Skip to main content

Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

4 Assessment of the Portfolio Review Process
Pages 18-21

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 18...
... As part of assessing how well the program recommended by the ICCGS report aligns with survey priorities and with the science needs of the community, the assessment committee examined elements of the ICCGS's review process, particularly the information gathered on which its deliberations were based, and the methodology used to assess critical capabilities needed going forward.3 4.1 INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE PORTFOLIO REVIEW COMMITTEE Information was requested from a wide range of stakeholders in the ICCGS report process. First, requests for information (RFIs)
Read the entire page →
From page 19...
... In conversations and communications with the PRC chair7 and other PRC members, the assessment committee learned that a great deal of quantitative data and qualitative information was collected from the facility PIs and NSF, including background information on the technical capabilities of facilities as well as additional facility productivity metrics. Additional targeted information was requested via an RFI sent to each facility or was received as written follow-up in response to phone interviews with facility PIs.
Read the entire page →
From page 20...
... The ICCGS considered the survey's baseline priority of "completing the current program" as it applied to the existing suite of GS facilities. In considering the recommendations of the DRIVE initiative -- in terms of freeing resources and evolving the GS program forward to address future facilities, programs, and activities within the context of systems science -- the ICCGS turned to the science goals and science challenges identified in the survey to identify critical capabilities needed.
Read the entire page →
From page 21...
... The portfolio review process and the resulting report represent a conscientious, thorough, and good-faith effort to review the NSF GS portfolio and make recommendations for portfolio evolution and renewal. The GS program recommended by the ICCGS is discussed in the Chapter 5.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • iccgs report
  • assessment committee
  • survey science
  • critical capabilities
  • facility pis

  • geospace science
  • science challenges
  • decadal survey
  • survey priorities
  • iccgs chapter

  • recommended investments
  • prc understand
  • required capabilities
  • committee endorses
  • program recommended

  • geospace section
  • challenges identified
  • federal advisory
  • information gathered
  • iccgs maps

  • iccgs section
  • iccgs recommendations
  • iccgs paid
  • iccgs process
  • investments provide

  • considerable facility
  • roughly nine
  • public advisory
  • space weather
  • survey goals


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.