Todd Jacobson
GHG Monitor
6/21/13
The Department of Energy should give its national laboratories more freedom to perform their missions, stripping away inefficiencies and bureaucratic hurdles that have had a “stifling effect” on innovation, according to a new report this week from three very diverse groups: the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation. While the groups are situated at different spots along the political spectrum, they established a unified front in the report, “Turning the Page: Reimagining the National Labs in the 21st Century Innovation Economy,” suggesting that the labs have been hindered by government regulations from adjusting to a changing economy. “While the pace of innovation and the complexity of national challenges have accelerated, the labs have not kept stride,” the groups said in the report, adding that the labs do not “reflect the nimble characteristics of today’s innovation-driven economy. Inefficiencies, duplicative regulations, and top-down research micromanagement are having a stifling effect on innovation.”
The report suggests that DOE and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy create a task force to examine the lab stewardship system with a “goal of identifying and reducing redundant bureaucratic processes, reforming the relationships between the labs and the contractors who manage them, and developing better technology-transfer metrics.” The groups also said that DOE should stop micromanaging the labs, shifting decision-making responsibilities to lab directors. “This builds upon the existing contractor-assurance system, or CAS, and would free lab managers to operate more nimbly with regard to infrastructure spending, operations, human-capital management, and external partnerships,” the groups said, later adding: “While the merits of reducing government waste are laudable, the reality is that DOE has gradually replaced contractor accountability with an increasingly rigid form of micromanagement, which has created inefficiencies with little to show for it.”
The groups noted that DOE’s Inspector General has previously estimated the cost of complying with multiple layers of requirements to be in the millions of dollars a year for one lab, and it said a recent study by Perspectives, Inc., revealed that government field offices added 16 days to the time it takes to process collaborative research and development agreements with industry partners. “Decisions that should be made by research teams and lab managers are instead pre-approved and double checked by a long and growing chain of command at DOE,” the groups said. “There is no better example of this oversight than the hundreds of DOE site-office employees staffed to regulate lab managers and research by proxy. This adds considerable delay and introduces additional costs to routine business decisions.”
Evaluation Processes Targeted for Change
Additionally, the groups urged DOE to shift to a “more unified” evaluation process for the labs not predicated on direct transactional oversight for all decisions. The evaluation process would be based on plans used by DOE’s Office of Science, which use broad metrics like worker safety, research management, leadership rating and budgeting to evaluate lab performance. “Instead of requiring DOE review and approval for every transaction, lab management would assume decision-making authority and be held accountable through the [performance plan],” the groups said. “Contractors would be entrusted with the ability to make decisions for their labs while continuing to share all relevant information with DOE as requested under the M&O contract.” Technology transfer should also be elevated in the performance evaluation plans to help facilitate the movement of ideas at the labs into industry.
The groups also suggested that the labs be given more freedom to invest overhead dollars, eliminating caps on laboratory-directed research and development funding and negotiating broad rules on how overhead funds could be spent. “Without adding a single additional dollar of new spending, increasing overhead flexibility encourages the labs to independently leverage funds for higher-impact projects through capital spending, LDRD spending, or new talent,” the groups said.
The groups also called for the merger of DOE’s existing science and energy under secretaries into a new Office of Science and Technology that would oversee all of the labs, except the three National Nuclear Security Administration labs. The groups also suggested the labs should be allowed to use flexible pricing for user facilities and special capabilities, and given the autonomy to enter into collaborations with third parties for research and development without preapproval from the Department.
