Decision Making in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Application of Good Practices in Prioritization and Decision-Making Processes Relevant to OST
5 Application of Good Practices in Prioritization and Decision-Making Processes Relevant to OST
Pages 53-72
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 53... ...
Following these comments of a general nature, more specific evaluations are provided of OST process steps using the model of Figure 4.
|
From page 54... ...
and site contractors and their subcontractors is highly desirable. By maintaining a continuing awareness of the sites' evolving technology needs and an understanding of the many constraints and pressures that site operators face, OST may increase its effectiveness in substituting cheaper and/or more effective technologies in the baseline functional flowsheets.
|
From page 55... ...
In a similar vein, it is appropriate for OST to have input in the initial establishment of baseline functional flowsheets, even though the problem owner at the site bears the responsibility for cleanup. Because some of the most intractable of DOE's cleanup problems are the first of a kind in many respects, it is unlikely that any site contractor will be totally prepared for all of the problems to be faced.
|
From page 56... ...
OST has recently begun to use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out cost studies of technologies developed, or proposed for development, by OST and to compare these costs with those of the baseline functional flowsheet technologies they are intended to replace.
|
From page 57... ...
ROT-type evaluations would also provide information by which to compare projects of separate program units (i.e., the relative worthiness of a Tanks Focus Area project versus one from the DDFA, or from the Robotics Crosscutting Program) , thereby helping to inform decisions of how much money should be allocated to each program unit.
|
From page 58... ...
These probabilities might be obtained initially from "back-of-the-envelope"-type estimations or judgments of knowledgeable people, to be supplanted over time by more refined figures as warranted, as data become available, and as the maturity of a technology development project increases. Despite all of the problems associated with these quantitative estimations, they are recommended to provide guidance because the alternative (of not doing them)
|
From page 59... ...
For this reason, even though the committee has said that there is an excess of reviews of OST, the committee suggests that, in two very important places, additional external, independent reviews can benefit the OST decision process depicted in Figure 4.~. These reviews, discussed below, are to validate the following two inputs to the decisions made at Box ~ of Figure 4.
|
From page 60... ...
NOTE: EM-! = 0ff~ce of Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management; ER = 0ff~ce of Energy Research.
|
From page 61... ...
improvements to the current program organization can come by instituting structured and elective information flow between OST program units; documentation of the bases for discretionary allocations (e.g., funding decisions from headquarters that are outside the decision-ma~ng processes of the Focus Areas, Crosscutting Programs, and other OST program units described in Appendix E) ; appropriately targeted independent, external reviews (or "technical audits")
|
From page 62... ...
This leaves decision makers in the technology provider program with the difficult choice of either terminating a technology development project, with zero return on the investment to date, or continuing the project, with the expectation that it may be needed later. In addition, this reopens some of the decisions on the relative emphasis on different goals and measures of success of the agency, of EM, and of OST and therefore on the programs mounted to accomplish these goals.
|
From page 63... ...
The process for allocating funding to the technology provider programs (i.e., the program units of OST) is essentially the same as that described above for the user programs, primarily because both are part of the same DOE-EM budgetary process.
|
From page 64... ...
annual review meeting held at the end of each fiscal year. This is an internal review by OST headquarters management of all major OST program units (e.g., Focus Areas and Crosscutting Programs)
|
From page 65... ...
User or Site Program Planning (Box 5) As discussed earlier, the technology user programs develop baseline functional flowsheets (and, hopefully, alternatives)
|
From page 66... ...
These activities, described below, have not been evaluated in detail by the committee, but are mentioned for completeness to exhibit another way for OST to identify technology needs other than by soliciting requests Dom the problem owners and technology users of other EM offices. The Waste Form Initiative of 1997-1998 was a scoping study of the use of existing waste forms and treatment options for the inventory of DOE-EM's mixed waste.
|
From page 67... ...
Focus Areas and Crosscutting Programs can be user programs, receiving technology development projects begun by separately funded OST programs such as the Industry Program, the University Program, the TISA-International Program, and the DOE-EM EMSP. This last program performs mission-directed science, for which the "needs" are appropriately stated at a much more general level.
|
From page 68... ...
User Provider Problem-holding site manager in Em-30, 40, or 60 Focus Area Crosscutting Program Focus Area Crosscutting Program Industry Program University Program TISA International Program EMSP Industry Program University Program TISA International Program EMSP Pragmatic Aspects of Funding Decisions Based on Prioritized Needs (Box X) Although funding high-priority needs until resources are exhausted is highly desirable, there are factors that complicate this straightforward approach.
|
From page 69... ...
Gates 2 and 4 are major decision points for OST technology development projects, because later-stage work is typically more expensive to fiend than work at earlier stages. At these gates, the Focus Area or Crosscutting Program leadership convenes a review pane!
|
From page 70... ...
The decision as to what projects are selected is aided by input from a motivated, skilled work force, as exemplified by the Tanks Focus Area's technical team evaluations and the Mixed Waste Focus Area's waste type manager teams. Suggestion 2.
|
From page 71... ...
These decisions are made by site managers at DOE sites within other EM offices who own the remediation or waste management problems on which the developed technology is intended to be applied. It is evident in retrospect that having representatives of other EM offices participating in OST programs has not been sufficient to result in an adequate level of deployment.
|
From page 72... ...
· The source of funds and the restrictions placed on some funds are beyond OST's direct control and are therefore constraints upon the program. · Budget allocations to OST program units are done by OST headquarters management.
|
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.