Directorate for Engineering
Ad Com Meeting Report on Breakout Discussion
about the Awards & Solicitations Task Group (ASTG)
May 11, 2005
By Professor Henry Foley
Department of Chemical Engineering
Pennsylvania State University
1
Seven Study Topics with Recommendations:
1. Engineering Investment Portfolio
2. Engineering Solicitation Portfolio
3. Review and Approval of Proposal-Generating Documents
4. Review and Approval of Interdivisional Grants
5. Use of Standard and Continuing Grants
6. The Control of Success Rates
7. Record Keeping
2
Global Comments of the Ad Com Group
and Sub Group
The Ad Com Sub Group was impressed by the
thoroughness of the analysis done by the ASTG.
Better management of these processes and the budget
of the Directorate should lead to better coordination
and synergies between the intellectual elements, and
more effective innovation.
Higher of percentages flexible funds and therefore
more success for unsolicited proposals.
3
Among the Recommendations that
Generated the Most Discussion
Expand EEC/Division interactions in
managing centers
Institution of an Annual Planning Retreat
Limit the number of solicitations
* 5 – 6 new ENG led
* 2 – 4 inter-directorate/interagency, ENG
participation
Enforce $3,000,000 minimum for new solicitations the
number of solicitations
4
Among the Recommendations that
Generated the Most Discussion
Cont.
Use the annual planning retreat to establish
priorities on proposal-generating documents
Maintain the ENG policy limiting mortgage
rates to 50%
Use discrete submission windows for unsolicited
proposals
Limit the number of proposals per PI or per institution
in a given year or submission window
5
Ad Com Reactions to
Recommendations as to Specifics
1. As the Directorate moves toward implementation
of the plan, we advocate that purposeful and
directcommunication be made to the academic
engineering research community.
* Visit institutions when possible
* Web-based
* “Dear Colleague” Letters
6
Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations
as to Specifics Cont.
2.
With regards to management and planning, the annual
planning retreat should be done in the sunlight
* Considerable thinking needs
to be given as to how to access
and pinch off so-called cold areas
* The community-at-large will need
to be assured that the traditions of
openness and scholarship will be
maintained
* Bottom up versus top down leadership
7
Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations
as to Specifics Cont.
3. Education of the community on the topics of
“fenced” funds, and the extent of mortgaging is
needed.
* Fenced – What is this? How much? Why?
* Mortgage – perception is that it is 80%
- 80% elsewhere in the FND
- 50%/65% limits are not widely known
* Should reduce angst about reducing mortgages
* Communication, communication, communication
8
Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations
as to Specifics Cont.
4.
Moving all the ENG Divisions to two submission
windows per year for unsolicited proposals sounds like
a good experiment for 3 years with revaluation then.
* Limiting the number of submissions from
institutions is not recommended
* Limiting the number of submissions to one per
PI per window sounds like a goodexperiment to
try for 3 years with intern and final evaluation
9
Ad Com Reactions to Recommendations
as to Specifics Cont.
* Do not limit the number of submissions from
PI’s responding to solicitations in priority
areas, especially career awards.
* Carefully evaluate the impact on young
faculty i.e. pre-tenure
* Exemption to limit pre-tenure may be
considered?
* Watch the effects carefully
10
Summary
The plan looks logical and it is imperative to move
forward in many of the recommended areas.
However we urge communication to and with the
community and that this be done sooner not later.
It is hard for the Ad Com to “parachute” in and
comment substantively on these since we do not
have the full context or the full field of options and
alternatives that were or could be considered
11