Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 PLANNING MAJOR PROJECTS
2 PLANNING MAJOR PROJECTS
Pages 39-60
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 39... ...
BACKGROUND: PROJECT PLANNING AND BUDGETING AT NSF In assessing NSF's planning of large projects requiring major awards, the panel identified certain essential features of an ideal planning process. Planning for major research projects should be an integral part of overall planning and setting of priorities at NSF.
|
From page 40... ...
Taken together, they form a continuous, decentralized, and open planning process that may be "driven by a scientific breakthrough, the availability of a new technology, national or international concerns, or simply the existence of a new idea" (NSF, 199Oa:3~. NSF also participates in the annual federal budget process, which involves topleve} decisionmaking across research fields and agencies.
|
From page 41... ...
in June. According to NSF, these sessions "often provide the first airing of concepts which later emerge as scientific initiatives or new programs," including those destined to be major awards (NSF, 199Oa:54.
|
From page 42... ...
on large-scale computing in science and engineering called for increased supercomputer access by academic researchers (NSF, 1982) , and a staff working group developed an action plan that included what became the supercomputer centers program in 1984 (NSF, 1983~.
|
From page 43... ...
Annual Budget Process The ongoing decentralized activities described above result in many interesting suggestions, some of them for major large-scare projects. In some cases, these activities yield broad and clear consensus on priorities among major projects in a field.
|
From page 44... ...
As a result, increased funding for individual investigator grants tends to be squeezed out first unless there is careful contingency planning. MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING AND BUDGETING In addition to the long-range planning exercises and annual budget process described above, the NSB has special review and approval procedures for most if not all activities expected to result in major awards.
|
From page 45... ...
The group reviewed the current five-year plan and developed a list of possible issues and initiatives for the upcoming budget ~ rig r cycle. During the same period, each of NSF's research directorates underwent planning exercises involving its divisional advisory committees.
|
From page 46... ...
It was also continuing large projects begun before 1987, such as the Very Long Base Array radio telescope facility; an upgrading of the radio telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico; four Supercomputer Centers; and ERCs. The FY 1992 budget then being considered by Congress contained a request for $51.5 million to continue developmental Finding of the two 8-meter optical/infrared telescopes; continued construction of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL)
|
From page 47... ...
NSF identified funds in its budget request for FCCSET initiatives totaling $948.6 million (up from $415.5 million in FY 1992~. These initiatives were the Advanced Materials and Processing Program; Biotechnology; High Performance Computing and Communications; Mathematics and Science Education; and the U.S.
|
From page 48... ...
According to the NSB, project development plans for big science projects are supposed to document the following: scientific need; · views of the appropriate advisory group concerning the priority of the project; its effect on the balance and concentration of "big science versus little science" within the field, under varying resource assumptions (including essentially level budgets) ; and the opportunities that would be forgone by undertaking or not undertaking it; · estimates of all initial and out-year costs; · principal management, procurement, and legal considerations; · origin and periodicity of management and fiscal reports, and timing and other considerations for evaluating the project; · identification of principal phases or milestones; and · arrangements to update plans at least annually.
|
From page 49... ...
The policy does not set a limit on the share of a research program's budges that can go to large-scale projects, because the appropriate balance varies across fields and is subject to periodic review by advisory groups, staff, and the NSB. If funding is too high to be accommodated within the appropriate disciplinary budget, the director and NSB must decide whether or not the project can be accommodated within anticipated NSF budget levels or must become a special item justified above and beyond anticipated NSF budgets.
|
From page 50... ...
. NSF was able to start the major projects it had proposed, including the 8-meter telescopes, NHMFE, and LIGO.
|
From page 51... ...
Thus, whereas NSF may gain the opportunity to justify expensive new facilities projects, it also may lose the flexibility to adjust expenditures within a research field in the face of reduced funding, especially when Congress does not follow NSF's capital budget plans. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNING AND BUDGETING Findings The NSF planning process is very decentralized, continuous, and open.
|
From page 52... ...
Also, the large cost of major projects imposes opportunity costs the funds committed to them, usually for long periods, cannot be used for other, perhaps more productive, but less visible, activities. These opportunity costs are felt strongly within the affected research area, and in this era of very constrained federal budgets, they may affect other areas as well.
|
From page 53... ...
concluded that diligent use of the project development plan mechanism for all major awards, not just for facility construction projects involving construction of facilities, would help ensure that
|
From page 54... ...
These factors should be fully considered before proposals are invited and issues of appropriate review procedures and criteria are addressed: a. Scientific Justification: A decision to undertake a major project must promise important scientific contributions, whether directly through support of large-scale or interdisciplinary research that could not be done otherwise or indirectly by providing access to state-of-the-art facilities for individual researchers or research groups.
|
From page 55... ...
According to NSB policy, all large projects subject to the requirement for a project development plan are supposed to be reviewed at the same time so NSB may establish priorities among them. This procedure takes place annually at the June NSB meeting, which is devoted to long-range planning, but the full set of project development plans is not always available to provide detailed information on all factors that must be taken into account in setting priorities (as intendecl by the project development plan policy)
|
From page 56... ...
A major project not only should be justified as part of an overall plan within its field of research, but also should be considered by NSB along with all over major awards vying for funding during that budget cycle and in longer-range plans. The consequences of smaller-than-expected appropriations should be very seriously considered, and contingency plans made and communicated to the relevant public, including congressional committees, as early as possible.
|
From page 57... ...
Recommendation 2: Community in Planning Involvement and Support of the Research The NSB and NSF should make stronger efforts to see t;h et; the basis for initiating large-scale activities is well explained, understood, and accepl;ed to the extent possible by affected research communities. NSB and NSF should take steps to ensure broader consultation with relevant communities beyond those benefiting directly from a major project award, including educational, governmental, and industrial organizations and institutions.
|
From page 58... ...
The pane} found that the "need" for a major project has not always been understood or accepted by the relevant research community. Among the case studies, for example, more groundwork was laid for the Engineering Research Centers program then for the Science and Technology Centers program.
|
From page 59... ...
It can help ensure that the solicitation is well designed, that the external review is carried out with a better understanding of what is required, and that the final award decision is better understood and supported. Sometimes, as in the IRIS case, NSF may be able to seek the consensus of the research community affected in deciding on new or revised programs, especially those involving major awards for facilities, centers, or other large-scale and long-term activities.
|
From page 60... ...
The project development plan procedure calls for NSF to document the scientific need for the project and the views of appropriate advisory groups on its priority; its effect on the balance of research mechanisms in the field and the opportunity costs of undertaking it. Major projects almost always have broader effects than individual investigator awards-on colleges and universities, industry, and local economies and the NSB should ensure that plans are communicated to these constituencies and that their views are given an opportunity to be heard and seriously considered even if they are not followed in the end.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.