+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| ## [Na              |                                                |
| tional Science Foun |                                                |
| dation]{.smallcaps} |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| ##                  |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| #                   |                                                |
| # Awards and Solici |                                                |
| tations Task Group  |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| ### **Study an      |                                                |
| d Recommendations** |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| #### Director       | ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.45in"          |
| ate for Engineering | height="2.8430555555555554in"}                 |
|                     |                                                |
| **(ENG)**           |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| ##### ASTG Members  |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Dutterer, Darren    |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Fordyce, Garie      |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Hamilton, Bruce     |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Larsen, Glenn       |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Reischman, Mike     |                                                |
| (Chair)             |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Roco, Mike          |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Varshney, Usha      |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                     | > **An opportunity to improve and better       |
|                     | > position engineering to the pubic, media,    |
|                     | > Congress, and other governmental             |
|                     | > organizations.**                             |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Release Date: June 7, 2005                     |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | ![](                                           |
|                     | media/image2.png){width="0.8333333333333334in" |
|                     | height="0.8611111111111112in"}                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| National Science    |                                                |
| Foundation          |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Suite 505           |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| 4201 Wilson Blvd    |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Arlington, VA 22230 |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Phone: 703-292-8301 |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Fax: 703-292-9013   |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Email:              |                                                |
| mreischm@nsf.gov    |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Table of Contents & List of Figures

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

## Table of Contents 

### I. Executive Summary [3](#_I.__Executive_Summary) {#i.-executive-summary-3 .TOC}

### II. Introduction [5](#_II.__Introduction) {#ii.-introduction-5 .TOC}

### III. Methodology of the Study [6](#iii.-methodology-of-the-study) {#iii.-methodology-of-the-study-6 .TOC}

### IV. Discussion [7](#_IV.__Discussion) {#iv.-discussion-7 .TOC}

###  A. The ENG Investment Portfolio [7](#a.-eng-investment-portfolio) {#a.-the-eng-investment-portfolio-7 .TOC}

###  B. The ENG Solicitation Portfolio.......................................................[26](#b.-the-eng-solicitation-portfolio) {#b.-the-eng-solicitation-portfolio.26 .TOC}

###  C. Review and Approval of Proposal Generating Mechanisms [30](#c.-review-and-approval-of-proposal-generating-mechanisms) {#c.-review-and-approval-of-proposal-generating-mechanisms-30 .TOC}

###  D. Review and Approval of Interdivisional Grants [31](#d.-review-and-approval-of-interdivisional-grants) {#d.-review-and-approval-of-interdivisional-grants-31 .TOC}

###  E. The Use of Standard and Continuing Grants [31](#e.-use-of-standard-and-continuing-grants) {#e.-the-use-of-standard-and-continuing-grants-31 .TOC}

###  F. The Control of Success Rates [32](#f.-control-of-success-rates) {#f.-the-control-of-success-rates-32 .TOC}

###  G. Record Keeping [35](#_G.__Record_Keeping) {#g.-record-keeping-35 .TOC}

### V Glossary [37](#v.-glossary) {#v-glossary-37 .TOC}

### VI. Appendices [38](#v.-glossary) {#vi.-appendices-38 .TOC}

[]{#_I.__Executive_Summary .anchor}

## List of Tables and Figures

### 1. 2003 Engineering Award Count by Key Word 7 {#engineering-award-count-by-key-word-7 .TOC}

### 2. Field of Application Searches for ALL Awards in 2003 8 {#field-of-application-searches-for-all-awards-in-2003-8 .TOC}

### 3. FY 2003 Profiles by Program 9 {#fy-2003-profiles-by-program-9 .TOC}

### 4. Success Rates by Program FY 02 to FY 03 10 {#success-rates-by-program-fy-02-to-fy-03-10 .TOC}

### 5. BES Portfolio by Topic and Program Director 12 {#bes-portfolio-by-topic-and-program-director-12 .TOC}

### 6. CMS Portfolio by Topic and Program Director 14 {#cms-portfolio-by-topic-and-program-director-14 .TOC}

### 7. CTS Portfolio by Topic and Program Director 16 {#cts-portfolio-by-topic-and-program-director-16 .TOC}

### 8. DMII Portfolio by Topic and Program Director 18 {#dmii-portfolio-by-topic-and-program-director-18 .TOC}

### 9. ECS Portfolio by Topic and Program Director 20 {#ecs-portfolio-by-topic-and-program-director-20 .TOC}

### 10. EEC Portfolio by Topic and Program Director 22 {#eec-portfolio-by-topic-and-program-director-22 .TOC}

### 11. Active Center Award Topics as of December 2004 23 {#active-center-award-topics-as-of-december-2004-23 .TOC}

### 12. Thrust Area Listing 24 {#thrust-area-listing-24 .TOC}

### 13. Solicitation Totals and Types 26 {#solicitation-totals-and-types-26 .TOC}

### 14. Solicitations with ENG Involvement 27 {#solicitations-with-eng-involvement-27 .TOC}

### 15. Solicitations, ENG as Lead 27 {#solicitations-eng-as-lead-27 .TOC}

### 16. Directorate Mortgages FY 2003 30 {#directorate-mortgages-fy-2003-30 .TOC}

### 17. NSF Mortgage FY 2003 31 {#nsf-mortgage-fy-2003-31 .TOC}

### 18. No. of Solicitations from FY 02 to FY 04 Success Rate 32  {#no.-of-solicitations-from-fy-02-to-fy-04-success-rate-32 .TOC}

# I. Executive Summary

The Awards and Solicitations Task Group (ASTG) has divided its study and
recommendations into four general areas:

1.  The portfolio of research solicited and supported by the Directorate
    for Engineering (ENG),

2.  The review and approval processes associated with
    proposal-generating documents,

3.  The use of standard and continuing grants, and

4.  The control of proposal success rates.

The ASTG collected and analyzed data from FY 2001 to FY 2005 while
concentrating on FY 2004 success rate data and FY 2005 data for
solicitations, topics, and thrust areas. The ASTG conducted interviews
to support or refute the data and held brainstorming sessions to
identify possible recommendations and problem areas. The discussion and
recommendations offered in this draft report were developed as a
consensus point-of-view of the ASTG. The report was subsequently
reviewed by a liaison group from the ENG Advisory Committee on May 12,
2005. The liaison group commented "Overall, the committee is very
supportive of the ASTG Report and its recommendations."

***ENG Investment Portfolio:*** Research funding can be described in
many ways, from keywords to program elements and from thrust areas to
individual topics. The use of award keywords and the more formal NSF
Fields of Application nomenclature are inconclusive at best. Viewing the
proposal and award data by program element is more informative in trend
analysis, but topical funding distributions remain elusive. The topical
description and accompanying thrust areas coming directly from the
Program Directors constitutes the best method of describing the award
portfolio to NSF and external stakeholders.

***ENG Solicitation Portfolio**:* The portfolio of solicitations
employed by the ENG divisions was examined for FY 2002 through FY 2005.
Direct correlations can be drawn from the influence of solicitations on
proposal success rates. The ASTG recommends that solicitations be
limited in scope, have automatic archive dates, and be reduced in
number. It is also important to note that the number of proposals and
the resultant suggestions and recommendations may be influenced by
factors outside the control of ENG.

***Review and Approval of Proposal-Generating Mechanisms:*** NSF and ENG
have well-established processes for the review and approval of documents
that generate proposals. A recent Quality Circle (process improvement)
team reviewed and recommended changes to the extant process in ENG. The
ASTG endorses this study and supports implementation of its
recommendations. On a more global scale, the ASTG recommends an annual
planning retreat where technical priorities are established and the
associated mechanisms for alerting and encouraging the research
community can be strategically crafted.

***Use of Standard and Continuing Grants**:* The NSF formally limits the
funds awarded in continuing grants to 65% of the total funding. In ENG,
a similar limit has been established at 50%. An increase in continuing
grants in ENG could have a temporary beneficial effect on ENG success
rates. However, caution is urged since such an action will alter the
out-year "mortgage" in the research portfolio and limit future
discretionary funding.

***Control of Success Rates***: The ASTG considered a number of direct
methods to influence proposal success rates. Some of these methods are
presently being tested and employed on a limited basis. Recommendations
for immediate implementation are:

Limiting the number of proposals submitted per PI or institution,

Using discrete proposal submission windows,

Focusing the description of the interest area and limiting the number of
solicitations and announcements, and controlling solicitations with a
minimum \$3,000,000 threshold.

# II. Introduction

## A. Charge to the Task Group

The Awards and Solicitations Task Group (ASTG) is responsible for
providing information and making recommendations on the processing and
approval of the Directorate for Engineering's (ENG) awards and
proposal-generating documents, such as program announcements, Dear
Colleague Letters, and solicitations.

The four major goals outlined in the charge to the ASTG are to:

1.  Ensure that new program initiatives are consistent with ENG's plans,
    thinking, and current budget priorities,

2.  Reduce the number of program announcements and solicitations
    originating in ENG,

3.  Improve the success rate of proposals generated by program
    announcements and solicitations, and

4.  Encourage the scheduling of proposal generation to achieve a
    well-balanced distribution of workload throughout the fiscal year.

## B. Topics to be addressed

In pursuit of these goals the ASTG gathered and analyzed available
solicitation, proposal, and award data, and reviewed the current ENG
policies and practices relative to proposal generation. Weekly meetings
were held to discuss and analyze the data and to develop recommendations
for future action.

The specific topics addressed by the ASTG are as follows:

-   Investment portfolio for ENG as determined by program area, research
    topic, and organizational unit;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Solicitation portfolio for ENG including Dear Colleague Letters,
    program announcements, and solicitations;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Process for review and approval of proposal generating-documents,
    such as program announcements, solicitations, and Dear Colleague
    Letters;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review and approval of interagency agreements and Memoranda of
    Understanding (MOU) when they involve the generation and funding of
    proposals;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Review and approval of multidisciplinary grants involving more than
    one ENG division;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Policies, procedures, and general practices regarding the use of
    standard grant investments (SGI) and continuing grant investments
    (CGI), and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Candidate mechanisms for the control of proposal success rates.

# III. Methodology of the Study

***Sampling Design**:* A census of all proposals and award actions was
used throughout this study for fiscal years 2002 (6,889 actions), 2003
(9,074 actions), and 2004 (8,997 actions). These records were
supplemented with summary information for fiscal year 2001 and 2005.

***Research Design***: Primary data were be used in the analysis of
information collected for this study. Both quantitative and qualitative
techniques have been used and include the following:

-   In-depth interviews with ENG and BFA program officers, division
    directors, computer specialists, accountants, and budget
    specialists.

-   Document analysis to evaluate historical and contemporary public
    records available through *FastLane*, and internal government
    records in the NSF *Proposal, PI, and Reviewer System* (PARS) and
    *Executive Information Systems* (EIS).

-   Focused discussions and analysis with members of the ASTG.

-   Brainstorming techniques to identify problems and make
    recommendations.

***Data Collection**:* Over 25,000 records were collected and examined
from July 2004 to February 2005, which has taken over 1000 hours to
assemble, collect, and prepare. Data were collected from several sources
including:

-   NSF Award Search -- All Fields:\
    <http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/tab.do?dispatch=4>

-   NSF Award Search -- Program Information:
    <http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/tab.do?dispatch=2>

-   Inside FastLane -- FastLane Proposal Status:\
    <https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/inside/>

-   Executive Information System (EIS) from "Mgt Info" drop down option
    in the WinStation menu.

-   PARS from the Prop/Awd WinStation menu.

-   Special computer reports and downloads by BFA.

-   Program Information Management Systems (PIMS) records on proposal
    generating documents, archive data, solicitations, announcements,
    and Dear Colleague Letters.

-   Program and divisional management queries and analysis.

***Data Analysis***: Data analysis was performed collectively by the
ASTG using information compiled from various data collections in
consideration of the research design elements discussed earlier. An
assumption was made during the analysis that elements of the NSF data
were unreliable and could only be used in a general sense.

# IV. Discussion 

## A. ENG Investment Portfolio

The charge to ASTG could best be characterized by, first, determining
the topical distribution of ENG funding; second, examining the processes
and procedures used in the review and approval of proposal generating
documents; and lastly, addressing methods for improving proposal success
rates.

The portfolio of ENG research funding can be viewed in many ways. One
method is simply analyzing the distribution of available funds to the
divisions and programs. The Making the Case Task Group[^1] analyzed and
reported division and program data from a financial perspective. This
method is instructive but lacks the detail needed when the ultimate use
of the data is to develop a topical investment strategy. Clearly more
detail is needed at the sub-program level to identify ENG funding
topics.

In an effort to determine the topical profile of the ENG investment the
ASTG examined FY 2003 data in a number of ways including: NSF Fields of
Application, Keyword, Program Element, and Program Director-designated
topical areas. The first two are similar in that they use word
association as the basis for segmenting the awards. The third uses
straightforward program element numbers. The last uses the separation of
the entire award database into topic areas defined by ENG program
directors. Discussion of these examinations follows.

### (i.) Use of Keywords and NSF Fields of Application 

The ASTG felt keywords were one way of representing the award activity
associated with research topic descriptions currently being employed.
Viewing the data in this way offered the potential for isolating areas
of little activity or interest in the engineering research community and
guiding the strategic thinking exercise currently underway. The FY 2003
award abstract database was searched for the keywords noted in Figure 1.
Keywords were generated by taking words used in solicitation titles and
from the NSF 2004 Guide to Programs. The Division Directors approved the
list of keywords used in the search.

The keyword search itself was conducted using an NSF search routine
without any contextual search capability. It should be noted that the
search might find multiple keywords in a single abstract, as evidenced
by the 10465 ENG awards for FY 2003 being approximately five times the
actual number.

Fields of Application information was generated from the data available
to the general public as shown in Figure 2. The data were limited to FY
2003 awards by restricting the start dates from October 1, 2002 to
September 30, 2003. These same issues apply to the NSF Fields of
Application search where awards may have multiple Fields of Application
associated with them.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="3.2493055555555554in" height="8.85in"}

The data suggest keywords and Fields of Application, at best, are a
qualitative indicator of the research activity in a designated technical
area. For example, keywords tend to be used widely across divisions, and
certain keywords have very limited use in the entire Directorate. It can
also be noted that of the keywords generating fewer than 10 awards the
majority are environmentally related keywords. On the other hand, there
are numerous awards associated with other environmental keywords
suggesting that a more concise keyword structure may be useful.

The data also suggests, with only a few exceptions, Fields of
Application entries made by the program directors appear to be
inconsistent with the actual content of awards made by ENG.

In summary, keyword and Fields of Application data are inadequate to
determine an accurate idea of the ENG portfolio, and since proposals are
not uniquely associated with keywords or Fields of Application entries,
the success rates related to these are impossible to ascertain.

### (ii.) Use of Program Elements

Program element numbers, in general, are associated with a particular
research emphasis area within ENG. The NSF database can be queried for
proposal and award data, the originating division, and the amount
awarded in each of the program elements (See Figure 3). The database can
also yield trend data like success rates (See Figure 4).

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="3.9430555555555555in"
height="6.125in"}Generally, the data indicate that programs are uniquely
associated with divisions and, ultimately, with program directors within
the division. Success rates are calculated for each of the program
areas. Data contain a number of anomalies, which should be noted. First,
there are some cases where proposals received at the end of a fiscal
year result in awards in the subsequent fiscal year---hence an absolute
one-to-one correspondence is not possible. That effect is thought to be
minor when all data are considered. Next, in some crosscutting areas
such as nanotechnology, some ENG division's participation is
inadequately represented due to the inconsistent use of program element
codes. Lastly, clustering of programs into a single program element
number would tend to average out the high and low success rates. On the
positive side, it can be noted that the number of proposals and awards,
as well as the overall success rates, are consistent with NSF analysis.

The success rate data as a function of program element demonstrate the
distribution of research proposal and award activity within the
division. Not only does one get a sense of how responsive is the
engineering research community, but one also obtains insight into ENG's
capability to respond. Topical distribution of ENG remains elusive in
this technique as well.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.991666666666666in"
height="8.508333333333333in"}Figure 3: FY 2003 Profiles by Program

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.990277777777778in"
height="6.860416666666667in"}

### (iii.) Use of Program Director-Designated Topics

The previous sections indicate that topical areas are difficult, if not
impossible, to objectively and accurately specify using only data from
the available NSF information systems database. With this in mind the
ASTG decided to take an approach which includes human intervention, and
possible subjectivity.

As a first step, this method involves the program directors (PDs)
specifying the research topics they feel represent their individual
program portfolio. The division director (DD) then reviews and approves
the topics as the division research topic portfolio. A practical limit
of 30 topics per division was established. The ASTG then provided a
listing of all current awards within the division, separated by PD, and
requested the PDs assign each of their awards to a topic area from the
approved listing. No new topics could be introduced at that time.

The ASTG collected the individual PD assignments and assembled research
topic portfolios for each division. Center-style activities (e.g.,
Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), Science and Technology Centers
(STCs), Nanoscale Science & Engineering Centers (NSECs),
Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRCs), and their
inherent topical focus were separately listed at this point in order to
retain a meaningful analysis of the portfolio in terms of PIs and small
teams of investigators. The portfolio of centers is documented later.
The portfolios were returned to the DD for review, comment, and response
to the following questions.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Portfolio Questions for DD Review, Comment, & Response**          |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  What general points would you like to make about the division's   |
|     award portfolio?                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  Given your division's strategic plan, how do you see the          |
|     portfolio being reshaped over the next three years?               |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  *Does your division interact with the centers program within the  |
|     Division for Engineering Education and Centers (ECS)?*            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The resulting divisional research award portfolios along with the DD
comments are seen in Figures 5 through 10. Figure 11 lists the
distribution of topics across center-style activities.

An expanded tabular form of the awards portfolio can be seen in
Appendices 1 through 6. In these tables each division's activities are
again separated into topic areas, and then expanded to include all
active awards in that topic area. The responsible PD, PI, total award
amount and end date are also listed. Figure 12 is a consolidation of the
DD-identified thrust areas that encompass the award topics in their
divisions.

### Figure 5: BES Portfolio by Topic and Program Director

Active Awards as of December 2004

  --------------------- ---------- ------------------- -------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
   **BES**              \#                             **% by** **Program                                                         
                                                                Manager                                                           
                                                                Funding**                                                         

  **Topic**             **Awds**   **Total Exp. \$**   **\$**   **CE**      **FH**   **GD**   **LE**   **ML**   **PB**   **SD**   **TW**

  Air Pollution Control 7          \$ 1,283,971        1%       2                                               4                 1

  Bioenergy             2          \$ 368,694          0%                                                                         2

  Biomass Engineering   1          \$ 375,000          0%                   1                                                      

  Biomechanical         21         \$ 5,096,512        3%                            5        2                          14        
  Engineering                                                                                                                     

  Biomedical            8          \$ 1,667,969        1%                                     4                          4         
  Diagonostics                                                                                                                    

  Biomedical            39         \$ 8,438,215        6%                            19       7        1                 12        
  Engineering                                                                                                                     

  Biomedical Imaging    17         \$ 5,231,614        3%                                     11                         6         

  Biophotonics          30         \$ 11,046,034       7%                                     28                         2         

  Bioprocess            18         \$ 4,737,431        3%                   15                2        1                           
  Engineering                                                                                                                     

  Bioseparations        12         \$ 4,477,334        3%       5           7                                                      

  Biotransport          3          \$ 957,852          1%                                                       2        1         

  Cellular and          53         \$ 15,031,535       10%                  45                                           8         
  Metabolic Engineering                                                                                                           

  Cyberinfrastructure   16         \$ 577,340          0%                                                       16                 

  Disability Research   39         \$ 6,278,046        4%                            27       4                          8         

  Environmental         5          \$ 2,188,168        1%       4                             1                                    
  Nanotechnology                                                                                                                  

  Home Care             2          \$ 598,109          0%                            1                                   1         
  Technologies                                                                                                                    

  Industrial Ecology    10         \$ 3,251,522        2%                                                       5                 5
  and Materials Use:                                                                                                              
  S&E and Society                                                                                                                 
  (MUSES)                                                                                                                         

  Multi-scale Modeling  7          \$ 1,238,678        1%                   1                                   4        2         

  Nanobiotechnology     25         \$ 10,120,447       7%                   12                11                         2         

  Nanotoxicology        8          \$ 3,045,017        2%       2                                               6                  

  Other                 15         \$ 2,258,287        1%       8                                      1        5        1         

  Pollutant Transport   29         \$ 14,328,674       9%       2                                               17                10
  and Fate                                                                                                                        

  Pollution Avoidance   3          \$ 877,417          1%       2                                                                 1

  Protein and Enzyme    23         \$ 7,437,981        5%                   23                                                     
  Engineering                                                                                                                     

  Quantitative Systems  23         \$ 6,956,589        5%                   23                                                     
  Biotechnology                                                                                                                   

  Remediation           33         \$ 7,291,645        5%       13                                     1        9                 10

  Sensors and Sensing   28         \$ 11,526,827       8%       3           9                 7        1        7        1         

  Tissue Engineering    13         \$ 3,056,048        2%                   5        2                                   6         

  Water and Wastewater  40         \$ 12,560,610       8%       5                             1                 17                17
  Treatment                                                                                                                       

  Water Resources       5          \$ 988,800          1%                                                       3                 2

  **Total**             **535**    **\$153,292,366**   100%     46          141      54       78       5        95       68       48
  --------------------- ---------- ------------------- -------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

**Program Officer Code for the Preceding Table:**

CE = Cynthia Eckstein, Environmental Engineering and Technology

FH = Frederick Heineken, Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology

GD = Gilbert Devey, Biomedical Engineering Program & Research to Aid
Persons with Disabilities Program

LE = Leon Esterowitz, Biomedical Engineering Program & Research to Aid
Persons with Disabilities Program

ML = Marshall Lih

PB = Patrick Brezonwik, Environmental Engineering and Technology

SD = Semahat Demir, Biomedical Engineering Program & Research to Aid
Persons with Disabilities Program

TW = Thomas Waite

### BES Portfolio Comments by the Division Director (Bruce Hamilton)

The BES awards portfolio spans three distinct engineering disciplines:

(1) Biochemical Engineering

(2) Biomedical Engineering

(3) Environmental Engineering

Some topics cut across all three of these engineering disciplines; for
example, "Sensors and Sensing," "Cyberinfrastructure," and "Multi-scale
Modeling." Some topics cut across two of these engineering disciplines.
For example, "Tissue Engineering," "Cellular and Metabolic Engineering,"
"Nanobiotechnology," and "Biotransport" cut across both Biochemical and
Biomedical Engineering. "Bioenergy" cuts across Biochemical and
Environmental Engineering. At the same time, each of the three
engineering disciplines has specialized topics.

For Environmental Engineering, specialized topics include:

(1) Water Resources (including CLEANER)

(2) Water and Wastewater Treatment

(3) Remediation

(4) Pollution Avoidance

(5) Pollutant Transport and Fate

(6) Air Pollution Control

(7) Nanotoxicology

(8) Environmental Nanotechnology

(9) Industrial Ecology and MUSES

For Biomedical Engineering, specialized topics include:

(1) Biomechanical Engineering

(2) Biomedical Diagnostics

(3) Biophotonics

(4) Biomedical Imaging

(5) Disability Research

(6) Home Care Technology

For Biochemical Engineering, specialized topics include:

(1) Biomass Engineering

(2) Bioseparations

(3) Protein and Enzyme Engineering

(4) Quantitative Systems Biotechnology

The resources of BES overall are allocated fairly evenly over the three
engineering disciplines; that is, just about one-third each. Given BES's
strategic plan, the intent is to reinforce unsolicited awards over the
next several years. Unsolicited awards have been shrinking, due to
mandatory allocations to priorities such as nanotechnology and sensors.
The hope here is to recover the higher level of CAREER support that BES
has attained in some years past, assuming that BES's budget is increased
in future years.

*With regard to Centers, BES is the only ENG division outside of EEC
that actually puts money in the ERC program (VanTH). Some BES Program
Officers are highly active technical liaisons with ERCs, e.g., Leon
Esterowitz. BES Program Officers do not manage ERCs, but a former BES
Program Officer, Sohi Rastegar, moved from BES to EEC, where he is
heavily involved in ERC management.*

### Figure 6: CMS Portfolio by Topic and Program Director

Active Awards as of December 2004

  --------------------- ---------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  **CMS**               **\#**                     **% by** **Program                                                                                     
                                                            Managers**                                                                                    

  **Topic**             **Awds**   **Total Exp.    **\$**   **DW**       **JG**   **JL**   **JP**   **KC**   **RF**   **SL**   **SM**   **MR**   **MT**   **Jy**
                                   \$**                                                                                                                   

  Solid mechanics       53         \$ 10,536,325   4%                             1                 52                                                     

  Structure of          9          \$ 2,495,829    1%                             3                 4        1        1                                    
  materials                                                                                                                                               

  Materials design      54         \$ 12,416,049   4%                             1                 5                 7                 41                 

  Surface engineering   46         \$ 10,609,616   4%                             1                 2                                   43                 

  Infrastructure        53         \$ 11,077,831   4%                             46       2        3                          1        1                  
  materials                                                                                                                                               

  Structural mechanics  16         \$ 3,839,894    1%                             12                         2                 2                           

  Nanomechanics         50         \$ 17,150,324   6%                                      1        40                                  9                  

  Biomechanics          13         \$ 3,270,047    1%                                               12                                  1                  

  Civil infrastructure  7          \$ 1,875,323    1%                    2        3                                   2                                    

  Infrastructure sys.   66         \$ 19,911,230   7%       24           38       1        1                 1        1                                    
  mgt.                                                                                                                                                    

  Control systems       44         \$ 8,998,729    3%                                                                 6                          38        

  Mechatronics          20         \$ 4,141,288    1%                                                                                            20        

  Sensors and actuators 75         \$ 20,205,535   7%                                      2                 2        56                         13       2

  Smart structures      26         \$ 6,587,041    2%                    4                                            8        12                2         

  Dynamic systems       29         \$ 5,261,954    2%                                                                 1        3                 24        

  Noise, acoustics,     23         \$ 4,959,152    2%                                                                 3                          20        
  vibrations                                                                                                                                              

  Geotechnical Eng.     76         \$ 15,023,599   5%                                      20                52                                           4

  Foundation            15         \$ 4,199,525    1%                                                        9                 6                           
  engineering                                                                                                                                             

  Structural systems    43         \$ 11,753,057   4%                             31                                           7                 3        2

  Hazard mitigation of  70         \$ 17,909,868   6%                             1                          1                 68                          
  structures                                                                                                                                              

  Hazard and Disaster   44         \$ 13,234,361   5%       21                    7        13                1                 2                           
  Reduction                                                                                                                                               

  Hazard and Disaster   28         \$ 7,500,622    3%       20           2        2        2                          2                                    
  Response                                                                                                                                                

  Earthquake            64         \$ 63,916,891   23%      1            1        2        41                5        2                                   12
  engineering                                                                                                                                             

  Cyberinfrastructure   2          \$ 516,593      0%                    1                                   1                                             

  Other                 13         \$ 4,248,650    2%       1            8        1        1                 2                                             

  Totals                939        \$281,639,333   100%     67           56       112      83       118      77       89       101      95       120      20
  --------------------- ---------- --------------- -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

**Program Officer Code for the Preceding Table:**

DW = Infrastructure Systems Management and Hazard Response

JG = Jesus de la Garza, Information Technology and Infrastructure
Systems

JL = Jorn Larsen-Basse, Infrastructure Materials and Structural
Mechanics

JP = Juan Pestana

KC = Ken Chong, Mechanics and Structures of Materials

MR = Mario Rotea, Dynamic Systems and Control

RF = Richard Fragaszy, Geoenvironmental Engineering, Geohazards,
Geomechanics, & Geotechnical Systems

SL = Shih Chi Liu, Sensor Technologies for Civil and Mechanical Systems

SM = Steven McCabe, Structural Systems and Hazard Mitigation Program

YC = Yip-Wah Chung, Surface Engineering and Material Design

JY = Joy Pauschke, NEES

### CMS Portfolio Comments by the Division Director (Galip Ulsoy)

The CMS portfolio analysis is based on 24 categories selected by the
Program Officers, plus the category "other." These categories are used
to sort 939 awards, of various sizes, duration and types, that were
active as of 12/31/04. Most of the 24 categories represent about 1% to
5% (approximately \$2M to \$14M) of the total investment. The categories
with more than a 5% share include:

-   Nanomechanics 6% \$17M

-   Infrastructure systems management 7% \$20M

-   Sensors and actuators 7% \$20M

-   Hazard mitigation of structures 6% \$18M

-   Earthquake engineering 23% \$64M

The large *Nanomechanics* investment reflects CMS participation in the
Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE) priority area. The large
*Infrastructure systems management* investment reflects the DOT-NSF
joint solicitation and the investment in the Institute for Civil
Infrastructure Systems. The large *Sensors and Actuators* investment
reflects CMS participation in the Sensors and Sensor Networks
initiative. The large *Hazard Mitigation of Structures* investment
reflects the long-standing Learning from Earthquakes and Natural Hazards
Center investments. Finally, the huge investment in *Earthquake
Engineering* reflects the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES) construction, operations and research. Earthquake engineering,
without NEES, is still about \$33M or 12%.

The CMS strategic plan identifies NEES as a major priority, and that
will continue to be a very large part of the overall portfolio.
Currently NEES is \$31M (11%) of this portfolio analysis, but will grow
to approximately \$35M/yr or \$105M over 3 years (about 40%). CMS has
also identified Critical Infrastructure Systems and Hazard Mitigation
and Response (currently without NEES this is about \$90M or 32%) as a
continuing major area of emphasis. In addition, CMS envisions growth
areas of nano and bio mechanics (currently about \$28M or 10%) and
intelligent civil and mechanical systems (currently about \$70M or 25%).

The three clusters in CMS are: (1) Engineered Materials and Mechanics
(EMM), (2) Intelligent Civil and Mechanical Systems (ICMS), and (3)
Infrastructure Systems and Hazard Mitigation (ISHM). Currently, EMM and
ICMS have about 25% of the awards, while ISHM (including NEES) has about
47%. However, the most recent group of proposals received 12/1/04 was
40% in EMM, 30% in ICMS, and 30% in ISHM.

*The division is directly involved in managing the three Earthquake
Engineering Research Centers at Buffalo, Berkeley and Illinois. CMS is
also directly involved in managing the Vanderbilt education ERC.
Finally, CMS participates as appropriate in other ERC and STC reviews,
site visits, etc.*

### **Figure 7:** CTS Portfolio by Topic and Program Director

Active Awards as of December 2004

  ------------------------- ----------- --------------- ------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
  **CTS**                   \#                          **%**   **Program                                                                   
                                                                Managers**                                                                  

  **Topic**                 **Awds.**   **Total Exp.    **By    **AO**       **GP**   **GS**   **LB**   **MB**   **MP**   **RW**   **TC**   **TM**
                                        \$**            \$**                                                                                

  Catalysis                 48          \$ 17,057,810   8%                            48                                                     

  Advanced materials        18          \$ 9,388,242    4%                            14                                                    4
  processing                                                                                                                                

  Electrochemical           7           \$ 1,834,507    1%                            7                                                      
  processing and                                                                                                                            
  electrochemistry                                                                                                                          

  Reaction engineering      34          \$ 10,365,823   5%                            1                 33                                   

  Biorenewable catalysis    5           \$ 1,076,803    0%                            5                                                      
  for the sustainable                                                                                                                       
  production of fuels and                                                                                                                   
  chemicals                                                                                                                                 

  Chemical process control  19          \$ 6,064,589    3%                                              19                                   

  Chemical process design   28          \$ 8,792,744    4%                                              28                                   

  Reactive polymer          14          \$ 4,001,287    2%                                              14                                   
  processing                                                                                                                                

  Interfacial phenomena for 49          \$ 14,044,139   6%                                                                33                16
  novel functional and                                                                                                                      
  other advanced materials                                                                                                                  

  Mass transport of         12          \$ 2,560,567    1%                                                                12                 
  chemicals and                                                                                                                             
  bio-materials in                                                                                                                          
  materials processing                                                                                                                      

  Phase equilibrium and     23          \$ 4,215,878    2%                                                                23                 
  solution thermodynamics                                                                                                                   
  for chemical processing                                                                                                                   

  Novel non-reactive        28          \$ 20,692,570   9%                                                                27       1         
  molecular processes                                                                                                                       

  Novel material for        24          \$ 7,400,035    3%                   24                                                              
  chemical separations                                                                                                                      

  Separation processes      23          \$ 5,115,395    2%                   23                                                              

  Molecular engineering of  13          \$ 4,121,184    2%                   13                                                              
  chemical, biochemical and                                                                                                                 
  materials systems                                                                                                                         

  Multiphase flow phenomena 20          \$ 4,832,595    2%                                                                                  20
  and transport in                                                                                                                          
  microstructured fluids                                                                                                                    

  Particle technology       25          \$ 3,952,171    2%                                                                                  25
  (nanoparticles, granular                                                                                                                  
  flows)                                                                                                                                    

  Multiphase transport      3           \$ 155,000      0%                                                                                  1
  phenomena in biological                                                                                                                   
  and environmental systems                                                                                                                 

  Turbulence, hydrodynamic  34          \$ 7,741,574    3%                                                       34                          
  stability, and flow                                                                                                                       
  control                                                                                                                                   

  Rheology and              22          \$ 4,672,879    2%                                                       15                         7
  non-newtonian fluid                                                                                                                       
  mechanics                                                                                                                                 

  Waves, hydraulics and     18          \$ 4,291,386    2%                                                       18                          
  environmental fluid                                                                                                                       
  mechanics                                                                                                                                 

  Micro-/nano- and          17          \$ 5,305,953    2%                                                       14                         3
  bio-fluid mechanics                                                                                                                       

  Flame structure and       28          \$ 8,346,853    4%                                     28                                            
  dynamics                                                                                                                                  

  Structure and dynamics of 14          \$ 3,047,930    1%                                     14                                            
  industrial plasmas                                                                                                                        

  Combustion pollutant      20          \$ 6,039,993    3%                                     18                                  2         
  formation and mitigation                                                                                                                  

  Combustion- and           7           \$ 2,393,903    1%                                     7                                             
  plasma-based                                                                                                                              
  manufacturing and                                                                                                                         
  synthesis                                                                                                                                 

  Micro-/nano-scale         28          \$ 15,020,154   7%      23                             2                                   1        2
  transport phenomena                                                                                                                       

  Multi-phase and           34          \$ 10,594,538   5%      8                                                9                          17
  interfacial phenomena                                                                                                                     

  Convection in complex     13          \$ 4,040,112    2%      12                                                        1                  
  flows                                                                                                                                     

  Manufacturing and         23          \$ 6,073,612    3%      23                                                                           
  material processing                                                                                                                       

  Instrumentation and       48          \$ 14,343,445   6%      5                     6        5                 29                         3
  diagnostics                                                                                                                               

  Other                     21          \$ 3,759,758    2%      10           1        1                          1                 2        6

  Total for CTS             720         \$221,343,429   100%    81           61       82       74       94       120      96       6        104
  ------------------------- ----------- --------------- ------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

**Program Officer Code for the Preceding Table:**

AO = Alfonso Ortega, Thermal Transport and Thermal Processing

GP = Geoffrey A. Prentice, Separation and Purification Processes

GS = Glenn Schrader, Catalysis and Biocatalysis

LB = Linda Blevins, Combustion and Plasma Systems

MB = Maria Burka, Process and Reaction Engineering

MP = Michael Plesniak, Fluid Dynamics and Hydraulics

RW= Robert M. Wellek, Interfacial, Transport, and Thermodynamics

TC = Thomas Chapman, Program Director

TM = Triantafillos J. Mountziaris, Particulate and Multiphase Processes

### CTS Portfolio Comments by the Division Director (Richard Buckius)

The division\'s portfolio is diverse, cutting edge and
interdisciplinary. The division's community is very broad in the number
of topics and researchers, including many engineering disciplines (e.g.,
chemical, civil, mechanical, environmental, bio, and manufacturing) as
well as science disciplines (e.g., physics, chemistry, and materials
science). In addition, this current diversity of topics shows the
elimination of a large portion of research in many of the mature areas,
such as scale-up of chemical processes, and the evolution into emerging
areas like nanoscale science and nanomanufacturing, critical
infrastructure systems and hazard mitigation, nanobiotechnology,
materials-oriented processes, and advanced computational
cyberinfrastructure.

This broad distribution of the division's activities is the fine-grained
perspective. A more coarse-grained perspective would yield an almost
evenly distributed portfolio among the four elements of chemical
reaction engineering, fluid dynamics and particle processes, interfacial
phenomena and separations, and thermal systems.

As with engineering in general, the CTS portfolio continues to evolve
and move in new directions in interdisciplinary research. An alternate
matrix formulation for the current portfolio, or another coarse-grained
perspective, indicates four major interdisciplinary themes:

-   Nanotechnology,

-   Critical Infrastructure Systems,

-   Manufacturing Frontiers, and

-   Environmentally and Energy-Focused Processes and Products.

These themes do not encompass all the current CTS activities, since
there is activity on bio-inspired engineering topics and multi-scale
multi-phenomena modeling. Yet the four themes noted above, together with
the two additional ENG priority areas of biology in engineering and
complex systems, will encompass most, if not all, of the CTS portfolio.

*CTS has very active oversight of an STC (Water CAMPWS) and an NSEC
(Nano-CEMMS). In addition, CTS has been active in collaborating with EEC
not only for ERC activities but also for IUCRC\'s. CTS has worked
closely on a number of IUCRCs throughout the nation. Coordination of
panels and participation in on-site visits are the major ERC activities.
Also, TRP projects have been managed by CTS for EEC.*

### Figure 8: DMII Portfolio by Topic and Program Director

Active Awards as of December 2004

  ---------------------------- ----------- --------------- ---------- ------------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------
  **DMII**                     \#                          **%**      **Program                                                    
                                                                      Directors**                                                  

  **Topic**                    **Awds.**   **Total Exp.    **by \$**  **AD**        **DD**   **DS**   **GH**    **JC**    **KL**   **SS**
                                           \$**                                                                                    

  Cyber Infrastructure         5           \$ 4,014,092    2%                                         1                            4

  Deformation Processes:       13          \$ 2,809,197    1%                                                   13                  
  metals, polymers                                                                                                                 

  Design for \"XXX\":          15          \$ 3,834,764    2%                       15                                              
  manufacturability, assembly,                                                                                                     
  environment, etc.                                                                                                                

  Design Theory: Fundamentals  30          \$ 7,195,110    4%                       30                                              
  of product realization                                                                                                           

  Directed and Self-Assembly:  29          \$ 11,942,918   6%                                                   3         26        
  hybrid systems                                                                                                                   

  Environmentally Benign       21          \$ 6,133,101    3%                       14       1                  6                   
  Design and Manufacturing                                                                                                         

  Integration of Human and     12          \$ 4,285,852    2%                                         1                            11
  Cognitive Aspects                                                                                                                

  International: travel,       3           \$ 103,291      0%                                         2         1                   
  research projects or                                                                                                             
  centers, planning workshops                                                                                                      

  Investments in Centers:      1           \$ 6,159,313    3%                                                             1         
  IUCRC, ERC                                                                                                                       

  Investments in people: REU,  39          \$ 11,797,469   6%         11            9                 19                            
  RET, CAREER                                                                                                                      

  Manufacturing Enterprise     30          \$ 5,663,871    3%         29            1                                               
  Operations:                                                                                                                      
  sensor-integrated real-time                                                                                                      
  control, semiconductor                                                                                                           
  operations, bio and nano                                                                                                         
  production enterprises                                                                                                           

  Manufacturing Machines and   13          \$ 3,485,860    2%                                         13                            
  Metrology: design of systems                                                                                                     
  of manufacturing machines,                                                                                                       
  machine design, robots, part                                                                                                     
  sorter, part measurements,                                                                                                       
  quality                                                                                                                          

  Material Transformation      35          \$ 9,035,075    5%                                         35                            
  Processes: removal; cutting;                                                                                                     
  chatter; tool wear, additive                                                                                                     
  and hybrid; solid freeform                                                                                                       
  fabrication                                                                                                                      

  Networks and Queuing         16          \$ 3,589,581    2%                                                                      16
  Systems: stochastic models,                                                                                                      
  performance analysis                                                                                                             

  Optimization and Decision    34          \$ 10,510,438   6%                                         3                            31
  Making: Deterministic,                                                                                                           
  Stochastic                                                                                                                       

  Other                        22          \$ 5,347,511    3%                                1        16        4                  1

  Patterning and templating:   32          \$ 10,968,781   6%                                         1         3         28        
  beyond 2D / 2D+ to                                                                                                               
  3-dimensional structures                                                                                                         

  Performance Analysis and     21          \$ 4,082,226    2%                                                                      21
  Reliability: of critical                                                                                                         
  services, risk assessment,                                                                                                       
  robustness, quality of                                                                                                           
  service                                                                                                                          

  Planning and Outreach:       15          \$ 1,067,572    1%         3             4                 3         5                   
  conferences, workshops                                                                                                           

  Polymer and composites       26          \$ 6,058,038    3%                                         1         25                  
  Processes                                                                                                                        

  Positioning and              15          \$ 7,904,508    4%                                                   2         13        
  actuation:large volume                                                                                                           
  coverage, tools and                                                                                                              
  fixturing                                                                                                                        

  Process mechanisms, control  8           \$ 2,351,465    1%                                         1         7                   
  and innovation                                                                                                                   

  Process planning and         11          \$ 2,641,944    1%                       3                 2         6                   
  optimization: fixturing,                                                                                                         
  tool path                                                                                                                        
  planning/optimization                                                                                                            

  Quality and Maintenance:     18          \$ 3,692,151    2%         15                              3                             
  Statistical process control,                                                                                                     
  model-based diagnosis,                                                                                                           
  condition-based maintenance                                                                                                      

  Sensing and control: of      27          \$ 8,621,092    5%                                         20        7                   
  manufacturing processes such                                                                                                     
  as cutting                                                                                                                       

  Service Enterprise           34          \$ 6,785,772    4%                                         2                            32
  Applications: Healthcare,                                                                                                        
  Financial,                                                                                                                       
  Business-to-Business,                                                                                                            
  Business-to-Consumer,                                                                                                            
  Transportation/Logistics                                                                                                         

  Simulation Models            11          \$ 2,744,761    1%                                         3         1                  7

  Supply Chain: design and     19          \$ 5,819,207    3%         19                                                            
  coordination, closed-loop                                                                                                        
  supply chains of sustainable                                                                                                     
  enterprises,                                                                                                                     
  remanufacturing, reuse                                                                                                           

  Systems and Enterprise       20          \$ 2,828,576    1%         19                              1                             
  Planning: modeling,                                                                                                              
  simulation, optimization and                                                                                                     
  visualization tools for                                                                                                          
  large-scale, distributed                                                                                                         

  Thermally driven processes:  37          \$ 10,141,930   5%                                         3         34                  
  joining, deposition                                                                                                              
  processes, sintering                                                                                                             

  Virtual design and           23          \$ 13,576,296   7%                       2                                     21        
  manufacturing: predictable                                                                                                       
  processes and product                                                                                                            
  performance, integration,                                                                                                        
  nano-elements function                                                                                                           
  incorporated into                                                                                                                
  micro-devices                                                                                                                    

  Visualization and            13          \$ 4,924,322    3%                       13                                             
  representation                                                                                                                   

  **Total**                    **648**     **\$            **100%**   **96**        **91**   **2**    **130**   **117**   **89**   **123**
                                           190,116,084**                                                                           
  ---------------------------- ----------- --------------- ---------- ------------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ---------

**Program Officer Code for the Preceding Table:**

AD = Abhijit Deshmukh, Manufacturing Enterprise Systems

DD = Delcie Durham, Engineering Design

DS = Don Senich, Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry
(GOALI)

GH = George Hazelrigg, Manufacturing Machines and Equipment

JC = Jian Cao, Materials Processing and Manufacturing

KL = Kevin Lyons, Nano Manufacturing

SS - Suvrajeet Sen, Operations Research and Service Enterprise
Engineering

### DMII Portfolio Comments by the Division Director for Figure 8

> DMII does not use division-initiated solicitations very often, since
> the belief that having resources for our investigator initiated areas
> is paramount. Instead DMII supports foundation- or engineering-wide
> initiatives as opportunities to build new multidisciplinary activities
> that are important to the division, e.g., BE-MUSES to build interest
> in environmentally benign design and manufacture, and NS&E for new
> opportunities on a new scale and with new challenges in processes and
> systems. This portfolio includes awards dating back to 1999, and
> represents redirection and reallocation within the division. The
> Manufacturing Enterprise Systems program is the redirected Production
> Systems program. The Service Enterprise Engineering program topics
> reflect internal reallocation of resources from a program called
> Integration Engineering. Reallocation of the division\'s portfolio of
> awards in nanoscale processing and opportunities created by the NS&E
> priority area, have led to the Nanomanufacturing program. DMII strives
> to encourage collaborations among programs, and is evidenced by
> several program officers supporting a single topic area.
>
> Based on the activities aimed at reshaping the portfolio, such as
> workshops, WTEC and NAE studies, and our assessment of these results,
> DMII believes all programs will have a greater systems or enterprise
> level emphasis, and there will be a shift in transformative processes
> and tools to those on the nano and microscale. The reshaped portfolio
> might include tools - physical and software- for the 3D nano- and
> micro-factories of the future, and awards that provide the knowledge
> to design globally competitive and sustainable manufacturing
> enterprises. DMII also expects to see research in service enterprise
> grow in intellectual breadth. Reallocation has begun by phasing down,
> with the intention of ending, DMII support for the Innovation and
> Organizational Change program.
>
> *DMII, specifically the NanoManufacturing Program directors, have had
> direct involvement in the review and initial oversight of the NSECs on
> Nanomanufacturing, working closely with EEC to use similar models for
> review, management, and oversight. DMII program directors participate
> in initial meetings with proposers on potential ERCs in manufacturing,
> design and service, and continue as part of initial site selection
> teams and subsequent site review visits to ERCs. DMII is not as active
> in co-funding I/UCRCs, primarily because of lack of uncommitted
> division funds. The division benefited by participation in the
> REU/RETS longitudinal study conducted by Linda Parker.*

### Figure 9: ECS Portfolio by Topic and Program Director

Active Awards as of December 2004

  ----------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- -------- ---------
  **ECS**                 \#                         \%         **Program                                                                       
                                                                Directors**                                                                     

  **Topic**               **Awds**   **Total Exp.    **by \$**  **FB**        **JM**    **KT**   **PW**   **RB**    **RK**    **LG**   **VR**   **PV**
                                     \$**                                                                                                       

  Biologically Inspired   6          \$ 2,472,435    1%                                          6                                               
  Computing                                                                                                                                     

  Centers and             4          \$ 61,394,990   20%                                                                      4                  
  Infrastructure                                                                                                                                

  Communications and      30         \$ 7,051,511    2%                                 13                16                           1         
  Cyberinfrastructure                                                                                                                           
  Networks                                                                                                                                      

  Control Theory          51         \$ 10,422,101   3%                                                   51                                     

  Economics of Power      25         \$ 5,608,238    2%                                 21       1                                              3
  Grids                                                                                                                                         

  Electromagnetics and    32         \$ 8,373,207    3%                                          1                                              31
  Mixed Signal Processing                                                                                                                       

  Engineering Workforce   7          \$ 1,147,403    0%                       7                                                                  

  EUV and Optical         32         \$ 8,573,195    3%         27                               1                                              4
  Communications                                                                                                                                

  Integrative Biological  37         \$ 11,450,602   4%                                 2                 11        23                 1         
  and Medical Systems                                                                                                                           

  Learning and            16         \$ 3,600,507    1%                                          15                                             1
  Self-organizing Systems                                                                                                                       

  Magnetics               25         \$ 7,910,495    3%                       19                                    4                           2

  MEMS/NEMS, MEMS, NEMS   27         \$ 5,355,360    2%                       3                                     22                          2

  Microelectronics        57         \$ 13,195,953   4%                       14                                    35                          8

  Molecular Electronics   10         \$ 2,308,573    1%                       6                                     3                           1

  Nanoelectronics,        53         \$ 19,504,212   6%                       28                                    18        1        1        5
  Nanodevices                                                                                                                                   

  Nanophotonics           30         \$ 16,662,955   5%         30                                                                               

  Neural Network          26         \$ 7,349,118    2%                                          24       1                            1         
  Computation & Control                                                                                                                         

  Optoelectronics         56         \$ 16,244,273   5%         45            2                  1                  5                           3

  Organic Electronics     14         \$ 5,176,962    2%                       6                                     4                           4

  Photonics               41         \$ 13,457,417   4%         40                                                            1                  

  Power and Energy        39         \$ 9,264,054    3%         1                       32       6                                               
  Networks and Systems                                                                                                                          

  Quantum Information     6          \$ 1,681,159    1%                                          6                                               

  Robotics                8          \$ 2,012,001    1%                                                   8                                      

  Security and            15         \$ 1,666,368    1%                                 15                                                       
  Reliability of Critical                                                                                                                       
  Infrastructure                                                                                                                                

  Sensors, Sensor         107        \$ 40,249,615   13%        1                                5        22        12        3        64        
  Networks, and Systems                                                                                                                         

  Spin Electronics        26         \$ 9,801,858    3%                       22                                                                4

  Wide Bandgap and Power  18         \$ 4,220,145    1%                       11        2                           4                           1
  Electronics                                                                                                                                   

  Wireless Communications 44         \$ 10,744,139   4%                       1                  1                                     6        36

  **Totals for ECS Active **842**    **\$            **100%**   **144**       **119**   **85**   **67**   **109**   **130**   **9**    **74**   **105**
  Investments**                      306,898,846**                                                                                              
  ----------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ------------- --------- -------- -------- --------- --------- -------- -------- ---------

**Program Officer Code for the Preceding Table:**

FB = Filbert Bartoli, Electronics, Photonics & Device Technologies

JM = James Mink, Electronics, Photonics & Device Technologies

KT = Kevin Tomsovic, Networks & Computational Intelligence

PW = Paul Werbos, Controls, Networks & Computational Intelligence

RB = Radhakishan Baheti,Control, Networks & Computational Intelligence

RK = Rajinder Khosla, Electronics, Photonics & Device Technologies

VR = Vittal Rao, Controls, Networks & Computational Intelligence

LG = Larry Goldberg, Centers

PW =Parveen Wahid

### ECS Portfolio Comments by the Division Director for (Usha Varshney)

The Division of Electrical and Communications Systems (ECS) addresses
fundamental research issues underlying component and device
technologies, computation, networking, control, and systems principles
at the nano, micro and macro scales, and supports the integration and
networking of intelligent systems for a variety of applications. ECS has
a continuing goal to integrate education into its programs to ensure a
diverse workforce in the 21^st^ Century that will continue the rapid
development of emerging technologies as drivers of the global economy.
The ECS Division is organized into three programs, (1) Electronics,
Photonics, and Device Technologies (EPDT), (2) Controls, Networks, and
Computational Intelligence (CNCI), and (3) Integrative Systems (IS), and
has a portfolio of awards ranging from nanotechnology to large-scale
electric power systems. Analysis of the FY 2004 Awards Portfolio in
Appendix 5 shows about 58% of the ECS awards in the EPDT program, 39% in
the CNCI program, and less than three percent in the Integrative Systems
program. However, with the convergence of nano/info/bio technologies,
and a much greater emphasis on complex systems engineering in the 21st
century, it is likely that the award portfolio will have a more balanced
distribution of funding.

Accordingly, the Strategic Plan of the ECS Division recognizes this
trend, and responds by introducing a restructuring of programs wherein
the level of funding in the Integrative Systems program will be elevated
relative to the other two programs. The anticipated changing emphasis
within the award portfolio will require a delicate balance between the
continuity of currently funded technical areas and growth of emerging
areas. This reshaping of the award portfolio will result in greater
funding in communications systems technologies as well as macro-,
micro-, nano- and complex systems engineering for various application
domains. In the future, ECS plans to invest in silicon nanoelectronics
and beyond, quantum engineering, diagnostic and implantable devices,
flexible electronics, and hardware/software co-design for cybersecurity,
hydrogen economy, adaptive dynamic programming, and neuro-dynamic
control and learning for complexity.

The ECS Division interacts extensively with the Division of Engineering
Education and Centers (EEC) by providing lead management oversight for a
number of centers operated through EEC including Engineering Research
Centers (ERCs) on Extreme Ultraviolet Science and Technology at Colorado
State University, Computer-Integrated Surgical Systems and Technology at
Johns Hopkins University, and a Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center
(NSEC) for Integrated Nanomanufacturing at the University of California
at Berkeley. ECS provides technical support for an Engineering Research
Center for Power Electronic Systems at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University. ECS also provides technical and financial support
for a number of Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers
(I/UCRCs). ECS further provides lead management support for the Science
and Technology Center (STC) on Nanobiotechnology at Cornell University,
and the Center for Learning in Education, Science, and Technology at
Boston University.

### Figure 10: EEC Portfolio by Topic and Program Director

Active Awards as of December 2004

  --------------------- ---------- ------------- ------- ------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----------
                        \#                       **%**   **Program                                                                                               
                                                         Directors**                                                                                             

  **Code**              **Awds**   **Total Exp.  **by    **SK**        **TM**   **BK**   **AS**   **SR**   **MP**   **LP**   **PK**   **WA**   **EB**   **JH**   **ENG\***
                                   \$**          \$**                                                                                                            

  education research    124        33,464,780    4%      124                                                                                                      

  emerging technology   13         16,360,047    2%                    13                                                                                         

  engineered systems    25         378,622,281   46%                   7        2                 1                 7                                   1        7

  eng. curriculum       26         11,330,552    1%                                                        26                                                     
  development                                                                                                                                                    

  engineering education 20         6,481,725     1%      11                                                9                                                      

  industry-university   152        38,737,576    5%                                      152                                                                      
  res. centers                                                                                                                                                   

  nanotechnology        31         3,303,913     0%                    1                                   30                                                     
  undergrad ed.                                                                                                                                                  

  other                 8          2,477,541     0%                                                        2        1        5                                    

  research centers      18         286,101,981   35%                            1                 5        6        3                                            3

  research exp. for     30         9,682,936     1%      9                                                 21                                                     
  teachers                                                                                                                                                       

  research exp.for      99         21,901,735    3%      1                                                                                     98                 
  undergraduates                                                                                                                                                 

  technology innovation 54         20,605,294    2%                                                                                                     54        

  Totals                600        829,070,361   100%    145           21       3        152      6        94       11       5        0        98       55       10
  --------------------- ---------- ------------- ------- ------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -----------

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Program Officer Code for the    | **\* ENG = ENG Divisional         |
| Preceding Table:**                | Participation - of Centers with   |
|                                   | involvement from:**               |
| SK = Sue Kemnitzer, Engineering   |                                   |
| Education                         | Fil Bartoli (ECS)                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| TM= Tap Muckerjee                 | Joy Pauschke (CMS)                |
|                                   |                                   |
| BK = Bruce Kramer                 | Rajinder Khosla (ECS)             |
|                                   |                                   |
| LP = Lynn Preston                 | Richard J. Fragaszy (CMS)         |
|                                   |                                   |
| AS = Alex Schwarzkopf             | Vilas Mujumdar (CMS)              |
|                                   |                                   |
| SR= Sohi Rastegar                 |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| MP = Mary Poats                   |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| PK = Lynn Parker                  |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| WA = Win Aung                     |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| EB = Esther Bolding               |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| JH = John Hurt                    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

### EEC Portfolio Comments by the Division Director (Gary Gabriele)

The EEC award portfolio shows reasonable focus on the central elements
of its mission; centers and education. Of course, given the large amount
of funds devoted to the Centers, it is difficult to see the funding in
education. The major areas of funding for EEC programs are centers,
education, and workforce development (REU and RET\'s) (note: RET\'s are
not listed in the summary table). EEC is not anticipating a major
reshaping of the programs within EEC; however, changes are called for
within the programs themselves. For example, in the engineering
education programs, funding currently being allocated to curriculum
development will be moved to develop a larger focus on engineering
education research. Funding for workforce development programs will be
increased as funds become available, to help meet identified needs in
workforce development.

### Figure 11: Active Center Award Topics as of December 2004

Awards previously classified by program directors as having a primary
topic classification as being a center.

  -------------------------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
                                   \#                       **%**    **Program                                                                                              
                                                                     Managers**                                                                                             

  **Primary Research**             **Awd**   **Total Exp.  **by      **AS**       **BK**   **FB**   **JH**   **JP**   **LP**   **RF**   **RK**   **SR**   **LG**   **SN**   **VM**
                                             \$**          Total**                                                                                                          

  Advanced Electronics             6         \$ 2,842,665  0.3%      6                                                                                                       

  Advanced Manufacturing           16        \$ 4,262,472  0.5%      16                                                                                                      

  Advanced Materials               18        \$ 2,831,079  0.3%      17                                                                                                      

  Bioengineering                   4         \$            11.0%                                             1                                   3                           
                                             102,229,669                                                                                                                    

  Biotechnology                    11        \$ 3,018,832  0.3%      11                                                                                                      

  Civil Infrastructure Systems     15        \$ 2,853,222  0.3%      15                                                                                                      

  Computer-Aided Surgery           1         \$ 28,179,888 3.0%                                                                         1                                    

  Earthquake Engineering           6         \$            10.9%                                             3                                                              3
                                             100,812,851                                                                                                                    

  Electronic Packaging Systems     1         \$ 34,956,080 3.8%                                                       1                                                      

  Energy & Environment             20        \$ 9,565,734  1.0%      20                                                                                                      

  Engineered Systems               2         \$ 17,395,407 1.9%                                                                                  2                           

  Environmentally Benign           2         \$ 51,200,000 5.5%                                     1                 1                                                      
  Manufacturing systems                                                                                                                                                     

  Fabrication & Process Technology 16        \$ 4,389,726  0.5%      16                                                                                                      

  Health & Safety                  11        \$ 1,567,586  0.2%      11                                                                                                      

  Information & Communications     24        \$ 4,147,495  0.4%      24                                                                                                      

  Management                       2         \$ 444,385    0.0%      2                                                                                                       

  Manufacturing Systems            1         \$ 24,443,526 2.6%                   1                                                                                          

  Microsensors and systems         2         \$ 29,266,397 3.2%      1            1                                                                                          

  Molecular-Scale Materials        1         \$ 27,479,999 3.0%                                                       1                                                      
  Processing Systems                                                                                                                                                        

  Multimedia Systems               1         \$ 27,706,054 3.0%                   1                                                                                          

  Nanobiotechnology                1         \$ 20,636,891 2.2%                                                                                           1                  

  Nanoscale Computation &          1         \$ 25,000,001 2.7%                                                       1                                                      
  Simulation                                                                                                                                                                

  Nanotechnology - Manufacturing   3         \$ 60,000,000 6.5%                                                                                  1                           

  Nanotechnology - Systems         2         \$ 40,000,000 4.3%                   1                                                              1                           

  Nanotechnology infrastructure    3         \$ 40,758,100 4.4%                                                                                           3                  

  Nantechnology - Manufacturing    1         \$ 20,000,001 2.2%                                                                                  1                           

  Neuromorphic Engineering         1         \$ 32,284,950 3.5%                                                       1                                                      

  Optics/Microscopy                1         \$ 34,356,652 3.7%                            1                                                                                 

  Particle-Scale Mfg Processing    1         \$ 33,378,001 3.6%                                                       1                                                      
  Systems                                                                                                                                                                   

  Power Electronics Systems        1         \$ 26,625,601 2.9%                                                       1                                                      

  Quality, Reliability, &          7         \$ 1,303,000  0.1%      7                                                                                                       
  Maintainability                                                                                                                                                           

  Sensing and Imaging Systems      1         \$ 29,194,753 3.1%                                                                                  1                           

  Sensing Systems for Tornado      1         \$ 34,241,000 3.7%                                                                                                    1         
  Detection and Warning                                                                                                                                                     

  Structural systems               1         \$ 20,000,000 2.2%                                                                1                                             

  System Design & Simulation       6         \$ 965,380    0.1%      6                                                                                                       

  Wireless - Bioengineering &      1         \$ 28,720,397 3.1%                   1                                                                                          
  Environmental Sensing Systems                                                                                                                                             

  Total                                      \$            100.0%    152          5        1        1        4        7        1        1        9        4        1        3
                                             927,057,794                                                                                                                    
  -------------------------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------

Figure 12: Thrust Area Listing

**Division Thrust Areas \$ Obligation % of Total**

**BES**

Biochemical Engineering \$51,000,000 3%

Biomedical Engineering 53,000,000 3%

Environmental Engineering 49,000,000 2%

**CMS**

Engineered Materials and Mechanics \$71,000,000 4%

Intelligent Civil and Mechanical Systems 70,000,000 4%

Infrastructure Systems and Hazard Mitigation and Response 140,000,000 7%

**CTS**

Chemical Reaction Engineering \$60,000,000 3%

Fluid Dynamics and Particle Processes 57,000,000 3%

Interfacial Phenomena and Separations 56,000,000 3%

Thermal Systems 49,000,000 2%

**DMII**

Engineering Decision Systems \$76,000,000 4%

Manufacture and Equipment Systems 90,000,000 5%

Other Investments, People, and Centers 24,000,000 1%

**ECS**

Electronics, Photonics, and Device Technologies \$150,000,000 8%

Controls, Networks, and Computational Intelligence 86,000,000 4%

Integrative Systems 9,000,000 \<1%

Centers, Infrastructure, and Other 61,000,000 3%

**EEC**

Education \$86,000,000 4%

Centers 720,000,000 36%

Non Education and Centers 23,000,000 1%

A review of the data and DD comments permits some observations worth
noting. With the exception of the EEC Division, from Figures 5 through
10 one notes that there are only four instances where greater than 10%
of the division's award commitment is in a single topic area. Such a
funding profile suggests the following possibilities: (1) too many
topics may be funded with too little invested in each topic, or (2)
topics could be further reduced in number by combining closely
complementary or overlapping content, or (3) topics of marginal interest
or sub-critical support level might be eliminated. On the other hand,
funding distributed across a plethora of topics takes full advantage of
a broad scope of ideas, and their applicability from the research
community.

The sheer number of topics, some 156, listed in Figures 5 through 11 is
daunting. The thrust area listing depicted in Figure 12 offers an
alternate view of the research portfolio in ENG. The aforementioned 156
topics are captured in 20 thrust areas, ranging from \$720M for Centers
to \$ 9M for Integrative Systems in ECS. The ECS strategic plan calls
for a significant near-term increase in Integrative Systems. None of the
trust areas constitute less than .45% of the total active ENG
investment. The largest thrust area (Centers) is 36% of the total. The
representation shown in Figure 12 is a useful management tool, but lacks
the specificity useful to PDs in the daily performance of their jobs. In
addition, the representation by thrust area is more valuable outside
NSF. Thrust areas are easier for stakeholders to identify with, and
offer engineering researchers a better sense of the multiplicity of
areas where their personal research may be relevant.

The PD workload is also of interest. In all six divisions there are
approximately 4300 total active awards funded at a total level of
\$1.980,000. Assuming 57 current PDs, each PD has, on the average,
responsibility for 75 awards worth approximately \$35,000,000
(\$28,000.000 if the Centers portion of EEC is eliminated). The average
total award size is \$463,000. The number of awards in each PD's
portfolio varies greatly, and partially reflects the individual's share
of responsibilities in the division. It is important to note, however,
many PDs have important external and/or managerial roles that compromise
the size of their technical programs.

**Recommendation.** The ASTG believes:

-   At a minimum, the number of topics should be reduced through either
    merger, or elimination, or both. It is obvious from Figures 5
    through 10 that topic areas are often the domain of multiple PDs.
    The opportunity exists to "re-shuffle" the PD responsibilities and,
    thusly, improve communications between similar efforts and reduce
    the workload and possible duplication of efforts. Based on some
    feedback from some division directors, the ASTG believes a reduction
    of 20 to 30 percent would be in order.

-   Even with a reduced number of topics, there are far too many for the
    average stakeholder (OMB, Congress, etc.) to comprehend. The thrust
    area listing is much more meaningful in communicating with the
    non-technical community. A topic listing is important internal to
    ENG. ASTG recommends that a coding system must be developed to
    permit tracking of both topic and thrust area investments from year
    to year.

-   Topics and trust areas need to be re-evaluated on an annual basis,
    probably in conjunction with the annual planning retreat suggested
    in Section C.

-   The Center-related topic areas outlined in Figure 11 have
    considerable overlap with many of the topic areas extant in the
    divisional listings in Figures 5 through 10. The Division Director
    comments indicate a substantial contribution to and involvement in
    the technical direction of the centers managed in EEC. (See the
    italic text at the bottom of pages 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 for the DD
    comments regarding their organizations participation in ERCs) The
    ASTG is supportive of, and encourages the expansion of this
    interaction, and sees no basis for altering the present topical
    responsibilities.

## B. The ENG Solicitation Portfolio

Proposals are generated by way of solicitations, Dear Colleague Letters,
and program announcements, all of which are assigned an "NSF Number".
For convenience, the three proposal-generating mechanisms noted will
hereafter be termed "solicitations" without regard to their detailed
differences. Solicitation details are well documented starting in FY
2002. Prior to that time, financial commitments of the participating
parties were rarely included, and posting and archiving dates were
poorly documented. A full listing of solicitations, by fiscal year,
starting in FY 2002, with ENG participation in a leadership or secondary
role can be seen in Appendices 8 through 12.

Numerous data elements appear in these Tables -- some of which require
some explanation. Total solicitations include those where ENG was a
secondary player, and solicitations led by ENG. The type of solicitation
or "T Code" was used to characterize the action associated with any
solicitation in any fiscal year. T Codes can be interpreted as follows:

-   N: A new solicitation, typically a first time communication with the
    research community outlining a new interest area at NSF.

-   NR: A new rewrite, or update, of an existing solicitation, often
    accompanied by the archiving of the previous version.

-   C: A continuing active solicitation, may serve to relate specific
    proposal deadline date or dates, as well as open-ended proposal
    submissions, a continuing solicitation could last several years.

-   CA: A continuing solicitation that was archived during that fiscal
    year, often accompanied by a rewrite of the solicitation, is a
    subset of C.

The data summarizing the actions related to solicitations in ENG from FY
2002 to FY 2005 presented in Appendices 8 through 12 is offered in
Figure 13 and plotted in Figures 14 and 15. An important caveat must be
noted. The solicitation data lacks precision -- primarily due to the
ambiguities introduced by fiscal year changes. For example, a new
solicitation might be posted late in the fiscal year, create proposals
and be revised in the subsequent fiscal year, and be archived in the
second fiscal year. Despite these possible ambiguities, which tend to
average out over a few fiscal years, the trends in the data are
unmistakable.

Figure 13: Solicitation Totals and Types

  ------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------
  Fiscal Year                     FY 05 \*   FY 04      FY 03      FY 02

  **Number of solicitations**                                      

  ENG Total Involved              65         80         82         68

  ENG-led                         37         54         53         44

  **New Solicitations (N)**                                        

  Total                           3          10         20         17

  ENG-led                         1          4          13         11

  **New Rewritten Solicitations                                    
  (NR)**                                                           

  Total                           10         11         13         14

  ENG-led                         5          7          10         8

  **Total Continuing (C + CA)**                                    

  Total                           52         59         49         36

  ENG-led                         31         43         30         25

  **Continuing (C)**                                               

  Total                           19         31         28         16

  ENG-led                         9          20         22         10

  **Continuing Archived (CA)**                                     

  Total                           33         28         21         20

  ENG-led                         22         23         8          15

  **ENG Proposals Received**                                       

  Total                           2500       9847       9939       7650

  Solicited                                  5901       6132       4467
  ------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------

**\* FY 05 data is only complete through February 2005.**

**Figure 14, Solicitation Actions with ENG Involvement.**

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in" height="4.11875in"}

**Figure 15. Solicitation Actions, ENG -- led**

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in" height="4.11875in"}

The following discussion of the portfolio of solicitations in ENG will
focus on the data, the subsequent analysis, and the resulting
observations and recommendations as they relate to the management of
solicitations and the associated process. The discussion will be
concentrated at the ENG level in an attempt to provide overall guidance.
Discussion of the relationship between solicitations and success rates
of proposals will occur in Section F will be concentrated at the
division level.

There are a number of trends and observations worthy of note.

-   From Figure 13, it can be seen that the percentage of solicited
    proposals, including SBIR/STTR, is almost constant (near 60%),
    indicating that unsolicited and solicited proposals increased from
    FY 2002 to FY 2004 at about the same rate. However, institutional
    data from FY 2000 indicates solicitations generate about 42% of the
    proposals received. The rapid rise in FY01 and FY02 from 42% to 60%
    is possibly due to the proliferation of NSF-wide priority areas
    associated with the abnormal budget increases of those years. The
    leveling off of solicited to unsolicited proposal ratio and the drop
    in solicitations in FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004 forces one to
    conclude that proposal pressure is not solely a function of the
    increase in the number of solicitations.

-   The data for total solicitations and those led by ENG (See Figures
    14 and 15) demonstrate very similar trends for the different
    solicitation actions. These data similarity leads one to believe
    that management or technical controls would be effective on all
    solicitations and independent of ENG playing the lead or a
    participating role.

-   Figures 14 and 15 clearly show FY 2003 was a peak year for
    solicitations and, in all probability, created the inordinate number
    of continuation solicitations in FY 2004 and partially contributed
    to the large increase in proposals in both FY 2003 and FY 2004. The
    impact of reduced new solicitations in FY2004 and FY 2005, including
    rewrites, is not known at this time.

-   Of the new solicitations in FY 2003, eight had ENG investments of
    less than \$3,000.000 and five of the eight were led by ENG. ENG
    policy calls for solicitations to have a minimum threshold of
    \$3,000,000 unless waived by the DAD.

-   A close look at the data in Appendices 8 through 12 indicates
    infrequent and arbitrary archiving of solicitations. In some cases,
    solicitations (defined as program announcements, Dear Colleague
    Letters, and solicitations) with only one proposal deadline remain
    posted for months. Considerable confusion and wasted effort can
    result -- especially in the research community.

**Recommendations.** The following recommendations are offered:

-   It is clear that large solicitations, particularly if unfocussed,
    generate proposals that have a lower possibility of succeeding than
    unsolicited proposals. It follows directly that reducing the number
    of large, perhaps insufficiently focused solicitations will reduce
    the proposal pressure. The ASTG believes a general guideline of 5 to
    6 new ENG solicitations and 2 to 4 interdisciplinary solicitations
    per year would be appropriate. The ASTG offers this as an
    overarching recommendation.

-   It would be prudent to enforce the \$3,000,000 threshold on funding
    levels offered in any solicitation led by ENG except for special
    cases. The alternative is the use of the program description on the
    web to notify the research community of a specific interest.

-   An automatic archiving process should be implemented. Solicitations
    remaining posted after proposal deadline dates serve to generate
    undue interest, unsolicited proposals, and create additional
    workload for the ENG staff. The ASTG recommends an automatic
    archiving of solicitations 30 days after the latest proposal
    deadline date contained therein.

-   The use of the ENG and divisional websites in generating research
    community interest should be promoted. The NSF website has taken on
    a new and aggressive approach to communicating with the public and
    researchers in general. ENG has yet to take full advantage of the
    web as a communication tool in relating priorities, stimulating
    dialog, and capturing cutting edge ideas. For example, the web could
    specifically list topic areas of interest in program descriptions,
    illuminating areas of increasing and decreasing interest. It will
    also be helpful to discuss mortgate rates, and articulate how
    funding decisions are made. The ASTG recommends fuller use of the
    NSF website to eliminate spurious solicitations and wasted efforts
    within NSF and the engineering research community.

## C. Review and Approval of Proposal-Generating Mechanisms

With regard to formal mechanisms for generating proposals, the
initiation, review and approval process has recently been the focus of a
Quality Circle study where specific recommendations for process
improvement have been outlined and briefed to the Engineering Management
Team (EMT). Briefly, the process incorporates the sequential review and
approval by the Division Director and either the Deputy Assistant
Director (DAD) or the Assistant Director (AD) of solicitations, program
announcements and Dear Colleague Letters. The ASTG endorses the study's
recommendations and their implementation.

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and interagency agreements involving
ENG participation have a formal review and approval process involving
the Division Director and DAD or AD. However, no standard process exists
for their generation. Similarly no accepted formal procedures exist for
the generation of ENG interdivisional agreements. Except in the cases
where a formal solicitation is involved many cooperative ventures
between ENG divisions lack the documentation associated with a formal
approval.

More important than an efficient and effective process for the review
and approval of proposal-generating documents is how the review and
approval incorporate adherence to the investment strategy in ENG. All
the mechanisms leading to the generation of proposals must be used in
concert with the annual spring planning session of the ENG research
portfolio, budget priorities, and new initiatives.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG recommends an annual planning retreat prior
to the annual budget submission. The retreat should serve to establish
detailed directorate priorities for the fiscal year being considered,
and develop two or three options for the following fiscal year. The ENG
solicitations and other proposal-generating documents are a key aspect
of the directorate strategy, the resulting workload within the
directorate, and the metrics associated with the directorate's
performance.

## D. Review and Approval of Interdivisional Grants

Program announcements and solicitations provide a formal basis for
divisions to make interdivisional grants. The procedures for handling
these joint arrangements are spelled out in the management plan that
accompanies the program announcement/solicitation, which go through the
NSF and ENG approval process.

Unsolicited proposals can be co-funded in an interdivisional grant when
two or more program directors mutually agree to the conditions. Each
program manager and division director must support the effort and
sign-off on the jacket for the grant to take place. Other forms of
approval are not required as this funding takes place without the
creation of additional proposal-generating documents.

**Recommendation:** None, the review and approval process is adequate.

## E. Use of Standard and Continuing Grants

NSF policy allows a program, division or directorate to allocate no more
than 65% of its operating plan to continuing research grant commitments
(out-year mortgages). The Directorate for Engineering has a policy of a
maximum of 50% per division (See ENG Memo 00-02). A particular program
may exceed this total, and there are exceptions, such as STCs, NEES
operations, and facilities awards which have mortgages that equal or
exceed the program element's operating plan, but the division total for
research grants must remain below the 50% maximum.

![](media/image9.wmf)The Directorate for Engineering traditionally
maintains the lowest mortgage rates in the Foundation. (See Figures 16
and 17.) The NSF-wide mortgage rate (including facilities awards with
out-year commitments) in FY 2003 was approximately 75%. The ENG mortgage
rate for this same year was approximately 45%. This means that, ENG
awarded approximately 55% of its total FY 2003 dollars in standard
grants with no out-year mortgages. By comparison, both the CISE and MPS
directorates carried mortgages of just over 80% meaning less than 20% of
FY 2003 funds were awarded as standard grants.

![](media/image10.wmf)

The use of continuing and standard grants in varying proportions offers
a potential mechanism to increase proposal success rates. Increasing the
number of continuing grants in any year would create the opportunity to
fund more proposals, and hence, increase the success rate. The negative
impact of such a move would be felt in the future by an increasingly
mortgaged investment profile.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG recommends adherence to the current ENG
policy of not exceeding 50% continuing grants, unless approved by the
DAD. The ASTG also recognizes the increased use of continuing grants
could positively impact success rates. This method should only be
considered when there is full realization of the negative "mortgaging"
implications for the future.

## F. Control of Success Rates

Any thorough analysis of proposal and award data is hampered by a number
of factors, including incomplete categorization of each award action,
differing methods of accounting for proposals in response to large-scale
solicitations, and out-of-date keywords describing research activity
areas. Nevertheless, the data and trends are worthy of discussion,
tentative conclusions can be drawn and firm recommendations can result
in some areas.

The ASTG considered a number of direct methods of reducing the number of
proposals in order to increase the success rate. These are

-   Limiting the number of submissions per investigator or institution,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Use of discrete proposal-submission windows,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Employing increasingly focused solicitations, program announcements
    and Dear Colleague Letters,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Managing the solicitation portfolio by focusing and reduction if
    possible, and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reducing the number of programs and/or organizational units.

### (i.) Limiting the number of submissions per investigator 

Limiting the submissions of investigators and/or institutions has been
implemented in a limited number of cases. The results are mixed, but the
trends appear to support a reduction in proposals. Other potential
long-term benefits are the possible improvement in proposal quality and
an increase of interdisciplinary and team proposals. Drawbacks include
an increase in investigator dissatisfaction and a loss of multiple
simultaneous ideas from a single investigator.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG recommends that some form of limitation be
placed on the possible applicants, and in limited cases, institutions.
The form of limitation can be varied from fixed limits of a specific
number per year or per announcement to a recommendation or
"encouragement" to avoid multiple proposals. Options to implement fixed
limits might include:

-   One proposal per solicitation,

-   One unsolicited proposal per division submission window,

-   One unsolicited proposal annually to an ENG division, or

-   A limited number of proposals to the ENG Directorate per year.

### (ii.) Use of discrete proposal-submission windows

The use of discrete proposal-submission windows (periods of time) is
experiencing wide use in the ENG divisions. Results relative to success
rate are inconclusive at this time. However, there are a number of
workload advantages that result. Discrete proposal receipt windows (one
or two per fiscal year per program or division) stimulate a more orderly
processing of proposals, organization of panels, and an easier adherence
to GPRA requirements. Phasing the various windows within a division or
across the directorate potentially distributes the annual workload more
equitably. Disadvantages include the loss of flexibility within the
research community. For the proposal windows concept to be effective it
is necessary for proposals received outside the window to be returned
un-reviewed; hence, not used in success rate calculations.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG supports this approach except for programs
demonstrating high success rates as decided by the division director.
Using discrete windows would naturally lend itself to employing the
limitation on the number of proposals an investigator or institution
could submit. The ASTG recommends the synergistic use of these two
methods in order to enhance their impact.

### (iii.) Employing increasingly focused solicitations, program announcements and Dear Colleague Letters.

Increasing the focus of documents that generate proposals is an untried
option. In addition to reducing the number of proposals received, other
benefits include more targeted and carefully written proposals, more
precise reviewer guidelines, and the inherent necessity for up-front
program planning. Disadvantages include the loss of some "off the wall"
ideas without focus, possible misinterpretation in the community, and
the perception of increased internal NSF management control.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG suggests careful examination of this option
in the context of the current strategic planning exercise and
establishing a more focused portfolio of research. In any event, the
ASTG suggests that all documents used to communicate with the
researchers should be carefully crafted and reviewed on a regular basis
for relevance and the potential elimination of dated or imprecise
passages.

### (iv.) Limiting the number of solicitations issued by ENG per year

It is well known that solicitations, program announcements, and Dear
Colleague Letters create an excitement in the research community that is
often out of line with the financial resources available, and all too
often, result in unacceptably low success rates. Excluding the
non-research (SBIR/STTR) solicitations, the data from the master
solicitation listing in Appendix 12 and the FY04 divisional success rate
is plotted in Figure 18. The plot indicates a strong negative
correlation between the number of solicitations posted and proposal
success rates. This observation confirms the earlier statement that
limiting the number of solicitations has the potential to increase
success rates, but should not be considered the sole variable
controlling success rates.

**Figure 18: Number of Solicitations to Success Rate Correlation**

![](media/image11.wmf)

Limiting the number of solicitations is an option with many
implications. On the positive side, it would help target the ENG
research portfolio and shift the attention to program descriptions
appearing on the web as a stimulus for proposal preparation. The
workload associated with solicitations would be minimized and the
investigators would benefit from fewer, but better focused, proposals.
Arguments against limiting the number of solicitations include the
difficulty in getting a new area well publicized in the research
community, possible stifling of cooperative funding ventures, and the
public perception of ENG becoming less opportunistic with its funding.
Solicitations are presently limited to cases where at least \$3,000,000
is in the offering unless a waiver is issued by the DAD or AD (See ENG
Memo 01-01).

**Recommendation:** The ASTG recommends that controls be placed on
solicitations. The \$3,000,000 minimum rule should be enforced and
serious consideration should be given to avoiding solicitations internal
to any ENG division, except in unusual circumstances. Additionally,
consideration might be given to limiting solicitations to cases where
the subject matter and funding, cross, divisional, directorate, or
agency boundaries.

### (v.) Reducing the number of programs and/or organizational units 

Reducing the number of programs and/or organizational units in ENG is
potentially a very direct method of lowering the number of received
proposals. Merging, or clustering, complementary programs could result
in more concise program descriptions, added flexibility due to larger
unit budgets, simplified budget tracking and accounting, and better
distribution of workload among the program directors. Weaknesses of this
method are the potential loss of "emerging" areas due to individual
program directors within the cluster, and an increased workload for
division directors.

An ENG restructuring could have a positive impact on success rates
within the directorate. However, such a restructuring should be
implemented for more global reasons than success rates. Such a
restructuring is presently being studied by an ENG task group and will
be reported in the next few weeks. The ASTG believes success rates
should not drive potential restructuring, but benefits potentially would
accrue in appropriate cases.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG believes that success rates should not
drive but should be a consideration in an ENG restructuring. The ENG
Structure and Organization Task Group will be providing guidance in this
area.

## G. Record Keeping

Throughout this study the ASTG was hampered by the lack of coherent
historical data on proposals and awards, the resulting absence of
year-to-year trends in the data, minimal use of such data as a
management tool, and the lack of clarity and consistency in the
definitions of data quantities between divisions and within NSF. ENG is
in transition between relying on historical trends compiled within the
programs and using accurate and reliable databases widely available and
used NSF-wide to chart progress.

Record keeping is an essential tool in the proactive analysis of
research programs and the researcher's interest. Reliable data can
uncover trends in data that are invaluable in starting new initiatives,
refocusing ongoing work and sun-setting of activities that have little
interest to researchers. Examples of incomplete or arbitrary record
keeping include not using the correct program element number, not using
the correct object classification code, not using program reference
codes, and not using Field of Application codes.

**Recommendation:** The ASTG strongly recommends that more attention be
paid to the details of data entry, retention, and use relative to the
management of awards and proposals in ENG. Specific prioritized actions
to implement this recommendation will require a follow-on working group,
possibly a Quality Circle Team. That group must define the essential
data to be retained, the responsible party in the creation and retention
of the data, and how the data are reported and used in annual program
planning.

# **V. Glossary**

**Clearance** -- The process of obtaining permission to disseminate an
official NSF document. BFA is charged with final approval and clearance
of NSF documents.

**Dear Colleague Letters** (DCL) -- Letters or e-mails that are intended
to clarify or amend an existing policy or document, or to make the
community aware of an upcoming programmatic opportunity; e.g.,
supplement programs open only to an existing grouping of awardees. They
are often used to draw attention to an impending change in NSF policies
or programs. Reference NSF Manual #10, Proposal and Award Manual (PAM),
Chapter 2, Section C.

**Interagency Agreement** - An interagency agreement is an agreement
between NSF and another Federal agency through which one agency agrees
to provide services or support for some activity to the other. These
activities can include support of research operations, programs, and
logistics; and access to research facilities. These agreements may
include Memoranda of Understanding. Reference PAM, Chapter 8, Section
B.1.

**Management Plan** -- A document as described in O/D 93-02, Design,
Review, & Management Protocol. Sometimes referred to as a management
package, it describes how plans, goals, funding levels, and evaluation
strategies for an activity will be managed.

**Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) -** A memorandum of understanding
(MOU) is usually a broad, general agreement between two or more parties
to pursue activities of mutual interest. It is an agreement to cooperate
in areas where the interests of the parties coincide with the details to
be specified later. Reference PAM, Chapter 8, Section B.7.

**Program Announcement** - Formal NSF publications that describe NSF
Programs and are used to encourage the submission of proposals in
general or specific program areas of interest to NSF. Proposals
submitted in response to program announcements are considered
\"unsolicited.\" Reference PAM, Chapter. 2.

**Program Solicitation** - Program solicitations are used to encourage
the submission of proposals in specific Program areas of interest to
NSF. They are more focused than program announcements, normally apply
for a limited period of time, and generally include specific proposal
due dates. Reference PAM, Chapter. 2.

**Proposal-Generating Document** -- Any NSF issuance used to generate
proposals from the engineering and scientific community.
Proposal-generating documents include Program Announcements, Program
Solicitations, and Dear Colleague Letters.

# VI. Appendices

The appendices are available electronically as linked Excel files.
Please use the electronic version of this document to access them. These
links assume that you have access to the ENGPUB directory on the
internal network at NSF. (Note: these files are also available on
request via email by writing to <EngQuality@nsf.gov>. The size of these
files may be as large as 500KB.)

### BES Active Awards as of December 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\1.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/1.xls)  {#bes-active-awards-as-of-december-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes1.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-1 .TOC}

### CMS Active Awards as of December 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\2.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/2.xls) {#cms-active-awards-as-of-december-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes2.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-2 .TOC}

### CTS Active Awards as of December 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\3.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/3.xls) {#cts-active-awards-as-of-december-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes3.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-3 .TOC}

### DMI Active Awards as of December 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\4.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/4.xls) {#dmi-active-awards-as-of-december-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes4.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-4 .TOC}

### ECS Active Awards as of December 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\5.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/5.xls) {#ecs-active-awards-as-of-december-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes5.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-5 .TOC}

### EEC Active Awards as of December 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\6.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/6.xls) {#eec-active-awards-as-of-december-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes6.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-6 .TOC}

### Topics Within Thrust Area Listings [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\7.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/7.xls) {#topics-within-thrust-area-listings-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes7.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-7 .TOC}

### Active ENG Solicitations in FY 2002 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\8.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/8.xls) {#active-eng-solicitations-in-fy-2002-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes8.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-8 .TOC}

### Active ENG Solicitations in FY 2003 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\9.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/9.xls) {#active-eng-solicitations-in-fy-2003-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes9.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-9 .TOC}

### Active ENG Solicitations in FY 2004 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\10.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/10.xls) {#active-eng-solicitations-in-fy-2004-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes10.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-10 .TOC}

### Active ENG Solicitations in FY 2005 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\11.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/11.xls) {#active-eng-solicitations-in-fy-2005-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes11.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-11 .TOC}

### Master List of All ENG Proposal Generating Documents Since 2002 [\\\\clm-05-06\\engpub\\ENGTaskGroups\\ASTG\\Appendixes\\12.xls](../../../../../../../../engpub/ENGTaskGroups/ASTG/Appendixes/12.xls) {#master-list-of-all-eng-proposal-generating-documents-since-2002-clm-05-06engpubengtaskgroupsastgappendixes12.xls .TOC}

###  {#section-12 .TOC}

[^1]: Chong, Ken; Chair. (2005), *Making the Case for Engineering*.
    Available: National Science Foundation.