VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY (VCAT)
MINUTES OF JUNE 10-11, 2008 MEETING
GAITHERSBURG, MD
ATTENDANCE
Visiting Committee
Members Attending
Baer, Thomas
Cerf, Vinton
Fleury, Paul
Green, Peter
Heimbrook, Lou Ann*
Khosla, Pradeep
Reichmanis, Elsa
Serum, James
Taub, Alan
Williams, Robert*
Ehrlich, Gail, VCAT Exec. Dir.NIST Leadership Board
Amis, Eric
Anderson, William
Celotta, Robert
Furlani, Cita
Gallagher, Patrick
Gebbie, Katharine
Harary, Howard
Hertz, Harry
Heyman, Matthew
Kayser, Richard
Kilmer, Roger
Kirkner, Robert
May, Willie
Stanley, Marc
Steel, Eric
Sunder, Shyam
Szykman, Simon
Turner, JamesGuests
Vivari, Ben, Washington CORE*Attended part of the meeting via audio-teleconference.
NIST Staff
Acierto, Linda
Amos, Mike
Arnold, George
Balicao, Francisco
Briggman, Kimberly
Brumby, Janet
Boehm, Jason
Curry, Emily
Cherny, Paul
Dobrzeniecki, Aimee
Dodson, Donna
Fletcher, Catherine
Fraser, Gerald
Gayle, Frank
Grosshandler, William
Harris, Georgia
Herbert, Denise
Ivester, Robert
Klausing, Thomas
Lucas, Jeffrey
Lellock, Karen
Meade, Heather
Ott, William
Saundry, Claire
Saunders, Mary
Schufreider, James
St. Pierre, James
Stein, Ben
Seiler, David
Tassey, Gregory
Wisniewski, Lorel
Whitman, Lloyd
Note: Each of the presentations summarized below are available from the June 2008 meeting agenda on the VCAT website at http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.htm .
Call to Order and Agenda Review
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 a.m. by the VCAT Chair, Dr. James Serum. He reviewed the meeting agenda with the theme, “NIST’s Roles in the Innovation Ecosystem” and noted that the agenda was developed collaboratively over the past four months with regular dialogue between the Chair, Vice-Chair, Dr. Turner, and other NIST staff. The meeting format will provide time for the VCAT to reflect on the important topics, issues, and recommendations to include in the Annual Report due in February 2009, and to provide feedback to NIST on the second day of the meeting. As context for the presentations on strategic planning, Dr. Serum indicated that NIST’s strategic planning process has become “significantly better.” The last agenda item will be a discussion on the VCAT’s role in NIST strategic planning.
Dr. Turner, the NIST Deputy Director, introduced the three new VCAT members: Dr. Peter Green, Chair of the Materials Science and Engineering Department and Professor, University of Michigan; Dr. Alan Taub, Executive Director, GM R&D, General Motors; and Dr. Pradeep Khosla, Dean of the College of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University.
During the other VCAT members’ introductions, Dr. Serum noted that Vinton Cerf, the Vice-Chair of the VCAT, has been traveling around the world receiving honorary degrees as the Inventor of the Internet. Dr. Serum also noted that this is his 11th year of continuous interactions with NIST as a former member of an NRC review panel, and, more recently, as a VCAT member.
For more details, see the presentation.
NIST – VCAT Guiding Principles for Leadership
Dr. Serum reviewed the seven Guiding Principles for the VCAT and NIST Leadership which were jointly developed between the VCAT Chair, Vice-Chair, the NIST Deputy Director, and other NIST staff. The principles are oriented around the topics of effective listening and communications of ideas. According to Dr. Turner, the first principle which emphasizes working together is the most important. For more details, see Dr. Serum’s presentation.
Discussion:
A VCAT member raised the issue that the fourth principle was too restrictive and that short-term topics may be appropriate at times. The VCAT Chair and the NIST Deputy Director agreed to soften this language by deleting the introductory phrase, “In all of its work.” Dr. Turner indicated that the VCAT could go beyond these parameters if requested by NIST in cases where there may be a gap.
2008 Priorities for the VCAT and Response to the 2007 VCAT Report
Dr. Turner’s presentation outlined the three major topics that NIST is asking the VCAT to address in 2008 to help NIST best prepare for, deal with, and adapt to change in the scientific and technological enterprise and in the global economy and society in order to continue to effectively meet its mission. The second part of the presentation summarized the NIST response to the recommendations from the 2007 VCAT Annual Report, including the specific subcommittee recommendations on Information Technology, Biosciences/Healthcare, and Nanotechnology. For more details, see Dr. Turner’s presentation.
Discussion:
The VCAT members questioned the meaning of the phrase, “guard against technological surprise” used in the third major topic. Some members indicated that this phrase had a negative connotation and suggested that it be rewritten. NIST does not intend to stifle innovation but rather to anticipate future changes in order to respond quickly to critical emerging needs without being surprised.
Dr. Serum agreed that these topics should be the content for the three meetings in 2008 and asked the VCAT to think about how to maintain the momentum of the three subcommittees within the context of these priorities. A VCAT member noted that the topic of sustainability is very visible now and requires a lot of attention. This topic would be covered under the second priority.
In regards to the Nanotechnology Coordinating Council recommendation, a VCAT member emphasized the importance of communications as a necessary first step.
The Vice-Chair congratulated NIST for their written response to the VCAT 2007 Annual Report and recommended that other agencies should follow this practice.
NIST Update
Dr. Turner presented an update on NIST’s activities, including background information on its FY 2009 budget; examples of external and internal staff recognition; administrative changes; technical highlights; and outreach and partnership activities such as the Smart Grid, the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, the College for Nanoscale Science and Engineering of the University of Albany-SUNY, and the 2007 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. For more details, see Dr. Turner’s presentation.
Discussion:
A VCAT member inquired about the decision to propose the elimination of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). Dr. Turner indicated that the Executive Branch made this decision based on shortage of resources and priorities and that NIST supports the President’s budget. Dr. Serum noted that there was strong bipartisan support for these programs at the March 2008 Congressional hearings.
The negative impact to NIST of another Continuing Resolution (CR) for FY 2009 was also discussed. Dr. Turner responded that in case of a CR, NIST may need to conduct more focused efforts in fewer areas. Another VCAT member expressed concern that a strong coordinated effort to deal with the shortage of ACI funding was missing between NSF, DoE, and NIST. The VCAT members asked how they could help Congress understand NIST’s priorities, similar to PITAC’s efforts in regularly briefing Congress. They were reminded that the VCAT could educate the Administration and Congress on the importance of NIST to science and technology, but not engage in lobbying activities. However, as private citizens, each VCAT member could express his/her own views to Congress.
In regards to the FY 2009 budget initiative summaries, some of the members suggested that browser vulnerability should be included in the cyber security initiative and that the optical communications’ needs were oversimplified. According to NIST, the Telecommunications Industry Association identified problem areas shown on the optical communications summary. Nanotechnology is absent from the list of the FY 2010 initiative topical areas since NIST assumes that the FY 2009 nanotechnology initiative will be fully funded.
In response to a member’s concern in understanding what NIST wants to do and how well it is performing, the group discussed NIST’s strategic planning process. The VCAT chair indicated that it was the VCAT’s role to help NIST answer these questions in an understandable strategic document. He also expressed the need for the VCAT to understand how NIST justifies its expenses between the laboratories. Dr. Turner described the vigorous priority setting process at NIST, including an OSTP guidance memo, the guidance memo from the NIST Director, and NIST’s three-year programmatic plan.
The Innovation Ecosystem
Mr. Steel’s presentation highlighted the importance of innovation, the participants and roles in the innovation ecosystem, data showing the U.S. decline in key investments in the innovation infrastructure, and NIST’s role in promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. As his last vugraph, Mr. Steel asked the VCAT to note after each of today’s presentations how and where NIST plays a role in the innovation ecosystem. For more details, see Mr. Steel’s presentation.
Discussion:
Underinvestment by the U.S. in the physical sciences was confirmed by one VCAT member who noted that two-thirds of papers published in Physical Review are from non-U.S. organizations.
NIST’s relationships and partnerships with other agencies were also discussed in response to a member’s perception that the institute is a contracting organization. NIST has struggled with this perception over the years and does not perceive the organization as a contracting entity. Since the NIST mission crosscuts the mission of most other agencies, NIST works with all of the other agencies and focuses on measurement science, standards, and technology. Some other agency relationships, including work with DARPA, alert NIST to problem areas requiring NIST expertise.
NIST’s knowledge transfer mechanisms were also discussed briefly. The dissemination of these services demonstrates the scale of NIST’s impact on a national basis, more broadly than just to Maryland and Colorado. NIST sets goals for some of these mechanisms as part of the Government Performance and Results Act which are reported to OMB and the Congress. Some of these mechanisms, such as SRMs and publications, are scaled based on initiative funding.
Introduction to NIST Ties with Academia
Dr. Saundry provided an overview and benefits of NIST-specific programs with academia, such as NRC Research Associateships, the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program, and the Professional Research Experience Program; NIST joint institutes, such as JILA, UMBI, and HML; and other university opportunities, such as guest researchers. For more details, see Dr. Saundry’s presentation.
Discussion:
NIST actively recruits minorities and underrepresented minorities in all of its programs. The number of guest researchers from universities in FY 2008 appears lower than past years since this number does not yet reflect end-of-year data.
The VCAT Chair expects to hear from the other presentations which of the academic partnerships are most productive in the context of the NIST mission and how these relationships affect the NIST mission. Another VCAT member wants to hear how NIST stays at the forefront of research with its budget restrictions. There was also a suggestion that the chart displaying international guest researchers be improved by distinguishing between guest researchers from U.S. companies versus non-U.S. companies.
Overview of Partnerships with the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) and JILA
Dr. Gebbie provided an overview of JILA, a joint research institute between NIST and the University of Colorado, as the leading center for atomic, molecular and optical science, and the JQI, a new institute between the University of Maryland, NIST, and NSA designed to exploit the strange aspects of quantum physics for the second quantum revolution. The benefits of these partnerships to NIST and the Physics Laboratory were also described. For more details, see Dr. Gebbie’s presentation.
Discussion:
Dr. Serum noted that JILA is one of the longest and most successful relationships between NIST and academia.
NIST leaders described the strategic decision process to establish the JQI. Quantum information became a major thrust at NIST after being reviewed strategically by NIST as one of many proposals during the initiative process. NIST lacked the needed facilities and staff to pursue much of this work and decided that a JQI would be the best mechanism for leveraging NIST expertise by bringing together NIST and university experts. A notice was placed in the Federal Register announcing that any university could compete for the JQI and the University of Maryland was selected.
Industry’s involvement with NIST in quantum computing includes working with Hewlett Packard in making atomic clocks as well as holding workshops for industry to find out what NIST is doing in this area and the government role in such high-risk research.
Overview of Partnerships with the Hollings Marine Laboratory (HML) and the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (UMBI)
Dr. May provided an overview of 1) the HML, a unique partnership established in 2002 between NIST, NOAA, the Medical University of South Carolina, the College of Charleston, and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources; 2) the UMBI, including the Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology (CARB) established in 1985 between NIST, the University of Maryland, and Montgomery County, Maryland; 3) an international conference in October 2008 co-hosted by NIST on accelerating innovation in 21st century biosciences; and 4) new strategic partnerships/alliances in biosciences in various stages of development. The impact of NIST activities in the HML and UMBI partnerships was also described. For more details, see Dr. May’s presentation.
NIST Working with Industry via the Rapid Innovation and Competitiveness (RIC) Initiative
Dr. Kayser provided an overview of the RIC, a new public-private partnership for R&D investment, and its benefits to NIST. His presentation summarized the key obstacles to innovation, a new R&D paradigm, the role of RIC, and a new pilot program with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI). For more details, see Dr. Kayser’s
Discussion:
The group discussed RIC’s role in the business start-up, development, and commercialization stage (i.e. gray box). The criteria for establishing a RIC calls for regional government investments and venture capital support enabling the path to commercialization. RIC does not play a role in managing the “gray box” but NIST will evaluate the research results. The VCAT Chair challenged NIST to take a more active role in the commercialization stage and to identify other ways for the RIC to be more influential in this stage.
The Technology Innovation Program (TIP)
Mr. Stanley provided an overview of TIP which was established by the America COMPETES Act for the purpose of assisting U.S. businesses and institutions of higher education or other organizations, such as national laboratories and nonprofit research institutions, to support, promote, and accelerate innovation in the U.S. through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national need (CNN). The presentation highlighted TIP’s benefits to NIST and the identification and selection process for CNNs, including seven potential CNN topic areas. For more details, see Mr. Stanley’s presentation.
Discussion:
As requested by the VCAT Chair, Mr. Stanley elaborated on the input from OSTP and the National Academies of Sciences regarding the CNN topic areas. The Chair remarked that Mr. Stanley provided a “great” strategic explanation for selecting the seven potential CNN topic areas which have the greatest need for public funding to impact U.S. competition and our economy.
Another VCAT member noted that this was an excellent presentation that showed the distinction between the Advanced Technology Program and TIP.
NIST Laboratory Tours
Using Neutrons to Study and Help Design Novel, Advanced Materials for Industrial and Scientific Use
Dr. Patrick Gallagher and Mr. Dan Newmann hosted this laboratory tour. The NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is one of the leading research facilities in the world where intense beams of subatomic particles (neutrons) are used to probe the nanoscale structure and properties of novel materials. Research at the NCNR has led to advances in magnetic storage media technology, improvements to hydrogen fuel cells, and the design of new materials for hydrogen storage. It also has been used to predict the shelf-life of pharmaceuticals.
Radiation Measurements for Health, Safety & Homeland Security
Dr. Lisa Karam hosted this laboratory tour. Portal monitors and hand-held rad/nuc detectors are being tested and evaluated by NIST to assist the Department of Homeland Security, state and local governments, and industry to measure the performance and improve homeland security. NIST developed a cargo container facility to be used as a test bed for detector inspection of transportation containers.The facility is being used to test the performance of commercially available pagers, isotopes identifiers, hand-held detectors and portal monitors such as those used at border crossings. NIST also established a national standard for radiation exposure from x-ray beams used in mammography and provides calibration of exposure meters.
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
Mr. Kilmer provided an overview of the MEP which was created in 1988 and reauthorized in the America COMPETES Act. With 59 centers in 440 field locations, the mission of MEP is to strengthen the global competitiveness of U.S.-based manufacturing by providing information, decision support, and implementation of innovative approaches focused on leveraging technologies, techniques, and business best practices. The presentation featured MEP’s activities, client impacts, business growth opportunities for manufacturers, and the MEP technology deployment approach. For more details, see Mr. Kilmer’s presentation.
Discussion:
Mr. Kilmer noted that the client impact data was generated from customer surveys performed 9-12 months after the project completion date. He also remarked that clients do not have a bias to provide high impact data in order to receive a greater amount of federal funding since they cost-share.
A VCAT member raised the issue of demographic changes on the manufacturing sector and the need for more automation to address this problem. Mr. Kilmer explained that lean manufacturing can help reduce the number of people needed in the manufacturing sector and that NIST is working through local workforce organizations to retrain workers for higher skilled levels. According to a VCAT member, job losses due to offshore manufacturing far exceed the demographics issue, particularly in the auto industry, and that automation provides better quality to help offset this loss.
Measuring Performance Excellence – Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness
Before beginning his formal presentation, Dr. Hertz noted that several Baldrige Award recipients benefited from MEP services and several MEP and Center staff received Baldrige training. Dr. Hertz’s presentation included an overview of the Baldrige National Quality Program, a national education program with information sharing encouraged by a prestigious Presidential award – the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. To date, there have been 72 Award recipients as well as 1.3 million Criteria downloads in 2007. Video clips from two of the 2007 award recipients were also featured. For more details, see Dr. Hertz’s presentation.
Discussion:
Process performance is part of Baldrige. ISO 9000 has moved closer to the Baldrige criteria.
Dr. Hertz elaborated on the reasons that companies are motivated to seek the award. The prize is a trophy, not money. He reported that Eastman Chemical CEO Earnie Deavenport was interested in Baldrige as “a way to win business, not just to win the Award”. Studies conducted several years ago showed increases in the annual compounded productivity of 9.25% for Award recipients at the same time as the economy was growing by 2%. In another study, a fictitious stock fund made up of publicly traded U.S. companies that received the Award between 1991 and 2002 outperformed the Standard & Poor’s 500 by 4-to-1. A VCAT member noted how engaging in the Baldrige process and adopting the practices yield results and that it is important to measure changes in productivity. It is difficult to track data related to profitability increases among the finalists. However, some companies have tracked their profitability scores overtime and have found direct correlations.
The group discussed three dips in the graph of the 1999 and 2000 Award Process Mean Item Percentage Scores in all business categories. The first dip represents strategy deployment, the second dip represents the use of data and information, and the third dip represents supply chain performance which is an anomaly. These items are not metrics. This graph is intended to show the areas of peak performance in winning organizations.
The strategic value of the Baldrige program to NIST was raised. The Baldrige program adds another dimension of measurement to NIST -- the measurement of organizational performance and standards for measuring organizational performance. This information is included in some textbooks and business school curricula. The NIST Director’s Office is trying to implement the Baldrige framework.
A contractor prepared the September 2001 Economic Evaluation of the Baldrige program which demonstrated a 207-to-1 social rate of return. Greg Tassey, an economist in the Director’s Office, had responsibility for overseeing this study.
How NIST Responds to Standards Needs in a Dynamic World
Dr. Arnold’s presentation emphasized that standards leadership is core to NIST’s mission and that the standards system is complex, both in the U.S. and globally. He provided examples of NIST-supported standards with documented industry/societal impact as well as examples in biometrics, nanotechnology, and biofuels where NIST’s efforts are improving the timeliness of standards in these areas.
Discussion:
Dr. Arnold addressed the importance of global standards to U.S. competitiveness and the need for a level playing field for all countries. The U.S. competitiveness can be strengthened if the global standard is based on a U.S.-developed technology. Governments in other parts of the world select a unique standard to gain an advantage in protecting their own market and deliver it globally.
The group discussed the importance of NIST as a proactive and strategic organization in developing standards in such areas as smart-grid, WiMAX, and nanomaterials. One VCAT member remarked that although it may not be clear if NIST should lead the effort for Information Technology standards that impact U.S. businesses, the organization should be aware of the activities in this area. Based on his experience with the National Research Council’s review panel, the VCAT chair remarked that NIST does make a strategic attempt by polling and responding to industry’s needs for standards that strengthen the U.S. competitiveness. Performance plans are also a mechanism to reflect the strategic direction of NIST, for example, NIST’s important work in biofuels is included in performance plans that cascade from the leadership down to the technical staff. As another strategic approach, NIST has representatives on standards’ steering committees and, where necessary, can help set up a new standard structure to address emerging areas. In the area of documentary standards, NIST drafts standards for consideration by the appropriate standards committee. Also, NIST develops reference test software that can be used by others to verify that their software works correctly.
Round Table Discussion on NIST’s Roles in the Innovation Ecosystem
In his introductory remarks, the VCAT Chair stated that the purpose of the meeting was to ask the VCAT advice on the most productive types of NIST’s relationships with industry, government, and academia in the context of increasing U.S. competitiveness and enhancing innovation. He also noted that the presentations were very informative but none of the speakers identified any issues or criteria related to determining the most appropriate relationships.
Another VCAT member agreed that NIST’s role in the innovation ecosystem is a complex issue and was pleased that NIST management recognizes this complexity. However, he was struggling to absorb all of the information and to put it in a strategic context.
In regards to university partnerships, it would be helpful to identify the distinctive characteristics associated with working with academia. A member also wanted to know if proximity was a primary criteria and how NIST would address long-term challenges.
Another VCAT member spoke about the need to find out how much money was allocated on a yearly basis to each Operating Unit (OU), how much money is needed, how the OU views their accomplishments, how much is the shortfall, and how the shortfall would be addressed.The Chair remarked that this was a complex issue.
NIST’s knowledge transfer mechanisms were discussed in the context of metrics. In addition to the number of publications reported quarterly, the NIST citation rate is a qualitative metric that shows that NIST’s publications are cited 10% more compared to similar institutions. NIST is trying to develop impact measures but this is a very difficult task. Micro and macro-economic impact studies have been performed as a way to demonstrate NIST impact.
The VCAT Chair discussed the importance of setting goals, publishing goals, and reporting on their progress as part of the strategic planning and implementation process. In the area of partnerships, the goals should address what you expect to accomplish, how to measure the accomplishments, and how much is too many. NIST should provide these goals and accomplishments to the VCAT to help them provide advice. The VCAT was reminded that the FY 2009 President’s budget request includes outputs and outcomes for each initiative. The group then discussed the need for a matrix that identifies NIST’s primary, secondary, and tertiary stakeholders in each initiative area.
VCAT Feedback Session
Dr. Vinton Cerf, the VCAT Vice-Chair, provided the “raw” feedback on the first day of the meeting which focused on NIST’s role in the innovation ecosystem. He described changes to the meeting’s format which could be more conducive to soliciting the VCAT’s advice, such as raising particular issues and questions. It is not clear what NIST management wants from the VCAT and what the VCAT wants to do.For more details, see Dr. Cerf’s presentation.
Discussion:
The group discussed the value of sending the presentations to the members as advanced reading material along with an executive summary of the key issues to be discussed at the meeting. This would allow more time for discussion and brainstorming. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board receives issue papers in advance of the meetings. NIST’s priorities for the VCAT are to address high-level issues. This meeting’s presentations were intended to provide a sense of the different types of NIST’s relationships and their effectiveness. Some of the members expressed concerns that the presentations were lectures and did not provide specific questions in an appropriate context to facilitate a dialogue.NIST was expecting feedback on whether there are other relationships that NIST should consider and are the current relationships useful. For example, the RIC presentation ended with a lively exchange that resulted in helpful comments. Dr. Hertz noted that the purpose of his presentation was to educate the VCAT to help them understand the different types of relationships at NIST and their impacts across the nation, and not to raise a specific issue.
A VCAT member expanded on how NIST could use the Committee to think through specific questions that the organization asks itself and suggested that advanced reading material include the following: 1) description of the program; 2) description of what is working and why or what is not working and why; and 3) specific questions on what is needed to keep the program successful. After further discussion, he stressed the need for a higher level set of strategic questions across NIST. In his opinion, the presentations did not educate the members on the issues.
One member remarked that NIST’s budget is “woefully underfunded” and the VCAT should help NIST reach its full potential. The VCAT was reminded that NIST is limited in its flexibility to change priorities due to constraints on reprogramming funds at certain levels without Congressional approval. Dr. Turner remarked that the VCAT’s priorities are still undergoing “growing pains” and that the Committee needs to take a higher level view and look more strategically at where NIST is going and is it doing the right things.
The Vice-Chair proposed the following actions to solicit better VCAT advice:
1) organize a subcommittee focused on laboratory initiatives; 2) provide pre-reading materials with questions and issues to be addressed at each meeting, such as what happens if NIST did not exist in particular areas (e.g. radiation standards); and 3) allow the Committee more flexibility by deleting the term “in all of its work” from the first guiding principle. Some of the members expressed concern over the first principle and were reminded that these were developed collaboratively with the VCAT chair and vice-chair. The Chair remarked that the charter is the ultimate guide and does not differentiate short-term and long-term issues. Therefore, the Committee could address short-term issues, if compelled.
Future Structure of the VCAT
Dr. Serum posed four questions regarding the future structure of the VCAT:
How can the VCAT provide the best advice to NIST staff given the priorities for 2008?
Should the subcommittee structure be continued?
If so, how should they be organized?
Have the Bioscience, Information Technology, and Nanotechnology subcommittees served their purpose? Should they be discontinued? If no, how should they function?
Discussion
Three NIST Laboratory Directors expressed their appreciation for the subcommittees and found the interactions valuable. The Nanotechnology subcommittee was valuable in helping to set up the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology but should be broadened to look at nanotechnology across the labs. New subcommittees may be needed to address topics important to the nation, such as energy, sustainability, and manufacturing. A VCAT member suggested that subcommittees should conduct their business in between meetings instead of during the VCAT meeting.
The VCAT Chair remarked that a well-structured VCAT meeting should include pre-reading with well-characterized issues. With the expectation that the VCAT Chair and Vice-Chair continue their regular dialogue with the Dr. Turner and the NIST staff for planning the meetings, this group should collectively determine if the issues would be best addressed in working groups or the general VCAT meeting. He also noted that the Biosciences subcommittee should continue to be useful and that NIST should let the VCAT know when this subcommittee is needed.
Another member suggested that the VCAT form a new subcommittee for Emerging Areas, such as energy, to specifically address what activities are being done now, what is needed, and what are the gaps. The VCAT Chair may consider formally asking the NIST Director about the need for this proposed subcommittee and to identify the topics of interest.
Dr. Kayser concluded this discussion by summarizing best practices for future VCAT meetings: 1) frame the issues and questions; 2) provide more context for the issues and questions, including constraints; 3) provide reading material in advance; and 4) break in smaller groups if needed to address specific issues and questions.
Strategic Planning at NIST
Dr. Turner’s presentation focused on the drivers and opportunities for NIST’s strategic planning, the changing landscape in regard to the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budgets and the new Administration, NIST’s Three-Year Programmatic Plan, and future strategic focus areas. The last slide outlined the topics for the next meeting to include how NIST can best impact manufacturing, the service sector, and sustainability. For more details, see Dr. Turner’s presentation.
Discussion:
The Vice-Chair suggested that NIST develop at least one “nugget” for each program that addresses the following questions:
- What work is being done in response to a mandate?
- If this mandated work is not done, what is the negative impact?
- What work needs to be done because of a big payoff?
Strategic Planning for Biosciences at NIST
Dr. May described NIST’s growing role in the biosciences, the current portfolio of activities in bioscience and health and the need for more effective NIST-wide planning, the short-term plans for biosciences program growth, and the development of a strategic plan for longer-term bioscience program growth. His presentation included details on an international conference sponsored by NIST and UMBI on “Accelerating Innovation in the 21st Century Biosciences: Identifying the Measurement, Standards, and Technological Challenges” to be held on October 20-22, 2008. Version 1 of the NIST Strategic Plan for Biosciences Program Growth will be completed in October 2009. He also distributed a handout with expanded definitions of the five focus areas. For more details, see Dr. May’s presentation.
Discussion:
The VCAT Chair requested this presentation as preparation for the Committee’s future advice on strategic planning. For example, is this the kind of strategic planning expected by NIST? According to the Chair, the strategic planning for biosciences is a successful example of interactions and collaborations between the NIST laboratories and the VCAT’s Biosciences subcommittee.
In response to a member’s concern about the lack of information technology in the plan, Dr. May indicated that this area cuts across all of the activities.
Priority-setting among the five focus areas may involve some trade-offs. Feedback from the workshops and other post conference activities will help determine priorities. One VCAT member noted that the National Academy of Sciences is expected soon to publish a study in the biosciences area and then publish another study in this area next year.
The Role of VCAT in NIST Strategic Planning
The VCAT Chair summarized his observations about NIST Strategic Planning and described the VCAT’s role in this process. He emphasized that a Strategic Plan is an effective tool to gain outside support and that NIST’s Three-Year Programmatic Plan is a good foundation but requires more review time by the VCAT. For more details, see Dr. Serum’s presentation.
Discussion:
Dr. Kayser remarked that this is a good opportunity for NIST to think about how to formalize its interactions with the VCAT.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m. on June 11, 2008.
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.
Gail Ehrlich
Executive Director
NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced TechnologyDr. James Serum
Chair
NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology