Joel D. Scheraga

National Program DirectorGlobal Change Research and Mercury Research Programs

Office of Research and Development

January 24, 2006

Reflections onthe Evolution of ORD with NPDs

Themes

Opportunities

Challenges

Program-specific insights

The Result Research contributions to EPA decisions &

outcomes that reflect an evolved program with enhanced quality, relevance, performance, and

leadership

NPDsWhat research area-specific work

we do and when we do it

Executive Council Corporate Decisions:

What we do and how we do it

Decision Inputs • Feedback from ORD scientists

• Feedback from Programs & Regions

• Results of independent evaluations (e.g., BOSC)

• OMB feedback (PART) • Revised MYPs

• Administration priorities

• Congressional mandates

• SAB, NAS, other external advice

L/C DirectorsHow we do the work, Who does the work, and What we are accountable for

The New ORD Structure (Theory)

Opportunities

• Focus on “right science” Program-wide objectives Identification of best ways to achieve program goals Identification of appropriate Lab/Center to conduct each

component (see “Challenges”) Not a “bottom-up” process Implications for evolution of MYPs

• Unified teams with unified objectives across ORD

• Improved planning and budgeting Increased focus on true programmatic priorities Enhanced focus on client needs from programs

Opportunities (cont.)

• Flexibility when world changes (e.g., 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule)

• Better coordination to represent programs, e.g., BOSC PART Regions

• Placement of NPDs in IOAA Faithful representation of ORD corporate interests Opportunities to leverage all expertise

Challenges

• Culture change Appreciation and respect for roles and responsibilities of

different entities (theory vs. practice)

Appreciation of challenges faced by all programs• NPDs (representing programs)• Lab/Center Directors (representing needs of mission-specific

laboratories)• Scientists

• Better and regular communication Between Lab/Center Directors and NPDs (individually and

collectively) Between NPDs and scientists

Challenges (cont.)

• Representation of NPD views within Executive Council “Gang of 8” and Management Team working together to remedy Contrast with Science Council

• Imperative of getting work done Particularly when products/outcomes require inputs from

multiple Labs/Centers Timeliness Nature of products (implications for GPRA)

• Programmatic needs to shift resources between Labs/Centers

• Unilateral changes by any one management entity not appropriate (e.g., shifts of FTEs between MYPs)

Challenges (cont.)

• Interactions across programs

• Workload for NPDs

Ensuring adequate support (e.g., ORMA; OSP) Ensuring responsiveness of ALDs/ACDs (given their

own workloads) Implications for NPDs’ own research

Program-specific insights

• NPD role critical when Congressionally-mandated interagency coordination body exists

Example: US Climate Change Science Program

NPD is EPA’s Principal Representative to CCSP

Must represent EPA’s mission in CCSP

Must represent Administration and CCSP priorities in EPA and ORD planning and budgeting processes

• CCSP makes budget recommendations to OMB

• Influences Agency’s passback

Must communicate CCSP priorities to, and coordinate with, Program and Regional Offices

Program-specific insights (cont.)

• Communication of importance of cross-cutting, multimedia environmental issues (e.g., climate change) to EPA and ORD

• Coordination with critical international processes State Department’s Bilateral Initiatives (Global) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Global) UNEP (Mercury)