|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. 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 21
~2
Management Strategy and Structure
As noted earlier, the organization of the Arctic Sciences Section was de-
signed in response to a variety of management pressures and as a counterpart to
the Antarctic Sciences Section. Both manage approximately the same amount of
research dollars about $30.5 million although the arctic budget supports both
research and research logistics, while antarctic logistics are covered separately.
Figure 3-1 is an organizational chart for the Office of Polar Programs, current as
of February 1998. Several differences in staffing and structure between the two
science sections are apparent. For example, the Antarctic Section has 16 posi-
tions, including one section head and seven science program managers plus a
number of other staff directly involved in managing the research portfolio. (The
Antarctic Sciences Section is also supported by 17 staff members and various
contractors in the Polar Research Support Section, which provides a variety of
logistics services.) Although the position terminology between the two sections
is not parallel, the Arctic Sciences Section had 12 positions, including one section
head and seven people involved in managing the research portfolio. (This in-
cludes one person added to the ANS staff in late 1997 after the committee began
its work.)
For science management in the Arctic Sciences Section, there are four tem-
porary (or "rotating") positions, including the section head and the Arctic Natural
Sciences (ANS) program manager, and only two permanent positions, one of
which was added to support the ANS program during the course of this assess-
ment. In comparison, the Antarctic Sciences Section has six permanent science
program managers and a permanent section head. Given the similarity of their
21
OCR for page 22
22
I}
c, ~
I
.e
o
.~
in
=5
O
C
o
_
1 C
PI
WHO
I- .111 ~ ;
0-
In L
1 -
. ___ L___
go, .
;~ 3~:1[g jaI111~1 ~
i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~. ~
3~0
.. ..
. . .
.. . ~
.. . ...
1 ~ 1
~ 1
1 o, 1
1 ~ 1
1 ~ 1
1 o 1
1 ~ 1
. ~ I
c
F
;^
o
Cal
Cal
it_
o
.~
.5
o
Cal
Cal
o
~0
o
a
rim
OCR for page 23
MANAGEMENT STRATEGYAND STRUCTURE
23
science budgets, the Arctic Section is understaffed and, moreover, is character-
ized by a high number of temporary employees.
Although there are benefits to rotating employees, including the influx of
new ideas, the high number of temporary staff in the Arctic Sciences Section has
implications for continuity of programs and implementation of strategic thinking.
Short-term employees are likely to be less effective at certain tasks because it
takes time to get up to speed in such a diverse program (in terms of scientific
issues and the communities of researchers involved); furthermore, they end up
leaving just as they become knowledgeable and effective. Because of the rigid
timing of the proposal request cycle, short-term staff will be less able to develop
and implement a vision of where the program should head. Short-term employ-
ees also may have more difficulty knowing and coordinating with the many other
people within the National Science Foundation (NSF) and in other federal agen-
cies with arctic research programs, and such coordination should be an important
part of the job for ANS staff. Finally, lack of permanent staff in key program
manager positions could be perceived as a lack of long-term commitment to
science in the Arctic at the Office of Polar Programs.
EVALUATION OF CURRENT STRUCTURE AND SCOPE
Strengths
Although this committee has many suggestions for improving the effective-
ness of how OPP manages the arctic side of its portfolio, we should to note that
overall the current OPP Arctic Sciences Section has done a credible job of sup-
porting arctic science within the structure imposed upon it during its formation.
Although we must inevitably find ways to segment and define scientific catego-
ries, or its management becomes overwhelming, science in general is moving
away from the neat disciplinary boundaries of the past. Thus the move away
from this in the Arctic Sciences Section is not unreasonable.
As for the ANS program, it has shown in its short history some distinct
strengths:
.
The Arctic Natural Sciences program provides a home for a broad range of
potential research issues dealing with the atmosphere, biology, geology, and
oceans in the Arctic. The program' s breadth and flexibility allows it great range
in selecting important research.
· Arctic research benefits from these topics being collected together into a
single program, because this provides a potential mechanism for scientists from
different disciplines to act collectively.
· The ANS program is funded at an adequate level to carry out its mandate,
and funds during the first years of operation seem to have been distributed appro-
priately.
OCR for page 24
24
.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR NSF'S ARCTIC NATURAL SCIENCES PROGRAM
The ANS program is well suited to fund individual and small team initiatives
because it is not tied strongly to any thematic program. Such initiatives are
increasingly difficult to fund elsewhere.
.
Given its solid funding and flexibility, the ANS program offers a good op-
portunity to accommodate new and sometimes even large ideas. Some cau-
tion is necessary in the future, however, as new and perhaps costly opportunities
like the new ice-capable research ship (U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy) come into
service.
Weaknesses
This committee was charged with evaluating the ANS program so we can
provide guidance about future directions, and thus our focus inevitably falls on
problems and areas where improvement is possible. The committee notes that the
ANS program, and in particular its relationship to other programs within OPP and
NSF as a whole, is in some ways still an "experiment in progress" that can benefit
from candid feedback. In this vein, we offer the following observations:
.
Although the antarctic/arctic split seems irreversible, there is no science-
based reason for separating the poles in administration of polar research. What
was lost in the process is some focused disciplinary support. More importantly,
management and dedicated funding for the logistics of polar science were divided
up, to the detriment of the arctic side.
.
There is some overlap between the ANS and Arctic System Science (ARCSS)
programs. At times, the conditions for inclusion in ANS seem to be "if it's not
ARCSS, it's ANS," but this can lead to some confusion.
· The current size of the ANS program and broad diversity of subject matter
covered are too great for the staff allocated (although some changes to ameliorate
this problem have occurred as this report was being written). The lack of perma-
nent staff in key positions and lack of parity of permanent positions between the
Antarctic Section (where most positions are permanent) and Arctic Section (where
few positions are permanent) are problems that need to be addressed, albeit
within the broader NSF context because of overall limitations on staff levels.
It is and will continue to be difficult to set priorities for funding when subject
matter is diverse. Similarly, it is difficult to use a normal review panel to help in
ANS-wide decisionmaking, unless multiple panels are used or special effort is
made to design a multidisciplinary panel. Review panels were not universally
liked by the town meeting participants, so some thought should be given to how
they are used if this route is followed.
· Given the great breadth of subject matter considered in the ANS program, it
is and will always be difficult to find staff who can deal fairly and competently
with the full range of proposals received.
· Arctic research can be constrained by the lack of logistical support. New
.
OCR for page 25
MANAGEMENT STRATEGYAND STRUCTURE
25
ships are likely to be a heavy burden on the program in the future; this is dis-
cussed further in Chapter 5.
.
The relationship of the ANS program to other programs that also fund work
in the Arctic is not entirely clear to prospective researchers. At one point, it was
proposed that there be a group known as "Arctic Affiliates," that is, a group of
NSF staff with arctic interests that would meet periodically to provide advice and
help review proposals. It would include key staff from the Arctic Section and
from units outside the OPP, such as the Earth System History program (ESH),
Atmospheric Sciences Division (ATM), and Earth Sciences Division (EAR).
The Arctic Affiliates concept has not been taken full advantage of, although an
informal approach has developed where the program manager seeks specific
input from specific people as necessary. This informal approach seems most
useful when the underlying personal relationships are good, and less useful with-
out that foundation. If such a group was operating, consideration might be given
to adding members from other agencies funding research in the Arctic, such as
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of Naval
Research (ONR), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
to assist in coordination with these agencies and benefit from their links with
international activities.
EVALUATION BY 1997 COMMITTEE OF VISITORS
Periodic assessments of program success and problems are extremely impor-
tant for ensuring sound program management, and the Arctic Sciences Section is
to be commended for taking steps to evaluate and modify the ANS program while
it is still evolving. Other mechanisms, too, can provide periodic input and guid-
ance. One such mechanism, although not targeted exclusively on the ANS pro-
gram, was a 1997 Committee of Visitors that was charged with evaluating the
OPP science program (NSF, 1997b). (Also see Box 3-1.) The report of that
Committee of Visitors provided an overall assessment of OPP and looked specifi-
cally, albeit briefly, at each OPP program. The following comments from the
Committee seem particularly relevant:
.
"The Committee [of Visitors] found the science programs within OPP to be
in excellent shape . . . some issues require attention, and areas of improvement
have been identified. But the strong impression that the Committee formed after
two and a half days of examining material is one of a professional, efficient, and
hard-working group."
.
"OPP is unique within the [National Science] Foundation in that it is not
organized along scientific disciplines, but rather along geographic areas. This
presents both challenges and opportunities. The challenges include, for example,
a dauntingly broad mandate, from astrophysics to microbiology, from ancient
climate change to social science. Constant communication among Program Man
OCR for page 26
26
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR NSF'S ARCTIC NATURAL SCIENCES PROGRAM
OCR for page 27
MANAGEMENT STRATEGYAND STRUCTURE
27
agers, both within and outside of OPP, is essential to managing such breadth.
The opportunities, however, are equally impressive. The Office's experiment
with the interdisciplinary organization of the Arctic Section, while some admin-
istrative problems remain to be solved, is speeding the process of integrating
physical and social sciences in the Arctic, a critical partnership needed to address
society's interaction with, and adaptation to, global change."
.
"The use of temporary employees in the interdisciplinary arctic programs
seems dangerous, as these Programs require the broader and longer term vision of
permanent Program Managers. This situation seems particularly incongruous
given the larger number of permanent Program Managers in the antarctic pro-
grams, disciplines which lend themselves more readily to rotating positions. In
particular, the use of one rotating person to manage all of ANS seems unwise.
The Committee could not help but conclude that a fair distribution of grants
among the widely varying fields represented in this Program is tremendously
difficult, despite the considerable efforts of the Program Manager. Correcting
this situation as soon as possible . . . should be a high priority in the Office."
The Committee of Visitors went on to provide comments on each OPP
science program, and regarding ANS the group noted that proposals were pro-
cessed fairly and promptly and that the program was participating in special NSF
cross-directorate research initiatives. According to the Committee, the program
manager's recommendations were extremely well documented and were appro-
priate in terms of scope of budget and duration of the project. It noted that the
size and number of awards and subject matter distribution and diversity of princi-
pal investigators was generally average for NSF, although ANS had an emphasis
on smaller projects that seemed appropriate given that ARCSS is tailored to large
projects. The Committee found it difficult to assess whether ANS was encourag-
ing high-risk proposals, and noted that at times it was not clear whether a review
panel had been consulted; given the interdisciplinary nature of ANS, the Com-
mittee noted that use of large panels is commended. Regarding the appropriate-
ness of how resources are allocated in the program, the Committee noted that the
ANS program manager was trying hard and doing the "most difficult manage-
ment job in polar programs." Regarding OPP programs overall, the Committee
emphasized the need to take a leadership role in coordinating basic research in the
Arctic and the need for better and quicker access to statistical information regard-
ing proposals.
DOES THE CURRENT ANS STRUCTURE MAKE SENSE?
The issue of whether the current ANS structure makes sense can be evalu-
ated by asking the question: Are there alternative structures that would better
serve the community of researchers who now submit proposals to ANS? If there
are, are they better structures, in the sense that they allow program management
OCR for page 28
28
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR NSF'S ARCTIC NATURAL SCIENCES PROGRAM
to focus on smaller, more manageable pieces of the overall portfolio or make use
of other mechanisms to adequately cover the entire breadth of the program?
One obvious alternative model is to divide ANS into a series of disciplinary
units, and thus make it parallel to the Antarctic Sciences Section. Within the
Antarctic Section there is considerable sharing and cooperation between the pro-
grams so that the boundaries of the programs are fairly transparent, which allows
multi- and interdisciplinary research. To institute a disciplinary approach in the
Arctic Section, however, would require a number of additional staff and could
affect the ARCSS program, which is well-established. As noted earlier, it is a
reductionist approach that is less well suited to today's issues than a systems
approach.
As currently constituted, the ANS program serves scientific objectives not
readily addressed in other ways, and the virtues of any program restructuring
must be weighed carefully against the confusion and costs of implementation.
This committee, in our discussion of guiding principles for the program in Chap-
ter 4 and our recommendations in Chapter 5, has tried to suggest realistic changes
that might bring real benefits without wholesale restructuring of the Arctic Sci-
ences Section or imposing staff or financial demands that are dramatically out-
side what is currently available.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
sciences section
