Appendix D Scientific Steering Committee Perspectives Questionnaire

    I.  

    Name of major program

    II.  

    Development of Program Science

    A.  

    Was your program's intellectual predecessor an earlier MOP? If yes, please discuss the evolution of your program from its predecessor. How did the successes or mistakes from this previous program help you structure your present program?

    B.  

    How were the scientific objectives limited and/or prioritized?

    C.  

    Were funding limitations considered?

    D.  

    How were likely funding levels determined?

    E.  

    Describe the standard suite of or core measurements collected by your program.

    F.  

    How was your decision made as to which measurements would be considered core measurements?

    G.  

    How useful were planning documents which were written for this program?

    H.  

    How could the science planning process have been improved?

      III.  

      Implementation Planning

      A.  

      Were the anticipated level of resources realized?

      1.  

      If not,

      a.)  

      why not?

      b.)  

      how were implementation plans revised to adjust?

      c.)  

      what gaps developed as a result of the funding shortfall or decisions?



      The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
      Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
      Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



      Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
      Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

      Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

      OCR for page 120
      Appendix D Scientific Steering Committee Perspectives Questionnaire I.   Name of major program II.   Development of Program Science A.   Was your program's intellectual predecessor an earlier MOP? If yes, please discuss the evolution of your program from its predecessor. How did the successes or mistakes from this previous program help you structure your present program? B.   How were the scientific objectives limited and/or prioritized? C.   Were funding limitations considered? D.   How were likely funding levels determined? E.   Describe the standard suite of or core measurements collected by your program. F.   How was your decision made as to which measurements would be considered core measurements? G.   How useful were planning documents which were written for this program? H.   How could the science planning process have been improved? III.   Implementation Planning A.   Were the anticipated level of resources realized? 1.   If not, a.)   why not? b.)   how were implementation plans revised to adjust? c.)   what gaps developed as a result of the funding shortfall or decisions?

      OCR for page 120
      d.)   what was the role of the SSC in assuring that standard suite measurements were funded? e.)   were the U.S. oceanographic research vessels used by your program adequate for the tasks? f.)   were the U.S. submersible platforms used by your program adequate for the tasks? g.)   were the vessels/platforms available when needed and for the duration required? B.   Proposal Evaluation 1.   What was the role of the SSC (or executive committee) in individual proposal evaluation? (please elaborate on any that apply) a.)   Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the proposals submitted to your program? b.)   Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on program relevance? c.)   Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the quality of the science? d.)   Does the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the budget? e.)   Does the SSC have an opportunity to provide other comments? 2.   Does/did the SSC have an opportunity to comment on the ensemble of selected proposals to identify gaps and/or redundancies? C.   General 1.   How could the implementation planning be (or have been) improved? 2.   Should more or less time be (or have been) spent in planning before field work started? 3.   What recommendations do you have to facilitate future development of interdisciplinary programs? IV.   Field Phase Management A.   Contingencies 1.   Were there any unexpected events which required a modification to the Implementation Plan? How were they handled? 2.   Were funds programmed for contingencies or was supplemental funding needed? 3.   Was there flexibility in funding to address new scientific questions which only appeared as the program evolved? How were these handled? B.   Time Series

      OCR for page 120
      1.   Please list the time significant series measurements established by your program. 2.   Which should be maintained after the program ends and why? 3.   List or discuss data collection activities conducted by your program that could be made into more routine operational activities when the program concludes. V.   Data Processing and Management A.   Data set development: quality control and documentation 1.   Was this phase hindered by lack of resources? 2.   Are (or were) data assembly centers included in the program organization? If so, did they function as planned? B.   Costs of data management 1.   Are (or were) these borne entirely by the program or shared with other programs? 2.   Is (or was) there a special data management unit (please describe)? 3.   Which elements of the Federal data management system provided support? a.)   NODC b.)   NCDC c.)   NGDC d.)   other (please explain) C.   Data Sharing 1.   Has the official program policy been an effective tool for promoting data sharing? a.)   Were there violations of the data policies? b.)   If so, how were they handled? (discuss any that apply) (1)   peer pressure applied (2)   steering group pressure applied (3)   project office pressure applied (4)   project leader pressure applied (5)   funding agency pressure applied (6)   nothing was done 2.   Were any scientific objectives compromised by data access problems? 3.   How could data access be improved? D.   How could data management have been improved? VI.   Modeling A.   Modeling Component

      OCR for page 120
      1.   Is there a modeling component in your program? 2.   How are (or were) modeling activities related to data collection activities and vice versa? 3.   Are (or were) the modeling activities hindered by a lack of resources? 4.   Are (or were) the modeling activities mainly conducted by individual principal investigators? 5.   Are (or were) there any gaps in the modeling activities which were not filled? 6.   List significant model developments (e.g., new parameterizations, development of code, formulations, algorithms, explanation of phenomena). 7.   How could modelers be (or have been) more involved in the planning process? B.   The Future 1.   Is there a model/data synthesis phase planned? If so how will it relate to the previous data collection and modeling activities. 2.   Do you feel that the modeling component could be (or would have been) better handled through block funding of a few modeling groups or the set-up of a major center? 3.   Are there any obvious follow-on activities for the modeling component of the program? VII.   Coordination with other major oceanographic programs A.   Are the minutes of your scientific steering committee meetings circulated to the Chairs of other major oceanographic programs? B.   Do scientists involved in the planning/implementation of closely related major oceanographic programs sit on your scientific steering committee? C.   Have you ever conducted joint steering committee meetings with any other major oceanographic programs? VIII.   Agency Coordination A.   If multiple agencies are (or were) involved please describe the strengths and weaknesses of agency coordination. B.   Has your program been impacted by the availability of new satellite technology? If yes, please elaborate. C.   Has your program been adversely impacted by satellite launch schedule changes? If yes, please elaborate. D.   Should NSF or other sponsors play a more proactive role in program development?

      OCR for page 120
      IX.   International Coordination A.   Please describe the strengths and weaknesses of the international scientific coordination and management. B.   Why was it necessary for the U.S. to be involved in the international program? Did this involvement improve U.S. planning? X.   Program Legacy A.   Briefly list the major accomplishments of your program. B.   Please list examples of technological achievements attributable to your program (instrumentation, facilities, methods, software, etc.). C.   Please provide an example of how execution of your program plans may have lead to discipline-wide changes in established measurement standards. D.   How have the facilities developed to accomplish your programs goals been used for educational purposes? E.   Please provide an example of the widespread use of your programs data sets in educational activities. F.   Please list any special journal issues, workshops, interdisciplinary forums, and data sets made available to the ocean science community as a whole during the execution of your program goals (if list exceeds more than 10 items, please list most significant). XI.   TOPICS FOR COMMENT (The questions listed below are asked to provide a platform for you to express your views on various issues related to your program and major oceanographic research programs in general. Please feel free to respond only to those you feel are most relevant to your program or research.) A.   What are the major limitations of the existing steering committee structure? Was the SSC effective? Was there widespread community involvement in the SSC? Please describe the strengths and weaknesses of national program organization. B.   Can you identify some scientific gaps between the present MOPs? C.   Does your program have a perceived end point? D.   Is there a ''ramp down" process? E.   Can you identify logical follow-on programs for this major ocean program? F.   How can the planning/management process be streamlined? G.   What efforts need to be taken to ensure that this streamlining will allow for sufficient community involvement? H.   If you could start again what would you do differently? I.   How has this program had an impact, positive or negative, on collegiality (defined as the quality of working toward a common goal or purpose) in the oceanographic community?

      OCR for page 120
      J.   Were there any scientific objectives which were compromised by infrastructure limitations? K.   Which program structures and organizations worked well for this program and should therefore be considered for use in future program? L.   What are the general characteristics of scientific questions or challenges more appropriately addressed by major oceanographic programs than individual efforts? What are some examples of these questions or challenges? M.   Are there a series of questions for future research that would be better served by intermediate-size program structures? N.   What, in your opinion, is the best role of project managers in ensuring the success of a major oceanographic research program? O.   What mechanisms would you suggest for paving an easier road for programs that cross traditional discipline boundaries (e.g., ocean and atmosphere; ocean and biosphere for CO2-related issues; removing the boundary between the ocean and shoreline)? P.   What mechanisms would you suggest to foster coordination among long lead time mission agencies and satellite launches? Q.   What kinds of forums should be used to identify gaps between the MOPs? R.   In which area or areas is increased technological development most needed to help you or your program obtain your scientific objectives (i.e., how do the limitations of the presently available technology impede your progress?)?