Appendix A
Federation Models

Several individuals were invited to summarize examples of successful federation models. The examples selected are from a spectrum of organizations, including libraries, international organizations, industry, government, and academia. The examples of federation models appear as written by the authors, with minor editing for continuity of style.



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 23
--> Appendix A Federation Models Several individuals were invited to summarize examples of successful federation models. The examples selected are from a spectrum of organizations, including libraries, international organizations, industry, government, and academia. The examples of federation models appear as written by the authors, with minor editing for continuity of style.

OCR for page 23
--> Association Of Research Libraries Federation Prudence Adler Since there is no one model in the academic arena that will serve as the basis for designing an EOSDIS Federation, the following elements or factors culled from other federations, could be incorporated into a new model to best serve the needs of the evolving organization. Issues relating to identification of community values, investments in long-term preservation and access activities, and better definition of the relationship between the federation, NASA, and Congress will be important to delineate and will be central to the success of the federation. The federation model should allow the organization to evolve and change, in large part, to be responsive to changing user information needs. One key element of the model will be to ensure that the organization is responsive to membership—a membership comprised of multiple constituencies. It will be a formidable task to design a federation that is equally responsive to changing scientific requirements while meeting congressional demands. A common theme or glue in existing academic consortia is the set of values that the community brings to the effort. These shared values provide cohesiveness to potentially diverse communities. For example, one value for the federation relates to information policies such as the policy supporting the full and open exchange of data. Other motivations to consider include economic concerns and the need to improve a local situation through national initiatives. *   Understanding common values also assists the organization in managing and/or considering other relationships. The increasingly complex environment in which EOSDIS partners will operate suggests that a common set of principles would enhance the federation's ability to achieve its goals and collaborate with other initiatives. *   Articulating values permits the federation to draw in other partners, initiate other activities, and export its values set to other efforts that may complement or extend beyond its current operating structure. *   Partners in the federation should do an "environmental scan" to identify and understand potentially competing values or projects that could keep a partner from fully embracing an EOS-centric set of values or principles. For example, the very nature of this enterprise is international. How will the federation interact with international centers and users? Some of these relationships will be appropriately governed by U.S. data policies and practices; others are not so well defined. There is a need for careful definition of the relationship between the federation and NASA. EOS partners are legitimately seeking greater clarity in this relationship. As this relationship evolves, it will be important to be aware of how NASA will present this program to Capitol Hill, how the federation funding process will evolve, and how the appropriate committees (e.g., appropriations and authorization) will view NASA's relationship to the federation. Members of the research and education communities require access to both current and historical data. The federation should address issues relating to long-term preservation, access activities, and how the users will be able to integrate and use EOS data with other information resources located elsewhere. Most academic federations and organizations include several common governance structures: full-time staff, a clearly articulated mission, a Board of Directors, an Executive Committee that can respond quickly to ongoing management issues, plus committees to advance the work of the membership. The EOSDIS Federation may need comparable organizational structures. In addition, an appreciation of the benefits to members and, in particular, how collective action and collaboration advances the interest of the community are critically important to the success of an organization. Other key factors include: a well defined issue set, the ability of the governance structure (board and members) to respond quickly and with flexibility to issues, and the active engagement of members. A brief review of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) organization is illustrative of these elements found in other academic federations and organizations.

OCR for page 23
--> Association Of Research Libraries Federation GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES Full time executive director; Elected board (11 board members elected by full membership of ARL -121 North American research libraries); Eight standing committees; Many working groups and project advisory committees; Executive Committee-president, past president, and president-elect; All powers of a corporation (e.g., contracts, hiring, firing); and Membership criteria: invitation to major research institutions with broad-based collections and services. Mission statement: The mission of the ARL is to shape and influence forces affecting the future of research libraries in the process of scholarly communication. ARL programs and services promote equitable access to and effective use of recorded knowledge in support of teaching, research, scholarship, and community service. The association articulates the concerns of research libraries and their institutions, forges coalitions, influences information policy development, and supports innovation and improvement in research library operations. ARL is a not-for-profit membership organization comprising the libraries of North American research institutions and operates as a forum for the exchange of ideas and as an agent for collective action.   Membership in ARL is institutional. There are currently 121 members that meet twice a year.     1.   Scholarly communication & information policies. To understand, contribute to, and improve the system of scholarly communication and the information policies that affect the availability and usefulness of research resources. 2.   Access to research resources. To make access to research resources more efficient and effective. 3.   Collection development. To support member libraries' efforts to develop research collections, both individually and in the aggregate. 4.   Preservation. To support member libraries' efforts to preserve research collections, both individually and in the aggregate. 5.   Technology. To assist member libraries in exploiting technology in fulfillment of their mission and assess the impact of education technologies on scholarly communication and on the role of research libraries. 6.   Staffing. To identify on an ongoing basis the capabilities and characteristics required for research library personnel to best serve their constituencies and to assist member libraries and educational programs in the recruitment, development, and effective use of staff. 7.   Management. To assist member libraries in augmenting their management capabilities. 8.   Performance measures. To describe and measure the performance of research libraries and their contributions to teaching, research, scholarship, and community service.

OCR for page 23
--> COST/BENEFITS LESSONS LEARNED AND OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTICS Cost to individual members Financial contributions in the form of dues in addition to selected contributions in support of particular projects as determined by each institution; Members serve on committees, working groups, task forces, ARL Board of Directors.   Collective action and collaboration advance interests of the community. Shared value set and principles are central to the success of the organization. Targeted issues permit focus of organization and high success. Active involvement of the members is critical to the success of the organization. The governance structure allows for quick/agile responses to issues. Regular review (yearly) of priorities permits needed flexibility and ability to tackle new and/or changing issues/circumstances. Collaboration (ARL has created or participates in a very large number of coalitions) with other public and private sector organizations and entities enhances and strengthens the organization's ability to address issues. Benefits to to individual members Collaboration and collective action on a host of key issues of importance to the research library community     *   a community-wide voice; *   significant leveraging of funds and resources; and *   targeted issues to advance core set of concerns/opportunities.  

OCR for page 23
--> Harvard Libraries Thomas M. Parris Surprising as it may seem there is no single "Harvard Library System." Rather Harvard operates more than 90 autonomous libraries. Each has it own endowment, reports to its own dean or department chair, and so forth. However, these libraries have federated so that in many respects they look like a single system to the outside world. There were three compelling reasons for this federation. The first was driven by patron demand. Our research community became vociferous in its disdain for having to search the many card catalogs maintained across a large campus. This was particularly true for the growing number of student and faculty performing interdisciplinary research. Second, the individual libraries were facing a common set of expensive decisions relating to the construction of computerized card catalog systems, preservation laboratories, and off-site depositories. Each of these efforts have significant economies of scale. Third, rapidly rising monograph and serial prices forced libraries to collaborate more closely on purchases. We could no longer afford to have multiple libraries buying the same expensive materials. The structure of the Harvard library federation allows the individual libraries to maintain complete control over collection policies, finances, and all aspects of internal operations. Money flows from these autonomous libraries to support unifying services, such as online catalog, depository, and preservation. There is no mandate that forces libraries to subscribe to these services. Indeed, some libraries do not participate in the campus-wide card catalog system (HOLLIS), and some maintain their own preservation and off-site storage facilities. The executive committees of the federation are dominated by representatives from member libraries and are structured with some bias toward the smaller libraries. The result is impressive. As a group, the Harvard libraries are the largest academic library in the world. The online card catalog has over 8 million bibliographic entries. The Harvard Depository, our centralized service for off-site storage, has attracted significant business from other local libraries and businesses.

OCR for page 23
--> Harvard University Library Federation GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES   Full-time director, joint appointment of an active senior faculty member to one of the university's most senior prestigious chairs. The Pforzheimer professor and the University Library report to the Office of the President. Full-time staff, including associate directors for administration and programs, as well as information systems and planning. Two advisory committees: The University Library Council is comprised of the librarian of each faculty library and the University Library's associate directors. This body meets once a month. The Harvard Overseers' Committee to Visit the University Library is drawn from a distinguished community of international leaders, many of whom are alumni with interests in the Harvard University Library. Working groups are drawn from throughout the Harvard library community to address specific operational issues. Participation is open to all Harvard affiliated libraries. The Harvard University Library is funded primarily through an endowment established by the corporation at its inception and the university's central administration, of which it is a department. In addition, some program support is realized through federal grants and by fees to the faculties for a portion of the system's operation and off-site storage costs.   The Harvard University Library serves as the coordinating body for a distributed system of library units, which vary in size. The central coordinating body is charged by the corporation of the university to perform those functions that make sense to do centrally. Such functions include: *   Development, implementation, and operation of the online catalog and related library information systems; *   University archives; *   Preservation and special collections conservation; *   Publishing ventures and institutional communication; *   Human resources administration; *   Institutional research; *   Sponsored projects management; *   Coordinated acquisition of networked resources (prospective); *   Development of the Library Digital Initiative; *   Membership in national associations; and *   External relations. COST/BENEFITS LESSONS LEARNED   Realizes economies of scale across libraries. Integrates intellectual access and related services to over 90 independent libraries. In return, individual libraries give up a measure of control and potential for local customization of University Library functions.   The model works. The Harvard Online Library Information System (HOLLIS) maintains records on over 8 million bibliographic titles. HOLLIS is an effective first point of consultation for research at Harvard. The University Library is now in the process of procuring a second-generation integrated library system. The Harvard Depository has been successful in serving the Harvard library community The Harvard University Library Preservation Center is recognized as a national leader in its field.

OCR for page 23
--> NATO's Partnership for Peace Charles J. Dale In 1994 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established the Partnership for Peace (PfP) as a vehicle for developing bilateral security relationships between the alliance (and its sixteen member states) and the non-member nations of Europe and Central Asia. Twenty-seven non-NATO nations, with such diverse strategic interests as Switzerland and Russia, have now established unique, bilateral partner-ships with the alliance. The Partnership Work Programme from which each individual partnership is derived includes over 1,000 activities annually, activities such as workshops, technical exchanges, exercises, consultations, and training courses. The partnership covered a broad range of security issues from military exercises in peacekeeping to the democratic control of armed forces. PfP is established within the federal structure of the Alliance itself. Within NATO, the sixteen member states hold power and the ''center," the secretary general and his staff, govern by their consent. NATO's members have shared interests and values and are treaty bound to come to each other's defense. NATO decides by consensus—one nation, one vote—at all levels. The voice of the United States is no more, or greater, than that of the Netherlands or Iceland. NATO has a common language and way of doing business (several thousand standardization agreements, for example) that define technical standards for interoperability of forces. The "work" of the alliance is guided by alliance foreign and defense ministers, who meet twice a year to provide strategic direction. The North Atlantic Council, the highest standing political body of the alliance in which ambassadors represent their nations, meets at least weekly to oversee and direct the everyday work of the alliance. "Corporate NATO" is comprised of several hundred committees, agencies, and working groups—the profit centers of the alliance—each with an independent mandate and authority from the center. The partnership draws on the strength of NATO's federalism. Partner nations are fully enfranchised within the context of their bilateral relationship with the alliance. The work of the partnership is decentralized through the NATO structure. Partners have dual citizenship, as sovereign nations and as members of the partnership. They share interests and common values and are committed, in both a collective and individual sense, to common objectives. The partnership has its own political framework, instruments and procedures, in most cases modeled after NATO's. But the NATO PfP marriage is not perfect; in fact, it has a fundamental tension built in. Partnership is not membership. The sixteen alliance members retain significant reserve powers to decide the strategic direction of PfP. Partners have a voice, but no vote. This built-in tension is causing fault lines within the partnership as partners call for more say on "important" issues affecting the partnership writ large.

OCR for page 23
--> Nato's Partnership for Peace Federation GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES   PfP has mixed models: *   NATO member states decide on reserve issues involving strategic direction of partnership itself; *   Partners are involved in joint decision making on bilateral issues. Secretary general and "center" govern by consent of nations; Biannual meetings of defense and foreign ministers provide strategic direction; North Atlantic Council (NATO ambassadors) meetings weekly—with partners monthly, highest level working bodies; "Corporate" NATO—several hundred committees, agencies, working groups have independent mandate and are self-governing at the working level; Decisions taken by consensus.   Mission statement and objectives established through non-binding political agreement (framework document). Framework document: *   Established shared values; *   Objectives; *   Governing principals. Strategic objectives: *   Prepare some partners for NATO membership; *   Support new NATO missions; *   Element of new Europe security architecture. Operational objectives: *   Support defense reform: restructuring armed forces and revamping national security decision-making processes and structures; *   Promote democratic control of armed forces; *   Develop interoperable forces. COST/BENEFITS LESSONS LEARNED/TENSIONS AND OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTICS Cost to individual members: As a general rule, nations support their own participation and activities. Some partners with limited resources are subsidized. NATO collective funds (cost shared among NATO nations). Supports NATO-sponsored activities and organizational costs. Benefits to individual partner nations: Offers bilateral relationship with the alliance short of full membership. At strategic level, participation supports national security objectives: *   Offers voice in European security affairs; *   Prepares some for membership in NATO. At operational level, partnership provides direct advice and assistance (political and military). Benefits to NATO and partner nations at large: Promotes security and stability—confidence building and transparency   As issues grow in importance, partners demand a vote. Strategy to "do business" in PfP the "NATO way" works. Bilateral characteristics—an essential characteristic of PfP—also fosters independence among partners. Limits of consensus decision making—" How big is too big?" NATO member states, not partners, bound by treaty. Nations enfranchised at all levels of decision making. PfP is a series of independent bilateral partnerships—27 unique relationships designed around NATO. Partners "self-differentiate" (i.e., each country designs its program of activities via NATO based on its interests and capabilities). Over time PfP developed its own common language and institutional identity. Nations have dual (or multi-) citizenship, as sovereign states, allies, partners. PfP created with only one new structure—minimum new bureaucracy.

OCR for page 23
--> Strategic Research at Chevron Petroleum Technology Company Robert Heming Chevron Petroleum Technology Company is charged with bringing the best available technology to Chevron's upstream (exploration and production) business. The company covers a wide range of technical expertise and deals with a very geographically dispersed customer base. In 1992 we radically redesigned our approach to providing technology and, in particular, we changed the way we gain access to new science and technology. It was felt that our previous efforts to find new and radical technologies of potential value to our business were badly flawed. We needed a rethink. The results of that rethink is something we call strategic research. Its objective is to scan the technology horizon for new science, much of it not traditionally used in the oil and gas business, which has the potential to change the way we do our business or reveal new business opportunities. By calling it strategic research and by giving the responsibility to one individual we believe we have made it a strong and focused part of our overall technology strategy. That strategy can be depicted by a broad arrow running from high-risk but low-cost and highly leveraged technology investments to relatively low-risk, high-cost investments that are designed to take products and services to the customer. The stages along the way are called tiers and the continuum can be viewed as a pipeline with a wide opening at the strategic research end where we invest relatively small amounts in several new science and technology ventures. Successful technologies are then developed and matured to the point where they can replace existing technology. As well as stretching our "technology horizon," we also decided that to be successful our approach to collaboration must be different. We wished to be regarded as good partners by a wide range of groups within the invention community, from national laboratories and research institutes through universities and small entrepreneurs to other industrial R&D companies. To accomplish this we designated the role of linker. Someone who could be "at home" within our research group as well as a research group in a university for instance. To us "at home" means being accepted as a co-worker and colleague and not being viewed as an interloper. To achieve this we practice certain key principles. The first is to be explicit and clear about what success looks like in each organization. Next we develop a collaboration that will allow both parties to succeed. The real objective is to allow both partners to achieve success, or win, as defined by their respective cultural and business models. For example, when collaborating with a university, it is important to recognize that ownership of the invention and publication rights are vital to the mission of a university. In setting up a research collaboration we try very hard to match the cultural and business objectives. The final key is to be very clear about the role of the linker and the personal attributes necessary for that role to be successful. Then management must reinforce the principles and behaviors needed. It must support, coach, provide vision, and encourage both creativity and collaborative behavior. Our experience since 1993, when we made our first strategic research investment, has been positive, but we have learned several hard lessons, too. Do not underestimate the importance of the linker—a good one makes all the difference. Do not underestimate the importance of cultural and business differences. A natural tendency of technical people is to focus first on the technical issues and last on the cultural or so-called soft issues. In our experience it is the soft issues that cause hard falls. Be prepared to relocate people to an appropriate common work site. Stretching the physical boundaries of one's organization does wonders to people's views of issues, problems, solutions, etc. We see great strength in creating a much more virtual organization to accomplish our strategic research goals. We are pleased with what we have achieved, but we realize that we need to learn much more. Above all, we have learned the importance of clarity. Clarity of vision, objectives, intents, success factors, and so on. Get everything on the table right at the beginning. Anything left under the table is a potential show stopper at some future date, so take time in the early stages to understand your potential partner and understand what is motivating that person to collaborate with you. Communicate and communicate as much as you can, but always be clear and explicit about where you want to go and how you want to get there.

OCR for page 23
--> Chevron Petroleum Technology Company Strategic Research GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES   Full-time general manager, strategic research; Guidance team composed of member of technology companies and Chevron's upstream operating companies; Project selection process driven by the GM-strategic research, one manager and team of technology managers; Final budget approval by the corporate VP-technology. To participate in and fund research and development into new science and technology that can substantially improve the performance of our upstream oil and gas business or provide new business opportunities. PRINCIPLES/BENEFITS LESSONS LEARNED Clarity of objectives; Explicit measures of success for both parties; Single team/single objective; Mutual access to intellectual property (IP) decided at beginning; Appoint linker to work in project. Benefits to Chevron: Enhanced access to novel science and technology; Ability to collaborate with best scientific and technical ideas anywhere in the world; flexibility. Benefits to Collaborator: Access to new problems, data and application trials; Multi-year funding commitment; Committed partner dedicated to working as a full team member; Ability to meet own objectives/measures of success. Linker—a very important role—"a day job." Management must dedicate time, especially in the beginning. Allow the team or workgroup to make the "goal" their own. Do not short-circuit the cultural development. Be creative in selecting work site. Be clear on IP, but give and take. Describe framework, "rules," behaviors, outcomes, intervention mechanisms in "plain English" before lawyers "boilerplate.'' You may lose valuable people. Virtual R&D organization that allows access to wider range of creative ideas than possible in traditional internal industrial R&D organization.

OCR for page 23
--> The Science Of Federalism: Past And Present Joanne I. Gabrynowicz In 1987 the United States began a third century of government under its present Constitution: a constitution that has successfully brought an energetic nation through the passage of time, the expansion of physical space, and national crises. This presentation suggests that the framers of the United States Constitution engaged in what they called "a science of constitutions," which employed the scientific method; a geometric model; measurements and proportions; Newtonian physics; and, what is today recognized as systems science. It addresses the goal of the Constitution framers, the science they used, their design process, and the resulting system. It is suggested further that the use of a similar approach in modem times can provide a model for a federated data and information acquisition, processing, and distribution system that transcends local limitations and centralized control, if it is founded on general principles that have a more universal applicability.

OCR for page 23
--> United States Federation GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES   Democratic authority originates from consent of participants. Elected officials; staggered terms of office. Authority/power separated according to function: rule making; rule interpretation; execution of rules. Executive entity directs, advises, carries out day-to-day activities, responsible for fulfilling policies determined by regulatory (legislative) entity. Includes chief executive and an advisory body. Regulatory (legislative) entity drafts group rules, governs joint finances, determines governing policies. Proportional representation. Conflict resolution entity (judicial). Authority to resolve questions, conflicts, and issues raised by constituent members of the federation. Determinations are binding on members. Specific mechanisms to change governing system as necessary. Location of function control, local or central, is determined by the nature of the function. New members meet preestablished criteria designed to enhance whole system.   A participant-defined organization that ensures stability and common values over time; A more perfect union; Decentralized authority, sometimes co-located; Interaction among local parts and whole system; A structural foundation that balances predictability and change as events and new participants emerge over time; Equality of stature for all participants. RESULTS OF COLLABORATION LESSONS LEARNED   Distributed benefits; Distributed burdens; Flexibility over time; Coexisting experiments in different local parts with same or similar subject matter allows best alternatives to emerge; Self-financed with distribution of fiscal resources according to self-determined governing policies.   A systemic, holistic model based on an interconnected mixture of distributed local authority and a central, overarching authority works; The American experiment: based on Newtonian concepts; Science can be the foundation of governance (not necessarily government) systems; Complementarity of science and commerce; Complementarity of private and public interests; Can be long-term; Geographic coherence required; Political will is necessary; Location of authority can migrate over time.

OCR for page 23
--> University Corporation For Atmospheric Research Federation Frank Eden The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) mission is "to support, enhance, and extend the capabilities of the university community nationally and internationally; to understand the behavior of the atmosphere and related systems and the global environment; and to foster the transfer of knowledge and technology for the betterment of life on Earth." UCAR was incorporated in the late 1960s and is now a consortium of 63 universities. This mission has evolved into the management of a variety of major facilities and projects broadly related to the atmospheric sciences. The first and most visible of these is the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). UCAR also manages large distributed data systems, including Unidata, which provides meteorological data and networking to well over 100 researcher and user institutions, and the Distributed Active Archive Center, which similarly provides ocean data services. UCAR initiated the Global Positioning System Meteorology Instrument program. UCAR sponsors extensive educational activities and provides for commercial and technological transfer activities. UCAR has a strong central management system with a full-time president and staff and an elected Board of Trustees. Its relationship to its principal sponsor, NSF, has changed from contractual to a cooperative agreement system, which stipulates direct NSF-led review of programs and management. UCAR has clearly operated successfully for over 30 years. It has managed and provided major facilities and an institutional voice and focus for the atmospheric sciences community. It appears to have successfully managed a triad of a major center, university members, and federal agencies. On the downside there have been failures (e.g., losing the management of the National Scientific Balloon Facility and withdrawing from the Institute for Naval Oceanography). The growth of UCAR activities has strained the board's oversight. There has always existed a tension between individual investigators and UCAR over the division of NSF funds between them as a zero sum game and the potential opportunity loss for individual universities to own and operate major facilities. There have also been issues of UCAR programs competing with the private sector.

OCR for page 23
--> University Corporation For Atmospheric Research Federation GOVERNANCE OBJECTIVES   Full-time president; Elected board (17 members elected by representatives of the 63 member universities), which includes at-large members outside of scientific disciplines; Five standing committees of the board, including UCAR management committee; Member committees and meetings; Cooperative agreement (formerly a contractual arrangement) stipulates NSF involvement and NSF-led review of all programs and management; All powers of a corporation (e.g., contract), operations governed by bylaws. Mission statement defines broad strategy. Specifics include: Manage NCAR for NSF: *   Provide major facilities and planning capability for programs of atmospheric research; *   Conduct atmospheric research in cooperation with universities. Manage other projects (e.g., Unidata, DOTS, GPS Met through UCAR office of programs for NSF and other agencies, including significant educational activities); Provide for commercial and technology transfer activities through separately incorporated activities. COST/BENEFITS LESSONS LEARNED/ISSUES AND OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTICS Cost to individual members: Financial contribution supports UCAR corporate fund; Member service on committees; Some loss of autonomy and opportunity loss in competing individually for large facilities/programs; Division of research funds between university programs and UCAR programs. Benefits to individual members: Access to large centrally managed facilities and planning capabilities at NCAR probably beyond the ability of individual members to acquire; Institutional focus for joint planning and coordination plus; *   A community-wide voice facilitates communication and interaction among members. *   A physical and intellectual center of international status provides a resource for the community through visits, colloquia etc. Benefits to atmospheric science community at large (non-members): Representation in and resolution of issues affecting the entire meteorological research, education, and user community (e.g., development of the Unidata system to ensure distribution of meteorological data to the university community, maintenance of a distributed ocean data system). Over 30 years of successful mission accomplishments. Original NSF sole support has evolved to multiple federal sponsors (a transition advocated by NSF). Strong board has effected management changes, including presidents. Growth of activities (to > $150M) expands the necessary scope of the board's oversight to include fiduciary, policy, and political issues. Some UCAR programs terminated: Institute for Naval Oceanography at Stennis Walter Orr Roberts Institute, National Scientific Balloon Facility. Potential for UCAR programs to compete with private sector. Ongoing tension between university researchers and UCAR/NCAR over division of NSF funds—a zero sum game. Outstanding Characteristics Centralized governance; Primary mission to manage large programs/facilities; Successful triad of universities, a major center; and federal agencies led by NSF.