SciDAC CCSM Consortium

1. SciDAC CCSM Consortium Management Plan Has it worked? Does it need to be changed?

2. Consortium Management Structure Names of Topic Leaders at laboratories contributing to a given Topic. Names in bold have been designated DOE-laboratory Topic Coordinators. Names in italics indicate lead collaborators not funded by SciDAC Consortium. Review of SciDAC CCSM Consortium Project @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory

3. How effective has the Management Plan been? • Adequate for dealing with organizational issues • Multi-laboratory participation • Inter-laboratory cooperation • Alignment of Consortium activities with CCSM needs • Dealing with conflict between MCT (a Consortium supported software package) and ESMF (a software package under development) • Not designed to deal with changes affecting funding at labs • Movement of personnel between participating laboratories • Should funding move with person or remain at laboratory? • Transition to new tasks when major objectives are achieved • How and by whom are new objectives identified and selected? • This will likely require a redistribution of funds among laboratories • Unsolicited proposals of new activities • Could require a redistribution of funds unless new money is available Review of SciDAC CCSM Consortium Project @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory

4. Management Plan has been effective in several ways • Inter-laboratory collaboration has been exemplary • Close working relationships at individual scientist level and at organizational level were established under CHAMMP and CCPP • Good coordination of Consortium activities with CCSM needs • Active participation by Consortium scientists in CCSM Working Groups • Inclusion by NCAR/NSF of DOE lab personnel in positions of responsibility within the CCSM decision-making structure: • CCSM Advisory Board (2) • Co-chairs of CCSM Working Groups (3) • ESMF versus MCT controversy • Concern was expressed that if DOE Consortium continued to fund MCT, then MCT would compete with ESMF in the climate arena • Resolved by Consortium with MOU between ESMF and MCT (Argonne) • If ESMF meets its objectives, MCT will bow out of CCSM and the Consortium will endorse and use ESMF • If MCT has other “customers”, it will continue with non-Consortium funding Review of SciDAC CCSM Consortium Project @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory

5. New issues not addressed in Management Plan • Movement of Consortium scientists between laboratories • Should funding remain at the laboratory? • To bring onboard someone else to do the same thing? • To be redirected into another relevant activity at that lab? • Should all or part of the funding move with the scientist? • If the scientist will continue to do the same work? • If the scientist wants to work on a different but relevant task? • Transition to new tasks when major objectives are completed • By what process are new objectives identified and selected? • How is funding for new tasks decided? (“new money” or not?) • Unsolicited proposals for new work under Consortium • Does proposed work belong under Consortium, an ISIC, or separate? • What is the process for reviewing such proposals? • Currently participating laboratories (new, zero-sum, or redistribute?) • Laboratories not currently part of Consortium (“new money” or not?) Review of SciDAC CCSM Consortium Project @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory

6. Underlying fiscal and management issues • Does the existing funding “belong” to • The SciDAC program? • The SciDAC Consortium project? • The DOE Laboratory at which the funding presently resides? • The individual scientist to whom the money is presently allocated? • Who has authority to say how funding will be distributed? • The DOE program management? • The SciDAC Consortium PIs? • The DOE Laboratory at which the funding presently resides? • An individual scientist? • Who has authority to decide on shifts in research directions or addition of new directions in the Consortium? • The DOE program management? • The SciDAC Consortium PIs? • The DOE Laboratories at which funding presently resides? • An individual scientist? Review of SciDAC CCSM Consortium Project @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory

7. Underlying fiscal and management issues • Does the existing funding “belong” to • The SciDAC program? Yes (subject to change by Congress) • The SciDAC Consortium project? Yes (subject to change by DOE) • The DOE Laboratory at which the funding presently resides? No • An individual scientist to whom the money is presently allocated? No • Who has authority to say how funding will be distributed? • The DOE program management? Yes • The SciDAC Consortium PIs? Must be involved • The DOE Laboratory at which the funding presently resides? Responsible for providing personnel with capabilities to meet its scientific obligations • An individual scientist? Can advocate but not decide • Who has authority to decide on shifts in research directions or addition of new directions in the Consortium? • The DOE program management? Yes • The SciDAC Consortium PIs? Must be involved • A DOE Laboratory at which funding presently resides? Can advocate but not decide • An individual scientist? Can advocate but not decide • Shift must address an identified need of CCSM. Input from NCAR is essential. • Convene a committee to assist DOE and PIs? Review of SciDAC CCSM Consortium Project @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory