Click for next page ( R2


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 R1
Decision Making in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology Committee on Prioritization and Decision Making in the Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology Board on Radioactive Waste Management Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this study was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FC01- 94EW54069. All opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. DeparDnent of Energy. On the cover: Photographs of Office of Science and Technology technologies used at Department of Energy Environmental Management sites. Clockwise from upper-right: containers of mixed waste stored prior to their remediation at the East Tennessee Technology Park at the Oak Ridge Reservation; the VecLoader_ used for deactivation and decommissioning at the Fernald Site's Plant I; double-wall high- leve! waste tanks encased in concrete underground at the Hanford Site; Room 152 at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, showing glove boxes, conduit, and piping used for nuclear materials; and the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. TnternationalStandard Book Number 0-309-06347-7 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-33 ~ 3 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON PRIORITIZATION AND DECISION MAKING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RAYMOND G. WYMER, Chair, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (retired) ALLEN G. CROFF, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee MARY R. ENGLISH, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee THOMAS M. JOHNSON, LFR Levine-Fricke, Emeryville, California DUNDAR F. KOCAOGLU, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon MICHAEL MENKE, Value Creation Associates, Redwood City, California GEORGE L. NEMHAUSER, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia LINDA WENNERBERG, Environmental Business Strategies, Cambridge, Massachusetts EDWIN L. ZEBROSKI, Elgis Consulting, Inc., Sunnyvale, California Consultants THOMAS A. COTTON, IK Research Associates, Tnc., Arlington, Virginia ROBERT GTORDANO, Giordano and Associates, Saratoga Springs, New York DETLOF VON WINTERFELDT, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California NRC Staff THOMAS E. KlESS, Study Director ROBIN L. ALLEN, Senior Project Assistant MATTHEW BAXTER-PARROTT, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair, Malcolm Pirnie, Tnc., Oakland, California JOHN F. AHEARNE, Vice-Chair, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, and Duke Un Research Triangle Park, North Carolina ROBERT I. BUDNITZ, Future Resources Associates, Tnc., Berkeley, California MARY R. ENGLISH, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee DARLEANE C. HOFFMAN, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oakland, California JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C. ROGER E. KASPERSON, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts JAMES O. LECKlE, Stanford University, Stanford, California JANE C.S. LONG, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada CHARLES McCOMBTE, Consultant, Gipf-OberDick, Switzerland WILLIAM A. MILLS, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (retired), OIney, Maryland D. WARNER NORTH, NorthWorks, Tnc., Belmont, California MARTIN I. STEINDLER, Argonne National Laboratory (retired), Argonne, Illinois JOHN I. TAYLOR, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California MARY LOU ZOBACK, U.S. Geological Survey, MenIo Park, California NRC Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Director ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer THOMAS E. KlESS, Senior Staff Officer JOHN R. WILEY, Senior Staff Officer SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate TONI GREENLEAF, A~ninistrative Associate PATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project Assistant ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Project Assistant MATTHEW BAXTER-PARROTT, Project Assistant LAURA D. LLANOS, Project Assistant 1V iversity,

OCR for page R1
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES GEORGE M. HORNBERGER Chair, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), South Charleston, West Virginia THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut THOMAS I. GRAFF, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, California EUGNIA KALNAY, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. KAl N. LEE, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts RICHARD A. ME SERVE, Covington & Burling, Washington, D. C . JOHN B. MOONEY, JR., I. Brad Mooney Associates, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia HUGH C. MORRIS, E! Dorado Gold Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia H. RONALD PULLIAM, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia MILTON RUSSELL, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland ANDREW R. SOLOW, Woods Hole Oceanographic Insitution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts VICTORIA I. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida E-AN ZEN, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland MARY LOU ZOBACK, United States Geological Survey, Menio Park, California Staff ROBERT M. HAMILTON, Executive Director GREGORY H. SYMMES, Associate Executive Director CRAIG SCHIFFRIES, Associate Executive Director for Special Projects JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative and Financial Officer SAND] FITZPATRICK, A~ninistrative Associate MARQUlTA SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst v

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in IS63, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and Me National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is a~ninistered jointly by both Academies and the institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are the chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. V1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments In carrying out this study the committee was briefed during many meetings in Washington, D.C. and at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites where the Office of Science and Technology (OST) Focus Areas were managed. A large number of DOE program managers and site management and operations personnel preparer! and made presentations to the committee and answered the many questions posed by committee members. The committee is grateful for the patience and courtesy shown it in the course of its inquiries. The committee is especially grateful to Clyde Frank, Gerald Boyd, Jef Walker, and Carolyn Davis for the time they gave to the committee out of their very busy schedules. Discussions with them were candid and productive with regard to providing the committee with insights into how the decision-making process in OST has evolved and matured over the approximately nine years of OST's existence. in addition to the discussions with DOE, committee members held discussions with representatives from industry to learn how they deal with the problems of deciding what technologies to develop to stay competitive and be profitable. Although the goals and environment in which the companies operate are quite different from those of OST, nonetheless there are lessons to be learned from them that are applicable to OST. The committee is grateful to representatives of the Gas Research Institute, particularly Ronald Edelstein; the Electric Power Research Institute, particularly Steven GehI; and DuPont, particularly H. Dale Martin, for their time and advice. The committee is also appreciative of the interest and participation of D. Warner North, who served as a committee liaison to the BROOM. Finally, it would not have been possible for the committee to Unction without the capable assistance of the National Research Council staff. Robin Allen and Matthew Baxter-Parrott provided invaluable meeting and committee support and cattier out the many behind-the-scenes tasks without which the committee could not have functioned. The committee is especially grateful to Tom Kiess whose unflagging enthusiasm and hard work in many areas, such as contacting DOE and site personnel and others, prodding committee members to complete their writing tasks, and contributing to the writing, was essential to completion of this study. Acknowledgement of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council (NRC) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candle! and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the . V11

OCR for page R1
deliberative process. We wish to therm the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Paul Barton, United States Geological Survey (retired) Robert Bu~itz, Future Resources Associates, Inc. Paul Busch, Malcolm Pirrne, Tnc. Radford Byerly, Ir., University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (retired) Walter Haerer, Montgomery Watson Kai N. Lee, Williams College Jane Long, University of Nevada at Reno. Thomas Saaty, University of Pittsburgh (retired) Marcia Williams, Putnam, Hayes, and Bartlett, Inc. While the individuals listed above have provided constructive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. . . . vail

OCR for page R1
Preface In 1996, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine was asked by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and Technology (OST) to study the processes by which OST makes decisions on which technologies to support in connection with cleaning up DOE defense sites, and to make recommendations on how these processes might be improved. A Committee on Prioritization and Decision Making in the DOE OST was established to carry out this assignment. The task has proven to be especially difficult because OST's decision-making processes are not static, but are changing almost continuously, and in very significant ways. The committee has attempted to deal with this circumstance by stressing that OST's decision-making process is evolutionary and should be viewed in that light. The committee has also stressed that there are general approaches to decision making that can be adopted to advantage, regardless of the details of the process. The committee entertained no preconceived ideas about the appropriate organizational structure to carry out research and development to meet the needs of DOE-Off~ce of Environmental Management (EM). The committee firmly believes that there is a research and development function to be performed in cleaning up DOE sites and intends that the recommendations in this report be applicable to this function irrespective of the organizational structure or the program office charged with carrying out the work. The work of this committee is closely related to the work of other NRC committees, especially the Committee on the DOE OST's Peer Review Program that is addressing peer review within OST. To avoid duplication of effort, peer review of project work (a major focus of that committee study) is not dealt with in detail in this report, which instead examines other steps in the decision-making process suitable for reviews. Information gathering for this report was terminated in April 1998. Raymond G. Wymer, Chair Oak Ridge, Tennessee 1X

OCR for page R1
Page x CP Center of Pressure CPRD Committee on Prosthetics Research and Development CRISP Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects CRRN Certified Rehabilitation Registered Nurse     DDP Disabilities Prevention Program DHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy     EIS Epidemiology Intelligence Service     FIM Functional Independence Measure FSQ Functional Status Questionnaire     GDP Gross Domestic Product     HMO health maintenance organization HRQL health-related quality of life HSR&D health services research and development HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development     IADL instrumental activities of daily living ICD institutes, centers, and divisions, National Institutes of Health ICDR Interagency Committee on Disability Research IOM Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences I-QOL quality-of-life measure specific to urinary incontinence     MCO managed care organization MIP managed indemnity plan MRCC Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee, National Institutes of Health MRS Medical Research Service     NARIC National Rehabilitation Information Center NCEH National Center for Environmental Health NCI National Cancer Institute NCIPC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control NCMRR National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research NHIS National Health Interview Survey NHP Neighborhood Health Plan NICHD National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

OCR for page R1
Contents Executive Summary Scope and Content of this Report, 1 Appropriateness and Effectiveness of OST Decision-Making Processes, 2 Appropriate Technical Factors and the Adequacy with Which They Can Be Measured, 6 Recommendations for Improvement, 7 Role and Importance of Effective Reviews, 8 Program Challenges and Measures of Success, 9 Concluding Perspective, 10 Introduction Purpose of This Report, 12 DOE-EM and OST, 12 OST Program Units for Research, Development, and Demonstration, 13 Importance of Buy-in by Technology Users, 16 Report Scope and Organization, 17 Decision Making as a Discipline, 18 2 Historical Evolution of OST Decision Making Background of DOE-EM and OST, 20 The Deployment Barrier, 25 Chapter Summary, 27 3 RD&D Decision-Making Practices in Other Organizations Benefits of a High-Quality Decision Process, 28 Lessons from Industrial RD&D Organizations, 29 Insights from the Benchmarking Study, 29 Insights from Industrial Organizations with Environmental Programs, 33 Insights from Visits to DuPont, EPRI, and GRI, 34 Procedures and Methodologies to Support Good Decision Making, 36 Chapter Summary, 37 1 11 20 28 4 Decision Making in Research, Development, and Demonstration for the DOE- 38 EM Program Major Decisions at a Functional Level, 38 RD&D Program Environment, 38 Model Process Steps for Decision Making in a Centralized Federal RD&D Program, 40 Implementation of the Model Process, 44 Chapter Summary: Major Decision Process Steps and How They Were Done Within OST During x .1

OCR for page R1
FY97-98, 51 Application of Good Practices in Prioritization and Decision-Making Processes 53 Relevant to OST Agree on Clear and Measurable Goals, 53 Understand and Focus on Customer Needs and Requirements, 54 Communicate Across Organizational Boundaries, 54 Think Strategically: Hedge Against Technical Uncertainty and Insist on Alternatives, 54 Continually Improve the R&D Management Process, 56 Measure and Evaluate to Guide Resource Allocation, 57 Summary and Conclusions General Issues, 61 Use of a Formal Decision-Making Process: Evaluations of DOE-EM's Implementation of the Process Steps of Figure 4.1, 62 Summary and Conclusions Specific Issues, 72 6 Findings and Recommendations General Findings and Recommendations, 73 Specific Findings and Recommendations, 78 Concluding Perspective, 86 Responses to Issues in Statement of Task, 87 Cited References Appendixes 73 89 A Summary of Past NRC Reports on Decision Making in DOE-EM and OST 99 B Site Technology Coordination Groups at Three Major DOE-EM Sites C Focus Areas D Crosscutting Programs E Other OST Programs F Tndustry's Best Practices in R&D Decision Making 105 114 138 146 153 G Prioritization and Decision Making in Technology Development at the Electric 169 Power Research Institute H Prioritization and Decision Making in Technology Development at the Gas 176 Research Institute Prioritization and Decision Making in Environmental Technology Development 185 at DuPont ~ List of Acronyms and Abbreviations K Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Consultants . . X11 190 194

OCR for page R1
~ Other Materials and References Received by the Committee . . . x~ 197

OCR for page R1
Page xiv 4 PATHOLOGY AND IMPAIRMENT RESEARCH 81 Sciences Contributing Knowledge to Studying Pathology and Impairment Research 82 State of Knowledge for Selected Major Causes of Pathology in Adults 87 Conclusions 97 Recommendations, 98 5 FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS RESEARCH IN REHABILITATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 100 Background 101 Functional Capacity Index and the 10 Dimensions of Function 108 Conclusions 144 Recommendations 145 6 DISABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 147 Impact of the Physical Environment on the Disabling Process 148 Impact of the Social and Psychological Environments on the Enabling-Disabling Process 154 Conclusions and Recommendations 167 7 RESEARCH ON THE ORGANIZATION, FINANCING, AND DELIVERY OF HEALTH SERVICES 170 Health Services Research Agenda 171 Developing a Health Services Research Capacity in Rehabilitation Science and Engineering 188 Recommendations 189 8 TRANSLATING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 191 The Current State of Technology Transfer in Rehabilitation 192 Presuppositions for Technology Transfer 194 Barriers to Information Transfer 200 Technology Transfer Mechanisms in the Practice Professions 201 Current Governmental Mechanisms 210 Conclusions and Recommendations 214