archived - pi aging simulation model - 112007 - nih存档的pi老化模拟模型- 112007 -美国国立卫生研究院

Archived File,The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.,PI Aging Simulation Model,The Current Problem:“Success to the Successful”,More Funds to Older,Experienced PIs,Allocation to Older,Experienced PIsInstead of Younger,Inexperienced PIs,Lower Success of Younger,Inexperienced PIs,Less Funds to Younger,Inexperienced PIs,Higher Success of Older,Experienced PIs,Basic Structure for Age Group,PIs in the system that have “aged” enough to move to the next age group.,New PIs (i.e., first-time) that enter the NIH pool in this age group.,PIs of this age group that leave the “system.”,Represents the number of PIs in the total pool that are in this age group.,PIs in the system that have “aged” enough to move into this age group.,Connecting Age Groups,Differences Between Models,OB:Spreadsheet methodologyStatisticalFocuses on dataStaticNo feedback loops,OER:System Dynamics (SD) methodologyOperational simulationFocuses on activitiesDynamicFeedback loops,Limitations of Simulation Model,Data begins in FY80, so “momentum” inherent in system prior to FY80 is not captured.Data available for approximately 65% of the R01 equivalents only:Age data invalid for roughly one-third of R01 data set.“Length of Service” averages based on total years of service rather than continuous years of service.Currently, there are no “feedback mechanisms” incorporated into the model:All trends are based on data and do not change dynamically or in relation with other variables.,Simulations,Baseline (FY80-FY06):FY80-FY06 entrance rate data.FY80-FY86 duration averages, FY87-FY06 uses FY86 duration averages.Scenario 1 (FY80-FY16):Same as Baseline except FY07-FY16 entrance rates use trends based on FY97-FY06 entrance rates.Scenario 3 (FY80-FY16):Same as Scenario 2 except FY07-FY16 entrance rates specified to try to keep the PI age distribution consistent with FY06.,Average Length of Service,Baseline Results,Total Number of PIs (FY80-FY06),Baseline: 1991,Actual,Simulation,Avg Age = 42.7,Avg Age = 45.6,Baseline: 1996,Actual,Simulation,Avg Age = 44.7,Avg Age = 47.3,Baseline: 2001,Actual,Simulation,Avg Age = 46.3,Avg Age = 49.0,Baseline: 2006,Actual,Simulation,Avg Age = 47.5,Avg Age = 50.8,Scenario 1 Results,Total Number of PIs (FY80-FY16),Scenario 1: 1991,Avg Age = 42.7,Scenario 1: 1996,Avg Age = 44.7,Scenario 1: 2001,Avg Age = 46.3,Scenario 1: 2006,Avg Age = 47.5,Scenario 1: 2011,Avg Age = 48.3,Scenario 1: 2016,Avg Age = 49.8,Scenario 2 Results,Scenario 2: Approach,Objective is to keep average age and approximate age distribution consistent with 2006 values:Average age = 47.5Possible policy changes to test:No new PIs older than 65 minimal impactForced retirement at 70 minimal impactForced distribution of 1500 new PIs:No new PIs at allAll new PIs 40, evenly spread for each ageAll new PIs forced to fit a specific age distribution,Scenario 2, No New PIs: 2006,Avg Age = 47.5,Scenario 2, No New PIs: 2011,Avg Age = 50.5,Scenario 2, No New PIs: 2016,Avg Age = 54.3,Scenario 2, All New PIs 40: 2006,Avg Age = 47.5,Scenario 2, All New PIs 40: 2011,Avg Age = 44.0,Scenario 2, All New PIs 40: 2016,Avg Age = 41.3,What Does This Tell Us?,We have a model that is capable of forecasting the age distributions of the PI pool given assumptions on influxes and tenures.Making dramatic changes can have dramatic impacts.,Scenario 2: New PI Distribution 1,Constant rate of 1500 New PIsAge 25-35: 25%Age 36-40: 20%Age 41-45: 20%Age 46-50: 15%Age 51-55: 10%Age 56-60: 10%Age 61-80: 0%,Scenario 2, New PI Distribution 1: 2006,Avg Age = 47.5,Scenario 2, New PI Distribution 1: 2011,Avg Age = 47.6,Scenario 2, New PI Distribution 1: 2016,Avg Age = 48.2,What Does This Tell Us?,The “ideal” age distribution for the PI pool is still an unknown target.With changes that occur due to feedback loops in the system, the established age distribution policy for new PIs for future years will likely change every few years.In other words, there is no constant age distribution policy for incoming new PIs that will provide the “ideal” PI pool age distribution over the long run.,Additional Test Scenarios for Final Workforce Group Meeting,November 14, 2007,Test Scenario: Effect of the Number of New PIs on the Average Age of the Total Pool,Age Distribution,24-35: 25%36-40: 20%41-45: 20%46-50: 15%51-55: 10%56-60: 10%61-90: 0%,Test Scenario: Effect of the Number of New PIs on the Average Age of the Total Pool,Age Distribution,24-35: 25%36-40: 20%41-45: 20%46-50: 15%51-55: 10%56-60: 10%61-90: 0%,Distribution #1,Distribution #3,Distribution #2,24-35: 25%36-40: 20%41-45: 20%46-50: 15%51-55: 10%56-60: 10%61-90: 0%,24-35: 25%36-40: 40%41-45: 15%46-50: 10%51-55: 5%56-60: 5%61-90: 0%,24-35: 25%36-40: 60%41-45: 10%46-50: 5%51-55: 0%56-60: 0%61-90: 0%,Test Scenario: Small Changes in the Age Distribution of the New PI pool,Distribution #1,Distribution #3,Distribution #2,1100 New PIs,1500 New PIs,Test Scenario: Small Changes in the Age Distribution of the New PI pool,Test Scenario: Extreme Case Replacing the PI Pool,Conclusions,The model in its current state matches historical data “qualitatively”, but could use some improvement with “quantitative” accuracy.The current “backbone” aging model needs to be enhanced to increase the quantitative weaknesses.The simulation could be improved with the addition of “recycling” of PIs as well as feedback loops regardin