Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.
Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.
Measurement, evaluation and learning are part of our DNA. From the start, we have been outcomes-driven, and through the years, we’ve relied on rigorous inquiry and adaptive management to guide our work. The scope of the challenges we prioritize guarantee that results are never certain and that conditions are constantly and unpredictably changing. Comprehensive investigations, well-vetted theories of change, and honest evaluation of our impact help us make informed decisions and reveal lessons from our successes and failures.
Gordon and Betty Moore “believe that science and the type of rigorous inquiry that guides science are keys to achieving the outcomes we want. Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.”
Upholding our founders’ values and beliefs, we practice adaptive management a systematic method for project management. It integrates design, management, monitoring and evaluation to provide a framework for testing assumptions, adaptation and learning. We believe that when those closest to the work, including our own staff and grantees, use adaptive management, they can improve effectiveness and impact. Institutional curiosity, innovation and a willingness to be open to change and failure are necessary skills for this approach.
The Four Filters
To evaluate possible ideas, programmatic activities and any significant potential endeavors, we consistently ask four questions:
1. Is it important? Successfully addressing the issue will result in large positive benefit or avoidance of substantial negative consequences.
2. Can we make an enduring difference? Significant enduring impact can be achieved that would not be achieved without Foundation support.
3. Is it measurable? To track progress and confirm outcomes, measurement against goals is necessary. It is often difficult to implement, but key to our quantitative approach to philanthropy.
4. Does it contribute to a portfolio effect? Synergy can increase impact and a portfolio can decrease risks.
Investigate
Through standalone grantmaking and formal investigations, the foundation explores potential areas of opportunity to determine if and how the foundation can make an enduring difference.
By staying well-informed in our areas of focus and making decisions on the basis of knowledge, analysis, external input and objective due diligence, our program teams cultivate a pipeline of ideas that can be accelerated if funding is available.
Measure and evaluate
The Four Filters question, “Is it measurable?” is core to every funding decision we make. Given the complexity of problems we aim to tackle, we often embark on work knowing we will need to expect a time horizon of decades, rather than years, to achieve the outcomes we seek.
Early in the foundation’s history, former President Ed Pehoet, Ph.D. emphasized, ‘’each program that we fund should have a set of measurable outcomes within a decade – and I think it’s a good time frame to think about. Shorter than a decade-off is too short. Longer than a decade becomes too abstract. . . I think if you can’t measure something in 10 years probably it means it may be too big a problem or the measurements just aren’t there.”
Monitor and adapt
Defining those long-term outcomes doesn’t mean we wait a decade to measure progress. Instead, we look for intermediate results that signal whether we are on track to what we hope to achieve, and we invest in research to better understand whether our theories of change hold. In both instances, our findings may help to validate our strategic plans or alert us to the need to adapt our strategies to changing knowledge or circumstance.
For example, nearly eight years into our XX-year, $XXX million Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, we funded a scientific analysis of the relationships between salmon diversity, habitat and ecology. That research affirmed that the abundance and diversity of wild salmon were not put at risk by salmon management practices reinforcing the critical importance of the strategy.
Exit responsibly
Measurement and evaluation also help us to assess when our investment in a given area may have a diminishing return. Our long-term initiatives are built upon comprehensive plans that theorize how our funding across multiple strategies will lead toward the ultimate outcome we seek. When we launched the Data-Driven Discovery Initiative in 2013, our aim was to research through support of data-driven scientists and their innovative approaches.
The initiative was responsive to research and analysis that showed a significant gap in public and private funding for data science efforts focused on the natural sciences. By investing in this area at an early stage, we helped researchers apply data science to their work and generated broader use of data science in the natural sciences across the country.
Five years into the initiative, a comprehensive external evaluation and assessment by an external expert panel in 2018 revealed that the landscape of funding for data science had shifted significantly during the course of the initiative. Those findings led us to reevaluate our funding approach. We shifted funding to solidify the gains of the initiative and boost the development and use of data science tools for the natural sciences, with the intent to close the initiative in 2021.
Gordon and Betty Moore “believe that science and the type of rigorous inquiry that guides science are keys to achieving the outcomes we want. Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.”
From the start, we have sought to achieve ambitious outcomes. When we say we rely on scientific methodology, we mean we approach our work systematically, we identify measurable goals, we take stock along the way and adapt to changing conditions, we posit a causal chain we call a theory of change to guide our choice of strategies and interventions, and we measure results. Comprehensive assessments, well-vetted theories of change, and honest evaluations are hallmarks of our approach and reveal lessons from our successes and failures.
Our practice of adaptive management integrates design, management, monitoring and evaluation to test assumptions, adapt to changing conditions, and learn from experience. Adaptive management, for the foundation and our grantees, depends on institutional curiosity, innovation and a willingness to be open to change and failure.
The Four Filters
To assess possible ideas, programmatic activities and any significant potential endeavors, we consistently ask four questions:
- Is it important? Successfully addressing the issue will result in large positive benefit or avoidance of substantial negative consequences.
- Can we make an enduring difference? Significant enduring impact can be achieved that would not be achieved without Foundation support.
- Is it measurable? To track progress and confirm outcomes, measurement against goals is necessary. It is often difficult to implement, but key to our quantitative approach to philanthropy.
- Does it contribute to a portfolio effect? Synergy can increase impact and a portfolio can decrease risks.
Outcomes and measurement
The Four Filters question, “Is it measurable?” is core to every funding decision we make. Given the complexity of problems we aim to tackle, we often embark on work knowing we will need to expect a time horizon of decades, rather than years, to achieve the outcomes we seek.
Early in the foundation’s history, former President Ed Penhoet, Ph.D. emphasized, “each program that we fund should have a set of measurable outcomes within a decade – and I think it’s a good time frame to think about. Shorter than a decade-off is too short. Longer than a decade becomes too abstract … I think if you can’t measure something in 10 years probably it means it may be too big a problem or the measurements just aren’t there.”
Assess and adapt
Assessments along the way can point to needs for change and can also affirm progress and strategic approach. For example, halfway into our 15-year, 200 grant Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, we funded a scientific analysis of the relationships among salmon diversity, habitat and ecology. That research affirmed “the critical importance of maintaining population diversity for stabilizing ecosystem services and securing the economies and livelihoods that depend on them.”
Exit responsibly
Measurement and evaluation can point to times an investment in a given area may have a diminishing return. Our long-term initiatives are built upon comprehensive plans that theorize how our funding across multiple strategies will lead toward the ultimate outcome we seek. When we launched the Data-Driven Discovery Initiative in 2013, our aim was to accelerate scientific research by supporting data scientists and their innovative approaches.
The initiative was responsive to research and analysis that showed a significant gap in public and private funding for data science efforts focused on the natural sciences. By investing in this area at an early stage, we catalyzed the application of data science in the natural sciences across the country.
Five years into the initiative, a comprehensive external evaluation and assessment by an external expert panel in 2018 revealed the rapid maturation of the field, with increased funding from public and private sources. Those findings led us to reevaluate our approach. We shifted funding to solidify the gains of the initiative and boost the development and use of data science tools for the natural sciences, with the intent to complete our work in the initiative by 2021.
Whether through successful achievement of objectives or shifting priorities, exits are inevitable. Thoughtful planning can ensure that a conclusion in funding respects grantees and participants, as well as organizations, communities and ecosystems that benefitted from the grantmaking. Ending grantmaking in a given area thoughtfully and responsibly, with clear communication, protects relationships forged over years, and it opens the way for new investments in creating durable change for future generations.
History of the
Marine Microbiology Initiative
000,000,000
This is a fairly long deck that is a good, quick summary of the content below
uiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as et ant atiae verum laciet labor modia pos quidus, optaturesto blant.Eque opti ut quam volore reperiat.Ecae velenit, consero rpore, ius as maiore, corempos net litas assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.
Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as empos net litas assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.
Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as empos net litas
“Quote from one of the participants in this inititiave. that is compelling and forward thinking”-
Name Here
Title
assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as empos net litas assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.
Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis.
annual report
Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.
Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.
Measurement, evaluation and learning are part of our DNA. From the start, we have been outcomes-driven, and through the years, we’ve relied on rigorous inquiry and adaptive management to guide our work. The scope of the challenges we prioritize guarantee that results are never certain and that conditions are constantly and unpredictably changing. Comprehensive investigations, well-vetted theories of change, and honest evaluation of our impact help us make informed decisions and reveal lessons from our successes and failures.
Gordon and Betty Moore “believe that science and the type of rigorous inquiry that guides science are keys to achieving the outcomes we want. Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.”
Upholding our founders’ values and beliefs, we practice adaptive management a systematic method for project management. It integrates design, management, monitoring and evaluation to provide a framework for testing assumptions, adaptation and learning. We believe that when those closest to the work, including our own staff and grantees, use adaptive management, they can improve effectiveness and impact. Institutional curiosity, innovation and a willingness to be open to change and failure are necessary skills for this approach.
The Four Filters
To evaluate possible ideas, programmatic activities and any significant potential endeavors, we consistently ask four questions:
1. Is it important? Successfully addressing the issue will result in large positive benefit or avoidance of substantial negative consequences.
2. Can we make an enduring difference? Significant enduring impact can be achieved that would not be achieved without Foundation support.
3. Is it measurable? To track progress and confirm outcomes, measurement against goals is necessary. It is often difficult to implement, but key to our quantitative approach to philanthropy.
4. Does it contribute to a portfolio effect? Synergy can increase impact and a portfolio can decrease risks.
Investigate
Through standalone grantmaking and formal investigations, the foundation explores potential areas of opportunity to determine if and how the foundation can make an enduring difference.
By staying well-informed in our areas of focus and making decisions on the basis of knowledge, analysis, external input and objective due diligence, our program teams cultivate a pipeline of ideas that can be accelerated if funding is available.
Measure and evaluate
The Four Filters question, “Is it measurable?” is core to every funding decision we make. Given the complexity of problems we aim to tackle, we often embark on work knowing we will need to expect a time horizon of decades, rather than years, to achieve the outcomes we seek.
Early in the foundation’s history, former President Ed Pehoet, Ph.D. emphasized, ‘’each program that we fund should have a set of measurable outcomes within a decade – and I think it’s a good time frame to think about. Shorter than a decade-off is too short. Longer than a decade becomes too abstract. . . I think if you can’t measure something in 10 years probably it means it may be too big a problem or the measurements just aren’t there.”
Monitor and adapt
Defining those long-term outcomes doesn’t mean we wait a decade to measure progress. Instead, we look for intermediate results that signal whether we are on track to what we hope to achieve, and we invest in research to better understand whether our theories of change hold. In both instances, our findings may help to validate our strategic plans or alert us to the need to adapt our strategies to changing knowledge or circumstance.
For example, nearly eight years into our XX-year, $XXX million Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, we funded a scientific analysis of the relationships between salmon diversity, habitat and ecology. That research affirmed that the abundance and diversity of wild salmon were not put at risk by salmon management practices reinforcing the critical importance of the strategy.
Exit responsibly
Measurement and evaluation also help us to assess when our investment in a given area may have a diminishing return. Our long-term initiatives are built upon comprehensive plans that theorize how our funding across multiple strategies will lead toward the ultimate outcome we seek. When we launched the Data-Driven Discovery Initiative in 2013, our aim was to research through support of data-driven scientists and their innovative approaches.
The initiative was responsive to research and analysis that showed a significant gap in public and private funding for data science efforts focused on the natural sciences. By investing in this area at an early stage, we helped researchers apply data science to their work and generated broader use of data science in the natural sciences across the country.
Five years into the initiative, a comprehensive external evaluation and assessment by an external expert panel in 2018 revealed that the landscape of funding for data science had shifted significantly during the course of the initiative. Those findings led us to reevaluate our funding approach. We shifted funding to solidify the gains of the initiative and boost the development and use of data science tools for the natural sciences, with the intent to close the initiative in 2021.
.jpg)
Gordon and Betty Moore “believe that science and the type of rigorous inquiry that guides science are keys to achieving the outcomes we want. Scientific methodology should be a cornerstone of nearly all of the foundation’s efforts.”
From the start, we have sought to achieve ambitious outcomes. When we say we rely on scientific methodology, we mean we approach our work systematically, we identify measurable goals, we take stock along the way and adapt to changing conditions, we posit a causal chain we call a theory of change to guide our choice of strategies and interventions, and we measure results. Comprehensive assessments, well-vetted theories of change, and honest evaluations are hallmarks of our approach and reveal lessons from our successes and failures.
Our practice of adaptive management integrates design, management, monitoring and evaluation to test assumptions, adapt to changing conditions, and learn from experience. Adaptive management, for the foundation and our grantees, depends on institutional curiosity, innovation and a willingness to be open to change and failure.
The Four Filters
To assess possible ideas, programmatic activities and any significant potential endeavors, we consistently ask four questions:
- Is it important?
Successfully addressing the issue will result in large positive benefit or avoidance of substantial negative consequences. - Can we make an enduring difference? Significant enduring impact can be achieved that would not be achieved without Foundation support.
- Is it measurable? To track progress and confirm outcomes, measurement against goals is necessary. It is often difficult to implement, but key to our quantitative approach to philanthropy.
- Does it contribute to a portfolio effect? Synergy can increase impact and a portfolio can decrease risks.
Outcomes and measurement
The Four Filters question, “Is it measurable?” is core to every funding decision we make. Given the complexity of problems we aim to tackle, we often embark on work knowing we will need to expect a time horizon of decades, rather than years, to achieve the outcomes we seek.
Early in the foundation’s history, former President Ed Penhoet, Ph.D. emphasized, “each program that we fund should have a set of measurable outcomes within a decade – and I think it’s a good time frame to think about. Shorter than a decade-off is too short. Longer than a decade becomes too abstract … I think if you can’t measure something in 10 years probably it means it may be too big a problem or the measurements just aren’t there.
Assess and adapt
Assessments along the way can point to needs for change and can also affirm progress and strategic approach. For example, halfway into our 15-year, 200 grant Wild Salmon Ecosystem Initiative, we funded a scientific analysis of the relationships among salmon diversity, habitat and ecology. That research affirmed “the critical importance of maintaining population diversity for stabilizing ecosystem services and securing the economies and livelihoods that depend on them.”
Exit responsibly
Measurement and evaluation can point to times an investment in a given area may have a diminishing return. Our long-term initiatives are built upon comprehensive plans that theorize how our funding across multiple strategies will lead toward the ultimate outcome we seek. When we launched the Data-Driven Discovery Initiative in 2013, our aim was to accelerate scientific research by supporting data scientists and their innovative approaches.
The initiative was responsive to research and analysis that showed a significant gap in public and private funding for data science efforts focused on the natural sciences. By investing in this area at an early stage, we catalyzed the application of data science in the natural sciences across the country.
Five years into the initiative, a comprehensive external evaluation and assessment by an external expert panel in 2018 revealed the rapid maturation of the field, with increased funding from public and private sources. Those findings led us to reevaluate our approach. We shifted funding to solidify the gains of the initiative and boost the development and use of data science tools for the natural sciences, with the intent to complete our work in the initiative by 2021.
Whether through successful achievement of objectives or shifting priorities, exits are inevitable. Thoughtful planning can ensure that a conclusion in funding respects grantees and participants, as well as organizations, communities and ecosystems that benefitted from the grantmaking. Ending grantmaking in a given area thoughtfully and responsibly, with clear communication, protects relationships forged over years, and it opens the way for new investments in creating durable change for future generations.
History of the
Marine Microbiology Initiative
000,000,000
This is a fairly long deck that is a good, quick summary of the content below
uiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as et ant atiae verum laciet labor modia pos quidus, optaturesto blant.Eque opti ut quam volore reperiat.Ecae velenit, consero rpore, ius as maiore, corempos net litas assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.
Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as empos net litas assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.
Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as empos net litas
“Quote from one of the participants in this inititiave. that is compelling and forward thinking”-
Name Here
Title
assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis endandignis doloriatiam, cor aut esenecti is asint laboremqui dollore volut laceptatur sent.Ro tem ventem quianis quid mos as empos net litas assequosam, optatet, ut ad quam estium repudae omnis aut lautet andanimagnis excessundae. Puditia nulparum in nitiur.
Quiam sed esto is modit mi, unt unturem dolorer chicabo rrovitatio tota quodit ventiisi temo bea nescili tamusdam exeruptate nonsequis.