[Directorate for Engineering]{.smallcaps}

Organization and Structure Task Team Report

![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.0in" height="1.9993055555555554in"}

###### Task Team Members

Warren DeVries, Chair and Division Director for Design and Manufacturing
Innovation\
Priscilla Nelson, Senior Advisor, Directorate for Engineering[^1]\
Lynn Preston, Deputy Division Director for Engineering Education and
Centers\
Michael Reischman, Deputy Assistant Director for Engineering

2 June 2005

# Executive Summary

The Organization and Structure Task group was charged with advising the
Assistant Director for Engineering on possible organizational structures
to better achieve the goals of the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) in
three ways:

-   Identifying opportunities for innovation in organization.

-   Proposing organizational scenarios.

-   Analyzing the opportunities, risks and barriers of the proposed
    scenarios.

The context for this effort is that concurrently, the Engineering
Directorate has been engaged in a major planning effort. Critical to
achieving the ENG vision articulated as being the *global leader in
advancing the frontiers of fundamental engineering research, stimulating
innovations, and enhancing engineering education*, will be a structure
and organization that supports and enables this vision and mission.

The opportunities identified for organizational and structural change
are also reflected in the Strategic Thinking Group's report. They
include:

-   The pervasiveness of multi/cross-disciplinary research.

-   The need for an environment for growing new disciplines, and
    initiating and planning for new ideas.

-   The value of a flexible, agile and robust structure enabling the
    changes needed to be on the frontier.

-   The necessity to create new opportunities professional opportunities
    for all staff to grow.

Organization and structure has to enable the Directorate to achieve its
vision. In particular, it must serve both the needs for agility and
adaptability the organization will need to respond to future change,
while fostering the stability that the appropriate human and financial
resources provide, and the. Four scenarios were developed to promote
discussion and enable future change. All are departures from the current
structure, and are ordered by increasing degrees of disruption and
positive transformative effect. The scenarios are:

1.  **Operational Effectiveness**: Includes disciplinary divisions and a
    centers division to enhance responsiveness to the engineering
    research community and the organization efficiency of the ENG
    directorate.

2.  **Priority-Led Matrix Structure:** Includes disciplinary divisions,
    a centers division, and cross-cutting priority activities to
    identify for the public and their representatives, the major ideas
    and priorities that ENG enables, while showing clear connection to
    the disciplines.

3.  **Cross-Disciplinary Excellence on the Continuum from Discovery to
    Innovation:** Includes divisions aligned with priorities rather than
    disciplines to enable ENG to nurture new fields within and across
    the disciplines, integrate across disciplines to more effectively
    address major engineering priorities and innovation.

4.  **Aligning With Intellectually Stimulating National Priorities:**
    Includes clusters formed around the priority activities to focus on,
    intellectually stimulating national priorities, where ENG's role is
    critical, with multi- and interdisciplinary clusters and the agility
    to form and transform them the key concept.

There is no single recommended scenario. However, more opportunities
than risks were identified, and the barriers are noted. A compelling ENG
vision and timeliness is the key to overcoming the barriers.

# Contents

[Executive Summary ii](#executive-summary)

[Contents iii](#contents)

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Charge to the Engineering Organization and Structure Task Group:
1](#charge-to-the-engineering-organization-and-structure-task-group)

[Directorate for Engineering's Current Organization and Structure:
2](#directorate-for-engineerings-current-organization-and-structure)

[Opportunities for Innovation in Organization and Structure
5](#opportunities-for-innovation-in-organization-and-structure)

[Assessment and Review 5](#assessment-and-review)

[SWOT Analysis 6](#swot-analysis)

[Organization and Structure Scenarios
7](#organization-and-structure-scenarios)

[Scenario I - Operational Effectiveness
9](#scenario-i---operational-effectiveness)

[Scenario II -- Priority Led Matrix Structure
14](#scenario-ii-priority-led-matrix-structure)

[Scenario III - Cross-Disciplinary Excellence on the Continuum from
Discovery to Innovation
18](#scenario-iii---cross-disciplinary-excellence-on-the-continuum-from-discovery-to-innovation)

[Scenario IV- Aligning With Intellectually Stimulating National
Priorities
23](#scenario-iv--aligning-with-intellectually-stimulating-national-priorities)

[Analysis of the Four Proposed Scenarios: Opportunities, Risks and
Barriers
29](#analysis-of-the-four-proposed-scenarios-opportunities-risks-and-barriers)

[Opportunities 29](#opportunities-1)

[Risks 29](#risks)

[Barriers 30](#barriers)

[Epilog 30](#epilog)

[Appendix and Bibliography 31](#appendix-and-bibliography)

[Bibliography and References 31](#bibliography-and-references)

#  

# Introduction

The outline of this report follows the three goals we received as our
charge from the Assistant Director for Engineering, as well as some
items that came up in the Strategic Thinking Group's (STG) SWOT analysis
that this task group was asked to consider, in developing scenarios.

As is appropriate for our group, we focus on organization and structure.
We were guided by the understanding that the organization and structure
proposed has to enable the Directorate to achieve its vision, and in
particular, it must serve both the needs for agility and adaptability
while providing stability so that the appropriate human and financial
resources are available, precisely when needed, and the organization can
be responsive to changes in the future.

Since our charge is "how" the Engineering Directorate can achieve its
goals, rather than "what" specific goals or priority areas Engineering
should pursue, we have adopted the Strategic Thinking Group's priority
areas identified in their draft report to illustrate organization and
structure \[1\].

## Charge to the Engineering Organization and Structure Task Group:

The Engineering Organization and Structure Task Group was established
\[2\]

> "... to provide advice to the Assistant Director for Engineering
> \[AD/ENG\] on possible organizational structures to better achieve the
> goals of the Directorate.
>
> **Responsibilities:** The Task Group will identify, analyze and advise
> the AD/ENG on possible organizational structures for the Engineering
> Directorate, by

1.  Identifying opportunities for innovation in organization and
    structure that will make ENG be recognized as the leader in
    organizational excellence, and better achieve its goals and vision.

2.  Proposing several organizational structures for the AD/ENG to
    consider, and

3.  Analyzing both the opportunities to achieve excellence and the risks
    or barriers for each proposed structure.

We were also asked to consider several items that came up in the
Strategic Thinking Group's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT ) Analysis \[1\]. Four strengths related to organization
and structure they identified are:

1.  High involvement of science and engineering community

2.  Nimble-not entrenched operation style

3.  Top notch staff (enriched by IPA \[Interagency Personnel Act
    staff\]/rotators)

4.  Rich and diverse partnerships with industry

And two weaknesses related to organization and structure are:

5.  Frequent leadership changes (AD/DD \[Division Director\])

6.  Narrowly defined and fragmented organizational structure.

Most of these identified strengths and the two weaknesses were also part
of this task group's discussions and are included in our SWOT.

## Directorate for Engineering's Current Organization and Structure:

Two decades ago, the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) was established.
Its structure of divisions and programs is like other directorates in
the Foundation, and ENG's structure is very similar to many engineering
colleges: (1) organized by disciplines, (2) a commitment to research and
education for the practice of engineering, (3) investment in centers to
support interdisciplinary research and education in partnership with
industry; and (4) engagement with industry, both today's major
industries and the knowledge- and technology-based small businesses. The
Directorate's staff is comprised of leadership and program
professionals, both career federal employees and professionals on term
appointments from the academic community - "rotators", and government
service administrative and program support staff. Programs and program
officers are the key funding and decision-making entities, with
responsibility to fulfill NSF and ENG goals, but also with a strong
connection to the disciplinary communities.

Engineering's budget in FY 04 was \$566M supporting six divisions:
Biomedical and Environmental Systems (BES) (\$51M), Design and
Manufacturing Innovation (DMI) (\$66M), Civil and Mechanical Systems
(CMS) (\$67M not including its commitment to NEES), Chemical and
Transport Systems (CTS) (\$69M), Electrical and Communications Systems
(ECS) (\$77M), and Engineering Education and Centers (EEC) (\$134M) and
the Office of Industrial Innovation's (OII's) Small Business Innovation
Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs
(\$104M). EEC leads interdisciplinary efforts that include integrative
research centers, educational innovations, and partnerships with
industry. The human resources in ENG include 113 career professional,
administrative and support staff, and 22 IPAs on a term assignment from
their university as part of ENG's professional staff. In FY 04, ENG
managed the review of 8965 proposals, and made 1753 awards. Included in
these numbers are core ENG programs, plus four multidisciplinary NSF
priority areas and ENG priority areas. Ad hoc task groups managed
Engineering- or Foundation- wide solicitations. These teams were
comprised of program officers, who simultaneously manage disciplinary
programs, support staff, often assigned on an *ad hoc* basis, with
financial resources managed at the division or directorate level, rather
than by the task group. In addition, most of the PDs who are responsible
for the oversight of Engineering Research Centers are from outside of
EEC and take on these responsibilities for several years in addition to
their other responsibilities. It is not always clear how these
multidisciplinary activities are included in performance appraisals and
workload assessments.

Internally and externally, there has been a great deal of change in
engineering education and research since the Directorate was
established. Interdisciplinary research is where breakthroughs take
place and many universities are establishing cross-disciplinary centers,
clusters, or cross-department divisions or programs to engage faculty
across departmental lines. Disciplinary knowledge is a given; engineers
in the 21st century need multidisciplinary skills and agility in using
that knowledge and gaining new knowledge \[3\]. Today innovation is the
key to U.S. global competitiveness \[4, 5\], building on many
engineering enabled productivity gains in the late 20th century. The
role of NSF's Directorate for Engineering as a leader in engineering in
the Nation has evolved over time, but not far enough in scope or fast
enough to keep pace with changes in academe and industry.

The task group prepared an analysis of ENG relative to other
directorates. Table 1 gives an FY 04 summary snapshot of the six
research directorates. ENG is a small directorate (\~\$566MB) and
contains six divisions ranging from about \$51M to \$134M, with the OII
an NSF-wide program with a \$104M budget. Divisions in other
directorates tend to have much bigger budgets, and they are fewer in
number. ENG's proposal loads per staff member are the second highest in
the Foundation and the success rates are the second lowest, an
indication ENG is trying to do too much with too few resources. In most
divisions, discretionary funds have been used long ago in an attempt to
manage success rates, and smaller divisions loose some flexibility when
it comes to strategic initiatives and new ventures. Based on the data in
Table 1, looked at from the Director's office, ENG, and CISE, have
pressing workload issues, processing nearly 70 proposals per staff
member compared to a foundation-wide average of 50. We need to address
this issue through staffing plans and an organization and structure that
assures all ENG staff are working at peak effectiveness to manage larger
programs, develop the multidisciplinary skills to be intellectual
leaders, and achieve NSF and ENG's goals.

While it is not evident in Table 1, except for MPS and ENG, other
directorates are not structured like their constituencies in a
university.

Table 1. Summary Comparison of "Research" Directorates"[^2]

![](media/image2.wmf)

# Opportunities for Innovation in Organization and Structure

The task group collected information several ways. We collected data on
budgets, staffing and structure from other directorates in the
Foundation, and from the EIS and web pages. We also interviewed and
received input from leaders in other directorates on their structure and
organization and from ENG program officers and division directors on
some of the practices used by divisions within ENG and their assessment
of opportunities and need for innovation in the ENG structure. We
studied the reports from the other ENG task groups.

At the Fall 2004 Engineering Advisory Committee meeting, the Task Group
on Structure and Organization posed two questions to its breakout group.
First was "How do you see engineering education and research organized
10-20 years out? The summary bullets were arrived at very quickly and
those reported out were:

-   Multidisciplinary

-   Responsive to emerging priorities

The other question posed was "What structure or organizational models
might NSF/ENG adopt to lead this transformation"? The bulleted responses
reported out were:

-   A "zero base", "clean sheet" view

-   Aligned by multidisciplinary priority areas.

-   Interacting and intersecting with the rest of NSF

-   Nurturing the disciplines for multidisciplinary capacity

-   Responsive to internal and external mission

-   Matrix model

-   Reduction of divisions by consolidation

## Assessment and Review

Due to the declining success rates for all proposals, with the success
rates for solicited proposals much worse than those for investigator
initiated proposals, the Engineering Directorate (ENG) is increasingly
viewed as less responsive to the engineering research community. The
danger, of course, is the loss to the nation of potentially productive
PIs and support for fewer cutting-edge ideas in NSF/ENG. Declining
success rates may indicate we try to fund too many topics, that is, do
too many things with limited resources. To address this issue the Awards
and Solicitations Task Group (ASTG) will report on the current R&D
topical investment portfolio in ENG. Due to the abundance of topics we
may also "over solicit" the research community\--seeking proposals via a
solicitation instead of using the program description on our website.
For these reasons and because of the trend in the engineering community
toward more interdisciplinary work, it appears prudent to closely
examine our priorities, structure, and program areas.

Overall, the driver for considering alternative structures seems to stem
from the need to focus ENG programs on our strategic goals, and increase
the impact we have in education, research and innovation. From the
analysis above, it is safe to say that the first premise for
restructuring ENG should be fewer divisions and/or fewer programs with
larger budgets. With that in mind, it is appropriate to set some goals
for the 'new look' directorate.

There are the broad opportunities that we believe should be maximized to
eliminate weaknesses and respond to changes in the community:

-   Encourage multi/cross-disciplinary activities within NSF, but also
    lead the community in new interdisciplinary directions.

-   Establish an organization with a process for initiating and planning
    for new ideas, investing 5-10 years out, with periodic assessment
    and evaluation efforts feeding into decisions regarding continued
    efforts playing a critical role in organization.

-   Flexible and robust structure, enabling ENG to lead and enabling
    changes needed to be on the frontier.

-   Professional opportunities for all staff to grow and deliver more
    effectively

## SWOT Analysis 

The Organization and Structure Task Group prepared an analysis of the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the directorate
related to our charge. The results are:

### Strengths:

-   Innovative programs originating in ENG, like centers, Nanoscale
    Science and Engineering, collaborations with industry, integrating
    educations with research, have been adopted Foundation-wide.

-   A built in culture of continuity and change, with a mix of career
    program officers, rotators and administrative and program staff.

-   Integration of education and research with people and programs.

-   Support of Foundation-wide programs such as CAREER, SGER's and
    priority areas is extraordinary.

### Weaknesses:

-   Resources, financial and human, are spread across seven small
    divisions and many small programs.

-   Program officers in ENG manage the smallest programs, in terms of
    dollars, with some of the highest proposals submissions, which lead
    to the lowest success rates in the Foundation.

-   Frequent leadership changes in the Division Director and Assistant
    Director level detrimental to continuity in goals.

-   Multi/Interdisciplinary activities are added on, not designed in, to
    the organization, except for EEC.

-   Planning, assessment and making decisions for reallocating resources
    for new opportunities have been *ad hoc*.

### Opportunities:

-   Become structured and organized to lead Multi/Interdisciplinary
    activities,

-   Excel at integrating discovery, learning, and innovation.

-   Provide new and different opportunities to develop career NSF
    program officers, administrative and support staff, and rotators
    that will advance their careers.

-   More flexibility in financial management.

-   Greater agility in developing new frontiers.

-   Eliminate marginally effective programs to free up and concentrate
    resources to advance vibrant engineering opportunities.

-   With rotators as part of the ENG structure, change and recruiting
    the intellectual leadership for new directions will be easier.

### Threats:

-   Low success rates may mean a loss to the nation, because
    investigators will not pursuer their high-risk ideas.

-   Relatively small divisions and programs that make it difficult to
    recruit the top rotators because of the marginal impact.

-   We say there is convergence of the disciplines, but in practice,
    there is a proliferation of disciplinary programs.

-   In Asia and Europe, governments are focusing their R&D funding on
    major technology areas and improvements in engineering education. In
    today\'s fast changing global environment, there is no assurance of
    a US leadership position.

-   Leading universities are restructuring to be more interdisciplinary,
    if ENG remains disciplinary in structure, we will be followers,
    rather than leaders at the frontier.

# Organization and Structure Scenarios

The premise underlying the following scenarios is that "Engineering as a
field is cross-disciplinary, but at the same time the disciplines must
be nurtured, and there need to be avenues to nurture new disciplines."
This is in line with the both the NSF strategic plan \[7\] that
highlights it's strategy when it speaks of the three investment
categories: fundamental science and engineering, centers programs, and
capability enhancement. NSF/Engineering's "The Long View" \[8\]
identifies 2 goals in allocating resources: "first-rate research at many
points on the frontier . . ., and in strategic research areas . . . to
meet national goals."

As a way to consider the scenarios that we have developed, the
Discipline-Priority -Mode basis shown in Figure 1 is one way to frame
the structure concepts. Some of the scenarios are closer to one axis
than the other, but none are coincident with any axis. What needs to be
determined is where, given ENG's strategic plans, would we like to be,
and which scenario or combination of features from these scenarios will
best get us there. Finally, consideration must be given to weighting
whether the disruptive impact of any major change is worth the benefit.
The following four scenarios are presented in an order that we believe
ranges from the least disruptive to the most disruptive.

Figure 1. A Model for Framing Concepts

## Scenario I - Operational Effectiveness 

### Goal: 

The goal of the structure proposed is to enhance our responsiveness to
the engineering research community and the organization efficiency of
the ENG directorate.

### Rationale:

There are two major elements that drive the rationale for the structure
of an organization: organizational effectiveness and customer
responsiveness. At NSF organizational effectiveness has a very broad
definition, including, the efficiency with which the functions are
performed, the duplication in roles, and the consistency of the
processes used in different organizational units\--to mention but a few.
NSF has consistently scored high in Organizational Excellence in the
President's Management Agenda. Such widespread results throughout NSF
are primarily a result of constantly assessing each unit's effectiveness
and making the necessary adjustments to enhance efficiency.

The second element is customer responsiveness. Every organization
strives to be "customer oriented". As NSF, our most important customer
is the public\--both the taxpaying public and the research community
that we serve. The taxpaying public is best served by the impact of NSF
research has on their daily lives\--an issue not considered here. The
research community ENG serves is directly impacted by our structure and
organization. For example, if ENG were 4 divisions, not 6, and 30% fewer
research topics, the success rate of proposals could be significantly
higher. The merger of divisions and/or programs could accomplish
this\--and the research community would be better served.

### Structure:

A look at other Directorates is insightful. ENG is a small Directorate
(\$567M) and contains 6 divisions (forgetting OII for now) ranging from
about \$51M to \$134M per division. Divisions in other directorates tend
to have much bigger budgets, and they are fewer in number. \[MPS
(\$1,091M) 4 divisions ranging from approximately \$200M to \$250M; GEO
(\$713M) 3 divisions ranging from about \$152M to \$323M; CISE (\$605M)
4 divisions ranging from \$112M to about \$218M; BIO (\$587M) 4
divisions ranging from \$80M to \$120M\] Again, this may be an
indication ENG is trying to do much with too few resources. Due to
smaller amounts of discretionary funds, smaller divisions loose some
flexibility when it comes to strategic initiatives and new ventures. And
lastly, except for MPS, other directions are not structured like their
constituencies in a university. ENG maintains a structure very similar
to many engineering colleges.

This candidate structure outlined here, and shown in Figure 2, could be
functioning within the shortest time of all the options presented in
this report. It is the easiest to accomplish and it the most responsive
to the immediate needs of the community that ENG serves. The ENG
structure proposed in this scenario consists of four divisions, each
with a minimum of \$100M in resources to manage. A first look at some of
the ASTG data suggests a reduction in the number of research topics by
20 to 30% is prudent\--primarily accomplished by the merger of division
and programs \[6\]. Staffing would remain constant.

Some additional and more specific details are as follows:

-   Merge CTS, BES, CMS and DMI and potentially parts of ECS into two
    larger divisions with a broader scope. A number of efficiencies
    result by joining the environmental parts of BES and CMS, the
    biology and chemistry parts of CTS and BES, the thermal/fluid parts
    of CTS and CMS, and the design, service and
    materials/manufacturing/fabrication parts of DMI, CMS, and ECS. All
    divisions would be greater than \$100M except ECS\--and the
    emergence of integrated micro/nano systems and other areas may
    require resources in ECS.

-   Move the administrative management of all large-scale projects (e.g.
    NNIN, NEES, CLEANER, and CI) to EEC to draw on their extensive
    experience in managing large-scale ventures. At the same time,
    establish technical management responsibility for specific centers
    in the appropriate divisions. Since the ERCs and NSECs function this
    way already, the major impact of this would fall on the
    Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers. The result is a
    management team employing best practices learned from center-style
    activities of all types and technical expertise coupled directly to
    the relevant core activities. However, consideration must be given
    to the cost and external and internal impact of distributing the
    technical management function of the I/UCRCs because of the sheer
    number of them (50), their industrially relevant nature, and the
    practice of participation in their Industrial Advisory Boards twice
    a year.

-   Education program remains in EEC. Each division would contain a
    single point of contact for the educational efforts of that division
    associated with their research grants and cooperative agreements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Priority areas (e.g. Nanotechnology Science and Engineering, Sensors
    and Sensor Networks) would continue to be managed in matrix form
    across the directorate.

-   The Office of Industrial Innovation remains intact and reporting
    directly to the Assistant Director, similar to a priority area.

-   The Office of the Assistant Director is not directly affected in
    this scenario. However, the OAD must adjust as necessary in response
    to the recommendations brought forward and adopted in the current
    planning process.

#### Functions

Organizationally, this scenario retains a "line" structural hierarchy.
The unit or division heads report to the AD, and the PD's are assigned
to a unit; where there performance evaluation is done, with input from
any other unit heads where the PD might be spending part of their time.
The new structure has two fewer DD's, but two much larger divisions,
where a Deputy DD should be considered for each. The use of Deputy DDs
additionally addresses the perceived weakness of lack of continuity due
to the turnover of DDs. That is, the model should consider an option
where either the DD or the DDD are career civil servants. The basic
funding unit remains the PD through the unit. The PD's would have
considerable mobility to move from unit to unit as interdisciplinary or
collaborative initiatives require.

### Motivation:

NSF is experiencing a rapid decline in the success rate of proposals
submitted for consideration. In ENG, the decline in success rates is
very pronounced (solicited begin much worse than investigator
initiated), and, in a worst-case scenario, could result in the loss of
potentially productive PI's and fewer cutting-edge ideas. Declining
success rates may indicate ENG is trying to fund too many topics, that
is, do too many things with limited resources. To address this issue the
ASTG will report on the R&D topical investment portfolio in ENG. Due to
the abundance of topics we may also "over solicit" the research
community---seeking proposals via a solicitation instead of using the
program description on the ENG website. For these, and other potential
reasons, it appears prudent to closely examine our program areas, our
structure, and our priorities, which is the Organization & Structure
Task Group's (OSTG) charge.

Given the charge to " identify, analyze and advise the AD/ENG on
possible organizational structures. . " we believe changes must take
into account the ease with which the change is accomplished. The
scenario cited above is in all reality the easiest to accomplish.
Overall, it retains the disciplinary structure (almost) the community is
familiar with; line and matrix functions are retained; disruption is
minimized; and the impact is concentrated on enhanced effectiveness and
efficiency.

### Staffing at the Division Level:

Division Director, Deputy Director, Program Directors, Administrator
(s), and Program Assistants.

**Table 2 -- Scenario I -- Divisional Structures Based on Existing
Programs & Financial**

**Division of Built Structures, Products and Systems (\$102M)**

-   •Environmental technology

-   •Environmental engineering

-   •Mechanics and structure of materials

-   •Surface engineering & material design

-   •Infrastructure materials & structural mechanics

-   •Nano- & bio-mechanics of materials

-   •Geotech & geohazards systems

-   •Structural systems & hazards mitigation of structures

-   •Infrastructure systems management & hazard response

-   •NEES research

-   •Dynamic systems

-   •Engineering design

-   •Manufacturing enterprise systems

-   •Operations research

-   •Service enterprise systems

-   •Manufacturing machines and equipment

-   •Materials processing and manufacture

-   •NanoManufacturing

-   •Research to aid the disabled

**Division of Electrical and Communication Systems (\$68M)**

-   •Biophotonics

-   •Control, networking & computational intelligence

-   •Electronics, photonics& device technology

-   •Integrative systems

-   •Information technology & infrastructure systems

-   •Control systems

-   •Sensor technologies for civil & mechanical systems

**Division of Chemical, Biological and Energy Systems (\$83M)**

-   Biochemical and biomass engineering

-   •Biotechnology

-   •Biomedical engineering

-   •Catalysis & biocatalysis

-   •Process & reaction engineering

-   •Fluid dynamics & hydraulics

-   •Particulate & multiphase processes

-   •Interfacial, transport & thermodynamics

-   •Separation & purification processes

-   •Combustion & plasma systems

-   •Thermal transport & thermal processing

**Division of Engineering Education & Centers (\$187M)**

-   •Engineering Education

-   •Centers:

    -   Science of Learning Centers

    -   Engineering Research Centers

    -   Earthquake Engineering Centers

    -   I/UCRCs

    -   NSEC

    -   Science and Technology Centers

-   •Infrastructure

    -   NNIN

    -   NEES operations

    -   CLEANER

    -   CyberInfrastructure

**Office of Industrial Innovation (\$107M)**

-   • SBIR

-   • STTR

-   • GOALI

Figure 2. Scenario I - Operational Effectiveness

## Scenario II -- Priority Led Matrix Structure 

### Goal: 

The goal of the structure proposed is to more clearly identify for the
customers -- the public and their representatives - the major ideas and
priorities that Engineering enables, while showing more clearly
connection to the disciplines and their role to the nation in their
pursuit of discovery, learning and innovation.

### Rationale:

We spend as much time explaining to others what ENG does for society as
we do explaining to the engineering community where ENG is heading and
the important role of the disciplines. In many ways, making it clear
what ENG is doing that will benefit society and their representatives,
OSTB, OMB and Congress is the critical element that we must convey to
get the resources to enable and lead the engineering community.

Priority areas are identified because they are exciting areas
intellectually, or they are important multidisciplinary national needs.
To make significant progress they require a plan, a spectrum of modes of
support for research and innovation, means to pass on significant new
knowledge and technology as part of the learning process. NSF and ENG
have recognized this intellectually by operating loosely configured
priority area teams, but we have not used the way we are structured and
organized to capitalize on our structure for making our case, or
enhancing our performance on priority areas. Neither has ENG championed
the critical and continuing role of emerging new fields within and
across the disciplines, by proving the environment that nurtures
emerging high-risk ideas. These are the activities that create the base
for new priority areas when mature ones ebb.

This scenario puts the visibility on the priorities. It assumes that
engineering participates in or leads priority areas because of the key
role that engineering plays in both transforming and sustaining society
in these areas. The scenario has been structured to strengthen the role
of the major engineering disciplines in the future. It has also been
structured to be agile and flexible so we can move into and out of
priority areas without structural reorganization.

### Structure:

This candidate structure, illustrated in Figure 3, might be viewed as
transposing our current matrix structure, where we identify the
directorate by disciplines, but have major responsibilities to the
Foundation and the nation reflected in loosely structured matrixed
priority areas. NSF has multidisciplinary priority areas, but the
structure is rather informal, and the resources- human and financial -
remain in disciplinary divisions. While this difference is most evident
in the organization chart, what is not evident in this representation is
that the priority areas are staffed with people on an assignment from
disciplinary divisions, and leaders of priority areas have leadership
and financial resources to achieve the goals of the priority area.
Figure 3 tries to illustrate this important interweaving of disciplines
and priorities.

Some additional and more specific details on this Priority Led Matrix
Structure:

-   **Priority areas** would be the focal point of the columns of the
    matrix structure, with a priority area leader with a budget, a
    direct report to the AD, and responsibility for achieving the
    discovery, learning and innovations goals of ENG and NSF using all
    the modes available to achieve these goals. Program officers and
    program assistant staffing to accomplish these goals would come for
    the disciplinary divisions.

> Priority areas have a finite life, 5-15 years, depending on when they
> will have achieved their goals and if more compelling ideas or issues
> required reallocation of funds and personnel. The organizations chart
> shows the five STG priority areas, but five is probably too many upon
> which to structure the Directorate. In addition, financial resources
> and staffing must be used to invest emerging, high-risk research, from
> which will likely emerge new priority areas and exciting new fields at
> the confluence of new knowledge created in the disciplines.

-   **Disciplinary divisions,** the focal point of the rows of the
    matrix**,** would follow that proposed in Scenario I, by merging
    CTS, BES, and DMI and potentially parts of ECS into two larger,
    primarily disciplinary divisions with a broader scope. The Division
    for Chemical, Biological and Energy Systems created from the
    environmental parts of BES and CMS, the biology and chemistry parts
    of CTS and BES, the thermal/fluid parts of CTS and CMS. The Division
    for Built Structures, Products and Systems would bring together the
    design, service and materials/manufacturing/fabrication parts of
    DMI, CMS, and ECS. ECS may evolve further with the emergence of
    integrated micro/nano systems and other areas. **Engineering
    Education and Centers** would be identified as a core disciplinary
    division, retaining its emphasis on education programs and
    incubation, assessment and management of centers. **The Office of
    Industrial Innovation** remains intact and reporting directly to the
    Assistant Director, similar to a division director or priority area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **The Office of the Assistant Director** will be deeply affected by
    this scenario. There will be more direct reports from both division
    directors and priority team leaders. Planning and assessment will be
    critical because it will be the method for moving financial
    resources away from a priority area and reallocating division based
    human resources.

#### Functions

Organizationally, this scenario is a matrix structural hierarchy, with
the disciplinary division heads and the priority area leaders both
reporting to the AD. All staffing is done through the disciplinary
divisions. Program Officers may be assigned to the priority areas as
team leaders and as Program Officers executing the goals of the area.
Each priority area will have at least one Program Assistant, and because
of the financial responsibility to make awards, the equivalent of an
Administrative Officer. These assignments will be based on needs,
expertise and possibly professional development plans. The critical role
of the disciplinary divisions is to identify and support ideas that will
define the disciplinary frontiers of knowledge that will form the
nucleus for the next priority areas -- the traditional role of the
investigator initiated awards.

Two possible staffing arrangements might be employed. In one, a typical
Program Officer in a disciplinary division will devote 80 percent of
her/his time to the priority areas and 20 per cent to the disciplinary
division's goals. Another arrangement is that a Program Officer is
effectively detailed to the priority area team fulltime, with a full
time staff of Program Officers who are experts at moving the
disciplinary frontier forward. Performance evaluation is done by the
disciplinary division, and for those assigned to priority areas, jointly
by the priority area leader.

Each priority area would cover the full spectrum of discovery, learning
and innovation, using the funding modes appropriate to achieving the
goals of the priority area. This would range form SGERs to centers, from
innovations in education to industrial innovations with program staff
from the EEC and OII assigned to the priority area to fulfill the
priority area goals for ENG. The portfolio would comprise investigator
initiated and solicited awards.

Disciplinary divisions would remain the key resource of people for the
Directorate. This means a continuing responsibility to recruit rotators
and career staff who will be at the cutting edge of the disciplines and
who will match the needs of current priority areas and those ready to
take center stage. They will also have the primary responsibility for
investigator- initiated awards and supporting high technical risk
projects.

### Motivation:

This scenario would focus on priority areas that are easier to explain
to our customers internal to NSF and outside the foundation. Our
beneficiaries, the engineering community would see that
multidisciplinary activity is the key to the future of their success at
meeting the nation's needs. And that disciplinary research and
innovation, integrated with education, would play the role of exploring
and providing the knowledge for the next new priority areas.

This structure would provide career opportunities for all staff,
particularly the ability to develop new skills. And it would also allow
staff with extra ordinary multidisciplinary abilities to develop then to
the fullest; they might always be "on assignment".

The challenge will be reallocating resources from divisions, where they
are now allocated, to the priority areas. This would be a major formal
change, but operationally we are/were at the point where a significant
portion divisional funds support priority areas -- without the human
resources to focus on these areas. Bringing these two together makes
operational sense. Planning and reallocation will be difficult, but that
would be the case for any scenario chosen.

On the difficulty scale, it will be more difficult than scenarios I, but
is somewhat closer to what we do now than Scenario III.

### Staffing at the Division Level:

For each division there will be a Division Director, Deputy Director,
Administrator (2), Program Directors, and Program Assistants. The home
base of the priority area team leaders and program assistant will be in
the disciplinary divisions.

Figure 3. Scenario II - Priority Led Matrix Structure

## Scenario III - Cross-Disciplinary Excellence on the Continuum from Discovery to Innovation

**Goal:** The goal of the structure illustrated in Figure 4 is to enable
ENG to strengthen its capacity to nurture new fields within and across
the disciplines, integrate across disciplines to more effectively
address major priorities in engineering research and education,
contribute to innovation in research and education through small
businesses and center-based partnerships with industry and academe in
research and education; strengthen the role of engineers in innovation
and new business development; and develop and sustain major research
infrastructure. This structure will build on, expand, and integrate the
disciplinary base of engineering research and education to strengthen
the capacity of engineers to contribute to society through the
development of new knowledge, invention, and innovation.

**Rationale:** The major elements that drive this proposed structure for
the directorate are:

-   Exploratory, high risk research needs to be protected and encouraged
    through a separate division devoted to nurturing emerging new
    directions in the disciplines and in emerging new cross-disciplinary
    fields.

-   The complexity of engineering requires the integration of
    disciplines and subdisciplines to build the body of knowledge
    necessary to address major priority areas in engineering research
    and education more effectively.

-   The complex nature of technological and educational innovation
    requires an increased understanding the innovation process, support
    for cross-disciplinary centers and small businesses motivated by
    innovation, and coupling academe, industry, and the states to speed
    innovation and new business development.

-   The complexity of cross-disciplinary engineering research requires
    facilities and user networks enabled by the cyberinfrastructure to
    support cross-investigator collaboration.

**Structure:** The Directorate would be structured as follows:

-   Office of the Assistant Director, with leadership, strategic
    planning, assessment and evaluation, public relations, budgeting,
    and staffing functions.

-   Division of Emerging and Transformational Research (ETR).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Division of Cross-Disciplinary Engineering Priorities (CDEP).

-   Division of Cross-Disciplinary Technological and Educational
    Innovation (CDTEI).

-   Division of Research and Education Infrastructure (REI).

**Function:** Each division would establish teams to address its goals;
each team would function with a team leader with budgetary authority;
and program directors assigned to each team with joint responsibilities
for award/declination recommendations and post-award oversight;

Some divisions would share program directors to improve cross-division
functionality to achieve directorate goals.

**Motivation:** Staff would be selected into a division based on their
commitment and capability to fulfill the goals of the division.

**Staffing:** Divisions would be staffed with Directors, Deputies,
Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering Assistants, and Program
Assistants

### Division of Emerging and Transformational Research (ETR)\-- 

**Goal:** Support exploratory, high-risk research in emerging new
directions in extant disciplines and in emerging cross-disciplinary
fields that have the potential to be new priority areas in the next 10
years.

**Rationale**: ENG needs to have a place where investigator initiated
high-risk disciplinary research and potentially highly transformational
cross-disciplinary research can be stimulated and supported.

**Structure:** The division would function through teams of PDs blending
engineering and applied science expertise.

**Function**: The division would function with loosely structured teams
of PDs so there is a broad base of collaboration among the PDs from
different disciplines. The division would include appropriate PDs from
the CDEP division for disciplinary coverage and connection with the
ongoing priority areas.

**Motivation**: Division would be staffed with non-traditional thinkers,
with backgrounds in engineering, science, and mathematics, who are
capable of seeing emerging opportunities within disciplines and at the
cusp engineering disciplines and science and enjoy the opportunity to
support, explore, and nurture new fields

**Staffing**: Division Director, Deputy Director, Program Directors,
Administrator, and Program Assistants.

### Division of Engineering Priorities (EP) \-- 

**Goal:** Advance fundamental engineering knowledge, including knowledge
of teaching and learning engineering, by integrating the disciplines to
address major priority areas of engineering.

**Rationale**: Because of the complex nature of engineering and
technology, significant, comprehensive topics in engineering cannot be
addressed only by single investigators working in isolation, or by
funding disciplinary efforts across divisions with little or no
coordination. Rather, an integrate structure is required to achieve more
effective advances in knowledge and more effective integration of
knowledge across the disciplines to advance education and technology.

**Structure:** Focus on major cross-disciplinary engineering research
and education priority areas. Candidate priority area topics derived
from the Strategic Thinking Group's discussions are provided as
examples: (1) Biology in Engineering, (2) New Frontiers in
Nanotechnology, (3) Critical Infrastructure Systems, (4) Complexity in
Engineered and Natural Systems and (5) Manufacturing Frontiers

The division would support small and medium-sized cross-disciplinary
teams of investigators. Each priority area initially would be supported
for a duration of five years, reassessed in year four in terms of
productivity, and restructured or terminated by year six.

**Function:** For each priority area, there would be team leader who
carries out the following tasks: (1) sets the goals for the team in
collaboration with the members of the team; (2) manages the budget; (3)
manages the team of PDs executing the goals of the theme area; (4)
manages appropriate bridging functions of PDs with the other divisions;
(5) establishes priority area awardees meeting to stimulate
cross-investigator, cross-disciplinary communication.

**Motivation**: The motivation for the staff would be to advance
fundamental understanding in major engineering research and education
priority areas.

**Staffing:** The Division would be staffed by a Director and Deputy
Director, Priority Area Leaders, Program Directors assigned to one or
more priority area, an Administrator, and Program Assistants assigned at
the division and priority area levels. The staffing would blend
capability in research across all disciplines of engineering and the
sciences as needed and education. PDs would serve as liaison and lead
PDs for the centers and other efforts in the division focused on
innovation and that focused on emerging and high-risk research.

### Division of Technological and Educational Innovation (TEI) \--

**Goal:** Strengthen the role of engineers in innovation in academe and
industry cross-disciplinary and cross-sector partnerships.

**Rationale:** Advancing technological and educational innovation
requires sustained support of cross-disciplinary teams in academe and
small businesses engaged in research from fundamentals to
proof-of-concept demonstration and, in the case of small businesses,
early-stage product development. Partnerships with the ultimate users
(industry and engineering educators) and state governments are necessary
to speed effective transition of the innovations to the market place or
use in engineering education. Engaging students in the innovation
process and integrating engineering and business skills in their
education strengthens their capacity to innovate in start-up or
established firms and in academe. Understanding the innovation process
is crucial for success.

**Structure**: The division would support:

-   Centers focused on research, innovation and education;

-   Research focused uniquely on the process of technology transfer and
    innovation in academe and industry;

-   Research in small businesses designed to speed innovation and
    product development;

-   Partnerships between academe, industry and the states to stimulate
    innovation, and large-scale engineering educational innovations
    designed to strengthen the engineering education.

-   Supplements to selected awardees of the Division of Engineering
    Priorities to transition their work to the innovation stage.

**Function**: For each team/program area, there would be team leader who
carries out the following tasks: (1) sets the goals for the team in
collaboration with the members of the team; (2) manages the budget; (3)
manages the team of Program Directors (PDs) executing the goals of the
theme area; (4) manages appropriate bridging functions of PDs with the
other divisions. There would be cross-program teaming to explore modes
that are more effective to stimulate innovation.

**Motivation**: The motivation for the staff would be to support
research and education activities designed to speed innovation in
partnerships that involve academe, industry, other Federal agencies, and
state and local governments.

**Staffing**: The staffing would include a Division Director and Deputy
Director(s) and Team Leaders, Program Directors, Administrator, and
Program Assistants assigned at the division and teams. This division
would bridge to the Division focused on priority areas through PDs who
would share in the oversight of the centers and through supplements to
that division's awardees for innovation.

### \`Division of Research and Education Infrastructure (REI)\--

**Goal:** Strengthen the infrastructure of engineering research and
education and enable multi-user facilities through the
cyberinfrastructure.

**Rationale:** Focusing major investments in research instrumentation
and multi-user facilities/networks for research and education in one
division would provide a critical mass of expertise to more effectively
develop and sustain support for this critical infrastructure. Expertise
required is different from that of research programs as there is a need
for PDs who know how to manage the construction/development, operation,
and maintenance of major research and education facilities/tools

**Structure:** Programs would include: Network for Computational
Nanotechnology, NNIN, CLEANER, NEES System Integrator and Maintenance,
Cyberinfrastructure, Educational Tools/Networks, and new initiatives

**Function:** The division would function with teams of engineers,
computer scientists, specialists in facilities development and
operation. Liaisons would be established to relevant PDs in the other
divisions to assure appropriate coordination to relevant research and
education programs.

**Motivation:** The motivation for the staff would be effective
development of research and educational instrumentation

**Staffing:** Director, Deputy Director, Program Directors,
Administrator, and Program Assistants.

### Office of the Assistant Director

The OAD staff would be expanded to support teams devoted to evaluation
of all programs, continual strategic planning, and public information
teams. Each would require a team leader and staff plus contractors.

> .

## Scenario IV- Aligning With Intellectually Stimulating National Priorities 

**Goal:** The goal of the structure shown in Figure 5 is to focus on
big, intellectually stimulating national priorities, where Engineering's
critical role is the knowledge integrating discovery, innovation and
learning. Multi- and interdisciplinary "clusters\", rather than
disciplines, are the core of the matrix model for the Directorate. This
will enable progress and sustained effort on national priorities and
societal needs, with the disciplinary base of engineering research,
education and innovation is embedded in each clusters.

**Rationale:** The major elements that drive this proposed structure for
the directorate are:

-   Big ideas important to society are interdisciplinary and stimulate
    new discovery and innovation in the disciplines. Having big ideas as
    the organizing principle is the rationale for this scenario.

-   This creates an opportunity to not only lead the engineering
    profession, but the entire science and engineering community on the
    importance, excitement and intellectual stimulation of
    interdisciplinary discovery and innovation, and learning's key role
    in passing it on.

-   New opportunities to develop the workforce for the 21^st^ century
    that has disciplinary knowledge, multidisciplinary experience and is
    flexible and agile in adapting to change, both externally and as
    part of the this structure.

> **Structure:** The Directorate would be structured with Clusters, the
> vertically integrated units responsible for leading and achieving ENG
> and NSF goals. All single investigator, group, center, small business,
> and facilities functions would be integrated into one of the proposed
> clusters. Mapping the ENG/STG priority area recommendations suggests
> these 5 vertically integrated clusters:

-   Biology in Engineering

-   New Frontiers in Nanotechnology

-   Critical Infrastructure Systems

-   Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems

-   Manufacturing Frontiers

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Office of the Assistant Director, with strategic planning,
    assessment and evaluation, and priority setting. Also, special
    integrating expertise to support Cluster Officers in
    learning/education and integration of with discovery and innovation,
    managing centers, Diversity, and partnering inside or outside NSF.

**Function** Each cluster managed by a Cluster Director, charged with
developing plans and annual assessment of the clusters, portfolio
content and achievements regarding discovery, innovation and learning,
integrative synergy achieved, high-risk discovery, innovation and
education projects, and vertical balance of the cluster's investments,
and horizontal partnerships. Cluster Officers (COs) are expected to
participate in developing a "balanced" cluster portfolio including
integrated contributions in discovery, innovation and learning, and
manage the review and awards on the cluster.

**Motivation:** Clusters are cross disciplinary so that NSF staff can
more easily move around and contribute to more than one cluster over
their career.

**Staffing:** Clusters would be staffed with 8 to 10 Cluster Officers, a
Cluster Director, Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering
Assistants, and Program Assistants.

The following cluster scenarios serve as examples of how this matrix
structure arranged by priority areas might arise. Directorate and
Foundation priorities based on long term strategic direction would be
the necessary element in deciding the clusters, the ones needed and the
ones whose time has past. However, the need and intellectual richness
should mean at least a decade of sustained activity.

### Cluster for New Frontiers in Nanotechnology

**Goal:** Long-term objectives include building a foundation of
fundamental research for understanding and applying novel principles and
phenomena for nanoscale manufacturing and other NNI Grand Challenges;
ensuring that U.S. institutions will have access to a full range of
nano-facilities; enabling access to nanotechnology education for the
public through informal education, and for students in U.S. middle
schools, secondary schools, colleges and universities; and catalyzing
the creation of new commercial markets that depend on three-dimensional
nanostructures..

**Rationale**: To support and the new opportunities provided by the
nation's investments in nano science and engineering for the benefit of
society requires teaming across mathematics, engineering and computer
science disciplines.

**Structure**: The opportunity for engineering resides in creating new
tools, nanosystem design and nanomanufacturing. The rudimentary
capabilities of nanotechnology today for systematic control and
manufacture at the nanoscale are envisioned to evolve in four
overlapping generations of new nanotechnology products with different
areas of R&D focus: passive nanostructures, active nanostructures,
systems of nanosystems with three-dimensional features, and
heterogeneous molecular nanosystems.

**Function** Cluster teams plan, manage and assess their portfolio's
content and achievements regarding discovery, innovation and learning,
integrative synergy achieved, high-risk discovery, innovation and
education projects, and vertical balance of the cluster's investments,
and horizontal partnerships. The Cluster Director is responsible for
leading and managing these activities. Cluster Officers (COs) are
expected to participate in developing a "balanced" cluster portfolio
including integrated contributions in discovery, innovation and
learning, and manage the review and awards on the cluster.

**Motivation**: Staff devoted to advancing computational and cyber
systems to support engineering research and society.

**Staffing**: Clusters would be staffed with 8 to 10 Cluster Officers, a
Cluster Director, Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering
Assistants, and Program Assistants

### Cluster for Manufacturing Frontiers

**Goal:** Advance discovery, innovation and learning to support the
national needs to create new enterprises and systems, that take
discoveries and innovations in devices, materials and processes, and
that also bring the 21^st^ century discoveries to assure wealth, global
competitiveness and security.

**Rationale**: Integration of design, processing, device and systems
functions to advance manufacturing, fabrication, and environmental
sustainability of the earth. Achieving an environmentally and resource
sustainable world requires the integration of engineering and science
disciplines.

**Structure**: Integrated focus of engineering discovery, innovation and
learning in devices, materials, and engineered processes; manufacture
and production; system design and operation, and sensors

**Function**: Cluster teams plan, manage and assess their portfolio's
content and achievements regarding discovery, innovation and learning,
integrative synergy achieved, high-risk discovery, innovation and
education projects, and vertical balance of the cluster's investments,
and horizontal partnerships. The Cluster Director is responsible for
leading and managing these activities. Cluster Officers (COs) are
expected to participate in developing a "balanced" cluster portfolio
including integrated contributions in discovery, innovation and
learning, and manage the review and awards on the cluster.

**Motivation**: Staff devoted to advancing high-risk technology at the
frontiers of fabrication, processing, and manufacturing

**Staffing**: Clusters would be staffed with 8 to 10 Cluster Officers, a
Cluster Director, Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering
Assistants, and Program Assistants

### Cluster for Complexity in Engineered and Natural Systems

**Goal:** Advancing Computational and Cyber Systems requires teaming
across mathematics, engineering and computer science disciplines. .

**Rationale**: Advancing Computational and Cyber Systems requires
teaming across mathematics, engineering and computer science
disciplines.

**Structure** Integrated focus of engineering discovery, innovation and
learning in computational systems, simulation and multi-scale modeling,
visualization, algorithms, information engineering for systems and
organizations, data resources, distributed sensing networks and
intelligence.

**Function**: Cluster teams plan, manage and assess their portfolio's
content and achievements regarding discovery, innovation and learning,
integrative synergy achieved, high-risk discovery, innovation and
education projects, and vertical balance of the cluster's investments,
and horizontal partnerships. The Cluster Director is responsible for
leading and managing these activities. Cluster Officers (COs) are
expected to participate in developing a "balanced" cluster portfolio
including integrated contributions in discovery, innovation and
learning, and manage the review and awards on the cluster.

**Motivation**: Staff devoted to advancing environmental and resources
sustainability of processes and technologies

**Staffing**: Clusters would be staffed with 8 to 10 Cluster Officers, a
Cluster Director, Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering
Assistants, and Program Assistants

### Cluster for Biology in Engineering

**Goal:** Advance discovery, innovation and learning to support the
unimagined opportunities at the convergence of biology, medicine and
engineered systems.

**Rationale**: Advancing these systems requires the integration of a
range of engineering and other disciplines

**Structure**: Integrated focus of engineering discovery, innovation and
learning in human systems, biomedical engineering, human/device
interface, robotics, and genetic engineering.

**Function**: Cluster teams plan, manage and assess their portfolio's
content and achievements regarding discovery, innovation and learning,
integrative synergy achieved, high-risk discovery, innovation and
education projects, and vertical balance of the cluster's investments,
and horizontal partnerships. The Cluster Director is responsible for
leading and managing these activities. Cluster Officers (COs) are
expected to participate in developing a "balanced" cluster portfolio
including integrated contributions in discovery, innovation and
learning, and manage the review and awards on the cluster.

**Motivation**: Staff devoted to working at the cusp of biology,
engineering, and medicine to advance health and health care.

**Staffing**: Clusters would be staffed with 8 to 10 Cluster Officers, a
Cluster Director, Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering
Assistants, and Program Assistants

### Cluster for Critical Infrastructure Systems

**Goal:** Advance discovery, innovation and learning to support the
national needs in critical infrastructure, risk and security

**Rationale**: Sustaining and advancing critical infrastructure requires
the integration of mathematics, engineering, social science, and public
policy skills.

**Structure**: Integrated focus of engineering discovery, innovation and
learning in critical civil infrastructure, complex systems, risk and
uncertainty, security, policy, extreme events and disaster response by
individuals and organizations.

**Function**: Cluster teams plan, manage and assess their portfolio's
content and achievements regarding discovery, innovation and learning,
integrative synergy achieved, high-risk discovery, innovation and
education projects, and vertical balance of the cluster's investments,
and horizontal partnerships. The Cluster Director is responsible for
leading and managing these activities. Cluster Officers (COs) are
expected to participate in developing a "balanced" cluster portfolio
including integrated contributions in discovery, innovation and
learning, and manage the review and awards on the cluster.

**Motivation**: Staff devoted to strengthening the capacity of
infrastructure systems to deliver essential services and protect society
from natural and man-made disasters. **Staffing**: Clusters would be
staffed with 8 to 10 Cluster Officers, a Cluster Director,
Administrators, Program Directors, Engineering Assistants, and Program
Assistants

### Office of the Assistant Director

**Goal:** Effective progress on challenging intellectual and national
needs where a vertical integration of engineering discovery, innovation
and learning will achieve these goals, while stimulating new advances in
engineering disciplines.

**Rationale**: The OAD would expand in scope to assure integration of
functions within and across the clusters to achieve the Directorate's
vision.

**Structure**: AD, DAD, evaluation team, strategic planning team, center
coordination team, education coordination team, and public relations
team.

**Function**: Lead and direct strategic planning, assessment and
evaluation, and priority setting. Special integrating expertise to
support Cluster Officers in learning/education and integration of with
discovery and innovation, managing centers, Diversity, and partnering
inside or outside NSF

Partnering inside or outside of NSF (linkages should be strategic and
explicit)

**Motivation**: To provide a highly integrated directorate to lead
engineering within NSF and beyond.

**Staffing**: The OAD staff would be expanded to support teams devoted
to evaluation of all programs, continual strategic planning, and public
information teams, and the specific integrating functions across all
clusters.

Figure5. Scenario IV - Aligning With Intellectually Stimulating National
Priorities

# Analysis of the Four Proposed Scenarios: Opportunities, Risks and Barriers

## Opportunities

-   Organized to excel at inter- and multi-disciplinary research will be
    an opportunity to show leadership in the engineering profession.
    These scenarios show different ways to exercise this leadership.

-   Operationally, all these scenarios suggest focusing resources in
    fewer and larger units, explicitly in divisions/clusters but
    implicitly in programs too. We believe that this will provide
    operational flexibility in pursuing opportunities, as well as
    handling resource-limiting challenges.

-   We believe that organizationally, large divisions/offices/clusters
    justify the position of a deputy in all of these structures,
    preferably a career NSF staff member who, with the Administrative
    Officer, will provide continuity in intellectual goals and
    operational plans.

-   New opportunities for all staff -- administrative, executive,
    professional, rotators and support -- to develop a diverse and agile
    staff with exceptional skills for working in the multidisciplinary
    21^st^ century.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sustain and protect small-scale, high risk research, as in Scenario
    III

-   Stimulate radically new fields of engineering as in Scenarios II and
    III;

-   Couple the disciplines to optimize the contributions of ENG and
    engineers to major national priorities, Scenarios II, III, and IV;

-   Strengthen the role of cross-disciplinary team of engineers and
    small firms engaged in research designed to speed innovation;

-   Build partnerships among academe, industry, and the states to
    stimulation innovation and economic development;

-   Support the engineering research enterprise through research
    facilities and networks enabled by the cyberinfrastructure;

-   Focus the Program Directors (PDs) on the intellectual content of
    what they fund and its outcome.

## Risks 

-   If we do not take proactive efforts to excel at discovery, learning
    and innovation in interdisciplinary AND disciplinary activities, we
    risk not fully exploring and defining the frontiers of engineering
    that will benefit the nation.

-   Unless the vision for the Directorate is accepted and the structure
    aligned with it, none of these scenarios will be accepted willingly
    by all. As with all change, there will be reluctance, but we believe
    that, there is a willingness to change and be leaders by example
    within NSF and for the engineering profession.

-   Separation of the functions of research from discovery, through
    fundamentals in priority areas, to innovation, which can be
    addressed through matrix teaming across divisions.

## Barriers

-   The time and staff needed to plan and execute change are estimated
    to be a minimum of three people working full time for a year to
    prepare plans for DGA and HRM on positions, budgets, and space, and
    keep the rest of the Directorate informed in as open a way as
    possible.

-   Change needs to be done as quickly as possible, because even with
    the best planning, there will be a time when in fact workload
    increase, due to operating the legacy and the new organization. Only
    the good will of people will make it work.

-   Some NSF processes and systems are barriers to multidisciplinary
    operations, e.g., the e-jacket processes are not effective at
    sharing responsibility.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Disciplinary identification of faculty and NSF staff.

-   Teaming is difficult for faculty trained to function as lone
    academic entrepreneurs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Shifting the budget authority to priority area team leaders will be
    perceived as a reduction of power by most of the PDs and divisions.

# Epilog

The Engineering Directorate's planning process defined a direction for
the future. The task team\'s report on Organization & Structure provided
choices that will enable Engineering to fulfill its critical mission in
the 21^st^ century. It served as the basis for discussion by the
Engineering Leadership Team, the Engineering Advisory Committee, and the
all the Directorate's staff in thinking about the future.

At an Engineering All Hands Meeting on May 9, 2005 and an Engineering
Advisory Committee Meeting on May 11-12, 2005, Dr. John Brighton, the
Assistant Director for Engineering, presented a conceptual framework for
a new structure for the Directorate, which is detailed in \[1\]. The
framework presented is an adaptation of Scenario I and Scenario II.

# Appendix and Bibliography

## Bibliography and References

1.  "Strategic Planning Overview: Strategic Directions for Engineering
    Research, Innovation, and Education," NSF Engineering, Draft dated
    May 25, 2005.

2.  **"**Charge to Engineering Organization and Structure Task Group",
    AD/ENG Policy Memorandum No. 04-04, August 2, 2004

3.  *The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century,*
    NAE 2004, National Academies Press, Washington, DC

4.  *Innovate America: National Innovation Initiative Final Report*,
    (Council on Competitiveness), December 2004.

5.  "Assessing the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise,
    preliminary report for public review," National Academy of
    Engineering, Washington, DC, January 2005.

6.  "Awards and Solicitations Task Group Study and Recommendations," ENG
    ASTG Task Group, Draft dated March 8, 2005.

7.  National Science Foundation Strategic Plan 2003-2008.

8.  The Long View, NSF Engineering Plan, 1996.

[^1]: Most recently Senior Advisor, Office of the Director

[^2]: This data is for FY 04 from Executive Information System (EIS),
    where operating plan numbers and official budget numbers are
    different.