Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 AWARDING MAJOR PROJECTS: NSB ROLE, REVIEW PROCESS DESIGN, AND DECISION...
4 AWARDING MAJOR PROJECTS: NSB ROLE, REVIEW PROCESS DESIGN, AND DECISION...
Pages 89-108
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 89... ...
. First, a directorate review board reviews the NSB package for merit, adequacy of merit review, and completeness.
|
From page 90... ...
After it has cleared DARB, NSB receives the decision package, which includes · a director's memorandum that summarizes information and issues related to the proposed award; · the program off~cer's recommendation; · the summary budget; · a list of reviewers and review analysis (Form 7~; and ~ verbatim peer reviews. The director's memorandum, which is prepared by the originating program staff, is supposed to include "objectives, alternatives, potential policy implications, precedents involved, and any other factors that could be considered nonroutine" (NSF, 1992c:~IT-2~.
|
From page 91... ...
, project development plans for proposed new or revised projects (e.g., National Nanofabrication Users Facility in November 1992) , and proposed solicitation announcements.
|
From page 92... ...
~ The 31 research-related projects reviewed by the CPP and approved by the NSB included 11 Science and Technology Centers, nine Engineering Research Centers, four Materials Research Laboratories, the Ocean Drilling Program, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Synchrotron Radiation Center at the University of Wisconsin, the National Superconducting Cyclotron at Michigan State University, and several other facilities and projects (see Appendix B)
|
From page 93... ...
, second to overseeing the design of solicitations, and third to reviewing specific decisions on very large or significant awards. The greatest increase in workload has come from the creation and expansion of the centers programs in the mid-198Os, in which individual centers receive full merit reviews every three years.
|
From page 94... ...
Proposal Review Planning Requirements According to NSF review planning requirements, a plan and schedule for all significant review events must be approved by the cognizant assistant director and DARB.2 The events to be planned 2 The review planning requirements for major projects do not apply to unsolicited proposals and noncompeting renewal proposals. That category includes some long-standing national facilities such as the National Optical Astronomy Observatories; National Radio Astronomy Observatory; National Center for Atmospheric Research; Cornell Electron Storage Ring; nuclear
|
From page 95... ...
It also includes more recent initiatives such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory and Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology.
|
From page 96... ...
. The new protocol calls for · a demonstrated need and explicit goals toward which progress can be measured; process; · a set of clear policies to guide the review process; · adequate budget and staff to manage the proposal review · management plan for funds and personnel that specifies responsibilities, with input from all participating units; · closer coordination among administrative units involved in the grant-making process the offices of grants and contracts, financial management, and information systems; · criteria for measuring progress and an assessment plan for monitoring the impact of the activity; ~ mechanisms for full and timely communication with the constituent research community and NSF staff; and · the ability to be modified or improved in light of new information on progress, or discontinued if and when the goals are reached.
|
From page 97... ...
Also, program announcements, solicitations, "Dear Colleague" letters, and other external communications to the research communities that go through NSF's internal clearance process must be supported by an approved management package. NSB Approval of Solicitation Announcements In the 1970s, NSB began to require that it approve all formal announcements inviting proposals in which it was expected to decide on the eventual award (NSF, 1977~.
|
From page 98... ...
By 1989 the program announcement prescribed a more elaborate proposal format and a revised list of review criteria that subsumed the four basic criteria and included additional ones relevant to a universitybased research center (NSF, 1988b:5~: (~) research merit and potential impact on U.S.
|
From page 99... ...
The second stage of He review process will involve a comprehensive review by a multi-disciplinary, NSF-wide below enter into the decision." s It has already been noted in Chapter 3 that the 50 percent nonfederal matching requirement specified in the project development plan turned into a requirement for "substantial" cost sharing in the solicitation announcement.
|
From page 100... ...
Only a few indicated the priority of the criteria.6 Most described Me review process in a short general paragraph Cat gave maximum discretion to NSF: proposals will be evaluated by a combination of peer review, pane} review, and site visits; proposers may be asked for additional information; and proposals may be rejected any time after the initial peer review. The solicitations for recent multidisciplinary ERC and STC programs have announced more elaborate multistage review processes, but the 6 In addition to the 1989 solicitation for ERCs described above, these included the project solicitation for management and operation of the Sondrestrom incoherent-scatter radar facility in Greenland.
|
From page 101... ...
is assisted by a central office for review of major projects that ensures quality and consistency based on extensive experience with such complex project reviews.
|
From page 102... ...
The design and implementation of the proposal review process for major projects should be done with special care, should follow directly from the stronger and more detailed project development planning process recommended in Chapter 2, and should be communicated fully to the research community and public. NSF has procedures for designing an appropriate review process for new programs and projects, including major project awards, and these have recently been strengthened.
|
From page 103... ...
. Recently, NSF decided to recompete the National Nanofabrication Users Facility that a university had operated with NSF support since it won the original competition in 1978.
|
From page 104... ...
given 7 In 1975, congressional critics of NSF education activities discovered that an NSF program officer had selectively quoted the favorable sections of several critical peer reviews in justifying an award for a curriculum development project.
|
From page 105... ...
The division director is usually the final sign-off authority for We traditional small grant. The section head and division director are supposed to determine that the number and quality of external peer reviews were adequate, that significant peer review comments contrary to the recorrunendation have been dealt with adequately, that the rationale for Me recommendation is reasonable, and that proper administrative procedures have been followed.
|
From page 106... ...
Currently, the review process for major awards is modeled closely on the peer review process for individual research projects, in which confidentiality is deemed necessary. Accordingly, the peer reviews and the site visit and pane} reports are confidential.
|
From page 107... ...
or to recommend a proposal other than the one selected in Phase 2 of the merit review process must be fully explained, and relevant documents should be publicly available. Because of their size and importance in a field, major project awards are more significant and more public Man small grant proposals submitted by individuals and small groups.
|
From page 108... ...
NSF's (1993c) internal Proposaland Award Manual contains the full set of merit review and award policies and procedures for major awards, and the relevant sections should be made available electronically and updated regularly.
|
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.