Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Portfolio Discussion
This was provided to MWR Science Centers prior to Center Reviews
The Science Portfolio is a collection of science themes that are based on a Center’s areas of expertise and aligned with DOI and USGS science priorities. The goal is to have a science portfolio that balances the Center’s scientific capabilities with the needs of DOI, USGS and our partners/cooperators. The science portfolio represents the breath of work being done at a center and should be describe in no more than 5-7 thematic areas. The science portfolio should be reviewed each year to ensure that new opportunities, shift in program priorities at the local, regional, and national level and changes in partner/cooperator needs are still being addressed. This annual assessment will also help us define a Center’s core capabilities and ensure that the science portfolio aligns with this core. Center Presentation – 30 minutes This presentation should focus on the Center’s science portfolio with emphasis on the strategic science direction of the Center for the next 1-3 years. For each thematic area you should briefly discuss the items listed below.
1. Science a. DOI priorities alignment b. Mission(s) area alignment c. MWR initiative alignment d. Products produced e. Partners involved f. Type of science (emerging issues, monitoring, partner driven, etc…) g. Geographically or virtual based work (staff from other centers) h. Link to Workforce Plan
2. Return on Investment(ROI) a. Products/cost b. New opportunities c. Late reports/Impacts and Actions
3. Product development/Management tools – are there opportunities to develop new products or decision support tools
4. Next Steps and Improvements
Link:
DOI Strategic Plan – information you need is on page 42-43 http://www.doi.gov/pmb/ppp/upload/DOI_StrategicPlan_fy2011_2016.pdf
Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry
Ecological Integrity
Large River
Ecology
Environmental Risk
Assessment and Restoration
Innovative
Methods and
Indicators
EE
RSC
EM&ERSC
GLSC
IL WSC
INKY
WSC
IA WSC
MI WSC
MN
WSC
MO
WSC
NWHC
NE WSC
ND WSC
NPWR
C
OH WSC
SD WSC
UMESC
WI WSC
Improve land and water health by managing wetlands, uplands and riparian areasSustain fish, wildlife, and plant species by protecting and recovering the Nation’s fish and wildlife*Climate change vulnerability assessments and related adaptation
Protect America’s Cultural and Heritage Resources
Protect cultural and historical assets and related resources
Provide Recreation and Visitor Experience
Enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of our natural and cultural heritageEstablish fire-adapted ecosystemsAdapt communities to wildfiresRespond to wildfiresEnsure environmental compliance and safety of energy developmentDevelop renewable energy potential*Increase approved capacity for renewable energy developmentManage conventional energy developmentAccount for energy revenuesConserve water*Enable increased water conservation capabilityImprove reliability of water deliveryImprove infrastructure and operation efficiency of tribal water facilitiesManage timber and forest product resourcesProvide for sustainable forage and grazingManage non-energy mineral developmentProtect Indian treaty and subsistence rightsFulfill fiduciary trustStrengthen tribal judicial systemsManage and develop resources assetsCreate economic opportunityStrengthen Indian educationMake communities safer*Reduce violent crime through strategic deploymentSupport self-governance and self-determinationManage for protection of water rightsImprove quality of lifeCreate economic opportunityPromote efficient and effective governance
Ensure the Quality & Relevance of Science Products to Partners &
CustomersEnsure overall customer satisfaction
Identify and predict ecosystem changesIdentify and model causes and impacts of changes to the Earth and ocean systemsAssess and forecast climate change and its effectsMonitor and assess water availability and qualityAssess national and international energy and mineral resourcesMonitor and assess natural hazards risk and resilienceIdentify the connection between the natural environment and wildlife and human healthDevelop an integrated data framework that is used to guide science-based stewardship of natural resourcesGenerate geologic maps and models for sustaining resources and protecting communitiesAdvance the Earth science application of geospatial information
Building a 21st Century Workforce Hiring reformYouth Stewardship and
Engagement*Hire or temporarily engage individuals aged 15-25Use of alternative fuelsReduce energy intensitySustainable buildingsReduce IT infrastructureDecrease operational expenseReduce high-risk acquisitionsReduce unneeded real property assetsOverall condition of building per facility condition index
DOINatural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Program
1
DOIThreatened and Endangered Species Research
1
Sustainably Manage Energy,
Water, and Natural Resources
Meet Our Trust, Treaty, and Other Responsibilities to American
Indians and Alaska Natives
CERC
Protect America's Landscapes
Manage the Impacts of Wildland Fire
Provide Natural and Cultural
Resource Protection and
Experiences
Secure America's Energy Resources
Strategy(*Priority goal )
Improving Acquisition and Real Property Management
Building a 21st Century
Department of the Interior
DOI
Strategy Level
2011-DOI Mission
Area2011 - Goal
Develop a Comprehensive Science Framework for Understanding the
Earth
Provide a Scientific
foundation for Decision Making
Ensure the Quality & Relevance of
Science Products to Partners &
Customers
Sustainability of Interior’s Operations
Dependability and Efficiency of Information Technology
Empower Insular Communities
Advance Govt-to-Govt Relationships
with Indian Nations and Honor Commitments to
Insular Areas
Provide Science for Sustainable Resource Use, Protection, and
Adaptive Management
Provide Scientific Data to Protect and Inform Communities
Manage Water for the 21st Century
Sustainably Manage Timber, Forage, and Non-energy Minerals
Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry
Ecological
Integrity
Large River Ecolog
y
Environmental Risk
Assessment and
Restoration
Innovative
Methods and
Indicator
EERSC
EM&ERSC
GLSC
IL WSC
INKY WSC
IA WSC
MI WSC
MN WSC
MO WSC
NWHC
NE WSC
ND WSC
NPWRC
OH WSC
SD WSC
UMESC
WI WSC
Improve land and water health by managing wetlands,uplands,and riparian areasSustain fish, wildlife,and plant speciesManage wildland fire for landscape resiliency,strengthen the ability of communities to protect against fire,and provide for public and firefighter safety In wildfire response
Goal 2: Protect America's Cultural and Heritage Resources Protect culturaland historical assets and related resourcesGoal 3: Enhance Recreation and Visitor Experience Enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of our natural and cultural
Protect reserved Indian treaty and subsistence rightsFulfill fiduciary trustSupport self-governance and self-determinationCreate economic opportunityStrengthen Indian educationMake communities saferImprove quality of lifeCreate economic opportunityPromote efficient and effective eovernanceEnsure environmental compliance and safety of energy development activitiesDevelop renewable energy potentialManage conventional energy developmentAccount for energy revenue Manage timber and forest product resourcesProvide for sustainable forage and grazingManage non-energy mineraldevelopment
Goal l: Create new, systemic opportunities for outdoor play
Develop or enhance outdoor recreation partnerships that provide outdoor play
Goal 2: Provide educational opportunities Reach the Nation's K-12 populationGoal 3: Provide volunteers on public lands Enable the ability to engage more young volunteersGoal 4: Develop the next generation of lifelong conservation stewards and ensure our own skilled and
Provide conservation work and training opportunities for young peopleImprove reliability of water deliveryBetter ensure the future of watersheds against the impacts of climate change
Goal 2: Extend Water Supplies Through Conservation Expand water conservation capabilitiesProtect tribal water rightsImprove infrastructure and operational efficiency of tribal water
Goal l: Provide Shared Landscape-Level Management and Planning Tools
Ensure the use of landscape-levelcapabilities and mitigation actions
Goal 2: Provide Science to Understand,Model and Predict Ecosystem, Climate and Land Use Change
Identify and predict ecosystem changes at targeted and landscape-levels {biota,land cover, and Earth and ocean systems) Assess and forecast climate change and its effectsMonitor and assess natural hazard risk and resilienceProvide environmental health to guide decisionmakingMonitor and assess water availability and qualityGenerate geologic mapsAssess nationaland international energy and mineral resourcesInterior's Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018
CERC
Goal l: Protect America's landscapes
Strategy Level
2014-18DOI Mission
AreaGoal Strategy
(*Priority goal )
Goal 2: Sustainably Manage Timber, Forage, and Non-Energy MineralsDOI
Celebrating and
Enhancing America's
Great Outdoors
Strengthening Tribal
Nations and Insular
Communities
Powering our Future and Responsible Use of the Nations's Resources
Engaging the Next
Generation
Ensuring Healthy
Watersheds and
Sustainable Water
Building a Landscape-
level Understanding
of Our Resources
Goal l: Manage Water and Watersheds for the 21st Century
Goal 3: Availability of Water to Tribal Communities
Goal 3: Provide Scientific Data to Protect, Instruct, and Inform Communities
Goal 4: Provide Water and Land Data to Customers
Goal l: Meet Our Trust, Treaty, and Other Responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives
Goal 2: Improve the Quality of life in Tribal and Native Communities
Goal 3: Empower Insular Communities
Goal l: Secure America's Energy Resources
Environmental
Toxicology and
Chemistry
Ecological Integrity
Large River
Ecology
Environmental Risk
Assessment and
Restoration
Innovative
Methods and
Indicators
EERSC EM&ERSC GLSC IL WSC INKY
WSC IA WSC MI WSC MN WSC
MO WSC NWHC NE WSC ND WSC NPWRC OH
WSC SD WSC UMESC WI WSC
Land Change Science (LCS)National Climate Change and Wildlife
Science Center (NCCWSC)Carbon Sequestration
Land Remote Sensing (LRS)Research and Development Program
(R&D)Earth Resources Observation and Science
Center (EROS)Invasive Species Program
Fisheries ProgramStatus & Trends Program
Genetics & GenomicsInternational
Science and Decisions CenterCooperative Research Units
Environments ProgramWildlife Program
MicrobiologyUSA National Phenology Network
Energy and Wildlife 1
Toxi substances Hydrology Program 1
Contaminant Biology Program
Ecological Effects of Contaminants 1
National Oil & Gas AssessmentGeothermalWind EnergyCoal AssessmentsWorld Petroleum AssessmentGeothermal resourcesEnergy InformationEnvironment
USGS Science and Decisions CenterResearch and AssessmentMinerals Information
Toxi substances Hydrology Program
National Laboratories
MWR Environmental effects of mining and energy 1
USGS
Energy and Minerals
Energy Resources
Mineral Resources
Ecosystems
Climate and Land Use Change
Environmental Health Mission Area
Science Strategy
LevelUSGS Mission Area Program Component
CERC
Skills CERCEERSC
EM&ERS
CGLSCIL
WSC
INKY
WSCIA
WSC
MI W
SC
MN W
SC
MO W
SC
NWHC
NE WSC
ND WSC
NPWRC
OH WSC
SD WSC
UMESC
WI W
SC
Environmental Toxicology XEnvironmental Chemistry XLarge River Ecology XEcological Risk Assessment and Restoration Science XEcological Effects of Contaminants: Innovative Methods and Indicators XInformation Technology XAdministrative Services XOil, gas and coal resource analysis and assessment; analysis of links between energy use and human health an environment impacts XNew SEM with expanded capabilities XX-ray diffraction capability XCritical CO2 extractor capabilities XEnvironmental SEM XGeostatical Analyst XQuantitative Mineral Resource Assessments XMineral Environmental Assessments XStream Sediment and Soil geochemical sampling XRemote Sensing XGeochemical analyses XGeophysical compilation XStatistical Analysis XGenetics/qPCR (fish, invertebrates, bacteria) XMicrobial ecology (sources, tracking) XHarmful Algal Blooms (HABs) XExpansion of Scientific Dive Team and Scientific Dive Safety training program XMotorboat Operator Certification Course XFork Lift Operator training course XData Rescue Program application through Core Science Systems XEcomapper (AUV) X
Surface-Water Modeling--1-D and 2-D Unsteady-flow hydraulic (FEQ, FESWMS, SWMM), & continuous watershed (HSPF and SWMM5) modeling for FEMA NFIP studies. Provide support and model training and development. XInstantaneous Data (UV) recovery using Mitron paper tape readers XGoogle Map applications for real-time precipitation and gage-linked inundation (for several WSCs) XStream Restoration assessment and modeling XSediment and Contaminant Transport Modeling (Kalamazoo Team and Office of Surface Mining) XSediment Surrogates (acoustic, laser-diffraction, turbidity--partial OSW funds) XDam Removal Modeling and monitoring XOperable Hydraulic Structure Ratings XLake Sedimentation Analysis XRegionalization of Flow Duration Curves as a basis for daily streamflow in ungaged basins and load duration curves (WaterSMART) XUrban Peak Flow Adjustment to Land Use and Climate XUncertainty Analysis--Measured discharge, computed peaks, and ratings XGeoprobe Xfractured Rock Characterization for flow and transport XCharacterizaion Work on Hazardous Waste Sites XNitratax continuous nitrate monitoring XHigh level of competence in the use of hydroacoustic instrumentation for streamflow and bathymetric data collection XWater gun seismic evaluation on land surfaces and structurres XGeophysical studies XGroundwater/Surface Water Interactions XPO4 Continuous Phosphate Analyzer XWater-quality modeling (SWAT) XRegional water-quality characterization (logistic regression, geostatistics) X
Glacial aquifer characterization (water quality, water use, and geologic) XFlood inundation mapping Center of excellence XBathymetric surveying capabilities XFluvial erosion hazards expertise (tying fluvial geomorph science to hazard mitigation) XSuper/sentry gage O&M (from installation to data management to surrogate development) XWATER-TOPMODEL expertise -- for many applications across the Commonwealth, Region, and XMolecular microbiological laboratory, biosafety level II XDevelopment of molecular methods to identify pathogens or genes specific to particular environments XApplication of parameter-estimation techniques to hydrologic modeling X quality XThe MIWSC also has staff with very strong groundwater modeling and progranmming skills XHigh resolution multibeam ecosounder and motion-compensated terrestrial lidar XPhytoforensice and phytoscreening XBorehole geophysics XMacroinvertebrate sampling X1-D and 2-D hydraulic modeling XMicrobial source tracking and bacteria source studies XGroundwater modeling XWetland hydrology XStatistician with expertise in data mining including automated data retrieval and analysis, outlier detection, and data cleaning. XStatistician has expertise in web log analyses including usage patterns, trends, analysis of sessionized logs and navigation paths, and data aggregation methods such as the Porter Stemming Algorithm. XResearch statistician with expertise in applying time series and stochastic hydrology for streamflow and water-quality modeling. X
One senior hydrologic technician and a hydrologist with extensive international experience. The experience led to USAID funding: 1) to install a streamgage monitoring system to improve flood warning capability in Ukraine and 2) to provide a water-resource assessment training class in Amman, Jordan for Iraqi water-resource engineers. Currently, NDWSC and Water Resources Branch staffs are working with Afghan Ministry of Environment and World Bank staff to develop an MOU to funding hydrologic data collection training program for Afghanistan water- XAdvanced regional and local numerical groundwater modeling, optimization, parameter estimation techniques to simulate flow and thereby providing decision-makers and scientists with comprehensive management and predictive tools. XHydrographic multibeam echosounder surveys or riverine and lake assessments. Advanced hydrographic processing Caris software, and USGS developed tools and scripts for rapid processing of multibeam echosounder hydrographic surveys. XWide range of geophysical surveying tools used for geologic framework studies, levee seepage, canal leakage, and numerical groundwater modes. XHydraulic and hydrologic surface-water modeling including multi-dimensional and steady and unsteady flow models and empirical and theoretical run-off models. Detailed experience in flood inundation XGround-based LiDAR for rapid topographic and structures surveying XGreen infrastructure water-balance studies, evapotranspiration measurement, and stormwater monitoring. XPipeline monitoring using passive membrane devices and traditional soil vapor sampling. XMonitoring and assessment of geomorphic change and sediment transport in constructed river side-channels and chutes. XEmpirical and theoretical sediment transport studies X
Semi-portable GCMS XStaffing and methodology to conduct field, laboratory and animal health studies with amphibians, birds and XStatistical expertise to consult on study design and analysis of data. XQuantitative epidemiology, disease ecology and XExpertise on laboratory management and molecular diagnostics X Emerging Diseases Branch is comprised of wildlife biologists, veterinarians, statisticians, epidemiologists, and informatics specialists. This multidisciplinary group is responsible for investigations and disease ecology studies of emerging and recurring priority wildlife diseases, maintaining and analyzing comprehensive datasets on wildlife disease events, and providing response and management consultation and training for external partners. XField and laboratory capabilities for emergency response to wildlife disease outbreaks. XInternationally-recognized expertise in wildlife disease pathology and ecology. XWorld Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Collaborating Centre in consortium with the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre on research, diagnosis and surveillance of wildllife pathogens. XHigh security biological safety level (BSL) 3 laboratories and animal containment facility. XLaboratories (enhanced BSL 3) and animal isolation facilities (ABSL3) certified for research on highlly pathogenic avian influenza viruses.Program. XFacilities and staff registered with Federal Select Agent Program XCertified member of the USDA National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN). XPublic Health Service Animal Welfare Assurance with the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Functioning Animal Care and Use Program, including a full-time Attending Veterinarian,. X
Capability to conduct mouse-protection bioassay for detection of botulinum neurotoxins in clinical samples. XMethodology to characterize virulent isolates of Newcastle Disease. XPacific Island wildlife disease investigation and response capabilities. XLaboratory methodology to detect and isolate fibropapilloma viruses in green sea turtles. XExpertise and methodology to investigate coral diseases. XComprehensive wiildlife disease databases spanning 40 years. XExtensive histopathology collection of wildlife tissues, microbial isolates, microscopic slides and microphotographs. XCulture-based and PCR-based protocols and assays to identify Pseudogymnoascus sp. Fungus (WNS in bats. XCapability to construyct artificial hibernacula for studying WNS transmission in hibernating bats. XAnimal husbandry and clinical veterinary capability to house and care for unique wildlife species in experimental setting. X
Training Needed CERCEERSC
EM&ERSC
GLSCIL
WSC
INKY W
SC
IA W
SC
MI W
SC
MN W
SC
MO W
SC
NWHC
NE WSC
ND WSC
NPWRC
OH WSC
SD WSC
UMESC
WI W
SC
1-week detail for new safety person to visit Regional Safety Manager 1Watercraft 2 1Leadership 101 1 1 2 1 1Wilderness First Aid 12BASIS+/Project planning software training/FBMS 1Ongoing "leadership" segments with an applied focus (Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, 1Project planning/management 1Team-work skills 1Communication training 12D hydrologic modeling expertise -- for FIM and other SW work 1Commonwealth multi-beam digital echo-sounder 1Cross training for IN staff on WATER 1Trends analysis expertise 2ADCP refresher training 2Continuous water-quality equipment training 7Leadership 201 1 2Administrative training 2Safety training 1Leadership Intensive 1MWR regional training from Acquisitions Branch in Denver to address specific needs 1IPDS training 1
Safety
CERCEERSCEM&ERSCGLSCIL WSCIN WSCIA WSCKY WSCMI WSCMN WSCMO WSCNWHCNE WSCND WSCNPWRCOH WSCSD WSCUMESCWI WSC
Science Work Processes: Considerations and
Recommendations for Improving U.S. Geological
Survey Science and Achieving Cost Efficiencies
By the ACES Science Work Processes Sub-Team
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological SurveyFinal: May 9, 2014
Contents
Executive Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 1)
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 3)
How the Considerations and Recommendations Were Developed ............................................................................... 5)
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 7)
I. The Science Portfolio: Strategic Positioning and Periodic Reassessment......................................................... 7)
II. Shared Business and Science Work Practices and Processes .......................................................................... 8)
III. Integration of Interdisciplinary Science...........................................................................................................15)
IV. Workforce Skills Development .......................................................................................................................17)
V. Center Future State........................................................................................................................................19)
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and Report Recommendations...........................................................................20)
Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................24)
Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................................26)
References ...................................................................................................................................................................27)
Appendix 1 — Members, ACES Sub-Team on Science Work Processes ....................................................................29)
Appendix 2 — ACES Science Work Processes Interviews...........................................................................................30)
Appendix 3 — List of Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey questions cited in the Science Work Processes Report ...38)
Appendix 4 — Learning competency models and needed skills. ..................................................................................39)
i
ii
Science Work Processes: Considerations and
Recommendations for Improving U.S. Geological
Survey Science and Achieving Cost Efficiencies
By the Science Work Processes Sub-Team of the ACES Team
Executive Summary of Recommendations
Our findings indicate a wide degree of variation across all Mission Areas for science
proposals, work plans, and project management. The systems, processes, and budgeting in use
today are sometimes legacy products evolved from the precursor divisions to the current USGS
Mission Areas. The current hodgepodge of systems, processes and budgeting methods
contribute to inefficiencies in carrying out work, inequities in funding and a highly complicated
and antiquated overhead calculation process. The current processes do not lend themselves to
the generation and support of new initiatives and make it difficult to sunset mature
programs/projects in order to free up funds for critical new science endeavors.
In order to address high priority USGS science, partner and customer science needs, and
large-scale societal issues, the USGS must improve and expand its culture of customer service,
align science with Administration, Department of the Interior (DOI) and USGS priorities, foster
employee skills development, and continuously improve science work processes (SWP).
Listed below are eight recommendations from the report organized under five headings:
I. Assemble and periodically assess the USGS Science Portfolio for partner and customer relevance, societal impact, and alignment with science priorities. This recommendation is of the highest priority and should be started as soon as possible.
1
II A. Work towards standardized science work practices and processes across the USGS by developing a suite of shared USGS organizational practices, processes, (work plans, proposal and project management) and budgeting tools related to science to support efficient and flexible implementation of high-priority science. Adopting standard science work processes will be difficult but is of the highest priority and should be started as soon as possible.
II B. Evaluate project management and supervisory workload of scientists. Scientists’ workload should be a key consideration as standard work processes are developed. Once implementation of II A is well underway, work on II B should begin.
II C. Ensure the USGS has innovative and cost-effective ways to deliver scientific information products to customers. The review of information products is already underway with the Office of Communications and Publishing (OCAP) leading the discussion.
III A. Ensure the USGS proposal/initiative review and approval process includes USGS Science Priorities and societal relevance by developing a standard review process that identifies key weighted criteria that evaluate proposals and initiatives for adding value to the Science Portfolio. This recommendation should be scoped out in 2014.
III B. Enable increased collaboration and efficiency in conducting interdisciplinary science through structured relationships. This recommendation should be scoped out in 2014.
IV. Foster comprehensive employee skills development as a keystone for efficient science production and science leadership. For example efforts are already underway with the Office of Organizational and Employee Development (OED) and the Midwest Region (MWR). Future development and an action plan should be in keeping with the ongoing OED Advisory Council review recommendations and directions.
V. Develop a future state vision for the Science Centers. The final recommendation on a Center Future State is central to long term efforts to promote the Portfolio and should begin in 2014.
2
Introduction
The USGS Regional and Mission Area organizational structure is now better aligned to
address the DOI Science Plan and the USGS 2007-17 Strategic Science Plan (referred to in this
report as the USGS Strategic Plan). In addition, strategic science planning teams have completed
forward-looking reports (referred to as the Strategic Science Reports) for each Science Theme
and crosscuts which address issues among and between the Mission Areas and Regions. These
reports outline the many science needs for the next 10 years (USGS Circular 1383, A- G).
Unfortunately, as indicated in the ACES Charter, the USGS annual, inflation corrected
budgets have been static or declining for more than a decade, with a few exceptions. The current
practice of distributing reduced funding throughout our organization creates a default policy of
shrinking in place and leads to challenges in effectively addressing the Strategic Science Reports
and high priority partner science needs. Within the context of static or shrinking budgets,
redirection of funds to USGS priorities is one possibility. However, we also have seen
significant targeted budget increases in areas such as Hazards, WaterSMART, Ecosystem
priorities (Asian Carp and Chesapeake Bay), and Hydraulic Fracturing -as proposed in the
President’s 2014 and 2015 Budgets. Targeted increases are an indication of Administration and
3
Congressional support for science to address large-scale societal natural resource issues and an
opportunity for USGS to provide new science to its partners and fulfill major components of the
Strategic Science Reports in a general climate of static or declining appropriated funding.
Mission Area-oriented Science Centers predominate in the Bureau. The Centers provide
science to fulfill the USGS Science Priorities and the needs of USGS partners and customers.
Maintaining core capabilities in pertinent disciplines is critically important for the future of
USGS science to address individual partner needs and provide the varied expertise needed to
address large-scale societal issues. The organizational shift to Mission Areas was, in part,
undertaken to support increased development of interdisciplinary initiatives as called for in the
USGS Strategic Plan. The Regional Offices work with the Mission Areas, Centers and partners
to effectively bring together USGS expertise to address key issues that require an integrated
approach. This report recognizes static or reduced appropriated budgets, the need to support
Mission Area-oriented science and the need for strategic direction and integration of disciplines
to support interdisciplinary, large-scale science.
4
How the Considerations and Recommendations Were Developed
ACES Team and the Science Work Processes Sub-Team Charter
The USGS chartered the Achieving Cost Efficiencies for Science (ACES) Team in mid-
2011. The purpose of the ACES Team is to identify and suggest efficiencies at Headquarters,
Regions and Science Centers that produce cost-effective science and quantify their potential
impact. The ACES effort is focused on those activities typically classified as overhead.
However, the USGS has a scientific mission and, therefore, it is also appropriate that science
work processes (SWP) be examined so that scientific progress is not unnecessarily impeded by
administrative requirements and that best practices are used to ensure scientific success while
maintaining scientific integrity. An important question the SWP sub-team addressed is “what
changes to science work processes would help us efficiently and effectively meet our partners’
and customers’ needs through our core competencies, and address large-scale complex societal
issues?” A related question is “what should the USGS science workforce look like and what skill
sets will be needed to address these issues?”
For this report, science work practices and processes are defined as:
Science project and Portfolio development, execution and coordination;
Personnel and technological capabilities assessment and development;
Alignment of organizational structure and function with science goals; and
Efficient and effective communication of science to our partners and the public.
Approach and Survey Methods Used by the Science Work Processes Sub-Team
The members of the SWP sub-team, listed in Appendix 1, conducted interviews with
Region and Mission Area personnel to gain a sense of what works well, identify obstacles and
solicit ideas for improvement. In the course of six weeks, 31 USGS managers were interviewed.
The complete survey instrument and a summary of the responses are listed Appendix 2.
In addition, the USGS results from the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
(FEVS) were examined. The FEVS is a comprehensive, annual survey of all federal employees.
5
We chose 25 questions (Appendix 3) that are relevant to USGS Leadership, science work
processes or employee skill sets. We then examined the results for high or low USGS scores and
deviation (+/-) from DOI or Federal Employee averages. Summary findings from the FEVS are
then discussed in relation to the report recommendations.
Five ACES reports have been produced to date. The first, on Regional Realignment,
resulted in a consolidation of geographic areas and a reduction in the number of Regions.
Recommendations from the other four reports—Center Efficiencies, Facilities, Administration
and Headquarters are being implemented. A few recommendations from these reports overlap
with what we have heard from employees in writing this report. For example, one of these
reports includes a recommendation on finding cost efficiencies in the Science Publishing
Network. To avoid duplication with the other ACES Reports, we concentrate on global
efficiencies related to science work processes and workforce needs across Mission Areas and
within organizational units which could require a deeper exploration of procedural or staffing
efficiency. In general, we note where overlap occurs with earlier ACES reports.
We first discuss our major finding on a USGS Science Portfolio followed by discussion
of changes in science work processes, interdisciplinary science and skills development needed to
achieve a strategic and effective Portfolio. Lastly, we discuss the Science Center future state.
6
Findings and Recommendations
I. The Science Portfolio: Strategic Positioning and Periodic
Reassessment
The USGS budget submission to Congress (the Greenbook) is one of the few places
where the majority of the USGS Science Portfolio (a list of USGS science work) is described in
detail in one document. However it does not describe the entire breadth of activities funded by
appropriated and reimbursable sources. A Science Portfolio developed from the USGS Science
Strategy, core expertise, societal relevance and customer needs is critical to efficiently manage
and meet our science mission. Delineating all our science funded by all sources in a Portfolio is
necessary for efficiency, accountability and transparency but difficult because there is variation
across Mission Areas, Regions and Centers on the approval, funding and tracking of science
projects. Science work, whether appropriated or reimbursable, should be closely tied to its
priority contribution and relevance to our mission as outlined in the USGS Strategic Plan and
subsequent Strategic Science Reports (USGS Circular 1383 A-G) and prioritized in Mission
Area guidance. Having appropriated funds tied up in waning science efforts can be just as much
a concern as having cutting edge or emerging science funded by unpredictable or short-term
reimbursable funds.
It is critical that we assemble, maintain and adapt the USGS Science Portfolio so that it
meets partner and customer needs, is societally relevant and is cost effective. Accountability is a
keystone, and part of the answer is adopting industry standards and metrics to measure how well
the USGS is performing and whether it is creating relevant, effective and efficient projects that
deliver value and build a strong overall Portfolio. Effectively delivering USGS science to a
changing world requires more collaboration, standardization, continuous improvement, a
“service or customer mindset” for all employees, ongoing guidance and leadership at all levels to
maintain the Portfolio and focus.
7
Recommendation I: Assemble and periodically assess the USGS Science Portfolio for
partner and customer relevance, societal impact and alignment with science priorities.
The following steps are required for implementation of Recommendation I:
1. Assemble and organize the USGS Science Portfolio including work funded both by
the appropriations process and through reimbursable agreements.
2. Maintain accountability for the Portfolio by developing performance metrics (e.g.
those used in USGS Budget Office) and by clearly assigning senior management
responsibilities (Mission Area and Regional) for major elements. Reassess the major
elements of the Science Portfolio at regular intervals for priority, cohesiveness and
relevance.
3. Hold scientists and managers accountable for their contributions by regularly
reviewing ongoing science for relevance to USGS science direction, partner needs
and Portfolio performance. Ensure strong performance management by supervisors,
retain strong work and sunset work that is complete or that does not meet current
relevance and (or) performance criteria.
4. Establish a timely, transparent and effective process to develop the USGS’s annual
science priorities. The process should be championed by science managers and
scientists with Executive Leadership Team review for submission to DOI for
consideration in the President’s Budget to ensure relevance and added value to the
Portfolio. A useful starting point for implementing step 4 may be the Midwest
Region multiyear practice for supporting new science initiatives with Regional
Science Flex Funds.
II. Shared Business and Science Work Practices and Processes
Shared Science Business Practices
Many interviewees mentioned that there has been substantial consternation and confusion
among Centers, Regions and Mission Areas about different business models across the
8
organization acting as a barrier to effective cross-program collaboration. The SWP sub-team
recognizes the need for simplification and agreement on elements of a shared business model.
For each Cost Center there are two types of funding:
Appropriated - such as that in National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Energy
Resources Program, and Ecosystems Mission Area.
Reimbursable - a cooperator or partner funds the project.
On many science projects both appropriated and reimbursable funds are used in a mixed
funding model. For example, in the Water Cooperative Program (Coop) appropriated funds are
‘matched’ with reimbursable funds. However, this type of mixed funding occurs in all Mission
Areas where science is produced with both outside funding sources and USGS appropriated
funds (e.g. salaries and facilities).
Individual Science Centers have differing proportions of appropriated, reimbursable, and
mixed funding work or projects. More importantly, the science business practices (how a Cost
Center does business) and processes (written instructions or forms that are transactional in
nature) that are followed by the Mission Areas and Science Centers differ significantly across the
USGS. This has led to difficulty when different Mission Areas and Centers work together on
science projects and initiatives and to confused partners who see a single USGS with very
different business practices and procedures or processes. For example, some Science Centers
have historically operated with a majority of mixed and reimbursable funding (in other words,
highly leveraged). For these centers, the requirements to charge for salary and overhead support
on each project present financial challenges to collaboration with Centers that function
predominantly under the appropriated funding structure, where the funds for permanent salary
and overhead for a project may be appropriated. A recent change of science business practice in
the way the Cooperative Water Program funding (Cooperative Water Program is the Water
Mission Area Centers’ main source of appropriated funds) is allocated at the Center level allows
Centers more flexibility in funding science with appropriated funds. For example, a Center may
choose to decrease the partner match on a Coop project of great importance to Administration,
DOI or USGS priorities (e.g. Annual Mission Area guidance based on prioritized Strategic
Science Report goals) and balance it across other Coop projects at the Center. Changes like this
have the potential to break down roadblocks and facilitate greater science collaboration by
9
creating common, consistent funding approaches where the practice could be to use substantial
appropriated funds as a cost share across all Centers working on a common effort.
Business practices can be standardized at the USGS level in order for all Centers
(whether highly leveraged or predominantly appropriated) to effectively collaborate (level
playing field) on science initiatives. An example of a common business practice would be a
USGS-wide common services overhead charge for science planning related to Cross-Center or
Mission Area proposal development. This would clearly identify the cost of development and
put Centers on a more equal footing. A second example would be facilitating collaboration by
offering Science Flex Funds for salaries and operations to highly leveraged Centers and only
operating funds to predominantly base funded Centers. These Centers would work together to
develop societally-relevant projects or initiatives that address important aspects of the USGS
priorities (e.g. Portfolio relevance) and work with regional, state and (or) local agencies.
Another USGS business practice would be to ensure that the USGS Science Portfolio
provides a mix of cutting-edge, Mission/partner-driven and emerging-issue science. Each part of
the mix may meet different science needs and lends balance to the Portfolio. Mission/partner-
driven science such as flood inundation mapping may be funded by reimbursable or mixed
funding sources while other emerging issues such as a new strain of avian influenza might be
explored with appropriated funds.
Shared business practices, with predictable outcomes and well-understood processes, are
important to facilitate efficient and relevant science. Although our organizational structure is
complex and can be challenging to manage, it is imperative that we resolve or mitigate the
disparate business practices without disrupting the science.
Shared Science Work Processes
Our survey respondents indicated that there is substantial variation in the science work
processes within and across the Mission Areas. Much of the appropriated funding and many
approaches are a legacy of the discipline-based structure in place before the Mission Areas were
organized. Some of these legacy approaches go back decades, while others have been updated,
or undergo frequent changes. The proposal, work plan and project management processes lack
standardization in format, origination, approval process and timelines. This has led to confusion
among staff and with partners and has created inefficiencies in cross-Center science endeavors.
10
Shared science organizational processes that are clearly understood across the USGS are needed
to facilitate improved cooperation among units and to achieve cost efficiencies for science. A
planning process developed for the Cooperative Water Program [Water Mission Area (WMA)
Memo 13.01, "Programs and Plans - Guidelines for Preparation, Submission and Approval of
Water Science Center Project Proposals,"] or the Program Council concept used by Energy and
Mineral Resources Programs are excellent models and could provide the foundation for changes
needed USGS-wide.
As USGS manages to reduce costs and continually improve its science quality, it will
benefit from a "business-like" approach in the managerial and administrative aspects of
performing its science. Adopting a process management approach through the development of a
common language requires processes and tools to be used across the organization and with
collaborators. In the business world this is commonly seen as having a "continuous
improvement" philosophy and the utilization of a common problem-solving approach. It
includes the adoption of industry best practices such as project management and process
mapping.
Recommendation II A: Work towards standardized science work practices and
processes across the USGS by developing a suite of shared USGS organizational
practices and processes (work plans, proposal and project management) and budgeting
tools related to science to support efficient and flexible implementation of high-priority
science.
These are the suggested next steps for implementing Recommendation IIA:
1. Articulate and evaluate business practices in use in the USGS. Determine the best
and adopt as USGS Best Management practices.
2. Develop a standard "problem solving" approach based on the concept of "continuous
improvement" and industry standards.
3. Develop a standard business language, standard terms and common processes across
the Mission Areas. These would be tools separate from the science aspects of USGS
and not disrupt the science programs.
11
4. Develop guidance that ensures all Cost Centers utilize a comparable approach when
populating the categories in the USGS overhead workbook.
5. Stabilize and enhance the process for carry-over funding. Uncertainty on carrying
over funds can lead to inefficiencies in usage.
6. Review the funding processes to better correlate when funds become available with
planning and payment (e.g. Avoid “found” funds distributed near end of fiscal year).
7. Review the existing proposal, work plan and project management templates, tools,
and approaches that are in current use across the USGS.
8. Based on previous recommendation, develop either an all-encompassing standard
proposal template that can serve as a proposal/work plan/project plan or develop
individual templates (e.g. funding source) for each process and standardize their use
across USGS.
9. Develop shared budget/ project management and tracking processes, that include the
following elements/tools:
a. “Cost” elements would include a budgeting tool to consistently estimate
salaries and other costs of doing business with appropriated and reimbursable
funding for science activities, particularly for indirect charges, across all
Centers. This element would have common business practices as part of a
uniform budgeting system for multi-year projects (BASIS+ is not a workable
budgeting tool but should be improved to function as such or replaced).
b. “Data Disposition and Repository and Information Management” element to
establish uniform standards to plan for and track data and information
management and data archiving in the USGS science planning process.
c. “Skill Sets” element, as called for in the USGS Strategic Plan, which
documents skill sets available and skill set gaps.
d. “Technical Reviewers” element that links with the Office of Science Quality
and Integrity (OSQI) and the Skill Sets module to make the tasks of securing
qualified reviewers for proposals, work plans, and information products more
efficient.
12
e. “Information Product Planning” element to estimate costs of information
products.
10. Develop standard tools, templates and training for program/project coordinators.
11. Build a joint process between Headquarters and the Regions for Program and peer
review that provides guidance, feedback and accountability on current projects.
12. Clearly define organizational roles for planning and implementation and build
performance goals in Associate, Regional and Center Director performance plans that
stress the need to incorporate and adhere to these common business practices and
processes across USGS Cost Centers.
13. Build transparent and consistent communications (among Mission Areas, Programs,
Regions and Centers) for core and integrated science.
Project Management and Supervisory Tasks
Survey respondents identified the growing workload associated with the management,
tracking and reporting for programs and projects. Many comments reflected the need to delegate
more authority to the Center to reduce duplication of administrative work for common or routine
tasks (identified in the ACES Administration Report). Another concern was removing the
“managerial distractions” from scientists so that more resources could be devoted to conducting
science. Respondents noted the need to develop clearer roles, responsibilities and career
development requirements to maximize the scarce science resources while managing programs
and projects in the most effective manner. The new Information Product Data System
implemented in July, 2013 is an example of a process change that appears to be reducing the
administration workload of scientists. It is important to note that recommendation II B should be
a key consideration as recommendation II A is carried out. Once implementation of II A is well
underway, step 1 under recommendation II B should begin.
Recommendation II B: Evaluate the project management and supervisory workload of
scientists.
13
These are the next steps in implementing Recommendation II B:
1. Evaluate for cost and effectiveness, a process to assess and determine the workload
associated with the size and complexity of science programs, projects and proposals.
Develop a threshold that sets a standard for program/project management remaining
with the scientist or moving to a formal program/project coordinator.
2. Enhance the user interface and functionality of BASIS+ and develop training
materials to reduce learning curve and increase ease of use for scientists and
managers.
Delivery of Science Products
Survey respondents urged that we reexamine the ways we deliver our products and the
cost model for funding the science publishing enterprise in USGS. The USGS needs cost-
effective report products as an archival mechanism for non-standard data from USGS research.
It also needs report products that afford scientists a low-cost, high-impact outlet for their
scientific discoveries data, and methods to augment the publication of USGS work in scientific
journals.
In addition to affordable publication services, USGS scientists are demanding new series
publication options such as interpretive products that allow the reader to customize the
presentation to individual needs. Web-based products with interactive features and social media
may define the future of product delivery. USGS needs to be fully aware of and take advantage
of these innovative methods when disseminating our findings. Using an adaptive and continuous
improvement approach will help the USGS find the right mix of products to get its diversity of
science products to key partners. It is important to note that the OCAP-SPN is leading a review
of recommendation II C.
Recommendation II C: Ensure the USGS has innovative and cost-effective ways to
deliver scientific information products to customers.
These are the next steps in implementing recommendation II C:
14
1. Examine web-based products and social media for suitability in communicating our
science.
2. Develop or adopt web analytics on views, downloads, citations, etc. to develop
metrics on scientific impact of our scientific products and on a regular basis compare
communication outlets such as USGS Report Series, formal journal articles, web-
based products and social media for impact and efficacy in communicating our
science.
3. Examine how Fundamental Science Practices can be incorporated into new
communication outlets.
4. Ensure that the Research Grade Evaluation processes fully recognize the significance
of any new way of providing our science to our partners/customers.
III. Integration of Interdisciplinary Science
Given shared work practices and processes, another step in strengthening our
interdisciplinary science is basing review and approvals for new and continuing science on DOI
and USGS science priorities, (e.g. Mission Area Guidance) and Administration and
Congressional direction. The USGS carries out substantial multi-disciplinary science at all levels
that is often accomplished through good-faith funding contributions from various sources,
leveraging of partner reimbursable funds, and various informal "workarounds." At the USGS
level, Programs listed in the Greenbook have distinct, important funding and oversight roles that
serve well for Mission area science. However, these Appropriated Programs vary greatly in their
funding mechanisms, the level of science oversight, their planning models, and the breadth of
science being funded. This increases the difficulty of conducting integrated science efforts
across reimbursable and Appropriated Programs as well as Centers. In addition, reimbursable
projects may be local in nature without clear links to Appropriated Programs or the USGS
science priorities. Standard review processes will facilitate integrated or interdisciplinary
science and strengthen the USGS Science Portfolio.
15
Recommendation III A: Ensure the USGS proposal/initiative review and approval
process includes USGS Science Priorities and societal relevance by developing a
standard review process that identifies key weighted criteria that evaluate proposals
and initiatives for adding value to the Science Portfolio.
These are the next steps in implementing Recommendation III A:
1. Incorporate Administration, DOI and USGS priorities into the proposal and initiative
review and approval process (e.g. through a decision tree) and into consistent internal
and external Center and (or) Program reviews. Integrated science achievement or
performance metrics should be tested and used to evaluate proposals and projects for
alignment with USGS priorities and societal relevance.
2. Project plans throughout the USGS should be viewed as a contract for services that
includes performance management and accountability.
3. Assure that funds from different Program sources serve a common intended purpose
(particularly for interdisciplinary work) and are managed using the consistent
application of a shared model across the USGS.
Good USGS-wide metrics will be challenging, nevertheless they are needed to measure
success. USGS has used metrics before with mixed results. Therefore it is important that
metrics be vetted for usefulness and tracked for several years. As suggested in the ACES
Administration report for other work, a feedback loop to adjust metrics will improve how well
the metrics measure our success. Just as continuous improvement and excelling at our science is
necessary for our science success, continuously improved and evaluated metrics (including
dropping poor metrics) are needed as well.
Collaboration in the Conduct of Interdisciplinary Science
Survey respondents identified the need to increase efficiency and collaboration in
working across Mission Areas. As USGS considers changes in how to evaluate and prioritize the
Science Portfolio, revise the funding process, and develop shared business practices and work
processes, how we work together is likely to change in order to better meet interdisciplinary
science needs. Structured relationships such as common definitions of terms and positions and a
16
common understanding and agreement on processes and engagement protocols among work
units will be critical.
Recommendation III B: Enable increased collaboration and efficiency in conducting
inter-disciplinary science through structured relationships.
These are the next steps in implementing recommendation III B:
1. Identify and modify or remove those managerial and administrative practices and
processes that are an impediment to collaboration, inter-disciplinary science and
increased work efficiency.
2. Define the role and responsibility of the Mission Areas, Regions, Centers and other
responsible offices in managing the inter-disciplinary science to ensure consistency
across the USGS Science Portfolio.
IV. Workforce Skills Development
An optimal Science Portfolio can best be implemented in part through a skilled
workforce comprised of a diverse cadre of well-trained scientists, managers and support
personnel. One of the challenges facing USGS is that information technology, communications
and science technology have progressed very rapidly over the last 25 years. New hires are
typically trained in these advances; however, USGS must do a better job of ensuring all staff
uses the full array of tools to accomplish our science. Meaningful workforce planning, skills
development, retention processes and optimal staff hiring are critical to building a strong Science
Portfolio. The need for succession planning, efficient hiring authorities, training plans, and skills
development are common processes discussed by respondents in our survey. Similarly,
supervisory management, written and oral communication, project management, collaboration,
information technology, web and database skills are commonly mentioned as needs in our
workforce in addition to the science background and skills. Lastly, the complexities of
“straddling science and business” are acknowledged by respondents who indicate that the
process of recognizing the abilities of individuals who succeed in both areas is essential because
17
the skills are different yet equally necessary to successfully lead people in the practice of science.
One respondent commented on the scarcity of individuals who are good at science, management,
and effectively communicating the value of unbiased science for decision making. These are
attributes we should strive to develop through staff training as we face restricted funding in order
to create opportunities for new high priority science.
Recommendation IV: Foster comprehensive employee skills development as a
keystone for efficient science production and science leadership.
To implement Recommendation IV, a structured training and development process
targeted at developing competencies with individuals throughout the USGS is needed. A
structured model process should include the following:
1. Develop an enhanced training program for Supervisors and Project Managers that
goes beyond the minimum requirements set by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM);
2. Develop a training and development program and toolkit for new Program Managers,
Center Directors, and Deputy Center Directors;
3. Develop a “change management” toolkit to support the workforce;
4. Standardize the effort to use industry standards like Analysis, Design, Development,
Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) and competency models to develop
structured training and development programs;
5. Use existing resources like DOI Learn and the expertise of the Office of Organization
and Employee Development (OED) staff to reduce cost and ensure the above
programs are compatible with USGS guidelines;
6. Adapt the competency model approach beyond typical foundational/leadership
dimensions to address major USGS work processes and procedures, and science.
This is outlined in detail in Appendix 4;
18
7. Ensure training includes development in interdependent leadership, mentoring, team
approaches, science, management, and marketing. This is outlined in detail in
Appendix 4;
8. Analyze and evaluate the training and development program for future use as either a
structured curriculum offered on a specified frequency and at a variety of locations,
and/or a training and developmental process to support meaningful Individual
Development Plans;
9. Use selected questions from the FEVS to develop baselines and improvement metrics
for skill development, collaboration, and job involvement (for example the MWR has
developed an employee engagement metric). This is an industry standard approach,
using an existing resource and data set, that allows us to apply metrics to what is
traditionally thought of as the “soft side” of the business of change. A full list of the
FEVS questions cited in this report and the 2012 USGS percent favorable scores are
listed in Appendix 3.
V. Center Future State
Our Centers provide the science to fulfill USGS Science priorities and Mission/Partner
needs. Center makeup and location have been influenced by many factors such as geography,
science issue and historical placement.
Future technology, fiscal climate, efficiency and societal pressure issues should shape
where and what our Science Centers are. The USGS currently has many examples of merging
Centers as well as recommendations from the ACES Center Efficiencies Report to help guide us
on Center composition. It is beyond the scope of this report to delve deeply in the future state
issue. However, as we continuously improve our work processes and recommendations from our
ACES Report are implemented, the logical next step is to define the future state of the Center
taking into account all these factors and changes.
Recommendation V: Develop a future state vision for the Science Centers.
19
These are the next steps in implementing recommendation V:
1. Create criteria for a future state such as: Strong strategic leadership and direction;
Entrepreneurial approach; Good mix of concentrations of expertise or knowledge
(may be virtual) and geographically-based hard points (labs, field sites); Team-based
approach; Centers-of-excellence that specialize in certain scientific skills and
capabilities; Reduced infrastructure costs; Efficient business practices and Supports
USGS Science Portfolio.
2. Develop a USGS standard for Center restructuring and evaluate Center models or
structuring in relation to the USGS Standard and to future state criteria.
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and Report Recommendations
The FEVS questions were compared to the recommendations made in the Science Work
Processes team report, to gauge support for the findings in the report, and to identify any
questions that can be used as future metrics to measure the impact of any of the SWP or ACES
report recommendations that are implemented.
Our review of the overall FEVS survey results indicate a high level of commitment and
loyalty from the existing workforce to the organization, its mission and the work that is done.
However, in response to questions about work process elements like proposals, work plans,
projects, and budgeting, FEVS respondents indicate low to moderate amounts of support for the
way that USGS currently manages the organization’s policies, procedures, and key business
strategies as evidenced by questions(percent positive responses is reported for each question):
57. Managers review and evaluate the organizations progress toward meeting its goals
and objectives. (58.6% positive)
61. I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. (48% positive)
66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (38.7%
positive)
20
This would indicate support for the recommendations that call for the periodic review of
the Science Portfolio, shared organizational practices and budgeting tools, and a
proposal/initiative review process that balances the science priorities and societal relevance.
Regarding work processes and current workload, the FEVS responses show a high degree of
concern with things like:
9. having sufficient resources to get the job done (45% positive)
10. My workload is reasonable (54.7% positive)
30. Employee has a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes
(51.3% positive)
32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded (50.6% positive)
63. Involvement in the decisions that affect your work (56.2% positive)
These responses indicate support for the review of administrative and managerial
workloads, and the need to better involve the workforce in determining the work that they do
going forward.
Several of the FEVS questions indicate the need for further improvement regarding the
increased creativity, innovation and collaboration necessary to conduct interdisciplinary science:
3. I feel encouraged to come with new and better ways of doing things. (68.4%
positive)
31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. (60.4%
positive)
32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (50.6% positive)
53. In my organization leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce. (41.4% positive)
58. Managers promote communication among different units (about project goals,
needed resources) (51.1% positive)
21
59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.
(57.5% positive)
There are many of the FEVS questions that support the need for better employee skill
development and training:
1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. (70.5%
positive)
18. My training needs are assessed. (52.4% positive)
21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. (43% positive)
27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (56.7% positive)
68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? (54.3%
positive)
29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals. (76.5% positive)
Questions 1 and 29 identify that the existing workforce has what it needs to do the job
today, but the projected turnover of the workforce and the changing needs of the organization
could quickly impact what is an existing strength. Questions 18, 21, 27, and 68 all indicate the
need for a more structured and comprehensive employee development effort across USGS.
In the future the FEVS survey can be used to help measure USGS effectiveness from a
change management approach. As USGS undergoes many of the changes recommended in the
ACES Report, we can expect a lot of impact on the workforce. One way to mitigate the negative
effects on the workforce is to implement a formal change management strategy to assist with
organizational change. Several of the FEVS questions would be reasonable measurements of the
implementation of the recommendations from the SWP and other ACES reports, and the overall
change management effort. Some of the questions that could be used as metrics for change
management are:
22
59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.
(57.5% positive)
11. My talents are used well in the workplace. (63.9% positive)
12. I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities (82.2% positive)
20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. (77.9% positive)
27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (56.7% positive)
29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals. (76.5% positive)
56. Management communicates the goals and priorities of the organization. (59.8%
positive)
57. Managers review and evaluate the organizations progress toward meeting its goals
and objectives. (58.6% positive)
58. Managers promote communication among different units (about project goals,
needed resources) (51.1% positive)
61. I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. (48% positive)
63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in the decisions that affect your work?
(56.2% positive)
66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (38.7% positive)
Overall, we find support from the responses to the FEVS with the aforementioned
findings and recommendations. The Team believes that the FEVS can be used to establish
metrics to help measure the impacts of ACES changes. The FEVS provides us with an excellent
baseline of knowledge on key topics in the report, as outlined above.
23
Summary
USGS is a science agency, and science does not always follow a linear path. However,
the USGS can and should become more efficient by following recommendations in this and other
ACES reports. The USGS Science Portfolio should provide a mix of cutting edge and emerging
issue science that maximizes value to society while minimizing cost. The effort and resources
directed to meet this goal are determined from partner and customer needs and as formulated in
the USGS Strategic Science Reports, Mission Area Guidance, Regional Operational Plans, as
well as direct input from scientists and partners on an ongoing basis. Given static budgets, our
Science Portfolio must be built or maintained through reaffirming relevant current work,
redirection of resources to new work where needed, and creating new initiatives such as
WaterSMART funded by Congress or reimbursable sources in order to provide strong science
with support regionally, nationally, and internationally. Standard Science Work Practices and
Processes play a fundamental role in meeting the objective of maximum societal value at
minimum cost by articulating Best Management Practices and Processes to assist managers and
scientists in actively managing and determining what science we do, carrying it out effectively,
and communicating findings to partners. A keystone in creating new science is our workforce
and workplace. We must ensure we have the science, technical, team and leadership skills as
well as the physical infrastructure required to efficiently create the societally relevant science our
partners need.
There are five major recommendations on this report. The first is to assemble a Science
Portfolio and hold scientists and managers accountable for relevance, impact, and alignment with
USGS science priorities. This recommendation is of the highest priority and should be started as
soon as possible. The second recommendation is to standardize work practices, evaluate project
management and supervisory load on scientists and look at our information products. Adopting
standard science work processes will be difficult, but it is of the highest priority and should be
started as soon as possible with scientists’ administrative workload a key consideration. The
evaluation of scientists’ administrative workload should begin after implementation of standard
work processes is underway. The information product review is already underway by a team
lead by the OCAP, and it should be left with them. The third recommendation on integration and
improving interdisciplinary science should be scoped out in 2014. With the fourth
24
recommendation on employee skills, future development and an action plan should be in keeping
with the ongoing OED Advisory Council Review recommendations and directions. The final
recommendation on a Center future state scoping exercise is important to long term efforts to
build and promote the Portfolio. It should be done in coordination with Recommendation I.
25
Abbreviations
ACES Achieving Cost Efficiencies for Science
AD Associate Director
Coop Water Cooperative Program
DOI Department of the Interior
FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
FSP Fundamental Science Practices
OED Office of Organizational and Employee Development
OPM Office of Personnel Management
MWR Midwest Region
OCAP Office of Communications and Publishing
OSQI Office of Science Quality and Integrity
PMP Project Management Professional
RD Regional Director
SME Subject Matter Expert
SPN Science Publishing Network
SSP Strategic Science Plan
SWP Science Work Processes
WMA Water Mission Area
26
References
ACES Charter http://internal.usgs.gov/homepage_files/blogs/docs/signed_aces_charter.pdf
Greenbook Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014, the United
States Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
http://www.usgs.gov/budget/2014/greenbook/2014_greenbook.pdf
2007-17 Strategic Science Plan http://internal.usgs.gov/director/science_strategy/
U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, Facing tomorrow’s challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science
in the decade 2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, x + 70 p.
Mission Area Strategic Science Reports. http://www.usgs.gov/start_with_science/ USGS
Circular 1383, A-G:
Bright, P.R., Buxton, H.T., Balistrieri, L.S., Barber, L.B., Chapelle, F.H., Cross, P.C.,
Krabbenhoft, D.P., Plumlee, G.S., Sleeman, J.M., Tillitt, D.E., Toccalino, P.L., and
Winton, J.R., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey environmental health science strategy—
Providing environmental health science for a changing world: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1383–E, 43 p.
Bristol, R.S., Euliss, N.H., Jr., Booth, N.L., Burkardt, Nina, Diffendorfer, J.E., Gesch, D.B.,
McCallum, B.E., Miller, D.M., Morman, S.A., Poore, B.S., Signell, R.P., and Viger, R.J.,
2013, U.S. Geological Survey core science systems strategy—Characterizing,
synthesizing, and understanding the critical zone through a modular science framework:
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–B, 33 p.
Burkett, V.R., Kirtland, D.A., Taylor, I.L., Belnap, Jayne, Cronin, T.M., Dettinger, M.D.,
Frazier, E.L., Haines, J.W., Loveland, T.R., Milly, P.C.D., O’Malley, Robin, Thompson,
R.S., Maule, A.G., McMahon, Gerard, and Striegl, R.G., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey
climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and
responding to global change: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–A, 43 p.
27
Evenson, E.J., Orndorff, R.C., Blome, C.D., Böhlke, J.K., Hershberger, P.K., Langenheim, V.E.,
McCabe, G.J., Morlock, S.E., Reeves, H.W., Verdin, J.P., Weyers, H.S., and Wood,
T.M., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey water science strategy—Observing, understanding,
predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Circular
1383–G, 49 p.
Ferrero, R.C., Kolak, J.J., Bills, D.J., Bowen, Z.H., Cordier, D.J., Gallegos, T.J., Hein, J.R.,
Kelley, K.D., Nelson, P.H., Nuccio, V.F., Schmidt, J.M., and Seal, R.R., 2013, U.S.
Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy— A resource lifecycle approach:
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–D, 37 p.
Holmes, R.R., Jr., Jones, L.M., Eidenshink, J.C., Godt, J.W., Kirby, S.H., Love, J.J., Neal, C.A.,
Plant, N.G., Plunkett, M.L., Weaver, C.S., Wein, Anne, and Perry, S.C., 2013, U.S.
Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy—Promoting the safety, security, and
economic well-being of the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–F, 79 p.
Williams, B.K., Wingard, G.L., Brewer, Gary, Cloern, J.E., Gelfenbaum, Guy, Jacobson, R.B.,
Kershner, J.L., McGuire, A.D., Nichols, J.D., Shapiro, C.D., van Riper III, Charles, and
White, R.P., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Science Strategy—Advancing
discovery and application through collaboration: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–
C, 43 p.
28
Appendix 1 — Members, ACES Sub-Team on Science Work
Processes
The members of this sub-team were selected by the ACES Team to represent geographic
and Mission Area diversity. The sub-team was made up of the following members:
Leon Carl (co-Chair) Regional Director, Midwest Region Jerad Bales (co-Chair) Chief Scientist for Water, Water Mission Area
Paul Beauchemin Emeritus and Senior Advisor for Communications Kevin Breen Bureau Approving Official, Office of Science Quality and Integrity Stacy Bushée Chief, Office of Organizational and Employee Development Martha Garcia Chief of Staff, Hazards Mission Area Vito Nuccio Associate Program Coordinator, Energy Resources Program, Senior
Management Advisor, Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health Mission Areas
Randy See Science Coordinator, Midwest Region Frank Shipley Associate Regional Director for Science, Office of the Northwest
Regional Director Jeff Simley Product and Service Lead for Hydrography, National Geospatial Program,
Core Science Systems Mission Area Phil Turnipseed Director, National Wetlands Research Center Chad Wagner Chief of Hydrologic Modeling and Investigations Section, North Carolina
Water Science Center
29
Appendix 2 — ACES Science Work Processes Interviews
Whenever possible, the interviews were conducted with two SWP sub-team members present, one serving as the interviewer and the other compiling notes. Notes were compiled into an Excel® spreadsheet and evaluated by the sub-team. We asked the interviewees to share their ideas for improving science work processes in the USGS with the assurance that no personally identifiable information would be shared in the reporting of findings. We looked for the themes and best practices across the USGS and synthesized the feedback we gathered into considerations and recommendations.
Survey Instrument -- Interview Questions
Project Proposal Process
1. To start, we’d like to find out about the science project proposal process in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.). How are proposals developed in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.)? Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)
a. What is the proposal process for appropriated funding? i. How long has your process been in use?
ii. Who initiates project proposals? iii. Who approves project proposals? iv. How long does it take to complete your process? v. Is your process competitive or directed?
vi. What works well? vii. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in the process?
viii. What are your recommendations for improvement? b. Do you receive reimbursable funding? If so, what is the proposal process for
reimbursable funding? i. How long has your process been in use?
ii. Who initiates project proposals? iii. Who approves project proposals? iv. How long does it take to complete your process? v. Is your process competitive or directed?
vi. What works well? vii. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in the process?
viii. What are your recommendations for improvement? c. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?
30
Project Work Plan Process
1. We’d like to find out about the project work plan process in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.). How are project work plans developed in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.)? Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)
a. Does your work plan process differ for reimbursable or appropriated funding? (If so, how do they differ?)
b. Who reviews the work plan? c. Who approves the work plan? d. What role do publication costs play in work plan development? e. Do you have a data management plan? If so, what does the data management plan
look like? f. Do you put your work plans into BASIS+? g. How do you define deliverables? h. What works well? i. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in the process? j. What are your recommendations for improvement? k. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?
Project Management
1. Next we’d like to find out about the project management process in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.). Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)
a. How do you track your project progress? b. Do you have progress reviews?
i. If so, how frequently? ii. Who participates?
c. Who monitors whether deliverables are completed? d. What communication process is in place with your stakeholders?
i. How frequently do you communicate with your stakeholders? e. How does your project management actively track finances? f. How do you manage the life cycle of a project? g. How do you track human resources? h. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in your project management
process? i. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?
31
Program Management
1. Next we’d like to find out about the program management process in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.). Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)
a. How do you track your program progress? b. Do you have program reviews? c. If so, how frequently? d. Who participates? e. Who monitors whether deliverables are completed? f. What type of feedback and communication do you have with project leaders? g. What communication process is in place with your stakeholders? h. How frequently do you communicate with your stakeholders? i. How does your program management actively track finances? j. How do you manage the life cycle of a project? k. How do you track human resources? l. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in your program management
process? m. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?
Skills
Given the scope of this conversation does your organization have the skills needed to be successful in the areas we’ve discussed? To recap, project and program planning, developing and managing? Where might there be gaps?
a. How do you assess your needs for new skills? b. How do you develop skills for:
i. Project management ii. Facilitation
iii. Collaboration iv. Team skills v. Science leadership
c. Where do you find needed skill sets?
Survey and Interview findings and recommendations
The current work processes do not lend themselves to the “bottom up” generation and support of new initiatives, and make it difficult to sunset mature programs/projects in order to free up funds for emerging issues. Some respondents indicate that a complete and thorough proposal can fulfill the need for work plans and project management, however, a comprehensive and standard proposal process does not appear to exist. Most respondents use a combination of proposals, work plans, and project management with varying levels of competence and support across all
32
work streams. Tracking, reporting, and communicating program and project status varies, and while the BASIS system is utilized, it appears to be very limited in its capability and very difficult for individuals to learn and use. Managing work plans and projects, along with the tracking, reporting and communicating appears to be an added workload that is a burden on an already stretched thin scientist staff.
Proposal Process
Responses indicated that there is a lot of variation in the proposal process within and across the Mission Areas. The majority of appropriated funding approaches seem to be legacies of the Mission Area prior to coming under the umbrella of USGS. Some of these legacy approaches go back as far as 1995, while others have been updated, or undergo frequent changes. The origination of proposals can start with individual scientists, could be a formal Request for Proposals, or in many cases are generated at the Center level. Proposal approval ranges from committees to a Program Council, to individual Center Directors, individuals who control the funding, to the Regional Directors. The proposal/approval processes range from days, to weeks, or a year. The proposal process is primarily base directed, with some competitive, and some mixed.
Recommendations for improvement
Increase communication and understanding between Centers and Field Teams. Streamline processes to make proposal review and turnaround more efficient. Reduce the
number of people and steps involved. Centralize the proposal submission process. Change the 50/50 rule. 100% USGS funding with Coop matching funds. Change to
auditing at the Center level, rather than the project level. Avoid the “hobby shop” mentality and ensure that reimbursable work is recognized by
the USGS. Avoid taking on work just to make dollars to support salaries. Establish a defined budget project planning process; provide standard templates for
submission; and training so that people know how to submit. Need more flexibility on carry over funding. Can’t afford to lose funding that isn’t spent
at the end of the FY. Provide feedback on proposals that aren’t funded, and increase the number of bottom up
proposals.
Work Plan Process
Among respondents, half indicated having a formal process, while the other indicated having an informal process. Half the respondents indicated the processes are different for appropriated versus reimbursable funding, the other half said they use the same process for both. There is variation in who completes the work plan ranging from the project coordinator, the Centers, to the collaborator. Work plan approval can be at the program or Center level, and could be the funding entity, the Branch chief, or the Center Director or designee. Most work plans consider
33
publishing costs, along with data management plans which is generally part of the original proposal. The vast majority of respondents indicated they put their work plans into BASIS+. Defining deliverables ranges from written or annual reports and publications.
Recommendations for improvement: Develop a Standardized process entirely in the BASIS+ application Ensure that the plan has been looked at locally, regionally and by AO. Define a common template for a work plan; have them feel and look similar; would be
easier to integrate plans into FBMS or other system. Develop a recommended timeline of activities for a proposal.
Project Management
Responses indicated that approximately half use a formal project management process. Tracking is variable through Quarterly reviews, Annual reviews, and BASIS. Most respondents indicate that they hold regular progress reviews, half on a quarterly basis and half on an annual basis. The main participants in the project management process are project chiefs and their staffs. Monitoring of project deliverables resides primarily with the Centers, usually delegated to AD’s, Managers and Program Managers. Communication with stakeholders varies across the mission areas, with some missions having communication outreach once or twice a year. Tracking of finances associated with projects varies, and some manually compute data from systems like payroll - while others report using BASIS+, which is not user friendly for financial tracking. The project life cycle is primarily managed through BASIS+, which is also utilized to track staff/HR resources.
Recommendations for improvement: Quarterly updates should be required Not all staff are comfortable working in BASIS+. Provide more training and support. Account for and give credit for the staff time associated with doing project management
work. Need better role clarification between science and project management roles. Scientists
are spread too thin to handle all the project management workload.
Program Management
Responses indicate very little formal program management. Program progress is tracked through a variety of means. Program reviews, strategy meetings, publication, and annual reviews are utilized – with Program reviews being the most common. Most of the monitoring and progress tracking is performed by the Program Coordinators. The Program Coordinators communicate with the Project Coordinators and the Center Directors in an informal and varying frequency. Finance and HR resource staff varies.
Recommendations for improvement: Improve the BASIS+ system to support better financial tracking. BASIS+ is very
difficult to use.
34
Develop standard tools that provide national and regional level tracking of issues, products, management relevance, and cooperators.
Skills
Survey responses indicated concerns about succession planning; specifically regarding the large number of scientists who retirement eligible and the difficulties in hiring training new staff. They identified a high demand for emerging skills in communication, marketing and project management. Additional skill development concerns were identified in web and database skills.
Recommendations for improvement:
Develop skills by developing toolbox/training to be delivered at the Centers. Need to emphasize proposal development, project management –Fundamental Science Practices (FSP), publication requirements, and how to manage projects well. Need to develop skills for development of good authors who can also manage projects well.
Center Directors are frequently promoted from research positions and could benefit from the development of skills in project management, facilitation, collaboration, team skills, and science leadership; Staff and Deputy Center Directors will need this development through online training, workshops, etc.
Provide a formal program in change management and training and development to focus on the new skills needed in today’s environment. These skills include an ability to lead and work well with teams.
What is “The single most important thing you would do to improve science work processes
in the USGS?”
In response to this question we found that there were several major themes related to work processes. There are strong concerns about streamlining programs, reducing administrative work and recognizing the more entrepreneurial role needed at the Center and Regional level. The need to become more collaborative in order to promote more interdisciplinary science, while creating more uniformity and standardization in the business models is a critical factor. Updating the funding model is urgently to ensure that the right programs and right science is pursued going forward.
Recommendations for improvement:
Developing training that formalizes and recognizes the need to develop future managers, leaders.
Develop skill for proposal development, project management (budget management, collaboration, facilitation, ability to work with cooperators) Interpersonal skills and project management skills.
35
Programs and program coordinators need to work more closely together to promote interdisciplinary science.
Integrate programs and have a more uniform business model across the Centers. A common approach needs to be used by all Mission Areas and Centers for proposals, project plan, etc. A standard template would make the process simpler and easier to understand. Have one business model instead of the current 4 or more.
Diversity the Centers to become more entrepreneurial. Recognize the role of the regional office to translate programs for regional
implementation Reduce the administrative burden on scientists. Don’t reorganize or restructure he organization without addressing the funding models Make all science pass the “so what” or relevance test
Individual Interviews
Structured interviews were conducted with USGS staff personnel. The comments from the interview process support all of the themes identified from the survey data.
Recommendations for improvement: More authority needs to be delegated to the Center level to reduce redundant
administrative workload. The funding process needs to be reviewed from the standpoint of when funds are available. It’s difficult to plan projects and pay bills, when funding comes from multiple streams at different points in the fiscal year.
Create a singular science process, with templates drawn from existing best practices. If the goal is to have internal USGS groups compete against each other for certain
business, then the playing field has to be leveled. National groups control funding and can disadvantage other smaller competitors by reducing funding authorizations.
There should be one standard, low-cost way to handle all of USGS publishing. There should be a process to evaluate the effectiveness of long term projects with
appropriated funding to determine if any become “stale”. Set fixed time limits, and establish a formal process to request extensions.
Transform the culture so that all science that challenges all partners and stakeholders about the value and application of the “science”.
Establish a centralized proposal submission and evaluation system. Develop “management” focused training for Center Directors. Center Directors are
largely coming in from a research position so there are skills developments needed in all the skills (e.g., project management, facilitation, collaboration, team skills, science leadership, etc.); Center Staff and Deputy positions will need this development also and could develop these skills through online training, workshops, etc.
Standardize data management across all projects to make it more efficient and accessible.
Develop standard procedures to assist cross-functional groups to work more effectively when performing inter-disciplinary science.
36
Create career development pathways for scientists and managers. We need to remove many of the managerial distractions from our scientists – run interference for project scientists. There is a tradeoff between being able to do great science and being a good manager. A possible solution is to have smaller projects where the project chief is more able to do science and be accountable to the project. We need to be aware of not losing our great scientists to management.
37
Appendix 3 — List of Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
questions cited in the Science Work Processes Report
[Percentages of positive responses are presented in the order (Dept. of Interior, USGS, Government-wide)]
1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. (64.3%, 70.5%, 63.2%)
3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. (60.9%, 68.4%, 57.8%)
6. I know what is expected of me on the job. (77.2%, 80.0%, 80.1%) 9. I have sufficient resources (people, materials, and budget) to get my job done. (39.9%, 45.0%,
48.0%) 10. My workload is reasonable (50.0%, 54.7%, 58.9%) 11. My talents are used well in the workplace. (59.6%, 63.9%, 59.5%) 12. I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities (82.7%, 82.2%, 83.7%) 18. My training needs are assessed. (46.7%, 52.4%, 53.1%) 20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. (72.2%, 77.9%, 72.8%) 21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. (42.1%, 43.0%, 43.5%) 25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. (44.9%, 51.0%,
41.0%) 27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (52.9%, 56.7%, 54.7%) 29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish
organizational goals. (70.2%, 76.5%, 71.6%) 30. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment when it comes to work processes.
(45.3%, 51.3%, 45.2%) 31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. (49.8%, 60.4%,
48.4%) 32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (39.4%, 50.6%, 38.5%) 53. In my organization leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce. (40.0%, 41.4%, 42.9%) 56. Management communicates the goals and priorities of the organization. (55.9%, 59.8%,
62.5%) 57. Managers review and evaluate the organizations progress toward meeting its goals and
objectives. (54.2%, 58.6%, 62.0%) 58. Managers promote communication among different units (about project goals, needed
resources) (49.1%, 51.1%, 53.3%) 59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives. (54.7%,
57.5%, 56.9%) 61 I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. (49.0%, 48.0%, 54.1%) 63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in the decisions that affect your work? (52.6%,
56.2%, 51.6%) 66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (39.2%, 38.7%,
43.4%)
38
68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? (50.5%, 54.3%, 53.7%)
Appendix 4 — Learning competency models and needed skills.
The ACES science work processes sub-team has identified the need for targeted
development at the manager/Center Director level in: Science, Management and Marketing
(triple threat). These areas of development correspond to the USGS leadership model and the
USGS managerial model which can be found at
(http://www.usgs.gov/humancapital/ecd/ecd_leadershipdevelopmenthome.html).
The existing USGS national training programs meet Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) requirements for new supervisors and formal succession planning but there is a gap in
Supervisor/Managerial skill development, education on USGS work processes and procedures,
and the discipline of doing science from a training and development perspective at the field level.
A pilot process could involve potential candidates for managerial positions and existing Center
Directors (12 to 15 people). It would be a sponsored team with support from OED, field SMEs,
and some outside resources. In summary, the model process can:
a. Fill the gap in USGS employee development programs at the field level;
b. Allow USGS to meet the OPM guidance of going beyond the minimum requirements
“These minimum training requirements, while helpful, do not address the full spectrum
of skills and competencies a supervisor needs to be effective”--3 Dec. 2012;
c. Develop a structured way to meet OPM requirements for refresher training every three
years for supervisors;
d. Create competencies for USGS work processes, and science that will result in standard
training for new/existing hires;
e. Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the USGS staff at a time of decreasing
resources, thus, do more with less;
f. Develop a protocol for OED to work with the field on the standard development of
training materials beyond the existing courses/curricula; and
39
g. Utilize existing USGS training resources and eliminate duplicative effort across Centers
and Regions.
In addition to the core skills in management, science and marketing, several skills such as
project management and communication are highlighted below as fertile areas for skills
development and training. These are skills that would be valuable in all employees.
Collaboration
A number of respondents mentioned the importance of collaboration and an “ability to
see a collaborative approach rather than viewing each Center for itself,” as important to the
USGS. The collaborative approach aids in the ability to identify the “big issues emerging from a
national context” and allow for Centers to work together naturally. One respondent commented
that “sometimes we need a sociologist rather than a scientist,” indicating that interpersonal
communication skills are required to collaborate.
Facilitation
Underpinning a number of the skills needed is the ability to work collaboratively,
communicate effectively and help members of groups or project teams understand their common
objectives and assist them to plan to achieve them. Tools and techniques on how to help teams
achieve their goals would be beneficial to achieving science goals. If people are more successful
working together, outcomes are more easily achieved and often have more impact than a process
where group synergy is not considered.
Interdependent Leadership
An advantage of a diverse workforce is the varied backgrounds and perspectives team
members bring to a challenge. Interdependent leadership means the team shares leadership and
benefits from different perspectives. Interdependent leadership skills overlap with other skills;
however, the ability to share leadership on a diverse team is critically important for addressing
large complex issues efficiently.
40
Team skills
Like facilitation and collaboration, the ability to be a successful member of a team is an
important skill for USGS scientists and needs to be rewarded in performance plans and through
other forms of recognition. At least one respondent commented that new hires to the USGS are
entering the USGS with a greater ability to work on teams, having had extensive opportunities to
work on teams during their advanced academic experiences.
Effective Project Management
Project management is critical to cost effective delivery of science. Most project leaders
employ management methods based on Center tradition, along with ad hoc ideas of their own or
from their team. Although these methods seem to work, there is no standardization and
approaches are varied. As a result, oversight ranges from thorough to somewhat loose depending
on the Center. As currently implemented, there is no training for project management and it is
not a standardized process, subject to variation, which in turn can lead to lapses and
inefficiencies. There is no evidence that Project Management Professional (PMP) practices are
being used extensively. Considerations for fostering “quality products—on time” management
processes are:
Establish standard operating procedures following PMP guidelines to ensure a minimum set of objectives are realized.
Establish training to develop measureable proficiencies in project management with emphasis on scheduling tasks, tracking progress, and other skillsets needed to deliver quality products on time. Project management training, conducted in the Minnesota Water Science Center during February, 2013, is a foundation for a USGS project-management curriculum.
Develop shared training and continue to encourage a mentoring process that focuses on skills for collaboration, continuous improvement, customer service, facilitation, leadership, and teamwork.
Emulate existing USGS leadership courses with offerings in Project Management Intensives and specialized topics.
Establish standardized training on USGS policy for managing and archiving scientific information through National data repositories.
Workforce Planning
The USGS has gone through several rounds of top-down workforce planning. These
efforts have not been viewed in the field as helpful in structuring the Center workforces of the
41
future. Our challenge is to link these plans to the Strategic Science Reports direction and
societal relevance with heavy emphasis on direction from the field. We recommend a bottom-up
approach to structure the planning requirements.
Empowering Our Scientists as Communicators
Making our scientists better communicators is a priority. Writing skills to empower our
authors are important; however, there is more that our scientists need in order to be efficient in
preparing information products. We need to make our authors more efficient through exposure
to tools for enhanced productivity such as managing references and citation databases. We also
must teach our scientists how to deal with requests from journalists and news-media outlets and
how to efficiently use the resources available through the Office of Communications and
Publishing. Expanding training opportunities, by enhancing the current ‘empowering authors’
course, adding topics such as communications intensives, developing software toolkits for
efficient writing, and establishing online sessions for illustrations and manuscript template
training, will develop the skills our scientists need to be more effective communicators.
We suggest a team from throughout the USGS and led by OED delineate skills needed
and ways of meeting those skills needs. In tandem, workforce planning along with recruitment
and hiring practices should be evaluated for efficacy and efficiency.
42
Lines of Work 2014
Science Center Assessment
Lines of Work Exercise • Describe Center’s research portfolio
o Center-wide view o Show categories of research that are a priority to a Center o Bin the research o Identify the type and amount of funding that supports research
portfolio o High organizational level assessment (not project level)
• Provide an overview of the entire ECO MA research efforts
• Provide overview of research being conducted across Centers
• Show how ECO funds support Center research categories and ECO priorities
• Show how other MA and reimbursable funds support priorities
2014 Exercise • Retrospective vs. Forecast • Intended as a 3-5 year assessment • Used standardized lines of work
o Provides some consistency o Allows a clearer roll-up
• Center’s assessment o Based on 2014 allocations and reimbursable funds o Selected standardized lines of work o Defined subcategories o Some used multiple levels o Some went down to projects as a way to do assessment
Caveats • Have not received all cyclical funds or funds from
Regional Offices • Have not received all reimbursable or even know
what will be coming • Do not know full amount of multi-year reimbursable
to be spent this year • Potential double counting of funds shared between
Centers and CRUs • Research could fit in multiple categories or overlap
between categories • Dollars may not be completely accurate
Standardized Lines of Work • Advanced Tools / Technology -
development and adaptation of technologies and tools that increase effectiveness, efficiency, safety, accuracy, geographic extent, or timeliness
• Ecological Stressors - the study of the physical, chemical, and biological factors that impact the health and integrity of ecosystems and productivity of species
• Ecosystem Ecology - the integrated study of biotic and abiotic components and processes of ecosystems and their interaction within an ecosystem framework
• Landscape Science - the holistic study of the origin, structure, anddynamics of ecosystem components across broad geographic scales
• Restoration Science is the research in support of the practice of ecologicalrestoration and rehabilitation.
• Imperiled Species - the study of species and their habitats that are declining, rare, or uncommon
• Invasive Species - the study of non-indigenous species that can adversely affect the habitats they invade environmentally,ecologically, and/or economically
• Species of Management Concern -the study of species, subspecies, populations, or geographic segments of populations that warrant management or conservation attention, as identified by a natural resource management agency
Subcategory Examples • Advanced Tools
o NASA animal migration o Fish molecular pathology o SDM/Adaptive management
• Ecological Stressors o Energy development o Avian malaria & WNV o Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• Ecosystem Ecology o Deepwater ecosystems o Snow/glacier/climate o Salt marshes
• Landscape Science o Chesapeake Bay o Changing Arctic ecosystems o Midwestern floodplain rivers
• Restoration Science o Fish ecology & dam removal o Lower Colorado River o Chaparral
• Imperiled Species o Sage-grouse ecology o Wolves o Hawaiian forest birds o Desert fish ecology
• Invasive Species o Asian carp – molecular markers o Sea lamprey in Great Lakes Basin o Cheatgrass
• Species of Mgt Concern o ARMI o Missouri sport fishes o Ungulate ecology
FY2014 ECO Funding Centers
Ecosystems Appropriated Funds Ecosystems Funds Total Wildlife Fisheries Environments Invasives S&T Cyclical
ASC $ 8,863,597 $ 559,243 $ 481,922 $ 343,671 $ 1,980,200 $ 12,228,633
CERC $ 236,363 $ 1,114,550 $ 570,577 $ 299,610 $ 321,080 $ 1,249,770 $ 3,791,950
FORT $ 1,472,406 $ 857,092 $ 2,592,532 $ 863,051 $ 1,920,621 $ 1,292,797 $ 8,998,499
FRESC $ 2,138,814 $ 2,202,849 $ 374,007 $ 569,388 $ 847,970 $ 6,133,028
GLSC $ 1,008 $ 3,852,237 $ 898,626 $ 378,199 $ 3,255,984 $ 212,542 $ 8,598,596
LSC $ 124,514 $ 3,630,760 $ 611,898 $ 112,000 $ 1,702,835 $ 6,182,007
NPWRC $ 1,665,530 $ 749,989 $ 424,330 $ 243,971 $ 682,851 $ 3,766,671
NOROCK $ 1,660,000 $ 71,000 $ 1,064,000 $ 222,000 $ 75,000 $ 673,000 $ 3,765,000
NWHC $ 4,895,566 $ 569,988 $ 1,580,790 $ 7,046,344
NWRC $ 305,089 $ 3,666,446 $ 227,496 $ 372,160 $ 642,205 $ 5,213,396
PIERC $ 331,926 $ 566,412 $ 1,516,592 $ 85,000 $ 342,537 $ 2,842,467
PWRC $ 5,260,677 $ 97,922 $ 526,216 $ 5,866,735 $ 4,070,926 $ 15,822,476
SBSC $ 1,156,613 $ 189,673 $ 1,247,099 $ 364,611 $ 400,633 $ 771,697 $ 4,130,326
SESC $ 797,904 $ 383,037 $ 1,895,257 $ 633,037 $ 476,658 $ 3,227,991 $ 7,413,884
WERC $ 3,122,452 $ 2,018,741 $ 593,516 $ 455,720 $ 1,699,400 $ 7,889,829
WFRC $ 3,332,243 $ 485,275 $ 24,954 $ 3,842,472
UMESC $ 885,740 $ 1,170,127 $ 590,786 $ 119,063 $ 1,906,427 $ 4,672,143
TOTAL $ 32,918,199 $ 15,257,884 $ 19,683,350 $ 6,612,787 $14,956,609 $ 22,908,892 $ 112,337,721
* CRU data still to be added
2014 Funding Comparison
Centers Ecosystems Funds Total Other MA Funds Reimbursable
Funds Total Funding
ASC $ 12,228,633 $ 440,620 $ 1,458,487 $ 14,127,740 CERC $ 3,791,950 $ 4,042,139 $ 6,227,400 $ 14,061,489 FORT $ 8,998,499 $ 3,420,564 $ 6,191,825 $ 18,610,888 FRESC $ 6,133,028 $ 622,022 $ 4,119,658 $ 10,874,708 GLSC $ 8,598,596 $ 197,000 $ 5,709,698 $ 14,505,294 LSC $ 6,182,007 $ 70,000 $ 655,706 $ 6,907,713 NPWRC $ 3,766,671 $ 988,639 $ 4,045,194 $ 8,800,504 NOROCK $ 3,765,000 $ 710,300 $ 1,517,000 $ 5,992,300 NWHC $ 7,046,344 $ 337,552 $ 707,054 $ 8,090,950 NWRC $ 5,213,396 $ 1,816,177 $ 6,225,875 $ 13,255,448 PIERC $ 2,842,467 $ 233,244 $ 835,017 $ 3,910,728 PWRC $ 15,822,476 $ 2,009,335 $ 1,351,414 $ 19,183,225 SBSC $ 4,130,326 $ 1,130,171 $ 11,603,901 $ 16,864,398 SESC $ 7,413,884 $ 763,185 $ 3,624,347 $ 11,801,416 WERC $ 7,889,829 $ 1,287,352 $ 11,823,454 $ 21,000,635 WFRC $ 3,842,472 $ 643,920 $ 9,528,821 $ 14,015,213 UMESC $ 4,672,143 $ 333,518 $ 10,952,900 $ 15,958,561
TOTAL $ 112,337,721 $ 19,045,738 $ 86,577,751 $ 217,961,210
* CRU data still to be added
Sources of Funding ‐ 2014
Total funding: $218M • ECO MA: $112M • Other MA: $19M • Reimbursable: $87M
Center support: • ECO MA: 52% (range: 24 – 89%) • Other MA: 9% (range: 1 – 29%) • Reimbursable: 40% (range: 7 – 69%)
* CRU data still to be added
2013/2014 Comparison
Funding Sources 2013 2014 ECO Funds $111.5M (53%) $112.3M (52%) Other MA Funds $22.3M (11%) $19.0M (9%) Reimbursable Funds $75.2M (36%) $86.6M (40%) TOTAL FUNDs $209.6M $218.0M
FY2014 Allocations to Centers: $100.2M + $16.8M (to Regions)
Sources of Funding (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
ASC
CER
C
FORT
FRES
C
GLS
C
LSC
NPW
RC
NORO
CK
NWHC
NWRC
PIER
C
PWRC
SBSC
SESC
WER
C
WFR
C
UMES
C
ECO Other MA Reimbursable
Lines of Work Science Centers
Advanced Tools/
Technology
Ecological Stressors
Ecosystem Ecology
Landscape Science
Restoration Science
Imperiled Species
Invasive Species
Species of Mgt Concern
Total
ASC $ 857,371 $ 679,400 $ 2,030,610 $ 3,685,930 $ 3,512,274 $ 1,463,048 $ 12,228,633
CERC $ 346,240 $ 265,913 $ 129,000 $ 534,831 $ 39,431 $ 1,333,935 $ 1,142,600 $ 3,791,950
FORT $ 1,158,225 $ 861,375 $ 1,372,409 $ 1,194,122 $ 394,602 $ 870,028 $ 1,256,382 $ 1,891,356 $ 8,998,499
FRESC $ 118,247 $ 1,190,550 $ 766,358 $ 633,583 $ 342,275 $ 1,531,800 $ 474,735 $ 1,075,480 $ 6,133,028
GLSC $ 1,322,983 $ 2,742,862 $ 1,229,918 $ 2,781,993 $ 520,840 $ 8,598,596
LSC $ 563,823 $ 2,391,109 $ 1,057,030 $ 303,114 $ 218,893 $ 728,820 $ 478,019 $ 441,200 $ 6,182,008
NPWRC $ 645,697 $ 341,519 $ 858,127 $ 672,982 $ 280,366 $ 680,025 $ 141,555 $ 146,400 $ 3,766,671
NOROCK $ 438,000 $ 353,000 $ 408,000 $ 928,000 $ 541,000 $ 1,097,000 $ 3,765,000
NWHC $ 531,053 $ 5,132,987 $ 1,185,120 $ 60,000 $ 137,185 $ 7,046,345
NWRC $ 840,595 $ 432,521 $ 632,218 $ 1,405,278 $ 514,848 $ 426,134 $ 961,802 $ 5,213,396
PIERC $ 72,411 $ 560,412 $ 78,748 $ 334,835 $ 1,407,978 $ 388,083 $ 2,842,467
PWRC $ 3,170,403 $ 888,667 $ 4,356,297 $ 699,119 $ 1,806,823 $ 186,122 $ 4,715,044 $ 15,822,475
SBSC $ 186,380 $ 1,963,182 $ 843,231 $ 165,000 $ 526,587 $ 129,410 $ 316,537 $ 4,130,327
SESC $ 1,273,498 $ 265,885 $ 1,820,633 $ 1,084,616 $ 1,577,224 $ 1,392,028 $ 7,413,884
WERC $ 281,791 $ 2,004,940 $ 1,436,320 $ 1,469,079 $ 2,697,699 $ 7,889,829
WFRC $ 1,957,781 $ 527,799 $ 645,369 $ 485,275 $ 226,248 $ 3,842,472
UMESC $ 351,478 $ 240,240 $ 799,328 $ 423,146 $ 368,934 $ 1,764,087 $ 724,930 $ 4,672,143
TOTAL $ 10,210,832 $19,160,662 $ 17,060,421 $ 15,368,955 $ 8,153,737 $ 19,800,616 $ 9,386,270 $ 11,733,182 $ 112,337,723
ECO FundingDistribution
Lines of Work
Tools/Technology
Ecological Stressors Ecosystem Ecology
Landscape Science
Restoration Science
Imperiled Species Invasive Species Species of Mgt Concern
LOW – Subcategories ($000) Imperiled Species
Wildlife Fisheries Environ ‐ments
Invasives S&T Cyclical Other MA
Reimb Total
WNS $129 $400 $336 $865
Hoary Bat $34 $88 $135 $257
Manatee $431 $85 $645 $1,161
Desert Fishes $70 $106 $176
Polar Bears $1,282 $63 $19 $140 $1,504
Black‐footed ferrets
$93 $102 $195
Freshwater Mussels
$326 $177 $503
Missouri R Terns & Plovers
$199 $2,799 $2,998
How will this be used? • Increased knowledge of the high-level research portfolio
in a Center o Allows for better communications about a Center’s portfolio o Shows total funding supporting research priorities o Provide a glide path to new or growing priorities o May lead to focusing parts of a Center’s research portfolio o Could lead to a reduction in lower priority science
• Focus on ECO goals o Better understanding of full ECO research portfolio and support for
priority goals o Shows how different sources of funding are supporting ECO goals o Shows importance of reimbursable in supporting ECO goals o Increased support in Centers for priorities
• Better able to communicate accomplishments and how goals are being met
• *Still exploring how it could be used*
Questions/Comments • What problems did you face?
• What would make this easier to do?
• Were the LOW the right categories?
• How do you see it could be used?
U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey
The following is based on a True Story….
Another @#$%!-ing Data Call…….?
Problem Statement
How do we ensure that our resources are being used efficiently to provide relevant and
impactful science?
The Science Portfolio: Strategic Positioning and Periodic Reassessment –
What Does This Really Mean?
Champion: Leon CarlSponsor: William Guertal
The Data Call
We Recommend …..
How Will it be Used?
Data calls Facilitate communicationsTrends and prioritiesIdentify partners and partnershipsInternal management
We Recommend …..
Tools Used
Visual Explorer Polarity Map 6 Thinking Hats Dictionary Creativity Whack Pack Brainstorming Brain Writing Converging Grids 5 Whys and a How Storytelling
Dar CrammondPortland, OR
Joe Bunnell Reston, VA
Wade HoodCarson City, NV
Bev FriesenLakewood, CO
Curtis SchrefflerFairview, PA
Durelle SmithAnchorage, AK
Leadership 201
July 21 – 25, 2014