[Nsa] Comments on draft strategic plan

[Jorgen Jensen]

Hi Rebecca,



Thanks for your thoughtful response.



We certainly both (all) want the best for NCAR; the question is how.  I
accept that there are no hidden agendas.  I was too rash in assigning
motive.  I am sorry for that.



But at the end of the day, the net result is still:



In the balance between a public strategic plan and its associated internal
implementation plan,  the current draft strategic plan (because of its lack
of detail) thoroughly pushes the power into the implementation plan.  That
is, I believe, unprecedented and not good for NCAR.



Is it difficult to describe in coarse-grained detail the organization’s
future work? Absolutely.  But from looking at old strategic plans, it has
been done by all prior strategic planning groups that I am aware of.



Is it an imperfect process? Yes.



Should it be done? Here I come down on the side of an emphatic yes.



With kind regards, Jorgen

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:05 PM Rebecca Morss <morss at ucar.edu> wrote:

> 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
> Deputy Director, Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory
>     & Lead, Weather Risks and Decisions in Society program
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> Boulder, Colorado USA
> 303-497-8172
> https://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrads
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:57 PM Jorgen Jensen <jbj at ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear NCAR Director and Committee leads /
>>
>> Dear Everette, Rebecca and Dan,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for drafting the new NCAR Strategic Plan. I know how much work
>> it is.  Thus I really do appreciate your work.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have not previously provided any input to the present strategic
>> plan.  During the winter-spring of this year, I was on an internal
>> sabbatical, and since then I was out with surgery until late July.
>>
>>
>>
>> *I think that an NCAR strategic plan should serve at least 5 purposes:*
>>
>>
>>
>> Acknowledge
>>
>> that NCAR is built on fundamental research in many separate disciplines.
>>
>> Acknowledge
>>
>> that this fundamental research must continue as a basis for NCAR’s
>> development.
>>
>> Acknowledge
>>
>> that the true strength of NCAR is that the whole of NCAR is greater than
>> the sum of its parts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Describe clearly the main tasks that the organization is working on, as
>> well as what new initiatives and priorities are planned.  Do this in coarse
>> detail.  Do this for other scientists, government and community.
>>
>>
>>
>> Recognize our sponsors and funding organizations, as well as the tasks
>> and priorities that they want NCAR to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Recognize our customers, both current and future, as well as the tasks
>> that they want NCAR to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Describe the tasks, that NCAR is working on, in sufficient details that
>> staff can look at the plan and say “Yes, I belong here. They recognize that
>> what I do is important”.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Comments on the current draft strategic plan:*
>>
>>
>>
>> My first impression on reading this draft strategic plan is that NCAR is
>> either *incapable*of or *unwilling*to articulate in even coarse detail
>> what work the organization should do in the next 5 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> [Strong words, yes, but you asked for comments].
>>
>>
>>
>> If I was looking at the text from outside NCAR, then my reaction would be
>> something like:
>>
>>
>>
>>             “This is a really weak strategic plan for a world-class
>> science organization.”
>>
>> and
>>
>>             “NCAR does not know what its priorities are.”
>>
>> and
>>
>>             “Just give us the money; then we will decide how to spend it.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that NCAR knows very well what its priorities are; there is
>> plenty of horsepower in the executive, the strategic plan committee, and
>> through the input that the committee has collected.  Thus the draft
>> strategic plan could easily have been written with sufficient
>> coarse-grained detail,  -  had that been the goal.
>>
>>
>>
>> This leads me to ask why NCAR is apparently *unwilling*to clearly
>> articulate in coarse details its goals in this strategic plan.
>>
>>
>>
>> And I really struggle with that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prior strategic plans have spelled out both what we do, and what new
>> directions we want to pursue. This draft strategic plan really only
>> discusses the new directions.
>>
>>
>>
>> And I think that it is an affront to our funding organizations.
>>
>>
>>
>> To substantiate why I criticize the plan for not having even
>> coarse-grained detail,  consider that almost all disciplinary references
>> have been removed.  The word
>>
>>
>>
>>             “mesoscale” does not occur in the plan,
>>
>> "greenhouse" occurs once,
>>
>> "trace gas" does not occur,
>>
>> “reactive” does not occur,
>>
>> "boundary layer" does not occur,
>>
>> "aerosol" does not occur,
>>
>> "cloud" only occur in conjunction with "cloud computing" (twice!),
>>
>> “uncertainty” occurs once (for a science organization?)
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically, the strategic plan has been “sanitized” to an extent, that
>> almost all disciplinary science references to problems are omitted.  Yet
>> these, and many more, are exactly the subjects that NCAR staff works
>> on.  So why not mention them?
>>
>>
>>
>>          Section 4.2, first bullet point: Develop the next generation of
>> observational facilities and continue to work with community stakeholders
>> to identify new emerging technologies. We will lead engineering research,
>> design, fabrication, and testing that advances both science and technology.
>>
>> Without any detail around it, the above paragraph is so non-specific, as
>> to be almost meaningless.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very major tasks, that NSF has tasked NCAR with carrying out, are not
>> mentioned at all.  For instance, NSF has probably invested about $150-200M
>> in observational facilities, the Lower Atmospheric Observing Facilities
>> (LAOF). They have funded two large aircraft with associated
>> instrumentation, radars, lidars, ground-based networks, masts, and remote
>> sensing profilers.  NSF expects that NCAR continue to keep these
>> state-of-the art, such that NCAR can collaborate with and support
>> university faculty in NSF funded field deployments, of which scores of
>> faculty are given grants every year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Observational facilities have names (e.g., LAOF and Mauna Loa
>> Observatory), and these names are known and recognized by NSF, by our
>> university colleagues and by other agency collaborators.  –  So why not
>> call them by name in the strategic plan?
>>
>>
>>
>> A major proposal, the $70M Airborne Phased Array Radar (APAR) proposal
>> has just been submitted to NSF. How can a strategic plan not mention a $70M
>> proposal, or even the serious effort underlying it?
>>
>>
>>
>>          Section 4.2, second bullet point:  Develop and enable broad use
>> of cutting-edge numerical models suitable for a wide variety of Earth
>> system science endeavours. Central to this, we will implement a unified
>> modeling strategy, capable of simulating weather, climate, atmospheric
>> chemistry, and space weather, and engineered for the exascale regime.
>>
>> But my concern is not just with the observational aspects of the draft
>> strategic plan.  The plan also ignores mention of the many process oriented
>> modeling efforts carried out within NCAR, such as Large Eddy Simulations
>> (LES) of the air-sea interface, of cloud processes, of boundary-layer
>> development, etc.  (Yes, the above paragraph does discuss models in
>> plural).  Do these efforts not deserve to be mentioned (maybe also by name)
>> in the strategic plan?
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, in my comments on NCAR being unwilling to articulate in coarse
>> detail the work being currently carried out and planned:  In the central
>> unified modeling strategy, there is absolutely no details on what the
>> priorities are.  For instance, are the key areas among the following?
>>
>>
>>
>>             Improving the numerical core of the unified model to speed it
>> up,
>>
>>             Parameterization of physical processes in the grey zone,
>>
>>             Surface flux parameterization to high wind-speed regime
>> (30-85 m/s),
>>
>>             Better turbulence representation around inversions,
>>
>>             Stably stratified boundary layers,
>>
>>             Getting the right physical process into marine warm rain
>> formation,
>>
>>             Getting ice particle generation based on aerosols as opposed
>> to temperature,
>>
>>             Etc., etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> NCAR should articulate what the most important problems are, in order to
>> improve the unified model.
>>
>>
>>
>> Otherwise the strategic plan comes across as:
>>
>>
>>
>>             “Just give us the money; then we will decide how to spend it.”
>>
>>
>>
>> The strategic planning committee and NCAR executive could certainly have
>> written the draft strategic plan with the coarse-grained detail as outlined
>> above.
>>
>>
>>
>> But it must have been a very conscious decision to omit all the details
>> and disciplinary problem references.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that:   NCAR wants a very generic strategic plan, such that it
>> can make the greatest change in research direction since its
>> inception,  -  with a minimum of external influence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically, get the strategic plan externally through the UCAR members and
>> NSF, and then do dramatic resource allocation changes internally in an
>> implementation plan.
>>
>>
>>
>> For instance, in order to pay for the vision with its huge effort to
>> societally important model output, something has to give or NCAR must have
>> identified a substantial untapped source of external funding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet the plan does not mention potential future external funding sources
>> by name; in fact it expressly omits mention the names of all current
>> external funding organizations (except for two small references to
>> NSF).  We have many other smaller funders, that are not mentioned.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that this draft strategic plan, on purpose, is trying “to
>> bite the hands that feed us”. This seems entirely counter productive.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not know if my assertion is right (passing a non-detailed strategic
>> plan, followed by internal dramatic resource changes as part of the
>> implementation plan – out of view of NSF, UCAR members, and others), but
>> otherwise I cannot understand the writing of a strategic plan, that omits
>> core responsibilities of NCAR, and that is so lacking in coarse-grained
>> detail and science.
>>
>>
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Jorgen Jensen
>>
>> SCI III, Leader of RAF Science and Instrumentation Group
>>
>> NCAR / EOL,  jbj at ucar.edu ,  720-206-6478
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/nsa/attachments/20190916/cf8e5444/attachment-0001.html>