National Science Foundation – Directorate for Engineering
Report By
Engineering Advisory Committee Breakout Session
on
ENG Task Group on Structure and Organization
11 May, 2005
•
•
•
•
•
•
Win Philips, Lead
Lesia Crumpton-Young
Judy Vance
Marshall Jones
John Brighton
Linda Katehi
•
•
•
•
•
Kishan Baheti
Joy Pauschke
Mario Rotea
Warren DeVries
Lynn Preston
National Science Foundation – Directorate for Engineering
Ad Comm. members identified with the “romance” of
Scenario IV- Aligning With Intellectually Stimulating
National Priorities as a goal because of its transformative
opportunities in attracting resources, students and
public support.
Expert staff resources on
Learning, Diversity, Centers,
Partnering, and International
Cluster for
Biology in
Engineering
Cluster for
New Frontiers
in
Nanotechnolo
gy
Directorate for
Engineering
Cluster for
Manufacturing
Frontiers
Expert staff for personnel and
program development and
evaluation, strategic planning.
Cluster for
Complexity in
Engineered
and Natural
Systems
Learning, Centers, Partnering, Diversity, International
Cluster for
Critical
Infrastructure
Systems
National Science Foundation – Directorate for Engineering
But recognize the lesser degree of
disruption in the conceptual framework
presented by Dr. Brighton that will make a
change occur quicker
OAD
EFRI
EECI
BCTS
BCTS:
CMMI:
ECCS:
IIP:
EECI:
EFRI:
CMMI
ECCS
IIP
Bioengineering, Chemical & Transport Systems
Civil, Mechanical & Manufacturing Innovation
Electrical, Communication & Cyber Systems
Industrial Innovation & Partnerships
Engineering Education, Centers, and Infrastructure
Emerging Frontiers in Research & Innovation
National Science Foundation – Directorate for Engineering
Summary of Discussions
• Of the four scenarios in the report on the web,
the group preferred Scenario IV.
• Regarding the conceptual framework
presented by Dr. Brighton:
– EFRI is seen as a critical element in nurturing and
sustaining new areas, and should be a division.
– The tentative division names in the structure
“looks familiar” and may give an impression of
business as usual.
– The conceptual framework is supported, but
evolution to a structure like scenario IV is
recommended.