Managing the Space Sciences (1995) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Alternative Organizations: Analysis and Findings
4 Alternative Organizations: Analysis and Findings
Pages 32-47
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 32... ...
4. Maintaining Effective Relationships-Successful science management requires effective relationships among science partners, performers, and eventual users of the scientific output.
|
From page 33... ...
An internal "Zero Base Review," the subject of briefings to Congress on May 19, 1995, concluded that the budget targets of the Administration can be achieved by reducing infrastructure costs (streamlining operations, reducing overlap, and so forth) without cutting programs or closing any of NASA's 10 major field centers.2 Cuts beyond those in the budget submission are likely to threaten program content.
|
From page 34... ...
is not under consideration. In assessing organizational alternatives for NASA, the committee first addressed the issue of fundamental responsibilities of the various major elements of the NASA science establishment: NASA Headquarters, the field centers, and the large and diverse outside industrial and academic research community.
|
From page 35... ...
The NASA Fedleral Laboratory Review reports reaches similar conclusions and recommendations with respect to Headquarters and center roles and missions. NASA HEADQUARTERS SCIENCE ORGANIZATION The committee followed closely the charge given it and looked at three alternatives for the Headquarters science organization: an institute approach to science management, following the NTH model, distributed management among the three science offices as exists today, and centralized science management as existed prior to the 1993 reorganization.
|
From page 36... ...
The committee concluded that the NIH model, while quite effective in its own arena of research with a heavy emphasis on fundamental or basic research leading to the understanding of disease processes, the development of new drugs and treatment protocols, and their clinical evaluation, is not appropriate for the space sciences. NASA space sciences depend on close coordination with other elements of NASA, for example, hardware development, launch services, and tracking and data operations.
|
From page 37... ...
In addition to its advisory, coordination, and interface responsibilities, the position should include a formal concurrence on planning, programming, and budget matters of all the sciences and authority to resolve conflicts among the science offices. The NASA Science Council, currently chaired by the Chief Scientist and including as members the science associate administrators, would provide a mechanism for the Chief Scientist to use in meeting these expanded
|
From page 38... ...
for th~e~NASA science · Acts to resolve conflicts among the science programs and between science programs and other NASA ; programs. :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I: .~ Chairs the NASA Science Council.
|
From page 39... ...
Recommendation 4-2: The position of Chief Scientist should be strengthened to ensure full integration of the space sciences. A proposed functional statement that encompasses the necessary authority is provided, followed by a proposed functional statement for the NASA Science Council (see box)
|
From page 40... ...
If this could be accomplished, the principal advantage would be the flexibility in personnel management inherent in the private sector. Through this mechanism, staff quality in the long run could be enhanced.
|
From page 41... ...
NASA's stated intent in creating such institutes is to upgrade the quality of the science programs concerned, bringing them to a 7Report of the White House Science Council Federal Laboratory Review Board, May 1983, David Packwood, chairman.
|
From page 42... ...
It is further assumed that the institute's scientific staff are contractor ~ .
|
From page 43... ...
. The committee recommends that, if NASA proceeds to establish pilot science institutes, it give due attention to the out-years process by which these institutes will have their guaranteed base budgets ramped down, and to the competitive process under which they will be expected to compete successfully and maintain or increase their size, or to compete less successfully and shrink or terminate in an orderly fashion.
|
From page 44... ...
An additional disadvantage of industrial funding is that research sponsors may tend to use it as a management tool, that is, "buying" research in little bits and pieces, thus creating a paper problem and stimulating researchers to spend excessive time seeking funding.
|
From page 45... ...
Therefore, whatever the system, it is important that all potentially competing requirements and directions flow down to center program/ project management through a single channel. Given the trend toward concentration of center capabilities toward a primary mission for that center, coupled with more focused enterprise management, the committee concluded that center reporting arrangements should remain as they currently are, with each Federal Laboratory Review Task Force, NASA Advisory Council, NASA Federal Laboratory Review, February 1995.
|
From page 46... ...
The issue arose regarding oversight of contractors by field centers, of investigators by Headquarters scientific staff, and of field centers by Headquarters. This heavy oversight has two important detrimental effects: performers may be required to devote unwarranted time to satisfying oversight requirements at the expense of project performance, and managers spend excessive time in
|
From page 47... ...
The practice has penetrated most of NASA's programs, bringing with it the bureaucracy necessary for its implementation. The Space Shuttle and Space Station programs have clearly been subject to this renewed management style fashioned during the Apollo era; however, science programs within the agency have also seen tighter control and oversight from Headquarters, especially since the Hubble Space Telescope mirror problem.
|
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.