By Professor Henry Foley Department of Chemical Engineering Pennsylvania State University

1. Directorate for Engineering Ad Com Meeting Report on Breakout Discussion about the Awards & Solicitations Task Group (ASTG)May 11, 2005 By Professor Henry Foley Department of Chemical Engineering Pennsylvania State University

2. Seven Study Topics with Recommendations: 1.Engineering Investment Portfolio 2. Engineering Solicitation Portfolio 3. Review and Approval of Proposal-Generating Documents 4. Review and Approval of Interdivisional Grants 5. Use of Standard and Continuing Grants 6. The Control of Success Rates 7. Record Keeping

3. Global Comments of the Ad Com Group and Sub Group • The Ad Com Sub Group was impressed by the thoroughness of the analysis done by the ASTG. • Better management of these processes and the budget of the Directorate should lead to better coordination and synergies between the intellectual elements, and more effective innovation. • Higher of percentages flexible funds and therefore more success for unsolicited proposals.

4. Among the Recommendations that Generated the Most Discussion • Expand EEC/Division interactions in managing centers • Institution of an Annual Planning Retreat • Limit the number of solicitations * 5 – 6 new ENG led *2 – 4 inter-directorate/interagency, ENG participation • Enforce $3,000,000 minimum for new solicitations the number of solicitations

5. Among the Recommendations that Generated the Most DiscussionCont. • Use the annual planning retreat to establish priorities on proposal-generating documents • Maintain the ENG policy limiting mortgage rates to 50% • Use discrete submission windows for unsolicited proposals • Limit the number of proposals per PI or per institution in a given year or submission window

6. Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations as to Specifics 1.  As the Directorate moves toward implementation of the plan, we advocate that purposeful and directcommunication be made to the academic engineering research community. * Visit institutions when possible * Web-based * “Dear Colleague” Letters

7. Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations as to Specifics Cont. • With regards to management and planning, the annual planning retreat should be done in the sunlight * Considerable thinking needs to be given as to how to access and pinch off so-called cold areas * The community-at-large will need to be assured that the traditions of openness and scholarship will be maintained * Bottom up versus top down leadership

8. Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations as to Specifics Cont. 3.  Education of the community on the topics of “fenced” funds, and the extent of mortgaging is needed. * Fenced – What is this? How much? Why? * Mortgage – perception is that it is 80% - 80% elsewhere in the FND - 50%/65% limits are not widely known * Should reduce angst about reducing mortgages * Communication, communication, communication

9. Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations as to Specifics Cont. • Moving all the ENG Divisions to two submission windows per year for unsolicited proposals sounds like a good experiment for 3 years with revaluation then. * Limiting the number of submissions from institutions is not recommended * Limiting the number of submissions to one per PI per window sounds like a goodexperiment to try for 3 years with intern and final evaluation

10. Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations as to Specifics Cont. * Do not limit the number of submissions from PI’s responding to solicitations in priority areas, especially career awards. * Carefully evaluate the impact on young faculty i.e. pre-tenure * Exemption to limit pre-tenure may be considered? * Watch the effects carefully

11. Summary • The plan looks logical and it is imperative to move forward in many of the recommended areas. • However we urge communication to and with the community and that this be done sooner not later. • It is hard for the Ad Com to “parachute” in and comment substantively on these since we do not have the full context or the full field of options and alternatives that were or could be considered