Metrics
I just spoke with my father. I asked him if he knew of any ways to measure our progress towards the goal of promoting science in this country, and he had no idea. He says he knows some program managers at NSF, but that may not be good enough.
The NSF strategic plan emphasizes the importance of funding basic science research. I don't disagree, I think that the seriousness given to progress in science and the arts in a large way defines the civilization that gives rise to it. However, measuring progress relies on substantive considerations, while any particular approach to support progress is procedural. It's these procedures that must be measured and compared against one another. Funding private research is a good procedure, but who is to say that taking the same money and spending it another way doesn't better promote the progress of science? In fact, the NSF spends almost as much developing an intelligent and capable workforce ($1,153M) and tools to enable research ($1,341M) as it does on the actual research ($2,696M).
In my last private sector job, I had to undergo an annual performance review. Each year, my boss and I would go over my goals for the past year, and how close I came to achieving them. In a results-oriented company, the method for achieving the goal is not as important as the fact that the goal was achieved, by any method subject to certain ethical and legal constraints.
Measuring the progress of a particular research project is easy enough. Set milestones, and at the end of the period make a list of what was accomplished and what wasn't. The problem is that this approach deals with the execution of individual projects, not measuring the contribution that the projects make to the overall progress of science. My boss wants me to finish my projects, yes, but he also wants those projects to contribute to the overall well-being of the company. If he assigns me useless things to do and I execute them flawlessly, nothing is gained.
The goal stated in article I, section 8, clause 8 is clear: promote progress in science and useful arts. The laws passed by Congress establishing the NSF and NEA follow these lines, as do the organizations' respective strategic plans. Yet precious little attention seems to be paid to determining how well we're doing at actually achieving that goal. It's time to put real metrics on our progress toward that goal.
The Constitution needs a performance review.
The NSF strategic plan emphasizes the importance of funding basic science research. I don't disagree, I think that the seriousness given to progress in science and the arts in a large way defines the civilization that gives rise to it. However, measuring progress relies on substantive considerations, while any particular approach to support progress is procedural. It's these procedures that must be measured and compared against one another. Funding private research is a good procedure, but who is to say that taking the same money and spending it another way doesn't better promote the progress of science? In fact, the NSF spends almost as much developing an intelligent and capable workforce ($1,153M) and tools to enable research ($1,341M) as it does on the actual research ($2,696M).
In my last private sector job, I had to undergo an annual performance review. Each year, my boss and I would go over my goals for the past year, and how close I came to achieving them. In a results-oriented company, the method for achieving the goal is not as important as the fact that the goal was achieved, by any method subject to certain ethical and legal constraints.
Measuring the progress of a particular research project is easy enough. Set milestones, and at the end of the period make a list of what was accomplished and what wasn't. The problem is that this approach deals with the execution of individual projects, not measuring the contribution that the projects make to the overall progress of science. My boss wants me to finish my projects, yes, but he also wants those projects to contribute to the overall well-being of the company. If he assigns me useless things to do and I execute them flawlessly, nothing is gained.
The goal stated in article I, section 8, clause 8 is clear: promote progress in science and useful arts. The laws passed by Congress establishing the NSF and NEA follow these lines, as do the organizations' respective strategic plans. Yet precious little attention seems to be paid to determining how well we're doing at actually achieving that goal. It's time to put real metrics on our progress toward that goal.
The Constitution needs a performance review.
posted by Flickboy at 12:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home