# Platforms Technical Council
# Proposal Review Kickoff
# Tue Aug 30 2005


Attending: Chaffey, Headley, Hobson, O'Reilly, Paull, Robison


Proposal Review Process:

1) kickoff
	- Objectives:
		- give MT informed feedback about projects' 
			- aligment with MBARI mission (technology impact on science)
			- strategic importance (alignment with technical roadmap)
			- soundness of technical plan
			- provide project teams with better, balanced (positive and negative) feedback

	- Discuss ground rules, assign proposals/reviewers
		- This is the first pass through an evolving process

2) prepare for review meeting(s) (1 week)
	- Everyone reads all proposals
	- Feedback can be positive, should be balanced
	- Talk to project teams about constructive criticisms
	- Review components:
		- Technical Merit
			-What is the breadth and depth of the impact of the technology on the science community?
			-Is the technical approach innovative?
			-Is the project designed to identify the high-risk elements early?
			-Is the technology a cost-effective way of obtaining the science (“bang for the buck”) with respect to current or alternative methods?
			-Have the proper “make or buy” decisions been made?

		- Relevance to MBARI
			Is the technology a good fit to MBARI’s skills and staff?
			Is the technology unique and timely?
			Does the technology align/play well with other MBARI technology choices (i.e., fit the roadmap) ?

		- Strengths, Weaknesses

	- These are outside the scope of the review:
		- Evaluation of the science
		- Reworking the proposal
		- Evaluating the resource scoping (let me know if you see any red flags)
	
3) review meeting(s) (Tue Sep 6 13:00)
	- Reviewers lead discussion and capture comments
	- Will follow Marcia's policy on proposal review
	- TC discusses each proposal (15 min/proposal)

4) reviewers write up results (1 week)
	- Fill out feedback forms
	- Combine your review with group discussion
	- Technical Merit
	- Relevance to MBARI

5) wrap-up meeting (Tue Sep 13)



Notes:

Comments on process:

- Need to be careful that feedback is not inherently and only negative
- add to MBARI Relevance criteria:
  Does the technology align/play well with other MBARI technology choices (i.e., fit the roadmap)?
- process seems "way too complicated and way too much work"--(email comment submitted prior to meeting)
  response: (we are responding to a need expressed by proposal teams for more detailed feedback...our feedback is only as good as  the effort we put in - k headley)
- many of the proposals reviewed use platforms, but don't involve development
- the best things to do and the most important things to do can be conflicting 
	- should we be providing feedback on what is best or what is most important? 
	- What is more important, building the right portfolio or examining everything on its own merit.
	- response: (we should be able to give feedback to the MT indicating when something that does not appear to be obviously aligned with MBARI's current activities is important to MBARI)
- same level of scrutiny, criticism applies to all proposals appropriate?
 	- should identify how much of proposal is relevant to such things
	- should just go through this process as best we can and later reflect on how fair, effective, etc. the process was
- should address question of how to deal with outside proposal
- The turn around time for this activity is very short

- availability: robison out 7th, paull out 8th

Platforms Proposals (reviewers)
--------------------------------------
P 600125_MOOS_Proposal_2006.doc        (hobson, robison)   recused: (paull, chavez, chaffey, o'reilly, headley)
P 906003 AUV Docking Proposal_2006.doc (o'reilly, chavez)  recused: (hobson)
P 600034_Precision_Conrol_2006.doc     (chaffey, paull)    recused: (robison, hobson)
P 900431 Tiburon Power Boost.doc       (headley, paull)    recused: (none)
P 900424_SeafloorMapping.doc           (o'reilly, paull)   recused: (none)
P 900515_IODPBoreholes_final.doc       (chaffey, chavez)   recused: (paull)
P 9006009 DLSCAP proposall_2006.doc    (chaffey, robison)  recused: (paull, hobson)
P 900533_OCCO_2006.doc                 (headley, chavez)   recused: (none)

P 200010_ContMarPro_2006_final.doc     (o'reilly, robison) recused: (paull, hobson, chaffey)
P 200104_Molecular_Ecol_2006.doc       (hobson, robison)   recused: (none)
P 200108_Midwater_Ecology_2006.doc     (headley,chavez)    recused: (robison, hobson?)
PS 701026_NSF_Sensor_and_Sensor_Networks_Phase_1_2006.doc (hobson, paull) recused: (o'reilly, headley)

- review meeting: tue sep 6th 13:00