National Conference on the Advancement of Research

NCAR 49
Strategic Planning Committee
Final Report
(Submitted to the NCAR Conference Committee on 17 September 1995)

I. General Background:

The Strategic Planning Committee concentrated on updating the last formal report (NCAR 47 Strategic Planning Committee, Chair: Chris Hill, dated 13 September 1993). The NCAR 49 Strategic Planning Committee revalidated most of the NCAR 47 report with two notable additions: "incorporate a bit of science into the program;" "focus on the quality of the program." Beyond this, the Strategic Planning Committee strongly advocates incorporation of most of the recommendations as follows.

II. Fundamental Aspects

NCAR has it about right; nearly everyone sees as the unique strength of NCAR the active participation by all four sectors, although most of us are concerned that industry is not sufficiently represented. We like the openness and informality that a residential meeting of invited participants offers. The resulting combination of candor and security is appreciated. The focus on relatively senior members of the community is seen as correct, and we like the fact that many people return annually.

NCAR participants could be categorized in other ways than the "four sectors:" policy makers, performers, managers, customers, investors, and advocates. Looked at this way, we may need to attend to other kinds of balance, in addition to that among industry, universities, government, and the independents. We may wish to know what the key challenges "out there" are in order to select topics to capture people's attention from all sectors; there could be value in taking a well-designed "opinion poll" at a future NCAR meeting in this regard.

The word "network" appears frequently in our thinking about NCAR. We see the present arrangement as the manifestation of an intangible and valuable network of leaders in R&D/S&T. Several people suggested that we think about making the network more tangible (i.e., by use of electronic mail and/or bulletin boards).

Recommendations:

A. The fundamental nature of NCAR should remain essentially unchanged. We have a valuable and winning formula. We should keep in mind always our unique role in convening leaders of the four sectors to discuss issues of importance at the sectoral interfaces in an informal setting and without political bias.

B. Enhance the networking value of NCAR participation:

(1) Encourage use of the NCAR listserv (and encourage posting of newsworthy items).
(2) Through the NCAR host setting aside small meeting facilities offering comfort, privacy, and ease of access.

C. Topical issues/themes that NCAR should address are:

(1) Issues at the interfaces of the fours sectors.
(2) Education and training.
(3) Organizational redesign.
(4) Visions of the future R&D system.
(5) Who owns new knowledge.
(6) Integrity in the use of research findings.
(7) Estimating the pay-offs to research investments.
(8) Incorporate a bit of "science" into our program once again; talks by leading figures on such topics as bio-computers, the results from the Hubble telescope, status of the PEM fuel cell for clean cars, etc.

III. Tactical Aspects:

We don't want NCAR to get any more organized than it is, and we don't see any need or much use in developing formal tactics to guide future NCAR leaders.

International issues and the international implications of domestic policy are seen as inevitable and important aspects of all NCAR discussions. People from other countries should continue to be invited to participate on the same basis as people from the United States. NCAR meetings in other countries are seen as impractical and possibly undesirable.

Most of us continue to value the inclusion of spouses and friends in the NCAR community and the official program and the host arrangements should be structured accordingly.

We seem to prefer a meeting with around 200 participants. A much larger attendance would jeopardize collegiality, formal and informal discussions, networking, and the principle of one place to stay and meet. It should be kept in mind that in order for a host organization to break even financially when sponsoring NCAR, an attendance of around 130-150 paid registrants is necessary.

It is important to maintain a flow of new faces into NCAR each year, while also creating a meeting that is sufficiently compelling that many regulars will return.

Recommendations:

D. Do not formalize the NCAR structure and avoid engaging in a formal tactical planning process.

E. Continue to address international issues and to invite people from other countries to participate, but keep the NCAR conferences within the USA.

F. Aim for a meeting of around 200 active participants, not counting spouses and friends--whom we should continue to welcome through appropriate arrangements by the program and the host.

IV. Operational Aspects:

The quality and topical themes of the program are of paramount importance, and we need to focus on the program in all our planning efforts and ensure that it is available to potential attendees well in advance.

The sectoral balance is OK, but we need to work constantly at bringing more industry people into the meetings (NCAR 48 had adequate industry participation). A precise numerical balance among the sectors is not needed, but the views of all four sectors should always be well represented.

Another issue is the stature of invitees, especially those from industry. We traditionally target VPs of research; however, the target group may better be "external relations directors," especially as long as NCAR's focus is technology policy (as opposed to research strategy). In any case, minimizing time-demands will be essential in order to attract industry participation.

We seem agreeable to any kind of organization hosting NCAR so long as it is involved in the research and innovation process. Industry hosting is seen by some as problematic as it may make it more difficult to sustain NCAR's image as an activity in the national interest, rather than in the interest of a specific organization.

We have a lot of views on how best to report on our meetings to ourselves and the larger public. Almost no one finds audio or video tapes of sessions interesting, except as marketing tools. There is also little interest in printed proceedings, although they are preferred to tape. Instead, we seem to prefer production and distribution of a short summary of the meeting, although the precise form and purpose tend to vary. Some options include: a short highlights paper for a professional journal, a two-page press release of major findings, or distribution of a short summary to participants and the community.

We like the idea of some kind of tangible memento of individual and organizational contributions to the success of NCAR (for hosts, certain committee members, and others).

Recommendations:

G. Continue a focus on thematic and content quality of the program. Also, it is imperative that speakers are "lined up" six months in advance and that a 90 percent complete program is "in the mail" NLT three months before the meeting date.

H. Reach out aggressively to industry. Although this is primarily a program (and speaker selection) issue, it also requires definition of the level/stature of the target audience and minimizing attendees' expenditure of time.

I. Work toward effective distribution of a meeting summary--perhaps of highlights--rather than printed proceedings or audio or video tapes.

J. Recognize individual and industrial contributions to NCAR with an appropriate memento.

Signed Helmut Hellwig

NCAR 49 Strategic Planning Committee
Helmut Hellwig, Chair
Christopher Hill, Member
Kenneth Gordon, Member
Margaret Grucza, Member

Back to NCAR Strategic Planning Survey of Membership
Back to Conference Planner
Back to NCAR 51 Home Page