An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot Metadata

Metadata describes a digital item, providing (if known) such information as creator, publisher, contents, size, relationship to other resources, and more. Metadata may also contain "preservation" components that help us to maintain the integrity of digital files over time.

Title

  • Main Title An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot

Creator

  • Author: Jordan, G.
    Creator Type: Personal
  • Author: Kuswa, G.
    Creator Type: Personal
  • Author: Mortensen, J.
    Creator Type: Personal

Contributor

  • Sponsor: United States. Department of Energy.
    Contributor Type: Organization
    Contributor Info: USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)

Publisher

  • Name: Sandia National Laboratories
    Place of Publication: Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Additional Info: Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)

Date

  • Creation: 1998-06-01

Language

  • English

Description

  • Content Description: Recommendations for improving the process for expert panel reviews of technical and programmatic aspects of science and technology programs are provided based on an evaluation study of pilot reviews for two programs at Sandia National Laboratories. These reviews were part of a larger Technical Review Pilot for the US Department of Energy (DOE). Both the Sandia Pulse Power program and Solar Thermal Electric program (a virtual lab with NREL) reviews used the recommended four DOE review criteria, but motivation for the review and the review process differed. These differences provide insight into recommendations for ways to improve the review of DOE`s multifaceted technical programs. Recommendations are: (1) Review when the program has specific need for information or validation. There is no one size fits all correct time or reason to review technical programs. (2) Tailor the four DOE criteria to the program and its need for information and explain them to the Review Panel. (3) Pay attention to the review process. Spend more time in preparation and pre-review and on briefings on the review outcomes. (4) Evaluate reviews to determine how to do them better. The survey instrument is provided for those who wish to modify it for their own use.
  • Physical Description: 25 p.

Subject

  • Keyword: Research Programs
  • Keyword: Program Management
  • Keyword: Us Doe
  • Keyword: Recommendations
  • STI Subject Categories: 99 Mathematics, Computers, Information Science, Management, Law, Miscellaneous
  • Keyword: Evaluation

Source

  • Other Information: PBD: Jun 1998

Collection

  • Name: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports
    Code: OSTI

Institution

  • Name: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
    Code: UNTGD

Resource Type

  • Report

Format

  • Text

Identifier

  • Other: DE98002963
  • Report No.: SAND--98-1227
  • Grant Number: AC04-94AL85000
  • DOI: 10.2172/656693
  • Office of Scientific & Technical Information Report Number: 656693
  • Archival Resource Key: ark:/67531/metadc712479

Note

  • Display Note: OSTI as DE98002963