MINUTES OF JUNE 14-15, 2005 MEETING
Gaithersburg, MD
ATTENDANCE
|
Visiting Committee Cassidy, John Ehrlich, Gail Anderson, Bill |
Hertz, Harry NIST Staff Allocca, Clare |
Currens, Chris Board on Assessment Paulette, Patricia Guests Holland, Michael,
OSTP |
Introduction and Announcements
Dr. April Schweighart, VCAT
Chair, called to order the open session of the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
NIST Update and VCAT Agenda Review
Dr. Hratch Semerjian, NIST Acting Director
Dr. Semerjian welcomed the VCAT members and guests. Stressing that safety is important to NIST and its visitors, Dr. Semerjian noted the emergency exits from the meeting room. He then reviewed the agenda for the day that included a status report on the U.S. Measurement System (USMS) initiative, two outside speakers addressing federal government R&D spending and priorities, a VCAT panel on best practices for organizational development, and two laboratory tours in the Advanced Measurement Laboratory that provide a glimpse at new capabilities in these new facilities.
The NIST Update covered
recent leadership changes at the Department of Commerce (DoC) and NIST; external
recognition of the NIST staff; safety activities and trends; examples of technical
and program accomplishments including facility improvements, status of NIST's
FY 2006 budget request; status of Strategic Working Groups; competence awards;
new retrospective and prospective economic studies; and outreach activities.
The information below supplements Dr. Semerjian's presentation.
o Recent Administrative
Changes - Deputy Secretary Theodore Kassinger provided a transition between
DoC secretaries and resigned shortly after Secretary Guitierrez's confirmation.
Dr. David Sampson, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce designee, served as the
principal advisor to the Commerce Secretary on domestic economic development
policy. A confirmation hearing was held for Dr. Sampson and his nomination is
pending. Under Secretary for Technology Phillip Bond left DoC in May to accept
a position at Monster Worldwide, Inc. The NIST director reported directly to
Mr. Bond who was a good spokesperson for NIST and DoC. The Deputy Under Secretary
for Technology, Michelle O'Neill, is serving as the Acting Under Secretary for
Technology.
o New NIST Director Nominated - Dr. William Jeffrey possesses the unique
skills required to wear multiple hats while at the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP). With a strong academic background, Dr. Jeffrey also worked at
DARPA, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, and the Institute for Defense
Analysis. During his visit to NIST on June 10, he met the NIST senior management
team and visited several laboratories. His confirmation hearing is scheduled
for June 16. The VCAT may have an opportunity to meet Mr. Jeffrey briefly during
their visit at OSTP on Wednesday, June 15.
o Hollings MEP Changes - Kevin Carr, the Director of the Hollings MEP,
will leave NIST on June 30. During his 16-year career at NIST, Mr. Carr has
provided leadership to the MEP and has been a critical member of the senior
management team. Dr. Semerjian has enjoyed his conversations with Mr. Carr and
will miss his advice. He also noted that Mr. Carr will be successful in whatever
he does and NIST wishes him well. Roger Kilmer will be the Acting Director for
MEP. It will be difficult to think of MEP without Kevin Carr since his name
and MEP have gone together for so long.
o Staff Recognition:
o Deborah Jin's name is always included in any discussion on staff recognition.
Jin was elected as one of 72 new members to the National Academy of Sciences
and is the youngest woman along with Susan Solomon of NOAA to be elected to
the Academy.
o Dr. Semerjian noted that there is not enough time to provide details on each
of the awards that have been granted to NIST staff recently. Many other staff
have been recognized by such organizations as the American Chemical Society
(ACS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IEEE), the American
Society of Construction Engineers (ACSE), and the American Society of Testing
Materials (ASTM).
o Willie May, who has done an outstanding job of promoting diversity at NIST
and outside of NIST, received the Diversity Award from the Council for Chemistry
Research.
o Jun Ye, one of six NIST researchers recently elected as a Fellow of the American
Physical Society, was a past recipient of the Presidential Early Career Award
for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) and is one of NIST's rising stars. Dr.
Semerjian is very appreciative of the contributions made by all of the APS Fellows.
o The Arthur Flemming Awards recognize outstanding men and women in the federal
government in honor of Flemming's commitment to public service throughout his
career.
o The 2004 PECASE ceremony was held on June 12 at the White House with the President.
This prestigious award honors the extraordinary achievements of young professionals
at the outset of their independent research careers in the fields of science
and technology. Rich Kayser attended the ceremony.
o Dr. Semerjian is proud of the staff for their tremendous accomplishments and
recognition to themselves and to NIST.
Safety:
o On two special NIST Safety Days, employees were encouraged to take a break
from their usual routine to participate in many safety awareness activities
and to clean up their offices and labs and get rid of clutter and unused chemicals.
NIST has finalized its Personal Protective Equipment policy and many of the
displays were associated with this subject. This event was successful and provided
a good opportunity for the staff to think about safety and to make sure that
their offices and laboratories offered a safe working environment.
o The Federal government is conducting exercises to test the features of their
Continuity of Operations Plan. Ben Overbey, Chief of NIST's Emergency Services
Division, participated in the tabletop exercises for severe weather. As part
of the government-wide Exercise Pinnacle, some of NIST's management team will
relocate to Hagerstown to test the proposed emergency systems.
o Permanent signs regarding designated meeting points for Building 101 occupants
will be installed outside the building to help the Evacuation Coordinators locate
their office staff.
o The data of all recordable incidents from FY 2000 through FY 2005 indicate
a downward trend; however, this data is only through May 31. NIST has had some
serious incidents. While the labs have had few incidents, most accidents have
involved the support staff under unusual circumstances, especially for the police
force and electricians. NIST has emphasized safety and is providing renewed
safety training to ensure that these accidents are not an on-going trend.
o Accomplishments - These are just a few examples of NIST's recent accomplishments.
o Noisy Pictures Tell a Story of "Entangled Atoms" - In a joint effort
between NIST, JILA, and the University of Colorado, researchers have shown that
patterns of noise, normally considered flaws, in images of an ultracold cloud
of potassium provide the first-ever visual evidence of correlated ultracold
atoms, a potentially useful tool for many applications, such as the further
development of quantum systems. The atoms appear random in the photo, but there
is in fact a pattern. Although not proven, the research suggests that the pairs
of atoms are entangled with each other.
o Chip-scale Refrigerators Cool Bulk Objects - NIST researchers in the Electronics
and Electrical Engineering Laboratory have developed chip-scale refrigerators
capable of reaching temperatures as low as 100 milliKelvin that were used to
cool bulk items for the first time.
o New NIST SRM Aids Search for Mutant DNA - NIST researchers in the Chemical
and Sciences Technology Laboratory have developed a new Standard Reference Material
(SRM) to improve search methods for mutant DNA. Accurate analysis of mitochondrial
DNA either for forensic identification or for studying genetic-based diseases,
often hinges on the ability to detect such mutations that occur only infrequently,
even in the same individual.
o Portable Radiation Detectors Performance Test Results - Researchers from the
Physics Laboratory tested the performance of 31 commercial portable radiation
detectors. A number of federal, state, and local agencies are using such instruments
as part of homeland security-related efforts to detect and identify radioactive
materials. The responses of the majority of the detectors agreed with NIST-measured
values, within acceptable uncertainties, for tests with gamma rays and meets
requirements established by new standards adopted by the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in 2004. However, there was a large discrepancy between most
detectors' readings and the NIST values for the lowest-energy X-rays. This is
an example where NIST plays a very important role to ensure the accurate operation
of critical devices.
o New Gas Sensors Patterned with Conducting Polymer - Researchers in the Chemical
and Sciences Technology Laboratory have demonstrated an improved method for
depositing nanoporous, conducting polymer films on miniaturized device features.
This process produces a sponge-like coating that efficiently captures gaseous
molecules. This work is expected to improve significantly the performance of
miniaturized devices.
o Light Scattering Method Reveals Details Under Skin - Scientists in the Physics
Laboratory and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory have
demonstrated a new optical method that can image subsurface structures under
skin. The project adapted light scattering techniques originally developed by
NIST researchers to image surface and subsurface features in inorganic materials
such as silicon wafers, mirrors, and paint coatings.
o Test Arena for Urban Search and Rescue - NIST has been working in this area
for a long time. NIST is now using the test arena in working with the DHS to
develop comprehensive performance metrics and standards for urban search and
rescue robots, and with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to develop evaluation
test methods for bomb disposal robots. Local and federal agencies have begun
to use these arenas to train bomb and drug sniffing dogs as shown in the photo.
The police trainers appreciate having a unique indoor facility that challenges
the dogs' skills and that is available on a regular basis. NIST robotics experts
also benefit from observing police techniques and the dogs' behavior during
their searches.
o Facilities Improvements:
o Phase I of the Boulder Central Utility Plant (CUP) construction is substantially
complete with only minor items remaining. The boilers and air compressors in
the CUP are providing steam and compressed air for the major buildings 2 and
3. When all planned phases are complete, the CUP along with the Site Utility
Distribution System will provide chilled water for air conditioning, steam,
and compressed air service to the entire site.
o Boulder's Primary Electrical Service project involved completing the burial
of the primary electrical feed overhead power line from the nearest substation
to the NIST site. The new distribution system has helped significantly to reduce
the power problems at the Boulder site.
o Building 222 in Gaithersburg is under renovation. Major repairs will be done
to convert this building into office space primarily for staff from Technology
Services and the Information Technology Laboratory, presently located in NIST
North. The NIST North lease has been extended until December 2006. Asbestos
removal for half of building 222 will be completed in July and then asbestos
removal will begin on the other half of the building and is expected to be completed
by the end of the year.
o Reports:
o Estimated Costs of Firefighter Injuries - NIST recently released a study that
estimates the cost in 2002 of addressing firefighter injuries and of efforts
to prevent them to be $2.8 billion to $7.8 billion per year. This study was
conducted by Tri Data Division of System Planning Corporation in Arlington,
Virginia. The range between these dollars reflects different cost estimation
models, one with a narrow approach to possible related firefighter injury costs,
the others with broader views of economic impacts. NIST plans to use the study
to help determine what new research is needed to reduce these costs and to enhance
fire safety.
o Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines - NIST submitted the first version of
the voluntary voting guidelines to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
within nine months as required by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This work
represents a major milestone for NIST. The second version will be submitted
by the end of the year and will provide additional guidelines on computer security,
wireless communications, and other issues.
o Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) Security - This
NIST report will help federal agencies and others protect health information.
In addition, this report also could be helpful in reducing healthcare costs,
a major concern of the country. The Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) has started to undertake the development of a nation-wide healthcare system.
NIST will be working closely with HHS in this effort, especially in the standards
area where there is the potential for a large economic impact.
o World Trade Center (WTC) Report - June 23 marks the beginning of the six-week
public comment period on the recommendations. Although the report will be finalized
after the comments have been reviewed, NIST's work will continue. NIST will
work with the large community of standards and code organizations, building
owners, and building and construction industries to help them implement the
recommendations. A technical conference will be held at NIST on September 13-15,
2005, to share the details of the findings and recommendations and ideas for
implementation.
o ATP Homeland Security Projects - The ATP has recently completed an
evaluation of 768 projects awarded since 1990 to assess which projects will
have a direct, short-term impact on homeland security. As shown in this table,
ATP has made a significant stride in contributing to homeland security activities.
o Impact of MEP Assistance - This impact data is from 2003 and was collected
one year after the project has been completed. MEP continues to have a huge
economic impact on the entire breadth of the U.S. economy.
o National Baldrige Quality Program - This program passed a big milestone
this year with the one-thousandth applicant since 1988. Although the applicant
has agreed to publicize this milestone, their name cannot be released yet. About
1200 people attended the recent Baldrige Quest for Excellence Conference that
provides past participants an opportunity to share their experiences with others
such as how the program works, lessons learned, and the benefits of participation.
o FY 2006 Budget Request - The House Committee marked up the NIST budget
a few weeks ago and provided some increases for the laboratories and adjustments-to-base,
$7.5 million for the nano facility, zero funding for ATP consistent with the
President's budget, MEP funding close to the FY 2004 level, and $45 million
for construction and renovations. The Senate appropriations committee is expected
to meet on June 23 and their mark may provide NIST with a better understanding
of the FY 2006 budget.
o Budget Timeline - The budget process is very long and NIST is always
working on two budgets simultaneously. NIST plans to have the final FY 2006
budget mark by October before the start of the fiscal year. The FY 2007 budget
request is currently under review by DoC. The budget request will then be submitted
to OMB in September and to Congress in January or February.
o Strategic Working Groups (SWG):
o The inventories of research projects related to three of the SWGs have provided
NIST with information about their impact. For example, the inventory of homeland
security projects provided Dr. Semerjian with information about NIST's activities,
impacts, and other agency support related to homeland security for his recent
testimony before a Senate committee.
o Almost every lab and program at NIST is associated with manufacturing. OSTP
and the Administration are placing a lot of emphasis on manufacturing, especially
in the area of interoperability. An interagency working group on manufacturing
was established with Phil Bond as the chair and Dale Hall as the vice chair.
Manufacturing is an important area where NIST efforts need to be coordinated,
and NIST plans to start a new SWG for manufacturing.
o Competence - The competence program allows NIST to provide seed funding
for programs that look forward. Competence projects are usually reviewed on
a five-year cycle and, if successful, the laboratories assume responsibility
for their funding. However, since $2.8 million in new competence funding was
received late last fiscal year, NIST decided to use these funds for short-term
commitments of one to two years for competence projects in measurement services
and a one-time "exploration" competition. The competence exploration
projects should lead to new measurement science and new technology. In fiscal
year 2006, $4 million will be available for new competence awards and NIST has
begun to screen the proposals for this competition.
o Economic Studies - Economic studies are a part of the USMS effort to
provide quantitative measures for the past and future. These studies are only
one of the many different types of metrics that can be used to evaluate success.
A Balanced Scorecard is used for the internal assessment of NIST.
o NIST/DoC Plan for Success - There are additional internal evaluation
metrics required by DoC in five priority areas with each having specific measures.
o Outreach -NIST has placed a lot of emphasis on outreach. In addition
to interactions on the Hill, the staff is involved in many other outreach activities.
For example, about 10 members of the NIST staff recently visited the Chief Technology
Officer, several Vice Presidents, and technical people at Agilent to discuss
common areas of interest and to identify potential areas for collaboration.
Similar visits are being planned with other companies. The increase in NIST's
outreach activities can be attributed partially to the increased visibility
of NIST over the past few years based on the release of several key reports,
such as the WTC investigation, for which the Hill has requested briefings. Dr.
Semerjian appreciates the increase in NIST's visibility. It is important for
people to know what the Institute does and to keep its customers and stakeholders
as informed as possible.
o Thanks to the VCAT - Dr. Semerjian concluded by stressing the importance
of the VCAT to NIST.
Roadmapping America's
Measurement Needs for a Stronger Innovation Infrastructure
Dr. Rich Kayser, NIST Acting Deputy Director
Dr. Kayser provided several recent newsworthy quotes by the Council on Competitiveness, the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, and President Bush regarding the importance of innovation to U.S. competitiveness. He emphasized the need to include the USMS as a key component of the national innovation infrastructure and explained why all measurements are crucial to innovation. Dr. Kayser also described the roadmapping and reporting activities required to achieve a strong private-public partnership that strengthens the U.S. infrastructure for innovation. Roadmapping is comprised of the assessment, the plan, and the outstanding issues. He also presented an outline of the USMS Roadmap, noting new areas to be addressed. The entire USMS has been conceptualized in a five-layer model that shows the customer, the what and why, the how, the who, and the stakeholders. Based on this model, a USMS Measurement Needs Database is under development at NIST that will allow multiple taxonomies, including both met and un-met needs, and provide the basis for assessing the USMS. The sources of input for the database include an analysis of existing roadmaps and workshop reports, USMS events such as topical workshops and summits, targeted external research, and economic studies. Customers as well as solution providers will benefit from this database. Roadmapping the needs of the entire USMS places the importance of measurements in a larger strategic context. Dr. Kayser also summarized the timetable and provided an update on key activities, including internal engagement with the NIST staff, the public launch, and external engagement. An initial set of 11 USMS Workshops will take place over the next 6-9 months. The results of these workshops will feed into the USMS Measurements Needs Database and hence into the USMS assessment. The selected near-term priorities include engaging the new NIST Director, refining the message, targeting external outreach, and obtaining staff and resources. Dr. Kayser concluded his talk by acknowledging the contributions of various groups and individuals to the USMS Initiative efforts.
The information below supplements Dr. Kayser's presentation.
o Dr. Kayser noted that
the role of NIST in the nation's measurement system has been a topic of discussion
with the VCAT and NIST's Senior Management Board (SMB)for more than a year.
At the November SMB retreat, the group agreed on an approach to help reach the
goal to reaffirm NIST's position. These plans and the timetable for the USMS
initiative were shared with the VCAT at the December meeting.
o The USMS should be recognized in all discussions regarding innovation as a
key component that can contribute to the U.S. competitiveness.
o Measurements are a key part of innovation and to the whole concept of the
technology process. Anything that involves measurements fall within the scope
of the USMS. OSTP recognizes the importance of measurements to innovation.
o NIST is only one of many individual organizations concerned with measurements
and must work with others as part of the USMS as a whole.
o The USMS customers and stakeholders should include the Administration and
Congress.
o Roadmapping is comprised of three elements. The assessment is the process
that leads to the identification of the needs. The plan is the response from
solution providers including NIST, other labs, instrument manufacturers, and
others. Lastly, the gaps or the outstanding issues need to be addressed.
o A high-level schematic of the USMS roadmap will be published. This roadmapping
activity will be different from past efforts. For example, economic impact studies
will be an important component. The roadmap will be used by NIST and others
to report back on the state of the USMS.
o The roadmapping effort is envisioned as a long-term effort with the first
part taking place over several years. Ten years from now, three three-year cycles
should be completed and there should be significant differences between now
and then. By then, a strong private public partnership should emerge and carry
out this effort.
o The USMS Measurement Needs Database will be very large and parallel to the
conceptual model.
o It is also important to know the impact of the current work. For example,
the consequences of reallocating resources from one area to another should be
understood prior to decisions. The database and other tools will help with an
assessment of the needs on a regular basis.
o NIST has no intention of duplicating the efforts of others. Information from
existing roadmaps and workshop reports are a significant source of input. Data
generated from new topical workshops will be collected via a report that summarizes
the results parallel to the five layers of the conceptual model. This information
will then be mapped into the different parts of the database.
o Assessing the needs within the layers and identifying links and gaps is critical
for introducing information in one layer to another. Identifying gaps where
there may be no possible solution or solution providers is the key. NIST will
focus on providing the infrastructure needs, for example, in areas where there
are many organizations within the same level with a particular need or where
there are needs in level 2 that occur in multiple sectors. A good definition
of infrastructure needs can be obtained through this database.
o A key milestone is the January 2006 USMS Summit. The first results are expected
to be released in July 2006, the roadmap published in December 2006, and the
Report to the Nation completed in January 2007.
o NIST is working hard on engaging the staff in the USMS effort. For example,
a face-to-face meeting will take place in Boulder next week. Also, several articles
have been published in internal newsletters. A group of information specialists
at NIST developed the database and asked the staff for their comments. A large
program committee provides the opportunity for staff interactions. It is imperative
that management supports the workshop efforts.
o Representatives from about 30 organizations attended Dr. Semerjian's meeting
on April 14, 2005, to launch the USMS initiative. Dr. Semerjian's presentation
from this meeting along with his May 11 Congressional testimony are posted on
NIST's external web site. This website also will include extracts from the workshops.
The amount of information on this website is expected to grow significantly
between now and the next VCAT meeting.
o There is not enough time during the presentation to describe the many examples
of external engagement. NIST has developed a plan for targeted external outreach.
NIST is close to sending letters from Dr. Semerjian to key organizations. Visits
are planned in the near future to such organizations as the ASTM to discuss
how to engage their standards' committees in this effort. Meetings with solution
providers and various industry segments also will be held. NIST will work on
integrating this effort with the outreach efforts associated with other important
industry segments identified by senior managers. The USMS effort provides a
good framework for carrying out NIST's outreach efforts in several areas.
o Different workshops will be held to focus on different parts of the conceptual
model. The initial set of workshops are posted on the NIST external website.
More workshops are being planned but their results may not be included in the
first report. More discipline-oriented topics will be selected. Many of the
workshops involve several Operating Units at NIST as well as different stakeholders
from industry and government and the solution providers.
o There are many short-term priorities that require a lot of effort. Much of
the work is being carried out as "other duties as assigned" by the
current dedicated staff. Success requires additional resources.
o In closing, Dr. Kayser acknowledged the ATP staff for their help with the
workshops and for their internal and external contacts, in particular, Marc
Stanley and David Hermreck. He also thanked the Information Services Division
and the Information Services Group in Technology Services for their major efforts
in developing the database. In addition, he personally thanked Mary Saunders,
Mat Heyman, Thelma Allen, Karen Lellock, Al Parr, and many others in Technology
Services for their contributions.
Discussion:
A VCAT member expressed concerns about the measurement activities that are being outsourced to other global markets and the need to bring the measurement capabilities back to the United States. NIST responded that once the measurement needs are identified, then these capabilities can begin to be developed and be available. These efforts will be done in a global context. Products may go out to other markets or remain in the U.S. and there will always be standards and measurement issues. There are different concerns with each of these issues that must be captured. The rest of the world cannot be ignored and both internal and external needs must be assessed. If the USMS assessment shows that manufacturers are having difficulty with product acceptance overseas, then discussions should be held with solution providers to address this issue.
Setting Priorities in
the Federal R&D Portfolio
Dr. Michael Holland, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP)
Dr. Semerjian introduced Dr. Holland, who will be joining the House Committee on Science in July. In his opening remarks, Dr. Holland noted he has fond memories of working at NIST as a graduate student. With experience as a Senior Policy Analyst in OSTP and a former OMB examiner for the Department of Energy (DoE's) Office of Science, Dr. Holland will describe how staff critiques an agency's plans and programs and makes recommendations to policy officials. According to Dr. Holland, the challenge for NIST is to equip staff in oversight bodies with information that will allow OMB and OSTP staff to make a good case for NIST funding to White House policy officials.
Dr. Holland began his formal presentation by describing the roles of OMB and OSTP within the Executive Office of the President. Aside from its obvious role in preparing the budget, OMB also serves a role as the institutional memory for the White House about program performance and previous policy initiatives. In helping to manage the Federal R&D portfolio, OSTP's role is to understand what the R&D programs are requesting, to coordinate those requests from the various agencies, and to help OMB develop a set of options for decision by the White House. Although R&D spending accounted for nearly 14 percent of discretionary spending in 2005, U.S. science policy traditionally delegates a significant measure of authority to research agencies and the research community in setting priorities. OMB and OSTP have the responsibility to focus on this delegation and determine where the government should make its marginal investment. In addition to the "bottoms up" approach to priority setting, Presidents periodically identify specific R&D areas for attention. Examples include space exploration, energy research, or the doubling of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget. These areas are indicated on the chart of Historical R&D Priorities since 1962. Such Presidential declarations are the clearest policy level directives for the staff to follow.
Dr. Holland described the decision-making process in absence of such presidential declarations and reviewed the four sets of questions that OSTP asks to determine the value and priority of research to the nation. These "obvious" questions address concerns at the political level, the agency head/department secretary level, the competitive environment or program level, and the internal environment or portfolio balance.
He then reviewed the list of presidential priorities with direct science and technology coupling. These are: winning the war on terrorism, securing the homeland, strengthening the economy, a national energy strategy, and, improving government via the President's Management Agenda. The directors of OSTP and OMB work together and issue a priorities memo that converts these high-level presidential directives to action items. These priorities cover 1) R&D for homeland and national security; 2) networking and information technology R&D; 3) nanotechnology; 4) priorities for physical sciences; 5) biology of complex systems; and 6) environment and energy. Dr. Holland observed that the federal R&D portfolio does not change directions rapidly. Networking and information technology R&D had been put on the agenda during the administration of the first President Bush; nanotechnology had been on the agenda since the Clinton Administration.
Dr. Holland also described the OMB/OSTP Investment Criteria that covers the prospective and retrospective aspects of quality, relevance, and performance. OMB program examiners are required to discuss these criteria for each R&D program with their policy officials. Staff need to be able to explain in an accessible manner how an agency's science is advancing and the relevance of that science to an agency's mission. If programs appear isolated or "closed off", there is a greater chance that the agency's funding will be reduced and redirected to higher priority areas. NIST needs to understand how it is connecting to, cooperating with and operating within the national innovation system and communicate this message. The essential challenge for NIST is to explain how standards operate, how they are developed, why standards are important, and - most importantly - why NIST has chosen specific areas for standards development.
Examiners need to be able to tell their bosses how funds were used in the past, and not just speculate as to future impact. In today's tight budget environment, it is critical that examiners be able to understand and explain an agency's priorities in a given area in 100-150 words or less with an engaging story. They should be able to describe the prioritization process as well as the process for allocation of funding. They need to know where the funds are being used, their purpose, and impact. Retrospective studies that report specific impacts are important.
Examiners should be able to describe a program's full range of value to policy officials. As an example, NSF explains its investments with the language of "People, Ideas, and Tools." Since standards are an obvious industry "tool," NIST may also want to describe its contributions in the "ideas" arena, for example, Bill Phillips' research. Identifying the "people" contribution also helps establish an agency's value to the taxpayer. For NIST, the Cold Neutron Research Facility is valuable in that it helps to train a large number of students as they work on their dissertations. These students later contribute to the Nation as productive scientists and engineers.
Advisory committees also should understand - and examine - an agency's resource allocation mechanism as well as the planning and prioritization process. For basic research programs, advisory committees should help articulate the priorities identified by the research community and assess whether agencies are investing effectively in these areas. According to Dr. Holland, this is the main role of an advisory committee. They also should examine the scientific impact that the U.S. research community has had on these fields and provide an indication whether an agency is moving on the right pathway. For VCAT, articulating the standards needs of the industrial community and assessing whether NIST research and standards development is effectively meeting those challenges is important.
To illustrate the importance of external committees, Dr. Holland provided an in-depth example of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study for DOE that covered all the essential information necessary to justify funding for specialized instrumentation and allowed OMB and OSTP staff to tell a good story about agency performance to their policy officials. The study included statistics that showed the connections and influence to the rest of the R&D infrastructure. He again noted the importance of using advisory committees to develop a methodology for impact assessment.
Since most staffers deal with issues far from their academic training, agencies must pay attention to effective communication. The staff is overwhelmed with information. They need useable reports that contain clear statements, especially those that set priorities and assess performance. Dr. Holland then provided examples, including the latest High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) Long Range Plan and a more useful later version that repackaged the same information in a context that demonstrated connections to a broad Federal R&D portfolio in discovery-oriented research. Lastly, he referenced a Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee report, noting the challenges of describing how a program sets priorities and discusses how disparate program elements create a comprehensible whole.
Discussion:
A VCAT member expressed frustration over budget decisions to eliminate certain programs in spite of the information provided by the VCAT and asked about the logic of hiring a consultant to develop budget proposals. Dr. Holland reminded the Committee that the White House staff work for elected officials and the staffers' job is to make sure the views of the elected officials are implemented. Where the problem is ideological, there may be a need to meet directly with higher-level politicals. He also advised the group that it can be more important to understand why the White House asked a question than to provide a quick response. Try to make sure that the staffers have a good story line about an agency, its programs, and performance. Then, you can provide them with the details to advance it.
Dr. Holland's presentation is posted on the NIST web site.
R&D Funding Trends
in the Federal Government
Kei Koizumi, Director, R&D Budget and Policy Program, American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Dr. Semerjian introduced Mr. Koizumi as a leading authority on the federal budget, federal support for R&D, science policy issues, and R&D funding data. He is the principal budget analyst, editor, and writer for the annual AAAS reports on Federal R&D. Mr. Koizumi last spoke to the VCAT in March 2003. He provides an interesting viewpoint and NIST welcomes his analysis of R&D spending trends and the NIST role within the context of the overall federal investment.
Mr. Koizumi noted that the AAAS is a professional scientific organization that focuses on public policy and educational activities and publishes the journal of Science every Friday. The R&D Budget and Policy Program falls under the educational activities. AAAS established this program to help its members who rely on federal funding to finance their work be aware of the budget situation and to make policy makers more aware of the impact of their decisions.
Mr. Koizumi described the overall federal budget context for FY 2006 and stressed that any actions regarding the budget affects the R&D portfolio. The projected deficit of nearly $400 billion is far larger than any R&D amount. Policymakers want to reduce the deficit by cutting discretionary spending rather than cutting entitlement programs or raising revenues. The proposal is to reduce domestic, non-security discretionary spending by 1 percent. Federal R&D investments come from the discretionary budget, and federal R&D has always tracked discretionary trends. The FY 2006 budget represents a downward shift from recent trends with declining funding for most R&D programs and modest increases for space exploration and homeland security R&D. Decreases will take place across the federal R&D portfolio and there will be some difficult choices, especially for the NIST budget. The FY 2006 appropriations process for R&D has begun and for the first time NIST and NOAA are included in the same bill with NASA and NSF. The presentation also included a series of detailed charts and graphs of various R&D funding trends. In closing, Mr. Koizumi noted that there are increasing concerns that the U.S. is losing its lead in R&D. Mr. Koizumi also responded to several questions from the VCAT members as summarized in the discussion section below.
The information below supplements Mr. Koizumi's presentation.
o In 2005, the federal government
spent more discretionary funds than ever before, but there are proposals to
reduce this spending dramatically over the next few years for both non-defense
and defense. Once the U.S. met its goal of a balanced budget in 1998, discretionary
funding began to increase in defense and homeland security. Mr. Koizumi predicted
that decreases in defense discretionary funding are not likely to occur; instead,
there will be reductions in non-defense discretionary funding. Homeland security
is a new concept not yet formally defined and this category cuts across both
defense and non-defense. One reason for the growth in non-defense discretionary
funding is due to investments by NIST and other agencies in homeland security
activities.
o R&D is a small but very significant part of the federal budget. One out
of every seven discretionary dollars supports R&D. Federal R&D is at
an all-time high in 2005 but would barely increase in FY 2006. Federal research
funding would fall 1.4 percent in FY 2006. Discretionary spending will be much
tighter in 2006 than in the past.
o The percent change in the FY 2006 R&D budget request from the FY 2005
budget has not been adjusted for inflation. Although there are increases for
space exploration in NASA and for DHS, these agencies are barely ahead of inflation.
DHS is still a high priority but did not receive funding for all of its needs.
The smaller agencies have steep cuts, including DoC. Even DoD investments in
basic and applied research are proposed for reduction. NASA will have more funding
next year for new priorities, such as developing technology to return to the
moon, but this will cause decreases in other research areas.
o Congress is now engaged in writing the FY 2006 appropriations bills that may
have slightly different priorities, but overall, Congress has agreed to the
presidential priorities. There would be hard choices even in favored agencies.
It is important to note that every increase must be offset by a decrease. For
example, proposed increases in NIST's intramural R&D are to be offset by
eliminating ATP and reducing MEP.
o The trends in Federal R&D funding are the same as for discretionary spending.
The large increase in 2001 reflects investments related to 9/11. The homeland
security increases are leveling off.
o In 2005, the government is spending more on defense R&D than ever before
but this level is expected to be reduced in 2006. This reduced level would still
be higher than defense R&D funding at the start of the cold war in the 1980's.
Almost all of the defense R&D increases are in category 6.4, weapon development.
AAAS members are more interested in DoD investments in basic and applied research
which have not fared as well. DoD support is very important to the physical
and mathematical sciences and are of great interest to NIST, as well.
o Nondefense spending has increased since 1988. Most of these increases are
for NIH as a result of the campaign to double its budget. Much of this funding
is for biomedical research. DHS is also receiving funding for its homeland security
R&D, a new investment area. Other agencies such as NIST, NOAA, DoE, NASA,
EPA, and the Interior have seen no growth in their research funding over the
past 15 years and many of their budgets have not kept up with inflation. This
is a great concern to the scientific and engineering community who depend on
these agencies that support the broader disciplines related to mathematical
and computer sciences, physical sciences, environmental, and social sciences.
o DoC funding has had the most challenges, with a downward trend over the past
few years resulting from tight fiscal constraints. NOAA's funding will continue
to decline. NIST reached its peak funding level in the 1990s, but has had more
decreases than increases in this decade. The decrease in 2006 reflects the proposal
to eliminate ATP. Other intramural investments have had flat funding over the
longer term. The DoC portfolio is heading below $1 billion, near the investment
level in 1993.
o In regard to research trends by agency, most of the increases are due to the
rise in the NIH budget while the other agencies have had flat funding for long-term
research. Programs at NIST and NOAA are expected to decline in 2006.
o Appropriators do not focus on funding by discipline, but AAAS members are
interested in this trend. The life sciences are funded well due to NIH's increased
budget, but most of the other disciplines on the non-defense side do not have
an upward trend. In particular, the physical sciences community is concerned
with the impact of nearly two decades of flat funding.
o DoC's research data by discipline has unusual highs and lows when compared
to other agencies, especially in engineering and environmental sciences.
o The appropriation process is beginning. Four bills handle 95 percent of the
R&D portfolio, but DoD, NIH, NASA/NSF/DOC, and DoE are considered separately.
In addition, many interagency efforts such as Information Technology R&D,
homeland security, and nanotechnology in which NIST plays a big part are appropriated
through several bills.
o According to data collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the U.S. is still dominating the total world shares of R&D,
although China Korea, and India are making huge strides by increasing their
investments and talents in R&D at unprecedented rates.
o Mr. Koizumi would like to come back to NIST soon and visit the laboratories.
Discussion:
o Defense discretionary
funding does increase significantly during times of conflict. There was a dramatic
increase in discretionary funding during the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.
o Only the historical data has been adjusted for inflation. The current year
amounts have not been adjusted. The 0.1 percent increase in federal R&D
spending is a real decrease in the research portfolio.
o NIST is more heavily involved in 6.1 and 6.2 funding and has additional investments
in constructing laboratories and facilities that also count as R&D.
o It is too soon to know the impact of combining the appropriation bills for
NIST and NOAA with NASA and NSF. According to Mr. Koizumi, these other agencies
help to raise the profile of science and allows the NIST portfolio to be considered
in the context of the physical sciences and engineering, however, more competition
could also arise. For example, NASA is well connected throughout the U.S. unlike
NIST that is most known in Maryland and Colorado.
o Congress has different priorities than the Administration, but there is not
enough funding. Congress is responding that the U.S. is losing its lead in R&D
but the challenge is how to move forward.
o Japan and South Korea spend about 3 percent of their Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) on R&D. China's R&D/GDP is still very low but growing rapidly
as the Chinese government and industry expand R&D investments. The pie chart
of the shares of total world R&D is not available on the web as a function
of time. It is extremely messy to plot a historical trend since countries come
and go. As a country develops and merges as a competitor, their R&D spending
increases accordingly. For example, South Korea spends about 3 percent of their
GDP on R&D compared to zero investments almost a decade ago.
o With the exception of the United Kingdom and France, other nations invest
very small amounts in defense R&D.
VCAT Panel on Best Practices
for Organizational Development - Introduction
Dr. April Schweighart, Moderator
Dr. Schweighart began the VCAT panel presentation on Best Practices for Organizational Development by noting that each of the five speakers will share their experiences regarding strategies that work well and those that do not work well in responding to a changing environment. She also encouraged the NIST managers to ask questions and welcomed the other VCAT members to share their experiences in response to these questions, as appropriate.
Portfolio Selection
and Rapid Response (VCAT Panel on Best Practices for Organizational Development)
Dr. Donald Keck, VCAT Member
Dr. Keck based his presentation on his experience at Corning in the 1970's when the company started to change in response to the world's new emphasis in telecommunications. There are three important aspects of innovation: strategy, selection, and execution. He described that Corning developed several charts to help in the selection process. These capture key project data regarding impact versus the probability of success, market and technology areas, technology momentum and competitiveness position, and impact versus the years to market. Dr. Keck then noted the benefits of moving rapidly to a matrix management approach once the projects have been selected. Lastly, Dr. Keck stressed the need for metrics to measure a project's progress.
The information below supplements Dr. Keck's presentation.
o The first step in innovation
is to have a strategy. A roadmap helps articulate the important elements of
the strategy. The organization then generates projects consistent with the strategy
and roadmap. A selection process is needed since there are usually more projects
proposed than can be undertaken.
o Managers at Corning began to insist that the scientists who are proposing
the project provide metrics associated with the project's worth. They also demanded
that the scientists develop these metrics in collaboration with the company's
business and marketing groups.
o One of the most important charts relative to the selection decision is the
impact versus the probability of success in the market. The impact was defined
as how much the market will be worth eventually, but could be any other measure
of a project's impact.
o Another useful chart is market vs. technology area associated with the proposed
project. Projects in existing market and technology areas have limited growth
and will likely not bring in new business. The organization may wish to limit
the number of these projects to less than 25 percent. Further, new marketing
opportunities in an existing technology area are less likely to be successful
than a new technology in an existing market area. Lastly, since projects in
new markets and new technology areas are very difficult to develop, organizations
may want to spend only 5-10 percent of its funds in these new risky areas. However
the funding here should not be zero. Most projects are arrayed in the middle
area, as shown on the "bubble chart."
o Scientists must take "honest" pills when asked to rate their new
technical ideas according to the technology momentum vs. competitive position
matrix. The idea may be new to the scientists but not to the world. An organization
may not want to invest in an idea if the technology momentum is low and the
competitive position is lagging. Corning asked each scientist to provide this
data for each proposed project. This information also helps to judge the worth
of the project to the portfolio.
o Organizations need to make sure that a continuous flow of projects (products)
leave the laboratory and reach the end customer (market). Therefore, it is important
to predict the years to "market" for each project.
o Once a project has been selected for funding at a certain level, project execution
becomes most important. Corning's experience was that a matrix management approach
provided the most efficient execution. In all cases, a project leader was appointed.
The project leader must have control of the project funds although does not
have to have direct reporting responsibility for the people. Corning educated
a cadre of experienced project leaders that could be assigned quickly should
a new need arise. All work was done as a project (large projects were called
programs). Even in "core competency" departments, the work had to
be described as a project.
o Corning also insisted on having good metrics and a good system to measure
project progress. This is a topic worthy of discussion at another VCAT meeting.
Burnt Fingers &
Lessons Learned (VCAT Panel on Best Practices for Organizational Development)
Mr. Gary D. Floss, VCAT Member
Mr. Floss remarked that
organizations are still relearning principles. His presentation is
based on 34 years experience at Control Data as well as site visits to many
Baldrige companies. He addressed lessons learned in three areas: 1) the need
to listen to the voice of the customer; 2) key tools for prioritization/project
selection for portfolio management; and 3) program management as a discipline.
The key challenge is to use these tools and information items earlier in the
product development cycle to enable technology and research breakthroughs.
The information below supplements Mr. Floss' presentation.
o According to Mr. Floss,
NIST knows the difference between prescriptive and performance specifications
when listening to the voice of the customer. Prescriptive specifications describe
the "how" and performance specifications describe the "what"
and the "whys." This is a very important element.
o The suggested tools help to quantify the voice of the customer.
o A prioritization matrix is an extraordinary useful tool for portfolio management.
Pugh's matrix is more sophisticated and compares different concepts.
o An example of a prioritization matrix for project selection showed the weighted
criteria that the senior management team selected to align the projects with
the organization's key objectives. Each criteria had an operational definition
of the number to help get the commotion and emotion out of prioritization. A
second set of criteria is often needed to further prioritize projects. It is
tough to remove projects, especially when they have been in place for many years
with some momentum.
o Mr. Floss has been involved in a lot of program management and he has learned
some hard lessons about matrix-driven organizations. The program manager behaves
as if everyone reports to him/her, but this is a difficult concept for some
vice presidents to grasp. This practice needs to be refined. The goal is to
have consistency in the behavior of the program managers.
A More Responsive
NIST (VCAT Panel on Best Practices for Organizational Development)
Mr. Tom Saponas, VCAT Member
Mr. Saponas witnessed the trauma at Agilent Technologies in 2001 when the level of customer orders dropped 50 percent in one year, which led to a 35 percent reduction in the staff in the central research labs. His presentation will focus on the lessons learned from the people aspect of this situation, rather than the business part. Mr. Saponas believes that the people aspect is the toughest problem to solve. He described the reality of a zero sum game and the need to cancel or reduce old programs; the necessary elements of change including credibility, reward and recognition, and a desirable and believable future state; and the first steps for NIST in becoming a more responsive organization. These first steps include having the SMB function as a team for decision-making and their success will be measured by identifying cancelled or reduced programs.
The information below supplements Mr. Saponas' presentation.
o NIST will not likely receive
a miraculous new source of funding. However, NIST's current staff is its biggest
asset and its biggest challenge. The managers know how to make the right decisions
and can identify the good and bad projects, but the staff is a problem. NIST
cannot escape the zero sum game if new programs are to be funded. Scientists
are in denial about how to fund new programs. An organization must be committed
to doing new programs even though it is easier to do nothing.
o For change, people have to believe in the credibility of the motives. Some
people believe that decisions are based on who knows who rather than logic.
It is really tough for management to prove that they have good motives and that
their decisions are not based on their relationships.
o It is important to identify the stars and assign them to new initiatives.
o One of the first steps for NIST is to ensure alignment with mission. Mr. Saponas
remarked that although he is a member of the VCAT, he cannot remember NIST's
mission statement. He also noted that the mission statement appears on the first
page of NIST's web site. He suggested that the VCAT be shown NIST's mission
statement right after the safety message at each meeting. He believes that the
mission is well internalized and supports the growth of industry and has no
problem with the statement being at odds with some organizations within NIST.
o The SMB must be committed even though some members will lose. This is a difficult
struggle. Some areas must shrink in order to grow into new areas. Reducing each
area will not work.
o The stovepipe issue is tough. Agilent solved this problem by dealing with
layoffs for the first time. Mr. Saponas and others learned how to really function
as a team to make difficult decisions regarding professional careers and how
to get agreement on the people. These cuts were not made uniformly across the
organization. The NIST management team should work on this important task.
o Rather than identify a long list of opportunities, select only three areas
by examining the macro economic data and technology trends to make decisions
for the long term. There needs to be agreement on these areas. If the list is
still long, then the tough decisions are not being made.
o NIST needs the best scientists who are respected by their peers and excited
about the new opportunity areas. If necessary, NIST should hire key people from
the outside to lead the charge. Let the champions find the best people in the
organization and give them all of their associated funding. This is a scary
concept for stovepipe organizations.
o Provide guarantees for people taking risks. If the new project fails and their
work is stopped, then take care of them afterwards.
o If NIST cannot identify the cancelled programs, then new areas are not being
funded. Instead, NIST is "pealing off' projects. After priorities have
been identified, then determine what programs will no longer be done. If everyone
hesitates about these decisions, then NIST is ignoring the first step of a zero
sum game.
VCAT Panel on Best
Practices for Organizational Development
Dr. David Spong, VCAT Member
Dr. Spong began his presentation
by noting that he has never been in an environment that is not resource constrained.
Ultimately, this is about having a very robust strategic planning process that
is actually executed. He then described the key elements of a comprehensive
flow chart of a Baldrige award winning Annual Enterprise Planning Mega-Process.
He also stressed the importance of buy-in throughout the organization. Dr. Spong
also discussed the need for prioritization, program management, and empowerment.
An organization chart for Boeing's new Phantom Works showed how the issue of
stovepiping was eliminated as customer facing was emphasized.
The information below supplements Dr. Spong's presentation.
o In the Annual Enterprise
Planning Mega-Process, it is important to recognize what the parent organization
and customers are saying about how the world has changed and then develop a
plan with the help of a Strategic Business Council and Strategic Planning Councils.
An emphasis is on business implementation plans with the corresponding measures
and resources, along with a set of functions that support the business. This
dual loop makes the plan work. The golden rule is that funds are provided to
carry out a program and without the funding, there is no program.
o The financial plan is important. Only the amount of funds that are in the
plan to support initiatives can be spent and this plan must be followed each
year.
o Every business, function, and site in Boeing's 130 sites across the world
were included in this plan. When the plan was completed and approved, everyone
knew about it and gave their "buy-in."
o "Prioritize/Programize" are needed to reduce stovepipe tendencies
and to facilitate cross-organizational cooperation. At Boeing, functions were
co-located under a program manager with the resources.
o Boeing created a new company, Phantom Works, to focus on areas that customers
identified as important. The Customer Facing side of the organization eliminates
stovepipe issues and is supported primarily with internal funds. The Functions
part of the organization is the tool side of the business, such as the accounting
system.
Business Agility and
Focus: Internal Entreprenuering (VCAT Panel on Best Practices for Organizational
Development)
Mr. Wyatt Starnes, VCAT Member
Mr. Starnes introduced himself as a "compulsive serial entrepreneur" with a different perspective than the other panel members. His presentation was excerpted from The Art of the Start by Guy Kawasaki, previously associated with Apple Computer, Inc. There are many similarities between running a company and starting a company. To run a company, there must be changes. Entrepreneurs must create changes since they are starting a business from scratch. Mr. Starnes asserted that anyone with guts, vision, and political savvy should be able to set up an entrepreneurial outpost in an established organization. He then described the rules for internal entreprenuering that correspond to the comments of the other Panel members. These include putting the organization first; killing the cash cows, staying under the radar, finding a trusted sponsor, keeping a separate space, giving to the hopeful, keeping your eyes open for big opportunities, building on existing resources, collecting and sharing data, building momentum, dismantling when done, and re-booting your brain.
The information below supplements Mr. Starnes' presentation.
o Putting the organization
first means acting on behalf of the organization and must come from a true spot.
Creating a new entity or discarding an entity that no longer has value should
be done for the good of the company. This is a tough but critical rule.
o Killing or starving cash or sacred cows is important. With a zero sum game,
organizations cannot do everything. They must pick their battles and go after
them with vigor, be aggressive and do revolutionary ideas.
o If you and your colleagues have a good idea, you may want to stay under the
radar until ready.
o Every organization, whether large or small, have people who have been "around
the block" who understand the organization and have credibility. These
people can take on a godfather role as a trusted sponsor.
o As an organization innovates, it is important to create a separate space to
allow for survival and prosperity. Macintosh is an example of this rule.
o Give to the hopeful and others will follow. No one wants to be the first to
say that changes need to be made, but others will get behind you. Maybe not
everyone, but some will follow. This requires staying true to your mission,
stand up and be counted, and stick to your guns.
o Planning is important. Many opportunities fall within NIST's mandate. There
are huge changes in industry that cut across all industry sectors that provide
a tremendous opportunity for NIST to include these changes in its measurements
and standards work and for NIST to take a leadership role in these areas. For
example, last week Mr. Starnes and Shashi Phoha examined some of the software
changes being done in industry.
o Be ready with data when asked to justify the organization. This data needs
to be thought out and include customer needs, value, impact, and trade-offs.
o Letting management come to you is difficult in a fiscal constrained market.
o Since change is transient, dismantle when done.
o Reboot your brain and think differently.
VCAT Panel Presentation on Best Practices for Organizational Development - Question and Answer Session
The VCAT Chair Dr. Schweighart
thanked the panel members for their outstanding presentations and solicited
questions from the NIST SMB. A summary of the main discussion points is provided
below. The italicized text at the beginning of each comment indicates if the
source was a VCAT member or a member of the NIST leadership. Disclaimer:
The VCAT comments reflect the views of an individual member, not necessarily
the views of the Committee.
Consensus Building to Avoid Conflicts of Interests
o VCAT - Consensus building is an important way to avoid conflicts of interest
when trying to assess program impact, probability of success, and other aspects
of the proposal. In one company, a cross-functional team was used for such consensus
building. The project leaders were responsible for tracking and recording this
information on individual project sheets.
Communications and Top-Level Decision Making
o VCAT - Frequent communications with the staff, such as small group meetings,
is important to address change. The key is to listen and find out what everyone
is doing, how they perceive the problem, and their recommendations. Top management
should decide on an action plan and not involve a committee at this stage. Companies
should get out of areas that are not doing well. One company was able to reduce
its entire workforce by 20 percent, mainly by attrition.
Value People
o VCAT - Create a culture that recognizes team efforts rather than individual
heroes. People are an organization's greatest strengths and they need to be
included in decision making.
o VCAT - NIST should not be afraid to move its best people into new areas, even
if these people do not have confidence in their capabilities. Several industry
success stories were noted.
What Precipitates Change?
o VCAT - Leadership and management have a choice to be proactive or reactive
when addressing changes. NIST should seize the opportunity to figure out its
impact, identify the top two or three competencies, remap, and move people around
as needed.
o VCAT - Balanced scorecard trends in performance over time can indicate that
an organization is slipping and needs to change. One company realized that it
was not providing adequate resources to its projects and they needed to change
before the conditions became drastic.
o VCAT - As experienced in the pharmaceutical industry, "change is very
hard but irrelevance is worse." Even if there is no burning platform for
change, an organization should create a platform and try to get ahead of the
curve to influence it.
o VCAT - Everyone at all levels of the organization should understand that a
change is needed. NIST has an opportunity to go for the high road. The current
environment is a repeat of the 1980's when the U.S. competitiveness was at risk.
However, the situation is different in that the real issues are globalization
and outsourcing. NIST should tie into some of the issues raised by the 2004
Council on Competitiveness. NIST's charter is right on the mark for addressing
the important areas for the U.S. over the next 50 years, but ultimately there
must be a balance between the stick (i.e. the funding) and the carrot (i.e.
programs). NIST needs to emphasize the positive-its programs, rather than its
funding problems.
Creating a Crisis to Make a Change
o VCAT - One member's company created an internal crisis so compelling that
it transformed one of its major business entities in five years. Be careful
about starting a fire because it could blow backwards. Another member spoke
about his former company that created a crisis by restructuring the organization
to penetrate the market but the plan backfired.
o VCAT - Never use the word "crisis" instead always use "opportunities."
It is key to create a platform where people can understand why the change is
important. After all, the people will execute the plan and their buy-in is needed.
This member's company is continuing to set up entrepreneurial outposts which
are a major league change for that company.
Response to Customer Needs in Industry versus NIST
o NIST - NIST believes that industry boundary conditions are different than
NIST's conditions. All companies have to be relevant and driven by its profit
margins for its stockholders. NIST has a different stakeholder base than industry
as it strives to be the best in the world and to deliver value to its customers.
o VCAT - The common ground for companies are not its shareholders but its customers,
and it is important to listen to the customer. Decisions are not always made
in the boardroom.
o NIST - NIST agrees about the importance of listening to customer needs.
o VCAT - NIST only serves a minute part of industry and it is a big failure
for NIST not to serve a more important area because the organization is too
busy serving other customers. Although some customers may not say they need
NIST now, it is important to do work for the future. NIST is responsive to customer
needs, but these may not be the needs most important to the nation. NIST must
say "no" to some of its current customers, move on to new areas, and
get the staff excited. The tough question is how to create a sense of urgency.
Without change, NIST will die over the next 100 years.
o VCAT - With a tremendous pool of talent, NIST has lots of opportunities for
funding if it just sells what the customer wants. NIST should ask if it is serving
the largest group making the highest impact to the U.S. economy, as illustrated
by the impact chart presented earlier.
o VCAT - Customers and stakeholders are fundamentally unreliable. NIST needs
to control its own destiny in the context of what is happening outside of their
walls and is fully capable of communicating their programs to industry.
o VCAT - The prioritization matrix shown earlier is an extraordinary tool that
can help with the screening process and scores to avoid commotion and emotion
when identifying opportunities.
o NIST - In industry, clients can be defined by who buys the services. NIST
has these types of customers but also receives priorities from Congress without
the funding. NIST's world is different than industry.
Understanding NIST Mission
o VCAT - There is a crisis or sense of urgency when a person from OSTP does
not understand the NIST mission.
o NIST - NIST should be concerned that some key people do not understand the
importance of NIST; however, John Marburger, Director of OSTP, understands NIST's
role and why it exists. OSTP's fact sheet on the FY 2006 Budget is straightforward
on NIST's role.
o VCAT/NIST - Another VCAT member could not recite the NIST mission. Although
Dr. Semerjian was able to recite the mission on the spot, a VCAT member questioned
whether NIST's customers could state the mission. He suggested that NIST consider
developing a short, simple, and memorable tag line that could help Congress.
Dr. Semerjian replied that NIST had discussed a simple tag line but it is not
descriptive enough. Another VCAT member remarked that the NIST mission statement
was descriptive enough but it was not repeated often enough so that he could
remember it.
Closing Remarks
o The VCAT Chair noted that this is the second VCAT panel discussion under her
leadership and hoped it would not be the last.
o The VCAT Chair thanked all the panel members and other VCAT members for their
contributions and their willingness to share their ideas.
o Dr. Semerjian noted that this panel discussion is a true learning process
for NIST and that NIST relies on the VCAT's many years of experience. The entire
NIST management team is very appreciative of the VCAT's contributions and frank
discussions. He looks forward to future panel discussions.
Laboratory Tours
Mechanics, Adhesion and Friction at Nanoscale - Dr. Douglas T. Smith, Acting Leader of the Nanotribology Group in the Ceramics Division, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, led a tour of a new clean room space in the Advanced Measurement Laboratory with tight temperature and vibration control. NIST pioneers precise measurements of mechanical properties, friction and surface forces using unique instrumentation. The new clean room space allows researchers to view surfaces, probe material mechanical properties, and measure the interaction forces accurately. Collaborating with U.S. instrument-makers, NIST researchers have developed an integrated system of micro- and nano-scale instruments that include a custom-built 3-D sensor for friction measurement, ultra-high-vacuum scanning probe microscopies, and new adhesion and surface force measurement capabilities, as well as applying and disseminating NIST force metrology to insure the accuracy of the test results. Tomorrow's micro- and nano-scale devices and materials will be the engine for U.S. economic growth, permeating every industrial sector for zero-defect manufacturing, health monitoring and intervention, and homeland security. As the sizes of these devices shrink, surface forces become dominant, governing how tiny device components interact with each other, as well as how nanoparticles can be assembled to form new materials. Understanding and control of these forces are critical to successful development of competitive industries in the United States.
NIST Dimensional Metrology: Ultra-High Accuracy Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) - Dr. Theodore D. Doiron, Leader of the Engineering Metrology Group, and Mr. John R. Stoup of the Precision Engineering Division, Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, described the impact of the NIST- enhanced ultra-high-accuracy Moore 48 CMM, the most accurate instrument of its type in the world. This CMM is key to NIST calibrations and research that help U.S. manufacturers of all sizes to meet ever more demanding dimensional requirements and to reliably machine and assemble parts with increasingly complex features. Ensuring proper performance of CMMs is fundamental to manufacturing performance at nearly every level of supply chains. NIST dimensional calibrations and a series of innovative measurement references provide the nation's manufacturers with compelling evidence (technically termed "traceability") that their parts and final products are of uniformly high quality, satisfying customer specifications and, as warranted, regulatory requirements. With this customized CMM, NIST provides its customers-many of which are smaller manufacturers and private-sector calibration services-with access to state-of-the-art capabilities that are beyond their budgets, yet critical to their quality assurance systems. In addition, NIST researchers actively participate-and often lead-efforts to develop international standards regarding the use and performance of CMMs, the primary inspection tool in many manufacturing sectors.
The open session of the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm.
Stakeholder Visits
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, the VCAT members met with Acting Deputy Secretary of Commerce David Sampson and Acting Under Secretary for Technology Michelle O'Neill. Following this visit, they met with OSTP Director Dr. John Marburger and OSTP Associate Director Richard Russell. The purpose of these visits was to learn DoC's and OSTP's views on NIST and their suggestions for helping the VCAT make NIST a more prominent organization. After these visits, the members met with Andrea Petro, an OMB Program examiner for NIST, and provided her with an overview of the VCAT and their views on NIST's progress in strategic planning and performance evaluation.
Page created: 9/09/05
Page maintained by: VCAT webmaster
