Managing government funded scientific consortia Page: 3 of 5
This article is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
remains minimal. However, the LQCD project executed by
three National Laboratories is a major OMB300 IT project
and must comply with FEA . The funding level of the
SciDAC-2 project and LQCD project is about twenty five
million dollars each, making them similar in size. The
responsibility for achieving the LQCD performance rests on
the Integrated Project Team that includes, among others, the
Federal Project Manager, the Contractor Project Manager, and
the chair of the Lattice QCD Collaboration. The team assures
that all performance objectives, including scientific and
financial, are met. Considered to be a medium size project, the
number of project components is large enough to learn from
them, but small enough that they can be analyzed without
adding any additional project management overhead expenses
IV. FEDERAL IT GOVERNANCE AND FEA
The level of governance on major IT projects funded by US
government is increasing as the performance accountability
expectations are changing. This is true for DOE projects as
well . Since the primary focus of scientific projects is to
meet the scientific goals, it is necessary to assure that the
management processes needed to comply with the governance
rules has minimum impact on scientific performance.
Laboratories and universities operate under different
management principles and structures. Institutional
methodologies often differ as well. Establishment of a central
project office and a concise, management system for technical
and financial performance simplifies the process. The LQCD
project office is guided by the Integrated Project Team.
The designation of an IT project as an OMB300 major IT
project indicates that the project falls under the jurisdiction of
the Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) . This act is intended to
reform the Information Technology Management process and
assigns Chief Information Officers of agencies the
responsibility to develop and maintain an agency level FEA.
This act, initiated by the high degree of failures of government
IT projects, was passed to increase customer satisfaction while
reducing the cost, complexities, and the lack of
interoperability of projects. The objective of the FEA is to
implement a uniform IT architecture throughout federal
agencies to meet business, technical and financial challenges.
As shown in the figure below, the structure of five reference
models is at the heart of FEA . FEA guidelines also provide
detailed procedures on how to implement the FEA process.
These hierarchically organized reference models of FEA
introduced in the Fig. 2 provide management and reporting
structure for each IT project. These models help to organize
well-defined project parameters. Defining appropriate
reference models and refining them is the key to the success of
FEA. Under the guidance of the Integrated Project Team of
the LQCD project, a set of quantifiable measures is developed
in terms of scientific requirements. Related milestones are
established and tracked using formal change management
Fig. 2: Federal Enterprise Architecture Reference Model
To obtain federal funding, each OMB300 project is
required to submit an annual FEA compatible budget request
document, called Exhibit 300, providing the project
information based on the reference models. To complete the
process, four distinct steps must be completed. These steps are
illustrated below using examples from LQCD project:
A) Identify the Line of Business and sub-functions:
According to the categories defined by in FEA BRM, LQCD
project has three distinct lines of business: Knowledge
creation and management; Information and technology
management; and General science and innovation.
B) Complete performance reference information (using
PRM) table: This information is derived using FEA PRM
framework while the measurement groupings are given as
sub-functions of BRM. Performance measurement indicators
are defined according to the measurement areas and
The following table shows an example of performance
measurement areas and corresponding categories and
grouping for the LQCD project.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AREAS - EXAMPLES
Measurement Area Measurement Measurement Grouping
Customer Results Service Coverage New Customers and
Mission and Business General Science and Scientific and
Results Innovation Technological Research
Processes and Cycle Time and Timeliness
Activities Resource Time
Technology Reliability and Availability
There are approximately 40 different line items in the
LQCD Performance Information Table submitted to OMB.
The following table shows examples of measurement
indicators for the LQCD project for the fiscal year 2008.
As an example, the measurement indicator "% of generated
necessary improved staggered" is a quantification of the
simulations to be completed, which is a direct deliverable to
Here’s what’s next.
This article 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 Article.
Banerjee, Bakul. Managing government funded scientific consortia, article, June 1, 2007; Batavia, Illinois. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc877433/m1/3/: accessed April 26, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.