclusion of the FT 81 ranking, the individual scores in areas of continuing concern will be standardized using a technique similar to the one used during evaluation of RFP proposals. This "after the fact" review of the ranking procedures will be pro- vided to the members of evaluation committees (and to Bureau and MSHA management) and should serve as a measure of their members individual objectivity. 8. The ranked list of projects resulting from the ranking meetings is used as a guide in developing a balanced overall research program. In those Instances where the projects selected for funding follow a prioritization other than that shown on the ranked list of projects, a detailed rationale for such changes will be submitted to Bureau management, MSHA research liaison, and the Bureau and MSHA chairmen of the evaluation committee. -110-

January 1980 Instructions to Evaluators of H&S R&D Project Proposals FK 81 First, each project proposal within a program and subprogram area will be evaluated by one group of evaluators. Second, each proposal will be evaluated with a number of criteria. The proposal will be measured against those criteria and a value of 1,2, or 3 given to each factor by the evaluating team. Each value will represent a stated range or value of the factor, e.g. Project duration 1: = 4 years of more; 2: = 2-4 years; and 3: « less than 2 years. Third, the project value will be determined by adding the 4 individual factors within each of the 3 areas evaluated, e.g. Need for R&D, to obtain a summed value for each area. These summed values for each group are multiplied together to obtain a value for the project proposal. This number is the value to be used in ranking The R&D proposal. The higher numbered proposals are the more attractive. Fourth, the committee will complete forms A, B and C according to the FY 81 Procedures for Ranking Project Proposals dated January 1981. -Ill-

• « 4 ° li - il ! 5&^ n u ** V & £ -H 4J • ^ 4J • IM H 4 O ,-l • i i -a e a a e M 3 « o B a M xts *j i > • -O Ckvl hi 1 hi b v< X -H hi ft) 0 E CO X W 0 <-l w U W M H W M C O *• 1 ' N *4 ^4 • C gU M 1r> e o, « hi -»• i> C. o-l J : j= «< -H «• 0 « J3 M iH ^ § 5 Jhl M « °25» 5' 2 • • £> H i •H *H «j • e « • 4 o • -H IM • » u O as JS o -O o. a « u «, 0 oO • hi C « • 3 01 "0 hi • x o x ••-o o -H o « 1 Wf-IBI 0«W i ft V I 1 vlttllvl ii 1 I 9 -H * fHWhiU 6O -H jr « *J jC 4J U W • 5-H 01 W IM X x a « a»H 9^0. -o oo • u • • ^•^KS Jd! £ SS2.S • • •H M « M i] N M i • eo u hi or hi hi w « 22 s 0 S "& 3: ! Queation X 41 <9 X U IM i i 1 « M e « u • • l' j f. -H m *t V II £ 00 3lll- 5- V slii-2? s^.ss i • 0 k M 1 ,* ^ i! b ri 01 >, C 3 I-"T< 0-3 g • 2 U fH !!'• 0.-H ~» • <r »H -112-

I «1 3 1 1 *t C -H J I ! ! •M O o » k. O &s «S i: e u M tl ' o • M • s| f IM W Ji. Involve pertcent O • (X • E u 9 ° 5S •8 2 •u V «J > d •H • gs -SS. I « IM s° st. fr« • kl «l •S1" 11 O • "8 SS S3 •H a: Oe V M > e o u ss M a Si c £ .3.2 fW fM M 6 Inrtolve* i prtcent o rtrty nc*. • ii i i J K 7 Si? ee E M vi,S 2*" « H « B « fH fH W > « o. e £ « o ,a to > u O O C «M O oM M vl O •>• O. C JC u -O -H 4J hi • hi B f-i o a « g « a « N f « U hl « B 5JI « 1J 9 . .1^3 • O hi O. tl > W g hi -rt C > O •>- 1M »i B e fH M hl -H r-t « W IM O g * o B ° e « e * « vi <j 41 « -H > U o a f-i o o OP V( fl CL 4J X •: J= 3 O « h " B -H -S C -H C vl U B B O «J rH C (X -i £ a o <s a WH .e • vi <e w « • • C M «w •H vi a i« hi «l -211*1 <S 9 ^->fH Chi .C <0 C O -H O 5 3 -rt o B » a hi hi 4i a -H -a f-l (I >. -o TS -a o VM vl tl C O vl no o. a O O. » f-l a. o at x o • P. 41 O a v -o a • f S 0 -0 -C !MhiChi « o u *J JS hi 4J a w. r-i , u o a S«'S f-l 01 hi a hi o O • IM 13 fC O U hi B 4J 41 -a 1 W U V t» vl • a vi a d IM «l 3 hi -H i 8 3 4J | s I < M -113-

O n I 41 1 I 8 I { il O 0 1 0 o £ 1 i E0 35 I -o X M X A 0 X U hi 80 41 41 • hi 0 9 a»i -o O. X C < 0 1H 0 -o 41 •H M 0 B vl •§£ S* u , 0 . O hi hi -H Ou 0 O. 0. 0 0 X 0 41 SS U X « O hi M o a o. 1-1 -o x S 02 g: 2 S» a B • i 0 o o T O 0 9 41 X 0 O i-l -C B ss-g O 41 0 > ex 4J o a. « :* o. a M B • a. o 0 * i I M > ft 0 £ JJ,S« M rt hi -H x a 41 41 O 0 «0 tl IM O 0 hi 4< 9 0 vl o a * u B° « O -H M 9 > « « « 0 0 090 41 hi iH hi Q i 5 i hi -a w v 41 O o r-i o -a 0 hi 0 0 > a • hi 0 O « -a u & J= CO 41 «o e hi C -r-l P. C -H O B X ,O 0 44 0 B 0 0 "*•* O > O & 0 O ^ 0 & U 0 0 O 0 M f. 0 41 X <T3 41 B *-* 0 o-l O > " 0 tl 4J -H t~- 0 9 U 0 M J3 O 41 0 hi t-» 0 ^» 4» £> BOX 41 O O 0 U 0 U O O IM 0 H > O hi 1-4001 fH 41 I-I •O 0 »t O 9 0 U 4» <M m -H &0 0 o c c -a o o. jr *H w 0 o w > 0 y hi 0 >H O U a 41 o a 9 « a o 0 hi OB X O O 9 0 B U E 0 O 0 0 *• •a 0 o IH -a x M jQ 41 (J 41 41 CL O ^ 0 B B O. hi hi O 0 0 0 o, 41 u 41 0 a. x 0 0 -e x o. 4) hi iH 01-40 _ J <n B 0 • hi 4J Tl 0 41 -§.* S-B §--« hi U 0 0 £ S S -a 1 o * •M •S • i : j | I I -114-

•s 3? •0*4 •I 1M 1 1 I 28 e e I8 O I Is °J e u frS -?&« M VI M -H ^H f u g-S 8 5i 8 Ts 3 « *l iH C(?2 82 3 S 1M O • V B C m « -O o-l -H « ^' ti -5 « « <H -O a •H W -« hi oH U -o « e -H oi n c M B « MO) SOS W £ • o -o » «oe O N <B §. * B c- • o- l X -en >v-H O Li M VI C O I -O ,-l M «4 v« M « 1 M ,0 eo -o -H * o -a «i -° s^ 8 I J 6 a | i j e 8 ? u I -115-

e m •• 1 1 I <J 1 j - i 1 o « O •-» H 2 & J * " 1 * I i • e « _ *J « U • I 1 i I i i j j i J • u u *s a n « « UWCIO4JW98 «i --« -o i* a -a a. 7 E X 1« g M 3 M 5 «J o *u I cr c. u w • 1 « •9 -o • o-l O 6 XX B O •J ** u I* c •* U o o -o a i u • X •" -H « TH 1M U iJ 00 41 1rl • c to « u « • a> ---« .c c • -a a -o M -HBO a > -H SJ 41 01 fci X M «•« £ 52 .sW X O M O j *i 2 i -116-