[Presidential Decision Directives - PDD]

STATUS OF FEDERAL LABORATORY REFORMS


Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Summary of Findings
III. Recommendations
IV. Findings
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
V. Summary
Appendices
A: Fact Sheet on Presidential Decision Directive (PDD/NSTC-5) Guidelines for Federal Laboratory Reform
B: OSTP Questions and DOD Answers: Summer 1996
C: Report of External Members of DOE Laboratory Operations Board: October 1996
D: NASA Implementation Report: August 1996


STATUS OF FEDERAL LABORATORY REFORMS

I. Introduction

In the summer of 1996, the Executive Office of the President undertook a study to assess the progress of the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in implementing reforms directed in Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) NSTC-5, Guidelines for Federal Laboratory Reform (see Appendix A). These agencies already had reform efforts underway, but the PDD specifically called for agency action in four areas. The agencies were directed to streamline management practices, regulations, and oversight that impede laboratory performance; clarify and focus laboratory missions; reduce or eliminate low priority programs; and coordinate laboratory resources and facilities to eliminate unnecessary duplication.

The objective of the reforms mandated by the President is to maintain the scientific excellence that is the hallmark of our national science and technology enterprise while improving scientific productivity. Beyond this important goal, successful reform will also have a significant impact on the broader objective of making government work better for less. The laboratory systems of DOD, DOE, and NASA are by far the largest in the federal government, accounting for at least 20 percent of the entire federal research and development (R&D) budget, and spending over 80 percent of the funds allocated government-wide to federal laboratories. Collectively they play a major role in performing R&D to serve national needs. Moreover, the individual laboratories are rich in human talent and facilities, many of which provide unique, state-of-the-art capabilities used by researchers from universities and industry. The DOE and NASA laboratories are deeply integrated into the fundamental science enterprise, while the overarching mission of the DOD and DOE weapons laboratories is to serve national security requirements. All the laboratories have been vital forces in advancing technology associated with their missions, and most participate in partnerships, collect ively supporting a broad range of industrial sectors.

To conduct this study, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) polled the subject agencies, sampled the laboratories, and examined documents pertaining to agency and laboratory reform as well as reports produced by other government agencies, including those of the General Accounting Office. The Department of Energy invited OSTP to observe its internal meetings as well as those of its Laboratory Operations Board. This participation provided us with a deeper exposure to DOE’s progress and challenges than can be obtained via documentation and discussion alone.

This status report provides a snapshot of an ongoing, dynamic reform process in all three agencies and their laboratories. Section II summarizes how the agencies have responded to the Presidential Decision Directive, emphasizing aspects more or less common among the three agencies. In Section III we propose recommendations for how to build on the reforms accomplished to date, and include suggestions for next steps. Section IV details our findings by individual agency, followed by a brief summary in Section V. Appendices provide additional details from each agency on the status of its reforms.


II. Summary of Findings

Considerable effort is being expended by DOD, DOE, NASA, and their laboratories to plan, document, and implement the directives of the PDD as well as the agencies’ own independent reform initiatives. Both reforms and downsizing have considerable momentum and are continuing, since much remains to be done. White House and Congressional mandates, along with budgetary pressures, are driving the changes.

1. Mission clarification and priority setting. Each agency is engaged in a major strategic planning process, typically involving employee and stakeholder input, with the plans available to the public through their Internet home pages. None of the agency strategic plans, however, includes a clear and specific vision describing the role and nature of that agency's laboratory system--the 'end-point' of reform--in sufficient detail to guide its evolution. Nonetheless, agency and laboratory missions are being clarified substantially, refined, and communicated. Few, if any, hard priority choices have been made, except when forced by immediate budgetary pressures or specific Congressional action.

2. Regulation, directive, and oversight reform. The agencies are revising directives and orders, and the quantity of such documents has been reduced markedly. In addition, staffing levels have decreased and the number of contract compliance audits has declined. Despite what agencies report to us about the progress they have made in this area, it is too soon to assess reductions in administrative work resulting from the decrease in directives and orders. To date, the substantial effort invested in reviewing and reducing directives and orders tends to have outweighed the savings. This effort is likely to abate as the reforms mature. Beyond that, however, we found that declining numbers of directives and orders do not necessarily translate into decreased requirements (or even the number of pages in the directives and orders). In addition, continuing micromanagement of the laboratories impedes progress, particularly at DOE. The message from agency top management for change is often not implemented a t the working level.

3. Management streamlining. Beyond the effort invested in reducing directives, orders, and oversight, agencies and laboratories have started to reengineer administrative and support functions. This activity is coupled with the directives and oversight reform described above, because inefficient administrative/support systems evolved to meet agency directives and the requirements of procedures manuals. As onerous requirements are eliminated, streamlining becomes possible. Automation of administr ative systems and electronic communication are simplifying administrative processes by reducing the number of steps and the need for redundant information entry and processing by different offices involved in each transaction. Simultaneously, the transaction speed and the ability to check status of administrative processes are increasing.

Management streamlining is proceeding at the agencies and individual laboratories, tailored to each situation. Streamlining options and progress, however, are limited by the requirements of federal personnel rules and other regulations, over which the agencies and laboratories have no control. If these requirements were relaxed or eliminated, the laboratories would have considerably more latitude to reduce support costs and increase scientific productivity and quality.

Staff reduction programs are having an impact on both technical and support personnel. In some cases, these losses have weakened program management capability at agency headquarters, and eroded scientific and technical excellence and leadership at the laboratories. For research laboratories with Civil Service staff, limits on the number of high-GS-level personnel hamper the retention of highly qualified scientists and engineers. Since the entry level for Ph.D. scientists and engineers is GS-11 or 12, these technical personnel find their career advancement slowed or blocked. In essence this policy encourages the best people to seek employment elsewhere after a few years, to find opportunities for promotion. Furthermore, nonvoluntary staff reduction programs tend to reverse recent progress in workforce diversity, as minorities, women, and the disabled typically have less seniority than average.

4. Interagency, interservice, and interlaboratory coordination. Cooperation and collaboration is growing among agencies, laboratories, industry, and academia on R&D topics of mutual interest. This cooperation is broader than the three agencies included in the initial laboratory-reform effort, and can be credited in part to tightening budgets and the Administration’s emphasis on pooling resources and forming partnerships, and in part to regular, formal interactions via NSTC Committees. Contacts among agency and laboratory personnel and programs close to the grass-roots level have been important in formulating scientific initiatives and in advancing science and technology. The computerized interagency Major Facilities Inventory (accessible through the Internet at http://131.182.171.171/) includes over 1700 R&D facilities operated by NASA, DOD, DOE, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Federal Aviation Agency ( FAA).

5. Performance measures and tracking reform progress. It is difficult but important to identify a set of measures (both quantitative and qualitative) that accurately indicates reform progress. However, the primary focus on cost savings and staff reduction as key indicators paints at best an incomplete picture, and at worst can be counter-productive. These metrics have no direct bearing on R&D quality or relevance nor on the organization’s contributions to national goals. Agencies are investing considerable effort in developing performance measures and collecting data. While some of this attention and effort is useful, in other cases the cost of the measurement exceeds the value of the information obtained. For quality of science the somewhat subjective assessment of an external peer group remains the most accurate metric. As recommended by the NSTC publication Assessing Fundamental Science, it will be important to utilize the maximum flexibility in the Government Performance and Results Act to implement meaningful measures of R&D output, and to use assessments of scientific productivity and quality in combination with measures of efficiency and cost reduction to characterize reform progress. Each agency and laboratory would be expected to have some customized performance measures appropriate to its missions, but not necessarily applicable or useful to other agencies and laboratories.

6. Comparisons and extrapolations. Meaningful comparisons among the agencies and their laboratory systems are difficult, and extrapolating from the experiences of one to the complex as a whole can be subject to large error. Comparisons with regard to productivity improvement are especially risky, since the laboratories and agencies did not start at the same levels of efficiency nor did they have the same problems. Moreover, readily available data are frequently not comparable from agency to agency, among the laboratories, among services within DOD, or even within a service. For the outcomes of greatest interest--R&D quality, relevance/appropriateness, and productivity--there are no generally accepted metrics, except for qualitative evaluations obtainable via peer review. Data and metrics that are available are only weak indicators of the desired outcomes.

7. Institutional Diversity. The agencies and their laboratories differ substantially, making standardized reform undesirable. Among the differences are civil service vs contractor workforces; operation by the government vs profit contractor vs not-for-profit contractor; and the specific missions and core competencies. This diversity, in combination with the diversity provided by industrial and academic research performers, is a strength of the American R&D system. It should be modified only when doing so would increase simultaneously the efficiency, productivity, mission accomplishment, and innovation capability of the performers. Standardization for its own sake is likely to be counterproductive, although gains may be possible by ensuring that the institutional characteristics of each laboratory are well matched to its mission.


III. Recommendations

The reform process is difficult--involving the disruption or termination of long-established, if inefficient, ways of doing business. Understanding the barriers to reform and developing mechanisms to overcome these barriers will be the keys to success. We offer eight recommendations to accelerate laboratory reform. These recommendations fall into three categories, those aimed at enhancing scientific and technical excellence, those that would streamline management and improve productivity, and those intended to improve the utilization of laboratory capabilities to address national needs. In addition, we propose a ninth recommendation addressing next steps for the NSTC to build on the progress that has already been made, and to extend the reforms to the fed eral laboratories of other agencies.

To enhance scientific and technical excellence

1. Existing laws, regulations, and executive guidance must be reviewed and modified to enable agencies and their laboratories to implement personnel practices that promote scientific competence and renewal in the workforce, especially at the government-op erated laboratories.

2. Performance measures (quantitative, qualitative, and peer review) tailored to the unique character of R&D should be developed and implemented to assess research quality, importance, and laboratory productivity. (Reference: Assessing Fundamental Science and the Government Performance and Results Act.)

3. Incentives should be developed to reward agencies and laboratories for initiatives that preserve or enhance programmatic excellence and productivity while reducing costs. Such incentives might include allowing the laboratories to apply administrative savings to their scientific programs, greater latitude for "Laboratory Directed R&D," and reduced agency micromanagement and oversight.

To streamline management and improve productivity

4. Intensified agency leadership at the highest levels is needed to ensure that the intentions of the reform process are reflected in day-to-day operations and in requirements imposed on the laboratories.

5. Laws and regulations on any subject that impede laboratory reform should be reviewed to identify candidates for repeal or modification.

6. The number and length of agency-specific regulations, directives, and procedures should be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary for safe, effective, and efficient operations. They should describe desired outcomes, and set standards, but not mandate specific approaches. This policy would mean, for example, that DOE should rely on external regulation of its laboratories, except in specialized areas where the operations are unique and hazardous and there are no appropriate external regulators.

7. The Administration and Congress should conduct a pilot project to fund R&D tasks at the laboratories on a multiyear basis, to eliminate inefficiencies built into annual funding.

To improve utilization of laboratory capabilities to address national needs

8. The NSTC should examine further and propose ways to reduce the legal, financial, institutional, and cultural barriers to optimum utilization of laboratory capabilities to promote greater cooperation among all federal agencies and laboratories, and with the industrial and academic sectors.

Next Step

9. The NSTC should establish an interagency working group on federal laboratories to address these recommendations, review barriers to laboratory reform, share lessons learned across government, and develop and implement an action plan to continue the ref orm process.


IV. Findings

Department of Defense

In 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) spent approximately $36 billion (nearly 14% of its FY 1995 $253 billion budget authority) on research, development, and test & evaluation (RDT&E). The RDT&E organizations employ a workforce of almost 108,000 personnel - approximately 90,000 civilian and 18,000 military. DOD has 120 laboratories and test and evaluation centers. There are 87 laboratory sites: 29 Army, 38 Navy, 19 Air Force, and one defense-wide. In addition, there are also several test and evaluation (T&E) centers, some of which are collocated with the laboratories: 15 Army, 18 Navy, 9 Air Force, and 7 defense-wide. In general, these laboratories are actively managed at the service level, rather than at the level of the Office the Secretary of Defense (OSD), with OSD performing a policy oversight role.

1. Mission Clarification and Priority Setting

2. Reforms in Orders, Regulations, and Oversight

3. Streamlining and management improvements

4. Interagency, Interservice, and Interlaboratory Coordination

Department of Energy

The Department of Energy has nine multiprogram laboratories and fourteen program-dedicated laboratories. All but one are operated for the department by various university and corporate contractors. Operating costs for all the laboratories total approximately $8.5 billion per year. From headquarters and through its network of field offices, the Department provides oversight; manages the contracts; ensures laboratory compliance with environmental, safety, and health regulations. National security, energy/environment, and science form the core missions of the multiprogram laboratories while the program-dedicated laboratories operate user facilities or pursue single-purpose science or technology missions.

1. Mission Clarification and Priority Setting

2. Reforms in Orders, Regulations, and Oversight

3. Streamlining and Management Improvements

4. Interagency, Interservice, and Interlaboratory Coordination

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

At the end of the third quarter of FY 1996, NASA had a total workforce of 21,555 Civil Servants at its Headquarters and at the 10 Field Installations (Centers) located throughout the country. Each Center is dedicated to defined roles and responsibilities. One of these, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is an FFRDC managed and operated by the California Institute of Technology. Each Center has been assigned unique agency leadership responsibilities in specific areas of technology or knowledge.

1. Mission Clarification and Priority Setting

2. Reforms in Orders, Regulations, and Oversight

3. Streamlining and Management Improvements

4. Interagency, Interservice, and Interlaboratory Coordination

V. Summary

DOD, DOE, NASA, and their laboratories are making progress in meeting the directives of the PDD, which called on the agencies to streamline management and oversight, focus laboratory missions, and coordinate laboratory resources and facilities. In short, the PDD’s objectives were improved laboratory productivity and cost-effectiveness, but not at the cost of scientific excellence. These three agencies operate by far the largest laboratory systems in the Federal government, but not the only ones. We recommend extending the reform mandate to the other Federal agencies with significant intramural laboratories or laboratory systems (notably the National Institutes of Health, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior). As science and technology budgets continue to be squeezed, it becomes increasingly important to meet the President’s goal of making government work better and cost less, while preserving or even enhancing scientific capability and performance.



Appendix A