NSERC REALLOCATION EXERCISE

for Civil Engineering

NSERC RE-ALLOCATION EXERCISE

Preparation for Civil Engineering Submission

Background Document for the June 8, 2000 Workshop

Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide background material including key issues, suggested guidelines and ideas to help set the stage for a successful NSERC Re-allocation Workshop. The importance of improving Civil Engineering’s position with regard to the NSERC Re-allocation Exercise is obvious and can not be over-emphasized. In the first reallocation exercise Civil Engineering lost 20% of the amount contributed of its budget to the funding pool and 64% in 1998. We must make sure that Civil Engineering is not a loser again in the next re-allocation exercise in 2002.

Focus must be directed towards improving Civil Engineering’s image and how it is perceived by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and their Re-allocation Committee in determining the importance and potential impact of research dollars investments. To this end, the next submission should present a strong and clear vision identifying current and future impacts on Canadian economy, progress and wellbeing. Background and issues, development of a vision for Civil Engineering in Canada, a strategy for the future development, specific research proposals and consequences of no re-allocation funds are presented here for consideration and discussion by the workshop.

Background and Issues

Historical. The NSERC re-allocation exercise is designed to redistribute every four years money among research disciplines which has been set aside by having each of the 19 NSERC disciplines, represented by their Grant Selection Committee (GSC), contribute 10% of their budget to a pool. The re-allocations are based on needs of each discipline and the perceived need to keep up with changes in scientific and engineering fields. Winners (receiving more than their 10% contribution) have been such disciplines as computing and information sciences, electrical and computing engineering, and cell biology and molecular genetics. Losers (not recovering their 10% contribution) were civil engineering, mechanical engineering and earth sciences. In the first two re-allocation exercises in 1994 and 1998, Civil Engineering gave up 20% and 64% respectively. The shortfall could have made a significant impact on funding new applicants, more renewals, increased average grants and increased funding to top researchers.

NSERC’s Third Re-allocation Exercise has been announced and a document detailing the procedure, preparation of submissions, preliminary schedule and listing of the 19 Grant Selection Committees (GSC) is attached (Attachment I)

Analysis of Issues. An analysis of the Re-allocation Committee’s response to the 1998 Civil Engineering submission as well as a comparison of key features in submissions made by other disciplines can help to pinpoint the issues. The main critic and negative features arising from the response by the Re-allocation Committee to the 1998 Civil Engineering submission are:

Ø No strong and clear vision throughout the submission document

Ø Lack of focus and prioritization for emerging technologies

Ø Need for more specific documentation of current research contributions

Ø Future research needs for Canada not identified and hence no compelling need for additional funding

Ø Lack of specific strategy for involvement of other disciplines

Ø Ties between industry and the research community need to be demonstrated

Ø Increased number of students not linked to specific proposals

Ø Low selectivity with grantees for increased funding to the top 10%

Ø No average grant increase as it would not focus on priority nor reward best performers

In summary, there must be a clear vision and a specific and significant research strategy in order to demonstrate the need and qualify for funding from the re-allocation exercise. The Re-allocation Committee recognizes the stated priorities and importance, the diversity of Civil Engineering and the growth in graduate student enrollment. However, the picture of cutting-edge opportunities and exciting innovations is not portrayed according to the Committee.

A comparison of the 1998 Civil Engineering (CE) and the Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering (CHEMMET) submissions also reveals some succinct differences in approach and presentation that should be helpful for the preparation of the next CE submission. With a gain of 64%, CHEMMET sits comfortably at the opposite end of re-allocation spectrum with respect to CE’s loss of 64%. It should, however, be noted at the outset that the CE submission is comprehensive and accurately reflects the diversity and interaction of the many disciplines and sub-disciplines. Impressive is also the evidence of research excellence, major contribution to research, and the training of highly qualified personnel. Suffice to say, the importance of CE and the magnitude of impact on the Canadian way of life is not the question, but rather what is selected for enhanced research funding and investment as well as how it is packaged and presented. A summary review of what CHEMET did can be very useful (e.g. a ‘lesson’) and is provided as follows:

CHEMMET- Introduction

Ø 20th Century industrial Canada as product of chemistry and metallurgy in juxtaposition with the challenges of the 21st Century

Ø loaded 3^rd paragraph: industrial competence based on innovative research underpinning 31% of Canada’s manufacturing, 37% of the production from primary industry, accounting for 30% ($81 Billion) export and 426,000 jobs

Ø fruitful partnerships with industry plus a few examples

Ø simplified key elements of CHEMMET’s business including information technology, sustainable development and quality.

Note that CE’s submission was more generalized.

CHEMMET - Vision of the Future

Ø three concise statement for the future:

1. Advanced Process technology using information technology

2. Recyclable Advanced Materials

3. Tissue Engineering and Bio-compatible Materials (this one is borrowed)

Ø specific description and expectations

Note that CE’s submission, by comparison, was criticized as having too many topics, and for the multidisciplinary approach not being specific and selective.

CHEMMET - Specific Proposals

Ø dedicated section: ’A Fluid-Yet Very Encouraging-Situation’, income distribution pie

Ø specific proposals, briefly described

Ø sub headings for a) increasing research cost; b) increased training; c) increase in applicants

Note that CE’s submission was criticized as having too many topics and not focussing on specific proposals.

CHEMMET - Excellence, Track-record, Consequences

Ø excellence is briefly described and it demonstrates how funding of specific proposals would enhance excellence

Ø track-record is not shown in a separate section, but is covered fairly effective in the introduction (see 3rd paragraph)

Ø consequences of budget decisions are specific, linked to proposals and effective

Note that CE’s justification of excellence was comprehensive, but not linked to specific track records, interaction and broader impact and training needs.

CHEMMET Conclusions

Ø concise and proposal specific

CE’s submission was noted as not having a conclusion or summary.

Content of Submission. The preparation for the third re-allocation exercise has already begun and the submissions are due January 2002. The Re-allocation Exercise Council advises to make full use of the time available and plan for the preparation of the submission. The entire process, including the content of the submission, is outlined in the attached NSERC Bulletin (Attachment I). Each submission must address the following five key components:

v A vision for the CE discipline

v Strategy for future development of the discipline

v Specific practical proposals

v Consequences of no re-allocation funds

v Implementation of the last exercise

These content requirements are discussed in the following sections.

Development of Vision for CE in Canada

The development of a vision for the future direction of CE in Canada is required to define and set the stage for it’s mission to provide the fundamentals, technology and tools for the next 10 - 20 years. This exercise will assist us to foresee and select which innovations and eventually what research, will be required to get where we think we will be going.

Civil Engineering is affecting in its diversity the life of all Canadians in many ways and in increasing impact on the future wellbeing. At this stage we need to recognize, as aptly described by the Futures Committee of ISAP*, that CE faces associated with technical issues a series of key, non-technical issues, including environmental, economical, health, social, and public policy/political issues. These issues are predicated by such driving forces and underlying conditions as cost, economics, changing technologies and materials, limited resources, sustainable development, etc.

Today, advanced technologies and in particular information technology allow us to access and produce the required data bases, inter-link with other disciplines and give us considerable opportunities to develop information and the knowledge base required to deal with various interacting issues in a logical and scientific manner. CE has now the opportunity to take-charge of it’s own affairs and be a leader rather than be on the defensive in determining its future direction, actions and prospects.

This expanded view of CE, which one could name ‘Civil and Lifestyle Engineering’, would involve the following 3 major steps:

1. Modernization and automation of CE through innovative technology,

2. Inter-linking with other disciplines and data bases to asses the impact of various key issues and their driving forces,

3. Integrate the technology into a total asset management system.

This approach would incorporate and cover most of the previously suggested CE vision topics for the future, e.g. Infrastructure Rehabilitation, Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Public Health and Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Development and Management, Sustainable Development and Zero Waste Management, Risk and Safety Aspects in Construction and Use of Facilities.

A suggested vision statement of the future for CE with focus on specific and progressive action is given subsequently:

“ The CE research community can for-see great opportunities to enhance and assure continued high quality way of life for Canadians by

1. Exploiting innovative technology to modernize and automate CE methodology and systems

2. Establish databases, linkages and relationships in order to scientifically asses long- term impacts of interacting driving forces and underlying conditions.

3. Develop prediction models and an all-inclusive asset management system to provide excellence, leadership and confidence in design, building and maintenance of the infrastructure and facilities which support our lifestyle.”

The suggested visions should be reviewed and agreed to by all stakeholders, such as and including representatives of research institutions, user agencies and industry. The suggested vision statements for the future may be screened and selected first by the heads of CE departments. This would be followed by a discussion and review process involving representatives of all CE related disciplines. Included should be Materials, Structures, Highways and Transportation, Geotechnical, Environment, Hydraulics and Hydrology, Agriculture, Mining, and Geomatics.

Workshop Question # 1

“What should be the Vision for CE in Canada?”

Conduct group discussion, selection, refinement of the suggested and any added visions. The need and impact for Canada as well as the expectation for short and long term benefits would be the main criteria. An attempt should be made to find a final agreement by all sub-disciplines

Define a Strategy for the Development of CE

Based on the vision statements, a strategy for the future development must be defined. The intend is to build the framework for a work plan considering major interests of CE, it’s envisioned future direction, required activities and expectations. The implications and benefits for Canada, in particular the status, leadership potential and competitiveness of Canada’s technology should be a major consideration. The strategy is a clear plan to achieve the vision and will define the key elements, issues, problems and opportunities to be addressed and provide supporting arguments.

Workshop Question #2

“Based on the vision, what strategy should be used for the future development of CE?”

Develop for each component of the selected vision statement the key elements of a work plan (one page or less) highlighting the main features, expectations and implications for the CE profession and Canada. The 3 major components (steps) given in the suggested vision statement should address the following specific questions:

(a) “How can we modernize and automate CE through innovative technology?”

e.g. explore and use novel and existing technologies, such as IT.

(b) “How can we inter-link and utilize information from disciplines to develop databases and determine relationships of various driving forces which impact key issues?”

e.g. labor, environmental concerns, new materials and changing technologies, etc.

(c) “How can we integrate hard core civil engineering technology into asset management with due consideration for predicted or determined impacts by other key issues.” e.g. integrate and optimize various constraints and impacts from all key issues concerning a civil engineering project.

Prepare Vision Oriented, Specific Research Proposals

For each element of the vision selected and outlined in a work plan by the CE community there are specific needs for the development of innovative technology, knowledge and expertise, which will attract research dollar investment and justify increased funding. The application for increased funding must provide well focused research proposals which are specific with regard to the envisioned technologies and selective in choosing the best venue, researchers and adequate resources. Such project, expertise and researcher specific enhancement is needed to develop and meet achievable expectations. Identifying and selecting specific research and researchers may be sensitive and difficult, but we should keep in mind that increased funding in selected areas can be quite effective and will in the end benefit the CE discipline as a whole.

Workshop Question #3

“What specific research proposals are needed to address the work plan?”

Develop specific research proposals and set up discussion groups to cover all sub-discipline. Prioritize projects by identifying needs, new opportunities and emphasizing innovation and exploitation of novel technologies.

Consequences of No Re-allocation Funds

The consequences for receiving increased funding will be addressed in the specific research proposals. The consequences for not funding specific CE research proposals as well as losing up to 10% of its budget should also be discussed.

Action required:

Prepare brief discussions on the consequences of receiving

1. a 10% increase in the GSC 06 budget

2. no change in the GSC 06 budget

3. a 10 % cut in GSC budget

Implementation of Last Exercise

This information is to be provided for by the GSC 06 who have been instructed to provide an annual report on how these funds were spent and implemented.

GJK/

00 05 27