Organizing Science at the
Southern Research Station

Appendix 2 - Key concerns from employees and how addressed

1. Centralization will not be good, especially if it takes the budget authority away from the field
The recommended approach keeps the science leadership and budget authority with Project Leaders in the field.

2. Are the Science Areas necessary, and if so have the “right” ones been identified?
The Team felt that Science Areas would be important vehicles for providing a compelling statement of “who we are,” and for elevating and integrating science planning. Five or so areas- -not too few and not too many—was felt to be a manageable number to fulfill that purpose. The recommended alternative kept the same number of Science Areas but changed some of the titles to better reflect the types of work that would fall within each Area.

3. How will integration really be accomplished?
The recommended alternative presents more details on the mechanisms the team felt would create the goal of greater integration. See “Proposal for Station Organization—Research Planning.”

4. Beware of any organization that will stifle creativity and entrepreneurship.
The recommended alternative maintains the Problem Area as the core description of the work within a Research Work Unit that is lead by a line officer (just like now). The framework for research planning and evaluation at the Science Area level will provide structure to enhance integration and an environment where scientists will depend on each other for their respective roles in the work. The team sees nothing in this that would prohibit creativity and entrepreneurship. In fact, this approach could foster more creativity and entrepreneurship because of the integration that will be fostered.

5. More analysis and scoping should be done on this.
More analysis and scoping can always be done. The realignment team began their work by scoping structures of research organizations both inside and outside the Forest Service, and throughout the planning process they received information from employees on how the Agricultural Research Service and other science agencies structure themselves to address research planning, conduct, and administration. The team was fortunate to have the services of an industry-trained organizational development specialist and the analytical support of employees reporting to the Administration and Planning & Applications Assistant Directors. Because the team’s recommendations involve very little change in authorities and position descriptions at the Management Team level, midcourse corrections should be relatively simple if needed.

6. The Management Team needs to work through this face-to-face.
The team recommends that the April Management Team meeting be used to further develop the implementation of the decision made by the Station Director.

7. I’m concerned about the effects on Administration.
The team did enough of an assessment of the effects on the administration organization at headquarters and in the field to see that there will likely be no cost savings, but also not a rise in costs to support the recommended alternative. Further work will be necessary, likely by a team of folks more familiar with administrative activities, to describe the work needed to support the recommended alternative and design the administration organization that best supports the research units.

8. Whoa! Why so fast?
The timeline was created by the Leadership Team in response to the urgency felt by Project Leaders to do something that would provide relief from the current less-than-viable situation for many RWUs. The team recommended to the Leadership Team that we ease up off the timeline to allow employees to review the recommended alternative before a decision is made.

9. Why do we need five Assistant Directors when we will have half the number of Project Leaders?
Each Assistant Director will be responsible for guiding and integrating the research program within its Science Area. This is a different expectation than exists for Assistant Directors in the present organization. Assistant Directors will be much more intensely involved in science planning and coordination and in representation of the science to the Washington Office. One Assistant Director for each Science Area seems appropriate as we start into this. The Director always reserves the right to adjust the size of the Leadership Team in response to the changing needs of the Station.

10. Where’s the cost savings?
The team did not identify any cost savings. However, the recommended alternative creates a Station that should be more flexible and more strategic to enable it to make wiser decisions— about research direction and the resources needed to move in that direction.

11. Be careful about how we think of the link to R&D Strategic Program Areas (SPAs).
The recommended alternative presents five Science Areas that will enable the Station to provide a compelling statement of “who we are,” and for elevating and integrating science planning. The team did not think those goals would be met by organizing by SPA. It does recommend however, that the work within each Science Area clearly link to SPA program priorities. It is likely that the best place to link from will be at the Problem Area, rather than the RWU as is the case now.



Next Section: Appendix 3 - Original Science Areas
Previous Section:Appendix 1 - How this alternative meets the desired outcomes