Portfolio Discussion

This was provided to MWR Science Centers prior to Center Reviews

The Science Portfolio is a collection of science themes that are based on a Center’s areas of expertise and aligned with DOI and USGS science priorities. The goal is to have a science portfolio that balances the Center’s scientific capabilities with the needs of DOI, USGS and our partners/cooperators. The science portfolio represents the breath of work being done at a center and should be describe in no more than 5-7 thematic areas. The science portfolio should be reviewed each year to ensure that new opportunities, shift in program priorities at the local, regional, and national level and changes in partner/cooperator needs are still being addressed. This annual assessment will also help us define a Center’s core capabilities and ensure that the science portfolio aligns with this core. Center Presentation – 30 minutes This presentation should focus on the Center’s science portfolio with emphasis on the strategic science direction of the Center for the next 1-3 years. For each thematic area you should briefly discuss the items listed below.

1. Science a. DOI priorities alignment b. Mission(s) area alignment c. MWR initiative alignment d. Products produced e. Partners involved f. Type of science (emerging issues, monitoring, partner driven, etc…) g. Geographically or virtual based work (staff from other centers) h. Link to Workforce Plan

2. Return on Investment(ROI) a. Products/cost b. New opportunities c. Late reports/Impacts and Actions

3. Product development/Management tools – are there opportunities to develop new products or decision support tools

4. Next Steps and Improvements

Link:

DOI Strategic Plan – information you need is on page 42-43 http://www.doi.gov/pmb/ppp/upload/DOI_StrategicPlan_fy2011_2016.pdf

Environmental Toxicology

and Chemistry

Ecological Integrity

Large River

Ecology

Environmental Risk

Assessment and Restoration

Innovative

Methods and

Indicators

EE

RSC

EM&ERSC

GLSC

IL WSC

INKY

WSC

IA WSC

MI WSC

MN

WSC

MO

WSC

NWHC

NE WSC

ND WSC

NPWR

C

OH WSC

SD WSC

UMESC

WI WSC

Improve land and water health by managing wetlands, uplands and riparian areasSustain fish, wildlife, and plant species by protecting and recovering the Nation’s fish and wildlife*Climate change vulnerability assessments and related adaptation

Protect America’s Cultural and Heritage Resources

Protect cultural and historical assets and related resources

Provide Recreation and Visitor Experience

Enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of our natural and cultural heritageEstablish fire-adapted ecosystemsAdapt communities to wildfiresRespond to wildfiresEnsure environmental compliance and safety of energy developmentDevelop renewable energy potential*Increase approved capacity for renewable energy developmentManage conventional energy developmentAccount for energy revenuesConserve water*Enable increased water conservation capabilityImprove reliability of water deliveryImprove infrastructure and operation efficiency of tribal water facilitiesManage timber and forest product resourcesProvide for sustainable forage and grazingManage non-energy mineral developmentProtect Indian treaty and subsistence rightsFulfill fiduciary trustStrengthen tribal judicial systemsManage and develop resources assetsCreate economic opportunityStrengthen Indian educationMake communities safer*Reduce violent crime through strategic deploymentSupport self-governance and self-determinationManage for protection of water rightsImprove quality of lifeCreate economic opportunityPromote efficient and effective governance

Ensure the Quality & Relevance of Science Products to Partners &

CustomersEnsure overall customer satisfaction

Identify and predict ecosystem changesIdentify and model causes and impacts of changes to the Earth and ocean systemsAssess and forecast climate change and its effectsMonitor and assess water availability and qualityAssess national and international energy and mineral resourcesMonitor and assess natural hazards risk and resilienceIdentify the connection between the natural environment and wildlife and human healthDevelop an integrated data framework that is used to guide science-based stewardship of natural resourcesGenerate geologic maps and models for sustaining resources and protecting communitiesAdvance the Earth science application of geospatial information

Building a 21st Century Workforce Hiring reformYouth Stewardship and

Engagement*Hire or temporarily engage individuals aged 15-25Use of alternative fuelsReduce energy intensitySustainable buildingsReduce IT infrastructureDecrease operational expenseReduce high-risk acquisitionsReduce unneeded real property assetsOverall condition of building per facility condition index

DOINatural Resource Damage

Assessment and Restoration (NRDAR) Program

1

DOIThreatened and Endangered Species Research

1

Sustainably Manage Energy,

Water, and Natural Resources

Meet Our Trust, Treaty, and Other Responsibilities to American

Indians and Alaska Natives

CERC

Protect America's Landscapes

Manage the Impacts of Wildland Fire

Provide Natural and Cultural

Resource Protection and

Experiences

Secure America's Energy Resources

Strategy(*Priority goal )

Improving Acquisition and Real Property Management

Building a 21st Century

Department of the Interior

DOI

Strategy Level

2011-DOI Mission

Area2011 - Goal

Develop a Comprehensive Science Framework for Understanding the

Earth

Provide a Scientific

foundation for Decision Making

Ensure the Quality & Relevance of

Science Products to Partners &

Customers

Sustainability of Interior’s Operations

Dependability and Efficiency of Information Technology

Empower Insular Communities

Advance Govt-to-Govt Relationships

with Indian Nations and Honor Commitments to

Insular Areas

Provide Science for Sustainable Resource Use, Protection, and

Adaptive Management

Provide Scientific Data to Protect and Inform Communities

Manage Water for the 21st Century

Sustainably Manage Timber, Forage, and Non-energy Minerals

Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry

Ecological

Integrity

Large River Ecolog

y

Environmental Risk

Assessment and

Restoration

Innovative

Methods and

Indicator

EERSC

EM&ERSC

GLSC

IL WSC

INKY WSC

IA WSC

MI WSC

MN WSC

MO WSC

NWHC

NE WSC

ND WSC

NPWRC

OH WSC

SD WSC

UMESC

WI WSC

Improve land and water health by managing wetlands,uplands,and riparian areasSustain fish, wildlife,and plant speciesManage wildland fire for landscape resiliency,strengthen the ability of communities to protect against fire,and provide for public and firefighter safety In wildfire response

Goal 2: Protect America's Cultural and Heritage Resources Protect culturaland historical assets and related resourcesGoal 3: Enhance Recreation and Visitor Experience Enhance the enjoyment and appreciation of our natural and cultural

Protect reserved Indian treaty and subsistence rightsFulfill fiduciary trustSupport self-governance and self-determinationCreate economic opportunityStrengthen Indian educationMake communities saferImprove quality of lifeCreate economic opportunityPromote efficient and effective eovernanceEnsure environmental compliance and safety of energy development activitiesDevelop renewable energy potentialManage conventional energy developmentAccount for energy revenue Manage timber and forest product resourcesProvide for sustainable forage and grazingManage non-energy mineraldevelopment

Goal l: Create new, systemic opportunities for outdoor play

Develop or enhance outdoor recreation partnerships that provide outdoor play

Goal 2: Provide educational opportunities Reach the Nation's K-12 populationGoal 3: Provide volunteers on public lands Enable the ability to engage more young volunteersGoal 4: Develop the next generation of lifelong conservation stewards and ensure our own skilled and

Provide conservation work and training opportunities for young peopleImprove reliability of water deliveryBetter ensure the future of watersheds against the impacts of climate change

Goal 2: Extend Water Supplies Through Conservation Expand water conservation capabilitiesProtect tribal water rightsImprove infrastructure and operational efficiency of tribal water

Goal l: Provide Shared Landscape-Level Management and Planning Tools

Ensure the use of landscape-levelcapabilities and mitigation actions

Goal 2: Provide Science to Understand,Model and Predict Ecosystem, Climate and Land Use Change

Identify and predict ecosystem changes at targeted and landscape-levels {biota,land cover, and Earth and ocean systems) Assess and forecast climate change and its effectsMonitor and assess natural hazard risk and resilienceProvide environmental health to guide decisionmakingMonitor and assess water availability and qualityGenerate geologic mapsAssess nationaland international energy and mineral resourcesInterior's Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018

CERC

Goal l: Protect America's landscapes

Strategy Level

2014-18DOI Mission

AreaGoal Strategy

(*Priority goal )

Goal 2: Sustainably Manage Timber, Forage, and Non-Energy MineralsDOI

Celebrating and

Enhancing America's

Great Outdoors

Strengthening Tribal

Nations and Insular

Communities

Powering our Future and Responsible Use of the Nations's Resources

Engaging the Next

Generation

Ensuring Healthy

Watersheds and

Sustainable Water

Building a Landscape-

level Understanding

of Our Resources

Goal l: Manage Water and Watersheds for the 21st Century

Goal 3: Availability of Water to Tribal Communities

Goal 3: Provide Scientific Data to Protect, Instruct, and Inform Communities

Goal 4: Provide Water and Land Data to Customers

Goal l: Meet Our Trust, Treaty, and Other Responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives

Goal 2: Improve the Quality of life in Tribal and Native Communities

Goal 3: Empower Insular Communities

Goal l: Secure America's Energy Resources

Environmental

Toxicology and

Chemistry

Ecological Integrity

Large River

Ecology

Environmental Risk

Assessment and

Restoration

Innovative

Methods and

Indicators

EERSC EM&ERSC GLSC IL WSC INKY

WSC IA WSC MI WSC MN WSC

MO WSC NWHC NE WSC ND WSC NPWRC OH

WSC SD WSC UMESC WI WSC

Land Change Science (LCS)National Climate Change and Wildlife

Science Center (NCCWSC)Carbon Sequestration

Land Remote Sensing (LRS)Research and Development Program

(R&D)Earth Resources Observation and Science

Center (EROS)Invasive Species Program

Fisheries ProgramStatus & Trends Program

Genetics & GenomicsInternational

Science and Decisions CenterCooperative Research Units

Environments ProgramWildlife Program

MicrobiologyUSA National Phenology Network

Energy and Wildlife 1

Toxi substances Hydrology Program 1

Contaminant Biology Program

Ecological Effects of Contaminants 1

National Oil & Gas AssessmentGeothermalWind EnergyCoal AssessmentsWorld Petroleum AssessmentGeothermal resourcesEnergy InformationEnvironment

USGS Science and Decisions CenterResearch and AssessmentMinerals Information

Toxi substances Hydrology Program

National Laboratories

MWR Environmental effects of mining and energy 1

USGS

Energy and Minerals

Energy Resources

Mineral Resources

Ecosystems

Climate and Land Use Change

Environmental Health Mission Area

Science Strategy

LevelUSGS Mission Area Program Component

CERC

Skills CERCEERSC

EM&ERS

CGLSCIL

WSC

INKY

WSCIA

WSC

MI W

SC

MN W

SC

MO W

SC

NWHC

NE WSC

ND WSC

NPWRC

OH WSC

SD WSC

UMESC

WI W

SC

Environmental Toxicology XEnvironmental Chemistry XLarge River Ecology XEcological Risk Assessment and Restoration Science XEcological Effects of Contaminants: Innovative Methods and Indicators XInformation Technology XAdministrative Services XOil, gas and coal resource analysis and assessment; analysis of links between energy use and human health an environment impacts XNew SEM with expanded capabilities XX-ray diffraction capability XCritical CO2 extractor capabilities XEnvironmental SEM XGeostatical Analyst XQuantitative Mineral Resource Assessments XMineral Environmental Assessments XStream Sediment and Soil geochemical sampling XRemote Sensing XGeochemical analyses XGeophysical compilation XStatistical Analysis XGenetics/qPCR (fish, invertebrates, bacteria) XMicrobial ecology (sources, tracking) XHarmful Algal Blooms (HABs) XExpansion of Scientific Dive Team and Scientific Dive Safety training program XMotorboat Operator Certification Course XFork Lift Operator training course XData Rescue Program application through Core Science Systems XEcomapper (AUV) X

Surface-Water Modeling--1-D and 2-D Unsteady-flow hydraulic (FEQ, FESWMS, SWMM), & continuous watershed (HSPF and SWMM5) modeling for FEMA NFIP studies. Provide support and model training and development. XInstantaneous Data (UV) recovery using Mitron paper tape readers XGoogle Map applications for real-time precipitation and gage-linked inundation (for several WSCs) XStream Restoration assessment and modeling XSediment and Contaminant Transport Modeling (Kalamazoo Team and Office of Surface Mining) XSediment Surrogates (acoustic, laser-diffraction, turbidity--partial OSW funds) XDam Removal Modeling and monitoring XOperable Hydraulic Structure Ratings XLake Sedimentation Analysis XRegionalization of Flow Duration Curves as a basis for daily streamflow in ungaged basins and load duration curves (WaterSMART) XUrban Peak Flow Adjustment to Land Use and Climate XUncertainty Analysis--Measured discharge, computed peaks, and ratings XGeoprobe Xfractured Rock Characterization for flow and transport XCharacterizaion Work on Hazardous Waste Sites XNitratax continuous nitrate monitoring XHigh level of competence in the use of hydroacoustic instrumentation for streamflow and bathymetric data collection XWater gun seismic evaluation on land surfaces and structurres XGeophysical studies XGroundwater/Surface Water Interactions XPO4 Continuous Phosphate Analyzer XWater-quality modeling (SWAT) XRegional water-quality characterization (logistic regression, geostatistics) X

Glacial aquifer characterization (water quality, water use, and geologic) XFlood inundation mapping Center of excellence XBathymetric surveying capabilities XFluvial erosion hazards expertise (tying fluvial geomorph science to hazard mitigation) XSuper/sentry gage O&M (from installation to data management to surrogate development) XWATER-TOPMODEL expertise -- for many applications across the Commonwealth, Region, and XMolecular microbiological laboratory, biosafety level II XDevelopment of molecular methods to identify pathogens or genes specific to particular environments XApplication of parameter-estimation techniques to hydrologic modeling X quality XThe MIWSC also has staff with very strong groundwater modeling and progranmming skills XHigh resolution multibeam ecosounder and motion-compensated terrestrial lidar XPhytoforensice and phytoscreening XBorehole geophysics XMacroinvertebrate sampling X1-D and 2-D hydraulic modeling XMicrobial source tracking and bacteria source studies XGroundwater modeling XWetland hydrology XStatistician with expertise in data mining including automated data retrieval and analysis, outlier detection, and data cleaning. XStatistician has expertise in web log analyses including usage patterns, trends, analysis of sessionized logs and navigation paths, and data aggregation methods such as the Porter Stemming Algorithm. XResearch statistician with expertise in applying time series and stochastic hydrology for streamflow and water-quality modeling. X

One senior hydrologic technician and a hydrologist with extensive international experience. The experience led to USAID funding: 1) to install a streamgage monitoring system to improve flood warning capability in Ukraine and 2) to provide a water-resource assessment training class in Amman, Jordan for Iraqi water-resource engineers. Currently, NDWSC and Water Resources Branch staffs are working with Afghan Ministry of Environment and World Bank staff to develop an MOU to funding hydrologic data collection training program for Afghanistan water- XAdvanced regional and local numerical groundwater modeling, optimization, parameter estimation techniques to simulate flow and thereby providing decision-makers and scientists with comprehensive management and predictive tools. XHydrographic multibeam echosounder surveys or riverine and lake assessments. Advanced hydrographic processing Caris software, and USGS developed tools and scripts for rapid processing of multibeam echosounder hydrographic surveys. XWide range of geophysical surveying tools used for geologic framework studies, levee seepage, canal leakage, and numerical groundwater modes. XHydraulic and hydrologic surface-water modeling including multi-dimensional and steady and unsteady flow models and empirical and theoretical run-off models. Detailed experience in flood inundation XGround-based LiDAR for rapid topographic and structures surveying XGreen infrastructure water-balance studies, evapotranspiration measurement, and stormwater monitoring. XPipeline monitoring using passive membrane devices and traditional soil vapor sampling. XMonitoring and assessment of geomorphic change and sediment transport in constructed river side-channels and chutes. XEmpirical and theoretical sediment transport studies X

Semi-portable GCMS XStaffing and methodology to conduct field, laboratory and animal health studies with amphibians, birds and XStatistical expertise to consult on study design and analysis of data. XQuantitative epidemiology, disease ecology and XExpertise on laboratory management and molecular diagnostics X Emerging Diseases Branch is comprised of wildlife biologists, veterinarians, statisticians, epidemiologists, and informatics specialists. This multidisciplinary group is responsible for investigations and disease ecology studies of emerging and recurring priority wildlife diseases, maintaining and analyzing comprehensive datasets on wildlife disease events, and providing response and management consultation and training for external partners. XField and laboratory capabilities for emergency response to wildlife disease outbreaks. XInternationally-recognized expertise in wildlife disease pathology and ecology. XWorld Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Collaborating Centre in consortium with the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre on research, diagnosis and surveillance of wildllife pathogens. XHigh security biological safety level (BSL) 3 laboratories and animal containment facility. XLaboratories (enhanced BSL 3) and animal isolation facilities (ABSL3) certified for research on highlly pathogenic avian influenza viruses.Program. XFacilities and staff registered with Federal Select Agent Program XCertified member of the USDA National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN). XPublic Health Service Animal Welfare Assurance with the NIH Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. Functioning Animal Care and Use Program, including a full-time Attending Veterinarian,. X

Capability to conduct mouse-protection bioassay for detection of botulinum neurotoxins in clinical samples. XMethodology to characterize virulent isolates of Newcastle Disease. XPacific Island wildlife disease investigation and response capabilities. XLaboratory methodology to detect and isolate fibropapilloma viruses in green sea turtles. XExpertise and methodology to investigate coral diseases. XComprehensive wiildlife disease databases spanning 40 years. XExtensive histopathology collection of wildlife tissues, microbial isolates, microscopic slides and microphotographs. XCulture-based and PCR-based protocols and assays to identify Pseudogymnoascus sp. Fungus (WNS in bats. XCapability to construyct artificial hibernacula for studying WNS transmission in hibernating bats. XAnimal husbandry and clinical veterinary capability to house and care for unique wildlife species in experimental setting. X

Training Needed CERCEERSC

EM&ERSC

GLSCIL

WSC

INKY W

SC

IA W

SC

MI W

SC

MN W

SC

MO W

SC

NWHC

NE WSC

ND WSC

NPWRC

OH WSC

SD WSC

UMESC

WI W

SC

1-week detail for new safety person to visit Regional Safety Manager 1Watercraft 2 1Leadership 101 1 1 2 1 1Wilderness First Aid 12BASIS+/Project planning software training/FBMS 1Ongoing "leadership" segments with an applied focus (Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, 1Project planning/management 1Team-work skills 1Communication training 12D hydrologic modeling expertise -- for FIM and other SW work 1Commonwealth multi-beam digital echo-sounder 1Cross training for IN staff on WATER 1Trends analysis expertise 2ADCP refresher training 2Continuous water-quality equipment training 7Leadership 201 1 2Administrative training 2Safety training 1Leadership Intensive 1MWR regional training from Acquisitions Branch in Denver to address specific needs 1IPDS training 1

Safety

CERCEERSCEM&ERSCGLSCIL WSCIN WSCIA WSCKY WSCMI WSCMN WSCMO WSCNWHCNE WSCND WSCNPWRCOH WSCSD WSCUMESCWI WSC

 

   

 

Science Work  Processes:  Considerations and  

Recommendations  for Improving U.S.  Geological  

Survey  Science  and Achieving  Cost  Efficiencies

By the ACES Science Work Processes Sub-Team

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological SurveyFinal: May 9, 2014

Contents

Executive Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 1)

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 3)

How the Considerations and Recommendations Were Developed ............................................................................... 5)

Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 7)

I. The Science Portfolio: Strategic Positioning and Periodic Reassessment......................................................... 7)

II. Shared Business and Science Work Practices and Processes .......................................................................... 8)

III. Integration of Interdisciplinary Science...........................................................................................................15)

IV. Workforce Skills Development .......................................................................................................................17)

V. Center Future State........................................................................................................................................19)

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey and Report Recommendations...........................................................................20)

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................24)

Abbreviations................................................................................................................................................................26)

References ...................................................................................................................................................................27)

Appendix 1 — Members, ACES Sub-Team on Science Work Processes ....................................................................29)

Appendix 2 — ACES Science Work Processes Interviews...........................................................................................30)

Appendix 3 — List of Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey questions cited in the Science Work Processes Report ...38)

Appendix 4 — Learning competency models and needed skills. ..................................................................................39)

i

ii

   

     

 

Science Work  Processes:  Considerations  and  

Recommendations  for Improving U.S.  Geological

Survey Science and  Achieving Cost  Efficiencies

By the Science Work Processes Sub-Team of the ACES Team

Executive  Summary of  Recommendations

Our findings indicate a wide degree of variation across all Mission Areas for science

proposals, work plans, and project management. The systems, processes, and budgeting in use

today are sometimes legacy products evolved from the precursor divisions to the current USGS

Mission Areas. The current hodgepodge of systems, processes and budgeting methods

contribute to inefficiencies in carrying out work, inequities in funding and a highly complicated

and antiquated overhead calculation process. The current processes do not lend themselves to

the generation and support of new initiatives and make it difficult to sunset mature

programs/projects in order to free up funds for critical new science endeavors.

In order to address high priority USGS science, partner and customer science needs, and

large-scale societal issues, the USGS must improve and expand its culture of customer service,

align science with Administration, Department of the Interior (DOI) and USGS priorities, foster

employee skills development, and continuously improve science work processes (SWP).

Listed below are eight recommendations from the report organized under five headings:

I. Assemble and periodically assess the USGS Science Portfolio for partner and customer relevance, societal impact, and alignment with science priorities. This recommendation is of the highest priority and should be started as soon as possible.

1

II A. Work towards standardized science work practices and processes across the USGS by developing a suite of shared USGS organizational practices, processes, (work plans, proposal and project management) and budgeting tools related to science to support efficient and flexible implementation of high-priority science. Adopting standard science work processes will be difficult but is of the highest priority and should be started as soon as possible.

II B. Evaluate project management and supervisory workload of scientists. Scientists’ workload should be a key consideration as standard work processes are developed. Once implementation of II A is well underway, work on II B should begin.

II C. Ensure the USGS has innovative and cost-effective ways to deliver scientific information products to customers. The review of information products is already underway with the Office of Communications and Publishing (OCAP) leading the discussion.

III A. Ensure the USGS proposal/initiative review and approval process includes USGS Science Priorities and societal relevance by developing a standard review process that identifies key weighted criteria that evaluate proposals and initiatives for adding value to the Science Portfolio. This recommendation should be scoped out in 2014.

III B. Enable increased collaboration and efficiency in conducting interdisciplinary science through structured relationships. This recommendation should be scoped out in 2014.

IV. Foster comprehensive employee skills development as a keystone for efficient science production and science leadership. For example efforts are already underway with the Office of Organizational and Employee Development (OED) and the Midwest Region (MWR). Future development and an action plan should be in keeping with the ongoing OED Advisory Council review recommendations and directions.

V. Develop a future state vision for the Science Centers. The final recommendation on a Center Future State is central to long term efforts to promote the Portfolio and should begin in 2014.

2

Introduction

The USGS Regional and Mission Area organizational structure is now better aligned to

address the DOI Science Plan and the USGS 2007-17 Strategic Science Plan (referred to in this

report as the USGS Strategic Plan). In addition, strategic science planning teams have completed

forward-looking reports (referred to as the Strategic Science Reports) for each Science Theme

and crosscuts which address issues among and between the Mission Areas and Regions. These

reports outline the many science needs for the next 10 years (USGS Circular 1383, A- G).

Unfortunately, as indicated in the ACES Charter, the USGS annual, inflation corrected

budgets have been static or declining for more than a decade, with a few exceptions. The current

practice of distributing reduced funding throughout our organization creates a default policy of

shrinking in place and leads to challenges in effectively addressing the Strategic Science Reports

and high priority partner science needs. Within the context of static or shrinking budgets,

redirection of funds to USGS priorities is one possibility. However, we also have seen

significant targeted budget increases in areas such as Hazards, WaterSMART, Ecosystem

priorities (Asian Carp and Chesapeake Bay), and Hydraulic Fracturing -as proposed in the

President’s  2014 and  2015  Budgets. Targeted increases are an indication of Administration and

3

Congressional support for science to address large-scale societal natural resource issues and an

opportunity for USGS to provide new science to its partners and fulfill major components of the

Strategic Science Reports in a general climate of static or declining appropriated funding.

Mission Area-oriented Science Centers predominate in the Bureau. The Centers provide

science to fulfill the USGS Science Priorities and the needs of USGS partners and customers.

Maintaining core capabilities in pertinent disciplines is critically important for the future of

USGS science to address individual partner needs and provide the varied expertise needed to

address large-scale societal issues. The organizational shift to Mission Areas was, in part,

undertaken to support increased development of interdisciplinary initiatives as called for in the

USGS Strategic Plan. The Regional Offices work with the Mission Areas, Centers and partners

to effectively bring together USGS expertise to address key issues that require an integrated

approach. This report recognizes static or reduced appropriated budgets, the need to support

Mission Area-oriented science and the need for strategic direction and integration of disciplines

to support interdisciplinary, large-scale science.

4

 

 

 

   

How  the  Considerations and Recommendations Were  Developed

ACES Team and the Science Work Processes Sub-Team Charter

The USGS chartered the Achieving Cost Efficiencies for Science (ACES) Team in mid-

2011. The purpose of the ACES Team is to identify and suggest efficiencies at Headquarters,

Regions and Science Centers that produce cost-effective science and quantify their potential

impact. The ACES effort is focused on those activities typically classified as overhead.

However, the USGS has a scientific mission and, therefore, it is also appropriate that science

work processes (SWP) be examined so that scientific progress is not unnecessarily impeded by

administrative requirements and that best practices are used to ensure scientific success while

maintaining scientific integrity. An important question the SWP sub-team addressed is “what

changes to science work processes would help us efficiently and effectively meet our  partners’

and  customers’ needs through our core competencies, and address large-scale complex societal

issues?” A related question is “what should the USGS science workforce look like and what skill

sets will be needed to address these issues?”

For this report, science work practices and processes are defined as:

Science project and Portfolio development, execution and coordination;

Personnel and technological capabilities assessment and development;

Alignment of organizational structure and function with science goals; and

Efficient and effective communication of science to our partners and the public.

Approach and Survey Methods Used by the Science Work Processes Sub-Team

The members of the SWP sub-team, listed in Appendix 1, conducted interviews with

Region and Mission Area personnel to gain a sense of what works well, identify obstacles and

solicit ideas for improvement. In the course of six weeks, 31 USGS managers were interviewed.

The complete survey instrument and a summary of the responses are listed Appendix 2.

In addition, the USGS results from the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

(FEVS) were examined. The FEVS is a comprehensive, annual survey of all federal employees.

5

We chose 25 questions (Appendix 3) that are relevant to USGS Leadership, science work

processes or employee skill sets. We then examined the results for high or low USGS scores and

deviation (+/-) from DOI or Federal Employee averages. Summary findings from the FEVS are

then discussed in relation to the report recommendations.

Five ACES reports have been produced to date. The first, on Regional Realignment,

resulted in a consolidation of geographic areas and a reduction in the number of Regions.

Recommendations from the other four reports—Center Efficiencies, Facilities, Administration

and Headquarters are being implemented. A few recommendations from these reports overlap

with what we have heard from employees in writing this report. For example, one of these

reports includes a recommendation on finding cost efficiencies in the Science Publishing

Network. To avoid duplication with the other ACES Reports, we concentrate on global

efficiencies related to science work processes and workforce needs across Mission Areas and

within organizational units which could require a deeper exploration of procedural or staffing

efficiency. In general, we note where overlap occurs with earlier ACES reports.

We first discuss our major finding on a USGS Science Portfolio followed by discussion

of changes in science work processes, interdisciplinary science and skills development needed to

achieve a strategic and effective Portfolio. Lastly, we discuss the Science Center future state.

6

Findings  and  Recommendations

I. The Science Portfolio: Strategic Positioning and Periodic

Reassessment

The USGS budget submission to Congress (the Greenbook) is one of the few places

where the majority of the USGS Science Portfolio (a list of USGS science work) is described in

detail in one document. However it does not describe the entire breadth of activities funded by

appropriated and reimbursable sources. A Science Portfolio developed from the USGS Science

Strategy, core expertise, societal relevance and customer needs is critical to efficiently manage

and meet our science mission. Delineating all our science funded by all sources in a Portfolio is

necessary for efficiency, accountability and transparency but difficult because there is variation

across Mission Areas, Regions and Centers on the approval, funding and tracking of science

projects. Science work, whether appropriated or reimbursable, should be closely tied to its

priority contribution and relevance to our mission as outlined in the USGS Strategic Plan and

subsequent Strategic Science Reports (USGS Circular 1383 A-G) and prioritized in Mission

Area guidance. Having appropriated funds tied up in waning science efforts can be just as much

a concern as having cutting edge or emerging science funded by unpredictable or short-term

reimbursable funds.

It is critical that we assemble, maintain and adapt the USGS Science Portfolio so that it

meets partner and customer needs, is societally relevant and is cost effective. Accountability is a

keystone, and part of the answer is adopting industry standards and metrics to measure how well

the USGS is performing and whether it is creating relevant, effective and efficient projects that

deliver value and build a strong overall Portfolio. Effectively delivering USGS science to a

changing world requires more collaboration, standardization, continuous improvement, a

“service or customer  mindset”  for all employees, ongoing guidance and leadership at all levels to

maintain the Portfolio and focus.

7

Recommendation I: Assemble and periodically assess the USGS Science Portfolio for

partner and customer relevance, societal impact and alignment with science priorities.

The following steps are required for implementation of Recommendation I:

1. Assemble and organize the USGS Science Portfolio including work funded both by

the appropriations process and through reimbursable agreements.

2. Maintain accountability for the Portfolio by developing performance metrics (e.g.

those used in USGS Budget Office) and by clearly assigning senior management

responsibilities (Mission Area and Regional) for major elements. Reassess the major

elements of the Science Portfolio at regular intervals for priority, cohesiveness and

relevance.

3. Hold scientists and managers accountable for their contributions by regularly

reviewing ongoing science for relevance to USGS science direction, partner needs

and Portfolio performance. Ensure strong performance management by supervisors,

retain strong work and sunset work that is complete or that does not meet current

relevance and (or) performance criteria.

4. Establish a timely, transparent and effective process to develop the USGS’s annual  

science priorities. The process should be championed by science managers and

scientists with Executive Leadership Team review for submission to DOI for

consideration  in the  President’s  Budget  to ensure relevance and added value to the

Portfolio. A useful starting point for implementing step 4 may be the Midwest

Region multiyear practice for supporting new science initiatives with Regional

Science Flex Funds.

II. Shared Business and Science Work Practices and Processes

Shared Science Business Practices

Many interviewees mentioned that there has been substantial consternation and confusion

among Centers, Regions and Mission Areas about different business models across the

8

   

organization acting as a barrier to effective cross-program collaboration. The SWP sub-team

recognizes the need for simplification and agreement on elements of a shared business model.

For each Cost Center there are two types of funding:

Appropriated - such as that in National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Energy

Resources Program, and Ecosystems Mission Area.

Reimbursable - a cooperator or partner funds the project.

On many science projects both appropriated and reimbursable funds are used in a mixed

funding model. For example, in the Water Cooperative Program (Coop) appropriated funds are

‘matched’ with  reimbursable  funds.  However,  this  type of mixed  funding occurs  in all  Mission  

Areas where science is produced with both outside funding sources and USGS appropriated

funds (e.g. salaries and facilities).

Individual Science Centers have differing proportions of appropriated, reimbursable, and

mixed funding work or projects. More importantly, the science business practices (how a Cost

Center does business) and processes (written instructions or forms that are transactional in

nature) that are followed by the Mission Areas and Science Centers differ significantly across the

USGS. This has led to difficulty when different Mission Areas and Centers work together on

science projects and initiatives and to confused partners who see a single USGS with very

different business practices and procedures or processes. For example, some Science Centers

have historically operated with a majority of mixed and reimbursable funding (in other words,

highly leveraged). For these centers, the requirements to charge for salary and overhead support

on each project present financial challenges to collaboration with Centers that function

predominantly under the appropriated funding structure, where the funds for permanent salary

and overhead for a project may be appropriated. A recent change of science business practice in

the way the Cooperative Water Program funding (Cooperative Water Program is the Water

Mission Area Centers’ main source of appropriated funds) is allocated at the Center level allows

Centers more flexibility in funding science with appropriated funds. For example, a Center may

choose to decrease the partner match on a Coop project of great importance to Administration,

DOI or USGS priorities (e.g. Annual Mission Area guidance based on prioritized Strategic

Science Report goals) and balance it across other Coop projects at the Center. Changes like this

have the potential to break down roadblocks and facilitate greater science collaboration by

9

creating common, consistent funding approaches where the practice could be to use substantial

appropriated funds as a cost share across all Centers working on a common effort.

Business practices can be standardized at the USGS level in order for all Centers

(whether highly leveraged or predominantly appropriated) to effectively collaborate (level

playing field) on science initiatives. An example of a common business practice would be a

USGS-wide common services overhead charge for science planning related to Cross-Center or

Mission Area proposal development. This would clearly identify the cost of development and

put Centers on a more equal footing. A second example would be facilitating collaboration by

offering Science Flex Funds for salaries and operations to highly leveraged Centers and only

operating funds to predominantly base funded Centers. These Centers would work together to

develop societally-relevant projects or initiatives that address important aspects of the USGS

priorities (e.g. Portfolio relevance) and work with regional, state and (or) local agencies.

Another USGS business practice would be to ensure that the USGS Science Portfolio

provides a mix of cutting-edge, Mission/partner-driven and emerging-issue science. Each part of

the mix may meet different science needs and lends balance to the Portfolio. Mission/partner-

driven science such as flood inundation mapping may be funded by reimbursable or mixed

funding sources while other emerging issues such as a new strain of avian influenza might be

explored with appropriated funds.

Shared business practices, with predictable outcomes and well-understood processes, are

important to facilitate efficient and relevant science. Although our organizational structure is

complex and can be challenging to manage, it is imperative that we resolve or mitigate the

disparate business practices without disrupting the science.

Shared Science Work Processes

Our survey respondents indicated that there is substantial variation in the science work

processes within and across the Mission Areas. Much of the appropriated funding and many

approaches are a legacy of the discipline-based structure in place before the Mission Areas were

organized. Some of these legacy approaches go back decades, while others have been updated,

or undergo frequent changes. The proposal, work plan and project management processes lack

standardization in format, origination, approval process and timelines. This has led to confusion

among staff and with partners and has created inefficiencies in cross-Center science endeavors.

10

Shared science organizational processes that are clearly understood across the USGS are needed

to facilitate improved cooperation among units and to achieve cost efficiencies for science. A

planning process developed for the Cooperative Water Program [Water Mission Area (WMA)

Memo 13.01, "Programs and Plans - Guidelines for Preparation, Submission and Approval of

Water Science Center Project Proposals,"] or the Program Council concept used by Energy and

Mineral Resources Programs are excellent models and could provide the foundation for changes

needed USGS-wide.

As USGS manages to reduce costs and continually improve its science quality, it will

benefit from a "business-like" approach in the managerial and administrative aspects of

performing its science. Adopting a process management approach through the development of a

common language requires processes and tools to be used across the organization and with

collaborators. In the business world this is commonly seen as having a "continuous

improvement" philosophy and the utilization of a common problem-solving approach. It

includes the adoption of industry best practices such as project management and process

mapping.

Recommendation II A: Work towards standardized science work practices and

processes across the USGS by developing a suite of shared USGS organizational

practices and processes (work plans, proposal and project management) and budgeting

tools related to science to support efficient and flexible implementation of high-priority

science.

These are the suggested next steps for implementing Recommendation IIA:

1. Articulate and evaluate business practices in use in the USGS. Determine the best

and adopt as USGS Best Management practices.

2. Develop a standard "problem solving" approach based on the concept of "continuous

improvement" and industry standards.

3. Develop a standard business language, standard terms and common processes across

the Mission Areas. These would be tools separate from the science aspects of USGS

and not disrupt the science programs.

11

   

 

4. Develop guidance that ensures all Cost Centers utilize a comparable approach when

populating the categories in the USGS overhead workbook.

5. Stabilize and enhance the process for carry-over funding. Uncertainty on carrying

over funds can lead to inefficiencies in usage.

6. Review the funding processes to better correlate when funds become available with

planning  and  payment  (e.g.  Avoid “found”  funds  distributed  near  end  of  fiscal year).

7. Review the existing proposal, work plan and project management templates, tools,

and approaches that are in current use across the USGS.

8. Based on previous recommendation, develop either an all-encompassing standard

proposal template that can serve as a proposal/work plan/project plan or develop

individual templates (e.g. funding source) for each process and standardize their use

across USGS.

9. Develop shared budget/ project management and tracking processes, that include the

following elements/tools:

a. “Cost”  elements would include a budgeting tool to consistently estimate

salaries and other costs of doing business with appropriated and reimbursable

funding for science activities, particularly for indirect charges, across all

Centers. This element would have common business practices as part of a

uniform budgeting system for multi-year projects (BASIS+ is not a workable

budgeting tool but should be improved to function as such or replaced).

b. “Data  Disposition  and Repository and  Information  Management” element  to

establish uniform standards to plan for and track data and information

management and data archiving in the USGS science planning process.

c. “Skill  Sets”  element,  as called  for in the USGS Strategic Plan, which

documents skill sets available and skill set gaps.

d. “Technical  Reviewers”  element  that  links  with  the Office of Science Quality

and Integrity (OSQI) and the Skill Sets module to make the tasks of securing

qualified reviewers for proposals, work plans, and information products more

efficient.

12

e. “Information  Product  Planning”  element  to  estimate  costs of information  

products.

10. Develop standard tools, templates and training for program/project coordinators.

11. Build a joint process between Headquarters and the Regions for Program and peer

review that provides guidance, feedback and accountability on current projects.

12. Clearly define organizational roles for planning and implementation and build

performance goals in Associate, Regional and Center Director performance plans that

stress the need to incorporate and adhere to these common business practices and

processes across USGS Cost Centers.

13. Build transparent and consistent communications (among Mission Areas, Programs,

Regions and Centers) for core and integrated science.

Project Management and Supervisory Tasks

Survey respondents identified the growing workload associated with the management,

tracking and reporting for programs and projects. Many comments reflected the need to delegate

more authority to the Center to reduce duplication of administrative work for common or routine

tasks (identified in the ACES Administration Report). Another concern was removing the

“managerial  distractions”  from scientists so that more resources could be devoted to conducting

science. Respondents noted the need to develop clearer roles, responsibilities and career

development requirements to maximize the scarce science resources while managing programs

and projects in the most effective manner. The new Information Product Data System

implemented in July, 2013 is an example of a process change that appears to be reducing the

administration workload of scientists. It is important to note that recommendation II B should be

a key consideration as recommendation II A is carried out. Once implementation of II A is well

underway, step 1 under recommendation II B should begin.

Recommendation II B: Evaluate the project management and supervisory workload of

scientists.

13

These are the next steps in implementing Recommendation II B:

1. Evaluate for cost and effectiveness, a process to assess and determine the workload

associated with the size and complexity of science programs, projects and proposals.

Develop a threshold that sets a standard for program/project management remaining

with the scientist or moving to a formal program/project coordinator.

2. Enhance the user interface and functionality of BASIS+ and develop training

materials to reduce learning curve and increase ease of use for scientists and

managers.

Delivery of Science Products

Survey respondents urged that we reexamine the ways we deliver our products and the

cost model for funding the science publishing enterprise in USGS. The USGS needs cost-

effective report products as an archival mechanism for non-standard data from USGS research.

It also needs report products that afford scientists a low-cost, high-impact outlet for their

scientific discoveries data, and methods to augment the publication of USGS work in scientific

journals.

In addition to affordable publication services, USGS scientists are demanding new series

publication options such as interpretive products that allow the reader to customize the

presentation to individual needs. Web-based products with interactive features and social media

may define the future of product delivery. USGS needs to be fully aware of and take advantage

of these innovative methods when disseminating our findings. Using an adaptive and continuous

improvement approach will help the USGS find the right mix of products to get its diversity of

science products to key partners. It is important to note that the OCAP-SPN is leading a review

of recommendation II C.

Recommendation II C: Ensure the USGS has innovative and cost-effective ways to

deliver scientific information products to customers.

These are the next steps in implementing recommendation II C:

14

1. Examine web-based products and social media for suitability in communicating our

science.

2. Develop or adopt web analytics on views, downloads, citations, etc. to develop

metrics on scientific impact of our scientific products and on a regular basis compare

communication outlets such as USGS Report Series, formal journal articles, web-

based products and social media for impact and efficacy in communicating our

science.

3. Examine how Fundamental Science Practices can be incorporated into new

communication outlets.

4. Ensure that the Research Grade Evaluation processes fully recognize the significance

of any new way of providing our science to our partners/customers.

III. Integration of Interdisciplinary Science

Given shared work practices and processes, another step in strengthening our

interdisciplinary science is basing review and approvals for new and continuing science on DOI

and USGS science priorities, (e.g. Mission Area Guidance) and Administration and

Congressional direction. The USGS carries out substantial multi-disciplinary science at all levels

that is often accomplished through good-faith funding contributions from various sources,

leveraging of partner reimbursable funds, and various informal "workarounds." At the USGS

level, Programs listed in the Greenbook have distinct, important funding and oversight roles that

serve well for Mission area science. However, these Appropriated Programs vary greatly in their

funding mechanisms, the level of science oversight, their planning models, and the breadth of

science being funded. This increases the difficulty of conducting integrated science efforts

across reimbursable and Appropriated Programs as well as Centers. In addition, reimbursable

projects may be local in nature without clear links to Appropriated Programs or the USGS

science priorities. Standard review processes will facilitate integrated or interdisciplinary

science and strengthen the USGS Science Portfolio.

15

Recommendation III A: Ensure the USGS proposal/initiative review and approval

process includes USGS Science Priorities and societal relevance by developing a

standard review process that identifies key weighted criteria that evaluate proposals

and initiatives for adding value to the Science Portfolio.

These are the next steps in implementing Recommendation III A:

1. Incorporate Administration, DOI and USGS priorities into the proposal and initiative

review and approval process (e.g. through a decision tree) and into consistent internal

and external Center and (or) Program reviews. Integrated science achievement or

performance metrics should be tested and used to evaluate proposals and projects for

alignment with USGS priorities and societal relevance.

2. Project plans throughout the USGS should be viewed as a contract for services that

includes performance management and accountability.

3. Assure that funds from different Program sources serve a common intended purpose

(particularly for interdisciplinary work) and are managed using the consistent

application of a shared model across the USGS.

Good USGS-wide metrics will be challenging, nevertheless they are needed to measure

success. USGS has used metrics before with mixed results. Therefore it is important that

metrics be vetted for usefulness and tracked for several years. As suggested in the ACES

Administration report for other work, a feedback loop to adjust metrics will improve how well

the metrics measure our success. Just as continuous improvement and excelling at our science is

necessary for our science success, continuously improved and evaluated metrics (including

dropping poor metrics) are needed as well.

Collaboration in the Conduct of Interdisciplinary Science

Survey respondents identified the need to increase efficiency and collaboration in

working across Mission Areas. As USGS considers changes in how to evaluate and prioritize the

Science Portfolio, revise the funding process, and develop shared business practices and work

processes, how we work together is likely to change in order to better meet interdisciplinary

science needs. Structured relationships such as common definitions of terms and positions and a

16

 

common understanding and agreement on processes and engagement protocols among work

units will be critical.

Recommendation III B: Enable increased collaboration and efficiency in conducting

inter-disciplinary science through structured relationships.

These are the next steps in implementing recommendation III B:

1. Identify and modify or remove those managerial and administrative practices and

processes that are an impediment to collaboration, inter-disciplinary science and

increased work efficiency.

2. Define the role and responsibility of the Mission Areas, Regions, Centers and other

responsible offices in managing the inter-disciplinary science to ensure consistency

across the USGS Science Portfolio.

IV. Workforce Skills Development

An optimal Science Portfolio can best be implemented in part through a skilled

workforce comprised of a diverse cadre of well-trained scientists, managers and support

personnel. One of the challenges facing USGS is that information technology, communications

and science technology have progressed very rapidly over the last 25 years. New hires are

typically trained in these advances; however, USGS must do a better job of ensuring all staff

uses the full array of tools to accomplish our science. Meaningful workforce planning, skills

development, retention processes and optimal staff hiring are critical to building a strong Science

Portfolio. The need for succession planning, efficient hiring authorities, training plans, and skills

development are common processes discussed by respondents in our survey. Similarly,

supervisory management, written and oral communication, project management, collaboration,

information technology, web and database skills are commonly mentioned as needs in our

workforce in addition to the science background and skills. Lastly, the complexities of

“straddling  science  and  business” are acknowledged by respondents who indicate that the

process of recognizing the abilities of individuals who succeed in both areas is essential because

17

 

the skills are different yet equally necessary to successfully lead people in the practice of science.

One respondent commented on the scarcity of individuals who are good at science, management,

and effectively communicating the value of unbiased science for decision making. These are

attributes we should strive to develop through staff training as we face restricted funding in order

to create opportunities for new high priority science.

Recommendation IV: Foster comprehensive employee skills development as a

keystone for efficient science production and science leadership.

To implement Recommendation IV, a structured training and development process

targeted at developing competencies with individuals throughout the USGS is needed. A

structured model process should include the following:

1. Develop an enhanced training program for Supervisors and Project Managers that

goes beyond the minimum requirements set by the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM);

2. Develop a training and development program and toolkit for new Program Managers,

Center Directors, and Deputy Center Directors;

3. Develop a “change  management”  toolkit  to  support the workforce;

4. Standardize the effort to use industry standards like Analysis, Design, Development,

Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) and competency models to develop

structured training and development programs;

5. Use existing resources like DOI Learn and the expertise of the Office of Organization

and Employee Development (OED) staff to reduce cost and ensure the above

programs are compatible with USGS guidelines;

6. Adapt the competency model approach beyond typical foundational/leadership

dimensions to address major USGS work processes and procedures, and science.

This is outlined in detail in Appendix 4;

18

7. Ensure training includes development in interdependent leadership, mentoring, team

approaches, science, management, and marketing. This is outlined in detail in

Appendix 4;

8. Analyze and evaluate the training and development program for future use as either a

structured curriculum offered on a specified frequency and at a variety of locations,

and/or a training and developmental process to support meaningful Individual

Development Plans;

9. Use selected questions from the FEVS to develop baselines and improvement metrics

for skill development, collaboration, and job involvement (for example the MWR has

developed an employee engagement metric). This is an industry standard approach,

using an existing resource and data set, that allows us to apply metrics to what is

traditionally  thought  of as  the “soft  side” of the  business  of change.    A full  list  of the

FEVS questions cited in this report and the 2012 USGS percent favorable scores are

listed in Appendix 3.

V. Center Future State

Our Centers provide the science to fulfill USGS Science priorities and Mission/Partner

needs. Center makeup and location have been influenced by many factors such as geography,

science issue and historical placement.

Future technology, fiscal climate, efficiency and societal pressure issues should shape

where and what our Science Centers are. The USGS currently has many examples of merging

Centers as well as recommendations from the ACES Center Efficiencies Report to help guide us

on Center composition. It is beyond the scope of this report to delve deeply in the future state

issue. However, as we continuously improve our work processes and recommendations from our

ACES Report are implemented, the logical next step is to define the future state of the Center

taking into account all these factors and changes.

Recommendation V: Develop a future state vision for the Science Centers.

19

 

   

These are the next steps in implementing recommendation V:

1. Create criteria for a future state such as: Strong strategic leadership and direction;

Entrepreneurial approach; Good mix of concentrations of expertise or knowledge

(may be virtual) and geographically-based hard points (labs, field sites); Team-based

approach; Centers-of-excellence that specialize in certain scientific skills and

capabilities; Reduced infrastructure costs; Efficient business practices and Supports

USGS Science Portfolio.

2. Develop a USGS standard for Center restructuring and evaluate Center models or

structuring in relation to the USGS Standard and to future state criteria.

Federal Employee  Viewpoint  Survey and Report Recommendations

The FEVS questions were compared to the recommendations made in the Science Work

Processes team report, to gauge support for the findings in the report, and to identify any

questions that can be used as future metrics to measure the impact of any of the SWP or ACES

report recommendations that are implemented.

Our review of the overall FEVS survey results indicate a high level of commitment and

loyalty from the existing workforce to the organization, its mission and the work that is done.

However, in response to questions about work process elements like proposals, work plans,

projects, and budgeting, FEVS respondents indicate low to moderate amounts of support for the

way that USGS  currently  manages  the organization’s  policies,  procedures,  and  key  business  

strategies as evidenced by questions(percent positive responses is reported for each question):

57. Managers review and evaluate the organizations progress toward meeting its goals

and objectives. (58.6% positive)

61. I  have a high level  of  respect  for  my  organization’s  senior  leaders. (48% positive)

66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (38.7%

positive)

20

This would indicate support for the recommendations that call for the periodic review of

the Science Portfolio, shared organizational practices and budgeting tools, and a

proposal/initiative review process that balances the science priorities and societal relevance.

Regarding work processes and current workload, the FEVS responses show a high degree of

concern with things like:

9. having sufficient resources to get the job done (45% positive)

10. My workload is reasonable (54.7% positive)

30. Employee has a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes

(51.3% positive)

32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded (50.6% positive)

63. Involvement in the decisions that affect your work (56.2% positive)

These responses indicate support for the review of administrative and managerial

workloads, and the need to better involve the workforce in determining the work that they do

going forward.

Several of the FEVS questions indicate the need for further improvement regarding the

increased creativity, innovation and collaboration necessary to conduct interdisciplinary science:

3. I feel encouraged to come with new and better ways of doing things. (68.4%

positive)

31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. (60.4%

positive)

32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (50.6% positive)

53. In my organization leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the

workforce. (41.4% positive)

58. Managers promote communication among different units (about project goals,

needed resources) (51.1% positive)

21

59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.

(57.5% positive)

There are many of the FEVS questions that support the need for better employee skill

development and training:

1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. (70.5%

positive)

18. My training needs are assessed. (52.4% positive)

21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. (43% positive)

27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (56.7% positive)

68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? (54.3%

positive)

29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish

organizational goals. (76.5% positive)

Questions 1 and 29 identify that the existing workforce has what it needs to do the job

today, but the projected turnover of the workforce and the changing needs of the organization

could quickly impact what is an existing strength. Questions 18, 21, 27, and 68 all indicate the

need for a more structured and comprehensive employee development effort across USGS.

In the future the FEVS survey can be used to help measure USGS effectiveness from a

change management approach. As USGS undergoes many of the changes recommended in the

ACES Report, we can expect a lot of impact on the workforce. One way to mitigate the negative

effects on the workforce is to implement a formal change management strategy to assist with

organizational change. Several of the FEVS questions would be reasonable measurements of the

implementation of the recommendations from the SWP and other ACES reports, and the overall

change management effort. Some of the questions that could be used as metrics for change

management are:

22

 

59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives.

(57.5% positive)

11. My talents are used well in the workplace. (63.9% positive)

12. I know  how  my  work relates to the agency’s  goals  and  priorities  (82.2%  positive)

20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. (77.9% positive)

27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (56.7% positive)

29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish

organizational goals. (76.5% positive)

56. Management communicates the goals and priorities of the organization. (59.8%

positive)

57. Managers review and evaluate the organizations progress toward meeting its goals

and objectives. (58.6% positive)

58. Managers promote communication among different units (about project goals,

needed resources) (51.1% positive)

61. I  have a high level  of  respect  for  my  organization’s  senior  leaders.  (48%  positive)

63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in the decisions that affect your work?

(56.2% positive)

66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (38.7% positive)

Overall, we find support from the responses to the FEVS with the aforementioned

findings and recommendations. The Team believes that the FEVS can be used to establish

metrics to help measure the impacts of ACES changes. The FEVS provides us with an excellent

baseline of knowledge on key topics in the report, as outlined above.

23

Summary

USGS is a science agency, and science does not always follow a linear path. However,

the USGS can and should become more efficient by following recommendations in this and other

ACES reports. The USGS Science Portfolio should provide a mix of cutting edge and emerging

issue science that maximizes value to society while minimizing cost. The effort and resources

directed to meet this goal are determined from partner and customer needs and as formulated in

the USGS Strategic Science Reports, Mission Area Guidance, Regional Operational Plans, as

well as direct input from scientists and partners on an ongoing basis. Given static budgets, our

Science Portfolio must be built or maintained through reaffirming relevant current work,

redirection of resources to new work where needed, and creating new initiatives such as

WaterSMART funded by Congress or reimbursable sources in order to provide strong science

with support regionally, nationally, and internationally. Standard Science Work Practices and

Processes play a fundamental role in meeting the objective of maximum societal value at

minimum cost by articulating Best Management Practices and Processes to assist managers and

scientists in actively managing and determining what science we do, carrying it out effectively,

and communicating findings to partners. A keystone in creating new science is our workforce

and workplace. We must ensure we have the science, technical, team and leadership skills as

well as the physical infrastructure required to efficiently create the societally relevant science our

partners need.

There are five major recommendations on this report. The first is to assemble a Science

Portfolio and hold scientists and managers accountable for relevance, impact, and alignment with

USGS science priorities. This recommendation is of the highest priority and should be started as

soon as possible. The second recommendation is to standardize work practices, evaluate project

management and supervisory load on scientists and look at our information products. Adopting

standard science work processes will be difficult, but it is of the highest priority and should be

started as soon as possible with scientists’  administrative  workload  a  key  consideration. The

evaluation of scientists’ administrative workload should begin after implementation of standard

work processes is underway. The information product review is already underway by a team

lead by the OCAP, and it should be left with them. The third recommendation on integration and

improving interdisciplinary science should be scoped out in 2014. With the fourth

24

recommendation on employee skills, future development and an action plan should be in keeping

with the ongoing OED Advisory Council Review recommendations and directions. The final

recommendation on a Center future state scoping exercise is important to long term efforts to

build and promote the Portfolio. It should be done in coordination with Recommendation I.

25

Abbreviations

ACES Achieving Cost Efficiencies for Science

AD Associate Director

Coop Water Cooperative Program

DOI Department of the Interior

FEVS Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FSP Fundamental Science Practices

OED Office of Organizational and Employee Development

OPM Office of Personnel Management

MWR Midwest Region

OCAP Office of Communications and Publishing

OSQI Office of Science Quality and Integrity

PMP Project Management Professional

RD Regional Director

SME Subject Matter Expert

SPN Science Publishing Network

SSP Strategic Science Plan

SWP Science Work Processes

WMA Water Mission Area

26

References

ACES Charter http://internal.usgs.gov/homepage_files/blogs/docs/signed_aces_charter.pdf

Greenbook Budget Justifications and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2014, the United

States Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

http://www.usgs.gov/budget/2014/greenbook/2014_greenbook.pdf

2007-17 Strategic Science Plan http://internal.usgs.gov/director/science_strategy/

U.S. Geological  Survey,  2007, Facing  tomorrow’s  challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science

in the decade 2007–2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, x + 70 p.

Mission Area Strategic Science Reports. http://www.usgs.gov/start_with_science/ USGS

Circular 1383, A-G:

Bright, P.R., Buxton, H.T., Balistrieri, L.S., Barber, L.B., Chapelle, F.H., Cross, P.C.,

Krabbenhoft, D.P., Plumlee, G.S., Sleeman, J.M., Tillitt, D.E., Toccalino, P.L., and

Winton, J.R., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey environmental health science strategy—

Providing environmental health science for a changing world: U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1383–E, 43 p.

Bristol, R.S., Euliss, N.H., Jr., Booth, N.L., Burkardt, Nina, Diffendorfer, J.E., Gesch, D.B.,

McCallum, B.E., Miller, D.M., Morman, S.A., Poore, B.S., Signell, R.P., and Viger, R.J.,

2013, U.S. Geological Survey core science systems strategy—Characterizing,

synthesizing, and understanding the critical zone through a modular science framework:

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–B, 33 p.

Burkett, V.R., Kirtland, D.A., Taylor, I.L., Belnap, Jayne, Cronin, T.M., Dettinger, M.D.,

Frazier,  E.L.,  Haines,  J.W.,  Loveland,  T.R.,  Milly,  P.C.D.,  O’Malley,  Robin,  Thompson,  

R.S., Maule, A.G., McMahon, Gerard, and Striegl, R.G., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey

climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and

responding to global change: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–A, 43 p.

27

Evenson, E.J., Orndorff, R.C., Blome, C.D., Böhlke, J.K., Hershberger, P.K., Langenheim, V.E.,

McCabe, G.J., Morlock, S.E., Reeves, H.W., Verdin, J.P., Weyers, H.S., and Wood,

T.M., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey water science strategy—Observing, understanding,

predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Circular

1383–G, 49 p.

Ferrero, R.C., Kolak, J.J., Bills, D.J., Bowen, Z.H., Cordier, D.J., Gallegos, T.J., Hein, J.R.,

Kelley, K.D., Nelson, P.H., Nuccio, V.F., Schmidt, J.M., and Seal, R.R., 2013, U.S.

Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy— A resource lifecycle approach:

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–D, 37 p.

Holmes, R.R., Jr., Jones, L.M., Eidenshink, J.C., Godt, J.W., Kirby, S.H., Love, J.J., Neal, C.A.,

Plant, N.G., Plunkett, M.L., Weaver, C.S., Wein, Anne, and Perry, S.C., 2013, U.S.

Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy—Promoting the safety, security, and

economic well-being of the Nation: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–F, 79 p.

Williams, B.K., Wingard, G.L., Brewer, Gary, Cloern, J.E., Gelfenbaum, Guy, Jacobson, R.B.,

Kershner, J.L., McGuire, A.D., Nichols, J.D., Shapiro, C.D., van Riper III, Charles, and

White, R.P., 2013, U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Science Strategy—Advancing

discovery and application through collaboration: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1383–

C, 43 p.

28

         

 

Appendix 1 — Members,  ACES Sub-Team on Science  Work

Processes

The members of this sub-team were selected by the ACES Team to represent geographic

and Mission Area diversity. The sub-team was made up of the following members:

Leon Carl (co-Chair) Regional Director, Midwest Region Jerad Bales (co-Chair) Chief Scientist for Water, Water Mission Area

Paul Beauchemin Emeritus and Senior Advisor for Communications Kevin Breen Bureau Approving Official, Office of Science Quality and Integrity Stacy Bushée Chief, Office of Organizational and Employee Development Martha Garcia Chief of Staff, Hazards Mission Area Vito Nuccio Associate Program Coordinator, Energy Resources Program, Senior

Management Advisor, Energy and Mineral Resources, and Environmental Health Mission Areas

Randy See Science Coordinator, Midwest Region Frank Shipley Associate Regional Director for Science, Office of the Northwest

Regional Director Jeff Simley Product and Service Lead for Hydrography, National Geospatial Program,

Core Science Systems Mission Area Phil Turnipseed Director, National Wetlands Research Center Chad Wagner Chief of Hydrologic Modeling and Investigations Section, North Carolina

Water Science Center

29

     

Appendix  2 — ACES  Science  Work Processes  Interviews

Whenever possible, the interviews were conducted with two SWP sub-team members present, one serving as the interviewer and the other compiling notes. Notes were compiled into an Excel® spreadsheet and evaluated by the sub-team. We asked the interviewees to share their ideas for improving science work processes in the USGS with the assurance that no personally identifiable information would be shared in the reporting of findings. We looked for the themes and best practices across the USGS and synthesized the feedback we gathered into considerations and recommendations.

Survey Instrument -- Interview Questions

Project Proposal Process

1. To  start,  we’d  like to find out about the science  project  proposal  process  in  your  (Mission  Area, Region, Center, etc.). How are proposals developed in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.)? Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)

a. What is the proposal process for appropriated funding? i. How long has your process been in use?

ii. Who initiates project proposals? iii. Who approves project proposals? iv. How long does it take to complete your process? v. Is your process competitive or directed?

vi. What works well? vii. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in the process?

viii. What are your recommendations for improvement? b. Do you receive reimbursable funding? If so, what is the proposal process for

reimbursable funding? i. How long has your process been in use?

ii. Who initiates project proposals? iii. Who approves project proposals? iv. How long does it take to complete your process? v. Is your process competitive or directed?

vi. What works well? vii. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in the process?

viii. What are your recommendations for improvement? c. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?

30

Project Work Plan Process

1. We’d  like to find  out  about  the  project  work  plan  process  in  your  (Mission  Area, Region, Center, etc.). How are project work plans developed in your (Mission Area, Region, Center, etc.)? Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)

a. Does your work plan process differ for reimbursable or appropriated funding? (If so, how do they differ?)

b. Who reviews the work plan? c. Who approves the work plan? d. What role do publication costs play in work plan development? e. Do you have a data management plan? If so, what does the data management plan

look like? f. Do you put your work plans into BASIS+? g. How do you define deliverables? h. What works well? i. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in the process? j. What are your recommendations for improvement? k. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?

Project Management

1. Next  we’d  like to find  out about the  project  management  process  in  your  (Mission  Area, Region, Center, etc.). Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)

a. How do you track your project progress? b. Do you have progress reviews?

i. If so, how frequently? ii. Who participates?

c. Who monitors whether deliverables are completed? d. What communication process is in place with your stakeholders?

i. How frequently do you communicate with your stakeholders? e. How does your project management actively track finances? f. How do you manage the life cycle of a project? g. How do you track human resources? h. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in your project management

process? i. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?

31

 

 

Program Management

1. Next  we’d  like to find  out about the program management  process  in  your  (Mission  Area, Region, Center, etc.). Does your (Mission Area, Region, Center) use a standard process? (If so, please provide a digital copy.)

a. How do you track your program progress? b. Do you have program reviews? c. If so, how frequently? d. Who participates? e. Who monitors whether deliverables are completed? f. What type of feedback and communication do you have with project leaders? g. What communication process is in place with your stakeholders? h. How frequently do you communicate with your stakeholders? i. How does your program management actively track finances? j. How do you manage the life cycle of a project? k. How do you track human resources? l. What obstacles, bottlenecks or delays do you find in your program management

process? m. How might your process help promote interdisciplinary science?

Skills

Given the scope of this conversation does your organization have the skills needed to be successful  in  the areas  we’ve  discussed? To recap,  project  and program  planning,  developing and managing? Where might there be gaps?

a. How do you assess your needs for new skills? b. How do you develop skills for:

i. Project management ii. Facilitation

iii. Collaboration iv. Team skills v. Science leadership

c. Where do you find needed skill sets?

Survey and Interview findings and recommendations

The current work processes do not lend themselves to the “bottom  up” generation  and  support of new initiatives, and make it difficult to sunset mature programs/projects in order to free up funds for emerging issues. Some respondents indicate that a complete and thorough proposal can fulfill the need for work plans and project management, however, a comprehensive and standard proposal process does not appear to exist. Most respondents use a combination of proposals, work plans, and project management with varying levels of competence and support across all

32

   

work streams. Tracking, reporting, and communicating program and project status varies, and while the BASIS system is utilized, it appears to be very limited in its capability and very difficult for individuals to learn and use. Managing work plans and projects, along with the tracking, reporting and communicating appears to be an added workload that is a burden on an already stretched thin scientist staff.

Proposal Process

Responses indicated that there is a lot of variation in the proposal process within and across the Mission Areas. The majority of appropriated funding approaches seem to be legacies of the Mission Area prior to coming under the umbrella of USGS. Some of these legacy approaches go back as far as 1995, while others have been updated, or undergo frequent changes. The origination of proposals can start with individual scientists, could be a formal Request for Proposals, or in many cases are generated at the Center level. Proposal approval ranges from committees to a Program Council, to individual Center Directors, individuals who control the funding, to the Regional Directors. The proposal/approval processes range from days, to weeks, or a year. The proposal process is primarily base directed, with some competitive, and some mixed.

Recommendations for improvement

Increase communication and understanding between Centers and Field Teams. Streamline processes to make proposal review and turnaround more efficient. Reduce the

number of people and steps involved. Centralize the proposal submission process. Change the 50/50 rule. 100% USGS funding with Coop matching funds. Change to

auditing at the Center level, rather than the project level. Avoid the “hobby  shop” mentality  and  ensure that  reimbursable  work  is recognized  by

the USGS. Avoid taking on work just to make dollars to support salaries. Establish a defined budget project planning process; provide standard templates for

submission; and training so that people know how to submit. Need more flexibility on carry over funding. Can’t  afford  to lose  funding  that  isn’t  spent  

at the end of the FY. Provide  feedback  on proposals  that aren’t  funded,  and  increase the number of bottom  up

proposals.

Work Plan Process

Among respondents, half indicated having a formal process, while the other indicated having an informal process. Half the respondents indicated the processes are different for appropriated versus reimbursable funding, the other half said they use the same process for both. There is variation in who completes the work plan ranging from the project coordinator, the Centers, to the collaborator. Work plan approval can be at the program or Center level, and could be the funding entity, the Branch chief, or the Center Director or designee. Most work plans consider

33

   

publishing costs, along with data management plans which is generally part of the original proposal. The vast majority of respondents indicated they put their work plans into BASIS+. Defining deliverables ranges from written or annual reports and publications.

Recommendations for improvement: Develop a Standardized process entirely in the BASIS+ application Ensure that the plan has been looked at locally, regionally and by AO. Define a common template for a work plan; have them feel and look similar; would be

easier to integrate plans into FBMS or other system. Develop a recommended timeline of activities for a proposal.

Project Management

Responses indicated that approximately half use a formal project management process. Tracking is variable through Quarterly reviews, Annual reviews, and BASIS. Most respondents indicate that they hold regular progress reviews, half on a quarterly basis and half on an annual basis. The main participants in the project management process are project chiefs and their staffs. Monitoring of project  deliverables  resides  primarily with  the  Centers,  usually delegated  to AD’s, Managers and Program Managers. Communication with stakeholders varies across the mission areas, with some missions having communication outreach once or twice a year. Tracking of finances associated with projects varies, and some manually compute data from systems like payroll - while others report using BASIS+, which is not user friendly for financial tracking. The project life cycle is primarily managed through BASIS+, which is also utilized to track staff/HR resources.

Recommendations for improvement: Quarterly updates should be required Not all staff are comfortable working in BASIS+. Provide more training and support. Account for and give credit for the staff time associated with doing project management

work. Need better role clarification between science and project management roles. Scientists

are spread too thin to handle all the project management workload.

Program Management

Responses indicate very little formal program management. Program progress is tracked through a variety of means. Program reviews, strategy meetings, publication, and annual reviews are utilized – with Program reviews being the most common. Most of the monitoring and progress tracking is performed by the Program Coordinators. The Program Coordinators communicate with the Project Coordinators and the Center Directors in an informal and varying frequency. Finance and HR resource staff varies.

Recommendations for improvement: Improve the BASIS+ system to support better financial tracking. BASIS+ is very

difficult to use.

34

Develop standard tools that provide national and regional level tracking of issues, products, management relevance, and cooperators.

Skills

Survey responses indicated concerns about succession planning; specifically regarding the large number of scientists who retirement eligible and the difficulties in hiring training new staff. They identified a high demand for emerging skills in communication, marketing and project management. Additional skill development concerns were identified in web and database skills.

Recommendations for improvement:

Develop skills by developing toolbox/training to be delivered at the Centers. Need to emphasize proposal development, project management –Fundamental Science Practices (FSP), publication requirements, and how to manage projects well. Need to develop skills for development of good authors who can also manage projects well.

Center Directors are frequently promoted from research positions and could benefit from the development of skills in project management, facilitation, collaboration, team skills, and science leadership; Staff and Deputy Center Directors will need this development through online training, workshops, etc.

Provide a formal program in change management and training and development to focus on the new skills  needed  in today’s  environment. These skills include an ability to lead and work well with teams.

What is “The  single  most  important  thing  you  would  do  to improve  science  work  processes  

in  the  USGS?”

In response to this question we found that there were several major themes related to work processes. There are strong concerns about streamlining programs, reducing administrative work and recognizing the more entrepreneurial role needed at the Center and Regional level. The need to become more collaborative in order to promote more interdisciplinary science, while creating more uniformity and standardization in the business models is a critical factor. Updating the funding model is urgently to ensure that the right programs and right science is pursued going forward.

Recommendations for improvement:

Developing training that formalizes and recognizes the need to develop future managers, leaders.

Develop skill for proposal development, project management (budget management, collaboration, facilitation, ability to work with cooperators) Interpersonal skills and project management skills.

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

Programs and program coordinators need to work more closely together to promote interdisciplinary science.

Integrate programs and have a more uniform business model across the Centers. A common approach needs to be used by all Mission Areas and Centers for proposals, project plan, etc. A standard template would make the process simpler and easier to understand. Have one business model instead of the current 4 or more.

Diversity the Centers to become more entrepreneurial. Recognize the role of the regional office to translate programs for regional

implementation Reduce the administrative burden on scientists. Don’t  reorganize or restructure he organization  without addressing the funding models Make  all  science  pass  the  “so  what” or relevance test

Individual Interviews

Structured interviews were conducted with USGS staff personnel. The comments from the interview process support all of the themes identified from the survey data.

Recommendations for improvement: More authority needs to be delegated to the Center level to reduce redundant

administrative workload. The funding process needs to be reviewed from the standpoint of when funds are available.    It’s  difficult to plan  projects  and pay  bills,  when  funding comes  from  multiple streams at different points in the fiscal year.

Create a singular science process, with templates drawn from existing best practices. If the goal is to have internal USGS groups compete against each other for certain

business, then the playing field has to be leveled. National groups control funding and can disadvantage other smaller competitors by reducing funding authorizations.

There should be one standard, low-cost way to handle all of USGS publishing. There should be a process to evaluate the effectiveness of long term projects with

appropriated funding to determine if any become  “stale”.   Set  fixed  time  limits,  and establish a formal process to request extensions.

Transform the culture so that all science that challenges all partners and stakeholders about the value and application of the “science”.

Establish a centralized proposal submission and evaluation system. Develop  “management”  focused  training  for  Center  Directors.   Center  Directors  are

largely coming in from a research position so there are skills developments needed in all the skills (e.g., project management, facilitation, collaboration, team skills, science leadership, etc.); Center Staff and Deputy positions will need this development also and could develop these skills through online training, workshops, etc.

Standardize data management across all projects to make it more efficient and accessible.

Develop standard procedures to assist cross-functional groups to work more effectively when performing inter-disciplinary science.

36

Create career development pathways for scientists and managers. We need to remove many of the managerial distractions from our scientists – run interference for project scientists. There is a tradeoff between being able to do great science and being a good manager. A possible solution is to have smaller projects where the project chief is more able to do science and be accountable to the project. We need to be aware of not losing our great scientists to management.

37

       

     

Appendix 3  — List  of  Federal Employee  Viewpoint  Survey

questions  cited  in the  Science  Work  Processes Report

[Percentages of positive responses are presented in the order (Dept. of Interior, USGS, Government-wide)]

1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. (64.3%, 70.5%, 63.2%)

3. I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. (60.9%, 68.4%, 57.8%)

6. I know what is expected of me on the job. (77.2%, 80.0%, 80.1%) 9. I have sufficient resources (people, materials, and budget) to get my job done. (39.9%, 45.0%,

48.0%) 10. My workload is reasonable (50.0%, 54.7%, 58.9%) 11. My talents are used well in the workplace. (59.6%, 63.9%, 59.5%) 12. I  know  how  my  work  relates  to the  agency’s  goals  and  priorities  (82.7%,  82.2%,  83.7%) 18. My training needs are assessed. (46.7%, 52.4%, 53.1%) 20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. (72.2%, 77.9%, 72.8%) 21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills. (42.1%, 43.0%, 43.5%) 25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. (44.9%, 51.0%,

41.0%) 27. The skill level in my work unit has improved in the past year. (52.9%, 56.7%, 54.7%) 29. The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish

organizational goals. (70.2%, 76.5%, 71.6%) 30. Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment when it comes to work processes.

(45.3%, 51.3%, 45.2%) 31. Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. (49.8%, 60.4%,

48.4%) 32. Creativity and innovation are rewarded. (39.4%, 50.6%, 38.5%) 53. In my organization leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the

workforce. (40.0%, 41.4%, 42.9%) 56. Management communicates the goals and priorities of the organization. (55.9%, 59.8%,

62.5%) 57. Managers review and evaluate the organizations progress toward meeting its goals and

objectives. (54.2%, 58.6%, 62.0%) 58. Managers promote communication among different units (about project goals, needed

resources) (49.1%, 51.1%, 53.3%) 59. Managers support collaboration across work units to accomplish work objectives. (54.7%,

57.5%, 56.9%) 61 I  have a  high  level  of  respect  for  my  organization’s  senior  leaders.  (49.0%,  48.0%,  54.1%) 63. How satisfied are you with your involvement in the decisions that affect your work? (52.6%,

56.2%, 51.6%) 66. How satisfied are you with the policies and practices of your senior leaders? (39.2%, 38.7%,

43.4%)

38

68. How satisfied are you with the training you receive for your present job? (50.5%, 54.3%, 53.7%)

Appendix 4 — Learning competency models and needed skills.

The ACES science work processes sub-team has identified the need for targeted

development at the manager/Center Director level in: Science, Management and Marketing

(triple threat). These areas of development correspond to the USGS leadership model and the

USGS managerial model which can be found at

(http://www.usgs.gov/humancapital/ecd/ecd_leadershipdevelopmenthome.html).

The existing USGS national training programs meet Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) requirements for new supervisors and formal succession planning but there is a gap in

Supervisor/Managerial skill development, education on USGS work processes and procedures,

and the discipline of doing science from a training and development perspective at the field level.

A pilot process could involve potential candidates for managerial positions and existing Center

Directors (12 to 15 people). It would be a sponsored team with support from OED, field SMEs,

and some outside resources. In summary, the model process can:

a. Fill the gap in USGS employee development programs at the field level;

b. Allow USGS to meet the OPM guidance of going beyond the minimum requirements

“These minimum training  requirements, while helpful, do not address the full spectrum

of skills  and  competencies  a supervisor  needs  to  be  effective”--3 Dec. 2012;

c. Develop a structured way to meet OPM requirements for refresher training every three

years for supervisors;

d. Create competencies for USGS work processes, and science that will result in standard

training for new/existing hires;

e. Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the USGS staff at a time of decreasing

resources, thus, do more with less;

f. Develop a protocol for OED to work with the field on the standard development of

training materials beyond the existing courses/curricula; and

39

     

 

g. Utilize existing USGS training resources and eliminate duplicative effort across Centers

and Regions.

In addition to the core skills in management, science and marketing, several skills such as

project management and communication are highlighted below as fertile areas for skills

development and training. These are skills that would be valuable in all employees.

Collaboration

A number of respondents mentioned the  importance of collaboration  and  an  “ability to

see a collaborative approach rather  than  viewing each  Center for  itself,” as  important  to  the

USGS. The collaborative approach aids in the ability to identify the “big  issues  emerging  from  a

national  context”  and  allow  for  Centers  to work  together  naturally.    One  respondent  commented  

that “sometimes  we  need a  sociologist  rather  than  a  scientist,”  indicating  that  interpersonal  

communication skills are required to collaborate.

Facilitation

Underpinning a number of the skills needed is the ability to work collaboratively,

communicate effectively and help members of groups or project teams understand their common

objectives and assist them to plan to achieve them. Tools and techniques on how to help teams

achieve their goals would be beneficial to achieving science goals. If people are more successful

working together, outcomes are more easily achieved and often have more impact than a process

where group synergy is not considered.

Interdependent Leadership

An advantage of a diverse workforce is the varied backgrounds and perspectives team

members bring to a challenge. Interdependent leadership means the team shares leadership and

benefits from different perspectives. Interdependent leadership skills overlap with other skills;

however, the ability to share leadership on a diverse team is critically important for addressing

large complex issues efficiently.

40

Team skills

Like facilitation and collaboration, the ability to be a successful member of a team is an

important skill for USGS scientists and needs to be rewarded in performance plans and through

other forms of recognition. At least one respondent commented that new hires to the USGS are

entering the USGS with a greater ability to work on teams, having had extensive opportunities to

work on teams during their advanced academic experiences.

Effective Project Management

Project management is critical to cost effective delivery of science. Most project leaders

employ management methods based on Center tradition, along with ad hoc ideas of their own or

from their team. Although these methods seem to work, there is no standardization and

approaches are varied. As a result, oversight ranges from thorough to somewhat loose depending

on the Center. As currently implemented, there is no training for project management and it is

not a standardized process, subject to variation, which in turn can lead to lapses and

inefficiencies. There is no evidence that Project Management Professional (PMP) practices are

being used extensively. Considerations for  fostering  “quality  products—on  time”  management  

processes are:

Establish standard operating procedures following PMP guidelines to ensure a minimum set of objectives are realized.

Establish training to develop measureable proficiencies in project management with emphasis on scheduling tasks, tracking progress, and other skillsets needed to deliver quality products on time. Project management training, conducted in the Minnesota Water Science Center during February, 2013, is a foundation for a USGS project-management curriculum.

Develop shared training and continue to encourage a mentoring process that focuses on skills for collaboration, continuous improvement, customer service, facilitation, leadership, and teamwork.

Emulate existing USGS leadership courses with offerings in Project Management Intensives and specialized topics.

Establish standardized training on USGS policy for managing and archiving scientific information through National data repositories.

Workforce Planning

The USGS has gone through several rounds of top-down workforce planning. These

efforts have not been viewed in the field as helpful in structuring the Center workforces of the

41

 

 

future. Our challenge is to link these plans to the Strategic Science Reports direction and

societal relevance with heavy emphasis on direction from the field. We recommend a bottom-up

approach to structure the planning requirements.

Empowering Our Scientists as Communicators

Making our scientists better communicators is a priority. Writing skills to empower our

authors are important; however, there is more that our scientists need in order to be efficient in

preparing information products. We need to make our authors more efficient through exposure

to tools for enhanced productivity such as managing references and citation databases. We also

must teach our scientists how to deal with requests from journalists and news-media outlets and

how to efficiently use the resources available through the Office of Communications and

Publishing. Expanding  training  opportunities,  by  enhancing the current  ‘empowering  authors’

course, adding topics such as communications intensives, developing software toolkits for

efficient writing, and establishing online sessions for illustrations and manuscript template

training, will develop the skills our scientists need to be more effective communicators.

We suggest a team from throughout the USGS and led by OED delineate skills needed

and ways of meeting those skills needs. In tandem, workforce planning along with recruitment

and hiring practices should be evaluated for efficacy and efficiency.

42

     Lines of Work 2014

Science Center Assessment

     Lines of Work Exercise • Describe Center’s research portfolio

o Center-wide view o Show categories of research that are a priority to a Center o Bin the research o Identify the type and amount of funding that supports research

portfolio o High organizational level assessment (not project level)

• Provide an overview of the entire ECO MA research efforts

• Provide overview of research being conducted across Centers

• Show how ECO funds support Center research categories and ECO priorities

• Show how other MA and reimbursable funds support priorities

 2014 Exercise • Retrospective vs. Forecast • Intended as a 3-5 year assessment • Used standardized lines of work

o Provides some consistency o Allows a clearer roll-up

• Center’s assessment o Based on 2014 allocations and reimbursable funds o Selected standardized lines of work o Defined subcategories o Some used multiple levels o Some went down to projects as a way to do assessment

Caveats • Have not received all cyclical funds or funds from

Regional Offices • Have not received all reimbursable or even know

what will be coming • Do not know full amount of multi-year reimbursable

to be spent this year • Potential double counting of funds shared between

Centers and CRUs • Research could fit in multiple categories or overlap

between categories • Dollars may not be completely accurate

     

Standardized Lines of Work • Advanced Tools / Technology -

development and adaptation of technologies and tools that increase effectiveness, efficiency, safety, accuracy, geographic extent, or timeliness

• Ecological Stressors - the study of the physical, chemical, and biological factors that impact the health and integrity of ecosystems and productivity of species

• Ecosystem Ecology - the integrated study of biotic and abiotic components and processes of ecosystems and their interaction within an ecosystem framework

• Landscape Science - the holistic study of the origin, structure, anddynamics of ecosystem components across broad geographic scales

• Restoration Science is the research in support of the practice of ecologicalrestoration and rehabilitation.

• Imperiled Species - the study of species and their habitats that are declining, rare, or uncommon

• Invasive Species - the study of non-indigenous species that can adversely affect the habitats they invade environmentally,ecologically, and/or economically

• Species of Management Concern -the study of species, subspecies, populations, or geographic segments of populations that warrant management or conservation attention, as identified by a natural resource management agency

 Subcategory Examples • Advanced Tools

o NASA animal migration o Fish molecular pathology o SDM/Adaptive management

• Ecological Stressors o Energy development o Avian malaria & WNV o Deepwater Horizon oil spill

• Ecosystem Ecology o Deepwater ecosystems o Snow/glacier/climate o Salt marshes

• Landscape Science o Chesapeake Bay o Changing Arctic ecosystems o Midwestern floodplain rivers

• Restoration Science o Fish ecology & dam removal o Lower Colorado River o Chaparral

• Imperiled Species o Sage-grouse ecology o Wolves o Hawaiian forest birds o Desert fish ecology

• Invasive Species o Asian carp – molecular markers o Sea lamprey in Great Lakes Basin o Cheatgrass

• Species of Mgt Concern o ARMI o Missouri sport fishes o Ungulate ecology

      

     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                             

                           

           

FY2014 ECO Funding Centers

Ecosystems Appropriated Funds Ecosystems Funds Total Wildlife Fisheries Environments Invasives S&T Cyclical

ASC $ 8,863,597 $ 559,243 $ 481,922 $ 343,671 $ 1,980,200 $ 12,228,633

CERC $ 236,363 $ 1,114,550 $ 570,577 $ 299,610 $ 321,080 $ 1,249,770 $ 3,791,950

FORT $ 1,472,406 $ 857,092 $ 2,592,532 $ 863,051 $ 1,920,621 $ 1,292,797 $ 8,998,499

FRESC $ 2,138,814 $ 2,202,849 $ 374,007 $ 569,388 $ 847,970 $ 6,133,028

GLSC $ 1,008 $ 3,852,237 $ 898,626 $ 378,199 $ 3,255,984 $ 212,542 $ 8,598,596

LSC $ 124,514 $ 3,630,760 $ 611,898 $ 112,000 $ 1,702,835 $ 6,182,007

NPWRC $ 1,665,530 $ 749,989 $ 424,330 $ 243,971 $ 682,851 $ 3,766,671

NOROCK $ 1,660,000 $ 71,000 $ 1,064,000 $ 222,000 $ 75,000 $ 673,000 $ 3,765,000

NWHC $ 4,895,566 $ 569,988 $ 1,580,790 $ 7,046,344

NWRC $ 305,089 $ 3,666,446 $ 227,496 $ 372,160 $ 642,205 $ 5,213,396

PIERC $ 331,926 $ 566,412 $ 1,516,592 $ 85,000 $ 342,537 $ 2,842,467

PWRC $ 5,260,677 $ 97,922 $ 526,216 $ 5,866,735 $ 4,070,926 $ 15,822,476

SBSC $ 1,156,613 $ 189,673 $ 1,247,099 $ 364,611 $ 400,633 $ 771,697 $ 4,130,326

SESC $ 797,904 $ 383,037 $ 1,895,257 $ 633,037 $ 476,658 $ 3,227,991 $ 7,413,884

WERC $ 3,122,452 $ 2,018,741 $ 593,516 $ 455,720 $ 1,699,400 $ 7,889,829

WFRC $ 3,332,243 $ 485,275 $ 24,954 $ 3,842,472

UMESC $ 885,740 $ 1,170,127 $ 590,786 $ 119,063 $ 1,906,427 $ 4,672,143

TOTAL $ 32,918,199 $ 15,257,884 $ 19,683,350 $ 6,612,787 $14,956,609 $ 22,908,892 $ 112,337,721

* CRU data still to be added

    

         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                 

           

2014 Funding Comparison

Centers Ecosystems Funds Total Other MA Funds Reimbursable

Funds Total Funding

ASC $ 12,228,633 $ 440,620 $ 1,458,487 $ 14,127,740 CERC $ 3,791,950 $ 4,042,139 $ 6,227,400 $ 14,061,489 FORT $ 8,998,499 $ 3,420,564 $ 6,191,825 $ 18,610,888 FRESC $ 6,133,028 $ 622,022 $ 4,119,658 $ 10,874,708 GLSC $ 8,598,596 $ 197,000 $ 5,709,698 $ 14,505,294 LSC $ 6,182,007 $ 70,000 $ 655,706 $ 6,907,713 NPWRC $ 3,766,671 $ 988,639 $ 4,045,194 $ 8,800,504 NOROCK $ 3,765,000 $ 710,300 $ 1,517,000 $ 5,992,300 NWHC $ 7,046,344 $ 337,552 $ 707,054 $ 8,090,950 NWRC $ 5,213,396 $ 1,816,177 $ 6,225,875 $ 13,255,448 PIERC $ 2,842,467 $ 233,244 $ 835,017 $ 3,910,728 PWRC $ 15,822,476 $ 2,009,335 $ 1,351,414 $ 19,183,225 SBSC $ 4,130,326 $ 1,130,171 $ 11,603,901 $ 16,864,398 SESC $ 7,413,884 $ 763,185 $ 3,624,347 $ 11,801,416 WERC $ 7,889,829 $ 1,287,352 $ 11,823,454 $ 21,000,635 WFRC $ 3,842,472 $ 643,920 $ 9,528,821 $ 14,015,213 UMESC $ 4,672,143 $ 333,518 $ 10,952,900 $ 15,958,561

TOTAL $ 112,337,721 $ 19,045,738 $ 86,577,751 $ 217,961,210

* CRU data still to be added

   

           

Sources of Funding ‐ 2014

Total funding: $218M • ECO MA: $112M • Other MA: $19M • Reimbursable: $87M

Center support: • ECO MA: 52% (range: 24 – 89%) • Other MA: 9% (range: 1 – 29%) • Reimbursable: 40% (range: 7 – 69%)

* CRU data still to be added

  

                

 

                 

2013/2014 Comparison

Funding Sources 2013 2014 ECO Funds $111.5M (53%) $112.3M (52%) Other MA Funds $22.3M (11%) $19.0M (9%) Reimbursable Funds $75.2M (36%) $86.6M (40%) TOTAL FUNDs $209.6M $218.0M

FY2014 Allocations to Centers: $100.2M + $16.8M (to Regions)

      

Sources of Funding (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

ASC

CER

C

FORT

FRES

C

GLS

C

LSC

NPW

RC

NORO

CK

NWHC

NWRC

PIER

C

PWRC

SBSC

SESC

WER

C

WFR

C

UMES

C

ECO Other MA Reimbursable

                      

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                             

                                            

Lines of Work Science Centers

Advanced Tools/

Technology

Ecological Stressors

Ecosystem Ecology

Landscape Science

Restoration Science

Imperiled Species

Invasive Species

Species of Mgt Concern

Total

ASC $ 857,371 $ 679,400 $ 2,030,610 $ 3,685,930 $ 3,512,274 $ 1,463,048 $ 12,228,633

CERC $ 346,240 $ 265,913 $ 129,000 $ 534,831 $ 39,431 $ 1,333,935 $ 1,142,600 $ 3,791,950

FORT $ 1,158,225 $ 861,375 $ 1,372,409 $ 1,194,122 $ 394,602 $ 870,028 $ 1,256,382 $ 1,891,356 $ 8,998,499

FRESC $ 118,247 $ 1,190,550 $ 766,358 $ 633,583 $ 342,275 $ 1,531,800 $ 474,735 $ 1,075,480 $ 6,133,028

GLSC $ 1,322,983 $ 2,742,862 $ 1,229,918 $ 2,781,993 $ 520,840 $ 8,598,596

LSC $ 563,823 $ 2,391,109 $ 1,057,030 $ 303,114 $ 218,893 $ 728,820 $ 478,019 $ 441,200 $ 6,182,008

NPWRC $ 645,697 $ 341,519 $ 858,127 $ 672,982 $ 280,366 $ 680,025 $ 141,555 $ 146,400 $ 3,766,671

NOROCK $ 438,000 $ 353,000 $ 408,000 $ 928,000 $ 541,000 $ 1,097,000 $ 3,765,000

NWHC $ 531,053 $ 5,132,987 $ 1,185,120 $ 60,000 $ 137,185 $ 7,046,345

NWRC $ 840,595 $ 432,521 $ 632,218 $ 1,405,278 $ 514,848 $ 426,134 $ 961,802 $ 5,213,396

PIERC $ 72,411 $ 560,412 $ 78,748 $ 334,835 $ 1,407,978 $ 388,083 $ 2,842,467

PWRC $ 3,170,403 $ 888,667 $ 4,356,297 $ 699,119 $ 1,806,823 $ 186,122 $ 4,715,044 $ 15,822,475

SBSC $ 186,380 $ 1,963,182 $ 843,231 $ 165,000 $ 526,587 $ 129,410 $ 316,537 $ 4,130,327

SESC $ 1,273,498 $ 265,885 $ 1,820,633 $ 1,084,616 $ 1,577,224 $ 1,392,028 $ 7,413,884

WERC $ 281,791 $ 2,004,940 $ 1,436,320 $ 1,469,079 $ 2,697,699 $ 7,889,829

WFRC $ 1,957,781 $ 527,799 $ 645,369 $ 485,275 $ 226,248 $ 3,842,472

UMESC $ 351,478 $ 240,240 $ 799,328 $ 423,146 $ 368,934 $ 1,764,087 $ 724,930 $ 4,672,143

TOTAL $ 10,210,832 $19,160,662 $ 17,060,421 $ 15,368,955 $ 8,153,737 $ 19,800,616 $ 9,386,270 $ 11,733,182 $ 112,337,723

   

   

           

ECO FundingDistribution

Lines of Work

Tools/Technology

Ecological Stressors Ecosystem Ecology

Landscape Science

Restoration Science

Imperiled Species Invasive Species Species of Mgt Concern

    

 

 

    

LOW – Subcategories ($000) Imperiled Species

Wildlife Fisheries Environ ‐ments

Invasives S&T Cyclical Other MA

Reimb Total

WNS $129 $400 $336 $865

Hoary Bat $34 $88 $135 $257

Manatee $431 $85 $645 $1,161

Desert Fishes $70 $106 $176

Polar Bears $1,282 $63 $19 $140 $1,504

Black‐footed ferrets

$93 $102 $195

Freshwater Mussels

$326 $177 $503

Missouri R Terns & Plovers

$199 $2,799 $2,998

       How will this be used? • Increased knowledge of the high-level research portfolio

in a Center o Allows for better communications about a Center’s portfolio o Shows total funding supporting research priorities o Provide a glide path to new or growing priorities o May lead to focusing parts of a Center’s research portfolio o Could lead to a reduction in lower priority science

• Focus on ECO goals o Better understanding of full ECO research portfolio and support for

priority goals o Shows how different sources of funding are supporting ECO goals o Shows importance of reimbursable in supporting ECO goals o Increased support in Centers for priorities

• Better able to communicate accomplishments and how goals are being met

• *Still exploring how it could be used*

Questions/Comments • What problems did you face?

• What would make this easier to do?

• Were the LOW the right categories?

• How do you see it could be used?

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

The following is based on a True Story….

Another @#$%!-ing Data Call…….?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Wade…Sarah was having dinner, couldn’t read the menu. Sarah ended up getting glasses. Imagine if we could bring the USGS science into focus

Problem Statement

How do we ensure that our resources are being used efficiently to provide relevant and

impactful science?

The Science Portfolio: Strategic Positioning and Periodic Reassessment –

What Does This Really Mean?

Champion: Leon CarlSponsor: William Guertal

The Data Call

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Plant (Jim): What happened to the girl? Kiera After I got glasses…..I kept playing baseball. I went to ….scouts, checking me out! Imagine if I have all these scouts looking at me now, what will my options be in 5 years. Dar: imagine if the USGS had….to strategize into its future as well as communicating with partners

We Recommend …..

How Will it be Used?

Data calls Facilitate communicationsTrends and prioritiesIdentify partners and partnershipsInternal management

We Recommend …..

Tools Used

Visual Explorer Polarity Map 6 Thinking Hats Dictionary Creativity Whack Pack Brainstorming Brain Writing Converging Grids 5 Whys and a How Storytelling

Dar CrammondPortland, OR

Joe Bunnell Reston, VA

Wade HoodCarson City, NV

Bev FriesenLakewood, CO

Curtis SchrefflerFairview, PA

Durelle SmithAnchorage, AK

Leadership 201

July 21 – 25, 2014