Larry Dickens

1
Larry Dickens Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) FLC Representative Deputy Coordinator
FLC Southeast Region May 2003
dickenslm_at_ornl.gov [phone]
2

• Speakers Disclaimer
• What has Worked in the ORNL FLC Awards Process
• Share Successful Tools
• Avoid Effects on Lack of Information
• Not the Only or Best Way to Prepare FLC Awards
  Submissions
• Speak Freely - Disagree or Offer Alternatives

3

• The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
• One of 9 DOE Multipurpose Laboratories
• 1B with 600M in RD
• Nation's Largest Concentration of Materials
  Research
• Nation's Largest Energy RD Laboratory
• 100 Invention Disclosures Annually

4

• ORNL FLC Award History
• 1985 1999 (15 Years)
• 20 Awards of Excellence in Technology Transfer
• Examination of our Internal Award Submissions
  Process Revealed Opportunity for
  Improvement

5

• My Perceptions About FLC Awards
• Prestigious Award
• From 700 Federal Laboratories
• 22 Awards This Year
• 35 Awards Last Year
• Not About Good Science but What its Done
• Demands Excellent Nomination

6

• How ORNL Submitted Nominations Prior to 2000
• Call for Awards From FLC
• Forward to the Researchers
• Researchers Fill Out the Form
• Submit the Form to the FLC Rep
• FLC Rep Sends em in

7

• Guess What?
• Quality All Over the Map
• Gaps in Submission Information
• No Standardization
• No Nomination Recruitment Effort
• None Selected

8

• ORNL Process 2000 Present
• Prior to FLC Call for Awards, FLC Rep Notifies
  Researchers, TT Staff and Line Management
• Request One Pager not the Form
• RD 100 Submissions Automatically Included
• Reviewed by ORNL FLC Awards Committee
• Efficient Selection and Critique Process

9

• Why the One Pager?
• What is Requested?
• 1. Technology Description and IP
• 2. Technology Partner (Whos Problem Solved?)
• 3. Technologys Tangible Benefits and
  Significance to Recipient
• 4. Team Members and Their Contributions

10

• ORNL FLC AWARDS COMMITTEE
• 6 Volunteer Members
• FLC Rep (Chair)
• FLC Alternate Rep
• Researcher or Manager from each Research
  Directorate (Awardee)
• Editor

11

• AWARDS COMMITTEE MECHANICS
• Award Criteria Matrix Based on FLCs
• Pre-Meeting with Packet for each Committee Member
• Evaluated and Ranked in Private
• Committee Meeting for Group Evaluation Ranking
• Work to Consensus
• Top Submittals Identified for Regional Submission
  with Nominees Working with Editor to Produce
  Submittal
• Iterative Critique Process

12

• Why Submit Regionally?
• Limited to 4 National FLC Submissions
• Regional Submissions are not Limited
• Regional Ranking Determine National Submissions
• Independent Review
• It is a GREAT Farm System!

13

• After Regional EvaluationNational Submission
• Down Select for National Submission
• Refine Submissions for National
• Iterative Critique and Edit Process
• Submit Maximum Allowed

14

• Has This Process Made a Difference for ORNL?
• 1985 1999 (15 Years)
• 20 Awards of Excellence in Technology Transfer
• 2000 Present (3 Years)
• 9 Awards of Excellence in Technology Transfer
• 4 This Year
• 1 Last Year
• 4 Prior Year

15

• In ClosingLessons Learned
• More Process Participants More Submissions
• Researchers Receptive to One Pager
• Process Standardization has Increased Nomination
  Quality and Award Rate
• Editor Invaluable
• Regional Submission Provides Independent Review
• Get Ahead of the Official Call for Awards
• More Award Winners Increased Participation