Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Stakeholder”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Issue focused stakeholder collaboration: reaching consensus on spent nuclear fuel transportation operational practices - 15465

This paper examines stakeholder and issue-focused approaches used by Department of Energy (DOE) programs to collaborate with key stakeholders on transportation practices to ship radioactive material, particularly used nuclear fuel (UNF) and transuranic waste (TRU). In accordance with the Administration's Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste, the current effort by DOE to plan for the development of a future transportation system to ship UNF from commercial reactors, with an initial focus on shutdown reactors, is using approaches similar to those used in other successful shipping campaigns to collaborate with stakeholders about sustainable transportation practices. As part of a coordinated approach to stakeholder outreach and collaboration, DOE is currently developing a draft Transportation Planning Framework to provide a template for future shipments of UNF from commercial reactors and is engaged with states and tribes and other stakeholders in discussions on the institutional and operational components of that Framework. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 134: Stakeholder Involvement in Consolidated ISF Storage, Disposal, and Transportation Initiatives

Planning of activities related to waste storage, transportation, and disposal requires involvement and engagement on the parts of both regulators and stakeholders. There have been challenges felt by both parties, which has led to discussions about how to best proceed with projects not just from a technical perspective, but how to create better relationships between the general public and scientific community. This panel was designed to highlight lessons learned, best practices, and next steps in anticipated projects. This panel focused on the current efforts undertaken by initiatives to involve stakeholders for the success of ISF Storage and Disposal facilities. For example, two license applications were submitted to the US NRC by two private entities - Interim Storage Partners (WCS, Inc, and Orano) and Holtec, Inc./ELLA - for consolidated ISF in West Texas and in NM (respectively). This panel discussed elements needed for success in engaging various stakeholders at all levels of the project life cycle, and can include lessons learned from previous projects. Panelists with presentations: Stakeholder Engagement in SNF Storage and Disposal (Miriam Juckett); Stakeholders, Siting and Nuclear Waste Disposal -Thoughts on a Path Forward (Jim Hamilton)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Stakeholder-driven carbon neutral pathways for Thailand and Bangkok: integrated assessment modeling to inform multilevel climate governance

Thailand has established a target of carbon neutrality by 2050. Reaching this goal will require coordination and collaboration between stakeholders spanning sectors and scales, including energy system decision makers, land managers, and city planners. Robust decarbonization scenarios incorporating current plans and targets, additional measures needed, and trade-offs between strategies can help stakeholders make informed decisions in the face of uncertainty. Through iterative engagement with decision makers at the city and national levels, we develop and analyze carbon neutral scenarios for Thailand that incorporate Bangkok’s role using a global integrated assessment model. We find that Thailand can reach carbon neutrality through power sector decarbonization, energy efficiency improvements, widespread electrification, and advanced technologies including carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. Negative emissions technologies will also be needed to offset Thailand and Bangkok’s hardest-to-abate CO 2 emissions. Bangkok, as a major population and economic center, contributes significantly to Thailand’s energy demand and emissions and can therefore play an important role in climate change mitigation. Accordingly, our results underscore the importance of subnational climate action in meeting Thailand’s carbon neutral goal. Our analysis also indicates that without sustained land-based carbon sequestration, much more mitigation effort will be needed in Thailand’s energy sector, including at the subnational scale, to reach carbon neutrality. These insights can help stakeholders identify priorities, consider tradeoffs, and make decisions that will impact Bangkok and Thailand’s long-term climate change mitigation potential. This analysis demonstrates how stakeholder engagement in integrated assessment modeling can facilitate and inform multilevel climate governance.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Bridging biofuel sustainability indicators and ecosystem services through stakeholder engagement

Here, continued development of cellulosic-based biofuels is needed to provide renewable energy and strengthen rural investment and development in the United States (US). To ensure biofuel development is sustainable and does not negatively affect ecosystem services, stakeholder input is necessary to identify sensitive and meaningful indicators. A major challenge is that there are substantial differences in terminology, perspectives, and methods used to quantify sustainability and ecosystem services with regard to processes, biodiversity, and socioeconomic effects. Our objectives were to identify relevant indicator categories for both perspectives using a case study from the US state of Iowa. A scientific literature review and engagement with stakeholders were used to identify 11 indicator categories associated with production, harvest, storage, and transport of cellulosic feedstocks. Five categories focus on environmental concerns (soil quality, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, and productivity) and six on socioeconomic concerns (social wellbeing, energy security, external trade, profitability, resource conservation, and social acceptability). Although these indicators reflect sustainability concerns of these stakeholders, additional monitoring and stakeholder engagement are needed to support the continual improvement that is part of adaptive management.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Exploring pluralism – Different stakeholder views of the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

This paper explores the concept of pluralism by evaluating different stakeholder views on the expected and realised value of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). The research followed a single embedded case study approach (of a national-level SEA for renewable energy planning in South Africa) and engaged with four different stakeholder groups, namely government, industry, conservation groups, and interested and affected parties (IAPs). A total of 21 different value expectations (VEs) across all four stakeholder groups were identified. However, stakeholder groups contrast significantly in terms of VEs, with government concerned more with process and mandate; industry with cost, efficiency and certainty; conservation groups with data and technical aspects; and the IAPs with local scale issues. In terms of realisation of VEs the results suggest that SEA does provide opportunities for learning; focussing project level EIA and providing spatial guidance on the location of projects. However, SEA was less successful in realising integration of decision making and alignment of policy within government. Recognition and better understanding of the pluralistic nature of expected and realised VEs could potentially improve the legitimacy of SEA processes and methodologies if they are designed and implemented to accommodate pluralism.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Sensemaking, stakeholder discord, and long-term risk communication at a US Superfund site

Abstract Introduction: Risk communication can help reduce exposures to environmental contaminants, mitigate negative health outcomes, and inform community-based decisions about hazardous waste sites. While communication best practices have long guided such efforts, little research has examined unintended consequences arising from such guidelines. As rhetoric informs stakeholder sensemaking, the language used in and reinforced by these guidelines can challenge relationships and exacerbate stakeholder tensions. Objectives: This study evaluates risk communication at a U.S. Superfund site to identify unintended consequences arising from current risk communication practices. Methods: This qualitative case study crystallizes data spanning 6 years from three sources: 1) local newspaper coverage of site-related topics; 2) focus-group transcripts from a multi-year project designed to support future visioning of site use; and 3) published blog entries authored by a local environmental activist. Constant comparative analysis provides the study’s analytic foundation, with qualitative data analysis software QSR NVivo 8 supporting a three-step process: 1) provisional coding to identify broad topic categories within datasets, 2) coding occurrences of sensemaking constructs and emergent intra-dataset patterns, and 3) grouping related codes across datasets to examine the relationships among them. Results: Existing risk communication practices at this Superfund site contribute to a dichotomous conceptualization of multiple and diverse stakeholders as members of one of only two categories: the government or the public. This conceptualization minimizes perceptions of capacity, encourages public commitment to stances aligned with a preferred group, and contributes to negative expectations that can become self-fulfilling prophecies. Conclusion: Findings indicate a need to re-examine and adapt risk communication guidelines to encourage more pluralistic understanding of the stakeholder landscape.

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
DOE OSTI2025

Business Models for Scaling Demand Flexibility Volume III – Stakeholder ecosystem management challenges, and lessons learned from U.S. programs

Load growth at the grid edge is driving increased attention to the distribution system and its ability to enable customer technology adoption in an affordable and timely manner. Key industry stakeholders, including electric utilities and regulators, can benefit from strategies to manage and balance customer needs with infrastructure investments, such as demand flexibility. This report focuses on demand flexibility—the ability to reduce, shift, shed, generate, or modulate loads in response to building and grid needs—to reduce the need for costly grid upgrades by deferring investment needs and increase system reliability by shifting electricity usage during periods of high risk. Specifically, we focus on the emerging characteristics of business models for demand flexibility as a framework to understand how demand flexibility programs generate value. In this report, we focus on demand flexibility program stakeholder ecosystem management strategies, which provide information on value delivery and describe how program implementers leverage partner capabilities and collaborate to deliver customer and grid benefits. This report discusses the role of stakeholder ecosystem management in demand flexibility programs, identifies existing challenges to effective stakeholder management, and describes lessons learned. This report is part of a series that includes reports on value propositions, customer relationship management strategies, and program life cycle.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program: September 2019 Physical Security Stakeholder Working Group Meeting

The LWRS Program Physical Security Pathway held the first meeting of the Physical Security Stakeholder working group on September 10-12, 2019 at Sandia National Laboratories. This working group is comprised of nuclear enterprise physical security stakeholders and the meeting included over 10 Utilities representing roughly 60 nuclear power plants, two staff from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, physical security vendors, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, and staff from Sandia National Laboratories and Idaho National Laboratory. The working group was established with the objectives of providing stakeholder feedback to the LWRS Program on their research and development needs and priorities, socializing the progress of Physical Security Pathway initiatives, and identifying opportunities for additional engagement and participation of stakeholders in the pathway research activities. The working group also provided a forum for physical security professionals to share common experiences and recommend prioritized activities based on their common needs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Stepping into the Midwest Bioeconomy: Stakeholder Engagement and Geospatial Tools to Assist in Perennial Bioenergy Crop Decision Making and Entrepreneurship

This project, “Ecosystem Services and Farm Entrepreneurship Technical Assistance,” was a three-year project originally planned for FY22–FY24. Due to a late start and a few extensions, it is being completed in early FY25. This project explored opportunities to support the deployment of a bioeconomy with a circular, more sustainable supply chain. Using a tool developed by Argonne to identify agricultural areas suitable for use in the bioeconomy, we sought to create opportunities in the bioeconomy as biomass producers, bioenergy users, and environmental entrepreneurs. We proposed to focus at the beginning on enhancing the tool’s capabilities, while engaging with key stakeholders to improve and expand the tool’s functionality for all potential stakeholders in the bioeconomy. We believe that expanding our tools and technologies, coupled with conversations in agricultural spaces, will be needed as we continue to explore how best to offer farmers whole-of supply-chain opportunities to participate in the bioeconomy. Through this project we have continued to gain a better understanding of the ways in which farmers, landowners, bioenergy users, and environmental entrepreneurs may approach the bioeconomy. In addition, as we improve our analytic toolkit, we can continue to refine our communication and the ways in which we can valuate the bioeconomy. Refining these tools allows us to dive deeper into conversations around plausible policies and drivers for future bioeconomy investment and engagement by stakeholders. By working with farmers and agricultural landowners to enable a sustainable bioeconomy business model, enhance their energy options, and recover resources from their waste streams, this project directly responds to the Bioenergy Technology Office’s (BETO) priorities of building a resilient energy economy. It addresses BETO’s focus on fostering the development and adoption of energy technologies that enable the conversion of waste to energy, efficient land use, and robust job creation. By establishing a technical assistance program that develops capabilities and practices in agricultural areas to implement a bioeconomy future, this program will develop an important linkage between technology being developed at U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories and the agricultural communities of the Midwest. This project focuses on farmers with lower productivity farmland. Because less productive lands create a more difficult revenue stream for conventional crops, these farmers may therefore be more open to alternative agricultural land management regimes. Consequently, the technical assistance program and the methodologies for targeting perennial bioenergy crop application on marginal land provide a distinct opportunity to engage with and invest in the bioeconomy in these economically stressed areas. Stakeholders in this project include farmers and landowners, local conservation organizations (NRCS, SWCS, etc.), universities, non-profit environmental and agricultural entities, farm consultants, environmental regulators, and industry, including the industries working on conversion technologies, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and biochar generation, and the companies interested in trading or purchasing/supporting the valuation of ecosystem services (ES).

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Stakeholder Support for Wildlife Conservation Funding Policies

State wildlife management agencies in the United States have depended on a “user-pay” funding model for conservation efforts that relies on revenue from hunting license sales and a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. Declines in hunting participation, however, jeopardize sustainability of the current funding model. Ensuring support among stakeholders for wildlife management and conservation may require expanding sources of funding and incorporating the perspectives and values of a diversifying constituency into decision making processes. We used a web-based survey of wildlife-associated recreationists in Michigan, USA to evaluate support for a range of conservation funding policies. Respondents self-identified primarily as hunters (n = 2,558) or wildlife watchers (n = 942). We used binary logistic regression to evaluate support for four conservation funding policy options: state sales tax, lottery proceeds, extractive industry revenue, and a user-based tax on outdoor gear (i.e., “backpack tax”). Determinants of support varied by type of policy and stakeholder characteristics. We found no statistically significant differences between hunters and wildlife watchers in their support for conservation funding policies when accounting for other variables such as wildlife value orientations, engagement in stewardship behaviors, age, and gender. The industry-based policy achieved the greatest level of approval, while the backpack tax had the lowest. Respondents were mixed in their support of the sales tax and lottery proceeds options. Cluster analysis revealed three homogenous groups related to conservation funding policies: “strong support,” “mixed/opposed,” and “anti-backpack tax.” Clusters differed in their support for conservation funding policies and on psychological and demographic variables. The “strong support” and “anti-backpack tax” groups differed in their levels of stewardship engagement, knowledge of conservation funding mechanisms, and support for the backpack tax option. The “mixed-opposed” group tended to be older, less educated, and less likely to be a member of a conservation organization. Results suggest support for conservation funding differs by policy type and social and psychological characteristics of stakeholders. Based on differences in policy support revealed in this study, we suggest a multi-tiered approach to funding conservation and building on support among wildlife stakeholders to mitigate the looming funding crisis for state wildlife agencies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2021

Perceptions of Climate Risk and Use of Climate Risk Information by Natural Resource Conservation Stakeholders Participating in ADVANCE Projects in Asia and Latin America

Integrating climate risk information into resilience-building activities in the field is important to ensure that adaptation is based on the best available science. Despite this, many challenges exist when developing, communicating, and incorporating climate risk information. There are limited resources on how stakeholders perceive risks, use risk information, and what barriers exist to limit knowledge integration. This paper seeks to define the following: 1) What do conservation stakeholders consider to be the most significant climate risks they face now and possibly in the future? 2) What have been the most significant barriers to their using climate risk information? 3) What sources and types of knowledge would be most useful for these managers to overcome these barriers? A survey was conducted among stakeholders (n = 224) associated with World Wildlife Fund projects in tropical and subtropical countries. A very high proportion of stakeholders used climate risk information and yet faced integration-related challenges, which included too much uncertainty and the lack of a relevant scale for planning. The main factors preventing the use of climate risk information in decision-making were unavailability of climate risk information, no or limited financial or human resources available to respond, lack of organizational mandate or support, and no or limited institutional incentives. Comparing perceived current and future risks revealed a decline in concern for some future climate hazards. Survey respondents identified scientific reports, climate scientists, and online sources as the most useful information sources of climate risk information, while (i) maps and illustrations; (ii) scenarios format; and (iii) data tables, graphs, and charts were identified as user-friendly formats.

Climate risk↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop: Preprint

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via technoeconomic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). The ATB data are inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL’s reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the US generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on technoeconomic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next generation technologies such as closed loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

Annual Technology Baseline↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via techno-economic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for NREL's Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), which provides inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL's reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the U.S. generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on techno-economic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next-generation technologies such as closed-loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

annual technology baseline↗
DOE OSTI2024

Strategies and Good Practices to Support Robust Stakeholder Engagement in Multi-Sector Energy Transition Planning

This document discusses strategies and good practices to facilitate diverse stakeholder engagement and inclusive decision-making within the context of complex energy system modernization studies and multi-sector energy transition planning, drawing upon the knowledge and expertise of numerous USAID, NREL, and other DOE laboratory practitioners with international and domestic energy planning experience. Examples of multi-sector energy transition analyses from the United States are included in this document to draw out relevant lessons learned and experience for the USAID-NREL Partnership - strategies and good practices will be updated over time as new insights emerge through collaboration with international partners and stakeholders. Considerations included within this document can also be used to support stakeholder engagement at the sector level (e.g., for power, transport, buildings), in addition to integrated approaches.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Co-Optima Stakeholder Listening Day Summary Report

On June 16–17, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) convened the Optima Stakeholder Listening ay to share information on an emerging effort to concurrently investigate the optimization of fuels and vehicles. At the time of the stakeholder listening day, this effort was referred to as “Optima.” The revised name of the effort is Co-Optimization of Fuels & Engines (Co-Optima). The effort and the listening day will use the term “Co-Optima” hereafter in this report.Co-Optima officially began in FY 2016 and is a collaboration of the DOE Vehicle Technologies Office, Bioenergy Technologies Office, and the DOE national laboratories. In FY 2015, DOE invited industry stakeholders to the listening day to obtain critical input on the opportunities and challenges of this effort. The meeting was held in Golden, Colorado, and hosted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon neutrality in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur: Insights from stakeholder-driven integrated assessment modeling

Several cities in Malaysia have established plans to reduce their CO2 emissions, in addition to Malaysia submitting a Nationally Determined Contribution to reduce its carbon intensity (against GDP) by 45% in 2030 compared to 2005. Meeting these emissions reduction goals will require a joint effort between governments, industries, and corporations at different scales and across sectors. In collaboration with national and sub-national stakeholders, we developed and used a global integrated assessment model to explore emissions mitigation pathways in Malaysia and Kuala Lumpur. Guided by current climate action plans, we created a suite of scenarios to reflect uncertainties in policy ambition, level of adoption, and implementation for reaching carbon neutrality. Through iterative engagement with all parties, we refined the scenarios and focus of the analysis to best meet the stakeholders’ needs. We found that Malaysia can reduce its carbon intensity and reach carbon neutrality by 2050, and that action in Kuala Lumpur can play a significant role. Decarbonization of the power sector paired with extensive electrification, energy efficiency improvements in buildings, transportation, and industry, and the use of advanced technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage will be major drivers to mitigate emissions, with carbon dioxide removal strategies being key to eliminate residual emissions. This study highlights the participatory process in which stakeholders contributed to the development of the model and guided the analysis, as well as insights into Malaysia’s decarbonization potential and the role of multilevel governance.

cities↗
DOE OSTI2015

Transmission and Alternatives Analysis and Strategic Stakeholder Engagement

Over the life of this 3-year agreement NREL has developed data, tools, and analyses for utilities to integrate high levels of solar, and demonstrated reliability results to produce a reduction in cost and lower overall risk for stakeholders. There were five projects that made up the Agreement 25805 portfolio, including: 1. Phase 3 of the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study which studied WECC large-scale stability and frequency response. 2. Transient Solar Model Development which developed a generic solar model for cycle-by-cycle analysis. 3. Utility Scale PV Plant Demo which demonstrated control capability on a demo plant. 4. Targeted Transmission Support which contributed to transmission planning with reinforcements 5. Strategic Stakeholder Engagement which communicated and disseminated latest research with utility and industry stakeholders so that discussions and decision-making can be informed by the most current and reliable information available.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2004

An Approach to Tailoring Major Technical Reviews Based on Project Characteristics and Stakeholder Interests

There are numerous technical reviews that occur throughout the systems engineering process life cycle. Many are well known by project managers and stakeholders such as developers and end users, an example of much is the critical design review (CDR). This major milestone for a large, complex new project may last two or more days, include an extensive agenda of topics, and entail hundreds of hours of developer time to prepare presentation materials and associated documents. Additionally, the weeks of schedule spent on review preparation is at least partly at the expense of other work. This paper suggests an approach for tailoring technical reviews, based on the project characteristics and the project manager s identification of the key stakeholders and understanding of their most important issues and considerations. With this insight the project manager can communicate to, manage expectations oc and establish formal agreement with the stakeholders as to which reviews, and at what depth, are most appropriate to achieve project success. The authors, coming from diverse organizations and backgrounds, have drawn on their personal experiences and summarized the best practices of their own organizations to create a common framework to provide guidance on the adaptation of design reviews to other system engineers.

Richstein, Alan B.↗