1 / 7

EMSL Update: Reviews, Action Plan & Progress

EMSL Update: Reviews, Action Plan & Progress. BER Advisory Committee Fall 2005. Outline. Routine review of BER facilities to ensure proper and effective operation BERAC & SC Office of Project Assessment conducted reviews of EMSL Outcomes Responses Accomplishments Paths forward.

hanh
Télécharger la présentation

EMSL Update: Reviews, Action Plan & Progress

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EMSL Update:Reviews, Action Plan & Progress BER Advisory Committee Fall 2005

  2. Outline • Routine review of BER facilities to ensure proper and effective operation • BERAC & SC Office of Project Assessment conducted reviews of EMSL • Outcomes • Responses • Accomplishments • Paths forward

  3. Two-headed reviewMay 2005 • BERAC (Michelle Broido, Chair) • Relationship, Science, Structure, User Model, Prioritization, Capital Equipment, non-BER funding • SC Office of Project Assessment (Daniel Lehman) • Management, Oversight, Resources, non-BER funding, Self assessment

  4. Results • BERAC review of EMSL science found: • “The science conducted in the EMSL is of very high quality, and a significant amount is, indeed, cutting edge. It is appropriate for BER to support this Laboratory that is a national resource.” • Need for reinvigorated User & Scientific advisory committees • BERAC and OPA found: • Lack of a shared vision for EMSL • Need for prioritization/decision making plan • Need for standardized user access protocol • OPA found: • Need for enhanced managerial resources • Need for improved communications among all parties • Need for improved financial reporting systems • Need to understand the impact of non-BER funding within EMSL • Need for extensive benchmarking

  5. Responses • Charged by Ray Orbach with resolving identified issues within six months (i.e., by close of 2005) • EMSL brought on additional administrative and managerial staff • EMSL developed a formal Action Plan • Implemented project management process • Approved and monitored by PNSO & BER

  6. Responses (continued) • BER, PNSO, PNNL and EMSL became much better acquainted • Weekly conference calls, monthly visits • November 2005 BER/PNSO Progress Assessment visit • EMSL quarterly visits to Germantown • EMSL Action Plan was added to Dr. Decker’s “Watch List” • Monthly briefings by PNSO/BER on progress

  7. Path forward • Shared vision/mission is in place • EMSL valued as a National Scientific User Facility • BER, PNSO, PNNL & EMSL are well connected and aligned • Numerous plans & documents revised, updated and/or created • Action Plan will be complete on time (12/31/2005) • Next step is implementation • BER will revisit EMSL this spring to evaluate implementation

More Related