VISITING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MARCH 7-8, 2006 MEETING
GAITHERSBURG, MD
ATTENDANCE
|
Visiting Committee Baer, Thomas Ehrlich, Gail
Anderson, Bill |
Hertz, Harry NIST Staff Acierto, Linda |
Jones, Al Board on Assessment Corotis, Ross Guests McDonald, Neil, Federal |
Introduction
Ms. Deborah Grubbe, VCAT Chair
Ms. Grubbe called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and welcomed the attendees.
Dr. Jeffrey remarked that safety is a priority at NIST and pointed out the nearest
emergency exits.
NIST Update and VCAT Agenda Review
Dr. William Jeffrey, NIST Director
Dr. Jeffrey reviewed the meeting's agenda with the theme of strategic planning. The NIST Update will cover new VCAT members, NIST outreach, staff changes and recognition, technical highlights, and the proposed FY 2007 budget.
Two new members were recently appointed to the Committee: Thomas Baer from Stanford University and Paul Fleury from Yale University. Dr. Baer is well familiar with NIST and is attending today's meeting. Dr. Fleury was unable to attend today's meeting. Another new individual will serve on the Committee as soon as the paperwork is completed.
Dr. Jeffrey provided examples of recent outreach activities that show significant progress in elevating the awareness of NIST in the administration and the private sector, including a visit to NIST by Commerce Secretary Guiterrez and Dr. John Marburger, Science Advisor to the President. Another example was an article in the February 21, 2006, issue of the Wall Street Journal that compared Dr. Jeffrey with Dr. Greenspan in reference to the stability of measurements at NIST versus the stability of dollars at the Federal Reserve Board.
In regards to recent staff changes at NIST, Belinda Collins is the new Director of Technology Services, Kevin Kimball is the Acting Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, and Susannah Schiller is the Acting Chief Information Officer. NIST staff continue to be recognized internationally and nationally. For example, William Boettinger was recently elected to the National Academy of Engineering, Katharine Gebbie received the Government Women's Visionary Leadership Award, Rodney Bryant was among the 2006 Black Engineers of the Year, and Jun Ye received an award by the Optical Society of America.
Only a few examples of NIST's
technical highlights and external awards were described since the VCAT receives
this information on a regular basis via the NIST TechBeat and news releases.
Example technical highlights covered NIST's development of new stable polymer
nanotubes, the recently completed Neutron Imaging Facility and the Advanced
Measurement Laboratory Nanofabrication Facility at NIST, release of the NIST
final publication for storing biometrics data on Personal Identity Verification
cards, a new Standard Reference Material to ensure accurate measurements of
commercial cigarettes, new NIST-developed test methods to quantify a mattress
burn rate, and adoption of NIST's recommendations in the voluntary voting system
guidelines.
The overview of the FY 2007 President's Budget request for NIST began with a
video clip from the President's State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006,
where he announced his commitment to doubling the budget for the most critical
basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years as
part of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Debbie Jin from NIST
attended as a special guest who represented the science and technology theme.
Dr. Jeffrey summarized the key points of the ACI that commits $50 billion of
new funding over the next ten years to NIST, the National Science Foundation,
and DoE's Office of Science.
The FY 2007 budget request includes an additional $104 million - a more than 24 percent increase when Congressional directed grants are removed - for the NIST laboratory programs and facilities. The FY 2006 budget for NIST included $137.3 million for Congressional directed grants, a significant fraction of the appropriations for NIST laboratories and facilities. There are no FY 2007 funds requested for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP); however, sufficient carryover funds from FY 2006 will be available to complete existing awards and to phase out the program. No new ATP awards were granted in FY 2005 and FY 2006. The $46.3 million requested in FY 2007 for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is more consistent with the President's request for FY 2006. According to Dr. Jeffrey, the FY 2007 request is a "phenomenal" increase to NIST core programs, including facilities.
Requirements for R&D priorities are provided by the Executive Branch and industry in such documents as the OMB/OSTP R&D priority memo, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan, economic impact studies, Interagency Working Group reports, and industry stated needs. Dr. Jeffrey showed a table with examples of these R&D priorities along with the NIST response. Each of NIST's R&D initiatives for FY 2007 responds to these high priorities.
NIST's initiatives are grouped into four high-level areas: 1) targeting the most strategic and rapidly developing technologies (+$45 million); 2) increasing the capacity and capability of critical national assets (+$27 million); 3) meeting the Nation's most immediate needs (+$12 million); and 4) NIST Facilities Improvement plan ($20.1million). Dr. Jeffrey described the problem/challenge area, the proposed NIST program, and the expected impacts for each of the NIST's programmatic initiatives listed below. (The text below supplements the key points shown on each corresponding slide.)
- Enabling Nanotechnology
from Discovery to Manufacture (+$20 million) - NIST's role is recognized in
the NNI Strategic Plan. Bob Celotta is the new director of the Center for Nanoscale
Science and Technology (CNST) proposed for expansion.
- NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) Expansion and Reliability Improvements
(+$22 million, STRS + CRF) - Pat Gallagher was introduced as the new director
of the NCNR.
- Enabling the Hydrogen Economy (+$10 million) - The President noted the challenges
of a hydrogen economy in two State of the Union Addresses.
- Manufacturing Innovation through Supply Chain Integration (+$2 million) -
This initiative also will result in significant benefits to the smaller suppliers.
- Quantum Information Science - Infrastructure for 21st-Century Innovation (+$9
million) - This will be a joint effort between the NIST Physics Laboratory and
the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory.
- Structural Safety in Hurricanes, Fires, and Earthquakes (+$2 million) - NIST
began thinking about an initiative in this area before Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. The $52 billion annual cost of property damage excludes the costs of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
- Synchrotron Measurement Science and Technology (+$5 million)
- International Standards and Innovation (+$2 million)
- Innovation in Measurement Science (+$4 million) - This program was formerly
known as "Competence."
- Bioimaging: A 21st-Century Toolbox for Medical Technology (+$4 million) -
Although CAT scans and MRIs provide exquisite clear images, these are two-dimensional
pictures and need to be converted into quantitative data.
- Cyber Security: Innovative Technologies for National Security (+$2 million)
- Biometrics: Identifying Friend or Foe (+$2 million) - Biometrics is expected
to have a huge economic impact in the future.
The initiatives under the NIST Facilities Improvement Plan are needed to help ensure that the infrastructure is in place for NIST's research and measurements to be at the forefront. The increases in the Construction of Research Facilities request would fund: 1) design and some renovation of two buildings at the Boulder, CO, site ($+10.1 million); 2) safety, capacity, maintenance and major repair (+$10 million); and 3) construction-related expenses at the NCNR (+$12 million).
The rollout of the FY 2007 budget request for NIST included a number of briefings to industry associations, Business Software Alliance CEOs, and congressional committee staff. These briefings have received a positive reception and the President's proposal to increase the Nation's R&D investments is resonating well on the Hill and in industry. A quote from the February 17, 2006, issue of Science illustrates the growing support for the ACI and NIST.
In summary, Dr. Jeffrey remarked that the FY 2007 proposed NIST budget is "absolutely extraordinary" especially in view of the decrease in the nondiscretionary defense budget. The budget request is still under review by Congress but NIST is in a good position. NIST will continue its strategic planning efforts and will begin to think about the 10-year horizon with some assumptions about the budget.
For more details, see Dr. Jeffrey's presentation.
Discussion
Directed Grants - Dr. Jeffrey noted that the likelihood of the NIST budget having a large amount of Congressional directed grants in FY 2007 is outside of his knowledge.
Congressional Support for the FY 2007 Budget - Dr. Serum asked if the NIST budget will grow in FY 2007 at the expense of the other agencies. Dr. Jeffrey responded that the three agencies named in the ACI are treated independently of other government agencies. The nondefense discretionary budget is very tight and the Adminsitration's goal is to reduce the deficit in half by 2009. The ACI is not a competition, but a separate entity.
Ms. Grubbe expressed concern that Congress will use funds from the NIST core program to restore MEP and stated that she is not as optimistic as Dr. Jeffrey about the Presdient's ten-year budget plan. Dr. Jeffrey responded that Ms. Grubbe's pessimism is unfounded. The budget climate is changing. He is encouraged by the rush on both sides of Congress to take credit for the increases to the physical sciences R&D budgets and to try to push the agenda forward. There was some criticism from the minority side that the timeline was too slow and that these budgets should be doubled within five years rather than ten years. The reality of doubling the physical sciences R&D budgets can be illustrated by the actual doubling of the NSF budget that survived more than one administration. According to Dr. Jeffrey, the FY 2007 budget has real potential once the message is understood, and this is different from the past.
Bio - Dr. Heimbrook asked Dr. Jeffrey for his opinion on bio. She noted that most of NIST's programs are geared at specific industry sectors and questioned whether NIST anticipates that NIH will take the lead on molecular profiling and imaging. Dr. Jeffrey responded that NIST senior management is actively discussing this issue. According to Dr. Jeffrey, it would be inappropriate for NIST to try to duplicate or push into NIH areas, but there also are various areas of synergy that are too good to pass up. While NIST and NIH both have a role in bioimaging, it is inappropriate for NIST to be involved in pure biological sciences. However, NIST could have significant growth in the biophysical area. NIST will not compete with NIH. This topic could be discussed further at the next VCAT meeting.
Sustainability Activities
- Mr. Noha remarked that the mid-west as well as Europe is
engaged in sustainability activities but he did not see this topic highlighted
in the budget presentation. He was concerned that the prominence of NIST as
the bearer of standards could be threatened with great damage to the U.S. if
NIST is not active in sustainability. Dr. Hill, director of the Building Fire
and Research Laboratory (BFRL), responded that there are sustainability programs
at NIST, but these were not featured in Dr. Jeffrey's presentation. BFRL, the
Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory (CSTL), and the Manufacturing Engineering
Laboratory (MEL) are involved in sustainability and these areas will be described
by the respective OU director in their strategic planning presentations. Dr.
Jeffrey remarked that he highlighted the initiatives rather than the $431 million
of base funding that supports a much wider array of programs.
NIST Staff - Mr. Floss asked if NIST was comfortable with its critical mass of staffing. Dr. Jeffrey responded that NIST expects an increase overtime in the number of staff that are supported by the NIST budget as well as the number of guest researchers from industry and academia. This is a fundamental shift in the budget slope over past years.
Strategic Planning - Ms. Grubbe asked how the four top-level groupings of the initiatives relate to the NIST Stratetic Plan created five years ago, whether this plan is still germane, and if NIST is planning to update the plan. She sees no similarity in these programs and remarked that the Nation may not meet its needs if NIST drifts from this plan. Dr. Jeffrey responded that NIST did not group the initiatives into focus areas intentionally. NIST is developing a strategic planning process this year with a two-prong attack to examine NIST's real core competencies and to ensure that NIST can meet them strongly in terms of funding and staffing. NIST will then identify emerging areas requiring attention which may not necessarily be tied to a specific function. NIST needs to be agile with the depth and breadth to achieve success in the emerging areas. Every OU will identify the critical competencies to meet their customer needs. NIST also will examine the evolving trends in national priorities as well as rely on the U.S. Measurement System (USMS) assessment to identify the intrinsic measurements that are the barriers to innovation. NIST is engaged in a significant modification to the current plan with a focus on identifying the core competencies.
Dr. Heimbrook asked whether the senior management teams were requested to identify the non-core competencies that should be stopped. Dr. Jeffrey responded that each OU Director has a performance evaluation plan and is responsible for identifying their OU's core competencies and to ensure that they have adequate resources. This means that the highest priorities should be funded by shifting resources. If funds cannot be shifted to support the highest priorities, then the OU directors need to consider budget initiatives with cross-OU participation. This new process was put in place this year. Dr. Jeffrey noted that although budgets were tight in the past, each OU actually had some type of priority process. Their process was not perfect but better than he thought when he first came to NIST.
MEP and ATP Support - Mr. Starnes asked about congressional support for MEP and the likelihood of a trade-off of ATP and MEP for the initiatives. Dr. Jeffrey remarked that Congress needs to be made aware of the importance of NIST's core budget. The President's budget is very important for NIST to maintain its technical capabilities for the future as noted in past VCAT reports. The ACI will help NIST, NSF, and DoE respond to national needs. The NIST core budget funds the highest priority programs at NIST and these funds should not be used to support other programs at NIST. Mr. Noha remarked that the Deputy Secretary of Commerce "gently" told the VCAT last year that if additional funds were needed for MEP or other programs, then the funds had to come from another program. He then asked if MEP is not as high as priority as the core programs. According to Mr. Noha, the MEP reduction will not go over well with constituents in the small business arena. Dr. Jeffrey responded that the core programs are absolutely the highest priority programs. The President's budget will address the long-standing needs at NIST. MEP also is a good program and NIST supports the requested level for MEP. NIST is part of the ACI because its programs tend to support an entire industry or a large segment of an industry where NIST can have great leverage.
Ms. Grubbe stated that NIST has little or no effective outreach for small businesses, except for MEP, and asked about other ways in which NIST provides outreach to small businesses. The VCAT is special because it is comprised of individuals from small businesses. Dr. Jeffrey remarked that there is misconception that NIST outreach is only with large companies. NIST works very effectively with small businesses at all levels of the economy. For example, NIST has tremendous interactions with small and large manufacturers in various industry associations. Over half of NIST's core programs support manufacturing and the interoperability initiative will impact small businesses. Mr. Saponas added that NIST outreach to small companies is through standards that are needed to compete in today's economy. Mr. Starnes noted that NIST also is providing outreach to small companies in the areas of medical information exchange. He remarked that the core question is if the MEP budget is restored, will these funds come from the core programs. Dr. Jeffrey replied that this decision is up to Congress and that NIST has to be very clear and persuasive on the importance of NIST.
ACI - Dr. Serum asked if the ACI will be a separate budget line item. Dr. Jeffrey replied that the ACI will not be a separate line item since it involves three different agencies. These agencies would receive these funds as part of their appropriations.
Strategic Program Planning
in the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL)
Dr. Dale Hall, Director, MEL
Dr. Hall announced that MEL is hosting a delegation from Caterpillar on March 6-8, 2006, which was arranged by Bob Williams of the VCAT to discuss additional collaborations. He welcomes other members and their associates to visit MEL as well. This presentation included a snapshot of MEL and its mission, manufacturing needs and trends, MEL's strategic program planning process and implementation, continuous improvement plans, and strategic program management issues for 2006.
With core competencies in mechanical and dimensional metrology, intelligent and integrated manufacturing, and advanced processes and equipment, MEL develops infrastructural technologies to enable innovation and productivity and provides critical measurement services to industry. MEL is customer-focused, has facilities that are often world-class and unique, and leads the Federal Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Manufacturing R&D and the U.S. participation in the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS) collaboration. Dr. Hall offered to discuss the IWG in more detail at a future VCAT meeting. The estimated FY 2006 operating budget for MEL is about $43.1 million and supports 188 staff members.
MEL's basic premise is the value proposition that manufacturing matters to our standard of living, quality of life, and national security. In particular, MEL helps manufacturers to innovate and compete more effectively. The MEL mission maps to their core competencies and reads, "To satisfy the measurements and standards needs of U.S. manufacturers in mechanical and dimensional metrology and in advanced manufacturing technology by conducting research and development, providing services and participating in standards activities."
The needs of the manufacturing community are evident in the media as shown by a sampling of articles from the trade press. MEL gathers its intelligence in several ways, including extensive involvement in the manufacturing community strategic planning activities as well as interactions with key customers, collaborators and stakeholders. For example, some of the MEL staff will be discussing the future of manufacturing with the Council on Competitiveness on March 7, 2006.
Dr. Hall also described ten manufacturing trends as seen by MEL which serve as the core input to their strategic program planning. These range from the increasing globalization of the manufacturing enterprise and of markets for manufactured goods to the changing demographics of the U.S. workforce.
MEL's most recent strategic program planning cycle had four goals: 1) make MEL's programs more strategic, flexible, and responsive; 2) ensure the vitality and impact of MEL's technical work; 3) use MEL resources and capabilities most effectively; and 4) reaffirm MEL priorities, vision, and direction. The scope of the planning effort covered all of MEL's activities and STRS funding and all management and operational options were considered ranging from no programs to strong programs.
In phase I of the process, fundamental considerations and decisions were made to form a strong program management model where programs define MEL's strategic direction. Virtually all technical work would be managed in programs with measurement services integrated with the supporting research and development. The nature of the programs would be based on their orientation (technology area or market sector), size (critical mass), and type (NMI/measurement sciences and services, advanced manufacturing technology, or new area development).
Phase II of the process focused on program selection and funding by a very interactive team-based MEL Management Council. They defined the program subjects and scopes based on strategic priorities, MEL's core competencies, customer impact, alignment with NIST priorities, and forward-looking orientation with growth prospects. Program managers were selected and the MEL director decided the initial program funding based on strategic considerations. Dr. Hall allocated 75 percent of the total available funding, provided program managers with a planning floor, then held a competition for the remaining 25 percent of the funding based on actual program proposals with goals and objectives prepared by the program managers and reviewed by the MEL Management Council.
As a result of this process, MEL's new FY 2005 technical portfolio was comprised of 8 programs and managers. The transition from 17 program areas to 8 programs with a broader scope enable program managers to think more strategically. There also is a stronger alignment between programs, division funding, and technical work. The new programs are aligned with MEL's strategic directions and reflect clearer technical priorities that will enhance their marketing. Lastly, the new portfolio is very interdisciplinary and cross-organizational. A chart was shown that illustrates how each of these programs map to one or more of the ten manufacturing trends discussed earlier.
The process took about 16 months to reach the new structure. In recognition that strategic planning is a continuous process, the MEL Management Council prepared and endorsed an Operational Plan. This plan describes MEL's high-priority programmatic and management issues and the actions to address them. Four major areas were selected for emphasis in FY 2006, including strategic program management issues. These issues address year-one program reviews and adjustments in program goals, direction, and focus, as appropriate; planning input via MEL, IWG, and other strategy-level workshops and external exercises; impact assessment with qualitative and quantitative metrics; and maintenance of high-touch outreach and external obligations. MEL has been considering the implications of maintaining their high level of outreach activities that reduce the time needed for technical work. At last year's offsite, MEL focused on three extreme scenarios dealing with their external obligations. In every scenario, MEL focused on its standards and measurements mission and the balance between technology providers and technology integrators.
In summary, MEL programs
are planned strategically, respond to critical manufacturing needs and trends,
are built around MEL/NIST core competencies, and explore important new application
areas for MEL technology even if entrepreneurial in nature and beyond MEL's
usual territory.
For more details, see Dr. Hall's presentation.
Discussion
Timeframe - Dr. Serum asked if the strategic program plan covered five years. Dr. Hall responded that it is a five-year plan with major revisions anticipated after three years.
Market Focus - Mr. Spong noted that segmenting customers by technology area was not described as part of MEL's process and that lots of organizations struggle with this concept. His advice is to be responsive to customers because there is no need to exist without them. He also asked why the mission statement excluded areas such as electrical needs. Dr. Hall responded that electrical needs are covered in the NIST Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory (EEEL). He emphasized that MEL must make critical choices when selecting the areas that they can do well and he believes that MEL has made the right decisions. Dr. Hall agreed with Dr. Spong's assertion that MEL was, in essence, limiting the areas that they cover.
Core Competencies - Dr. Serum remarked that organizations have different approaches related to core competencies. He then asked what work was done by MEL to articulate and explore their core competencies. Dr. Hall acknowledged that this was a complicated question. They struggled initially with the question if there needs to be a radical change in the direction or approach for MEL. For example, should there be a flagship program such as the one in the late 1980's that dominated the whole program? MEL decided not to have a flagship program since there was a broader realm of programs to cover. Instead, they decided that the program management model was the best approach. In the government, many people have to sign off on a program management structure so MEL created an off-line structure where they can have more internal control. According to Dr. Hall, MEL was approximately right in where the lab was going and their approach. Dr. Jeffrey noted that one mechanism to uncover how much of the lab's work is fundamental to the core of the organization is sometimes externally driven by him and others. The OUs will be asked again to put their entire programs through a series of questions to understand what is driving their choices, why are they NIST-driven, and why are they important. Most of the OUs did this exercise last year. This is how some of the pieces will start to fit together. Dr. Hall noted that MEL is still discussing their mission statement which is evolutionary and they are looking for a short crisp statement.
Program Elimination - Mr. Saponas asked whether MEL had identified areas to de-emphasize or eliminate. Dr. Hall replied that most of the work performed in the 17 program areas found a home in one of the new 8 program areas because their strategic direction was approximately correct.
Manufacturing Needs - Dr. Keck reported that Corning had three times the number of people addressing manufacturing needs than MEL. He is now working with a small company interested in nanoprecision machining and most of this work is offshore, primarily in Asia. Dr. Keck asked about other manufacturing areas where the U.S. can advance. Dr. Hall replied that nanomanufacturing is wide open. The ability to move from manufacturing processes to making products requires lots of innovation. The new NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology can contribute to this area. Intelligent autonomous mobility is another areas where the U.S. leads the world. This area is extremely important to the Department of Defense (DoD) and MEL could make a significant contribution. MEL is looking for resources to support supply chain integration which would give the U.S. manufacturers a level playing field.
Metrics - Mr. Floss asked whether there were metrics in place to see the degree of variation in moving from an "as is" situation" to a "to be" organization. Dr. Hall responded that the programs in MEL have different resources. For example, one program receives about 80 percent of its funding from other agencies, primarily DoD that has been a strong supporter for a number of years. Another program that is focused on solving health care information management issues is very expensive and MEL is looking for support for this work. Program managers are allocated sufficient funds to go out and make this happen. Most of the programs are focused on their five-year deliverables.
Homeland and Industrial Control Security - Mr. Starnes applauded MEL's efforts that reduced the number of programs from 17 to 8. He then asked how many other OU directors were involved in this process, and in particular, does EEEL and the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) have a role in homeland and industrial control security activities. Dr. Hall replied that the role of the other labs is outside the scope of this discussion. MEL is involved in homeland security due to national priorities and the security of the manufacturing environment. NIST's role in homeland security served as the context for this program in MEL. For example, an MEL program manager was a member of the Homeland Security Strategic Working Group where robust conversations about NIST's activities took place.
NIST Strategic Planning
Dr. William Jeffrey, NIST Director
Ms. Grubbe announced that there will be a slight change in the agenda to allow for Dr. Jeffrey to provide some background information about the overall strategic planning process at NIST.
Dr. Jeffrey noted that there was a distinction between the new budget initiative process and the core competence process. A new process was begun this year for selecting the new FY 2008 initiatives with the goal of identifying the highest priority areas for NIST. All of the OU directors have been engaged in this process by identifying high priority areas for the Administration, for NIST's customer base, and for those resulting from economic analysis. The USMS will play an important role in the FY 2009 process in identifying emerging measurement needs. The big picture for NIST is to identify the measurement areas where NIST should be engaged. The initiatives have to be traceable to the national level and justifiable. The NIST mission statement provides the overarching focus for the NIST core: advancing measurement science, standards, and technology. The OUs are expected to ensure that these capabilities are addressed or to request the needed resources. NIST can carry out its mission at a high level through initiatives and through its core competencies at a lower level. NIST is using the Heilmeier questions to justify decisions on the selection of initiatives.
Ms. Grubbe stated that the key point is that NIST has a new separate initiative process.
Strategic Planning Process
in the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)
Dr. James Hill, Director, BFRL
Dr. Hill's presentation will cover the context for BFRL's strategic planning with an overview of the industries served and the lab's resources, a description of the planning process, BFRL's role in economic analysis, examples of historical contributions, and a review of BFRL's current programs. BFRL's mission is to "Meet the measurement and standards needs of the Building and Fire Safety Communities." Its vision is to be "The source of critical tools - metrics, models, and knowledge - used to modernize the Building and Fire Safety Communities." BFRL's resources include 175 professional staff members covering a wide area of disciplines as shown on the pie chart and 15 specialized laboratory facilities, including the large fire research facility shown to the VCAT last September.
To illustrate the industries served by BFRL, Dr. Hill presented a pie chart with a breakdown of the $1.4 trillion annual costs of construction and buildings in the U.S. and another chart with data on the annual costs of fire and natural disasters, emphasizing that a single event could cost as much as $80 billion to $200 billion dollars. A diagram of the life cycle of constructed facilities set the context for BFRL's programs. For example, while NIST is not a regulatory agency, BFRL is very involved in designing the basis for building codes and standards and works closely with other organizations in their adoption.
BFRL's planning process consists of five elements and usually begins in May and ends in September with an operational plan for the following year. Program and project selection are based on 1) consideration of drivers/barriers for other industries; 2) customer needs through direct contacts, workshops, and roadmaps; 3) economic impact studies; 4) annual criteria-based selection and budgeting; and 5) additional considerations regarding competence development/exploratory research. As part of the criteria-based selection programming, all programs and projects are evaluated according to their fit to NIST mission and technical challenge; potential impact and probability of success; and potential for outside funding. Approximately 40 percent of BFRL's funding is received from outside organizations and other agencies that have construction programs requiring assistance. One or two new exploratory research projects addressing future research needs are begun each year.
Dr. Hill then described ten key drivers/barriers for buildings and fire communities based on industry data. The largest driver is to work with the industry to move from traditional prescriptive standards and codes to performance-based standards and codes. The construction industry is very fragmented, with 80 percent of the companies having less than 10 employees. Also, less than one tenth of one percent of the industry's resources is dedicated toward research. BFRL established seven programs designed to address the ten key drivers/barriers. For example, a $5 million program for the safety of threatened buildings was created to address longer-term homeland security issues identified after the assessment of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. The FY 2006 STRS investment in these seven programs total $22 million with an additional $15 million of support from other agencies. These investments focus on the highlighted areas shown in yellow on the second diagram of the life cycle of constructed facilities. About 20 percent of BFRL's STRS funding supports efforts to correct the inefficiencies associated with interoperability in the supply chain for the construction and building industry but this level is not sufficient to address the $16 billion annual loss to this industry due to interoperability issues. Dr. Hill identified this area as needing more resources in response to Dr. Jeffrey's request for the OUs to identify core competencies and other areas requiring more resources.
BFRL's extensive customer links are illustrated in a diagram used originally by Dr. Jack Snell to describe the response plan to the WTC disaster. This diagram is now used to show how BFRL is aligned with working with its customers in planning its programs.
BFRL is unique by having an Office of Applied Economics staffed by a small number of economists who work closely with economic staff at the NIST-level. Dr. Hill reviewed BFRL's role in economic analysis and highlighted that 20 ASTM standards on building economics can be traced directly to BFRL. Furthermore, BFRL's economic evaluation methods are used to evaluate new technology, advance national goals and minimum life-cycle costs, and to measure the impact of proposed research. For example, BFRL-developed software for energy conservation is the most significantly used software in the field for assessing the energy design of buildings.
Dr. Hill also provided examples
of BFRL's historical contributions beginning with fire- hose coupling standards
that date back to the early 1900's as the first effort to address interoperability.
For more details, see Dr. Hill's presentation.
Discussion
Contents and Furnishings - Mr. Williams commented that NIST needs to be involved in fire acceleration as it relates to contents and furnishings. Dr. Hill responded that the issue of how to effectively extinguish fires is among the many topics to be addressed by BFRL. The flashover phenomenon causes a lot of fire deaths and is a big issue. Several years ago, BFRL addressed the issue of how to keep the heat output from materials as low as possible while burning. One solution was to use nanoscale materials in layers that could char rather than burn.
Performance-Based Standards and Codes - Ms. Grubbe applauded the effort to move from prescriptive based standards to performance based-standards and asked how NIST will address the expertise needed by the evaluation bodies for these standards. Dr. Hill responded that NIST is trying to build the tools to enable building designers to demonstrate to code officials that the design achieves the standards. NIST has not yet given attention to how to educate code officials but will need to do so in the future; this will be a big issue.
Metrics - Mr. Floss asked about BFRL's use of metrics to determine progress against programs. Dr. Hill responded that the metrics are qualitative in many cases as BFRL reviews what they have set out to do and if they have achieved this goal. For example, BFRL generally measures its effectiveness by asking if their recommended methods and processes have been adopted in standards and codes.
Overview of the Chemical
Science and Technology Laboratory and its Strategic Planning Process
Dr. Willie May, Director, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory (CSTL)
Dr. May's presentation began with a review of the CSTL mission statement that fulfills the NIST Mission "in the areas broadly encompassed by chemistry, the biosciences, and chemical engineering by addressing customer needs for measurements, standards, data, and assessment of new technologies." He then described the components of CSTL's three primary activities: standards development and deployment; technology development, assessment and deployment; and measurement science. CSTL's past activities from the early 1900's covering heat and thermometry as well as chemistry are still being conducted in the lab's current measurements and standards areas. Dr. May then reviewed how CSTL's world-class chemical and physical measurement competencies and capabilities support its measurements services to customers. These measurement capability areas are organized by discipline within five divisions as shown on the CSTL organization chart. The CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement, its requirements for CSTL's physical and chemical measurement services, and examples of two successful key measurement comparisons illustrate the lab's leadership role in international measurements and the quality of their measurement capabilities.
CSTL's total funding for FY 2006 is estimated at $71.5 million. Examples of CSTL's on-going long-term relationships with other agencies include measurement support for homeland security applications starting in the 1970's and measurement quality assurance support to the National Cancer Institute begun in the late 1980's. In the area of measurement services, CSTL provides over two-thirds of NIST's Standard Reference Materials, performs about 50 percent of all NIST calibrations for physical measurements, and is the prominent source of NIST's Standard Reference Data. These services are provided to high technology industries as well as mature industries. CSTL's full-time permanent technical staff is augmented by about 240 guest researchers who help the lab stay focused on new measurement techniques and capabilities.
Dr. May also highlighted the issue of constantly balancing the "old" measurement needs with "new" needs to remain relevant which requires more collaborations and strategic partnerships with the private sector, other agencies, and National Metrological Institutes. He noted that the direction of CSTL's programs are determined by interactions with a variety of stakeholders, stakeholder roadmaps and needs assessments, and NIST-convened workshops. For example, CSTL plays a key role in helping the chemical industry respond to international regulatory requirements such as EU directives regarding measurement traceability of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices and the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS).
As an example of the lab's program selection process, Dr. May described the evolution of CSTL's Healthcare Measurements and Standards Program from clinical diagnostics to new areas. CSTL's priority-setting process for all of their activities includes the "CSTL 5+1 Criteria," their version of the Heilmeier questions. When the first five criteria receive a positive response, then the sixth criteria covering the science/technology opportunity becomes the driver. CSTL's future healthcare measurements and standards program will include genomics; proteomics; metabolomics; and cell-based diagnostics, therapies, and screening.
In conclusion, Dr. May presented
the vision for CSTL with six areas for success and emphasized the challenge
of balancing research and services, projects and people, and new and existing
strengths, skill sets, and expertise.
For more details, see Dr. May's presentation.
Discussion
Competencies in Biosciences - Dr. Serum remarked that CSTL has done an extraordinary job over the last ten years in balancing their load to meet their customer needs. However, over the last ten years, he has been frustrated with understanding NIST's strategy in response to the needs in biosciences and biotechnology. He applauds the renaming of the new Biochemical Science division. He asked about CSTL's competencies that will allow it to move from historically trying to do something for everyone to a specific focus. For example, in the area of healthcare, CSTL is trying to address all the areas of biotechnology, including cell-based measurements. How much discussion took place to identify NIST's real competencies in these areas? Dr. May responded that multiple divisions in CSTL are involved with these new areas and the new CSTL organization structure should help break the biotechnology barrier.
Guest Researchers - Dr. Heimbrook remarked that resource levels connect to strategy and noted that over half of CSTL's staff is comprised of guest researchers who are potentially out of the lab's control. She asked whether these researchers are clearly focused in a particular area and how they relate to CSTL's priorities. Dr. May responded that the guest researchers are a "mixed bag." Many are attracted to the CSTL programs where they feel they can make a contribution, where they have a vested interest, or where they can lend a skill set. About half of these researchers are strategically driven where CSTL invites them to work at NIST because of their skill set.
NIH Relationship - Dr. Baer noted that Dr. Jeffrey mentioned the need for defining NIST's role in bio. He asked if CSTL has a successful model for expanding its programs with NIH. Dr. May indicated that NIH views NIST as being able to provide the infrastructure.
Funding - Mr. Starnes asked about CSTL's funding sources. Dr. May noted that about 40 percent of CSTL's core funds provide measurement services to their customers and some core funds help support dissemination activities. In regards to the need for more external funding, Dr. May indicated that there is a healthy mix of core funds with external funds. CSTL has a successful relationship with NCI and NIH because NIST identifies the problem and contributes some of its funding to the infrastructure costs and NIH pays for the incremental costs. This is the way to establish partnerships.
Industry Partnerships - Mr. Starnes asked about industry partnerships. Dr. May replied that industry's position is that they have already paid for support in tax dollars. NIST is not comfortable with industry's timescales that may not allow sufficient time to do what is needed and some industries are not very patient. Industry often helps to identify the measurement problem, NIST directs its resources to deliver the service, and then industry pays for the actual service. Dr. Jeffrey noted that NIST's niche is in the noncompetitive areas that involve an entire industry.
Priority-setting - Dr. Keck asked how CSTL knows that they are developing measurement tests in the right areas. Dr. May responded that their program priorities are based on interactions with many people, roadmaps, and the lab's capabilities. If CSTL's capabilities do not match the needs, then the needed capabilities drive their recruitment efforts.
Mr. Saponas asked what process is used to fund priorities. Dr. May replied that CSTL does not have a zero base budget like other labs. New initiative funds are directed in the areas with the best team of scientists rather than to the division that raised the problem. Exploratory research projects are funded annually on a competitive basis. If there is a need for a major reorganization, then discussions are held with the management team on how to move funds around with a solution that they can live with. CSTL is trying to establish a process for the December or January timeframe so that some program adjustments can be made in 2007. When Dr. Semerjian was the CSTL director, there was a 5 percent tax on the divisions that was effective in obtaining funding but this tax was not looked upon favorably by the staff. Dr. May decided on a different tactic. When funding needs arise, there will be a discussion with the management and funds will be reallocated from lower priority programs. The 5 percent tax may be reinstated in two years.
Metrics - Mr. Floss asked whether there were metrics for CSTL's vision. Dr. May responded that CSTL could provide qualitative rather than quantitative metrics.
Future Direction
- Ms. Grubbe asked Dr. May to identify the one or two items that worries him
the most as he thinks about the future and all of the areas for CSTL's involvement.
Dr. May responded that he worries the most about the part of the lab that is
more aligned with the physical measurements because most of the drivers are
in nano, bio, and information. The physical measurements are vitally important
to CSTL's customers, but not attractive enough to get additional support. There
are core competencies that must be maintained to support the industry but it
is not clear how to package them to get a new influx of funding. Other parts
of the lab realign well with NIST's new direction.
Ms. Grubbe applauds CSTL for their external international efforts and asked
Dr. May to identify his biggest concern in the international arena. He worries
the most about global competition and noted that measurement comparisons are
resource intensive. In the long-term, there may be a need to determine if the
expertise for leading and carrying out the international comparisons can be
done elsewhere.
Nanotechnology - Mr. Saponas asked if CSTL was involved with molecular self- assembly for nanotechnology. Dr. May noted that there was some work in this area in the Process Measurements division and elsewhere at NIST.
Ethics Training for
VCAT Members
Ms. Gaye Williams, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Administration,
Department of Commerce (DoC)
In her introductory remarks, Ms. Williams noted that VCAT members are considered as "special Government employees" since they serve less than 130 days per year and are held to a higher standard of conduct than other government employees. The impact of some of the ethics rules are minimal to the VCAT members since the Committee's recommendations are intended to advance NIST's internal policy and procedures rather than influence outside entities. She then distributed a "Summary of Ethics Rules for Special Government Employees" and reviewed those sections appropriate to the VCAT members. The topics covered: financial conflicts of interest, bribes and gifts, non-government activities, lobbying the Federal Government, misuse of government resources, and the need for a confidential financial disclosure report. The rules pertaining to appearances of biases and misuse of a prior relationship do not apply to the VCAT members. The members should contact the Department of Commerce Ethics Division directly if they have any specific questions about these rules.
Laboratory Tours
Supply Chain Interoperability - The NIST Manufacturing Interoperability Program is working with industry to remove informational barriers to globalization. Globalization is a major trend in manufacturing today which is causing an explosion of information sharing between U.S. manufacturers and their global partners. Economic success demands that this sharing be done correctly, efficiently, and inexpensively - the first time, every time. Future competition will be between supply chains rather than individual companies. This laboratory tour featured a demonstration of NIST's collaborative work with the private sector to build on-line testing and diagnosis tools to assure the conformance of software products to emerging e-commerce interoperability standards. Mr. Bill Harrelson, President and CEO of Accordare, participated in this demonstration via telecom.
Metrology for Quantitative Cell Biology - Many current and next-generation healthcare applications and healthcare products rely on the accurate assessment of cell response. Promising new drugs and diagnostic tests have clear biomedical and economic advantages, but key technical barriers need to be addressed for their full potential to be realized. One of these barriers involves the quality and reproducibility of measurements on cells. In collaboration with industry, academia, government, NIST is developing a combination of materials, chemistries, physical measurements and molecular biology tools to standardize cell-based measurements. This laboratory tour featured automated quantitative fluorescence microscopy imaging instruments for fixed and live cells, advanced protein-based cell culture substrates for standardizing cell culture conditions, and real-time response of live cells to nanoscale features of an extracellular matrix.
Assessment of NIST Measurement
and Standards Laboratories
Dr. Ross Corotis, Chair, Panel for Building and Fire Research, NRC Board
on Assessment of NIST Programs
Dr. Corotis expressed his pleasure to present the FY2004-2005 report of the National Research Council's (NRC) Board on Assessment of NIST Programs on behalf of the Board since the position of chair has been recently vacated. He has served on the Board as a member-at-large as well as chair of the Panel for the Building and Fire Research Laboratory. His last presentation to the VCAT on behalf of the Board was in 2001. He commended NIST for voluntarily subjecting its laboratories to a review and assessment of the quality of its programs from a group of 150 outside technical experts appointed by the NRC. These individuals are dedicated to helping NIST and receive no compensation for this service.
The FY 2004-2005 was the Board's first two-year assessment cycle and worked well but a new two-year review process will be initiated for FY 2006-2007. The Board had provided annual reports from 1959 to 2003. Dr. Corotis remarked that in over simplified terms, the VCAT's role is to focus on whether NIST's programs are meeting the nation's priorities in contrast to the Board's role to examine the technical merit of the laboratory programs relative to current state-of-the-art worldwide. In summary, the Board recognizes the excellence of the NIST personnel across-the-board.
Dr. Corotis reviewed the NIST Director's charge to the Board that consists of four topics that cover the 1) technical merit of the laboratory programs; 2) effectiveness of the programs and disseminated results; 3) degree to which the programs meet their intended needs; and 4) adequacy of the facilities, equipment, and human resources to support high quality technical programming. The charge can change at the discretion of the NIST director. He then described the composition of the Board and each Operating Unit's panel and noted that the heart of the assessment takes place at the panel and subpanel level. In accordance with NRC's "meta" charge, the panel provides informal, constructive, direct feedback to NIST scientists and middle management while the Board provides a public, NRC-approved report useful for Laboratory, government, and public audiences.
Dr. Corotis also described NIST's expanded mission, noted the difficulty of balancing its traditional roles in metrology and standards development with its broader role in developing enabling technologies, and identified the major challenges for NIST. These challenges are: 1) meeting the needs of emerging technological areas in biosciences and biotechnologies, nanotechnology, environment, and information technology; 2) responding to national crises requiring rapid testing and analysis; 3) balancing traditional service activities and new science; and 4) meeting the needs of new customers. For example, Dr. Corotis noted that there are many roles for NIST in the bio area that do not compete with NIH. Dr. Corotis also identified the staffing challenges that resulted from a 23 percent reduction in full-time permanent staff and a 20 percent reduction in full-time equivalents in nine years. These challenges address recruitment in the emerging technological areas, simultaneously maintaining traditional service activities and the research programs; long-range planning for staff retirements and turnover; and morale.
The NRC Board identified eight major issues in its FY 2004-2005 review. Under strategic foci, NIST needs to identify emerging areas and develop appropriate strategies for funding new research; expand the use of matrix management to promote cross-laboratory collaboration; and address staffing problems associated with interdisciplinary versus multidisciplinary research. Another issue is the expanding collaborations between NIST and other organizations which require a consistent perspective on intellectual property rights. The NRC Board also raised the issue of the possibility of reviewing the Boulder facility as a separate entity, for the first time, to identify opportunities. To address the issue of balancing new science and traditional roles, the NRC Board recommended that NIST address staffing concerns and develop criteria for setting priorities. Lastly, NIST should address more effective dissemination strategies for communicating to new audiences by improving the use of information technology and the NIST website.
In conclusion, Dr. Corotis recited a quote from the report that highlights NIST's absolutely vital role and superb performance in supporting as well as facilitating the further development of the technological base of the U.S. economy, and its continuing attention to the needs of its customers.
For more details, see Dr. Corotis' presentation.
Discussion
Two-Year Review Cycle - Dr. Serum remarked that he served on the Board when it began to debate the new two-year review cycle and asked how the Board dealt with the biggest issue of how to integrate program relevance spanning over the course of a two-year review cycle. Dr. Corotis responded that although one report was written at the end of the two-year cycle, the panel members met every year and combined their notes from their yearly visits to NIST. For the new biennial review cycle beginning in FY 2006, half of the NIST labs will be reviewed in the first year and the other half will be reviewed in the second year. The panels probably will not meet in the off years and this new process is expected to work fine. Some NRC members complained about this new process while others found it favorable. Dr. Corotis has encouraged informal off year interactions between the scientists and the members. The biggest problem is to get started with the new process. Staff changes at NRC and NIST and the retirement of Ken Keller, the past chair, have caused delays. A new chair is needed and the Board must get organized. Dr. Corotis does not want to skip reviews in FY 2006 or have a new set of members selected every two years. Instead, staggered four-year terms are desirable. The members are selected in a collaborative effort between NIST and the NRC, but the NRC is responsible for actually appointing the members for an independent assessment.
Major NRC Issues - Ms. Grubbe asked which of the major issues received the most discussion in the deliberations and to provide some background on the other issues. Dr. Corotis responded that the main issue focused on NIST's role in emerging technologies and the associated staffing issues related to addressing the new areas while maintaining traditional roles in metrology and standards. He further noted that NIST's collaborations are good and can be expanded. There are no significant issues noted at the Boulder laboratories and the issue regarding effective dissemination strategies is very straightforward. NIST's role in bio and nano is a major concern and Dr. Corotis proposed that the VCAT address this issue. NIST's role in these areas may overlap other national labs and universities. A real challenge for the VCAT is to examine what is NIST's exact role in these areas in the context of the NIST mission.
NIST Director's Closing Remarks - Dr. Jeffrey discussed the value of the Board's discussions with senior management as part of their informal interactions.
The Role of Economic
Analysis at NIST
Dr. Gary Anderson, Economist, NIST Program Office
In his introductory remarks, Dr. Jeffrey noted that one of Dr. Anderson's first assignments in the Program Office was to analyze how economic analysis could be employed to enhance NIST's core programs. Dr. Anderson acknowledged Dr. Greg Tassey as the key driver behind this analysis and that the presentation relied heavily on the work he had performed over the past 25 years. This presentation included an analysis of NIST's role in innovation, economics and strategic planning, examples of NIST's impacts and lessons learned, and plans for moving forward to achieve positive results for NIST and the Nation.
Dr. Anderson reviewed the NIST mission statement that begins with the phrase, "To promote U.S. innovation…" He then described a timeline of science and technology development that illustrates how NIST provides the infrastructural technologies - infratechnologies - that impact every stage of innovation from scientific discovery to market transactions in mature technologies.
Writing in 1962, Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow pointed out that the creation of new scientific and technical knowledge is best understood as the production of information. The nature of the economic problems associated with the production of information is quite different than typical goods and services. Because any insurance against the failure to produce new knowledge would destroy the incentive to create, the only way for private companies to produce basic science is to "self-insure" against scientific risk by funding a wide array of disparate research projects. Asking how the world had changed since 1962, Dr. Anderson noted that increased global competition and regulatory changes that have enhanced competition have diminished the ability of private industry to "self-insure" and support basic science and infratechnology. A quote by Auserwald and Branscomb in 2005 highlighted the erosion of U.S. industry's ability to sustain funding of basic research. At the same time, the scientific content of products increased, making NIST's unique role in the innovation process more important than ever.
Dr. Anderson noted the importance of developing metrics for scientific projects at the NIST level with a supporting quote by John Marburger that highlighted the need for the U.S. government to be able to measure the success of research projects. A chart was presented that showed the estimated annual costs to industry of not having critical infratechnologies associated with interoperability, deregulation of electric utilities, software testing, and medical testing. These costs, derived from NIST strategic planning studies, range from $.06 billion to $60 billion. NIST can use this information to help guide its future.
Dr. Anderson also provided an overview and examples of the 19 retrospective economic studies performed by NIST since 1996 that indicated an average benefit-cost ratio of 44:1 over a wide range of technologies. He then described three high-level lessons learned from several of these studies: 1) supply chains matter and should be brought together as part of the NIST infratechnology development program; 2) infratechnology needs/impacts of this-generation technology are critical; and 3) managing the transition to next-generation technology requires careful analysis and portfolio management.
A graph of the ratio of
NIST STRS funding compared to industry-funded R&D from 1970-2004 indicates
that NIST funding has fallen relative to industry funding. Dr. Anderson noted
that this suggests that in the future NIST must carefully plan its investments
if it is to meet the needs of industry. To help move forward, NIST is conducting
programmatic studies; planning additional microeconomic project planning and
impact studies; and considering other types of prospective and retrospective
analysis, such as quality-adjusted performance metrics, statistical analysis
of NIST-generated patents, and econometric studies based on linked firm-level
data. Dr. Anderson also showed how all of this information will be used as the
economic and policy analysis is integrated into strategic planning, the budget
process, and economic impact assessments in a continuous cycle. In conclusion,
NIST's economic analysis can provide a strong connection to national needs,
a clear rationale for NIST's unique role, and a demonstrated impact on economic
security, which will result in positive results in innovation for NIST and the
Nation.
For more details, see Dr. Anderson's presentation.
Discussion
Graph of Ratio of NIST STRS to Industry-Funded R&D - Mr. Saponas stated that this graph tells an incredible story and asked about the supporting data. Dr. Tassey verified that the NIST budget remained relatively flat while industry's R&D budget increased. Mr. Saponas asked if NIST had the data related to the components of the technology, whether there is a shift in the technology over the 35-year timeframe, and to what extent should NIST be leading the standards in a particular technology. Dr. Anderson responded that NIST could break down the STRS amounts by lab or technical areas and that NSF provides the costs associated with applied, basic, and development by industry, academia, and government. However, there is no public access to the denominator that breaks down the R&D funding by technology area.
Mr. Starnes remarked that the breath of the NSF data may be broader than NIST's data. NIST responded that the denominator used in this graph is the total amount of industry's R&D and that NIST's conclusion regarding unmet needs is fair. NIST has knowledge that corporate labs are not as dominant as in the past and the private sector does not have the ability to deliver the basic technology infrastructure. This analysis includes total industry-funded R&D, including industry funded R&D performed by other entities. The bottom line interpretation is that if NIST wants to meet industry's needs, it must be more strategic as it moves forward.
Economic Impact Studies - NIST noted that the benefit-cost ratio of 44:1 is an average for the 19 studies since 1996 and that the calculation of an overall NIST economic benefit using the same microeconomic technique would be prohibitively expensive.
Strategic Planning Studies -- Mr. Starnes remarked that there were prospective opportunities related to the strategic planning studies and asked how they were used to drive initiatives, such as information technology. In his opinion, the $60 billion cost to industry of inadequate infrastructure for software testing is low. Dr. Jeffrey responded that the supply chain integration initiative is tied to the interoperability studies. NIST is trying to use the prospective studies in their priority setting process and an increased effort is needed in this area. The diagram of the planned integration process shows how these studies relate to NIST's planning process. The VCAT is now beginning to hear about the economic tools and methodologies that NIST will be using to develop its strategic plan.
IT Investments -- Mr. Starnes expressed his concern about the expected rate of return for the data encryption standard and emphasized that there is an underinvestment in IT. Dr. Jeffrey agreed that there is a need to look at broader impact of the investments.
Discounts Rates - In a discussion about the use of discount rates, NIST indicated that the preliminary industry studies covered a feasible timeframe rather than through the end of a technology life cycle. Costs were readily available from NIST budgets and were augmented where appropriate. The impact of most projects spanned over a 7 to 10 year timeframe, while others covered 25 years. However, measured benefits in these longer-range studies were "low" because older benefit data was simply not available and could not be reliably estimated.
Prospective Studies - Dr. Serum asked about NIST's plans for conducting prospective studies and suggested that NIST also examine secondary benefits. Dr. Anderson responded that prospective studies have been done of the costs of inadequate infrastructure technology as shown on the chart and in future studies NIST will move from project level to the programmatic level. Dr. Serum stated that retrospective studies are "feel good" studies and a justification for existence in contrast to prospective studies that provide a choice for projects with impact on global industries. For example, a prospective study of the impact of a primary measurement, such as a DNA array standard, where the primary beneficiaries are standard array companies is miniscule relative to the overall impact on healthcare and quality of life. Dr. Serum stated that NIST's mission went beyond impacting the primary beneficiary. Dr. Jeffrey acknowledged this and noted that the measured direct benefit-to-cost-ratio of NIST's alternate refrigerants work was good but the aggregate impact on the quality of life is much larger. NIST recognizes that sustainability and the quality of life are important aspects that will continue to be a part of strategic planning.
When asked about the value
of the cadre of NIST's projects based on the retrospective studies, NIST responded
that just the benefits to direct recipient industies were estimated, excluding
downstream benefits to the entire economy realized through multiplier effects.
Dr. Tassey noted that a very rough estimate of industry's investment in measurement
as a share of GDP is about 3 percent. Dr. Jeffrey added that the OECD estimates
that 80 percent of global economic commerce is dependent on standards conformity.
Mr. Starnes asked about studies related to the interoperability costs associated
with medical testing. These studies have not yet been conducted.
Mr. Saponas remarked that the greatest challenge for NIST is where to make macro decisions about funding and the technology trends that NIST can impact. The question to be asked is what investments are needed to be in front of the curve rather than behind the curve. The toughest decisions are those that deal with moving investments and this analysis is needed before staff changes are made. In the private sector, these decisions are driven by the market. This is not the case for the government that has a tougher problem with these decisions.
Dr. Anderson remarked that the term "gap analysis" is used often in the NIST Program Office. More prospective studies are needed to identify the needs of a particular industry. Given where NIST is today, the Institute has to rely on studies performed by other organizations about these needs.
Mr. Saponas suggested that needs should be identified at a level above the current industry. Dr. Jeffrey agreed and noted that NIST is trying to get ahead of the curve in nanotechnology and quantum information. NIST has a handle on the immediate needs in these two areas better than any other government agency. NIST will look to the USMS to address the mid-term needs in these areas. In the next ten years, the global impact of nanotechnology is expected to exceed one trillion dollars and there will be a huge impact if NIST is not ahead of the curve.
Mr. Starnes stated that
this was an impressive presentation and recommended that NIST fill the gaps
and complete the analysis.
Wrap-up Session
Disclaimer: These minutes are not a verbatim transcript of the speaker's remarks but rather an interpretation of their main points. The comments of the VCAT members reflect their individual views, not necessarily the views of the Committee.
Introduction
The Chair welcomed the attendees to this session that will include feedback related to the March 7, 2006, meeting and the December 2005 meeting held in Boulder, Colorado.
Ms. Grubbe stated that the overarching theme for today's discussion was the question of how the VCAT can help Dr. Jeffrey and NIST. The VCAT has been struggling with how they can be more effective in using their expertise to make NIST better. According to Ms. Grubbe, the VCAT was not quite sure that they heard much about strategy at yesterday's meeting.
Strategic Planning
Dr. Jeffrey responded that there has been an on-going dialogue starting with the former chair, Dr. Schweighart, about how to use the VCAT's expertise. With regards to strategic planning, he showed the VCAT a work-in-progress intentionally. The VCAT has observed strategic planning at NIST over several years and there is now a different NIST. Both NIST and the VCAT have lessons learned from their experience in strategic planning. He acknowledged that the VCAT was presented with NIST's strategic planning efforts in pieces and he will try to have the overall "Plan for the Plan" ready for the June 2006 meeting. Dr. Jeffrey will be looking for the VCAT's views on this plan in regards to what works and what does not work, for example, is the vision consistent and is an objective process for prioritization in place that will help ensure that NIST is maintaining core competencies and identifying emerging trends before they become critical. He reminded the VCAT that NIST, as a federal R&D agency, is different from the private sector in respect to the time horizon and metrics. Each Operating Unit (OU) has different strategic planning experiments that are based on different cultures, customer bases, and feedback mechanisms. These are probably all valid but if there are missing pieces, NIST will try to stitch them all together. He noted that yesterday's questions from the VCAT were more in-depth and more penetrating than previous meetings and that these types of questions are good although not always comfortable. Dr. Jeffrey then stated that the strategic planning process is a high priority agenda item for NIST and the VCAT.
Dr. Jeffrey suggested a second area where the VCAT could help NIST: Are there major opportunities that NIST is not taking advantage of, such as outreach to various industry groups? NIST is pretty good at outreach, but is NIST missing other opportunities? Are there specific areas that NIST should examine? If so, NIST may explore these areas but may respond that it will not take any further action.
Dr. Jeffrey posed a third question for discussion: What are the VCAT's suggestions for other areas where they can help NIST? He reminded the VCAT that he began in December to couch the idea of a single thematic approach for meetings. The March 2006 meeting was the first full meeting dedicated to strategic planning, although the VCAT may not have recognized this theme. He recommended that he and the chair have a follow-up phone call over the next few days to map out what the VCAT would like at the next meeting, including advanced materials that will enable the members to have a more in-depth focus on specific issues. There may be a round-robin email exchange on this topic before this discussion.
Ms. Grubbe noted that there is a great deal of interest in exactly what is the strategic plan and where does the NIST director see the Institute's future. It is essential that an overview of the strategic planning process be shared at the next meeting along with any useful advanced materials. In addition, Dr. Jeffrey should indicate the strengths and weaknesses in the process at the top-level and the next level down. Also, are all of the OUs "nailing down" their competencies? The VCAT would then provide their views on the various elements of the overall plan and the next level down.
Performance Measures and Metrics/International Competitiveness
Ms. Grubbe remarked that the VCAT also would like to have a better understanding of NIST's performance measures and metrics. These measures are needed for the NIST director and the VCAT to track improvements. Since the USMS report will be ready by June, the VCAT would like to know how this report will tie into the strategic plan and NIST's performance measures.
The VCAT also wants the NIST director to provide his views on how competitive NIST is in the international arena. The sense of the VCAT is that the U.S. could be slipping because other countries may be working more strongly with China. They also questioned if NIST is working with India.
Dr. Jeffrey responded that NIST is "all ears" on the topic of performance measures and metrics. There are a set of measures that NIST must report as part of the President's Management Agenda and he will provide these and other measures to the VCAT. These activities are easy to measure but may not be very meaningful, for example, the number of papers published. NIST would like to be able to state its impact on the GDP, but this also is difficult to obtain without a huge error bar. Since NIST is a government agency, profit, loss, and return on investments are not appropriate measures.
Mr. Saponas suggested that NIST's investment strategies can serve as input to performance measures that illustrate where NIST has been, what NIST is doing now, and what changes are being made for the future. This breakdown is very important and fundamental for priority setting. NIST should indicate how their funding requested in the FY 2007 President's budget would be invested if received. He noted that he understands the difficulty of developing output measures.
Dr. Serum recommended that NIST should measure most of those areas that are needed to accomplish the vision of its mission. NIST's mission was well articulated at yesterday's meeting, but core competencies were not well articulated. He was concerned that it was easy to create core competencies that simply cover NIST's current activities. Since NIST is the keeper of the technology for the U.S. competitiveness, there should be some measure of how effectively NIST accomplishes the mission of technology competitiveness as compared to global competitors, like China, to make sure that the U.S. stays on track.
Dr. Keck suggested that the VCAT provide examples of the types of measures used in their organizations. For example, in one of his past companies, he was asked to identify the top two competitors in regard to his own project and then track and report this information on a regular timescale. He noted that NIST may want to track this type of data for a particular area in their strategic plan or a core competence where it wants to be number one.
Mr. Floss noted the usefulness of stoplight charts and suggested, for example, that a stoplight chart for core competencies be used by the OU directors to set a context for discussions on where they are today and where they would like to be in the future.
Strategic Planning (continued)
Mr. Starnes noted that he understands that strategic planning is a long-term process and suggested that the "Plan for the Plan" includes a timeframe for when the VCAT will get the various pieces with guidance on how the VCAT can help in this process. He also acknowledged that NIST's political framework is different than a commercial timeframe but the VCAT is required by law to provide a report to Congress that describes how they have helped NIST and an assessment of NIST's progress. He further stressed that the VCAT members want to be of value.
Dr. Jeffrey responded that he strongly wants the VCAT to be useful and acknowledged that both the VCAT and the Senior Management Board have committed a tremendous amount of time to the meetings. Although the VCAT report is sent to Congress, the main audience is the NIST Director and the NIST senior management who would benefit the most from advice on how to improve the institution and how to measure this improvement. He welcomes the VCAT to "throw stones" at the "Plan for the Plan" that he will show them in June and hopes that the resulting Plan will outlast him and move NIST along the right path.
Dr. Serum stated that the added value of the VCAT was their expertise in industry and science and technology. When providing feedback to NIST on strategic planning, the VCAT should start by looking at NIST's mission in a global context and understanding the needed critical changes, response, and priorities. It was difficult for him to respond to yesterday's input without the NIST director providing the context of the higher level NIST-wide issues and drivers.
Dr. Cassidy apologized for his absence at yesterday's meeting and noted that his comments are a follow-up to the December 2005 meeting. In a climate of possible growth for NIST over the next ten years and the extraordinary events around the world, the assumption is that NIST will have an opportunity for investments. The VCAT should be able to look at the emerging strategic plan and see clear unambiguous choices. He will look to see if there is a notion for a plan for NIST rather than a collection of driven strategies, the degree of prioritization that will occur across the breadth of activities, and a clear understanding of NIST's role in international competitiveness. The strategy must be crystal clear to be useful as a strong context for decision-making for today and tomorrow, not necessarily in 10-20 years. When considering multiple years of growth, how will NIST be different 10 years out and what would be the new competitive areas?
Dr. Heimbrook reminded the group that Dr. Jeffrey stated that the strategic planning process is a priority and she would like to hear his vision of the process. According to Dr. Heimbrook, this meeting served as a snapshot that allowed the members to see the similarities and differences in strategic planning within NIST. While NIST may want local autonomy, there needs to be a global vision for planning, including how much planning should be done globally versus locally.
NIST Relevance
Mr. Noha stated that he thinks NIST's leadership position is slipping both nationally and globally, for example, in the area of sustainability which is becoming a big issue in Europe and around the world. This decline has a huge impact on the nation's economy and the U.S. cannot afford to let this trend continue. He stressed the need for the VCAT to inform the NIST director on what was going on "in the street." The VCAT can play a major role and provide input to NIST but only if given access to understanding what the NIST director is trying to accomplish. The VCAT knows what is happening in large corporations and some of the challenges faced by small suppliers and he and the other members would like to share their experiences from "the street." Dr. Jeffrey responded that he would absolutely share his views on strategic planning.
Mr. Starnes remarked that the VCAT members bring a market perspective as well as a shared mission to help increase NIST's relevance. In his opinion, NIST is relevant and the VCAT can help make NIST more relevant within their charter and in the best interests of NIST. For example, in his field of information technology, he sees some misalignment and noted that the VCAT's FY 2005 Annual Report shows a decrease in other agency funding in this area. He found yesterday's presentations very interesting, especially the demonstration in the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) that included a speaker from industry. To the extent that NIST wants the VCAT's help, he is willing to assist in increasing NIST's interactions with industry to help add value.
Dr. Serum declared that he does not share the view that NIST's leadership position is falling behind. In his opinion, NIST's research is getting better. He fears that NIST is being pulled impossibly in many different directions, and, as a solution, he encouraged NIST to make priority decisions. He urged NIST to select the breadth of technology vital to the most important industries and become the best-in-the-world in these areas, rather than to be good in all areas.
Performance Measures (continued)
Dr. Spong noted that he
saw a high-level presentation on strategic planning from the NIST director and
the nuts and bolts from the OUs, but not the "middle piece." He questioned
how the NIST director made his decisions and how he knows if he is meeting his
goals, and stressed the need for real measures to justify decisions.
Cross-OU Collaborations
Mr. Floss complimented NIST on the important cross-OU collaborations that were described in yesterday's session and questioned the extent to which the VCAT should be concerned with this topic. Ms Grubbe asked if there an effective way to measure these collaborations. Dr. Heimbrook responded that documentation of shared objectives would be of interest, particularly the investment strategies by each OU involved with the shared objectives. Mr. Floss agreed that a set of cross-OU objectives are needed to fulfill a set of strategies. Dr. Cassidy also noted the importance of counting people involved in the shared objectives and Mr. Saponas suggested that counting full-time-equivalents (FTEs) is an honest way to assess the commitment.
NIST Relevance (continued)/Customer Focus
Mr. Starnes described how
Intel is a good industry case study on how an organization can become more relevant.
Based on his close working relationship with Intel, Mr. Starnes made two fundamental
observations needed for organizations to become more relevant. They must demand
customer focus and must realign the organization and its spending with that
focus. Intel struggled with this concept because of its culture and it takes
time. At a certain point, there are no other choices than to become more customer-focused
and realign the organization and its spending with that focus. If an organization
makes the right choice, although painful for a while, they will receive the
benefits.
Ms. Grubbe asked the VCAT members what they would measure to understand NIST's
relevance. Mr. Starnes replied with an example from the MEL tour in which he
heard a vendor on the phone clearly express NIST's value in the area of operability
standards. This was the clearest expression of interdisciplinary high-value
added that Mr. Starnes has seen and questioned whether there were other opportunities
for NIST to replicate this model, such as medical applications systems. This
lab tour showed a market focus, direct relevance with economic impacts, and
a business process relative to industry where NIST core competencies are clearly
expressed.
Mr. Williams stated that speed is of the essence in industry and NIST for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the global economy. Since life cycles of various technologies are much shorter than in the past, industry and NIST must be intuitive in determining what basic infrastructure will be required in the next two generations.
Dr. Serum declared that he has been involved with NIST for over ten years and, in his view, NIST is more customer-focused than ever. In his opinion, the issue is what to do with customer feedback. How can NIST position technology to help prepare the customers for the future of international global competitiveness?
Mr. Starnes noted that Intel had dismantled its stovepipe organization, which was a cultural challenge. Ms. Grubbe then noted the need for an organization to be more market facing where the market dictates how it will be organized. Dr. Heimbrook questioned if NIST had the potential to create scenarios with market facing which could lead to a thought process for a richer strategic plan. She heard an OU director discuss an offsite where three such scenarios were considered and suggested that these scenarios be done at the top level of NIST.
Dr. Jeffrey referenced "The Art of Long View" that describes scenario planning. He agrees with many of the VCAT's comments but they should understand that NIST's market is industry, academia, and government and that NIST has different metrics and priorities than industry. He will be glad to identify the inputs to the plan and seek their views on its qualitative and quantitative aspects.
Standing Meeting Agenda Items
Ms. Grubbe noted that the VCAT members have the energy to meet for more than one day and would like to continue to address "meaty" agenda items and work through them similar to the March meeting. The members also want to ensure that their time is well spent but there are some underlying measures and other topics that are important for them to know, such as staff awards and safety data. She asked whether there was a way to include these topics as part of a standing agenda where this information could be shared in advance and lead to "questions by exception." Dr. Jeffrey responded that he was more than proud of the staff's technical accomplishments and would send this information in advance. He also would be glad to change the format of the briefings with "questions by exception." Ms. Grubbe then indicated that she will work "off-line" to prepare a standing agenda for those important items that the Committee needs to monitor as part of their duties and asked that the members provide their suggestions to her.
Standing Meeting Agenda Items: Monitoring VCAT Recommendations
Dr. Serum noted that the VCAT has a clear charter and legislative mandate to write a report with recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce. The VCAT also has the responsibility to monitor the progress of these recommendations. There should be some formal process for monitoring this progress, but not necessarily as a standing agenda item but rather on an "exception basis" as part of the quarterly meetings.
Ms. Grubbe asked the members for their input on the frequency of these progress reports. Mr. Floss suggested that a stoplight chart could be used on an "exception basis" in the quarterly meetings, as one example of a technique to evaluate progress. Ms. Grubbe and Mr. Floss will discuss this topic further off-line. Dr. Jeffrey requested a consensus on this item. Mr. Noha suggested that this process be as simple as possible, perhaps as easy as a one or two-page document, to ensure commitment and progress. He further stated that the VCAT should have an overriding protocol that the members should only provide comments if they address improvements for NIST.
Standing Meeting Agenda Items: Safety
Ms. Grubbe remarked that safety statistics are important to include as a standing agenda item on a quarterly basis because of the importance of caring for people and the dangerous chemicals at NIST. She will develop a format for the safety data and send it to Dr. Jeffrey.
Other Agenda Items: NIH, FDA, NIST Relationship
Dr. Baer requested that the NIH, FDA, and NIST relationship be clarified at a very senior level with a description of NIST's role in regards to NIH funding and interests. The role of NIST and the OUs should be clearly defined to ensure that the labs do not step on other agencies' turf. NIH and FDA also need this articulation. This clarification will help Dr. Baer recommend where NIST can grow it activities in these areas.
Standard Presentations
Mr. Starnes discussed the usefulness of consistent presentation formats for the continuity of related topics from meeting to meeting. He suggested that some minimum level of content be provided as well as a possible limit on the number of slides on related topics. Reviewing tactical details is not the best use of the VCAT's time.
Ms. Grubbe suggested that a standard outline be used for similar content. The outline could be expanded if there was a need for a particular focus from an OU. Once there is a strategic plan with qualitative and quantitative measures, the VCAT may want a high-level summary of 3-4 slides as a snapshot on a regular basis since it takes a long time to review all of the OUs. She agreed that it takes too much time to review the tactical details in consideration of other topics that may need the VCAT's help.
Dr. Keck noted that DARPA's approach is a wonderful mechanism for presenting individual project information, such as the use of Quad charts that can help identify accomplishments. Ms. Grubbe noted that she was not familiar with this approach but is looking forward to seeing DARPA's charts.
Other Agenda Items: U.S. Measurement System (USMS)
Ms. Grubbe summarized the VCAT's comments on the December 2005 USMS detailed presentation. She remarked that when the VCAT members asked questions, the presenter gave the perception that he was not receptive to their input. The VCAT did not come to an agreement on the USMS approach; however the plan was very action oriented and positive. A course correction is needed to allow time to select the appropriate sectors and then execute the plan. She also noted that there was no response to how the USMS report will be used and asked whether NIST has given some thought to how the report can be used in a larger context.
Mr. Floss asked what will happen with the June deliverables, what is the next step, and are the three selected industry sectors the right ones: semiconductors, automobiles, and software. Dr. Keck remarked that there was some difference of opinion among the VCAT on the USMS process and he is waiting for the next USMS report in June.
Dr. Jeffrey responded that the use of the USMS report will be described as part of NIST's strategic planning efforts. Since the first draft of the report is due to him in a couple of months, there is no time for a course correction. It is too late to take action on feedback received three months after the quarterly meeting. The USMS is in its first iteration as an experiment. The three sectors will help identify the process to be used in the future. Dr. Jeffrey remarked that he is much more optimistic than the VCAT about the USMS assessment and its value. After the next USMS briefing, the VCAT can discuss if NIST is on the right path and if the path needs to be redefined to move forward.
Other Agenda Items: Budget Process
Ms. Grubbe thanked Dr. Jeffrey
for providing the most lucid explanation of the budget process at the December
2005 meeting than any other NIST director.
Other Agenda Items: Outreach
Ms. Grubbe suggested that outreach be a topic for a future meeting when it can be discussed in the context of the strategic plan and the planning process. She remarked that the VCAT is always willing to help and support NIST outreach on an on-going basis. Mr. Floss stated that Dr. Jeffrey was doing an excellent job with outreach. Ms. Grubbe agreed that Dr. Jeffery has personally embraced outreach while talking to new groups and this is very positive.
Other Agenda Items:
Presentations by the VCAT
Dr. Cassidy asked the group about the usefulness of past presentations by VCAT
members and if these presentations should continue to be on the meeting agendas.
In his personal view, these presentations are a more symmetrical process as
the speaker is subjected to challenges and assumptions and other members can
share their experiences. If these presentations are useful, then they should
be included in planning the meeting topics and speakers.
Dr. Jeffrey responded that these presentations were useful from his perspective. He is a big supporter of formalized briefings on lessons learned and he pursued the December 2005 VCAT Panel session. Most of the Senior Management Board members agreed that these presentations were useful and some offered some specific topics for future meetings.
Dr. Hertz remarked that the presentations have been worthwhile and would be more helpful if the end of the talk focused on how a particular topic relates to NIST, for example, what is the direct bearing on NIST and how might NIST use this information. He suggested a future topic in which the members would describe how they have converted their organizations to be more market driven. Mr. Noha volunteered to speak on this topic and noted that all of the VCAT members have practical experience about successes and failures. Dr. Jeffrey reminded the group that NIST can learn as much from failures as successes.
Dr. May requested that the VCAT members also share their knowledge about successes and failures in other organizations and competitors as part of their presentations.
Dr. Hall indicated that that proper performance metrics are important in MEL and asked for future VCAT presentations that address what qualitative measures were used by their organizations, how the measures were developed, and how the measures were applied.
Ms. Grubbe will use this input in planning the June 2006 meeting which may have a VCAT sharing session. She will be looking for 2 or 3 members to speak about 20 minutes each about metrics or measures and how to use them to drive process changes back into the work process.
Summary
Ms. Grubbe suggested the
June 2006 VCAT meeting topics based on today's wrap-up session. These topics
are the "Plan for the Plan", the plan to date, performance metrics
and measures with sharing by the VCAT and NIST, the USMS, and global competitiveness.
Since this is a very full list, the meeting may need to be longer than one and
one-half days. The members should let her know if they have a problem with an
extended meeting. Ms. Grubbe requested that NIST provide the VCAT with the President's
Management Agenda to set the context for the VCAT's help.
Summary: Performance Metrics
Dr. Jeffrey noted that the VCAT may be embarrassed by the metrics that are used to judge NIST. Mr. Saponas remarked that while he ran a central research lab for four years, he struggled with metrics until finally they measured investment activity. The number of FTEs had to total approximately the number of people which eliminated the game playing.
Mr. Noha indicated that there was an exhaustive set of metrics associated with the MEP centers and these may be what the VCAT would like to see for NIST. Dr. Jeffrey responded that NIST would send the VCAT the web link to the MEP metrics.
NIST Director's Closing Remarks
Dr. Jeffrey remarked that this discussion on how to raise the value and utility of the VCAT was invaluable. He noted that the VCAT is a tremendous valuable body and that he appreciates the chair asking the questions that NIST does not want to be asked but must be asked.
Ms. Grubbe adjourned the meeting at 11:32 am.
Page created: 12/18/06
Page maintained by: VCAT webmaster
