Science as Knowledge, Practice, and Map Making: The Challenge of Defining Metrics for Evaluating and Improving DOE-Funded Basic Experimental Science Page: 4 of 16
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:
I. Roadblocks to Focusing on the Main Output of National Laboratories
Attempts to focus management elements like those contained in DOE-ER-STD-
6001-92 on the main output of laboratories run by scientistsfor scientists have been
difficult because laboratory management and the scientists, engineers, and technicians who
constitute the workforce of scientific practice have tended to "stiff-arm" attempts to
implement them, claiming that these management elements have nothing at all to do with
the conduct of basic experimental science. In what follows, I will discuss why I believe
that this claim is fundamentally misguided and how the real issue is an organizational
resistance to the cultural change that is occurring in DOE-funded laboratories. Juran
summarizes the point nicely by stating that organizational change is always accompanied
by an "uninvited guest" - the social consequence of the change.3 The social consequence
becomes manifest as disruptions in the culture (habits, beliefs, attitudes, practices,
traditions, status, values, etc.) and, consequently, the people who are affected develop
strategies for resisting these perturbations. They believe that the price of change is too
high, even though they frequently admit that the changes would probably be beneficial to
the organization.
One type of defense strategy is to turn the application of these management
elements into a "paper" exercise where huge volumes of documents (seen only by upper
laboratory management bureaucrats) are developed. This approach gives the appearance
of implementing the management elements, but allows upper laboratory management to
hermetically "seal-off" the line organization from ever having to deal with these
"bureaucratic" matters. Often these paper programs cannot be implemented because the
documents either say nothing (they are too general and vague), or they say far too much
(they are so prescriptive that they would grind a functioning laboratory to a halt). This
strategy is extremely effective because sealing off the line organization almost guarantees
that the management elements will never be focused on the main output of the laboratory -
the experimental science itself. Other strategies for giving the appearance of applying the
management elements include either viewing "implementation" as the act of writing one
more layer of "interpretive" documents without ever actually doing anything, or by
applying the management elements only to the support organizations.
A second type of strategy is for laboratory management to apply the management
elements found in DOE-ER-STD-6001-92 only to environment, safety, and health (ES&H)
activities. This approach worked magnificently in the era of Tiger Teams because of the
"tired" inspection mentality that was embodied in the "quality verification" criteria used by
Tiger Teams. A third type of strategy is to claim that planning, management, and
improvement techniques destroy the atmosphere of creativity that is so essential to the
production of basic experimental science. I have described elsewhere how appropriate
management boundaries are actually essential to fostering a creative atmosphere.4 The key
is to develop asymptotic management boundaries within which there is a confined freedom
3 See J.M. Juran (ed.), The Quality Control Handbook, 3rd. ed, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1979), p. 7-27 ff.
4 See Mark Bodnarczuk, "Assuring Both Quality and Creativity in Basic Research" published in The
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ASQC National Energy Division Conference, September 9-12,
1990, (Fermilab-Conf-90/65).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.
Bodnarczuk, M. Science as Knowledge, Practice, and Map Making: The Challenge of Defining Metrics for Evaluating and Improving DOE-Funded Basic Experimental Science, report, March 1, 1993; Golden, Colorado. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc844260/m1/4/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.