Archived File   The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

Where are we? Where do we go from here? Constance W. Atwell Rodney S. Brown

Project to date July 7, 2003- Committee on Science meeting August 6, 2003 Federal Register Request for Information October 27- December 10, 2003 Regional Meetings November 25- Committee on Science meeting

Summary Science- Partnership- Accountability- Principle: “Maximize the Public Investment in Science by Maximizing the Intellectual Capital of Our Scientists” Partnership- Principle: “Collaborate on Business Systems While Supporting Outstanding Research Projects” Accountability- Principle: “Make it Easy to Do the Right Thing” Costs and Infrastructure- Principle: “Let Science Drive Administration, Not Administration Drive Science”

RBM Strategic Vision Paradigms Principles Policies Performance “4 Ps” Research support and policies should be consistent with and “flow down” from the strategic vision “4 Ps” Famous Washington Irish bar Shamrock = “Good Luck” in the process!

4P Strategic “Flow Down” Example 1- Principal Investigators- Paradigm: Primary Relationship is One of Investment in Research Principle: Stewardship and Accountability Are Based Primarily on Scientific Outcomes Principle: Stewardship and Accountability May Vary Based on Mechanisms of Support Sample “Flow Down” Policy: Investigators on Basic Assistance Projects May “Certify” Effort on Progress Reports. Sample Process: Request FDP to Conduct a Pilot and Document Benefits and Implications

4P Strategic “Flow Down” Example 2- Collaborative Research Paradigm: Multidisciplinary research is increasing dramatically Principle: It is in the best interest of research to ensure that investigators can collaborate effectively and efficiently Principle: Multidisciplinary research across institutions is collaborative and continues the assistance relationship Principle: Most agencies and institutions are routinely doing business together as business partners Sample “Flow Down” Policy: Streamline collaborative relationships with standard assistance agreements and eliminate A-133 audit review among routine business partners Sample Process: Request FDP to Conduct a Pilot and Document Benefits and Implications

4P Strategic “Flow Down” Example 3- Recipient Institutions Paradigm: The relationship between the Federal agencies and recipient institutions is one primarily of partnership. Principle: Each party has a stake in the performance, success, and the financial viability of the other Principle: The “business” relationship with the Top 150-200 institutions is relatively stable and should be managed at the institutional level, not at the transactional level. Sample Policy: Streamline financial management including one letter of credit system with quarterly cash transaction reports as the one routine, financial report Sample Process: The NSTC could fund a study of the cost benefits and risks of alternative systems

Selecting Priorities for RMB January 7, 2004 - Research Business Models Subcommittee and Working Groups retreat Synthesize topics, select strategic themes, assign initial priorities January 15, 2004 - Research Business Models Subcommittee- principals only retreat Final priorities and implementation plans

Criteria for Selecting Topics or Projects Importance- central issues that reinforce the strategic vision and have a significant impact on maximizing the public investment in science and the intellectual capital of scientists Ease of Accomplishment- issues that range from “low hanging fruit” to those requiring considerable consensus development or change in law, regulation, and policy Execution or Responsibility- issues that “must be done by RBM” (there is no other group that will do it or is a position to do it), or those that another group is already doing.

Analysis of Issues Positive outcomes to be expected Barriers/obstacles to progress Tradeoffs that may be necessary Players needed to effect change Group or individual with primary responsibility for addressing the issue Steward from relevant Working Group to shepherd implementation

Then what? February 2004 - Committee on Science confirm topics and plans February/March 2004 – initiate plans, assign milestones, and anticipate outcomes February/March 2004 – NSTC meeting(s) to secure Department heads commitment to implementation