BERAC Subcommittee Report Follow-on Management and Operations Review of EMSL May 31 - June 1, 2006 EMSL, Richland, WA

2 EMSL Facilities Chemistry & Physics of Complex Systems Environmental Spectroscopy & Biogeochemistry High Field Magnetic Resonance High Performance Mass Spectrometry Interfacial & Nanoscale Science Molecular Science Computing Support Computer and Network Services Instrument Development Laboratory User Administration and Outreach Extraordinary Tools & Staff

BERAC Subcommittee James Tiedje, Chair, MSU Michelle Broido, Univ of Pittsburgh Linda Horton, ORNL Walt Polansky, DOE-Adv Sci Comp Res Mavrik Zavarin, LLNL James Taylor, Univ. of Wisconsin Office of Project Assessment; BERAC Reviews DOE, Mike Kuperberg; PNSO, Jeff Day

Subcommittee Charge The review panel was charged with three objective in the context of the management and operations findings of the May 2005 reviews: 1.Does the EMSL Action Plan adequately address the findings and recommendations of the May 2005 reviews? 2. Is EMSL’s implementation of the Action Plan on track for completion by the end of September 2006? 3. Will implementation of the Action Plan resolve the review findings and lead to fulfillment of the EMSL Mission?

Subcommittee Summary The Review Committee was extremely impressed by the responses of EMSL and PNNL management and staff and DOE management from BER and the Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) to the very serious concerns raised by the May 2005 review committees. The Action Plan was timely, comprehensive, and on target. The implementation is effective, widely accepted, and appears to be on its way to completion by its target date of September 30, The EMSL staff members are to be complimented on their contributions and their support for the process. In short, the Committee believes that these actions should have the desired outcome

1. Are EMSL and PNNL management roles and responsibilities effectively carried out and coordinated ? The EMSL Action Plan identifies organizational roles, and responsibilities of key staff PNNL has provided executive level support for EMSL to hire qualified individuals to serve in most key positions EMSL has six Strategic Goals; two directly relate to the management organization, roles and responsibilities, an encouraging situation. –This important principle needs to be preserved since there are drivers/obstacles, both internal and external to EMSL, that could hamper EMSL’s ability to be a model for user facilities. Recommendations: –Document a detailed accounting of the boundaries, interfaces, and areas of leveraging, that can be institutionalized and understood by EMSL, PNNL, PNSO and DOE Headquarters. –Define practices (e.g. calls for proposals, definitions of users, terms and conditions for using EMSL facilities) that are institutionalized at the EMSL level, but preserve the special nature of a particular EMSL facility or capability. –Ensure a firm, common understanding, at least down to the Scientific Facility leads, of funding levels, funding sources, staffing levels, leveraging with other EMSL facilities and collaborative partnerships with PNNL directorates at a detailed level.

2. Effectiveness of Management for Setting of Priorities, Tracking Progress and Resolving Problems Extensive discussions of Committee recommendations was an effective Shared Mission Statement essential and completed. Staff hires creative and effective for shared vision. Tracking and reporting systems deemed effective. Captured a number of “best practices” in planning. Recommendations & yet to complete: – Recapitalization plan to create a plan deemed on “right track” and appropriate, but effectiveness could not be reviewed. – Proposal process initiated, but evaluations still to come. – Vision of “single” EMSL with coordinated proposal calls to include theme-based, facility-based, special areas. – Plans for increasing Users and monitoring effectiveness of their experiences in process. - Reevaluate, with BER, the definition of User

3. Are the EMSL processes for allocating and managing BER resources (manpower and funds) appropriate? Agreement on mission of EMSL among all 4 parties. BER acknowledged of its ownership responsibilities including recognition of the need for increased financial support Findings that address May 2005 review concerns –Possible LDRD funds to enhance EMSL capabilities –EMSL internal budgeting process SFLs propose and justify budgets Document management response with performance expectations in context of budget –Termination of CATs and rethinking concept of Grand Challenges. –New processes for prioritizing equipment acquisition and prioritizing investments through Science Themes. –Utilization policies demonstrate good budget stewardship

4. Impact of non-BER funding on EMSL Lehman Finding: Lack of shared mission and financial reporting to evaluate impact of non-BER funding Actions taken by EMSL: A building-based management tool was adopted to identify costs associated to individual scientific facility. BER and non-BER funding is tracked. A utilization policy has been formalized to ensure that all space in the EMSL complex benefit the mission of EMSL as a user facility A utilization policy has been formalized to ensure that equipment in the EMSL complex is available to the user community, i.e.,95% for EMSL equipment, >20% for all other equipment Recommendations: EMSL’s mission as a user facility should not preclude the pursuit of high-level science by its staff. EMSL/BER should be engaged in the pursuit of non-BER equipment by its/PNNL’s staff at an earlier stage.

5. Is there an ongoing program of self-assessment or external benchmarking aimed? Extensive benchmarking has taken place since the last review –Broad review of other user facilities operations and processes; used effectively in establishing “best practices” in EMSL procedures, processes, etc. Self-assessment is part of the PNNL culture; extensive evolution has occurred in EMSL’s participation in this process –Actions delegated broadly within the management structure –Strategy dashboard is a best practice Recommendation: –Ensure that ongoing benchmarking is part of the documented assessment process.