THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY

Alternative Organizational and Management Options

Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory

Board on Army Science and Technology

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1994



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
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY Alternative Organizational and Management Options Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory Board on Army Science and Technology Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1994

OCR for page R1
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options 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 competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of 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. Robert M. White 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This is a report of work supported by Contract DAAH04-93-C-0017 between the U.S. Department of the Army and the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the report's sponsor. Limited copies available from: Board on Army Science and Technology 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. HA 258 Washington, D.C. 20418 (202) 334-3118 Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY CHARLES A. ZRAKET, (Chairman), The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts DANIEL P. SCHRAGE, (Vice Chairman), Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta MARTIN BLUME, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York ALLAN J. BOARDMAN, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California EDWARD C. BRADY, Strategic Perspectives, Inc., Fairfax Station, Virginia W. KENNETH DAVIS, Consultant, San Rafael, California JOHN C. FIELDING, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington WILLIAM M. FRAILEY, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia PHILIP H. FRANCIS, Schneider North America, Palatine, Illinois RICHARD L. HARTMAN, Hartman Associates, Huntsville, Alabama L. CHARLES HEBEL, Palo Alto Research Center, Xerox Corporation, Palo Alto, California EDWARD A. MILLER, Consultant, Pinehurst, North Carolina LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. MOORE, Consultant, U.S. Army(Retired), Huntsville, Alabama K. BRADLEY PAXTON, KBPaxton, Inc., Webster, New York MAXINE L. SAVITZ, AlliedSignal Ceramic Components, Torrance, California GARY L. SORRELL, CALIBRE Systems, Inc., Falls Church, Virginia ROBERT E. WEIGLE, Physical Science Laboratory, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces Cost Analysts JOHN G. HONIG, Management Analysis, Inc., McLean, Virginia T. ARTHUR SMITH, Management Analysis, Inc., McLean, Virginia Staff ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, Study Director DUNCAN M. BROWN, Technical Writer ALLISON P. KNIGHT, Project Assistant Editorial Consultant CAROLETTA LOWE, Technical Editor, Editorial Concepts, Inc.

OCR for page R1
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PHILIP A. ODEEN (Chairman), BDM International, Inc., McLean, Virginia LAWRENCE J. DELANEY (Vice Chairman), Montgomery and Associates, Washington, D.C. ROBERT A. BEAUDET, University of Southern California, Los Angeles WILLIAM K. BREHM, Systems Research Applications Corporation, Arlington, Virginia ALBERTO COLL, U.S. Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island WILLIAM H. EVERS, JR., W. J. Schafer Associates, Inc., Arlington, Virginia JAMES L. FLANAGAN, Center for Computer Aids in Industrial Productivity, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER C. GREEN, General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan ROBERT J. HEASTON, Guidance and Control Information Analysis Center, Chicago, Illinois THOMAS MCNAUGHER, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. GENERAL GLENN K. OTIS (U.S. Army, Retired), Coleman Research Corporation, Fairfax, Virginia NORMAN F. PARKER, Varian Associates (Retired), Cardiff by the Sea, California KATHLEEN J. ROBERTSON, Center for Naval Analysis, Alexandria, Virginia HARVEY W. SCHADLER, General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York F. STAN SETTLES, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. JOYCE L. SHIELDS, Hay Systems, Inc., Arlington, Virginia DANIEL C. TSUI, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey ALLEN C. WARD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, Senior Program Officer DONALD L. SIEBENALER, Senior Program Officer HELEN D. JOHNSON, Staff Associate ANN M. STARK, Program Officer MARGO L. FRANCESCO, Senior Program Assistant ALLISON P. KNIGHT, Administrative Assistant

OCR for page R1
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Preface Reflecting major changes in mission, personnel, and funding, the Department of Defense has questioned whether the military service laboratories are effectively organized to fulfill their changing responsibilities. To help answer this question, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) and the Commander, Army Materiel Command (AMC), requested that the National Research Council (NRC) study the organizational and management alternatives for the Army Research Laboratory (ARL). Accordingly, the NRC formed the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory, under the leadership of the Board on Army Science and Technology. The committee, composed of experts in the management of research and development, cost analysis, personnel practices, and procurement regulations, held its first meeting on May 24–26, 1993, in Washington, D.C. It held a total of three full committee meetings and two executive panel meetings during the spring and summer of 1993. Committee members made extensive visits to research and development facilities of the Army and other agencies, both inside and outside the Department of Defense, and consulted with experts in research and development in industry, academic institutions, and government. It also commissioned a detailed study of the costs of research and development in various organizational settings, corresponding to the alternatives available to ARL. On the basis of this research and its own expert judgment, the committee reviewed the ARL's program and activities, and evaluated the organization 's ability to meet the long-term needs of the Army for research and technology development. It then assessed explicitly a range of organizational options for ARL, from management improvements in the current organization to the contracting out of all management and operations functions aside from oversight. It presents the advantages and disadvantages of these options to the Army in this report, and recommends that the Army select one of the three strongest options described. The selection should be based on the Army's priorities for internal capabilities and conversion costs. The committee's report includes an executive summary, which briefly presents the committee's main findings, conclusions, and recommendations

OCR for page R1
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options and the reasoning that leads to them. While the summary faithfully reflects the contents of the report, it does not fully document or substantiate the results of the committee's study. For a full treatment of the topic, the reader is referred to the body of the report. The committee received enthusiastic assistance and excellent advice from Army research and development officials in ARL, the AMC Headquarters, and the Army Research, Development and Engineering Centers. It wishes to thank in particular John Holmes and Kevin Kirby of ARL, and Edmund Westcott and Wayne Studebaker of AMC Headquarters, who served as liaisons to the committee with grace and alacrity, answering questions and offering insights. The committee also wishes to express its gratitude to the NRC study staff for their time and devotion to this project. Albert Sciarretta, Duncan Brown, and Allison Knight deserve special thanks and recognition for their essential roles in this study.