Survey of Studies Development Plan (SDP) and Subject Matter Expert (SME) Process and Products. July 11, 2016

Transcription

1 Survey of Studies Development Plan (SDP) and Subject Matter Expert (SME) Process and Products July 11, 216 Survey period: /1/216 /17/ Questions Respondents Designed by BOEM Office of Environmental Programs Executed via SurveyMonkey 1-of-14

2 SDP Purpose: allow ideas to flow and give all BOEM scientists a voice. Provides a mechanism to be heard and propose ideas for funding through Environmental Studies Program s (ESP s) dedicated science budget It is not a competition but rather a process of engagement Studies should be chosen for funding that are in the best interest of the program and public good 2-of-14

3 SME Teams Purpose: Created to establish a culture of collegiality across BOEM and utilize our expertise. Our greatest asset is our people Use this asset to enhance our knowledge and add value to study ideas through a process of collaboration and coordination (not a dissertation defense) 3-of-14

4 Response Count Q1. For Which Office Do You Work? 2 2 Total of respondents of-14

5 Response Count Q3. Overall, what did you think of the SDP 2 process this year? Average Score: 2.7±.9 n=; 43 comments received I strongly disliked it (1) I disliked it (2) I was neutral about it (3) I liked it (4) I really liked it () -of-14

6 Response Count Q4. The SDP process (including SME team reviews) should be adjusted? Average Score: 4.3±.8 n=; 48 comments received Strongly Disagree (1) 2 Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree () 6-of-14

7 Response Count Q. Based on the final SDP, the SDP content and format should be adjusted. Agree or disagree? Average Score: 3.2±.8 n=; 23 comments received Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree () 7-of-14

8 Response Count Q7. Based on the final SDP, would you say the SDP is a strategic document that clearly communicates BOEM s science strategy/strategies? Average Score: 3.2±.9 n=; 2 comments received Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree () 8-of-14

9 Decreasing order of importance Q11. Please rank the following criteria in their importance to for an SME review Study relevance to BOEM Applicability of study results to specific information Scientific merit of study Study objectives Study methods Whether study duplicates efforts elsewhere Study timing Study budget Ensuring SME comments were incorporated into the Period of performance Scientific novelty 1 Average Rank of Importance (in order of high to low) 9-of-14

10 Decreasing frequency of selection Q12. Which, if any, of the following are NOT appropriate criteria for a SME team evaluation? (27 of skipped this question) Ensuring SME comments were incorporated into the Scientific novelty Period of performance (POP) of study Study budget Scientific merit of study Study timing Whether study duplicates efforts elsewhere Study relevance to BOEM Study methods Study objectives Applicability of study results to specific information Selection Count 1-of-14

11 Response Count Q13. The SME process improved the quality of the profiles in the SDP? 2 2 Average Score: 3.3±1. n=; 24 comments received Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree () 11-of-14

12 Major themes of comments received (in order of number of comments received) 1. Lack of clarity on study profile prioritization process Understanding where and when of management decisions Regional vs. HQ rankings and decisions 2. SME Team Process Need defined SME team review process SME team lead responsibilities 3. Incorporation of profile comments Tone and content of comments Comments not being incorporated o comments ignored o comment delivery/disappearance Need profile author identity and engagement 4. Internal regional office communication problems Prioritization of regional studies Dissemination of information, timelines, and comments 12-of-14

13 Comment themes continued. Timeline Creation and communication of SDP and profile deadlines SME team development of profiles 6. Profile mission relevance and rankings Some profiles not connected to National Environmental Policy Act or consultation processes Pet projects being moved forward ahead of profiles aimed at information gaps Consider creation of a policy profile category 7. SDP strategic aspect could use improvement SDP is primarily driven by profiles and their topics Consider setting high-level priorities in advance and profiles will specifically address these priorities 8. Need to define the SDP audience/customers Is the document serving its intended purpose? How are external suggestions included? Are they? 9. SDP format concerns 13-of-14

14 Next Steps Study Chiefs and Management engagement will be solicited at July 13 th meeting. Provide Survey results to all Environmental Science staff. Make changes that improve the SDP and its SME Team process to address concerns raised. 14-of-14