Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix D: Approval Processes in Other Agencies and Other Countries
Appendix D: Approval Processes in Other Agencies and Other Countries
Pages 147-182
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 147... ...
The tables are followed by several in-depth descriptions of features of the planning and approval process in use at different institutions. Included are a detailed presentation of the process at NSF, the strategic planning process at NASA's Office of Space Science, the approval and funding process at DOE's Office of Science, the 20-year facilities outlook activity at DOE's Office of Science, a discussion of the selection process for NSF Science and Technology Centers and NSF Engineering Research Centers, a description of DOD's Office of the Director for Defense Research and Engineering, and strategic planning and prioritization processes in use by the United Kingdom and Germany.
|
From page 148... ...
Origin of Nominally, all projects come from the community. Large facility projects project ideas can be identified at community meetings, NSF-sponsored workshops, or by NSF program managers.
|
From page 149... ...
Origin of Large facility projects are usually based at national laboratories and projects therefore span many different fields of science research. Members of the scientific community develop project plans, usually in conjunction with one of the national laboratories.
|
From page 150... ...
They fall under FACA, so all full advisory-panel meetings are open to the public, encouraging an open process and public comment. Commissioned long-range plans involve substantial community input, often with town meetings, series of workshops, and calls for project ideas.
|
From page 151... ...
The MREFC account represents about one-eighth of the Foundation's proposed investment in tools in FY 2003, rising to about one-sixth in the budget estimates for FY 2004. Despite representing a relatively small portion of the total NSF budget, the large facility projects supported through the MREFC account are highly visible because of their size and geographic concentration, and many of the issues raised by these projects must also be considered in other NSF projects and programs.
|
From page 152... ...
Information technologies are also changing the fundamental nature of many large facility projects. New information technologies are making it possible, for example, for many large facilities to consist of smaller instruments and research projects in widely distributed geographic locations.
|
From page 153... ...
NSF Program Officers are the key people who make the requirements for approval of such projects clear to the community. In identifying new facility construction projects, the science and engineering community, in consultation with NSF, develops ideas, considers alternatives, explores partnerships, and develops cost and timeline estimates.
|
From page 154... ...
Then, highly rated projects are placed in priority order by the panel in consultation with the NSF director. The review panel and the director place particular emphases on the following criteria to determine the priority order of the projects: · How "transformative" is the project?
|
From page 155... ...
The NSF's director for large facility projects works closely with the program manager, providing expert assistance on non-scientific and non-technical aspects of project planning, budgeting, implementation, and management to further strengthen the oversight capabilities of the foundation. The deputy also facilitates the use of best 4The text for this section has been reviewed and modified by NSF to reflect its practices as accurately as possible.
|
From page 156... ...
By the end of the implementation stage, a proposal is submitted for operations and maintenance to the program manager. The program manager reviews proposals in accordance with the merit review procedures contained in Chapter V of the NSF's Proposal and Award Manual and presents a recommendation for funding to his or her division director and assistant director -- office head.
|
From page 157... ...
NSF Director and Office of Management and Budget Once the NSB has approved a project for funding, the director may recommend the project for inclusion in a future budget request to OMB. In August of each year, the NSB reviews the NSF budget, which includes the list of projects being submitted to OMB for funding.
|
From page 158... ...
In the June 12, 2002, letter to NAS President Bruce Alberts that led to the present study, six senators stated that "funding requests by the Foundation for large facility projects appear to be ad hoc and subjective." The letter directed the National Academies to "review the current prioritization process and report to us on how it can be improved." In the FY 2002 House conference report, Congress provided guidance as to the use of MREFC and R&RA expenditures. It stated that the purpose of the MREFC account is to provide resources for the acquisition, construction, and commissioning of large-scale research equipment and facilities, whereas the R&RA account is to fund planning, design, operations, and maintenance costs.
|
From page 159... ...
. The panels examine the preliminary proposals based on the merit review criteria common to all NSF programs: · Intellectual merit.
|
From page 160... ...
An external ad hoc STC Advisory Committee makes a priority list of recommended centers based on the above criteria, "the potential national impact and legacy of the proposed activity, the balance of awards among scientific fields, geographical distribution, and the combined ability of the proposed Centers to meet the objectives of the STC Program." NSF management uses the list to make funding recommendations to the NSF director and the Director's Review Board. According to Bruce Umminger, senior scientist in the NSF Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
|
From page 161... ...
. Similar to the STC program, ERC awards result from an extensive review process.
|
From page 162... ...
Like the STC program, the first ERC award provides funding for 5 years, with awards of up to $2.5 million/year. The annual reports submitted by the centers undergo outside merit review that forms the basis for determining funding levels for the following year.
|
From page 163... ...
, Fond Du Lac Tribal and Community College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California, Berkeley, Princeton University, and Science Museum of Minnesota ERCs Awarded in 2003 Engineering Research Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Science and Technology (EUV ERC) , Fort Collins, CO Colorado State University (headquarters)
|
From page 164... ...
PROJECT APPROVAL PROCESS AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF SCIENCE The Department of Energy's Office of Science (SC) has a long history of initiating and supporting large-facility projects.
|
From page 165... ...
· CD-1, Approve Preliminary Baseline Range ° Allows expenditure of project engineering and design funds for design work. 6 FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request for DOE, Science, Basic Energy Sciences, p.
|
From page 166... ...
The Office of Science has six program advisory committees, each FACA-chartered. Each advisory committee provides valuable, independent advice to DOE on the complex scientific and technical issues that arise in the planning, management, and implementation of its program.
|
From page 167... ...
The most recent such plan was submitted in January 2003 at the request of the director as part of the 20-year facilities roadmap initiative and presented a roadmap for each field, laying out the science opportunities that each planning subpanel could envision as possibilities for the next 20 years. Large facility projects first appear in the community, work their way into the frequent but irregular advisory committee long-range plans, and eventually undergo development, typically at one of the national laboratories to leverage existing resources and expertise.
|
From page 168... ...
The Advisory Committees recommended 53 major facilities for construction, and assessed each according to two criteria: scientific importance and readiness for construction. Against the first criteria, the committees divided their facilities into three categories: highest scientific importance, secondary scientific importance, and hard-to-assess scientific importance.
|
From page 169... ...
A Benchmark for the Future The Twenty Year Outlook represents a snapshot -- the DOE Office of Science's best guess today at how the future of science and the need for scientific facilities will unfold over the next two decades. We know, however, that science changes.
|
From page 170... ...
These can be as general as a "dark energy probe" or as specific as a specific instrument set for a planned mission. On the implementation and operation end, NASA is relatively successful through the use of its subordinate but independent centers (typically 12The text for this section has been drawn from the FY 2000 Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, pp.
|
From page 171... ...
171 outlook. 's20-year DOE D-2 FIGURE
|
From page 172... ...
OSS then drafts its strategic plan; this involves another series of open planning meetings that synthesize the different roadmaps, the broader goals of the enterprise, and additional information about budget expectations. NASA headquarters uses each enterprises's strategic plan to create the final and authoritative NASA strategic plan.13 This final document becomes the basis for the agency's annual budget request for the next few years.
|
From page 173... ...
Each roadmapping team was built from or overseen by its theme subcommittee of the Space Science Advisory Com mittee. The teams each held a series of meetings to obtain science priority views from community scientists, hear advocacy presentations for specific missions, examine technology readiness for alternative mission options, and discuss relative science priorities, balance, and optimal activity sequencing in light of this community input.
|
From page 174... ...
The Space Science Enterprise strategic plan serves several purposes. It facilitates a consensus process in the science community that focuses on goals and priorities for the future.
|
From page 175... ...
Most TARA team members are recognized experts from the National Academies, the Defense Science Board, the scientific advisory boards of the military departments, industry, and academe. Each is chaired by a senior executive appointed by the deputy under secretary for S&T.
|
From page 176... ...
As a Defense Agency, DARPA reports to the Secretary of Defense. The Director, Defense Research and Engineering has been assigned to be DARPA's Principal Staff Assistant (PSA)
|
From page 177... ...
Program managers get ideas from many different sources, such as: · Their own technical communities; · Suggestions from DOD-wide advisory groups, including the Defense Science Board and Service science boards; · Suggestions from DARPA-sponsored technical groups · Suggestions from industry or academia, often in response to published Broad Area Announcements or open industry meetings · Breakthroughs in DARPA programs and/or U.S. or international
|
From page 178... ...
and its members can assess strategically the most expensive and complex scientific facili ties with which UK researchers are or may wish to be involved. The road-map includes facility "projects" identified by members of RCUK as a priority for consideration which meet one or more of the following criteria: · Where there could be an international dimension to the proposed 17The excerpts provided here are taken from the UK Office of Science and Technology Web site, where the Large Facilities Strategic Roadmap is posted at http://www.ost.gov.uk/ research/funding/lfroadmap/index.htm.
|
From page 179... ...
The roadmap is the first stage of a gateway process that requires all large capital investments to be managed as discrete projects subject to review and independent scrutiny at all stages in their life cycle. From Section 5, "OGC Gateway Process and How it is Used in Large Science Facilities": The OST and members of RCUK use the Office of Government Com merce's Gateway process to help procure large scale scientific facilities.
|
From page 180... ...
The group included scientists at universities and research establishments in Germany, the United States, and Switzerland and "individuals involved in and representing national and international scientific administrations." The group established six subpanels composed of 57 external experts, including 37 from abroad. 18This text has been drawn from the final report of the Science Council, Statement on Nine Large-scale Facilities for Basic Scientific Research and on the Development of Investment Planning for Large-scale Facilities, 2003.
|
From page 181... ...
· Fulfillment of science and technology policy goals as formulated in 10 general "theses on the significance of large-scale facilities for basic scientific research." · Degree of maturity of the technical concept and, connected to it, the possible timeframe for implementing the individual components. · The context of further national and international scientific development of the research fields to which they belong and their interaction with other disciplines.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.