ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION

Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems

Committee on Accelerating Technology Transition

National Materials Advisory Board

Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems Committee on Accelerating Technology Transition National Materials Advisory Board Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. MDA972-01-D-001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09317-1 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-54583-8 (PDF) Available in limited quantities from: Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 bmed@nas.edu http://www.nas.edu/bmed Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems COMMITTEE ON ACCELERATING TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION DIRAN APELIAN, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Chair ANDREW ALLEYNE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign CAROL A. HANDWERKER, National Institute of Standards and Technology DEBORAH HOPKINS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory JACQUELINE A. ISAACS, Northeastern University GREGORY B. OLSON, Northwestern University RANJI VAIDYANATHAN, Advanced Ceramics Research, Inc. SANDRA DeVINCENT WOLF, Consultant Staff ARUL MOZHI, Study Director LAURA TOTH, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD JULIA M. PHILLIPS, Sandia National Laboratories, Chair JOHN ALLISON, Ford Research Laboratories PAUL BECHER, Oak Ridge National Laboratory BARBARA D. BOYAN, Georgia Institute of Technology DIANNE CHONG, The Boeing Company FIONA DOYLE, University of California, Berkeley GARY FISCHMAN, University of Illinois, Chicago KATHARINE G. FRASE, IBM HAMISH L. FRASER, Ohio State University JOHN J. GASSNER, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center THOMAS S. HARTWICK, TRW (retired) ARTHUR H. HEUER, Case Western Reserve University ELIZABETH HOLM, Sandia National Laboratories FRANK E. KARASZ, University of Massachusetts, Amherst SHEILA F. KIA, General Motors Research and Development Center CONILEE G. KIRKPATRICK, HRL Laboratories ENRIQUE J. LAVERNIA, University of California, Irvine TERRY LOWE, Los Alamos National Laboratory HENRY J. RACK, Clemson University LINDA SCHADLER, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute JAMES C. SEFERIS, University of Washington T.S. SUDARSHAN, Materials Modification, Inc. JULIA WEERTMAN, Northwestern University Staff TONI MARECHAUX, Director

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems BOARD ON MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING DESIGN PAMELA A. DREW, The Boeing Company, Chair CAROL ADKINS, Sandia National Laboratories GREGORY AUNER, Wayne State University THOMAS W. EAGAR, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ROBERT E. FONTANA, JR., Hitachi Global Storage Technologies PAUL B. GERMERAAD, Intellectual Assets, Inc. ROBERT M. HATHAWAY, Oshkosh Truck Corporation RICHARD L. KEGG, Milacron, Inc. (retired) PRADEEP K. KHOSLA, Carnegie Mellon University JAY LEE, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee DIANE L. LONG, Robert C. Byrd Institute for Flexible Manufacturing JAMES MATTICE, Universal Technology Corporation MANISH MEHTA, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences ANGELO M. NINIVAGGI, JR., Plexus Corporation JAMES B. O’DWYER, PPG Industries HERSCHEL H. REESE, Dow Corning Corporation H. M. REININGA, Rockwell Collins LAWRENCE RHOADES, Extrude Hone Corporation JAMES B. RICE, JR., Massachusetts Institute of Technology ALFONSO VELOSA III, Gartner, Inc. JACK WHITE, Altarum JOEL SAMUEL YUDKEN, AFL-CIO Staff TONI MARECHAUX, Director

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems Preface Faster incorporation of new technologies into complex products and systems holds the possibility of ever-increasing advantages in cost, performance, durability, and new functionalities. A general perception on the part of many investigators is that incorporation of change is more difficult, expensive, and slow than it need be. The management of change in complex products and systems, however, does require an understanding of the significance of those changes as well as their consequences in terms of product performance and safety. Many lessons learned in practice have at their root the common theme that such understanding was not apparent at the time of commitment to and introduction of change. Thus certain industry segments such as aerospace have developed cultural beliefs that in part are focused on constraining change until significant evidence based on empirical use indicates that unintended consequences will not occur. The two sets of perceptions—the desire for timely incorporation of change, and caution in the face of its possible effects—create a significant tension between those charged with the development of new technology capabilities and those who feel accountable for the consequences of such technology incorporation. In November 2003, in response to a request from the Defense Science and Technology Reliance Panel for Materials and Processes of the Department of Defense (DoD), the National Research Council held a workshop to address how to accelerate technology transition into military systems. The workshop centered on the need to better understand interactions between the various stakeholders in this process of the incorporation of technological change. The examples used and the focus of the workshop involved issues related to materials and processes for unclassified programs, although the hope is that learning gained from the workshop will be applicable to other technical domains of DoD programs. The Committee on Accelerating Technology Transition, which organized and conducted the workshop, was asked to examine the lessons learned from rapid technology applications by successful, integrated design/manufacturing groups and to carry out the following tasks: Examine how new high-risk materials and production technologies are quickly adopted by successful integrated design/manufacturing groups. These groups include those in aerospace (such as Boeing's Phantom Works and Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works) and racing sport industries (such as America's Cup sailboats); Develop the lessons learned from these materials and production technology applications including computational research and development, design and validation methodologies, collaborative tools, and others; Identify approaches and candidate tool sets that could accelerate the use of new materials and production technologies in defense systems—both for the case of future systems and for improvements to deployed systems; and Prepare a report. Through biweekly teleconferences and e-mail correspondence, the committee (Appendix A contains biographical sketches of its members) embraced this charge. It devised a program, located

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems speakers, and developed a workshop agenda (contained in Appendix B). The committee organized the workshop into technical sessions to evaluate the range of issues involved in accelerating technology transition and to consider a wide range of perspectives, including such nontraditional aspects as racing cars, America’s Cup yachts, and biomedical applications. The sessions were as follows: Technology Transition Overviews Integrated Design/Manufacturing Groups—Case Studies Computational and Collaborative Tools—Lessons Learned Design and Validation Methodologies—Lessons Learned Approaches/Tools for Accelerated Technology Transition Lessons Learned from Other Industries A seventh session was held at the end of the workshop to summarize the observations and receive additional comments from the workshop attendees. Through these sessions, the committee received a wide range of information and observations that, taken together, shed light on three key issues—people/culture, processes, and tools—as described in the report. While the general topic of accelerating technology transition has been studied in some depth in the literature, this workshop brought into focus a unique combination of personal perspectives, technical tools, business processes, and a context in which to view them. Intended to identify ways to enhance and thus speed up the process of incorporating technological change, the report is organized as follows: after the Executive Summary, Chapter 1 discusses the culture for innovation and rapid technology transition, Chapter 2 discusses the methodologies and approaches for rapid technology transition, and Chapter 3 identifies the enabling tools and databases available for rapid technology transition as well as a need for further development in these areas. The report includes information gathered from the workshop as well as from the literature. The recommendations presented are based on committee deliberations on the themes emerging from the workshop. The committee acknowledges the outstanding support of the National Research Council staff and, in particular, the leadership and professional assistance provided by Arul Mozhi. The committee also acknowledges the speakers and those who served as liaisons to the DoD, who took the time to share their ideas and experiences with us during the very busy travel period of the shortened workweek of Thanksgiving. These liaisons were Julie Christodoulou, Office of Naval Research; William Coblenz, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Bruce K. Fink, U.S. Army Research Laboratory; and Mary Ann Phillips, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding work performed by the committee members, all of whom deserve accolades not only for the tasks accomplished but also for the incredibly quick turn-around time of their efforts, allowing the committee to organize and execute the work statement in such a short period of time. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Allison, Ford Motor Company; Robert M. Hathaway, Oshkosh Truck Corporation; Glenn Havskjold, Boeing Rocketdyne; Elizabeth Holm, Sandia National Laboratories; Mark H. Kryder, Seagate Technologies; Ronald K. Leonard, Deere and Company; Cherry A. Murray, Lucent Technologies; Maxine L. Savitz, Honeywell, Inc.; John J. Schirra, Pratt & Whitney; and Joe Tippens, Universal Chemical Technologies, Inc.

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by George Dieter, University of Maryland. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. The following individuals also greatly assisted the work of the committee through their participation in many of the committee's activities as liaisons from the National Research Council boards that initiated the study: James Mattice, Universal Technology Corporation, from the Board on Manufacturing and Engineering Design; and Alan G. Miller, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, from the National Materials Advisory Board. Diran Apelian, Chair Committee on Accelerating Technology Transition

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   CREATING A CULTURE FOR INNOVATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION   8      What Is Technology Transition and Why Is It Difficult?,   8      The Culture of Innovation and Rapid Technology Transition,   9      Bridging the Valley of Death,   12      Making the Business Case,   14      Barriers to Technology Transition,   19      Conclusions and Recommendations,   21 2   METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACHES   24      Lessons Learned from a Comparison of Risk–Reward Models,   24      Successful Best Practices,   26      Conclusions and Recommendations,   32 3   ENABLING TOOLS AND DATABASES   34      Established Commercial Practice: Accelerated Development,   34      Emerging Commercial Practice: DARPA's Accelerated Insertion of Materials Program,   36      Small Business Role: Materials by Design,   39      Dissemination and Infrastructure,   41      Conclusions and Recommendations,   42     APPENDIXES         A  Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   47     B  Workshop Agenda   51     C  Acronyms   55

OCR for page R1
Accelerating Technology Transition: Bridging the Valley of Death for Materials and Processes in Defense Systems Figures, Tables, and Boxes FIGURES 1.1   Department of Defense budgets for research, development, testing, and evaluation and procurement over time,   14 1.2   Competing pressures that drive the development process for new materials,   15 1.3   Development cost and return on investment for accelerated and classical development paths,   15 1.4   Models of materials transition,   17 1.5   A model for accelerated technology transition to the military that utilizes traditional research institutions and leverages commercial development and venture capital,   20 2.1   Different views of the reward structure for new technologies,   25 2.2   Six sigma view of available benefits,   25 2.3   The change in perceived risk and expenditures with time that the Accelerated Insertion of Materials (AIM) program achieved,   28 3.1   Range of design and analysis tools employed under the design integration system used in the Accelerated Insertion of Materials–Composites (AIM-C) effort for the accelerated development of polymer-matrix composites,   36 3.2   Examples of materials and process development acceleration using computational tools demonstrated under the Accelerated Insertion of Materials–Composites (AIM-C) effort,   37 3.3   Schematic representation of mechanistic numerical precipitation code (PrecipiCalc) employed in Accelerated Insertion of Materials (AIM) metals demonstrations,   38 3.4   Flow chart of full materials-development cycle, including initial materials design, process optimization/scale-up, and qualification testing,   40 TABLES 1.1   Typical Behaviors That Result in Cultural Differences,   11 1.2   Typical Development Times for New Materials,   16 2.1   Comparison of Formula 1 Race Car Technology Insertion Teams and Military Aerospace Market,   30 3.1   Some Computational Materials Engineering Tools,   35 BOX 1.1   Methodology Adopted by the Accelerated Insertion of Materials-Composites (AIM-C) Program to Accelerate Materials Insertion,   18