date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:20:31 +0100 from: "John Schellnhuber" subject: Fw: Confidential to: "Mike Hulme" ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 6:30 PM Subject: Confidential > > > > > Here is the note I sent to NERC today. Let me know if any of it seems > particularly problematical. > > BC > ----- Forwarded by William Clark/FS/KSG on 04/01/2004 12:29 PM ----- > > William Clark > To: wcba@nerc.ac.uk > 04/01/2004 12:29 cc: CKB@wpo.nerc.ac.uk, JK@wpo.nerc.ac.uk > PM Subject: Re: Review of the Tyndall Centre(Document link: William Clark) > > > > > > April 1, 2004 > > To: Bill Barnett > From: Bill Clark > Subject: Tyndall review agenda and questions > > Thanks for your helpful response to my questions. With the retrospective > character of the review more clearly fixed in my mind, and your suggestions > and Mike's responses on the table, let me propose the following: > > a) Sessions with the Executive Director and Research Director: It seems to > me that we need a 3 kinds of engagement with the Directors. (I apologize > for the confusion I caused with my earlier note by not distinguishing > between the research and exec directors. I'm not entirely clear how much > overlap there is between them, so lets assume that where I said 'Director', > I meant both.) > > The first is retrospective and should remind us what the goals and research > strategy of the Centre were for the period covered by this review, and of > the organization the Centre adopted to implement that strategy. [This > looks like it is part of what was scheduled for the opening presentation of > John Schellnhuber at 1330 on 4/22 and part of what was scheduled for > presentation by Mike Hulme on 4/23 at 14:45.] This first round of > information can mostly be covered in the background material, but -- in my > view -- should be summarized for us before we have the presentations by the > Research Theme staffs. (If we don't do this, we will be trying to make > sense of the comments on goals and organization that the Theme > presentations are making without knowing the overall Centre context for > those comments). It seems to me that the agenda implication of this view > is to get a brief presentation from MH in the same 4/22 1330 session that > we already have scheduled with JS. > > The second engagement we need with the Directors is forward looking, giving > us a context of where they think the Tyndall Centre might be headed in the > future -- both substantively and organizationally. This should probably > also come before we hear the Theme presentations … though I am somewhat > concerned that too much emphasis on the forward vision before we hear the > retrospective summaries of the Themes could create an unfair dissonance in > which the Themes are implicitly faulted for not fulfilling the future > vision in their past work. On balance, however, a decent chair should be > able to keep that dissonance under control, so my tentative recommendation > is to keep this forward-looking part of the briefing early in our visit -- > presumably as part of the 4/22 1330 session. > > The third engagement we need with the Directors is the one we discussed in > our earlier exchange: an opportunity to talk to them after we have heard > the Theme, staff, and stakeholder presentations to discuss any gaps or > contradictions we see, and to raise with them strategic questions that we > have in the wake of those presentations. I'd like to have this review > discussion after we have all the other input. In terms of agenda, this > might suggest the following for 4/23: > …. > * 1400-1445: Interaction with stakeholders (as now) > * 1445-1515: Closed session for review team (Hulme briefing on > Organization having been moved to 4/22, 1130 session joint with > Schellnhuber) > * 1515-1615: Session with Directors > * 1615-1715: Open for further discussion with Directors or callback. > …. > What do you think? > > b) Sessions with the Research Themes: > Your suggested revisions were most helpful. Taking them one step further, > and trying to respond to Mike's request for early clarity in what is being > asked, let me propose the following, drafted here as text that after any > changes you think appropriate could go directly to the theme members (note > that I believe that the 20 minute limit should not be relaxed for Theme 4, > where the chances of sliding into "show and tell" are even more extreme > than with the others): > > "The Review Team would like each of the 4 Research Themes (not each project > within a theme) to address the following questions in its presentation. We > ask that the presentation be limited to 20 minutes, in order to allow > sufficient time for questions and discussion by the Team. This means, of > course, that only a fraction of the work accomplished by the Themes can be > presented, and that the presentations will focus on only highlights. The > Team pledges, in return, to have read a good fraction of the material sent > to it before the meeting. > > 1) Goals: What were your principal goals for the current program? (Please > distinguish goals for research, capacity building, and knowledge transfer. > These goals should be specific, eg. What scientific questions did you set > out to illuminate? What policy questions, and which policy or decision > makers, did you seek to inform? How did you intend to strengthen the > community's capacity to address such questions?) > > 2) Results: To what extent have these goals been achieved? (Please > identify the 2 or 3 most significant successes to date, and 2 or 3 most > significant shortfalls, in each of the categories noted above -- ie. > research, capacity building, and knowledge transfer). > > 3) The Tyndall contribution: What is the greatest contributions, beyond > funding per se, of the Tyndall Centre to the achievement of your goals? > (In other words, what are the most important ways in which membership / > participation in the Centre facilitated your work in ways that would not > have occurred, or would have been significantly more difficult, if you had > received the same level of funding support but not been part of the > Centre?) > > 4) Barriers: What have been the greatest inhibitions or barriers to > attaining your goals? What are the most important things that a > differently configured Tyndall Centre could do to help you overcome those > barriers? (Please address all three categories of goals in as specific > terms as possible). > > 5) Opportunities: What do you see as the greatest contributions that your > evolving line of work might make to fulfilling the Centre's mission over > the next 5(?) years? > > END of request to Themes > > > c) Directors present at Theme briefings: I see the dilemma raised in your > note. It seems important to me if our final session with the Directors > (ie. 4/23, 1415ff) is to be maximally useful, it will be important that > they have heard the same answers to the 5 questions posed above as has the > Review Team. I also believe -- based on other Centers I have known -- that > this could be a great opportunity for the Theme leaders to put their own > highest level thinking in front of the Centre Directors. On the other > hand, I respect the experience you refer to regarding the desire to remove > inhibitions. Here is a compromise proposal that I would be comfortable > with: > For each Theme session, Directors are present for the formal > presentation by the Theme (20 mins), and for the first round of > clarification questions (say another 20 mins). They are then asked to > leave the room for the last period of the Review Team's discussions with > the Theme group. We can structure that last 35 mins or so to explicitly > give the Theme members opportunities to comment on the effectiveness and > limitations of the Directing staff's vision, organization, etc… Even to > the extent of telling them in advance that there is a 6th question they > should be prepared to discuss, namely something like "What changes in the > direction/directors of the Centre would most facilitate realization of the > goals they have set forth?" > > Can you live with this? > > > d) Interacting with stakeholders: Successful interactions with > stakeholders ("knowledge transfer") seems to me a crucial part of the > Centre's mission. Given that we seem unlikely to get too much from the > survey results, it becomes especially important that the session devoted to > this on our agenda (4/23, 1400) be productive at a strategic level. Can > you give me a bit more of a feel for what is envisioned for this session? > In particular, are we going to have access to a cross section of the most > important stakeholders who are supposed to have been served by the Centre? > It seems to me that we need to get their input in one way or another if the > Review is to truly address all of the evaluation criteria listed in the > ToR. Just talking with the staff in charge of external relations isn't > going to do it. > > Thoughts? > > > e) Finally (for now), I have a question about item 3 in the terms of > reference. If this is answered somewhere in the briefing materials, my > apologies. Just point me. > > The ToR read, in part: > " To evaluate the achievements and productivity of the Tyndall Centre’s > programme for scientific research (including monitoring, survey and data > management activities) and to grade the overall quality of the programme > informed by previous evaluations and international benchmarks." > > What are the "previous evaluations and international benchmarks" that you > have in mind here? The research evaluation is going to be especially hard, > given the youth of the Centre, its action-focus, and its interdisciplinary > character. Somehow, I would like to establish a "compared to what" > standard that the Review Team can use. The most simplistic is a comparison > of publications with a "comparable group" in the UK or elsewhere. I > suspect that it’s a little early for citation counts to tell us much. So > we need to ask something about how much is being published, where it is > being published, and whether its record in these two categories is good > relative to non-Centre investigators working on similar topics. I would > welcome your thoughts on how we might have some objective data on the table > for this. For example (and again, I apologize if this is already in part > of the briefing packet that I haven't read yet), do we have > * a consolidated list of publications emerging from the Centre; > * a sort of that list by journals (ie. to show how many of the > publications are in Nature, JGR, Climatic Change, etc.) > * some notion of a comparison group? > > This may need a phone conversation. Let me know your thoughts. > > Sorry to be such a nuisance. I look forward to hearing from you. > > BC > > Attachment (copy of this memo as rtf file): (See attached file: Tyndall > rev2.rtf) > > > William C. Clark > Harvey Brooks Professor of > International Science, Public Policy and Human Development > John F. Kennedy School of Government > Harvard University > 79 Kennedy St. > Cambridge MA 02138 USA > (1)-617-495-3981 william_clark@harvard.edu > > > > wcba@nerc.ac.uk > To: william_clark@harvard.edu > 04/01/2004 07:40 cc: CKB@wpo.nerc.ac.uk, JK@wpo.nerc.ac.uk > AM Subject: Review of the Tyndall Centre > > > > > > > Bill, > > I've been back to Mike Hulme with the thoughts raised in your email of > 25 March. I am pleased to report back as follows: > > a) Revise timetable to allow for session with Director following > science theme presentations - Mike has agreed that this can be > accomodated, but suggests that the team may also find a session with the > Research Director useful. > > b) Science theme briefing formats - Again, Mike is happy with the > proposed format, but requests that the questions be confirmed asap, as > the teams have already started working on their presentations. > > c) Low PI response rate - Mike has indicated that he is content for the > PIs to be contacted again - We will do this from Swindon. > > Mike has raised one other issue, that being whether the Directors > (Research & Executive) can attend the science presentations. Mike has > indicated a preference that they do, however the Evaluation Team > position, based on past experience from other reviews, is that this is > not appropriate. This is because we do not want to introduce any > barriers that might inhibit either the line of questioning of the review > team, or the candidness of the presenters in responding to questions. A > structure that might go some way towards addressing Mike's concerns > would be to allow him/John to introduce each presentation before > leaving. They will have an opportunity to address the issues that > emerge during the Friday afternoon session that we have now introduced. > > I look forward to your thoughts/comments. > > On an unrelated matter, Pauline has advised me that Professor > Schneider's papers were bundled with your own, due to an error in our > mailroom. I understand that your secretary has kindly agreed to mail > them on to Professor Schneider - please could you pass on our thanks and > apologies for any inconvenience. We will of course, be happy to > re-imburse any postage costs. > > Kind regards, > > Bill > > > Bill Barnett > OPM Manager > NERC Evaluation Team > Polaris House > Swindon SN2 1EU > > Tel 01793 411738 > > > > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Tyndall rev2.rtf"