UCAR Strategic Plan and Competition

1
UCAR Strategic PlanandCompetition

• Rick Anthes
• Software Engineers Meeting
• 25 October 2006

2
Support and advance our university
consortium Conduct and enable a broad research
program Develop and employ increasingly capable
observing systems Provide innovative and
powerful information technologies, services, and
tools Create, catalyze and support world-class
science education programs, resources and
communities Cultivate an environment of
organizational excellence Engage people with
diverse perspectives Transfer scientific
knowledge and new technologies to the public and
private sectors
www.ucar.edu/strat_plan/
3
Process

• Started in January 2006
• UCAR Management Com and Presidents Council
• University Relations Committee in April
• Board of Trustees in May and June
• Version sent to Presidents of all UCAR Member and
  Academic Affiliate institutions and
  representatives on 7 July
• Response from 21 institutions so far generally
  quite positive
• Some very good comments
• Distributed to all UCAR staff
• Discussed at Members meeting in October
• Revised version based on all these comments!
• In production-final version due mid December!

4
Institutions Responding

• Cornell
• DRI Nevada
• Maryland
• Miami
• Missouri
• New Hampshire
• New Mexico Tech
• North Dakota
• Rutgers
• Stanford
• Utah

• Texas AM
• Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Yale
• York (Toronto)
• Minnesota
• U.C. Irvine
• McGill
• Michigan
• Chicago
• Iowa

5
The Competition of the Management of NCAR

• Denver Post Article 10-25-06
• http//www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4544800

6
UCAR

• Founded in 1960 by the university community to
  create, operate, and manage NCAR on behalf of NSF
  and the universities
• Represents one of the most active and broad
  community partnerships anywhere in science
• Universities
• NSF
• NCAR

7
UCARs Member Institutions (2006/1960)
University of Alabama in Huntsville University of
Alaska University at Albany, State University
of NY University of Arizona Arizona State
University California Institute of
Technology University of California,
Berkeley University of California, Davis
University of California, Irvine University of
California, Los Angeles University of Chicago
Colorado State University University of Colorado
at Boulder Columbia University Cornell
University University of Denver Drexel
University Florida State University Georgia
Institute of Technology Harvard
University University of Hawaii University of
Houston
Howard University University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Iowa State University University
of Iowa The Johns Hopkins University University
of Maryland Massachusetts Institute of
Technology McGill University University of
Miami University of Michigan-Ann Arbor University
of Minnesota University of Missouri Naval
Postgraduate School University of Nebraska
Lincoln Nevada System of Higher Education
University of New Hampshire New Mexico Institute
of Mining and Technology New York
University North Carolina State University The
Ohio State University University of Oklahoma Old
Dominion University Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University Princeton
University Purdue University University of Rhode
Island Rice University Rutgers University Saint
Louis University Scripps Institution of
Oceanography at UCSD Stanford University Texas A
M University University of Texas at
Austin Texas Tech University University of
Toronto Utah State University University of
Utah University of Virginia University of
Washington Washington State University University
of Wisconsin- Madison University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution University of Wyoming Yale
University York University
8
Original Reasons for Establishing NCAR

• The need to mount an attack on the fundamental
  atmospheric problems on a scale commensurate with
  their global nature and importance.

2. The fact that the extent of such an attack
requires facilities and technological assistance
beyond those that can properly be made available
at individual universities.
3. The fact that the difficulties of the problems
are such that they require the best talents from
various disciplines to be applied to them in a
coordinated fashion, on a scale not feasible in a
university department.
1959 Blue Book
4. The fact that such an Institute offers the
possibility of preserving the natural alliance of
research and education without unbalancing the
university programs.
9
UCAR Management of NCAR

• Represents and engages the academic community in
  governance, management and strategic advice
• Supports the community through science,
  facilities, education, training, communications,
  and advocacy programs
• Provides an effective business and legal
  framework in support of NCAR.

10
69 UCAR Member Institutions Two representatives
each meet annually
UCAR Board of Trustees
UCAR
Corporate Affairs
Finance Administration
UCAR Office of Programs
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Education Outreach SOARS
Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology E
ducation and Training (COMET)
Constellation Observing System for
Meteorology Ionosphere Climate (COSMIC)
Global Learning Observation to Benefit the
Environment(GLOBE)
Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE)
Research Applications Laboratory
Earth Observing Laboratory (EOL)
Societal- Environmental Research and Education
(SERE)
Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory (ESSL)
Computational Information Systems
Laboratory (CISL)
Atmospheric Chemistry Division (ACD)
Climate Global Dynamics Division (CGD)
Advanced Study Program (ASP)
Scientific Computing Division (SCD)
Unidata
Visiting Scientists Programs (VSP)
Joint Office for Science Support (JOSS)
National Science Digital Library (NSDL)
High Altitude Observatory (HAO)
Mesoscale Microscale Meteorology (MMM)
Institute for the Study of Society and
Environment (ISSE)
Institute for Mathematics Applied to
Geosciences (IMAGe)
The Institute for Multidisciplinary Earth Studies
(TIMES)
11
NSF Policy on Competition

The NSBAffirms its strong support for the
principle that expiring awards are to be
recompeted unless it is judged to be in the best
interest of U.S. science and engineering not to
do so. This position is based on the conviction
that peer-reviewed competition and recompetition
is the process most likely to assure the best use
of NSF funds for supporting research and
education.
(NSB-97-224) November 1997
12
NSF Statement on Competition

• Acknowledges
• Major facilities often include funding to support
  research by facilities staff and employ a
  substantial number of scientists and engineers
• Allocation of resources for staff research should
  be governed by rigorous merit review based on NSF
  review criteria
• Special Rules for FFRDCs (FAR, part 35)
• Examination of the sponsors continuing technical
  needs
• Consideration of alternative sources to meet
  those needs
• Assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of
  the FFRDC in meeting sponsors needs
• Adequacy of the FFRDC management and
• Determination that the criteria under which the
  FFRDC was established continue to be satisfied
• Review must take place at least once every five
  years

NSF-97-216 May 1997
13
What is being competed?

• Setting
• NSF prohibited by its founding legislation from
  operating its own facilities.
• Management organizations manage NSFs National
  Centers.
• University Cooperation for Atmospheric Sciences
  (UCAR) has managed the operation of NCAR for NSF
  since the NCARs founding in 1960
• NCAR was designated an FFRDC by NSF in the early
  1970s

14
WHAT IS AN FFRDC?

• A federally funded research and development
  center (FFRDC) is a unique organization that
  assists the U.S. government with scientific
  research and analysis, systems development, and
  systems acquisition. FFRDCs bring together the
  expertise and outlook of government, industry,
  and academia to solve complex technical problems
  that cannot be solved by any one group alone.
• Working in the public interest, FFRDCs operate as
  strategic partners with their sponsoring
  government agencies
• FFRDCs are organized as independent,
  not-for-profit entities, with limitations and
  restrictions on their activities. This special
  standing permits a degree of access and a
  long-term perspective not shared by commercial
  contractors.
• All FFRDCs are sponsored by government agencies,
  but they are privately administered by
  universities and other not-for-profit
  organizations

15
General Guidelines

• Primary activities basic research, applied
  research, development, or management of RD
• Constitute a separate organizational unit
• Performs actual RD or RD management either upon
  direct request of the Government or under a broad
  charter from the Government, but in either case
  under the direct monitorship of the Government.
• Receives its major financial support (70 or
  more) from the Federal Government, usually from
  one agency.
• Has or is expected to have a long-term
  relationship with its sponsoring agency (about
  five years or more), as evidenced by the specific
  obligations it and the agency assume. 1
• Most or all of the facilities are owned or funded
  for in the contract (or Cooperative Agreement) by
  the Government.
• Has an average annual budget (operating and
  capital equipment) of at least 500,000.

16
Modification by OMB (1984)

• The activity is operated, managed and/or
  administered by either a university or consortium
  of universities, other nonprofit organization or
  industrial firm as an autonomous organization or
  as an identifiable separate operating unit of a
  parent organization.
• A long term relationship evidenced by specific
  agreement exists or is expected to exist between
  the operator, manager, or administrator of the
  activity and its primary sponsor.
• The activity (organization and/or facilities) is
  brought into existence at the initiative of a
  Government agency or bureau to meet some special
  research or development need which, at the time,
  cannot be met as effectively by existing in-house
  or contractor resources.
• Work from other than the sponsoring agency is
  undertaken only to the extent permitted by the
  sponsoring agency and in accordance with the
  procedures
• The primary sponsor undertakes the responsibility
  to assure a reasonable continuity in the level of
  support to the activity consistent with the
  agency's need for the activity and the terms of
  the sponsoring agreement.

17
Federal Acquisition Regulations criteria (1990)

• Long-term relationships between the Government
  and FFRDC's are encouraged in order to provide
  the continuity that will attract high-quality
  personnel to the FFRDC.
• This relationship should be of a type to
  encourage the FFRDC to maintain currency in its
  field(s) of expertise, maintain its objectivity
  and independence, preserve its familiarity with
  the needs of its sponsor(s), and provide a quick
  response capability

18
Thank you!