Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

H Prioritization and Decision Making in Technology Development at the Gas Research Institute
Pages 176-184

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 176...
... of technology development proposals are used by groups of senior GRI managers and advisory bodies to allocate funds. Further sections describe the management and advisory body structure, the establishment of quantitative goals for each business unit (BU)
From page 177...
... (Top-level DOE site managers, Assistant Secretary for EM and DASs from EM-30, 40, 50, and 60 Unofficially, includes input from all other external auditors such as congressional staffers, EMAB, GAO, NRC committees, SLC and others Programmatic reviews of each Focus Area and Crosscutting Program Technical evaluation by Independent Review Teams set up by each Focus Area and Crosscutting Program Members of these bodies are external to personnel staff of the technology development program office 177 TABLE H.2 Analogies in Program and Management Structure Within the Technology Development Organization GR] OST Top-level EMC (CEO and Senior Management)
From page 178...
... with weighing factors to produce a single quantitative value that represents the total weighted benefit of the technology development project. t Since industrial efficiency is, in principle, not of concern to the regulator, this measure is translated into one of relevance to the consumer, by passing along such efficiencies as a lower surcharge for gas services, a measure that in the market would make gas energy displace other energy sources.
From page 179...
... The cutoff between funded and nonfunded projects is determined essentially by the budget for technology development, with some allowance for advisory bodies to select based on the worthiness of projects that are near the funding cutoff line. Four categories of monetary returns (benefits or costs)
From page 181...
... Each year, new project ideas compete with existing projects according to PAM calculations, to determine the suite of GRI's R&D activities. Top-Down Funding Allocation to Business Units The top-level Board of Directors meets at regular intervals to provide guidance that senior management (the EMC)
From page 182...
... TAG members are knowledgeable about the state-of-the-art in their technical fields and are primed to champion new developments.2 TAG members are individuals at the project manager level or the equivalent in their company; that is, they are engineers with technical problems to solve and have technical expertise as well as the ability to network within their employer organization to obtain data needed for market estimates. PAM calculations require both technical information and market assessments.
From page 183...
... The measurable against which GRI business units score themselves is not how many specific technology development products are delivered to their customer or member base, but rather the total, ultimate market impact on gas consumers and the gas industry of new developments. On one hand, it can be argued that the technology development shop has little control over market consequences; nevertheless, market impact is the measure adopted that leads BU personnel to audit vendors to obtain data on how often new technology is used.
From page 184...
... . One challenge of this Environment and Safety unit is that it crosscuts as the technical areas of the business units, creating a situation in which Environment and Safety unit personnel in effect report to all PAG PECs (i.e., they have many masters)


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.