Naval Engineering in the 21st Century: The Science and Technology Foundation for Future Naval Fleets -- Special Report 306 (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Summary The Office of Naval Research (ONR) asked the National Research Coun- cil (NRC) to examine the state of basic and applied research in the scien- tific fields that support naval engineering and to advise it on whether ONR activities, under its National Naval Responsibility for Naval Engineering (NNR-NE) initiative, have been effective in sustaining these fields. The committee’s conclusions and recommendations are in five areas: the value of the NNR-NE, the state of science and technology supporting naval engi- neering, the wholeness of the NNR-NE research portfolio, opportunities for enhancement of research and education, and the effectiveness of the NNR-NE initiative. The principal conclusions below are in bold type. Rec- ommendations are addressed to the administrators of the NNR-NE initia- tive and of ONR. Recommendations that concern research opportunities could be acted on within the present structure of the initiative. Recom- mendations for changes in management processes would require action by senior ONR administrators. NEED FOR AND VALUE OF NNR-NE Need for Navy Support Navy support is necessary for basic and early applied research in fields that are critical to naval engineering and lack other sources of support, that have a long-term horizon, and that have potential for discoveries of broad application leading to advances in naval capabilities. Technological progress is essential to security to ensure that naval superiority is maintained as the operating environment, missions, and resources available to the Navy change in the future. This support is valuable not only because it is 1 

2 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century necessary in meeting defense requirements but also because U.S. Depart- ment of Defense research funding historically has yielded benefits beyond national defense and because the department is a primary funder of research and education in a number of engineering disciplines of impor- tance to the U.S. economy. Without Navy support, the critical mass of expertise and research talent in these fields would not be maintained, and the capability to innovate in naval engineering would be lost. Value of NNR-NE NNR-NE, as defined in the 2001 ONR memorandum establishing it and the ONR instructions defining the NNRs, is a useful means of organizing support of basic and applied research in the scientific and technical fields that underlie naval engineering. Assigning the NNR designation established Navy policy that the identified activities are deserv- ing of special consideration in planning and budgeting at ONR and are to be managed in coordination so as to sustain U.S. research capability in problems important to the Navy, maintain the supply of scientists and engineers in disciplines of unique Navy importance, and ensure that ONR can continue to provide the science and technology necessary for naval superiority. The need for NNR designation is particularly great in the case of naval engineering, an essentially integrative activity that must apply scientific knowledge from an expansive array of disciplines to solve complex prob- lems of naval ship design. The attention to long-term planning and coor- dination of research that the NNR process calls for is critical for producing innovation in naval engineering. STATE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTING NAVAL ENGINEERING The committee examined the state of research, education, and infrastruc- ture in the six fields supporting naval engineering identified by ONR as within the scope of NNR-NE: • Ship design tools; • Structural systems; 

Summary 3 • Hydromechanics and hull design; • Propulsors; • Automation, control, and system integration; and • Platform power and energy. Chapter 5 summarizes the committee’s conclusions concerning the indi- vidual fields. General conclusions are presented below, as well as a rec- ommendation for a process for ONR to follow in monitoring the health of these fields. State of Research The task statement for this study indicates that ONR seeks to “ensure a healthy research and educational enterprise” supporting naval engineer- ing. A healthy research field is one that is productive in advancing knowl- edge, has linkages to engineering practice as evidenced by transitions of discoveries to applications and by communication between researchers and practitioners, and has positive prospects as evidenced by retention of researchers and attraction of new researchers and resources. Some of the fields within the NNR-NE derive strength from the breadth of related applications. These fields benefit from diversity of funding sources and opportunities for cross-fertilization among com- munities of researchers working under different sponsorship. For exam- ple, vibrant research communities are devoted to computational fluid dynamics and to structural systems. In these fields, the tasks for the NNR- NE initiative are to ensure that the Navy takes advantage of the pool of researchers that could contribute to solving its problems and to fund research on specific problems relevant only to Navy applications. In other NNR-NE fields or subfields (e.g., propulsors and naval hydrodynamics), ONR and other Navy agencies are nearly the only sources of support. ONR has great responsibility for sustaining education and the institutional infra- structure in these fields. Recommendation 1: To fulfill its obligation under the NNR-NE to sustain U.S. research capability to work on problems important to the Navy, ONR should carry out regular systematic assessments of the state of health of each of the research fields supporting naval engineering in the United States. 

4 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century The assessments should examine the objectives and progress of research supported by all government and private funders. As part of its monitor- ing of the health of these fields, ONR should evaluate worldwide inno- vation in naval engineering practice and identify the research outputs that have been the sources of the enabling technologies. State of Education The education establishment that conducts research and trains future researchers in the NNR-NE fields draws strength from the diversity of the disciplines engaged. However, research centers and departments con- centrating on certain specialized fields critical to naval engineering and deriving a large share of their support from ONR (including research centers and departments that perform research in hydrodynamics and in naval ship design methods) may be vulnerable. A decline in research support would cause these departments to diminish, research capabilities to be lost, and the supply of researchers to be interrupted. Recommendation 2: In carrying out its responsibility under the NNR-NE to sustain the research and graduate infrastructure support- ing naval engineering and to ensure the supply of future researchers, ONR should make a special effort to encourage multidisciplinary graduate programs focused on naval engineering that train future researchers and professionals. State of Infrastructure Institutional infrastructure is the organizational framework of research: schools; university, government, and industry research laboratories; grant-making organizations; and professional societies. Physical infra- structure is the facilities required to carry out research, for example, towing tanks, wave basins, and cavitation flow tunnels. The institutions participating in naval engineering science and tech- nology are the Navy, the shipbuilding and ship design industries, com- mercial ship operators, and research universities and other research organizations. U.S. industry investment in offshore technology is strong, and industry demand for marine professionals is vital in sup- porting the maritime-related university infrastructure. U.S. universi- ties are a rich source of expertise that potentially is applicable to Navy 

Summary 5 problems but is not fully utilized by the Navy now. The U.S. government is overwhelmingly the major supporter of relevant research. Within the U.S. government, the Navy is the largest supporter, and within the Navy, ONR. The committee collected limited data on physical research infrastruc- ture from ONR, Navy laboratories, and naval engineering researchers. No obvious shortfalls were identified. Maintaining and funding test facil- ities are challenges. Facilities rely heavily on use fees collected from users conducting government-sponsored research; therefore, if research fund- ing is interrupted, survival of facilities is jeopardized. The committee calls the attention of ONR to the 2000 report of the NRC Committee for Naval Hydromechanics Science and Technology, which noted that these facili- ties require ongoing investment in updated instrumentation and strong technical support staffs to produce cutting-edge research. WHOLENESS OF THE NNR-NE PORTFOLIO The task statement directs the committee to “assess the wholeness of the program” and to “assess whether [the six technical areas] adequately define the scope of NNR-NE.” Overall Portfolio Relation of the Portfolio to Needs and Objectives The wholeness of the NNR-NE portfolio can be judged only by com- paring its objectives and accomplishments with the Navy’s priorities for innovation in naval engineering. Priorities should be determined through regular communication with ship designers, fleet strategic planners, and researchers in the fields allied with naval engineering and should be specified in a plan. Planning is necessary in managing an applied research program and is not inconsistent with the spirit of basic research. The committee is not aware of a plan for guiding basic and early applied research in naval engineering–related fields that is specific enough to fulfill this need. To ensure the wholeness of the NNR-NE portfolio, identification of the implications of U.S. Department of Defense technology needs for basic and applied research priorities by ONR will be necessary. A clear correlation between needs and research emphasis was not always evident 

6 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century to the committee in its examination of the NNR-NE portfolio and its review of the research needs implications of the Navy’s operational challenges. Definition of Technical Areas Within NNR-NE Advances in each of the six technical areas identified by ONR as within the scope of NNR-NE could contribute to innovation in ship design. Each of the fields, if broadly defined, receives support from sources other than the Navy and has application beyond naval engineering, but the need to maintain expertise in the problems of unique importance to naval engineering justifies including each within NNR-NE. The major gap in the present definition is inadequate acknowledg- ment of the need for basic and early applied research in support of the integrative function that is central to the practice of naval engineering. The present portfolio in automation, control, and system integration does not appear to fulfill this need, and ONR needs a new vision to guide research in these areas. Recommendation 3: ONR should retain the six fields in the defini- tion of the basic and applied research areas within NNR-NE. The definition should state that all ONR basic and early applied research in these fields is to be coordinated to meet the goals of the NNR-NE. In particular, basic and early applied research in platform power and energy should be retained in the definition regardless of where this activity is housed in ONR. In addition, the definition should explic- itly identify multidisciplinary systems engineering as an area of basic and early applied research within NNR-NE. Recommendation 4: The Navy should dedicate an important share of its resources for naval engineering science and technology to problems whose solutions are expected to have broad applicability to a range of possible future ship programs. Research Portfolio in Each NNR-NE Technical Field The committee considered three aspects of the research projects in each field: intellectual quality, mission alignment, and management commitment. 

Summary 7 The research portfolios in some NNR-NE fields (including power and energy and structural systems) appear to be of high intellectual quality, organized around well-defined objectives, demonstrating progress, aligned with potential applications, and adequately supported. For other fields (including automation, control, and system integration and ship design tools), the objectives are not evident and the project portfolios appear to lack cohesion or to be too narrowly focused. The problems in the less strong portfolios may be traceable to the extent and quality of input from users and the research community in the articulation of research needs and the evaluation of research products. The conclusions of the committee concerning the research portfolio in each of the NNR-NE fields are presented in Chapter 5. Recommenda- tions concerning two elements of the portfolio are as follows. Recommendation 5: ONR should view total ship systems as a legiti- mate topic of basic and early applied research, and all such research at ONR should be coordinated through the NNR-NE framework. Recommendation 6: To ensure continuity of component and sub- system technology, the Navy should pursue research and develop- ment for power and energy systems in partnership with U.S. industry. It is equally important to pay due attention to integration of the power system with the total ship system and to transition of the technology rapidly and effectively to the ship planners. The transition process should be initiated in the early conceptual design stages. OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION Opportunities exist for offering significantly improved capabilities to the fleet through basic and applied research in the scientific and tech- nical fields supporting naval engineering. Opportunities presented by new technology and demands for technology arising from Navy require- ments, as well as opportunities for enhancing ONR education programs, are identified in Chapter 5. Recommendation 7: In planning the NNR-NE research portfolio, ONR should search for research directions from both (a) emerging 

8 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century scientific and technological developments that hold promise for pro- viding new capabilities and (b) gaps in fundamental knowledge that are hindering fulfillment of needs identified by the operating Navy. The search should be systematized, adequately funded, measured, and incentivized and should be included as part of the organiza- tion’s and its managers’ performance evaluation processes. Recommendation 8: ONR should embrace its role as the lead agency for the Navy in promoting primary and secondary science, technol- ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and adequately fund, measure, incentivize, and manage STEM activities as part of its portfolio, in cooperation with the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), the professional societies, and industry. NNR-NE EFFECTIVENESS The task statement directs the committee to “assess the NNR-NE’s progress in the ability to: (l) provide and sustain robust research expertise in the United States working on long-term problems of importance to the Department of the Navy; (2) ensure that an adequate pipeline of new researchers, engineers, and faculty continues; and (3) ensure that ONR can continue to provide superior S&T [science and technology] in naval architecture and marine engineering.” Overall Effectiveness The conclusions listed below concern the effectiveness of the NNR-NE and factors that influence its effectiveness. Chapter 5 explains the basis for each conclusion. • NNR-NE meets a Navy need but requires planning and stronger links to users and researchers. • NNR-NE has not yet gained recognition within or outside ONR as the focus of naval engineering research. • ONR does not appear to have conducted the reporting required by the memorandum establishing NNR-NE. • The role of NNR-NE in the Naval S&T Strategic Plan has not been clearly defined. 

Summary 9 • ONR has not defined the practical administrative significance of NNR designation. • Some prescribed NNR-NE activities may not have been undertaken. • The scope of NNR-NE responsibilities concerning related research conducted by units other than the Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division and concerning educational activities lacks definition. Recommendation 9: ONR should bring NNR-NE in line with the structure of the initiative as envisioned when it was established by taking the following actions: • ONR management should ensure that the elements and objec- tives of NNR-NE are communicated to researchers, program officers, and research product users and that ONR managers and grant applicants justify new activities within the scope of the NNR-NE by showing how they will contribute to the initiative’s objectives. • ONR should develop an enterprisewide information system that will make information on NNR-NE projects available to proposers and to ONR’s clients. • ONR should use the information system as a management tool in assessing NNR-NE progress, tracking funding allocation trends, benchmarking performance, and communicating NNR-NE achievements. • ONR should prepare an annual report that compares accomplish- ments with the objectives of the NNR-NE. • In revisions of the Naval S&T Strategic Plan, ONR should delineate the expected contributions of the NNR-NE to the plan. • To fulfill the requirement of the 2001 memorandum for creation of consortia to foster naval engineering science and technology, ONR should consider adoption of the alternative organizational models for cooperative research proposed by the 2002 NRC Committee on Options for Naval Engineering Cooperative Research. • ONR should revise the definition of NNR-NE, specifying educational responsibilities and requirements for coordination of related research outside the Ship Systems and Engineering Research Division. 

10 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Improving NNR-NE Effectiveness Framework for Research Portfolio Management High-performance research organizations base portfolio management processes on a series of information search, decision-making, perfor- mance, and evaluation tasks (Figure S-1). The assessment, benchmark- ing, and continuous process improvement activities that align incentives with desired performance are key to portfolio management processes. ONR collects information on metrics that could be helpful in eval- uating progress. However, it is not clear that the metrics are linked to a set of measurable objectives for NNR-NE or whether any NNR-NE goals or objectives are tied to department or agency strategic plans, and the committee was unable to identify an NNR-NE strategic plan. Moreover, the committee could not identify a process by which NNR- NE mission area needs and research strategies are prioritized or a sys- tematic process by which ONR funds are allocated according to needs or prioritized research strategies. Finally, the committee did not find Feedback Planning Execution Assessment • Articulate research • Support and fund • Measure outcomes mission research • Evaluate results • Align research agenda • Support and fund • Benchmark with mission graduate education performance • Identify researchers • Support and fund • Assess portfolio impact and research associated and contribution to opportunities infrastructure discovery and invention • Establish key • Gather performance • Provide feedback performance indicators data • Communicate lessons learned • Align incentives with research mission and research agenda • Establish continuous process improvement program FIGURE S-1 Framework for research portfolio management. 

Summary 11 evidence that NNR-NE is measuring or achieving balance in its research portfolio, despite its stated balance goal. Recommendation 10: ONR should establish an enterprisewide strate- gic planning and assessment process to develop a strategic plan for NNR-NE, link the plan to goals and objectives, communicate the goals and objectives throughout the naval research community, and evalu- ate and incentivize NNR-NE performance against the plan. The NNR- NE strategic planning and assessment process should encompass all facets of the NNR-NE mission and should include the following elements: • A process to articulate and prioritize mission area needs and research priorities on an annual and continuing basis; • A process for allocation of funds that is aligned with the needs and priorities; • Metrics for measuring the activities of needs identification, resource allocation, management performance, and continuous process improvement; • A continuous process improvement activity that utilizes the met- rics to assess research portfolio management and to evaluate and report annually on progress; • An enterprisewide communication system to promulgate lessons learned and best practices; and • A research portfolio management procedure to guide planning and information collection, administration, and assessment. The procedure should follow recognized standards for research port- folio management, including performance benchmarking. The goal of instituting the procedure should be to establish a culture of continuous process improvement. Recommendation 11: ONR should identify and use metrics to mea- sure NNR-NE portfolio balance. Recommendation 12: As input to the identification of research per- formers, to enhance dissemination of Navy mission and needs, and to improve communication with operational Navy units, in managing the NNR-NE, ONR should utilize mission capability managers responsible for understanding specific Navy missions. 

12 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Measuring the Output of NNR-NE ONR’s present metrics for output of its investment in NNR-NE provide useful information. However, they fall short of adequate measures of the benefit of ONR’s investment in NNRs. Recommendation 13: As part of the NNR-NE research portfolio management process, ONR should develop research performance metrics that assess the contribution of its investments to discovery and innovation. Metrics should be inputs to investment decisions in man- aging the NNR-NE. They also should be used to improve understand- ing of the importance of ONR naval engineering research. Successes identified through the metrics should be publicized, and research excellence should be incentivized to raise the visibility of research and the standard of quality. Recommendation 14: Because of the complexity of naval engineering science and technology problems, ONR should consider adopting integrative and interdisciplinary performance metrics in NNR-NE (e.g., numbers of interdisciplinary projects and publications and numbers of citations outside the primary disciplines). Peer Review Management of the NNR-NE relies primarily on the ONR program offi- cers in selection of projects and project investigators. Review of project proposals and investigators before selection does not involve formal external peer review or other consultative procedures. External peer review (i.e., review by technical experts from outside ONR) through- out the research project selection process would offer the opportunity to strengthen project selection and to obtain the advice and counsel of technical experts, NAVSEA technical authorities, and industry practi- tioners who are the ultimate recipients of the developed technology, while maintaining the ONR program officer’s independence in mak- ing decisions for his or her program. Recommendation 15: ONR should establish a process for NNR-NE in which the program officer assembles a small group of Navy labora- tory technical experts and NAVSEA technical authorities to assess and rank research proposals. The program officer would be responsible 

Summary 13 for considering the recommendations and selecting projects. The midproject external review that ONR already conducts would be car- ried out by this panel with the addition of external reviewers. Technology Interpreter Recommendation 16: ONR should implement the concept of the technology interpreter in the NNR-NE. The task of the technology interpreter would be to assist in the technology transition process. The recommended peer-review panels would implement the technology interpreter concept in the program officer and technical authority communities. Frequent communication between these communities would inform the program officer of technologies that the technical authorities require and inform the technical authorities of new tech- nologies as they emerge and mature. In addition to the review panels, personnel dedicated to improving communications and execution could significantly improve NNR-NE integration with Navy missions and operational requirements. Maintaining Connections Across the Wider Naval Engineering Community Maintaining connections across the wider naval ship systems engineer- ing community means bridging the valleys that naturally exist between the naval research, design, manufacturing, and operational communi- ties and the commercial and offshore communities. Connectivity, com- munication, and human resource and organizational development are important to the success of the naval engineering enterprise. However, the committee was unable to find evidence that NNR-NE strategic research planning makes use of measures of these dimen- sions of performance. Recommendation 17: To maintain connectivity among the wider naval engineering community, NNR-NE should utilize the concept of tech- nology interpreter. ONR should consider additional connectivity and communication activities, including seminars, scholarly exchanges, and rotation opportunities for NNR-NE program officers such as research sabbaticals. 

14 Naval Engineering in the 21st Century Recommendation 18: ONR should incorporate human capital and organizational development goals and objectives as explicit responsi- bilities of NNR-NE. Integrating Naval Engineering Science and Technology The committee found examples of interdisciplinary and integrative research in the NNR-NE portfolio. However, these efforts were the out- growth of initiatives of individual program officers rather than of ONR processes that encouraged interdisciplinary or integrative research. Recommendation 19: ONR should establish processes that encour- age interdisciplinary and integrative research in NNR-NE. Developing Human Capital and Revitalizing Naval Ship Systems Engineering Recommendation 20: ONR should reinvigorate its efforts in develop- ing the 21st century naval engineering workforce, including improve- ment of outreach activities to underrepresented groups. ONR’s lead role in STEM primary and secondary education activities should be strengthened and incorporated into its enterprisewide strategic plan- ning processes, and performance metrics for workforce development and STEM achievements should be identified.