Naval Engineering: Alternative Approaches for Organizing Cooperative Research -- Special Report 266 (2002)

A number of models have been used by federal agencies, professional societies, and private organizations to organize and execute research programs and projects to meet their goals and objectives. Each of these organizational models has characteristics that make it more or less effective in its ability to achieve the goals and objectives of the research program.

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) supports most of its R&D today using the traditional individual investigator model. ONR has two overall goals in adopting a new model for a naval engineering cooperative research organization and the programs and projects it is designed to accomplish. The two goals are to

1. Maintain and develop human capital, and

2. Revitalize naval engineering and improve ship design and production.

To compare approaches for organizing naval engineering research, the committee further defined these broad goals in terms of specific objectives and sets of attributes against which possible organizational models can be evaluated.

Ensuring an adequate supply of human capital for advanced naval ship systems design and production into the future is a multifaceted problem. First, there must be a steady flow of students into the naval architecture and engineering education pipeline; second, there must be a highly qualified and capable faculty to educate them; and third, there must be opportunities for continuing education for practitioners in the field. Finally, in terms of the scope of education and training for new graduates and practicing professionals, there is the need to approach ship design, development, and production/construction from the “total ship” point of view in order to meet the challenges of the future Navy. Hence, the concept of “total ship engineer” must be infused into education and professional development throughout the career path, from students to new graduates to existing professionals.

Thus, the goal of maintaining and developing human capital embodies achieving four general objectives:

The effectiveness of various organizational approaches in meeting these objectives depends on how well that approach performs in terms of a number of the key attributes that are embodied in the achievement of each objective. The committee’s definitions of the attributes for each objective are given in the following subsections.

The committee has identified the following attributes that will support this objective. The subsequent paragraphs comment on each attribute.

• Ensure understanding of naval engineering career paths and opportunities and support outreach programs at the primary and secondary education levels.

• Encourage and stimulate interaction between the shipbuilding industry and students.

• Provide undergraduate research opportunities.

• Present career and research opportunities to students.

• Develop scholarship, fellowship, and research assistantship support.

• Develop and support study- and work-abroad programs.

The challenge of attracting students into the naval engineering program pipeline is, at least in part, the same as that faced by engineering programs in general. Enrollment of all engineering students has been declining since the mid-1980s (MIT 2000). Perceptions of the attractiveness of engineering professions and the declining interest and ability of students in mathematics and science have been key contributors to the problem. Student recruitment is even more difficult for naval engineering because it is a relatively small and focused area among the other major engineering disciplines. Furthermore, naval engineering programs exist in only a handful of engineering schools and have comparatively small enrollment, making them a less visible part of the engineering professions. Potential students also tend to see the area of naval engineering as old-line, staid, and unexciting compared with other engineering areas that appear more high-tech and cutting edge. If student enrollment in the program drops below critical

levels, institutional pressure mounts to eliminate programs and reallocate faculty resources.

Attracting new students into naval engineering and retaining them in the program will require concerted efforts all the way along the pipeline. Raising public awareness and understanding is a broad challenge faced by all the engineering disciplines. Naval engineering professionals need to communicate the complex and interesting technical challenges in ship design and production in order to recruit undergraduate majors. Another problem is that engineering majors appear to have a high dropout rate (MIT 2000). Retaining students requires strong advising and mentoring at the undergraduate level and encouraging qualified B.S. graduates to pursue graduate degree programs. Against this background, the following are seen as desired attributes for cooperative research organizations to help increase the numbers of students in naval engineering programs.

Research and education are closely related activities, and each one feeds the other. Educators and researchers have come to recognize that they must help plant the seeds that will blossom into professionals and researchers. These seeds need to be sown in young minds in ways that capture the imagination, much as the space programs have done.

The pipeline for the future flow of human capital needs to be built by current professionals and academicians in interactions with potential new talent, and the process should be supported by educational programs at the primary and secondary levels. Many science and engineering research organizations have recognized this need and have incorporated an outreach dimension into their work programs. College student motivation and retention in the educational pipeline increase significantly when students have direct experiences with professionals who have expertise in their chosen field. The theory learned in the classroom and the experiment performed in the laboratory become more meaningful in the context of real applications. Student co-op and internship programs that engage industry with students can be an effective mechanism for providing these kinds of experiences.

Student retention at the undergraduate level and recruitment into graduate programs are both greatly enhanced when undergraduates become involved in research experiences. Certain research organizations can be in a unique position to structure research opportunities for students to work on open-ended problems under the close supervision of faculty. Such research experiences foster interest in and excitement about the engineering design process and build confidence, resulting in higher rates of degree completion.

Another attribute that is likely to increase students’ commitment to completing degrees is the visibility of career opportunities. Appropriate research activities and projects can be a window for students into the range of careers and professional opportunities in naval engineering.

The costs of college education continue to rise faster than the rate of inflation. Correspondingly, the lack of financial resources is one of the leading

reasons why students who are otherwise succeeding in academic programs drop out of higher education. Institutions are working to provide more financial aid to students, and students will be attracted to programs where money is available. Some research organizations can use student labor and can position themselves to support students on projects through scholarships, fellowships, or direct employment.

Industry today must compete in a global economy that is strongly driven by technological change and productivity. Ship production is no exception. Responding to these realities, students are seeking opportunities to study abroad as part of their college education. Through involvement in international professional meetings and research conferences, a research organization can be in an excellent position to foster contacts and relationships with foreign institutions with naval engineering programs to develop study- and work-abroad experiences for students.

The following attributes support this objective:

• Guarantee commitment of sponsors to research, including robustness and continuity of research funding.

• Offer broad research opportunities, ranging from basic to applied.

• Support and develop new technology and facilities and support existing infrastructure (e.g., equipment, technology, and staff).

• Provide a clear faculty incentive and reward structure (e.g., endowed chairs, professional development opportunities, and other recognition).

• Create a steady supply of highly qualified students.

• Encourage faculty teaming opportunities (multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research projects).

• Develop consulting opportunities and career development via industry and government teaming.

The second critical link in the human resources chain is the faculty of naval engineering programs. They are responsible for undergraduate and graduate education, as well as for mentoring those students in graduate programs who may become their future colleagues and leading researchers and engineers in industry. Recruiting and retaining qualified faculty are essential to keeping high-quality naval engineering programs viable. The recruitment of capable engineering faculty is in itself an expensive process, involving not only salary offers that are competitive with other institutions and industry, but also start-up funding packages to provide new faculty with laboratories and equipment. New and junior faculty are faced with the challenges of establishing themselves as both teachers and researchers and achieving professional and peer recognition for their work, which will move them successfully

through the tenure and promotion processes. Most faculty are continually struggling to secure the necessary resources, laboratory facilities, and equipment to maintain their research productivity, improve course offerings and develop new courses, and support graduate students. The main elements of an environment that encourages faculty performance and success are continuity of opportunity and incentives and rewards for achievements.

The ability of faculty to build successful research programs that attract and support a steady cadre of graduate students requires dependable and stable funding. Continuity in research project support over 3- to 4-year cycles allows faculty to develop new research ideas, involve and mentor graduate students to completion of degrees, and transfer results to users. Although funding must always be contingent on performance and results to maintain scientific excellence, the way in which research programs are structured and funded over time can either reinforce or negate the benefits of continuity.

Attracting and retaining faculty involvement in a research enterprise are enhanced by a broad array of available research areas and opportunities. Ship design and production cover multiple technologies and disciplines that need to be integrated into ship systems. The most effective research organization will accommodate broad-based research opportunities and at the same time provide adequate focus on specific projects to meet strategic needs.

Research infrastructure includes both physical facilities (laboratories and equipment) and administrative and technical support. If infrastructure is inadequate or lacking in a research program, faculty productivity is severely hampered, and recruiting and retaining faculty become difficult.

Research and scholarly activity is a generally accepted part of a faculty member’s role, and the way research is organized can improve the ability of faculty to be productive researchers. However, the basis for evaluating and rewarding scholarly productivity may be viewed differently from institution to institution. Some organizations place high value on the individual author, while others encourage teaming and multiple authors. A research organization will enhance faculty retention if it is aligned with the institutional rewards systems and provides faculty with incentives for participation in research that contributes to achieving tenure, promotions, and salary increases.

Research scientists and engineers are more typically employed in academia and government laboratories than in industry because of the flexibility to pursue their research interests. In addition, they may be stimulated and motivated by the opportunity to teach and mentor highly qualified students. Faculty recruitment and retention are enhanced by any research organization that can contribute to a reliable supply of high-quality students. A research organization that incorporates many of the attributes discussed above would likely be successful in increasing the supply of quality students.

Most engineering work is a team endeavor, and designing and building ships are prime examples. A research environment that mirrors this reality

has benefits for both faculty and students. If a research organization can include teams that provide mutual support of faculty by mentors and peers, it increases the chances for success of the individual faculty member and hence improves professional progress and retention. The opportunity for faculty to consult in the industrial world, which is the customer for naval engineering program graduates and research, helps ensure that these products meet customer needs and expectations. Consulting is also an opportunity for faculty to build industry relationships that often lead to program support and income enhancement, which encourage faculty to remain in academia. If a research organization facilitates appropriate faculty consulting opportunities, faculty retention will be enhanced.

The following attributes support this objective:

• Involve professional community in merit review of R&D projects.

• Facilitate professional involvement in course development.

• Create opportunities for distance learning and on-site instruction.

• Build collaboration among stakeholders in teaching and research.

• Foster networks and communities of practice.

• Encourage exchange of personnel among academia, industry, and government.

Education for the practicing professional does not end with the awarding of a degree or the achievement of professional licensure. The technology of ship design and production is continually driven forward by research and innovation. Obsolescence is a common problem among all engineering professions and can only be solved by providing and encouraging continuing education opportunities for professionals at all levels, in both industry and academia. Those in academia need to be exposed to the real-world issues encountered by industry in the design and production process. At the same time, industry engineers need to stay abreast of innovative ideas, tools, and methods coming from academic research. The key to bridging the knowledge and experience gaps between industry and academia is to build collaborative networks for continuing education.

The process of reviewing research project proposals offers an excellent continuing education opportunity for both faculty and industry participants by exposing reviewers to new research and technology development ideas and requiring them to critically evaluate their merits. In this way, practicing professionals who spend most of their work time solving near-term engineering problems can be exposed to basic research issues and the difficulty of creating new concepts. Development of the R&D agenda within a research

organization, through a strong peer review process, is an excellent way of involving industry and academic professionals in an intellectual environment that promotes education and professional development.

One of the benefits of research is supplying new information back into education, especially at the graduate level. This feedback is greatly facilitated by a research program that is closely coupled with related engineering degree programs. The involvement of faculty researchers and industry professionals in course development both directly and indirectly benefits the continuing education of the stakeholders.

Distance delivery of education and training through various media has greatly enhanced the opportunities for professionals to upgrade their knowledge and engineering skills. A research organization that is creating new knowledge and methods can be a source and a catalyst for distance learning opportunities.

A great deal of learning about new methods and approaches takes place when there are opportunities for interaction among professionals. A research organization that facilitates collaboration among industry, academia, and professional organizations in teaching and research programs will at the same time provide a rich environment for continuing education.

Another mechanism that can contribute to a strong continuing education environment is development of networks and communities of practice (i.e., groups of professionals who are involved in similar areas of ship system design). Often research organizations will have particular strengths and areas of expertise if they align with communities of practice and act as the catalyst in creating networks and central sources for information exchange.

Personnel exchanges—visiting professors, industry engineers in residence on campus, faculty in residence with industry, guest lecturers—have long been an effective means of sharing knowledge among academic institutions and between academia and industry. Research organizations again can position themselves to create and coordinate exchange opportunities.

The following attributes support this objective:

• Encourage “total ship design” in the curriculum.

• Strive for synthesis of multidisciplinary knowledge.

• Provide interdisciplinary design team experience.

• Provide broad access to advanced design tools and training.

• Integrate research projects into total ship system concepts.

• Sponsor design competitions.

• Foster university/industry/Navy communication on advanced designs.

• Design for ease of manufacture and operation.

Total ship design involves the integration of multiple systems requiring multiple disciplines. The common theme throughout the manpower chain is the need to educate naval engineering professionals who understand and function as “total ship engineers.” The total ship engineer must recognize and understand the levels of complexity and the need to integrate many technologies and subsystems into ship systems in order to design one of the largest and most complex total systems built by humans. The following are the key attributes of a research organization that will contribute to the development of total ship engineers.

An effective naval engineering research organization must be adept at forming and managing multidisciplinary research teams that can integrate focused research into advanced total ship concepts. By its nature, most research is focused on fairly narrow areas of inquiry with the goal of increasing depth of knowledge rather than breadth. But to be adopted and implemented, in-depth research needs to be put into the context of total ship design. A research organization can facilitate this connection by relating research programs and projects to design of the total ship and supporting total ship design in the academic curriculum so that students gain experience in all aspects of total ship engineering, in addition to an understanding of fundamental engineering concepts and methods of analysis.

Total ship design is in reality a synthesis of broad knowledge by multidisciplinary design teams. In naval engineering research, an effective research organization must be adept at forming and managing multidisciplinary research teams that can integrate focused disciplinary research into advanced total ship concepts.

An interdisciplinary design team experience, usually as part of a senior or capstone design project, has become an integral part of engineering program curricula. Nevertheless, formulating challenging design problems that student teams can complete in a senior year is not a trivial exercise. The research activities and resources of a naval engineering research organization could contribute significantly to the development of interdisciplinary student design problems and to mentoring teams.

The practice of total ship engineering involves the use of advanced design tools and software. A naval engineering research organization should be involved in the development of such tools, as well as a user of tools in carrying out research. For example, to develop total ship engineers, it is important to have these tools accessible at all levels, from undergraduate education to professional practitioners. When such tools are proprietary products, it may be possible for academic and research organizations to develop no-cost or low-cost licensing agreements to make them available.

The principal payoff of naval engineering research is its application in operational ship systems. Transfer of research results and new technology to ship acquisition programs is the hardest bridge to cross in the R&D process. A research organization has a clear responsibility to the sponsor to develop

mechanisms for technology transfer, or in other words, integration of its research into ship systems.

One of the proven ways to achieve an interdisciplinary design team experience for undergraduate students is participation in design competitions. Many engineering professional societies organize and sponsor annual design competitions, with regional winners moving on to national finals. The design problems are challenging and provide an arena in which students can further develop their technical and creative skills in that field of engineering. Design competitions either sponsored by or facilitated by a naval engineering research organization can be structured in a way to contribute to educating total ship engineers while also accommodating various academic schedules and priorities.

The total ship engineer cannot accomplish successful work without communication and coordination among the members of the design team, nor can total ship design become fully embedded in the culture of naval architecture and engineering without communication among the professionals of stakeholder groups—academia, shipbuilders, and the Navy. The naval engineering research organization is in a position to create opportunities for communication among professionals through research seminars, conferences, project advisory panels, and reviews.

Naval engineering is no longer viewed as a sequential process in which systems design engineers pass their work along to systems integrators, who then turn the project over to manufacturing and production engineers, who then deliver the final product (the ship) to the customer’s engineers for operation and maintenance. A total ship engineering philosophy considers all of these aspects in the design concurrently and involves all the appropriate engineering disciplines in the process. Likewise, the projects and programs of a naval engineering research organization should incorporate the same consideration of the production and operational aspects of implementing research results and new technologies in advanced total ship systems.

The United States has a critical need to support more creative new naval engineering research, to develop higher-performing and more cost-effective new ship designs, and to accomplish more innovative total ship system engineering. The product of naval engineering research must be readily transferred to the next stage in technology development. The committee organized these needs into three challenges. First, a process should be established to create new research projects that directly support the design of advanced ships for the Navy. Second, these research projects should be focused on innovative technologies combined into innovative ship concepts. Finally, from

the beginning, research should be done with the end product in mind. Thus, the goal of revitalizing naval engineering and improving design and production requires achieving three general objectives:

The following attributes support this objective, and the subsequent paragraphs comment on them.

• Establish a process for setting priorities, establishing a vision, and strategic planning.

• Provide shared decision making by stakeholders.

• Provide mechanisms for bringing in new talent and innovative ideas.

• Provide structure and incentives for collaboration among the stakeholders.

The committee selected attributes for this objective on the basis of the need to establish a strategic research planning process that would involve shared decision making by all the major stakeholders. The plan should include mechanisms for bringing new technology ideas and professional talent into the research work. The organizational structure and well-developed incentives should support collaboration among the stakeholders.

The key to the initial success of a cooperative research program is to establish a consensus strategic plan among the participants. The strategic plan should be developed with the help of strategic planning experts and through the use of a carefully deliberative process involving all the major stakeholders. Major stakeholders include the Navy and key representative industry and university players. A proven consensus-building procedure that ONR could adopt would be to conduct a facilitated strategic planning workshop with experienced and responsible participants from all major stakeholders and key players in the R&D and educational processes. The resulting consensus plan would include a vision, a mission statement, objectives, goals, and strategies for implementation. It could carefully define the R&D areas of strategic interest and assign priorities to these research areas. During the solicitation for, selection of, and review and evaluation of a research project, the government and shipbuilding industry, as well as the universities, all need to be participants in the decision-making process.

It is not sufficient to establish a research program, staff it with qualified personnel, and direct it to innovate. Creative new ideas and technologies are most often developed by individuals and small groups of individuals on

the basis of their talent, experience, and motivation. Often the best technologies are developed by relatively independently operated organizations outside of the university community. To be successful, an organizational model should have mechanisms to bring in new talented people, concepts, and technologies.

To be most effective, an organizational model should encourage meaningful and ongoing collaboration among stakeholders, including government, industry, and academia.

The following attributes support this objective:

• Flexibility of funding (fast response and limited bureaucratic requirements),

• Tolerance for risk,

• Incentives and rewards for new ideas and approaches,

• Opportunities to learn from other fields,

• Promotion of change, and

• Stimulation of design leadership.

One of the desired results of any research activity is innovation in the design, performance, or production of products. Yet innovation is a significant challenge because of its very nature and because of the inherent characteristic of organizations to resist change. James Utterback points out that change does not come easily to human societies and concludes that to succeed, the organization must focus not on its products but on its people (Utterback 1994, 89). The committee identified several factors that might enable organizations to induce innovation, including flexible research funding, tolerance for risk, adequate employee incentives, support of interdisciplinary work, and flexible organizational structures.

Flexibility of funding can avoid the limitations of narrow guidelines and strict standards in pursuit of new ideas and approaches. Funding flexibility can provide quick support for good new ideas and ideas of unknown impact. Funding mechanisms also must have the ability to terminate failed projects promptly.

Research programs aimed at innovative approaches seldom have guaranteed results. Consequently, R&D programs need to have room for failure as well as success. Projects that do not deliver the intended results might have value in the sense that they provide learning and can help in planning subsequent research. Overly intense screening of proposed research will limit results to predictable outcomes with limited benefits.

An organization demonstrates its ability to tolerate risk by rewarding new ideas and approaches. Such procedures must be tied to risk taking and not ex-

clusively to success, and they should include recognition and reward systems. Such systems should identify effort and quality of work, not just the result.

It is important that organizations understand that innovation can take place by incremental changes. Small elements of research may reap small but important improvements (Kanter et al. 1997, 89). Reward system measures, therefore, should recognize that incremental changes are themselves valid innovations even though the result might appear small. Some studies indicate that organizations that focus on incremental innovation may bypass the older established firm because of this flexible approach (Leifer et al. 2000). Also, major changes can create organizational resistance, which might not be the case for smaller changes. Therefore, a practical approach to encouraging innovation is to recognize each event, even though it may be small, and encourage it to grow.

Research programs are typically targeted to achieve results within particular disciplines. Perhaps more difficult is the ability of an avenue of research to open itself to input and ideas from other technologies. To exclude such input is to put limits on innovation. Programs that reach out to other technologies and that might create new areas of investigation should be part of the research structure. This “out of the box” approach will be one of the keys to innovation. Synergistic effects might be obtained from the U.S. Navy and successful commercial exchange of design strategies and fabrication technologies. Professional societies might be a vehicle for implementing this concept.

To promote adoption of change within an organization, an adaptable culture must be encouraged. Kanter et al. (1997, 89) point out that “innovation happens on the fringes in out of the way places away from the dampening influences of bureaucracy and politics. There are many reasons why companies lack innovation; failure of human imagination is not one of them. The failure is in the culture and structure.”

Innovation finds a home in organizations that encourage openness and cross-communication. An example of this is described in “Gunfire at Sea, a Case Study in Innovation,” a short article on the development of naval gunnery (Morrison 1966). The example describes a proposal for improvement of naval gunnery by a junior officer in a remote assignment. Repeated efforts to obtain recognition and broad application were refused. In fact, the reference describes the process of refusal as (a) ignoring the proposal, (b) studied rational (sounding) rebuttal, and (c) argument and name-calling. Ultimately, the frustrated innovator submitted his ideas to President Roosevelt, who saw to their application. The development resulted in great benefit to the Navy.

Many organizations have evolved with research groups separate from the business side, reporting separately to management. This provides some insulation from commercial pressures and may allow an atmosphere more tolerant of risk. There is a popular assumption that such is the case (Leifer et al. 2000). It is vital, however, that open lines of communication exist between the operational and research areas. To support innovative research, typical measures applied to operational or business organizations may need

to be modified to better fit the more flexible goals of research organizations. Funding flexibility, tolerance for risk, and acceptance of failure are all prerequisites of an innovative research organization that should be recognized and promoted.

Excellent research is unlikely to produce design leadership if there is no outlet for implementing innovations resulting from the research. An avenue is needed in the organization that translates research into operating equipment, on the basis of a strong linkage between research and design activity. Those organizational relationships should be carefully examined to ensure that the proper connections exist. A substantial program of personnel movement between ONR and the Naval Sea Systems Command would help improve understanding and communication between those entities. Routine meetings to encourage exchange of ideas and to build relationships should help achieve this goal.

As is the case for most organizational issues, great leadership can obviate inherent difficulties. It is the Navy’s and the naval engineering community’s challenge to stimulate design leaders and allow them the opportunity to overcome the innate challenges of the bureaucracy.

The following attributes support this objective:

• Promote shared decision making and resource allocation by stakeholders.

• Provide merit review by experts and stakeholders.

• Provide mechanisms for technology transfer and deployment.

• Promote prototype testing to produce empirical data.

• Link research to design and production.

R&D resource allocation should be a shared responsibility of all the stakeholders. Joint participation in the research selection process and the review of research results is critical to ensure that results are of value to the next stage in the development process. The R&D results should be linked to design and eventually production, although not to the extent that creative and innovative ideas are discouraged in the early development process. Universities will typically accomplish the majority of the research work, but the government and the shipbuilding industry should be involved in the decisions on funding and strategic planning. While the government and industry should be involved in this decision process, a tolerance for higher-risk, higher-payoff research should be maintained.

It is important for any organization to provide merit reviews by experts and stakeholders to ensure that the research fulfills the goal of producing better ship designs. Review and evaluation by stakeholders and technical and

business experts are most effective if they begin at the solicitation, proposal evaluation, and project implementation stages. They should continue throughout the R&D process.

It is essential that the approach to R&D include meaningful techniques for transferring the data and knowledge of basic and applied research done by academia, supporting contractors, and independent technology companies to the users of the resulting technology in ship design and production. For this to take place, the research results must be relevant and useful to the ship owner and operators and to the shipbuilding industry.

In the early 1950s, the Navy operated an experimental destroyer to develop, test, and operationally evaluate advanced ship design features such as high-pressure steam propulsion plants (Knox 1954; Knox 1956). Since that time, the U.S. technology community has developed powerful new analytical tools but has done few or no full- or large-scale tests to validate the analytical calculations. Most researchers support more prototype testing to demonstrate concepts and validate analytical models. Subsystem prototypes can be tested on existing operational ships, or a dedicated test ship could be built for this purpose. Advanced ship concept prototypes should also be built and tested. A research program including prototype testing has the benefit of promoting an active technology transfer mechanism.

To meet the Navy’s needs, the definition and selection of R&D projects should be based on their usefulness and application to designing and constructing innovative ships. To achieve this goal, the research projects should be managed to make the resulting technology, knowledge, and data directly support advanced ship design through the research, development, engineering, and design chain. In ONR’s vision of National Challenge Initiative, innovative ships are strongly endorsed. Examples are high-speed ships, littoral warfare ships, and advanced electric drive, including superconducting motors and generators. These initiatives produce the added benefit of ensuring a direct connection from research results to ship designs.

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kanter, R. M., J. J. Kao, and F. D. Wiersema. 1997. Innovation: Breakthrough Thinking at 3M, DuPont, GE, Pfizer, and Rubbermaid. HarperBusiness, New York.

Knox, LCDR R. J. 1954. The Twentieth Century Clermont (USS Timmerman EDD 828). Naval Engineers Journal, Feb.

Knox, CDR R. J. 1956. Twentieth Century Clermont’s First Cruise. Naval Engineers Journal, May.

Leifer, R., C. M. McDermott, G. C. O’Connor, L. S. Peters, M. Price, and R. W. Veryzer. 2000. Radical Innovation: How Mature Companies Can Outsmart Upstarts. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

MIT. 2000. Naval Engineering—A National Naval Obligation. Cambridge, Mass.

Morrison, E. 1966. Men, Machines and Modern Times. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Utterback, J. 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

This page intially left blank