1 / 9

COMMITTEE OF VISITORS

COMMITTEE OF VISITORS. Climate Change Research Division March 1-3, 2004. WHAT IS A COV ?. It is an opportunity to have a group of interested and knowledgeable peers take a detailed look into how a program(s) is managed and operated

misu
Download Presentation

COMMITTEE OF VISITORS

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. COMMITTEE OF VISITORS Climate Change Research Division March 1-3, 2004

  2. WHAT IS A COV ? • It is an opportunity to have a group of interested and knowledgeable peers take a detailed look into how a program(s) is managed and operated • It is an opportunity to help management in its operation of their programs • It is a two way street that takes much work on the part of the visitors and those being visited.

  3. CHARGE TO THE COV • “… to assess some of the research program management processes in the Climate Change Research Division in BER • Provide as assessment of the processes used to solicit, review, and recommend proposal funding actions • . . .also assess the processes used to manage ongoing research programs . . . Especially the decision-making processes”

  4. WHAT IS CCRD ? • Composed of 9 different programs • ARM • Atmospheric Science • Climate Change Prediction • Ecosystems • Integrated Assessments • Ocean Carbon Cycle • Ocean Carbon Sequestration • Terrestrial Carbon Process • Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration

  5. WHAT DID THE TEAM LOOK LIKE ? • Although advised in the guidelines of the charge to have at least 25% of the team and the chair receive no support from DOE, this team had only two members who received support from DOE • Geographic distribution was reasonable, only two women, no minorities, age distribution was weighted toward older, one member of the NAS, two from DOE labs, one form NCAR, six from other agencies, six from universities, one from the private sector, and two from not for profit organizations

  6. PROCEDURES • Split up into groups to review each program, each group had a leader • Each group examined jackets from university and nat’l lab communities • Grant jackets lists had been randomized, although COV members could request jackets if there was a good reason why that should be done • Had plenary sessions each afternoon and mornings to discuss issues, problems, “how-goes-it, etc

  7. PROCEDURES CONTINUED • Used a set of templates developed at NSF and adapted for CCRD • Templates raised questions about • Use of merit review procedures • Selection of reviewers • Resulting portfolio of awards under review • Management of program under review

  8. WHAT WE FOUND - I • Details on individual programs not completed • Need more than one year of data, three years would seem to be adequate • Need information on declinations, withdrawals, solicitations, pre-proposals, rejections because of irrelevance, and grants • Documentation by PMs should be standardized especially in proposal jackets • PMs need to keep records of why they take certain actions, especially changes in budgets, declinations, and return of pre-proposals • Merit reviewer pools need to be refreshed

  9. WHAT WE FOUND - II • Integration of CCRD programs into CCSP needs constant work and work wiith other agencies • National labs are a great resource and their work needs to be better integrated into a DOE presence in the CCSP • CCRD staffing is too thin to do an adequate job in all programs

More Related