|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK + PDF PAPERBACK PDF BOOK PDF CHAPTERS Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 115
4
Report of the Panel on the
Aerospace Industry
This report was prepared by the Panel on the Aerospace Industry, one of five
panels formed by the Committee on the Impact of Academic Research on Indus-
trial Performance. The panel of five included three members of the NAB (one
from academia and two from industry), one other member from academia, and
one from industry. Two of the NAE members were also members of the parent
committee. The charge to the panel was to evaluate the past impact of academic
research on the performance of the aerospace industry and identify ways to in-
crease the impact in light of recent and ongoing changes in the structure and
economic situation of the industry. The report is intended for policy makers in
industry, government, and academia. Industry performance was defined as share-
holder value. This metric differs from the traditional measure of success in
the aerospace industry, which was its contribution to national security or to the
space program.
The aerospace industry was selected for study as an example of an industry,
now relatively mature, that developed with extensive funding by government in
research and technology and that is dependent on advanced technologies for its
present and future economic competitiveness. Therefore, the industry might pro-
vide a baseline for comparison with other less mature industry sectors.
The aerospace industry has been the beneficiary of more than 50 years of
government-subsidized research conducted by industry, universities, and govern-
ment laboratories. Subsidies have taken the form of direct funding by the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Air Force,
other defense-related funding, incentives in government contracts, and tax incen-
tives; research was focused primarily on improving performance to meet the
115
OCR for page 116
116 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
needs of national defense and the space race. In recent years, large cuts in federal
support, combined with other competitive and financial pressures, have resulted
in major changes in the industry.
Dramatic consolidation, largely the result of huge cuts in defense spending
and greater emphasis on the use of commercial, off-the-shelf technologies in the
1990s, as well as increasing global competition, has changed the scope, priorities,
and practice of aerospace R&D. Spending on R&D in the industry declined
throughout the 1990s to less than half its peak in 1987. In 2000, total R&D
spending (by government, industry, and other institutions) in aerospace totaled
about $10.3 billion, accounting for roughly 9 percent of R&D among manufac-
turing industries (NSF, 2001a). Employment is down 40 percent from its peak in
1989, and the number of scientists and engineers in 1999 was less than half the
number employed in 1986 (AIA, 2001~. (It is interesting to note, however, that
over the last two decades scientists and engineers in the aerospace industry have
earned more than 25 percent more than their counterparts in other industrial
sectors [AIA, 20011.) As technologies have matured, margins have shrunk, cost
reductions have taken precedence over improvements in performance, and elec-
tronics and information technology now account for a large percentage of aero-
space product value and technical emphasis. Priorities in R&D have changed
accordingly.
Historic patterns of industry-university interaction, which were based on
significant government funding of R&D, have been broken; new models will
certainly emerge that encompass not only R&D funding, practice, and expecta-
tions, but also engineering education. But first, significant cultural and practical
barriers will have to be overcome. Indeed, for academic research to have the
maximum beneficial effect on the new aerospace industry, the entire structure of
academic research in aerospace will have to change.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
According to government classifications, the aerospace industry includes
aircraft (NAICS 336411), aircraft engines and engine parts (NAICS 336412),
aircraft equipment and parts (NAICS 336413), missiles and space vehicles and
parts (NAICS 336414), guided missile and space vehicle propulsion units and
parts (NAICS 336415), and guided missile and space vehicle parts not classified
elsewhere (NAICS 336419~. The panel has expanded this definition to include
space-based information systems, a burgeoning segment of space commerce. The
academic community that supports the industry was also defined broadly to in-
clude departments of mechanical engineering, materials science and engineering,
and computer science, as well as the relatively few departments of aero-
space englneenng.
Overall industry sales for 2000 exceeded $146 billion (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 2002~. The panel considered it essential to limit discussion to five sectors
OCR for page 117
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
117
of the industry that made significantly different contributions to total industry
shipments of 1999-2000.2
· gas turbine propulsion systems: $10 billion
· civil transport aircraft: $30 billion
.
launch vehicles: $11 billion
· unmanned aerial vehicles: less than $1 billion
· space-based information systems: $12 billion
Because the first three are mature sectors, cost and reliability have replaced
performance as their principle criteria for success. The last two are relatively
immature sectors that are undergoing rapid development and are, therefore, more
dependent on new technologies.
Gas-Turbine Propulsion Systems
The gas-turbine industry developed in the 1950s and 1960s with the rapid
conversion of both military and commercial aircraft from reciprocating to jet
propulsion engines. Initially, several companies entered the arena, but in a rather
short time all but about a half-dozen had dropped out, either because of the large
financial investment required or because of technical difficulties. Currently, three
large manufacturers of jet engines General Electric Aircraft Engines, Pratt &
Whitney, and Rolls-Royce are engaged in intense competition for both military
and commercial business. Smaller firms supply niche markets, such as general
. · · ·.
aviation or missiles.
Driven by competition for higher thrust/weight ratios and lower fuel con-
sumption, the providers of jet engines are pressing materials and fluid mechanical
and solid mechanical design procedures to their limits. In this high-stakes busi-
ness, the development of a new engine costs up to $1 billion, and companies are
eager to take advantage of the improved understanding and new techniques that
academia can provide. The knowledge base for academic researchers is arcane,
however, and the community of researchers is small. Presently, only about a half-
dozen universities in the United States are making significant contributions.
Civil Transport Aircraft
Prior to World War II, the commercial aircraft industry was robust. With the
introduction of the jet transport in the 1950s, the industry entered a period of
rapid growth. Since the late 1970s, sales of civil aircraft have more than doubled,
from $14.3 billion to more than $38 billion (AIA, 2001~. Like the engine indus-
try, the commercial aircraft industry initially comprised several companies, all
but one of which have now been absorbed into the Boeing Company, which has
OCR for page 118
118 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
dominated the field for the last decade. In fact, because some aerospace firms that
are not formally part of Boeing manufacture major components of Boeing air-
craft, its dominance is actually greater than it appears. Boeing's only substantial
competition in commercial aircraft is Airbus Industry, a European consortium.
The commercial transport market is fiercely contested, and market share can
be gained or lost by small differences in performance or cost. Technologies to
improve performance and manufacturing are both critical to success, which creates
a fertile field for academic research. A significant contribution of academic re-
search to the industry has been the development of design techniques based in
computational fluid dynamics. For example, the Aerospace Design Program at the
Georgia Institute of Technology receives financial support from a number of aero-
space companies. In addition, the Lean Aerospace Initiative at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (see Box 4-1) and the Automation and Robotics Research
Institute at the University of Texas-Arlington are addressing manufacturing tech-
nology and management issues and have attracted significant industry interest.
OCR for page 119
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
119
Launch Vehicles
The launch-vehicle industry grew out of the ballistic missile industry with
the dawn of the space age in 1958. The new industry was entirely dependent on
government funding until the birth of the communications satellite industry in the
1970s. In the last 10 years, the commercial market for satellites has become
comparable to the government market for satellites, missiles, and NASA mission
hardware, and with the proliferation of communications satellite constellations,
the demand for launch services has grown rapidly.3 There are currently three
major U.S. suppliers of launch services (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Orbital)
and four foreign suppliers of either launch vehicles or launch services.
All but the two or three most recently developed launch vehicles have been
derived from ballistic missile technology, which was heavily funded by the
federal government from the 1950s through the 1970s. Initially, academic re-
search made substantial contributions in key technical areas, such as reentry,
OCR for page 120
120 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
the combustion of rocket engines, and the development of resin matrix compos-
ites, which are widely used in solid-rocket motor cases, nozzles, and core
vehicle components.4 In the past few years, launch vehicles have not been a
very fertile field for academic research, partly because of the lack of new
developments and partly because the major problems have been developmental
rather than basic.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Although drones have been used since the beginning of aviation as targets
and as research vehicles, unpiloted aircraft became important militarily with the
introduction of cruise missiles enabled by the development of very small gas-
turbine engines and terrain-following guidance systems, which extended their
range and gave them the capability of attacking designated targets. Unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been operational for about two decades. Recently,
however, there has been a good deal of interest in both the military and scientific
communities in the development of very small, autonomous, aerial vehicles
(microair vehicles [MAVs] so small that they are essentially covert) equipped
with miniaturized imaging systems and guidance systems enabled by micro-
circuit technology (see Box 4-2~.
OCR for page 121
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
121
Another area of growing interest is unpiloted vehicles capable of long endur-
ance flight at very high altitudes for atmospheric sampling or surveillance. This
type of UAV, marketed by innovative companies such as Aurora Flight Systems,
was facilitated by advances in lightweight materials, control technology, and
modeling and simulation. Several firms that emerged directly from academic
research continue to rely on research by academics.
Space-Based Information Systems
Space-based information systems include all systems that use orbital assets
to acquire or transmit information, such as observational satellites for military
surveillance, weather satellites, navigation and positioning satellites, and com-
mercial communications satellites. The first space-based information systems
were military surveillance satellites that were launched in the 1960s with great
secrecy. These systems have been systematically upgraded since then and are still
an essential component of our national defense. Weather satellites and early
geosynchronous communications satellites came next. The number and capacity
of geosynchronous satellites have increased steadily. The largest potential in-
crease in communication satellites, however, will be the launch of large constel-
lations of satellites, some in low-Earth orbit ("little" and "big" LEOs) and some
in specialized orbits for particular markets. Although several companies address-
ing this market failed in the late 1990s (e.g., Iridium, ICO Global Communica-
tions), others (e.g., Teledesic and Satellite LLC) plan to launch extensive satellite
networks to provide broadband data communications.5
The increase in the number of satellites has been enabled by the explosive
development of microcircuits, which made information processing possible, in-
cluding information buffering and the passing of information between satellites
in an array and ground stations. Electronic miniaturization has also made it pos-
sible to build satellites with considerable capabilities that weigh as little as
90 pounds. The key technologies for these satellites are microcircuitry, antennae,
photovoltaic power supplies, lightweight structures, and small propulsion sys-
tems for orbital positioning and maintenance. High-volume, low-cost manufac-
turing of standardized parts has been essential to the emergence of this segment
of the industry.
INNOVATION
The most obvious innovations in aerospace have come from industry
through the development of new products and systems. This pattern goes back
to the Wright brothers, who were motivated to conduct their research on airfoils
and control by a desire to build and market a useful aircraft. With few excep-
tions (e.g., Robert H. Goddard, who was a professor, and C.S. Draper, who
invented and developed inertial guidance), key innovations have not arisen
OCR for page 122
122 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
from academic research. The pioneers of aerospace were engineers and entre-
preneurs who used available technologies to create new capabilities for flight in
the atmosphere or beyond.
Several government laboratories were created to stimulate the growth of
the industry. The first of these was the National Advisory Committee for Aero-
nautics (NACA), which was created in 1915 when decision makers in the
government became aware that the United States was far behind European
nations in the development of aeronautics. The establishment of the Langley
Aeronautical Laboratory at Hampton, Virginia, followed; research there was
initially focused on aerodynamics, structures, control, and propulsion for mili-
tary aircraft. The Langley laboratory had very little connection with universi-
ties. During World War II, some universities established very large and effec-
tive R&D programs. Examples include the Radiation Laboratory at MIT, which
played a major role in the development of radar in the United States, and the
nuclear laboratories of the University of California. It is important to realize
that these were essentially industry laboratories embedded in the academic
environment for the duration of the war. They did not pursue academic research
agendas as we think of them now.
After World War II, all of the military services established laboratories to
work on the technologies most important to them. These laboratories were
staffed by a mix of civil servants and military personnel. One of the functions
of the military-service laboratories was to maintain contact with universities
by providing financial support and encouraging faculty to address issues of
concern to the services. At about the same time, the services established
organizations devoted to funding basic research. The first of these, the Office
of Naval Research, was followed by the Air Force Office of Scientific Re-
search (AFOSR) and the Office of Army Research. In their heyday, these
offices commanded sizeable research budgets and funded much of the aca-
demic research in aerospace, a good deal of it only tenuously connected to the
needs of the services.
In 1958, NASA was established with the U.S. commitment to the Apollo
Program; NASA followed a similar pattern and funded a great deal of academic
research. Whereas NACA had been almost entirely an in-house research organi-
zation devoted to aeronautical technology and facilities, NASA issued grants and
contracts to industry and universities, using its civil service workforce to manage
these activities. Of course, these research activities were subordinate to NASA' s
main mission, which was to go to the Moon.
Today, government agencies command far fewer resources for research and
have focused more tightly on their missions. Some are also reexamining their
relationships with academic researchers. For instance, in 1994 NASA's Office of
Aeronautics appointed a University Strategy Task Force to review the agency's
support of academic research and recommend policy and other changes to ensure
the long-term health of aerospace research in academia.
OCR for page 123
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
123
Because of the combination of substantial government funding and the emer-
gence of government laboratories dedicated to aerospace research, universities
assumed a role of supporting the R&D activities of the services and NASA by
addressing issues that emerged during the technology development process and
improving the base technologies for later applications. Universities also played a
large role in the development and improvement of techniques for analyzing fluid
flows and structures that were enabled by advances in digital computation. But
even in the area of computational fluid dynamics, much of the innovation origi-
nated in government laboratories and industry, with academic research playing a
supporting role.
FINDINGS
Responses to questionnaires and discussions at a workshop convened as part
of this study revealed consistent concerns about the impact of academia on the
aerospace industry and the future of the university-industry relationship (see Ad-
dendum). These concerns can be divided into five subject areas: (1) the implica-
tions of changes in the federal research support structure; (2) the value placed on
academic research and education by industry and the implications for industry
support of academic research; (3) the impact of changes in the industry on the
research and educational capabilities of universities; (4) intellectual property rights
and how they affect university-industry collaborations; and (5) arrangements to
promote cooperative research between academia and industry.
Changes in the Federal Research Support Structure
For three decades after World War II, the mission-oriented agencies of the
federal government had charters from Congress and successive administrations
to support a broad range of research without having to demonstrate the applica-
bility of the research to their missions. The first agency with this kind of flexibil-
ity was the Office of Naval Research, but eventually the Air Force, Army, NASA,
U.S. Department of Energy, and other smaller agencies were given the same
support and flexibility. Later, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) were created with specific responsibilities for
funding so-called basic research (meaning research without specific, known ap-
plications). NSF has not played a very significant role in funding for aerospace-
oriented research, although some research on manufacturing funded through the
NSF Engineering Directorate may be applicable to aerospace.
The strong support of the federal government for aerospace research has
diminished significantly in the last decade. Federal funding has fallen dramati-
cally, and available funding is being managed much more carefully to achieve
specific results at lower cost. Mission-oriented agencies now insist on demon-
strated relevance to their missions as a precondition for funding research. This
OCR for page 124
124 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
represents a significant change from the earlier mind-set when ensuring the health
of academic research was considered an important part of an agency's mission.
Beginning in 1990, the AFOSR began to assess academic research in terms
of improvements in the performance of military aircraft. Universities were no
longer considered AFOSR customers, but means to an end. AFOSR focused
particularly on how the results of academic research could be transitioned into
applications that would improve Air Force systems. For example, in fluid dynam-
ics, a mature technology, the transition has taken 20 or more years from basic
research to application. AFOSR is working toward shortening the transition time
using a new model of technological innovation based on a work published by
Stanford University, Conceptual Foundations of Multi-Disciplinary Thinking
(Kline, 1995~. Today, when the Air Force needs a new product, the reserve of
knowledge is first reviewed, and research is funded only if the necessary knowl-
edge is not available. AFOSR has found that the knowledge base created by years
of support for research is extensive and that the need for new basic research is not
as great as it once was. This reflects the maturity of the technology/product/
industry. Using this approach, AFOSR program managers have become brokers
between industry and academic researchers, facilitating networking in the re-
search community by communicating the needs of industry, the sources of knowl-
edge from past research results, and the creation of new knowledge through new
research, when necessary.
These changes have been made in other agencies as well. NASA, for ex-
ample, used to have a generic space technology research program. Today, re-
search decisions have been distributed to offices with mission responsibilities,
and only technologies with near-term mission applicability are supported.
Because of these changes, significantly less advanced research in aerospace
is being done or even contemplated by the U.S. government, potentially shrink-
ing the future pool of technology available in the field. Arguably, this situation
may be a correct response to the maturing process; technological progress in the
industry is progressing slower than in the past; the development of new aerospace
systems is now measured in decades rather than years.
Value Placed on Academic Research and Education
Industry's Viewpoint
The panel's research strongly suggests that mature sectors of the industry
value academia principally for its graduates at all levels. Therefore, industry
places more value on researchers than on research itself. Masters-level students
are especially attractive to industry because they have a broad knowledge of their
fields and have not become specialized in a narrow area of interest required for a
doctoral thesis. Although numerous technical contributions from academia can
be identified (see Box 4-3), the research results per se are not highly valued,
OCR for page 125
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
125
partly because improvements in industry performance (defined as increasing
shareholder value) can seldom be traced to them. The indirect benefits of aca-
demic research are often not recognized by industry, despite their contributions
to the knowledge base that may ultimately contribute to the development of
new technologies.
The contribution of academic research to the development of very large-
scale integration is one example. Academic research directly benefited chip
makers (e.g., Intel) and indirectly benefited aerospace companies by enabling the
development of enhanced avionics. However, research results become visible to
management only when they are applied directly to an aerospace system or im-
prove a company's performance. Another example is the development of com-
posite materials, the underpinnings for which were developed in academia and
the applications of which include turbine engines, solid rocket motors, and other
critical and noncritical engine and airframe components. The indirect benefits
may not be recognized, although they have tremendous value. In contrast, univer-
sity graduates are highly valued because they provide direct visible benefits.
If academic research is considered in the broad context of innovation pro-
cesses, it plays a very large role, along with government laboratories, in laying the
foundations of understanding that lead to the next wave of innovation. This role is
reflected in recent studies by Diana Hicks and Francis Narin (2001) of CHI Re-
search and others (e.g., Spencer, 2001) showing the predominance of academic
research papers cited in patent applications. Of the scientific papers cited on U.S.
industrial patents in 1993-1994, academic research was the source of 52.1 percent,
roughly twice the number of industry research papers (Narin et al., 1997~.
In the current environment, future opportunities for academic research will
be much more focused on issues that contribute to market success and will
require much more flexibility on the part of academic researchers. For industry,
the focus of R&D will be success in the marketplace; R&D should generate
technological discriminators, improve affordability, and create new business op-
portunities. To receive industry support, academic researchers will have to meet
industry's needs for timely and usable results. To achieve these results, industry
will have to manage its relationships with universities more effectively.
Typically, large aerospace companies define key corporate strategic oppor-
tunities and fund them first. Subsequent R&D spending authority is dependent on
profit and loss. With a few exceptions, large aerospace companies no longer have
central R&D laboratories. Instead, they use contract research capabilities when
they are available, and they fund universities philanthropically to support centers
and institutes for research in specific areas. At this stage, aerospace companies
are especially keen on the development of better methodologies and tools, such as
tools in computational fluid dynamics and the research results of the Lean Aero-
space Initiative.
Small companies maintain a very different relationship with universi-
ties for a number of reasons. First, there is a significant state and federal
OCR for page 134
134 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
long-term needs. The UTCs have quarterly management meetings and annual
reviews with Rolls-Royce managers, and they compete for funding to ensure that
the company gets value for its money. UTCs are also part of the firm's recruit-
ment and training strategy, ensuring access to the best people the UK with the
necessary technological training. University Technology Partnerships (UTPs),
intended to complement the UTCs, involve suppliers, customers, and other Euro-
pean universities. For example, the Rolls-Royce UTP in Engineering Design
Processes involves British Aerospace and the Universities of Sheffield, Cam-
bridge, and Southampton. It was launched in 1998 to conduct a joint program of
research into engineering design processes for the twenty-first century.
U.S. Research Partnership
One of the presentations at the workshop described the efforts of GE Aircraft
Engines (GEAE) to develop a new strategy for funding academic research, simi-
lar to the strategy used by Rolls-Royce but tailored to the issues specific to U.S.
universities. The strategy, called the University Strategic Alliance (USA), is
intended to shift the company's current pattern of funding of 140 small contracts
at many universities to funding of much larger contracts at a few universities that
could become long-term partners. The change was partly motivated by a
66 percent drop in the company's internal engineering staff, which has made the
company anxious to make more effective use of university capabilities.
GEAE' s idea behind USA is to integrate university research into the firm' s
business strategy and technology road maps. The company would enter into a
guaranteed, performance-based, five-year contract with sufficient funding to en-
sure a critical mass of capability at each university. Contracts would be focused
on specific problems, such as film cooling issues on high-pressure turbine air-
foils, in real-world contexts. The company's intent is to ensure reasonable aca-
demic freedom, reasonable protection of intellectual property rights, and oppor-
tunities for publication (with some restrictions). The universities would have
access to company technology. The company would share ownership of intellec-
tual property with the university but would generally not pay royalties.
Because protecting intellectual property can be a difficult issue, terms would
be negotiated with each university. In some cases, the company might own the
intellectual property rights but allow publication; in other cases, it might share
patents. The same university could have different contracts for the treatment of
intellectual property for different projects. A person with technical knowledge on
each side would participate in the negotiations so that decisions would not be
made solely by legal departments.
The company's goal is to enlist academic research to solve problems, many
of which require fairly basic research. The company would allow university
researchers to identify ways the problems could be solved, as long as those
approaches could actually be implemented and would result in solutions in one to
OCR for page 135
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
135
three years. The company envisions that faculty and students will come to its
facilities to learn about problems in a real-world context and will pursue solutions
in both company and university facilities.
From the company's point of view, this kind of company-university interac-
tion would have significant benefits, particularly compared to the relatively little
value the company now receives from the academic research it funds. From the
university perspective, however, it may be difficult to participate despite assur-
ances of long-term funding. A particular concern is that the problems posed by
the company might not be attractive research subjects to faculty members be-
cause they would probably not involve problems at the intellectual frontier of the
field and, therefore, would not be supported by the academic reward system. The
arrangement might also be perceived as too restrictive in terms of publication and
the university's freedom to work with other companies. Finally, the company
may not gain access to the best researchers, who can raise research funds from
other sources without the restrictions imposed by the company and so may not
perceive any benefit from participation.
This example highlights some of the difficulties in improving university-
industry research collaborations. The proposed strategy addresses the company's
desires to have universities perform productive research and attempts to accom-
modate the university's need for open publication, protection of intellectual prop-
erty, and stable funding. Nevertheless, U.S. universities may not consider this
plan in a positive light.
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion 4-1. Academic research in aerospace is changing rapidly. The gov-
ernment policy change reducing government support for aerospace in general
means support for research in aerospace will also be reduced. Henceforth, market
forces will determine how things change, and industry and universities will have
to adjust accordingly.
Conclusion 4-2. Although industry values academia for turning out educated
graduates and, to a lesser extent, for its research results, industry is not willing to
support generalized research programs. Industry will provide support for pro-
grams with clearly identifiable impacts on its performance.
Conclusion 4-3. In the more mature parts of the aerospace industry (e.g., air-
frame and engine manufacturing), better methodologies and tools are the most
valued research products. These include tools in computational fluid dynamics
and the results of the Lean Aerospace Initiative. In less mature industry sectors
(e.g., UAVs, MAVs, and satellite-information systems), new concepts and physi-
cal understanding will be most beneficial.
OCR for page 136
136 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
Conclusion 4-4. Industry considers academic research contributions most valu-
able (i.e., most relevant and easiest to transfer) when they result from cooperative
programs with industry.
Conclusion 4-5. Issues concerning proprietary rights pose substantial barriers to
improving collaborations between academia and industry. Resolving these issues
will require compromises between industry's desire to protect intellectual prop-
erty and academ~a's desire to maintain a free and open intellectual community.
Conclusion 4-6. Formal research partnerships between industry and academia
are evolving. For new approaches to succeed, however, the academic reward
system will have to find a way to recognize the value of close collaboration
with industry.
NOTES
1Many engineering colleges have merged aerospace engineering departments with other depart-
ments, typically departments of mechanical engineering.
2Because the five subsectors studied by the committee do not align with the industry subsector
definitions used to report sales and shipments data, these numbers are rough estimates that draw
upon data from the following sources: AIA, 2001; McGraw-Hill/DOC, 2000; and CRS, 2003.
3In 1986, commercial launches accounted for only 13 percent of commercial and government
launches (excluding space shuttle launches). By 1996, commercial launches accounted for half of
the total (McGraw-Hill/U.S. Department of Commerce, 1998).
4Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed the underpinnings of laminate theory
in the 1960s. Since then, Michigan State University, Case Western University, Stanford University,
University of Connecticut, and University of Wyoming, among others, have contributed to the un-
derstanding of fiber-matrix interactions and to the modeling of mechanical analysis of compos-
ite materials.
5Satellite LLC purchased the assets of Iridium in late 2000 and relaunched operations of the
73 LEO satellites previously launched by Iridium. An additional five satellites were launched in
February 2002. See Washington Post, February 12, 2002, p. E4.
REFERENCES
AIA (Aerospace Industries Association). 2001. Aerospace Facts and Figures. Washington, D.C.:
Aerospace Industries Association.
American Society for Engineering Education. 1994. Engineering Education for a Changing World.
Washington, D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education.
CRS (Congressional Research Service). 2003. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Background and
Issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. Available online at: http://
www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31872.pdf. [August 21, 2003]
Hicks, D., and F. Narin. 2001. Strategic Research Alliances and 360 Degree Bibliometric
Indicators. Pp. 133-145 in Strategic Research Partnerships: Proceedings from an NSF
Workshop. NSF 01-336. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation.
IUGREEE. 2001. Vision 2010. Available online at: http://wwwl.eng.iastate.edu/iugreee/. [June 24,
2003]
Kline, S.J. 1995. Conceptual Foundations of Multi-Disciplinary Thinking. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
OCR for page 137
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
137
McGraw-Hill/U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. U. S. Industry and Trade Outlook '00. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
McMasters, J., B.J. White, and T. Okiishi. 1999. Industry-University-Government Roundtable for
Enhancing Engineering Education. AIAA 99-0281. Reston, Va.: American Institute of Aero-
nautics and Astronautics.
Narin, F., K. Hamilton, and D. Olivastro. 1997. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and
public science. Research Policy (26)3: 317-330.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 1997. Report of the University Strategy
Task Force. Washington, D.C.: Office of Aeronautics, NASA.
NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NSF (National Science Foundation). 2001a. Research and Development in Industry: 2000. NSF 03-
318. Table A-3. Online at: http://www.nsfgov/sbe/srs/nsfO3318/start.htm. [June 24, 2003]
NSF. 2001b. Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2000, S.T. Hill, author. NSF 02-305.
Arlington, Va.: Division of Science Resources Statistics, National Science Foundation.
Spencer, J. 2001. How relevant is university-based scientific research to private high-technology
firms? A United States-Japan comparison. Academy of Management Journal 44(2): 432-440.
Toon, J. 2001. Flying on Mars. Research Horizons 19(1): 19-23. Available online at: http://
gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-fOl/mars.html. [June 24, 2003]
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2002. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2002. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/
statistical-abstract-02.html. [June 24, 2003]
Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1991. The Machine That Changed the World. New York:
Harper-Collins.
OCR for page 138
138
ADDENDUM
Questionnaire
The following questionnaire was sent to selected individuals in various seg-
ments of the aerospace industry, some of whom attended the December 1998
workshop. Included among the questionnaire respondents were senior executives
at Aerospace Corporation, Boeing, Draper Laboratories, GE Aircraft Engines,
Lincoln Laboratories, NASA Lewis Research Center, Northrop Grumman, Or-
bital Sciences Launch Systems, Orbital Space Systems, Rolls-Royce Allison,
SAIC, TRW, Inc., and professors with expertise in aerodynamcs, heat transfer,
high-speed instrumentation, and turbomachinery from Iowa State University,
Ohio State University, and Carnegie Mellon University.
STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON
INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
1. Please identify the targeted sector or sectors of the aerospace industry with
which you are most familiar.
Space-based information systems
Launch vehicles
Transport aircraft
Unmanned aerial vehicles
~ Gas turbine propulsion systems
2. Please describe any cases you are aware of in which the contributions and
impact of academic research to seaports) have been clearly evident. What were
the circumstances that led to the favorable outcome? (If possible, please supply
references to published information.) Please use additional pages, as necessary.
3. Overall, would you describe the impact of academic research on industrial
performance in your rectory) of the aerospace industry as (please put an X in one box):
1. very large
2. large
3. medium
4. small
~ 5. very small/nonexistent
4. The Panel has identified a number of mechanisms (listed below) by which
it believes academic research has an impact on performance in the aerospace
OCR for page 139
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
139
industry. Please rate the importance of each mechanism using the same 1-5 scale
used above [where 1 is "very large" and 5 is "very small/nonexistent." Where
possible, please write down under each item some specific contributions you are
aware of that have been made by academic research to industry via the mecha-
nism. Please use additional pages, as necessary.
A. Research-related Education end training (of graduate students)
i. et the M.S. level
ii. at the Ph.D. level
B. Invention and Innovation
For example, please consider any specific patents owned by a uni-
versity or specific innovations resulting from university research
that have been of benefit to your business or industry.
C. Consulting
This refers to faculty providing expert advice to the industry.
D. Technology Filtering
This refers to the role of academic research in helping compa-
nies identify research/technological opportunities and research/
technological "dead ends."
E. Tools and Productivity
This includes the development of analytical, computational, and
experimental tools and methods that are adopted by industry.
F. Pontification, Professionalism, Foundations
This refers to the function offaculty in documenting and presenting
information critical to aerospace; in conveying relevant informa-
tion to others in the profession, investors, and legislators; and
to service to the profession, for instance, in organizing and sustain-
ing professional societies, industry associations, and other
trade groups.
5. Are there systematic trends that will either increase or decrease the impact
of academic research in the future? For example, the Panel perceives that indus-
trial in-house research is being de-emphasized as a result of downward pressure
on engineering staff sizes. Is this a trend you perceive also? If so, will this result
in more or less opportunity for productive research partnerships between industry
and academe? Are there other trends of importance? Please use additional pages,
as necessary.
OCR for page 140
140 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
6. What changes are required, if any, in academic research if it is to be
responsive to trends and emerging challenges in the industry? Please use addi-
tional pages, as necessary.
7. To what extent is academic research relevant to aerospace justified for the
research results it produces versus the academic infrastructure (faculty, post-
docs, other research personnel, facilities) it supports, which enables the other
contributions outlined above in question #4? Please use additional pages,
as necessary.
8. Do you see any downside to enhancing university-industry research col-
laboration? Things to be avoided? Please use additional pages, as necessary.
9. Other comments? Please use additional pages, as necessary.
OCR for page 141
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Workshop Agenda
WORKSHOP ON ENHANCING ACADEMIC RESEARCH
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
December 4, 1998
National Academies Building
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
9:00 a.m. Introduction to Study and Summary of Status
J. Kerrebrock
9:20 a.m. Summary of Findings from Questionnaire
T. Mahoney
9:30 a.m. Session I: General Discussion
141
How have changes in the aerospace industry, as well as changes in
academia, especially engineering, affected university-industry re-
search cooperation?
How might the future of research cooperation be different from the past?
What role does academic research play in the total research enter-
prise (industry, university, government) in this industry?
10:15a.m. Break
10:30 a.m. Session II: Discussion of Specific University-industry
Interactions: Presentations by Industry Participants
criteria to determine what types of research universities do best
managing the research interaction: definition of deliverables,
monitoring progress
· long-term vs. short-term collaborations
· single firm vs. consortia-based collaborations
· stellar examples of success and failure
12:00 p.m. Working Lunch
OCR for page 142
142 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
12:30 p.m. Session II Continued: Presentations by Academic Participants:
· sources of research funding
· preferred research for industry and expectations of industry
· managing interaction with industry, both for specific research
projects and overall
· long-term vs. short-term collaborations
· single firm vs. consortia-based collaborations
· stellar examples of success and failure
1:30 p.m. Session III: Detailed Discussions (in breakout groups, if desired)
2:30 p.m. Presentation and Discussion of Findings
1. Can best practices be identified? Do they correlate to research
with significant impact? Can the impact from academic research
be clearly differentiated from the impact of internal and govern-
ment research?
2. How might university-industry research collaboration be man-
aged better to meet the needs of both?
3. How essential is industry participation in academic research, as a
funder, definer, and active participant, both from the industry
viewpoint and to meet the academic mission of research and edu-
cation?
4. Is it possible to maintain the desired educational role of academia,
in the absence of traditional academic research programs? If not,
then how do we motivate and justify academic research, espe-
cially at the Ph.D. level, in the absence of a strong need for its
research output?
3:30 p.m. Formulation of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
4:30 p.m. Adjourn
OCR for page 143
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Jack L. Kerrebrock, chairs
Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
William F. Ballhaus, Jr.
Corporate Vice President
Science and Engineering
Lockheed Martin Corporation
John S. Baras
Director, Center for Satellite and
Hybrid Communication Networks
University of Maryland
Jewel B. Barlow
Director, Glenn L. Martin Wind
Tunnel
University of Maryland
Robert A. Delaney
Chief, Design Technology
Rolls-Royce Allison
Robert M. Ehrenreich
Senior Program Officer
National Materials Advisory Board
National Research Council
Antonio L. Elias*
Senior Vice President, Advanced
Programs
Orbital Sciences Corporation
*Parley member
143
Workshop Attendees
Kenneth C. Hall*
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing and Materials Science
Duke University
David Heebner (retired)
SAIC
Robert J. Hermann*
Senior Partner
Global Technology Partners, LLC
Wei H. Kao
Director, MMTC Structural Materials
Department
The Aerospace Corporation
Kent Kresa*
Chairman, President, and CEO
Northrop Grumman Corporation
John S. Langford
Chairman
Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.
James McMichael
Program Manager
DARPA/TTO
Art Roch
Director, Advanced Technology
Commercial Aircraft Division
Northrop Grumman Corporation
OCR for page 144
144 THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE
Arun K. Sehra
Deputy, Aeronautics Directorate
NASA Lewis Research Center
S.K. Varma
Aerospace Consultant
Bethesda, Maryland
David C. Wisler
Manager, University Programs and
Aero Technology Labs
GE Aircraft Engines
Consultant to the Aerospace
Industry Panel
Thomas C. Mahoney
Director, WV-MEP
West Virginia University
NAE Program Office Staff
Tom Weimer, Director
Proctor Reid, Associate Director
Robert Morgan, NAE Fellow and Senior Analyst
Penny Gibbs, Administrative Assistant
Representative terms from entire chapter:
industrial performance
