1 / 11

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION. Larry Russo November 14, 2005. EERE Program Peer Review Criteria. “In-Progress” Review (minimum every 2 years) Project Level: Are Projects being done right? Program Level: Are the right projects being done?

ila-richard
Download Presentation

2005 BIOMASS PROGRAM Biennial Peer Review WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2005 BIOMASS PROGRAMBiennial Peer Review WELCOMEANDINTRODUCTION Larry Russo November 14, 2005

  2. EERE Program Peer Review Criteria • “In-Progress” Review (minimum every 2 years) • Project Level: Are Projects being done right? • Program Level: Are the right projects being done? • Rigorous, Formal and Documented • Objective Criteria • Qualified and Independent Reviewers (COI disclosure) • Reviewer Judgments Relate to Criteria and Associated Questions • Program Manager Review and Response • Peer Review Report is a Public Document

  3. Why Are We Here ? Why a Peer Review • Biennial program reviews are an EERE requirement • More Importantly, provides input necessary to keep the program on point and focused • Transparent, non-biased evaluation of technical, scientific, and business aspects of the program projects, project results, and program management • Opportunity for an outside perspective • Results of the review will be used by the program to guide future activities Objectives: • Evaluate the Programs’ approach • Is there continuity?, Is it functional? • Are we working on the right things? • Does our structure lead to accomplishing the Program’s, EERE’s and DOE’s goals and objectives? • Is our Portfolio balanced? • The right mix of core R&D and pre-commercialization efforts • Have we identified the right technological barriers and are they being addressed?

  4. Review Scope and Process REVIEW SCOPE • 85% of Program spending is required to be reviewed • FY 2005 R&D Portfolio worth approximately $80.2 million, including congressionally directed funds • All competitively awarded, congressionally directed, and program management projects, active in FY 2005, will be reviewed • Each program platform has performed interim project reviews, the results of which will be summarized in each platform session, along with a summary of analysis efforts associated with that platform • Some projects will be reviewed via poster sessions • The reviewer comments will all be included – consensus opinions and comments are NOT encouraged REVIEWER SELECTION • A Steering Committee was selected by the program staff to lead the review effort according to EERE guidelines • The Steering Committee has knowledge of the Program BUT have no active projects or affiliations with the Program or projects being reviewed • Steering Committee identified non-biased technical reviewers for each portion of the program according to EERE guidelines • ALL REVIEWERS HAVE IDENTIFIED ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

  5. OBP Recent Review History Sub- Program or Project Specific Reviews

  6. OBP Goal Hierarchy

  7. OBP Peer Review Structure Feedstock Interface Reviewers Biochemical Conversion Reviewers Thermochemical Conversion Reviewers Products Platform Reviewers Integrated Biorefinery Reviewers Steering Committee Reviewers Select Technical Reviewers Review Entire Program Ensure Program Integration and Connectivity

  8. Role of Reviewers and Audience Steering Committee • Independently select technical review teams • Review program structure, mgt & portfolio decision making processes, portfolio balance, connectivity to outputs • A 30,000 foot view of the portfolio Technical Reviewers • Identify technical gaps • Evaluate projects for technical soundness and strategic fit • Evaluate whether the Technology Elements aligned to the pathways Audience Members • Identify potential new areas of interest to the Biomass Program • Provide feedback on both the portfolio and program level.

  9. Steering Committee Carol Babb - Amgen Bill Cruickshank - Natural Resources Canada Joe Fagan - Strategic Funding Resources Herb Kosstrin - R.W. Beck

  10. Technical Reviewers • Feedstocks • David Bransby, Auburn University • Mark Stumborg, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada • Blair Wright, Transfeeder, Inc. • Biochemical • Bob Benson, Private Consultant • Don Johnson, Grain Processing Corporation (Retired) • John Cundiff, VT – Biological Systems Engineering • Thermochemical • Doug Albertson, Energy Products of Idaho (Retired) • Andrew Himmelblau (Geo-Centers) • Products • Fred Barlow, Eastman Chemical (Retired) • Angelo Montanga, Consultant • Ron Rosseau, Georgia Tech • Integrated Biorefinery • Jacqueline Broder, TVA • Dave Kelsall, Ethanol Technology • Frank Aerstin, Midland Engineering • Jim Stewart, Stewart Consulting

  11. Agenda

More Related