At the request of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine initiated a study to review a draft of SMD’s 2019 Science Plan and provide feedback to SMD. The request for this review was made at a time when SMD is engaged in the development of a new vision for the advancement of space science goals via the codification of a series of leadership priorities and management principles. As such, the 2019 document represents a radical, but welcome, departure from more traditional science strategies and plans adopted by SMD over the past two decades. The draft document is potentially a very important one spelling out SMD’s values, priorities, and principles. The committee believes that its comments help to develop the document into the transformative, inspiring, ambitious, and forward-looking plan it was intended to be.
In conducting its review of the draft 2019 Science Plan (hereafter, the draft document), the Committee on the NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan was charged to comment on the following specific areas:
1. Level of ambition of the specified strategies in light of current and emerging opportunities to advance Earth and space science over the next 5 years (see Chapter 3, “Level of Ambition”);
2. Ability of SMD to meet the science objectives in the most recent decadal surveys through implementation of specified strategies (see Chapter 4, “Ability to Meet Science Objectives in Decadal Surveys”);
3. Identification of additional strategies for SMD’s consideration (see Chapter 5, “Identification of Additional Guiding Principles”); and
4. General readability and clarity of presentation (see Chapter 2, “Readability and Clarity of Presentation”).
In response to these four tasks, the committee offers 17 recommendations to SMD. Very early in its review, the committee discovered issues related to the readability of the material contained in the draft document. However, the purpose and intent of the draft document were much more clearly presented in oral form by SMD officials during the committee’s one and only meeting. The committee’s attempts to address its four tasks as ordered in the statement of task led to difficulties in the organization of this report. Therefore, the committee has altered the order of discussion to lead with item four in the statement of task (i.e., the topic of readability and clarity of presentation). This reordering of the tasks allowed the committee to propose new language that enabled a clearer and more logical discussion of items one, two, and three.
The draft document reviewed by the committee is qualitatively unlike the NASA science plans that have come before. In fact, it is not really a science plan, nor is it a strategic or implementation plan more generally. It is, however, something potentially very important. Any effective organization requires leadership that clearly expresses not only its organization’s values, but also its enduring, high-level priorities and principles that will steer the organization toward realizing those values. An SMD organization that is aligned in its values, leadership priorities, and guiding principles is much more likely to achieve successful outcomes in scientific product, in fulfillment of the decadal surveys, as well as in the development and deployment of human capital.
As it stands now, the draft document is not inspiring. It lacks the clarity of purpose and vision required to achieve its intended impact, and it is too internally disconnected between the top leadership and the four science divisions that form the core of SMD’s management. If the draft document can be revised as recommended here, the divisional commitment to the stated leadership priorities and guiding principles made more explicit, and the writing overall imbued with language equal to the magnitude of the vision, the document has the potential to be transformative for SMD: ambitious, forward looking, and inspiring.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
