Appendix A:

Statement of Task

The Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) will establish a committee to examine approaches to and the implications of converting the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) to a government-owned, contractor operated (GOCO) operation or to a government operation modeled after the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST). The study will be conducted over a nine-month period beginning April 1, 1993. Neither the study approach nor options will violate the provision of the 1991 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) report which established ARL.

The BAST will establish a 16-member committee of experts in the areas of contracting; personnel, compensation, and retirement; R&D management; measurement of R&D productivity; and cost effectiveness analysis. Experts will be sought who have experience with DOD laboratories, private sector laboratories, and other laboratories such as Department of Energy, NIST, and GOCO. It is anticipated that panels will be established to assess the laboratories and the alternatives. The committee and panel members will be subject to the usual bias procedures of the NRC.

The first task of the committee will be to define the three alternatives [(1) ARL as it currently exists and with improvements that are planned or that could reasonably be expected in the normal course of development; (2) NIST; and (3) GOCO]. Each alternative will then be evaluated using criteria such as the following:

  1. Laboratories maintain relevance to the military user.

  2. Laboratories deliver “world class” technology to the user.

  3. Work does not compete, but rather complements, that of other academic and industrial research institutions.

  4. Operations are efficient and effective.

  5. Ability to leverage funds is not degraded.

  6. “Smart buyer” capability is maintained by the Army.

  7. Potential for technology transfer is enhanced not degraded.

In addition to the above three alternatives, consideration will be given to variations of these models, such as university-managed centers of excellence



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 159
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Appendix A: Statement of Task The Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) will establish a committee to examine approaches to and the implications of converting the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) to a government-owned, contractor operated (GOCO) operation or to a government operation modeled after the National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST). The study will be conducted over a nine-month period beginning April 1, 1993. Neither the study approach nor options will violate the provision of the 1991 Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) report which established ARL. The BAST will establish a 16-member committee of experts in the areas of contracting; personnel, compensation, and retirement; R&D management; measurement of R&D productivity; and cost effectiveness analysis. Experts will be sought who have experience with DOD laboratories, private sector laboratories, and other laboratories such as Department of Energy, NIST, and GOCO. It is anticipated that panels will be established to assess the laboratories and the alternatives. The committee and panel members will be subject to the usual bias procedures of the NRC. The first task of the committee will be to define the three alternatives [(1) ARL as it currently exists and with improvements that are planned or that could reasonably be expected in the normal course of development; (2) NIST; and (3) GOCO]. Each alternative will then be evaluated using criteria such as the following: Laboratories maintain relevance to the military user. Laboratories deliver “world class” technology to the user. Work does not compete, but rather complements, that of other academic and industrial research institutions. Operations are efficient and effective. Ability to leverage funds is not degraded. “Smart buyer” capability is maintained by the Army. Potential for technology transfer is enhanced not degraded. In addition to the above three alternatives, consideration will be given to variations of these models, such as university-managed centers of excellence

OCR for page 159
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options and labs managed by university research consortia or foundations. Once the alternatives are defined the committee will: Identify the characteristics that distinguish ARL from a GOCO or a NIST. Examine and analyze the research quality and relevance of current military GOCOs, such as Lincoln Laboratory. Define the characteristics of a “world class” research operation. Specify the advantages and disadvantages of conversion to a GOCO or a NIST relative to ARL. Where the advantages or disadvantages are not immediately quantifiable, suggest how the Army might proceed with measuring or otherwise comparing them. Describe how the Army should proceed if it were to convert the laboratories to a “world class” operation on the GOCO or NIST model. Identify opportunities which exist or problems that would have to be overcome in the course of conversion, including the following: schedule for conversion. legislative changes or concerns. Describe approaches to solving these problems. Estimate the cost of conversion and subsequent operation. Provide definite recommendations on implementation, including how to arrange the transition of personnel and property, the relative advantages of a single contractor and a prime contractor-subcontractor arrangement, the criteria for choosing contractors and reviewing their performance, and the appropriate length and type of the initial contract. Prepare a report that will both identify and analyze problems and options associated with the conversions, and will develop a framework for planning the implementation of conversion. The study's final report will help the Army determine the feasibility and practicality of converting ARL to GOCOs or to NISTs. The report will be subject to review in accordance with procedures established by the Report Review Committee of the NRC. It will be prepared in sufficient quantity to ensure adequate distribution to the Army, the public, and other interested parties in accordance with NRC policy. Funds have been budgeted for this purpose.