Getting Management’s Eye on IR: Thick Skin and Serendipity

1. Getting Management’s Eye on IR:Thick Skin and Serendipity Pam Novak STI Division Manager, PNNL Presented at 2005 STIP meeting

2. 2

3. The application everyone loves to hate! In FY03, an internal audit uncovered the following major reasons IR didn’t happen: • I didn’t know there was a requirement • I forgot • A mixture of complaints about the system No consequences for non-compliance, and yet… 3

4. We Had Made Progress! • In FY01, only ~50% of publications were cleared. • We began tracking and reporting via a website in FY02, linked from the weekly ISI alerts e-mail. • In April 2003, Pam began sending an e-mail with IR info by directorate to the Lab Director, the Associate Lab Directors, and others. • ERICA training was overhauled, and improvements were made to the ERICA reporting function. • Compliance improved ~10% each FY, but the complaints continued. • We developed very thick skins. 4

5. Serendipity Looks Ugly at First • FY01 – Inspector General audit of the Environmental Molecular Sciences Center (EMSL) finds that journal articles aren’t being sent to OSTI • FY01 – Incorrect citation data on EMSL external website nearly causes a lawsuit; PNNL conducts an internal investigation. ERICA initially blamed; problem turns out to be staff failure to check data. 5

6. STI Responds • STI decides to modify ERICA so that citations aren’t externally posted until Library staff have verified them. • OSTI’s harvesting option makes it possible to take care of our backlog of journal citations quickly! 6

7. PNNL Gets a New Contract • Contains a clause requiring 100% review of externally released products for potential IP. • ERICA seen as the solution! • Funding is provided to modify ERICA to include mandatory IP review. 7

8. Serendipity Continued: Internal Auditing Can Be Your Ally • FY04 - Director of Auditing asks Pam if uncleared publications pose a risk to the Lab…yes! • Do we have data on our compliance?...YES!! • A metric becomes part of Battelle’s corporate assurance report. • Chief Research Officer (CRO) named as “owner” of this metric. Target is set at 95% compliance. • We finish FY04 at just over 81%. • CRO decides we need to get tough. 8

9. The Current Approach • We compile lists of uncleared publications for each directorate; these are handed to the ALDs by the Lab Director after each quarter. • The first report generated a lot of “energy.” ERICA was initially blamed, but human error was again the culprit. • Starting this quarter, we are letting the directorates preview their lists to check for errors or comment on extenuating circumstances before the report goes to the Lab Director. 9

10. Meanwhile… • CRO leaves PNNL for INL in 11/04. • New CRO (former EMSL Director) named in 3/05. He likes the quarterly citation report concept and wants to continue it. • One ALD sends an all-staff message about the IR requirement and the quarterly report: “If your name is on it, you will be contacted.” 10

11. And there’s more • DOE asks the Lab to demonstrate assurance that peer review is effective. STI is asked to participate in the committee on publications and presentations, because ERICA is seen as a solution! • One research directorate is using a centralized database to manage its websites, and STI staff have written a script to automatically extract and post ERICA citations on the appropriate pages. 11

12. Our Wish List • We’ve asked for increased M&O funding for ERICA to hire a dedicated IT staff member. • We plan to ask for additional core funding to cover the Library’s cost to verify all the citations. • We’d like to see PNNL meet – even exceed – the 95% target by the end of next FY. After which we can all buy skin softener. 12

13. Acknowledgments These are the brave souls who’ve weathered this “interesting” time with me: • Nancy Doran • Donna Rassat • Merry Loew (retired) • Chrissie Noonan • Darlene Varley • Debbie Hamilton 13