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

The committee’s overall evaluation of each of the four core research models that were identified and described in Chapter 3 is presented in this chapter. Each model is evaluated on the basis of how well it accomplishes the program goals and objectives of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) that were discussed in Chapter 2. The structure for evaluating each follows the format of Chapter 2. Each model is evaluated separately, and no attempt is made to compare or rank the models relative to one another. The discussion makes clear that some models are better at fulfilling certain objectives while others are better at fulfilling other objectives. Thus the overall selection of one of the models as superior to another is left to the judgment of ONR, which must weigh the relative importance of each objective to justify a selection.

In general, the objective that is best served by this model is that of providing the means for talented individuals (faculty, graduate students, professionals in industry) to focus on a specific research topic, bringing in the best knowledge and methods from the entire breadth of disciplines represented on a university campus or in a private R&D organization. The model is aimed at developing analytical and creative thinking in the individual that can later be applied in solving new design and engineering problems, rather than at equipping the individual with a set of design tools to be applied in immediate, but more or less standard, design situations. The approach might be described as one of developing human capital in universities and research firms.

The individual investigator model, overall, provides good support to this goal by attracting talented and enthusiastic students and by retaining and attracting quality faculty, because a main focus of the model is on a close and nurturing student–faculty educational relationship. The model supports creative talent in industry and government by promoting similar relationships there. However, the model is less capable of supporting continuing education and training and fostering total ship engineers because those objectives are sel-

dom emphasized in the typical university or private research organizational setting. The evaluation details for each objective are discussed below.

The model provides only limited opportunity for public education except possibly through media coverage of research results. It can provide good opportunities for career path presentations to both undergraduate and graduate students. The only opportunities for outreach at the primary and secondary education levels may be through media coverage of research projects and university recruiting publications aimed at school counselors. Interactions between students and industry are possible, depending on the nature of the research; examples involve data gathering or observations in shipyards or at sea.

The model can provide excellent opportunities for undergraduate research, since this is an important way in which universities attract graduate students. Similarly, the model provides an excellent introduction to career and research opportunities at both the undergraduate and graduate levels through faculty contacts, seminar speakers, and other normal aspects of the university experience. The provision of scholarships, fellowships, and research assistantships is fundamental to this model since the students supported by such means are the primary research workers. The provision for support of study and work abroad is very much dependent on the nature of the research. A graduate research assistant might spend some time working at another institution in order to work for a limited time with a specific individual or group to learn a new discipline or procedure that is useful to the project under which he or she is supported.

The individual investigator model has an excellent potential for supporting this goal because it provides the sponsor commitment needed to attract and retain good faculty. It has broad scope for research opportunities that appeal to faculty and that are central to successful career development in a university environment. Depending on the nature of the individual research, there may be good support for developing the research infrastructure, such as laboratory and other physical facilities. The model also provides the optimum incentives and reward structure for academic professionals. Opportunities for faculty teaming across disciplines are limited but may exist in the case of co-principal investigators. Career development is most strongly enhanced within the university context, where research productivity is a cornerstone of professional advancement. Outside consulting opportunities are not likely to be developed directly as a result of research under this model, but they are always a possibility for talented investigators.

The individual investigator model does not normally contribute directly to this objective. The professional community is not normally involved in merit review except in the form of peer review of publications that may come out of the research. Usually, no courses are developed, so professional involvement in course development is not a relevant issue. Opportunities for distance learning and on-site instruction may be developed only incidentally to the research as a result of certain outputs, such as video records that may be incorporated in university distance learning programs. The individual investigator model provides little or no opportunity for collaboration among stakeholders in teaching or research; the fostering of networks and communities of practice; or the exchange of personnel among government, academia, and industry.

Rather than fostering total ship engineers, the individual investigator model is more likely to foster engineers who can deal with unprecedented design problems. Except in a research project specifically concerned with developing methods of total ship design, it does not encourage development of a total ship design curriculum. Similarly, the model does not inherently strive for synthesis of multidisciplinary knowledge, provide interdisciplinary design team experience, or provide access to advanced design tools and training. It also has limitations with regard to the integration of research projects into total ship systems because it would not usually be used to sponsor design competitions or enhance university–industry communication on advanced designs.

The model, overall, appears to support the objective of stimulating innovation while being less supportive of objectives that require collaborative efforts and the creation of links from research to ship production. The following discussion provides details of the evaluation under each objective.

The stimulation of new research ideas is a hallmark of the type of individual involved in typical programs within this model. By the nature of the model, the setting of priorities and the sharing of decision making among stakeholders are not part of the process but are normally performed by the sponsor. However, the model provides excellent means for bringing in new talent and innovative ideas. The structure and incentives for collaboration are limited except in the case of co-investigators.

Cross-fertilization may present a special problem for the individual or small group that may be somewhat isolated. Thus it is especially important for the principal investigator and students to visit other investigators doing related work and to attend technical meetings where their own and other researchers’ results are presented and discussed. To enhance technical interchange under this model, it is important to bring in distinguished guest researchers from other institutions. Support for such contacts should form a part of any project accomplished under this model.

Innovation is often the key element of research under this model, since the individual involved is usually an original and creative thinker. The funding decision usually involves only ONR and the investigator who proposes the work, so the process is, in principle, inherently flexible and capable of fast response. Tolerance for risk is usually high, if only because the amount of funding involved is small. Incentives and rewards are built into the university system, where advancement is strongly dependent on research productivity. Continuation of funding is based, at least in part, on the ONR research supervisor’s knowledge of the subject area and thus his or her ability to critically evaluate the results. Direct knowledge of the investigator’s reputation and ability similarly is a characteristic of ONR’s oversight personnel and process. These have traditionally been key parts of the ONR process in support of university-centered research.

The university environment in which the individual investigator works normally provides excellent opportunities for learning from other fields through such means as library resources and consultation with colleagues from diverse disciplines. However, the opportunity for the direct promotion or adoption of research outcomes is limited. The results are usually disseminated through publications and reports rather than through direct contact between research personnel and potential users. Some of this material may find its way into regular course work as well as continuing education courses. The direct development of design leadership is not a significant output of this research model. The graduate students may develop, incidental to their work, some useful management and leadership skills depending on the nature of their work assignments and the degree of responsibility that they are given.

There is no sharing of decision making by stakeholders under the individual investigator model, except that ONR generally performs the proposal review. Merit review by experts and stakeholders will, in general, take the form of peer review of publications that result from the research. Such publications

as well as professional conference proceedings are the principal means of technology transfer. Depending on the particular research, prototype and other testing to produce empirical data may or may not be a part of the research, but in some cases, the production of such data may be the principal objective. Except in research related to specific design problems, linking of research to design and production is not typically an output of this model. In most cases, results are published in professional journals, and linking of the research to design is left to the designer or industry user.

This model provides an excellent venue for involving many elements of the profession in selecting appropriate research topics, evaluating proposed projects, and linking research and production organizations. This is because the professional societies and communities of practitioners usually represent a wide spectrum of engineering disciplines in ship design and production. Professional societies maintain many technical committees that contain experts in every discipline of design and construction and therefore would be uniquely able to provide these functions in a cooperative research organization.

The professional society model provides good support to the goal of developing human capital because of its ability to involve many areas of the profession within the process of operating a research organization. These linkages to the profession, inherent in this model, would also be a valuable asset to incorporate into other models. The model will be effective in supporting this goal as described under the following objectives.

The professional society model could excel in promoting public education and suggesting career paths to students. It could also, with some reconfiguration of existing professional societies, do well in supporting primary and secondary education outreach because of the geographic distribution and the large number of members. Most professional societies already support the goal of interaction between students and industry, and this model should improve present programs. The model will provide undergraduate research opportunities only if it is explicitly designed to do so because typical professional societies do not support such opportunities, although they do sponsor design competitions and could build on them. The task of presenting

career and research opportunities to high school students could be carried out by this model with good results, again, because of the geographic distribution of the membership. Similarly, the model could do well in identifying candidates for scholarships and fellowships for students and research assistants. By using international connections already present in professional societies, the model could also support study and work abroad.

The professional society model could provide only modest support for this objective because it has no easy connection to faculty networks and incentives. The model is seen as having a limited role in developing a supportive infrastructure because present societies do not have close working relationships with universities. Similarly, the task of developing an incentive/reward structure for faculty could be given only limited support. The supply and quality of students would only be moderately supported by the model because of the distribution of membership as noted above. At the same time, the professional society model could do well at supporting faculty teaming opportunities across disciplines through its technical committees. Faculty consulting opportunities and career development could be moderately supported by the model.

The professional society model would excel in involving the professional community in merit review for continuing education and training because that function is inherent in the societies already. It could also facilitate professional involvement in course development and in opportunities for distance learning and on-site instruction through its broad connection to industry and technical committees. While this model could be excellent at fostering networks and communities of practice, it could probably only be moderately successful at providing collaboration among stakeholders for teaching and research because its connections to university systems are weak. However, encouraging the exchange of personnel among government, academia, and industry should be an easy task since the professional societies maintain membership data that would be useful in carrying out this objective.

The professional society model should do well at encouraging a total ship design curriculum, because it could readily provide a synthesis of multidisciplinary knowledge and interdisciplinary design team experience. Such support would be provided by members who are identified to have this experience.

The model could only slightly support access to advanced design tools and training and could only moderately help the integration of research projects into the total ship system, since there are no direct connections to the end users. On the other hand, this model is in an excellent position to sponsor design competitions (as professional societies do now) and to coordinate university and industry communication on advanced designs.

The objective of supporting design for manufacture and operation is only moderately supported by this model. There could be some support by providing industry contacts through the technical committees.

In general, the professional society model provides moderate support to the goal of revitalizing naval engineering and improving ship design and production because, although it has opportunities for meeting the underlying objectives, it has no significant features that would lead to superior attributes. The professional society model is seen more as a continuation and affirmation of existing R&D practices than as a vehicle for innovation and new research opportunities.

This model is seen as only moderately helpful in establishing a process for setting research priorities, because there is usually no direct tie between societies and universities. The community that is expected to provide leadership for this model tends to focus on mature technology and thus would not be particularly adept at establishing mechanisms for bringing in new talent and innovative ideas. The model might do well at supporting shared decision making by stakeholders if specific committees were established. Similarly, it is seen as having an excellent opportunity to provide structure and incentives for collaboration.

The professional society model has a limited capability for providing flexibility in funding or fast response to financial changes because of the inherent bureaucracy in the organization. This factor would also result in a moderate tolerance for risk. Most professional societies have only a moderate capability to provide rewards and incentives for new ideas and approaches. The relatively closed character of most societies would be expected to limit learning from other fields to a moderate level. However, this model would do well at promoting avenues for adoption of outcomes because of its strong connection to industry and design professionals.

The professional society model could support shared decision making by stakeholders if balance in stakeholder input were given high priority in the research council and the technical committees. The timeliness and effectiveness of this are of concern. For merit review by experts, this model could support mechanisms for technology transfer and deployment. Both of these tasks could be supported by the technical committees. Similarly, good support could be provided by the model for prototype testing and for linking research to design and the product, because the community of practitioners forming the basis of this model have the depth of experience and background to accomplish this objective.

In general, the consortium model offers significant promise for achieving most of the stated objectives under both of the ONR goals. It has the flexibility to solicit internally and support both individual investigator and multidisciplinary team research. The committee believes it to have excellent abilities to support most of the attribute measures that are important to developing human capital and promoting collaborative and innovative work. It is seen as having no serious deficiencies in achieving the attributes discussed in Chapter 2. However, government sponsors need to develop working relationships within any cooperative agreement to sponsor a consortium that account for the different organizational cultures found in a university, government, or industry setting. Some of these factors are included in the evaluations below under the individual goals and objectives.

The consortium model has excellent capabilities to support this goal because it can be organized with all of the key objectives as inherent operating principles. Leadership qualities among senior and student researchers can emerge naturally and be nurtured within this kind of organization. However, it is important to pay close attention to the detailed organizational structure for this model so that each objective is recognized as important and adequate incentives and rewards are provided.

This model has an excellent potential to suggest career paths to students and for outreach to primary and secondary students because the initial organiza-

tion can be done with these objectives in mind. The model can do an excellent job in promoting interaction between students and industry via co-op programs, internships, colloquia, mentoring, and collaborative networks. Some advance understandings with ONR would be necessary concerning the combinations appropriate for the specific academic institutions involved in any consortium. The model could also provide excellent undergraduate research opportunities and could do well at presenting career and research opportunities to students. It would be excellent in administering funds for scholarships, fellowships, and research assistantships as part of a cooperative agreement. Since interest in and the capability to provide opportunities for study and work abroad might be uneven across the academic community, the overall potential of the model is judged to be moderate.

The potential for sponsoring commitment to research in the case of new faculty is excellent, and the consortium model is excellent in providing continuity of research funding for its participants. This model is also viewed as excellent in providing broad research opportunities, both basic and applied, and in developing new infrastructure (e.g., equipment, technology, and staff). The caveat here for the more prestigious research institutions must be an advance agreement that new faculty who do applied research will be included in the institutional reward system; otherwise, they will likely hesitate to take this work on at the beginning of their academic careers. The capability to develop new infrastructure will depend on the financial resources provided to the participants in many, if not most, cases. The supply and quality of students and faculty teaming opportunities are viewed as excellent features of this model. Other good features include career development via industry and government teaming and consulting opportunities.

The consortium model provides an excellent opportunity to involve the professional community in merit review of R&D projects through its oversight committee structure, which involves representatives of industry, government, and academia. It is viewed as having similarly excellent potential to facilitate professional involvement in course development, opportunities for distance learning and on-site instruction, and collaboration among stakeholders in teaching and research, and to encourage exchanges of personnel among academia, industry, and government. It should also do well at fostering networks and communities of practice as long as there is a concerted effort to do so within the governing and management process.

A consortium has good potential to encourage total ship design in the curriculum, as long as the requirement to do so is built into the cooperative agreement with ONR. It is also an excellent way to obtain a synthesis of multidisciplinary knowledge and to provide interdisciplinary design team experience and access to advanced design tools and training. The model is judged good in integrating research projects into the total ship system, sponsoring design competitions, understanding design in the context of manufacturing and operations, and facilitating university–industry communication on advanced designs.

In general, the consortium model has a good to excellent capability to support this goal because it can be organized in a way that stimulates new research through collaborative planning and merit review mechanisms. The details of evaluation are discussed below.

The model is excellent in such specific aspects as setting priorities, establishing a vision, doing strategic planning, including stakeholders in the sharing of decision making by providing structure and incentives for such collaboration, and offering mechanisms for bringing in new talent and innovative ideas. In the latter connection, it is recommended that ONR require the consortium management team to reserve contingency funds for this purpose in every yearly budget.

Even though the committee could not make accurate and absolute evaluations, it believes that this model has certain inherent abilities to create an innovative atmosphere and to reward innovative behavior among involved professionals. This needs to be accomplished through flexibility of funding and thoughtful approaches to supporting new research topics. Innovation could be a result of a well-organized, well-operated consortium.

The consortium model could promote innovation by providing flexibility and fast response to funding changes. It could do this by closely integrating the administrative staff with the program director. With its broad and flexible programming capabilities, the model should have good tolerance for risk and could be excellent in applying incentives and rewards for new ideas because of its internal flexibility in decision making. The opportunities for

cross-disciplinary research inherent in this model should make for excellence in learning from other fields. The model also would do well at promoting avenues for adoption of outcomes, most likely through a formal technology transfer program. Using multidisciplinary teams, it should be excellent in stimulating and developing design leadership qualities.

The model provides an excellent opportunity for shared decision making by stakeholders regarding resource allocation through the selection of membership in the governing bodies. It offers excellent potential for merit review by experts and stakeholders, as well as mechanisms for technology transfer and deployment. It should do well at producing empirical data via prototype testing and at linking research to design and production.

In general, the committee found that this model had reasonable capabilities to support some ONR goals and objectives but was lacking in other key attributes. This is mainly because of the project-centered approach to the basic organization, which creates limitations for a dedicated long-term commitment to both human capital development and integrated and collaborative research programs.

The project-centered model of cooperative research, overall, provides somewhat less support to this goal than does the professional society model and considerably less than does the consortium model. The evaluation details for each objective are discussed below.

This model could do well in the areas of public education and suggesting career paths to students. The combined public relations capabilities of the university, government laboratories, and industry would be available to develop and promulgate educational information. Practitioners from both government and industry would be expected to be enthusiastic in recruiting new students at the university partnered with them. It would be expected to do poorly on outreach at the primary and secondary education levels because there would be no long-term educational activity. Both the finite life of the project and the concentration on a single subject work against the creation and maintenance of a broadly based program aimed at these levels. This model should do well at fostering interaction between students and industry. On the basis of the close

relationships inherent in a project-oriented organization, there should be both opportunity and motivation to develop these interactions. The model should be excellent at providing undergraduate research opportunities, including summer jobs and activities yielding academic credit. But the project-centered model would be only moderately successful at presenting career and research opportunities to the students because there is unlikely to be outreach beyond those students directly connected to the project. The model should do well at providing scholarships and fellowships or research assistantships. Projects of this type typically provide for such stipends in their budgets and could readily include scholarships for undergraduates as well as graduate student support. The time span of the project would typically be long enough to support a student throughout either an undergraduate or a masters degree program. This model would be expected to have only a slight influence on study or work abroad. Except in rare instances where significant work is being undertaken in another country that would enhance the project at hand during that project’s life span, there would be little attraction in expending funds on these activities.

The project-centered model would have only a slight commitment to research continuity because the project organization would terminate at the end of the project cycle, which might be 3 to 5 years. The interest of individuals might well continue beyond this point, but there would be no organizational structure to facilitate continuing the work. The model should do well at providing broad research opportunities, both basic and applied. The projects would be expected to encompass multiple engineering disciplines and be large in scope and duration in comparison with typical single-investigator projects. This model would provide only slight opportunities to develop supportive infrastructure. Investments in major facilities, as opposed to the specialized equipment that the project would fund for its own needs, are hard to motivate when the program is of a finite length and cannot offer guarantees that similar work will be funded in the future.

The project-centered model would be expected to have a poor capability to create incentives and rewards. Researchers and project leaders would be removed from their line organizations temporarily and made part of an ad hoc team that would typically have no responsibility for determining incentive or reward structures. These responsibilities would be retained by the project members’ home organization. The model would have slight influence on the supply and quality of students. As explained previously, the project would have limited impacts outside those students actually engaged in the project. The model could do a moderate job of creating faculty teaming opportunities across disciplines. The nature of the project selected would obviously determine the scope of this opportunity, but the lack of a formal and permanent academic program within the participating university would make working across disciplines more difficult.

The project-centered model would do well at providing consulting opportunities and influencing the career development of faculty. This would be greatly enhanced by the close cooperation between faculty and professional researchers. Expertise developed during the life of the project could offer faculty participants improved visibility and utility to potential consulting clients.

The project-centered model will be excellent at involving the professional community in the merit review process because the technical review committee, which contains dedicated professionals, is maintained for the life of the project. Their principal function, once the work has begun, is to ensure that the research work is proceeding satisfactorily. But the model would be poor at facilitating professional involvement in course development. The relatively short lifetime and the lack of a formal academic unit associated with this model would give little incentive or power to influence the development of new courses. That would not preclude professionals associated with the project from participating in teaching, but such participation would not be an inherent attribute of the organizational structure.

The project-centered model will be poor at creating opportunities for distance learning and on-site instruction. The lack of a continuing program at the host university would not be conducive to the strong faculty and management commitment necessary to develop and sustain these activities. The model can be expected to have a positive influence on collaboration among stakeholders in both teaching and research. Relationships developed during the project term may be expected to continue under other funding arrangements in the future. The model would be expected to have only a slight influence on the fostering of networks and communities of practice because of the temporary nature of the organization and the relative narrowness of its aims. The model should do well at encouraging the exchange of personnel among government, academia, and industry because of the inherent creation of multiple research teams involving all the stakeholders.

The project-centered model would be expected to have no significant influence on the establishment of a total ship design curriculum. As previously discussed, the organization is poorly structured to bring about curriculum changes. The model could be moderately successful in enhancing the synthesis of multidisciplinary knowledge and in providing interdisciplinary design team experience, provided that project selection favors these activities. The model should do well at providing access to advanced design tools and associated training through the exposure of students, faculty, and other research personnel to the current industry state of the technology. The model would be moderately successful in the integration of its research projects into a total ship system. The relative suc-

cess here would depend on other organizations implementing the integration strategy after the project team is disbanded. The model would not be expected to sponsor design competitions related to total ship design. It should enhance university–industry communication on advanced designs and design for manufacturability and operation because of the close connections between stakeholders that are inherent in the organizational structure.

The project-centered model is expected to do slightly better at this goal than the professional society model but to be less effective than the consortium model. The detailed evaluation of the objectives for this goal follows.

The model is expected to be moderately successful in establishing a process for setting priorities, in sharing decision making among the stakeholders, and in establishing mechanisms for bringing in new talent and innovative ideas. All of these factors depend on the capabilities and interests of the project team and are not fundamentally influenced, either positively or negatively, by the organizational structure. The project-centered model should do well at providing structure and incentives for collaboration because it clearly enhances performance of the project and the decisions can all be made within the project team.

The project-centered model would have only moderate capabilities to provide flexibility and fast response to funding changes. With ONR funding approval for large projects, shifting funds between projects would be cumbersome. The size of the projects and the personal identification of the technical review committees with their projects would produce only a moderate tolerance for risk. These same characteristics, however, should result in good performance in providing incentives and rewards for new ideas and approaches. The organization would limit the model to only moderate capability to learn from other fields. The direct connection to industry should make this model excellent at promoting adoption of outcomes. Although the lack of exposure to other projects in this model’s organization would somewhat limit the breadth of technical knowledge gained from working on each of several projects, the management focus required to lead a major project in this model would stimulate design leadership. Professionals leading these large projects will learn to motivate corporate managers to commit their best

people and other resources to programs beyond their immediate control, and then they will have the challenge of leading a staff on temporary assignment.

The project-centered model should do well at shared decision making by stakeholders in this area, given that all parties are represented at all project management levels. The continuing technical review committees for each project should provide good support to merit review by experts and stakeholders. The model is expected to be excellent in technology transfer and deployment, in prototype testing to produce empirical data, and in linking research to design and production. In many cases, National Challenge Initiative research projects could result in large-scale models or small prototypes of advanced ships or major systems. The strong presence of industry at all levels in the organization structure should help achieve success in these objectives.

The committee’s evaluation of the three selected cooperative research organizational models shows that there are fundamental differences inherent among the models but also that there are common features and benefits among them. Taken together, the common features indicate that all of the models are able to meet the goals and objectives set out by ONR to some degree. Only the specific measures of that ability to meet objectives set the models apart from each other. Table 4-1 summarizes the capability of each of the three cooperative models (and the baseline model) to meet the stated objectives.

The committee found that all three models for cooperative research organizations that it evaluated are capable of meeting all of ONR’s program objectives. With regard to the ability to meet human capital and naval engineering and design objectives, the consortium model was found better than the professional society model, but both were significantly better than the project-centered model. Table 4-1 illustrates how well each of the three models fulfills the stated objectives. The absolute ranking of these models, however, will depend on the relative importance given by the sponsor to each objective.

In its evaluation process the committee found that the cooperative research models had many attributes that would be useful in meeting certain specific objectives. Both the consortium and project-centered models have abilities to encourage innovative research through their inherent structure. However, one key to implementing research into innovative ship design is the ability of the Navy and other stakeholders to overcome the natural tendency of an organization to resist change. The overcoming of such resistance can be encouraged by the management of an organization but must be continually reinforced.

All of the cooperative models possess characteristics in varying degrees that encourage research useful to advanced ship technology and design development. However, the consortium and project-centered models involve a high degree of stakeholder participation and therefore have a higher probability of meeting the Navy’s needs in this area.

Total ship engineers are developed through a combination of formal total ship design curriculum and hands-on design experience in multidisciplinary projects. Regardless of the model selected, the ability to foster total ship engineers depends on the opportunities available to all stakeholders that enable them to obtain the necessary formal education and design experience.

In its evaluation process, the committee found that each of the three cooperative research models possessed certain particular merits unique to that model. For example, the professional society/community of practice model can excel in meeting the need to develop human capital. This model has the potential to be particularly strong in attracting and retaining students, supporting continuing education and training programs, and fostering the education and development of total ship engineers. Such strength is based on the fact that these are principal missions of professional societies. The consortium model has characteristics that are well suited to meeting all human capital development and naval engineering design objectives for cooperative research programs. However, its success in meeting these objectives will be principally determined by the leadership of the consortium and its ability to adequately represent and balance the needs of the various stakeholders. Finally, the project-centered model has the potential to excel in promoting innovation in naval engineering design and in promoting research that is useful to ship design and production. This strength is based on the strong, large-

scale, interdisciplinary project focus inherent in the model, which includes participation and encourages collaboration of the key stakeholders.

If ONR implements one or more of the organizational models discussed above, it will need to develop additional details for the structure it selects. While the committee has not investigated the functioning of several existing programs that might be considered examples of each organizational structure, a number of such examples do exist, and descriptions can be found in references to this report. It might be useful for ONR to investigate these examples. Examples of the consortium model include the National Science Foundation’s Engineering Research Centers Program, the National Shipbuilding Research Program, and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. Examples of the professional society model include the Civil Engineering Research Foundation, the Council for Chemical Research, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Center for Research and Technology Development. Examples of the project-centered model can be found in work by Ferreiro (2001).

The committee found that the desirable features and attributes of the models might be combined to create hybrid models. Such models might be used to maximize the performance of the research organization in meeting program objectives. The hybrids, however, generally increase the complexity in managing the research enterprise. Examples of hybrids might include embedding the individual investigator model into the cooperative agreement organizational models, including the project-centered approach into the consortium/ center and professional society models, or embedding both the project-centered and individual investigator models into the consortium or professional society models. The committee has not evaluated these hybrids but has only noted that such combinations are always available to a creative manager.

Ferreiro, L. 2001. Point Paper on the Organization of Research and Development in Europe. Office of Naval Research.

This page intially left blank