presented in the appropriate chapters (Infrastructure, Systems Analysis, Program Organization and Management, National Commitment).

The recommendations dealing with the need for stronger program management and establishment of a USCAR integrated platform development team were overtaken by the industry decision to create proprietary concept vehicles. This decision makes management by “a single platform team ” less appropriate; but, in the judgement of the committee, the need for better “defined and staffed management structures” than existed at the time of the first review remains an important issue. Certainly a case can be made that perfectly adequate organizations exist within each of the car companies to perform their in-house tasks, since concept and production prototype vehicle construction is a routine process for them. However, the committee strongly believes that the current coordination mechanism within PNGV does not permit the members of USCAR to fully exploit the leveraged advantages of an integrated organization in pursuit of the program goals. It is the considered opinion of the committee that the appointment of a PNGV-USCAR technical director is even more essential and urgent than at the time of the first peer review, given the diverse approaches of the USCAR members to designing and building Goal 3 vehicles. Further, the committee observed that the government lacks an effective program management organization, with the current program management office operating essentially as an information office. The committee is concerned that the current program management organization on the government side is not conducive to maximizing the contribution of the non-proprietary R&D conducted primarily at government laboratories.

The previously noted lack of an integrated PNGV program plan is partially overcome by creation of the Draft PNGV Technical Roadmap (dated August 15, 1995), which was provided to the committee just prior to its first meeting, at the end of August 1995 (PNGV, 1995). This document does a good job of describing the major technologies being pursued, the target performance levels and the planned schedule. However, it is deficient in identifying resource requirements and, in some cases, in establishing the critical milestones and quantitative performance measures that must be met to achieve the PNGV goals on time. The committee assumes that the missing details will be added by PNGV in future revisions of the Technical Roadmap.

The committee's recommendations to combine “major and critical elements of the PNGV program” in a single line item budget has not proven feasible. The current PNGV program on the federal side is composed of a loose assembly of individual projects, a number of which predate the PNGV. These projects aim to satisfy the requirements of both the PNGV and other programs; therefore, the PNGV government program manager has very limited influence over project priorities and resources. In the view of the committee, the mechanisms for program coordination and decision making that will be used for



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