1. 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The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.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.

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

3. 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

4. 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”

5. 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!

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 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

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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. Then what?
February 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