An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot Page: 7 of 28
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The DOE Technical Review Pilot Committee set the. objectives for the reviews with the
intent of submitting reviews and lessons learned to the DOE Research and Development
(R&D) Council. It was hoped that the reviews could be conducted at a higher level of
management and funding than current reviews, that the Assistant Secretary or Director of
the DOE office would share responsibility for the review, that the review would result in
recommendations for improvement, and be incorporated in the DOE Field Operations
Office responsibility for contract performance measures. Joint planning of reviews by
DOE and laboratory management was considered one way of both reducing the number
of reviews, thus reducing the time spent by scientists and engineers in preparing and
presenting information for multiple reviews, and increasing communication across the
Department. Ultimately, a more effective review process might be expected to improve
the quality and effectiveness of the R&D.
Performance-based contracting is part of larger changes in the review environment.
There has been a call for more careful selection of experts or peers to ensure objectivity
to counter criticism of "old boy networks," and to allow different points of view to be
represented. Also the criteria on which technical programs are judged are broader than
the quality of the science and technology. Increasingly evaluative criteria include
questions of relevance, impact and management practices.
Characteristics of the Sandia and Sandia/NREL Reviews
Sandia completed two separate reviews for the pilot. The Pulse Power program held an
expert review in Spring 1996, since its program needs could not wait for the official start
of the Technical Review Pilot. The Solar Thermal Electric Program, joint with NREL
and part of the new virtual Sun*Lab, held an expert review in January 1997 in
conjunction with the semi annual DOE program review. These two programs are
different and their motivations for review and the review process itself were different, as
summarized in Table 1 below. The differences may provide additional insight into
recommendations for ways to improve the review of DOE's multi-faceted technical
programs.
Objectives of both Sandia pilots were to
" develop a more effective review process,
" minimize time spent in preparation and presentation but maintain a quality
process
" reduce review costs,
" increase joint review planning with DOE,
" utilize the four DOE performance criteria,
" (for Sun*Lab) investigate ability of an expert panel to provide a high quality
review by participating in two day annual review already scheduled by the
program office.2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Jordan, G.; Kuswa, G. & Mortensen, J. An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot, report, June 1, 1998; Albuquerque, New Mexico. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc712479/m1/7/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.