# Presentation: 537192

## Research Review Team:  Status 

- Berrien Moore III
- SAB
- 17 March 2004

## Research Review Team

- Berrien Moore III
- University of New Hampshire
- Richard Rosen
- NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
- Andy Rosenberg
- University of New Hampshire
- Richard Spinrad
- NOAA National Ocean Service
- Warren Washington
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- Richard West
- Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education

## Research Review Team: Origins

- The 2003 House and Senate Commerce Justice State Appropriations Subcommittee Reports had language pertaining to the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).  The 2003 House Appropriations Subcommittee Report requested that NOAA develop a laboratory consolidation plan. The Senate report language called for a cost/benefit study of breaking up OAR distributing its constituent parts to the other line offices.

## The Language: The House

- “In recognition of current resource limitations the Committee is forced to operate within, the Committee directs NOAA to review the continued requirements for twelve separate laboratories, six of which are located in Boulder, Colorado. The Committee directs NOAA to submit a laboratory consolidation plan to the Committee by March 15, 2004.”

## The Language: The Senate

- “NOAA is directed to report to the Committee on Appropriations on the costs and benefits of breaking OAR up into its constituent parts and distributing those parts as desirable to the other line offices.  The report should specifically address how the newly configured research sector will directly assist line offices in developing timely solutions to problems confronting NOAA now and in the next 5 years.”

## CHARGE--SAB

-   Does the research conducted by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research provide effective support and vision for NOAA by enabling it to improve products and services, and to introduce new products and services through the transfer of technology and the development and application of scientific understanding?
-   Is OAR adequately linked to NOAA’s other line offices  (National Weather Service, National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, Program Planning and Integration) and are the research programs relevant to the needs of these organizations? If so, what are the benefits? If not, what changes would the Team recommend?

## CHARGE--SAB

-   How do the management structure and processes of OAR compare to those of other agencies managing research? Based on that analysis, should OAR be dissolved into its constituent components and distributed across NOAA, should it be left as is, or should NOAA consolidate all of its research activities into a single organization?
-    Focusing specifically on the OAR labs, would consolidation of the labs yield a more effective scientific program? If so, what would the Team recommend?
-   Would lab consolidation yield a more efficient structure, by reducing administrative overhead and infrastructure/manpower? If so, what would the Team recommend?

## PHASED APPROACH

-   **Preliminary Report**
- -	Organizational and Operational Principles to guide research management;
- -	Initial Findings and Recommendations that address the five primary issues that constitute the Review Team’s charge and hence the Senate and House language; and
- 	The future focus of the Research Review Team and its path to the final report.

## PHASED APPROACH

-   **Preliminary Report**
- -	Presented to the SAB on 6 January 2004;
- -	Final version of the Preliminary Report was released 29 January 2004.

## PHASED APPROACH

-   **Final Report**
- -  Findings and Recommendations based on a detailed review of NOAA’s research infrastructure and operational requirements, including specific answers to the questions that constitute the charge to the Research Review Team;
- -  An assessment of changes and initiatives made by NOAA as a result of the recommendations made in the preliminary report; and
- -  A recommended formal and independent process to monitor NOAA research for a multi-year period.

## FINAL REPORT: Activities

** ****Town Meeting at AMS (200+ people)**
**  ****Meetings on the Hill**
-   Scott Gudes
-   Christine Ryan Kojak
**  ****Meeting with OMB**
-   Erin Wuchte & Emily Woglom
**  ****Meetings with NOAA Leadership**
-   Assistant Administrators with Jack Kelly
-   OAR Laboratory Directors and with the Chief Scientist, Mike Sissenwine, of NMFS

## FINAL REPORT: Activities

-    Two day meeting (March 10-12) with Boulder OAR Laboratory Directors, Administrative Executive Director, and Staff and with Susan Avery (Joint Institutes/CIRES)
-    Follow-on meeting today with Bruce Hicks (Director ARL)
-    Planned meetings with Dr. Malcolm O'Neill (VP & Chief Technical Officer Lockheed Martin) and Robert Frosch (Administrator of NASA (1977-1981)
-   Additional meetings with AA’s and Hill and others
-    Expanded, data rich web site--consistent with SAB recommendations
-    Dr. Andy Rosenberg joined the Research Review Team--consistent with SAB recommendation

## DELIVERY

-   **Final Report**
- The DRAFT Final Report was to be delivered to the SAB on or before 1 May 1 2004; however, given that the Oceans Commission’s Report will now be released on 20 April, the Research Review Team needs to take consideration  of this important Report and now plans to delivery a DRAFT Report to the SAB, the NOAA Leadership, and the public (via the web) on 24 May 2004 for comment. The DRAFT will be open for comment for 30 days. A Revised Report for SAB consideration will be presented to the SAB on 9 July 2004--in advance of a mid-July meeting.

## The Way Ahead

**Issues of Concern (Last Time)**
- Just on do we achieve *greater insight into* *what is where, and why?*
- As just noted--there are there are 44 NOAA laboratories and centers and 19 joint institutes associated with research in NOAA--*which are to be visited ands why?*
- How can we expand our technical base without altering the Team* per se*?
*Considering the issue of what is where, and why is not just a NOAA issue; as the government proceeds with the initiatives following the Earth Summit an even broader study is needed that looks across government at the issues of monitoring and understanding our planet--how should that study be conducted?*

## The Way Ahead

**Issues of Concern (This Time)**
- To Finish