skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot

Abstract

Recommendations for improving the process for expert panel reviews of technical and programmatic aspects of science and technology programs are provided based on an evaluation study of pilot reviews for two programs at Sandia National Laboratories. These reviews were part of a larger Technical Review Pilot for the US Department of Energy (DOE). Both the Sandia Pulse Power program and Solar Thermal Electric program (a virtual lab with NREL) reviews used the recommended four DOE review criteria, but motivation for the review and the review process differed. These differences provide insight into recommendations for ways to improve the review of DOE`s multifaceted technical programs. Recommendations are: (1) Review when the program has specific need for information or validation. There is no one size fits all correct time or reason to review technical programs. (2) Tailor the four DOE criteria to the program and its need for information and explain them to the Review Panel. (3) Pay attention to the review process. Spend more time in preparation and pre-review and on briefings on the review outcomes. (4) Evaluate reviews to determine how to do them better. The survey instrument is provided for those who wish to modify it for their ownmore » use.« less

Authors:
; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
656693
Report Number(s):
SAND-98-1227
ON: DE98002963; BR: YN0100000; TRN: AHC29817%%250
DOE Contract Number:  
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: Jun 1998
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
99 MATHEMATICS, COMPUTERS, INFORMATION SCIENCE, MANAGEMENT, LAW, MISCELLANEOUS; RECOMMENDATIONS; EVALUATION; RESEARCH PROGRAMS; PROGRAM MANAGEMENT; US DOE

Citation Formats

Jordan, G., Kuswa, G., and Mortensen, J. An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot. United States: N. p., 1998. Web. doi:10.2172/656693.
Jordan, G., Kuswa, G., & Mortensen, J. An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot. United States. doi:10.2172/656693.
Jordan, G., Kuswa, G., and Mortensen, J. Mon . "An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot". United States. doi:10.2172/656693. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/656693.
@article{osti_656693,
title = {An evaluation of technical review of federal laboratory research: Findings from a US Department of Energy technical review pilot},
author = {Jordan, G. and Kuswa, G. and Mortensen, J.},
abstractNote = {Recommendations for improving the process for expert panel reviews of technical and programmatic aspects of science and technology programs are provided based on an evaluation study of pilot reviews for two programs at Sandia National Laboratories. These reviews were part of a larger Technical Review Pilot for the US Department of Energy (DOE). Both the Sandia Pulse Power program and Solar Thermal Electric program (a virtual lab with NREL) reviews used the recommended four DOE review criteria, but motivation for the review and the review process differed. These differences provide insight into recommendations for ways to improve the review of DOE`s multifaceted technical programs. Recommendations are: (1) Review when the program has specific need for information or validation. There is no one size fits all correct time or reason to review technical programs. (2) Tailor the four DOE criteria to the program and its need for information and explain them to the Review Panel. (3) Pay attention to the review process. Spend more time in preparation and pre-review and on briefings on the review outcomes. (4) Evaluate reviews to determine how to do them better. The survey instrument is provided for those who wish to modify it for their own use.},
doi = {10.2172/656693},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {1998},
month = {6}
}