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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
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 R5
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 R6
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 R7
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 R8
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 R9
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 R10
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 R11
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 R12
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 R13
~ Other Materials and References Received by the Committee
. . .
x~
197
OCR for page R14
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
