How are the theme and vision for a prospective new ERC developed? Every investigation or research agenda is based on a "genealogy," or cumulative body of knowledge or thought upon which the researchers base their current understanding of a field and from which they draw a vision of how the current state of knowledge might be advanced. It is useful to begin by preparing a clear summary of the state of the art in the field addressed by each ERC. This state-of-the-art summary should trace the development of the field from far enough in the past to capture the most important modern milestones in the field. This statement will be the starting point for the development of a strategic plan for the ERC. Later on, it will also provide a benchmark for assessing the progress of the center and the value added to the field by its activities.

Based on the historical developments in the field, each center then creates a vision of what can be accomplished through the establishment of an ERC. Such a research vision should be based on the need for bringing various aspects of a particular field together to create the needed critical mass of interdisciplinary effort. The vision must be unique, or it will not strike a responsive chord in the NSF site review team that makes the initial recommendation for approval. The uniqueness of the vision normally will have educational ramifications, because it is essentially a breakthrough of sufficient intellectual weight to alter basic concepts in the field in which it originated. However, the vision must also be industrially related, and of sufficient practical importance to favorably affect the competitiveness of this country, if it is to gain the imprimatur of the ERC Program.

A consensus vision statement is then prepared that is shared with all center faculty and students. Each vision statement should identify the overall goals of the center, not only in research but also in education and industrial interaction.

Figure 2-1 illustrates a model for the relationship of previous developments in the field to the vision and goals of an ERC. Thus it suggests how the formation of a center can be seen in its historical perspective.

Figure 2-1

Since the main mission of the ERC Program is to make a positive impact on U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace, it is important to understand and articulate the potential commercial impact of an ERC if it is successful in achieving its goals. One way to make a case for the significance of the impact is to start with an extensive market analysis showing the size (current or potential) of the industry affected. If successful, will the impact be the creation of a major new industry? Is there an existing major industry in which the ERC expects to stimulate technical advancement and growth? Will the role of this ERC be central in the future of that industry? These are all elements of the center's vision.

2.2.2 Participants in Vision Creation and "Buy-in"

The Director is the keeper of the lamp, the custodian of the vision on which each ERC is based. In many cases the Director is the author of the concept on which the ERC is based and the initiator of the application that obtained the original NSF funding. Here the research thrust area¹ leaders, center associate directors, and key industrial representatives usually have input into the development of the vision and have achieved consensus regarding it. Although the broadest possible "buy-in" to the vision is considered essential, it is difficult to involve more than this group of key individuals in these discussions; only one or two centers have involved participants down to the level of students in vision creation (and here it is necessary for the center to be preexisting in some form). In many cases an incoming Director will have inherited the vision from its author(s). In either case, a person must believe passionately in the vision on which the center is based, and in the objectives of the ERC program, if s/he is to forsake the security of the successful, well-funded principal investigator (PI), beloved of department heads and vice-presidents of research (or, in some cases, the successful corporate manager on the fast track to further advancement) and allocate 11 of the most productive years of his or her career to this enterprise.

As the originator and/or custodian of the vision of the ERC, the Director must be prepared to articulate this vision, in verbal or written form, to a wide variety of audiences ranging in sophistication from local service clubs to an NSF site review team. The Director is responsible for "tracking" the vision of the ERC, as it is expressed in the literature and in scientific discourse, to guarantee that the center is always at the cutting edge in research and at the forefront in the articulation of the perceptions that form the vision. The Director ultimately will be held responsible if the ERC is ever eclipsed or surpassed in any major component of the vision on which it is based. Consequently, a Director must maintain continuously a clear perception of the linkages between the vision of the center and its research, education, and industrial activities and progress within them.

Our survey of current Directors has made it very clear that most centers rely on the Director to keep the vision clearly in focus for all of its members. Several respondents pointed out that visions are, by their very nature, long- range perceptions and that frequent updates are not normally advisable. However, since it is essential that all participants in an ERC buy into the vision once it is articulated, it is useful to examine the sub-elements of the vision--in the form of the strategic plan and thrust area research plans--at regular intervals so that the faculty, students, and industrial members of an ERC community have the opportunity to become engaged with the vision and subscribe to it. In ERCs that are narrowly based on specific, fast-changing technologies, it may actually be imperative that the basic vision of the center be examined periodically, in cooperation with industry, and altered to suit the advancing state-of-the-art. However, most ERCs are based on much broader visions, and here the role of the Director is pivotal. Strategic plans are just that--strategies. Thrust areas can assume a life of their own and begin to consume their leaders' scientific and engineering passions, but thrust areas are only more valuable than the sum of the efforts of individual PIs if they contribute to achieving the center's vision. It is the task of each Director to ensure that the vision is clearly seen and well served by the center through integrated research and education. In fact, it is a requirement of the ERC Program that the integrated whole of the center be greater than the sum of its individual parts.

2.2.3 The Strategic Plan

The ERC now must develop a broad strategy for achieving its vision. How can a cross-disciplinary center take advantage of the opportunity envisioned? This is its mission. Is it realistic? Does the ERC have the necessary intellectual horsepower to achieve success in this area?

One way to answer these questions is to form a "blue ribbon" panel of objective outside experts to evaluate the plans and personnel of a proposed ERC. If the answers are encouraging, then the next step is to develop a strategic research plan to achieve the vision and mission. In this chapter we will focus on the overall strategic plan for a new center. Chapter 3, "Research Management," describes the process for development and updating of the strategic research plan.

In contrast to the process of originating the center's vision, the process of strategic planning is more democratic. In some centers the initial planning is done by an executive committee consisting of the Directorate (including associate directors, if any), thrust leaders and/or senior faculty, and key staff such as the education and outreach directors. A smaller group allows faster convergence on the initial plan. But in most centers the process involves, either at the outset or subsequently, discussion and input from all faculty members and research staff. (At one center the plan is posted electronically for criticism by all center participants; commentary is circulated via e-mail until all issues are resolved.) Usually the plan is reviewed and discussed at least annually by the Industrial Advisory Board (or equivalent). It can be tricky to avoid the natural tendency of industry to direct the details of the plan toward areas of short-term interest; the Director must be vigilant to filter out such influences and absorb them in the higher aims of the plan.

Revision of the strategic plan at the level of research thrust areas is almost continuous in most centers. Adjustments are made to specific goals and short-term approaches through frequent meetings of the Director, the thrust area leaders, and PIs in that area. Strategic research planning at this level is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

NSF has developed guidelines for describing an ERC's strategic planning and implementation in its annual report. These guidelines are presented at the end of Chapter 3 as Attachment 3-1.

If you have specific comments and questions on the contents of this site and/or its use, please contact webmaster@erc-assoc.org. To report technical problems, contact techhelp@erc-assoc.org.