[Nsa] Comments on draft strategic plan

[Guy Brasseur]

The same remarks as those presented by Jorgen have been made by many others. 

I think that the issue can be easily addressed. The plan must be attractive to external stakeholders as well as to NCAR staff. External stakeholders need to understand that, in the present environment (e.g., responding to the environmental and climate crisis, proposing solutions), a research institution like NCAR remains relevant. Thus, we have to address the right problems and show that these problems require the kind of science for which we are expert.  

At the same time, it is important that the scientists at NCAR feel ownership of the plan. My suggestion is that we add one or two boxes that translate the high level objectives into more explicit research goals that we can produce.  This should appear in the strategic plan, not in an implementation plan. But this topics cannot be just a list. Their strategic relevance must be highlighted. 

Guy

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 16, 2019, at 17:06, Jorgen Jensen via Nsa <nsa at mailman.ucar.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 incapableof or unwillingto 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 unwillingto 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
> _______________________________________________
> Nsa mailing list
> Nsa at mailman.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/nsa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/nsa/attachments/20190916/95159d57/attachment-0001.html>