[Nsa] Comments on draft strategic plan

[Rebecca Morss]

Jorgen,

Thank you for your frank comments. I do not want to fill everyone's e-mail
in-boxes with a large discussion, but there are a few things in your e-mail
that are important to respond to directly. So I will send one e-mail, and
then if you or anyone else wants to follow up about more specifics, please
do so. Those who are not interested can simply delete.

Regarding your "incapable" hypothesis: it turns out to be surprisingly
difficult to articulate research that the organization should do over the
next 5 years in a concise fashion without omitting something that some
group thinks is a critical part of the vision and ending up with a large
list. I would not have thought that going in, but after months of working
on this, I've experienced it.

Regarding the removal of disciplinary references, the guidance to the SPSC
was to make the plan readable by a broad audience. You may disagree with
that decision, and we've begun discussing how to proceed in this regard,
but please do not infer ill intent into it.

We also worked through multiple previous versions with more detail, with
more specifics, and with more textual content about what NCAR has done well
historically and does well now (which in the current version has been moved
to graphics). In the interest of readability and trying to chart a concise,
compelling forward-looking vision, much of that was removed or folded into
statements cutting across more than one area. Again, you may disagree with
those decisions, and we've been discussing how to proceed, but please do
not interpret this to mean that there is ill intent.

Overall, in response to your "unwilling" hypothesis, based on all of the
discussions I have been involved in (about the Strategic Plan and in an
interim role on the NCAR Executive Committee), I have not heard any intent
to make dramatic resource allocation changes. One of the things that I
appreciate most about NCAR, and that came out clearly in the input from
NCAR staff and the external community, is the value of the people we have
and the breadth and depth of their expertise. As many of us have
experienced, cutting personnel or programs is a lot of work and not
enjoyable, and I have not heard anyone involved in this process seeking
that out. In fact, the discussions are about the importance of avoiding
that.

Instead, the aim was to articulate the importance of NCAR's staff and the
core work that NCAR does, along with the value that it brings to science
and society, in a way that would speak to a broad audience. We worked hard
with the lab directors and committee members to tie the themes in the plan
to the important work that NCAR does now. Vanda would not let us produce a
plan that she did not think would benefit EOL, nor would the other lab
directors with respect to their labs. Some of the language may seem
unfamiliar, but based on my knowledge of the field and the type of work
that is done at NCAR already, there isn't a large number of new staff or
dramatic shift in work needed to pursue the themes discussed in the plan.
The aim is to leverage the expertise that NCAR already has, in
collaboration with the university community and other partners.

I suppose some might think that Dan or I have a hidden agenda, but we do
not -- in fact, that is one of the first things that we discussed as
co-chairs. We (to the extent that I can speak for Dan) are researchers who
value science and NCAR and are trying to build the best future for the
organization and our community. I hope that even if you disagree with what
is in the plan, we can agree on that goal.

Regards,
Rebecca

---
Rebecca E. Morss
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colorado USA
303-497-8172
https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrads

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/nsa/attachments/20190913/1ff3f417/attachment.html>