1 / 12

Performance Assessment Assessment of Organizational Excellence

Performance Assessment Assessment of Organizational Excellence. NSF Advisory Committee for Business and Operations May 5-6, 2005. Performance Assessment.

toni
Download Presentation

Performance Assessment Assessment of Organizational Excellence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Performance AssessmentAssessment of Organizational Excellence NSF Advisory Committee for Business and Operations May 5-6, 2005

  2. Performance Assessment Develop and use performance assessment tools and measures to provide an environment of continuous improvement in NSF’s intellectual investments as well as its management effectiveness. (one of four areas—ALL now need to be successful)

  3. NSF Mission OUTCOMES STRATEGIC OUTPUT OPERATIONAL INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY Expert Assessments Integrated Throughout NSF Components • Strategic or Long-Term Planning • Scientific Advisory Committee Reviews • NSF Performance Planning • Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment (AC/GPA) • Business & Operations Advisory Committee • Committees of Visitors (COVs) • Merit Review • Project Reports • Program Assessment Ratings Tool (PART) • Individual Performance Assessments Directly Linked to Mission and Goals In red, added 2001 or later

  4. Performance Assessment:FY 2005 Focus Areas • PART Activities • New Efficiency Metric • Highest Ratings in All Programs • AC/GPA Activities • Refined processes • Categorizing “Innovative High-Risk”

  5. PART Activities I Factors New Efficiency Measure:Percent of award decisions made available to applicants within six months of proposal receipt or deadline date, while maintaining a credible and efficient competitive merit review system, as evaluated by external experts. Achievements Reached consensus with OMB and implemented change. Results

  6. PART Activities II Factors Completed PARTs in three NSF Investment Categories and one Priority Area: - Institutions (People)- Collaborations (People)- Polar Tools, Logistics, and Facilities (Tools)- Biocomplexity in the Environment (Priority Area) Achievements 100% of NSF PARTs (8 out of 8 in total) received the highest rating of “Effective” as compared with only 15% of 607 PARTs government-wide. Results

  7. AC/GPA I Factors Work on individual indicators performed through subgroup chairs prior to annual meeting. Achievements - More substantive discussions at AC/GPA meeting -Positive comments from AC/GPA Results

  8. AC/GPA II Factors Identifying “high-risk” and “multidisciplinary” activities Achievements - Broad perspectives obtained on why NSF-funded projects from various disciplines fall into these categories -Quality and quantity (~200 for “high risk” and ~600 for “multidisciplinary) of program officer responses Results

  9. A STARTING POINT FOR THE AC/GPA DISCUSSION ON INNOVATIVE-HIGH RISK RESEARCH – FROM PROGRAM OFFICER COMMENTS IN NUGGETS “Innovative High-Risk” Forefront, Novel or Transformative but Untried or Untested High Reward but Significant Technical Challenges and/or High Probability of Failure Innovative and Contrary to Current Theory or Conventional Paradigms “Other High Risk” (few in number) Risk from Not Succeeding Risk to Principal Investigators/Others

  10. Performance Assessment: FY 2005 Coming Attractions/Comments Why a Priority Accomplishments Indicators of Success Priority Initiatives Use Measure that Combines Quality and Timeliness Identify Appropriate Efficiency Measure Reached Consensus with OMB Replacement in PART Effective this year 4 PARTs completed: - Institutions, - Collaborations, - Polar Tools, and - Biocomplexity PART Activities Establishes agency-wide evaluation framework. All received the highest rating: “effective” 2 PARTs underway: - Fundamental Science and Engineering- FFRDCs Creating of separate OE subgroup Workload issues for AC/GPA at annual meeting New process well-received -More substantive discussions at AC/GPA meeting -Comments from AC/GPA Refining AC/GPA Process AC/GPA Recommendation NAPA Recommendation Broad perspectives obtained on why NSF-funded projects from various disciplines fall into these categories -Quality and quantity (~200 for “high risk” and ~600 for “multidisciplinary) of program officer responses Definitions and categories for “innovative high risk” Identifying “high-risk” and “multidisciplinary” activities

  11. Initiatives on the Horizon Comments Future Initiatives -Complete Fundamental Science and Engineering PART and Federally Funded Research and Development Center PART -Initiate five remaining PARTs for next year 1. PART 2. “Innovative High Risk Research” -Work with AC/GPA to define categories for further use (e.g. by COVs, POs in writing accomplishments (“nuggets”), input to the NSB Task Force on Transformative Research)

  12. Conclusion NSF has demonstrated significant achievement in Performance Assessment.

More Related