April 26, 2000
8:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
In attendance
from the EAB:
Laura McClain Curt Frank
Lloyd Robeson David Rossener
Keith Hutchenson Jim Wang
Bill Tucci
Joe opened the meeting by welcoming all who attended
and everyone introduced themselves. Joe
then went over the program agenda and how the EAB will assist us in moving
forward with the NSF STC.
OVERVIEW OF
STC PROGRAM:
NSF established program in 1987. Goal was to fund educational research and
educational activities, technology transfer and interdisciplinary
activities. Joe covered the history of
NSF and present NSF STCs awarded. New
Centers are focused on: nanobiotechnology, adaptive optics, behavioral
neuroscience, environmentally responsible solvents and processes and
sustainability of water resources in semi-arid regions. We were funded for $18 MM for five
years. Matching support brings the
total support to $23 MM.
An NSF STC allows teams to address complex problems
that require the advantages of scale, duration, facilities and
collaboration. NSF STCs are to involve
researchers in academia, industry, non-profit organizations and national labs. NSF encourages risk taking, really believe
in center approach taking initiative early.
NSF STCs are to transfer of knowledge in academia, industry and national
laboratories.
NSF is evolving in their way of thinking for the
future.
Joe presented a few of the slides that Nathaniel
Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Act presented during an orientation
meeting. (Available on NSF website)
Pitts talked about risk in research outcomes,
opportunity to take risk in educational goals, learning curve on how NSF STCs
are to be run.
Awardees had convincing arguments about
“value-added”, strong regional impact, demonstrated commitment of institutions
and very strong leadership team in group.
Business concept:
centers to be run much like a small company. Good management principles, communication within the team,
strategic planning are the key.
Accountability issues are a key item.
External Advisory Board to have a strong governance role much like a
Board of Directors. Product is research
and students. To be run efficiently and
effectively. David Rossener reaffirmed
his first hand knowledge of these drives.
NSF STC EAB
responses:
David Rossener comments. NSF is changing and what they expect from STCs is likely to
change? Watch for this, because the
indication will be subtle at best.
Esin Gulari comments: NSF pointed to challenges, strong managements team,
communicating, EAB, sensitivity and move forward”.
Curt Frank comments on Cooperative Agreement: Education, balance in demographics, US or
foreign students. Ratio of students and
postdocs. NSF feelings on
international partnerships unclear. Pools of funds available for overseas
travel. NSF supports five years or less
graduate programs.
Curt Frank noted that Don Burland is the point
person for NSF Center and asked about others.
Joe explained how Burland’s role in the STC: Example: is he brings in
different people to look at the different areas of the STC. Orientation in DC showed how different
engineers will be brought in to review the STC. Don Burland came to visit and assist us in how we are moving
forward.
Lloyd Robeson commented: Transfer students are
common in some NSF programs. Joe
responded back with University of Venus is a partner.
Joe presented the rationale and goals of the Center.
Keith Hutchenson commented on the CO2 emphasis in
the Center and the distinction between solvents and processes. Joe responded as one in the same. There was discussion of the title change
for the center. Joe explained to the
EAB that we have time and the freedom to change. As we move forward we will be keeping our eyes and ears open for
future technology. At this time we need
to have a focus and the ability to accomplish.
If we start to broaden we will not be as effective. We have to have a common theme. Focused on one area and then move forward.
Jim Wang:
Board member to know the decision matters. How to receive information?
Ev Baucom’s intent is to continually work on website. Website to be our tool, which the NSF mandates. Ev Baucom states that the formal report is essentially from the
web.
Ruben Carbonell brought to the discussion of the
Draft Charter. He stressed that we need
to have input from the EAB what their thoughts or suggestions might be if
any. We stressed to the EAB that we
would request help in strategic planning.
Provide the STC with guidance and oversight. The STC would like to pull from the experience that the EAB
has. These comments will help us in our
metrics for the upcoming site visit in September. Provide an annual report in August. Review of annual report from the EAB and obtain comments from the
EAB.
Membership of EAB:
Academic institutions, industry, State and local agencies, national
labs. Diversity in its membership women
and miniorties. Fourteen members on the
board. Hammond, Spinu, Woodrick, Ralph
Taylor-Smith, Paul Anatas were not able to attend this meeting.
Advised not have the EAB to large. Request for any comments from the EAB and
there were none.
EAB would need to be present at both meetings. We have invited Don Burland to attend Kenan
Center Meeting in Sept.
Curt Frank:
Question about Sept. How will the EAB be effective at the Sept. meeting?
EAB to have a debriefing meeting after the NSF
meeting.
Curt Frank commented that the NSF is very prepared
and understand that the EAB should meet separate.
Esin Gulari suggested a chat room. EAB to tie into the management meeting.
ACTION
ITEM:
Organizational chart. Joe presented the organizational chart and explained how each
section functions. Provosts will be
invited to annual meetings. Very
interested in annual reports.
ACTION ITEM:
Curt Frank comments: What is structure on allocations of funds for Technical Program
Committee? In particular: Joe’s role as director of center and leader
for Thrust Area D. Joe and George
Roberts responded to this concern by showing that the thrust area of Chemistry
& Catalysis is out in the open and why Joe is a part of that area and as
they progress he will evolve out of it.
Esin Gulari commented “if up
front it is transparent”. Ev stated
that all is on the website regarding funding issues in this area.
ACTION ITEM:
Weekly management meeting: Goal is for no more than one hour. There is an agenda that is published in advance. We try to solicit input and have extensive
minutes prepared.
External Management Consultant – Dr. Russ Osmond
- communication roles, people
communication, details and visionary. Russ will help in understanding our weakness
and strengths. Most of the management
team has filled out a survey and in May we will be meeting with Russ to discuss
the results of these surveys.
ACTION ITEM:
David Rossener:
Do you have a plan for writing the annual report or an outside
consultant? Joe inquired to David if
there were specific examples of reports from previous NSF Centers that would
benefit us in how we should prepare our report.
ACTION ITEM:
Responsibilities: Joe went over all the
responsibilities of the key personnel; Ruben has agreed to watch overall the
financial management areas and to ensure that support is given out.
K-12 section will be taking the K-12 where they have
not been before. Strong environmental
push. Scott Ragan is full time
assistant (NSF) with Dr. David Haase affiliated with the Science House.
Dr. Uzo is playing a big role in international
conference and summer intern government and evolving with Christine Grant to
dovetail the REU.
Metrics: Research, graduate and undergraduate
education:
K-12 outreach, minority outreach, knowledge transfer: monitor these areas.
NSF STC EAB
responses:
David Rossener:
Do you have metrics in place to capture and define the cutting edge,
like peer reviews and in particular journals?
Yes
Esin Gulari:
Do you plan to have thrust areas interacting between themselves? Yes
Curt Frank:
Was the Management facilitator our idea or NSF’s? Joe stated that this was all of our ideas
and then Ruben brought in Denis Gray.
Personalities were great and has been a great impact to the STC.
Curt Frank:
Are weekly management meetings necessary? Yes. He noted that for
the first year our weekly meetings would be fine but that that would get
old. Also suggested three core sections
and evolve once that goes forward.
ACTION ITEM:
RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION:
George Roberts discussed the responsibilities of
committee chair and thrust area leaders.
George
Roberts discussed the different thrust areas A-D. Roberts is making the distinction of the Chemistry and Catalysis
Thrust D as to why Joe is co-director of this area of work. This has been an area of Joe’s for
years. Good communications from all
areas of the team. D is the most
complex of all the other thrust areas.
Thrust D utilizes all the universities in the STC.
Group meeting schedule was presented and videotape
of group meeting was shown.
Curt Frank:
What is the overall cost on the transmission for group meeting
teleconference? Joe explained all UNC colleges are connected to the NCREN. Texas will try to classify group-meeting
time as a special topic course to facilitate fees.
ACTION
ITEM:
Curt Frank:
What is distribution on thrust areas for students and postdocs within
fee transmission? Tables are was
confusing. Joe explained how the
group-meeting schedule evolved. The
last group meeting is May 25 and as we progress to the new schedule that will
reflect the staffing of students and equipment we will be working thrust area B
in the new schedule.
ACTION ITEM:
Keith Hutchenson:
How do you plan to split the
Kenan Center and NSF? DeSimone stated
based on funding. Students will know
where they are supported because of .
Intellectual property issues.
Website shows where the funding comes from. Example 600 MHz NMR shows that NSF pays for it and Kenan Center
can utilize.
DianeSonnenwald:
Need for creativity, innovation and communication. Identify and enhance center and other
centers. To have a long-term effect.
Collaboration/Diane and Denis/Innovation.
Curt Frank:
How are you going to try to capture in the lab shared information and
laboratory? Diane’s response was
interviewing and observing research.
Challenge to clue in when research activities are going on to
observe.
Diane presented Denis area of Innovation: Feedback industry in Kenan Center/ Interview
and do site visit on other STC to see what there practice is. Benefits for Center participants.
Curt Frank: What about practices that are
ineffective? How long do you not interfere when you see that it is ineffective,
do you not impact your own research if you interfere?
Diane responsed that after a few weeks she will make
suggestions by informally sharing knowledge.
Joe and Ruben receive feedback but records are kept for feedback. commented.
Scott Wallen: Shared facilities: Funding:
1,935,000 NSF
Cost sharing by universities: 1,508,000
Cost sharing by Kenan Center, $111,000
Scott
presented all areas of research taking place in labs. Equipment that is already in place and being designed and
built.
Esin Gulari:
Management of MRI. How it is set
up for being multi-user. Space
available and the people in charge will run this. Not exclusively for NSF members.
Making available to all. How is
it set up within chemistry? Are there
technicians set up? Tap into user fees
and technicians available.
David Rossener:
How much of your budget goes toward equipment and maintenance? Ruben responded we are within 10-15% to
similar STCs.
David
Rossener: How much emphasis is NSF placing on existence on role and
quality? Joe responded with yes it is a
big deal. They expect change in
personnel. EAB’s role on guidance. Cooperative agreement elements of short term
and long-range plans. Long-range plans
are on proposal. Year one and year
1-5.
EDUCATIONAL
OVERVIEW:
Ev presented the website and how it will be a tool
for us to follow by for annual report.
Diane presented Personal development program (PDP)
perform good science and be successful.
Teach student collaboration studies.
Workshop collaboration (how to effectively design and deliver a
workshop)
Global importance, new organizational and cultural
boundaries.
Collaboration Workshop: guided by research and contributing research
Denis will be performing innovation workshop. University industry cooperation, technology
life cycles, innovation process and technology and environmental outcomes
Challenge to work with student in conjunction with
participation in a collaborative innovative science project.
Curt Frank:
Are you planning to offer this
workshop to other STCs or universities?
Diane responded the workshop would be a better format for this and we
are considering this as we develop the program.
Jim Wang: Is
research included in knowledge activities?
Other society and centers can use as well.
David Haase and Scott Ragan presented K-12 component. Partnership of the Science House. 12 Years experience. NSF and Science House encourage students
towards math and science and engineering.
Scott will be evaluating projects as they
progress. Typically reach 2000 teachers
in workshops. 20 thousand + students
per year.
Gina Stewart:
Why is the life cycle NC curriculum for five years? Scott responded that the curriculum can
change with feedback by State officials and teachers but it is set for five
years at initial planning.
Curt Frank:
How are the faculty within the Center involved with science house? Communications through email, mailings,
classroom, lines of communications.
Tours contact Desimone and Carbonell.
Use faculty and students to assist the Science House.
David Haase:
NSF has a lot of interaction with faculty and students. Effective interaction with students and
faculty.
Jim
Wang: Is your center nationally
challenged to perform K-12 outreach?
Joe responded that other states such as TX are dovetailing with us. We are reaching out to corporate sponsors
such as Air Products going out to local schools.
DuBay: What
are methods for student involvement?
ACTION ITEM:
Christine Grant – NSF Green Processing Undergraduate
Research Program – educate students May
29 –August 4, 2000 20-25 per year for
five years. Ethics Program Symposium
Series, Field trips to engineering companies, Wilmington, NC and EPA and RTP to
do research. Assistant: Kirsten Reberg-Horton kgreberg@unity.ncsu.edu
June 9th Research Seminar: Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and
Green Processing Technologies: Joe and
Ruben scheduled for the day.
ACTION ITEM:
Curt Frank:
How much do you spend on stipend and housing?: $3,300 for summer and housing is in one dorm. Pay housing
directly and $500 to and from for travel.
Ruben; New faculty hiring. NCSU one position approved.
UNC under approval.
KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER OVERVIEW:
Joe presented the Kenan Center agenda with companies
that he is working to sign up with us:
Air Liquide
Akzo Nobel
Bayer/GE
Eli Lilly
IBM
Johnson & Johnson
Michelin
Nike
Procter and Gamble
Texas Instruments
Lloyd Robeson:
Do you go back to the companies that drop out to see if they might be
interested in rejoining?
Ruben presented knowledge transfer for international
conferences
Gordon Research Conference on Environmentally and
looking at a cosponsorship for Engineering Foundation Conference on
Supercritical Fluids. More discussion
on International Symposium on Supercritical Fluids. Working on this in collaboration with Dr. Uzo.
Gina Stewart is presented the CO2 patent
Assessment:
Establish portfolio of CO2 based technology with NC
State and UNC.
US Corporations Patent aligned with our research and
thrust areas. Apply to field of
use. Used as a model that can be used
by other universities.
NSF STC 2 year program from UNC and NCSU.
Eastman Chemical has committed to give us our first
patent donation. There are a number of
potential applications that can best be maximized. Start-up companies or established.
EAB INQUIRIES
AND SUMMARY:
Organization of the EAB: Leadership and Committees: Curt reviewed structure of MRSEC
Review Meetings at Stanford.
It was decided that the EAB be given time to
themselves to evaluate.
There was a suggestion to form committees within the
EAB. By questioning everyone at the
meeting for the EAB members it was decided everyone had an interest and that
there would be no committees formed.
ACTION ITEM:
Lloyd: How
are we looking outside the area of CO2 and more into the possibilities of water
utilities? Seminar program will be used
as a boarder perspective. Despite our
title we have a theme of liquid CO2 and have an initial focus.
Lloyd: Use
this title to your advantage. It gives
you the opportunity to look at other areas by having a very critical
impact.
Curt: He
liked the description of Thrust Area D.
Although he is confused with the numbering in the charts for sharing of
students. He stated that the review
panel will also see the charts for students per faculty.
Ev Baucom:
Ev’s question to the EAB is there a Guide to “How to write an annual
report” to make the charts more readable.
Diane Sonnenwald suggested social network.
ACTION ITEM:
In attendance
from the EAB:
Laura McClain Curt
Frank
Lloyd Robeson David
Rossener
Keith Hutchenson Jim
Wang
Bill
Tucci
Joe opened the meeting by welcoming all who attended
and everyone introduced themselves. Joe
then went over the program agenda and how the EAB will assist us in moving
forward with the NSF STC.
OVERVIEW OF
STC PROGRAM:
NSF established program in 1987. Goal was to fund educational research and
educational activities, technology transfer and interdisciplinary
activities. Joe covered the history of
NSF and present NSF STCs awarded. New
Centers are focused on: nanobiotechnology, adaptive optics, behavioral
neuroscience, environmentally responsible solvents and processes and
sustainability of water resources in semi-arid regions. We were funded for $18 MM for five
years. Matching support brings the
total support to $23 MM.
An NSF STC allows teams to address complex problems
that require the advantages of scale, duration, facilities and
collaboration. NSF STCs are to involve
researchers in academia, industry, non-profit organizations and national
labs. NSF encourages risk taking,
really believe in center approach taking initiative early. NSF STCs are to transfer of knowledge in
academia, industry and national laboratories.
NSF is evolving in their way of thinking for the
future.
Joe presented a few of the slides that Nathaniel
Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Act presented during an orientation
meeting. (Available on NSF website)
Pitts talked about risk in research outcomes,
opportunity to take risk in educational goals, learning curve on how NSF STCs
are to be run.
Awardees had convincing arguments about
“value-added”, strong regional impact, demonstrated commitment of institutions
and very strong leadership team in group.
Business concept:
centers to be run much like a small company. Good management principles, communication within the team,
strategic planning are the key.
Accountability issues are a key item.
External Advisory Board to have a strong governance role much like a
Board of Directors. Product is research
and students. To be run efficiently and
effectively. David Rossener reaffirmed
his first hand knowledge of these drives.
NSF STC EAB
responses:
David Rossener comments. NSF is changing and what they expect from STCs is likely to
change? Watch for this, because the
indication will be subtle at best.
Esin Gulari comments: NSF pointed to challenges, strong managements team,
communicating, EAB, sensitivity and move forward”.
Curt Frank comments on Cooperative Agreement: Education, balance in demographics, US or
foreign students. Ratio of students and
postdocs. NSF feelings on
international partnerships unclear. Pools of funds available for overseas
travel. NSF supports five years or less
graduate programs.
Curt Frank noted that Don Burland is the point
person for NSF Center and asked about others.
Joe explained how Burland’s role in the STC: Example: is he brings in
different people to look at the different areas of the STC. Orientation in DC showed how different
engineers will be brought in to review the STC. Don Burland came to visit and assist us in how we are moving
forward.
Lloyd Robeson commented: Transfer students are
common in some NSF programs. Joe
responded back with University of Venus is a partner.
Joe presented the rationale and goals of the Center.
Keith Hutchenson commented on the CO2 emphasis in
the Center and the distinction between solvents and processes. Joe responded as one in the same. There was discussion of the title change
for the center. Joe explained to the
EAB that we have time and the freedom to change. As we move forward we will be keeping our eyes and ears open for
future technology. At this time we need
to have a focus and the ability to accomplish.
If we start to broaden we will not be as effective. We have to have a common theme. Focused on one area and then move forward.
Jim Wang:
Board member to know the decision matters. How to receive information?
Ev Baucom’s intent is to continually work on website. Website to be our tool, which the NSF mandates. Ev Baucom states that the formal report is essentially from the
web.
Ruben Carbonell brought to the discussion of the
Draft Charter. He stressed that we need
to have input from the EAB what their thoughts or suggestions might be if
any. We stressed to the EAB that we
would request help in strategic planning.
Provide the STC with guidance and oversight. The STC would like to pull from the experience that the EAB
has. These comments will help us in our
metrics for the upcoming site visit in September. Provide an annual report in August. Review of annual report from the EAB and obtain comments from the
EAB.
Membership of EAB:
Academic institutions, industry, State and local agencies, national
labs. Diversity in its membership women
and miniorties. Fourteen members on the
board. Hammond, Spinu, Woodrick, Ralph
Taylor-Smith, Paul Anatas were not able to attend this meeting.
Advised not have the EAB to large. Request for any comments from the EAB and
there were none.
EAB would need to be present at both meetings. We have invited Don Burland to attend Kenan
Center Meeting in Sept.
Curt Frank:
Question about Sept. How will the EAB be effective at the Sept. meeting?
EAB to have a debriefing meeting after the NSF
meeting.
Curt Frank commented that the NSF is very prepared
and understand that the EAB should meet separate.
Esin Gulari suggested a chat room. EAB to tie into the management meeting.
ACTION ITEM:
Organizational chart. Joe presented the organizational chart and explained how each
section functions. Provosts will be
invited to annual meetings. Very
interested in annual reports.
ACTION ITEM:
Curt Frank comments: What is structure on allocations of funds for Technical Program
Committee? In particular: Joe’s role as director of center and leader
for Thrust Area D. Joe and George
Roberts responded to this concern by showing that the thrust area of Chemistry
& Catalysis is out in the open and why Joe is a part of that area and as
they progress he will evolve out of it.
Esin Gulari commented “if up
front it is transparent”. Ev stated
that all is on the website regarding funding issues in this area.
ACTION ITEM:
Weekly management meeting: Goal is for no more than one hour. There is an agenda that is published in advance. We try to solicit input and have extensive
minutes prepared.
External Management Consultant – Dr. Russ Osmond
- communication roles, people
communication, details and
visionary. Russ will help in understanding
our weakness and strengths. Most of the
management team has filled out a survey and in May we will be meeting with Russ
to discuss the results of these surveys.
ACTION ITEM:
David Rossener:
Do you have a plan for writing the annual report or an outside
consultant? Joe inquired to David if
there were specific examples of reports from previous NSF Centers that would
benefit us in how we should prepare our report.
ACTION ITEM:
Responsibilities: Joe went over all the
responsibilities of the key personnel; Ruben has agreed to watch overall the
financial management areas and to ensure that support is given out.
K-12 section will be taking the K-12 where they have
not been before. Strong environmental
push. Scott Ragan is full time
assistant (NSF) with Dr. David Haase affiliated with the Science House.
Dr. Uzo is playing a big role in international
conference and summer intern government and evolving with Christine Grant to
dovetail the REU.
Metrics: Research, graduate and undergraduate
education:
K-12 outreach, minority outreach, knowledge
transfer: monitor these areas.
NSF STC EAB
responses:
David Rossener:
Do you have metrics in place to capture and define the cutting edge,
like peer reviews and in particular journals?
Yes
Esin Gulari:
Do you plan to have thrust areas interacting between themselves? Yes
Curt Frank:
Was the Management facilitator our idea or NSF’s? Joe stated that this was all of our ideas
and then Ruben brought in Denis Gray.
Personalities were great and has been a great impact to the STC.
Curt Frank:
Are weekly management meetings necessary? Yes. He noted that for
the first year our weekly meetings would be fine but that that would get
old. Also suggested three core sections
and evolve once that goes forward.