Appendix C

PNGV Response to the Phase 1 Report and Supporting Documentation



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 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT Appendix C PNGV Response to the Phase 1 Report and Supporting Documentation

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT March 3, 1995 National Research Council Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems Board on Energy and Environmental Systems 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, DC 20418 Dear Sirs: The Government/Industry Operational Steering Group (OSG) of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) wishes to thank you for the program review that you performed last year. We especially wish to commend the National Research Council for completing this review so expeditiously and for adopting procedures to protect any proprietary information that may have been needed to provide a more complete understanding of the program. PNGV is an innovative program in many respects and we are pleased that the NRC has entered into the spirit of this national venture to develop more efficient means of public/private sector cooperation. The NRC report contained a number of findings and recommendations. We have studied these carefully and believe all were helpful perspectives, even when we disagree somewhat on the details. We would like to respond briefly here to some of the major recommendations and offer more detailed dialog during the next peer review. The NRC noted that the PNGV program needs to have broad national support over a sustained period of time to be able to accomplish its objectives. We agree completely with this observation. We have strengthened our public outreach program and believe that we have made substantial progress in making more people aware of PNGV. Our contacts have provided encouraging signs that support for the program is broad. In addition, recognizing that the new Congress has many questions about PNGV, we have established a joint congressional liaison group to help provide to Congress the information they will need to support PNGV. We agree with the NRC observation that management of a program with such broad and diverse participation will be a major challenge. We have evolved a tiered structure of an Operational Steering Group and Technical Teams led by competent executives on both the government and industry sides. We believe that this structure is necessary, for the effective integration of program elements, between agencies, within agency operating plans and between government and industry. While we recognize that we must be open to innovative suggestions as to how to manage the program more effectively, we do not feel that the suggestion for a single, central program manager for

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT the government is workable. However, we have significantly augmented the resources of the government's PNGV secretariat in order to have more effective and responsive program coordination. The NRC also recommended that the industry PNGV effort be led by a single technical director in charge of an integrated platform development team at USCAR. We agree that establishing a vehicle perspective is important and while we do not have a complete answer as yet, the industry does plan to add experienced vehicle engineers to each company 's PNGV team in the near future to guide the technology development program as it evolves. Also, our view at this time is that each company will pursue separate concept vehicles and production prototypes. The NRC recommended that we develop a single, central line item in the federal budget for PNGV. Our approach has been to align the technical activities necessary to complete the PNGV program with traditional agency interests, capabilities and operating plans. While admittedly more difficult to manage, we believe that this approach will be less disruptive to the budget preparation and review process and will have better support within agencies and in Congress. We believe that the PNGV technology strategy is better defined than we were able to effectively communicate to the review panel in the limited time allowed at the time of the first review. Our technical plans have continued to develop: roadmaps have been completed and documented for all breakthrough vehicle technologies and our manufacturing and conventional vehicle programs have both continued to advance in planning and execution. Existing consortia are being utilized where appropriate, and new joint technical teams have been formed, to develop the more detailed programs plans needed to meet the technical roadmaps. These plans will be reviewed in as much detail as possible when the peer review panel next meets with the PNGV team. The PNGV OSG and technical teams are considering the suggestion of the peer review panel that we divide the technologies being studied into two paths, near-term and far-term. We have not yet resolved how to respond to this suggestion, but will plan to discuss this further internally and with the peer review panel. Over 100 organizations are already participating in the development of technologies relevant to PNGV. Even so, several actions have already been taken to increase the involvement of suppliers, small entrepreneurs and the academic community in the PNGV program. For example, we are publishing a document which describes “Innovations Needed” and various funding mechanisms available to those who wish to participate in PNGV. We will provide a briefing on this aspect of the PNGV program to the peer review panel.

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT The NRC peer review suggested that PNGV track and incorporate leading-edge automotive technologies from throughout the world. Each of the members of USCAR and several government agencies routinely evaluate world-wide automotive technology developments. The OSG and technical teams concur with the peer review about the significance of infrastructure issues on PNGV and vice versa. However, by definition, PNGV is focused on the vehicle, except where infrastructure considerations affect cost. We recognize that the infrastructure issues must involve a broad national dialog to develop appropriate policies and technologies in parallel with PNGV and we expect to be a participant in those discussions. The PNGV team gratefully acknowledges the willingness of the peer panel members to voluntarily contribute their time and experience to the review of the PGNV program. We expect to derive more value from these reviews and the attendant dialog in the future as we work more closely together. We look forward to the opportunity, to build upon last year's hurried introduction and to provide more in-depth briefings on the technical program's plans and progress. For the PNGV Operational Steering Group, Mary L. Good Under Secretary for Technology US Department of Commerce Arv Mueller Vice President and Group Executive NAO Vehicle Development and Technical Operations General Motors John P. McTague Vice President, Technical Affairs Ford Motor Company François J. Castaing Vice President, Vehicle Engineering Chrysler Corporation

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT Committee's Analysis of the Letter to the National Research Council from the PNGV Operational Steering Group (3/3/95) Addressing the Recommendations * in the Phase 1 Report Recommendation: Program Management “...there is a critical need for an initial, integrated plan at the earliest possible time. This unified plan should include, but not be limited to, such key elements as objectives, task descriptions, management responsibilities, milestones, resources, schedule and critical features or metrics that bear on the success of achieving the stated goals of the PNGV program. The committee recommends the creation of these detailed plans to be submitted with the PNGV federal budget for fiscal year 1996.” Response: No response to specific needs were identified. Clarification left for future contact. “We believe that the PNGV technology strategy is better defined than we were able to effectively communicate to the review panel....roadmaps have been completed and documented for all breakthrough vehicle technologies and our manufacturing and conventional vehicle programs have both continued to advance in planning and execution.” “All three phases of the PNGV program have inadequately defined and staffed program management structures in both government and industry organizations....The government...needs to have a strong and effective central program management office...” Response: The current structures, as augmented, are adequate. “We have evolved a tiered structure of an Operational Steering Group and Technical Teams led by competent executives on both the government and industry sides....We do not feel that the suggestion for a single program manager for the government is workable. However, we have significantly augmented the resources of the government's PNGV secretariat in order to have more effective and responsive program coordination. ” * Recommendations are as called out in the Phase 1 report “Review of the Research Program of the PNGV,” October, 1994. Responses reflect the committee's initial analysis and reactions to the PNGV statements regarding the committee's recommendations.

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT Recommendation: Government Funding and Support “The Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have not provided the PNGV program with a level of support consistent with their technology base.” Response: No specific comment. “...the committee noted that government and industry technology projects that are related to vehicles integration and to vehicle manufacturing with unconventional materials are minimal through 1997....The committee recommends additional emphasis in the fiscal year 1996 budget on such manufacturing and vehicle related technologies.” Response: No specific comment. “The committee recommends the establishment of clearly defined mechanisms in fiscal year 1996 for allocating and managing program resources, for selecting and integrating technologies and for assessing total costs and benefits. ” Response: No specific comment. “The committee believes that it is essential that, starting with fiscal year 1996, the government funding of all major and critical elements of the PNGV program be a line-item budget for which oversight responsibility is vested in the government's PNGV program manager. The central control of the PNGV single budget should cut across the government organizations involved in the program.” Response: Not able to get support for a single budget. “Our approach has been to align the technical activities necessary to complete the PNGV program with traditional agency interests capabilities and operating plans....We believe that this approach will be less disruptive to the budget preparation and review process and will have better support within agencies and in Congress.” Recommendation: National Commitment “The committee recommends that the PNGV's public affair groups be adequately supported to perform this important function. This office should commit resources to involving the public in the program, cultivating broad-based support within the policymaking community and taking every opportunity to showcase PNGV achievements for the media.”

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT Response: This is already being done. “We have strengthened our public outreach program and believe that we have made substantial progress in making more people aware of PNGV....We have established a joint congressional liaison group to help provide to Congress the information they will need to support PNGV.” Recommendation: Integrated Platform Development Team “The committee recognizes that each of the three automotive companies may independently want to pursue applications of the technologies developed as a part of Goal 3....Its view is simply that the overall objectives of Goal 3 must be managed by a single platform team....The co-located USCAR team would have the full authority and responsibility to set the direction for meeting the objectives of Goal 3.” “The committee strongly recommends an early review and reevaluation by USCAR of this proposed need.” Response: Under consideration but with separate vehicles for each company. “We agree that establishing a vehicle perspective is important and while we do not have a complete answer yet, the industry does plan to add experienced vehicle engineers to each company's PNGV team in the near future to guide the technology development program as it evolves. Also our view at this time is that each company will pursue separate concept vehicles and production prototypes.” Recommendation: Technology Strategy “Since no metrics are contained in either Goal 1 or Goal 2, it is currently not possible to measure progress toward achieving these goals....To effectively manage the current PNGV program, appropriate metrics are required. ” Response: No mention of metrics. “Our manufacturing and conventional vehicle programs have both continued to advance in planning and execution.” “It will be important for the managers of this program to develop a more formal mechanism to justify the technology selection choices being made. Establishing such a mechanism should be seriously considered before funds are requested for the fiscal year 1996 budget.” Response: No specific mechanisms mentioned.

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT “We believe that the PNGV technology strategy is better defined than we were able to effectively communicate to the review panel....roadmaps have been completed and documented for all breakthrough technologies... ” “...the manufacturing development activities conducted for Goal 1 may very well pace the progress of the PNGV. The three areas of focus for this goal need to be expanded and much more detail developed in terms of potential contributing manufacturing technologies. This activity deserves a very high priority at this time.” Response: No acknowledgment of the issue. “The committee recommends that an analysis be made now to divide all technologies related to Goal 3 into two categories: current PNGV and post-PNGV technologies.” “The committee recommends that technologies that do not meet PNGV program objectives by 1997 but that have high long-term potential be funded and continued in development for post-PNGV applications. ” Response: Under consideration. “The PNGV OSG and technical teams are considering the suggestion of the peer review panel that we divide the technologies being studied into two paths, near-term and far-term.” Recommendation: Supplier and University Involvement “The committee was informed that several workshops are being planned in the upcoming months to explore with university and industry representatives the scientific, engineering, and technological issues posed by the PNGV program....The committee recommends that the PNGV workshop structure be quickly expanded to more effectively involve these constituents and to provide them with a link to the PNGV program.” Response: No specific comment. “In the past many barriers have prevented effective use of the technology existing in the automotive supply base....The PNGV may have to develop some innovative working relationships in order to tap this technology source effectively.” Response: Many are already involved.

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT “Over 100 organizations are already participating in the development of technologies relevant to PNGV.” “A management approach that should be considered is the formation of specialized consortia made up of the automotive industry, its suppliers, and the government to develop the most critical and promising technologies needed for success on Goal 3.” Response: Publishing list of needs. “We are publishing a document which describes ‘Innovations Needed' and various funding mechanisms available to those who wish to participate in PNGV.” Recommendation: Foreign Technology “It would be appropriate for the PNGV program to more fully evaluate applicable non-U.S. technology developments and to integrate selected developments into the program.” Response: Already doing it. “Each of the members of USCAR and several government agencies routinely evaluate worldwide automotive technology developments.” Recommendation: Infrastructure and Capital Needs “The long-term impact and enormity of potential discontinuities in the road-vehicle-fuel infrastructure, vehicle service, and vehicle manufacturing sectors are such that these considerations must be addressed as integral parts of the PNGV program systems analysis at the earliest possible time.” Response: Only partially within the scope of the program. Regarded as “...integral parts of the PNGV program systems analysis...” However, “PNGV is focused on the vehicle, except where infrastructure considerations affect cost....Infrastructure issues must involve a broad national dialog ...and we expect to be a participant in those discussions. ” Recommendation: Peer Reviews of the PNGV “The...committee...is available to meet with the PNGV to discuss the recommendations provided herein. The committee proposes conducting further reviews in early 1995....more-detailed review of the program 's technological decisions, research results, and organizational structures should be actively

OCR for page 100
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION OF VEHICLES: SECOND REPORT pursued. The committee proposes conducting such expanded reviews in early 1995.” Response: Need acknowledged. “We would like to respond briefly here to some of the major recommendations and offer more detailed dialog during the next peer review.” Recommendation: Timely Correction of Program Deficiencies “In the interest of maintaining the viability of the PNGV program, the committee strongly recommends that the government and industry partners address program deficiencies at the earliest possible time. ” Response: As indicated above. (Peer review report issued October 1994. Letter dated March 3, 1995.)