National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options (1994)

Chapter: 2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page 66

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.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 33 2 Review of the Army Research Laboratory Today An organizational and management change alone does not guarantee that ARL will be effective as a source of high-quality research and technology. ARL's mission and ability to conduct world-class research must be supportive of any organizational change if it is to be the Army's flagship laboratory and support horizontal technology integration. The committee reviewed the current ARL to better understand its strengths and weaknesses in the funding, personnel, and administrative support necessary to pursue excellence in its own laboratories and in technology sources outside the Army. With this understanding, the committee was better prepared to address the advantages and disadvantages of the four organizational and management options, as well as make general recommendations for improvement. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The committee chose six criteria which reflect the Army's desires for ARL's performance. These criteria were used to review the current ARL and to compare the four organizational and management options considered in this study. The six criteria are: • Linkage to Army strategies and objectives: Responsiveness to the needs of the Army's leadership, tacticians, and soldiers in the field. • World-class land warfare research: The ability to conduct world-class research in areas of unique interest to the Army. The committee defines a world-class Army laboratory as one that provides value to both its immediate customers (other research, development, and acquisition organizations) and to its ultimate customer, the soldier. In addition, it has nationally recognized leaders and researchers working with state-of-the-art equipment in appropriate facilities; efficiently manages internal programs and takes advantage of external efforts; has an imaginative, innovative, and productive research program; and has a record of successful and timely transfer of research knowledge and technology to useful applications.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 34 • Diversity and quality of research sources: The ability to obtain research and technology development knowledge from diverse sources in universities and industry to support changing Army needs. • Technology transfer to the Army: The capacity for effective technology transfer to Army systems, either directly or through ARL's customer organizations (mainly the RDECs). • Ability to leverage funds and programs: The ability to exploit research and technology development efforts outside ARL, through contracts, cooperative ventures, and multiservice projects. As much effort as possible should be exploited with minimum cost to ARL. • Ability to improve productivity with respect to recurring costs: Cost-effectiveness and the ability to improve quality and organizational efficiency. As stated earlier, these criteria reflect the Army's desires in the Statement of Task (Appendix A). However, after reviewing ARL and assessing each of the options, the committee concluded that there may be other assessment criteria that the Army should consider in its decision process. The criteria could include: the impacts of proposed organizational changes on the Joint Directors of Laboratories and cross service coordination, and necessary facilitation costs (or cancellation of planned facilities) for enhancing each ARL option.1 A review of the current ARL according to each of the criteria follows. Linkage to Army Strategies and Objectives The committee believes that ARL's primary and most challenging task is to conduct long-range (5- to 15- year) Army basic research and exploratory development. Also, ARL must continue its additional tasks of conducting some short-range R&D (in support of RDECs and program managers), system assessments, and field assistance. To remain focused on these tasks, ARL maintains a variety of links with the Army's staff, with tactics and doctrine developers, and with soldiers in the field, in addition to its principal customers, AMC's RDECs. Short- and Long-Range Perspectives Liaison with Tactics and Doctrine Developers. Four ARL directorates—Advanced Concepts and Plans, Weapons Technology, 1 See additional discussion of facilitation costs in the listing of assumptions in Chapter 7.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 35 Survivability and Lethality Analysis, and Human Research and Engineering—continuously evaluate Army personnel, materiel, and information systems in terms of technical and operational requirements. For operational requirements, these directorates must work closely with the trainers, tacticians, and doctrine developers at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). These directorates inform the other ARL directorates of the latest Army requirements, so that they may maintain the necessary technical capabilities and seek technical solutions for deficiencies. TRADOC has six battle labs. The battle labs simulate and experiment with warfighting concepts and materiel capabilities that will be available in the next two to three years (Porter, 1993). The time horizons of RDECs are more consistent with those of the battle labs, and therefore, AMC has appropriately assigned the RDECs as the primary liaisons to each battle lab. However, ARL has also established liaisons at some of the battle labs. ARL regards these arrangements—which include interactions with the RDEC liaisons—as partnerships, in which its liaison personnel assess technology for TRADOC and discuss research programs with the RDECs in return for insight into Army needs identified in battle lab experiments (Army Research Laboratory, 1993b). This short-range view supports ARL's efforts to satisfy the immediate needs of the RDECs and soldiers in the field. However, it does not provide a long-range perspective in support of future Army needs. ARL does not have strong links with the advanced concepts directorates of the TRADOC schools. These directorates' evaluations of future tactics and doctrine could provide a long-range perspective for ARL. These advanced concept directorates work closely with the battle labs to develop smooth transitions from short-range to long-range doctrine. Likewise, a similar transition for technology could be established between the RDECs and ARL. Field Assistance Teams. ARL provides field assistance teams to satisfy soldiers' immediate needs for technical help. Scientists and engineers on these teams may be stationed at major Army commands for periods ranging from a few weeks to one- or two-year assignments. The Human Research and Engineering Directorate also maintains permanent field teams at Army branch (e.g., Armor, Infantry, etc.) schools. ARL has about 60 scientists and engineers working in long-term field assistance and TRADOC liaison positions. By fiscal year 1997, that number should drop to at the most 50. Although small in number, these field activities provide excellent linkages to short-range Army strategies, objectives, and needs. Work is normally funded by TRADOC battle labs and schools. Customers interviewed by the committee were highly supportive of the efforts of these people.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 36 Military Personnel in ARL. Military personnel in ARL provide a direct link to the user. ARL currently has about 120 military officers and enlisted soldiers, who bring experience in wartime and peacetime execution of current Army doctrine and tactics, as well as an interpretation of Army short-range requirements. ARL has approximately 25 additional positions that require officers with doctoral degrees. Such officers can speak the languages of both the users and the developers. They are important sources of information for ARL's civilian scientists and engineers as well as soldier-scientist ambassadors to the military community. Their academic experience brings to ARL glimpses of academia's state-of-the-art research. Frequently, however, these highly educated officers do not have much experience in the planning and execution of Army doctrine and tactics. Linkage to Short-Range Needs through the ARL Board of Directors. The principal function of the ARL Board of Directors is to review the laboratory's basic research and exploratory development programs to ensure their relevance to the programs of ARL's direct customers, the RDECs. At least half of the programs must support the RDECs' efforts. This support is documented in memoranda of agreement developed by ARL and RDEC scientists and engineers. Each agreement defines the needed joint technical work and the specific arrangements for transfer of responsibility from ARL to the specific RDEC involved. These agreements are known as Technology Program Annexes. ARL directorate executives are responsible for implementing the Technical Program Annexes (Army Materiel Command, 1992b). The ARL Board of Directors has 16 permanent members: the 2 Principal Deputies for Acquisition and Technology at AMC headquarters (who serve as co-chairs), a Department of the Army human factors engineering representative, a technical director from the Information Systems Command, 8 RDEC technical directors, the technical directors of AMC's simulation command and testing command, the director of AMC's systems analysis activity, and the director of ARL. Its four associate members include two senior staff members of the Materiel Command's headquarters and the directors of the Army Research Office (ARO) and the Battle Lab Integration and Technology Directorate of TRADOC. Other than the directors of ARL and ARO, the members come from organizations with primarily short- or mid-range needs for technologies and systems. The board does not conduct technical assessments or peer reviews for determining quality of research at ARL.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 37 Linkage to Long-Range Needs through the AMC Board of Directors. In addition to the ARL Board of Directors, there is an AMC Board of Directors which reviews AMC's technology plans and provides ARL's primary long-range perspective. The AMC Board of Directors provides corporate oversight and approval of strategic planning, policies, and processes for the management of all research, development, engineering, testing, and evaluation activities of AMC (Army Materiel Command, 1992a). It helps the Department of the Army develop long-range research, development, and acquisition plans and approves policies and procedures to link the programs of AMC, the Army, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The AMC Board of Director's membership is similar to that of the ARL Board of Directors. The board is chaired by AMC's Deputy Commanding General (a three-star general). Its 21 other senior members include the members of the ARL Board of Directors plus the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Programs and Policy, a deputy chief of staff from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and 2 additional senior staff members from the AMC headquarters (Rosenkrantz, 1994). Financial Links with RDECs. At least half of ARL's 6.1 (basic research) and 6.2 (exploratory development) programs must support the direct needs of AMC's RDECs, ARL's primary customers (Army Materiel Command, 1992b). The RDECs typically demonstrate short-range perspectives to support the needs of its main customers, the program executive officers and program managers, who are primarily concerned with the acquisition phases of demonstration and validation, engineering and manufacturing development, and production of hardware and software systems. Appropriately, each RDECs' basic research through engineering development institutional funding2 is oriented toward satisfying near-term hardware and software needs. The Other Half of ARL's 6.1 and 6.2 Mission Funds. ARL focuses the other half of its 6.1 and 6.2 programs on long-range research, in support of future Army requirements or for developing new doctrine. As such, the customer for this half of ARL's 6.1 and 6.2 appropriated mission program is the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) (ASA[RDA]). The ARL Director and the ASA(RDA) agree on programs in support of the Army Science and Technology Master Plan. The ASA(RDA), 2 This institutional funding, specifically appropriated by the Department of the Army, is intended to be sufficient to carry out core research and development, without the need for additional funds from outside.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 38 AMC, and ARL must ensure that this half of ARL's 6.1 and 6.2 mission funds continues to support long-range Army needs. In terms of balancing its R&D programs, the committee believes that ARL does not have enough control to shape its own research program in support of long-range Army requirements. Governance by AMC. ARL is governed by AMC which is primarily responsible for system development and production, system support, and readiness, as well as basic research and exploratory development. System development and production, support, and readiness require a short-range view of R&D. The Commander of AMC reports to the Chief of Staff of the Army, who does not have primary responsibility for research, development, and acquisition in the Army. This responsibility is in the charge of the ASA(RDA). As a comparison, the Naval Research Laboratory reports to the Chief of Naval Research, who in turn reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. Linkage to ASA (RDA). The program guidance and institutional funding of ARL are determined by the civilian ASA(RDA) and passed on to AMC. The ASA(RDA) has Army-wide responsibility for the following: • establishing policies, procedures, priorities, and funding for science, technology, research, development, and acquisition; • setting procurement policy, procedures, and practices; • overseeing the acquisition managers of all Army major weapon systems from initiation to fielding, including product improvements; • ensuring that future battlefield operational needs are addressed in the Army's R&D planning (in cooperation with the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations); • ensuring that the Army explores multiple sources of science, technology, research, and development in academia and industry; and • developing the Army's Science and Technology Master Plan. Of particular importance to ARL is the fact that the ASA(RDA) controls all of the Army's 6.1 and 6.2 funds, allocating them among ARL, the RDECs, ARO (the Army's conduit for university research grants), the Surgeon General, the Army Research Institute, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Also, the ASA(RDA) is charged with assessing the long-range view of Army technology needs, and managing a technology program that spans the boundaries of all of the Army's laboratories and engineering centers.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 39 As a flagship laboratory responsible for long-range research and development programs, ARL must maintain a close working relationship with the ASA(RDA). This is especially necessary if ARL is to support Army-wide technology insertions as a means of gaining total force enhancements. With the Army-wide outlook, long-range plans, and Army staff links, the ASA(RDA) provides the conduit for developing, coordinating, and implementing ARL's long-range programs and its horizontal technology insertion efforts. Seminar Wargames. The ARL-sponsored, annual seminar wargames3 often include representatives of ARL directorates, the RDECs, TRADOC, and other defense laboratories and engineering centers. The wargames allow materiel developers and doctrine developers to build consensus about technology needs and new doctrinal and tactical concepts. Each seminar lasts only a few days and receives relatively little funding. This technology push and pull exchange helps develop a two-way linkage between ARL and Army strategies and objectives. Army Strategic Planning for Science and Technology. ARL participates with other Army laboratories and engineering centers in writing planning documents such as the Army's Science and Technology Master Plan, which is the strategic plan for the Army's science and technology program. It is based on the leadership's vision of the future Army, as constrained by realistic funding limits. World-Class Land Warfare Research The primary function of ARL should be to conduct world-class research and technology development in support of the Army's long-range land warfare needs. However, as true to all laboratories in general, the quality and relevance of research are difficult to measure quantitatively and accurately. A recent National Research Council study of Air Force laboratories reached the same conclusion (National Research Council, 1993). Like the Air Force, ARL measures R&D through peer reviews and performance indicators (Gendason and Brown, 1993). Output measures, such as the numbers of refereed papers or patents per scientist, are easily determined, but may not properly reflect all the efforts and accomplishments of the laboratory's 3 The purpose of these wargames is more to discuss materiel and doctrinal options, rather than move simulated combat forces on maps, computers, or physical terrain.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 40 scientists and engineers (e.g., the scientist who would rather conduct research than write, or the software engineer who may find it impossible to get a patent). In addition, although less of a problem for the bulk of basic research, measures of recognition (i.e., honors, peer recognitions, and awards from professional and learned societies) can be distorted by the classified nature of military research. Another possible output measure is the transition of given technologies to further development or application, yet, this again can be a deceiving metric as the origin of the technology that finally makes up a weapon system may be obscure. Input measures, such as the numbers of Ph.D.s from highly regarded graduate programs and the state of equipment and facilities, are more convincing, albeit less reliable, measures. To date, the Army laboratories are only beginning to measure the quality of their work, and have not developed enough data to validate their measurements against nationally recognized world-class laboratories (Department of the Army, 1992). Thus, in reviewing ARL's ability to conduct world-class research, this committee relied heavily on judgments of input criteria: management, personnel statistics, administrative practices, and funding. ARL has some broad areas of excellence. Some elements of its directorates have the ability to conduct world-class research in areas that are uniquely tied to the Army. Many ARL scientists and engineers, for example, presented outstanding summaries of their research projects at the 18th Army Science Conference in June 1992 (Kamely et al., 1993). ARL excels in the use of simulation and modeling that can predict the performance of new components and systems. Using high-performance computing, ARL pursues radical new concepts in projectile design, gun propulsion, armor technology, and novel weapons. Its evaluations of man-machine interfaces in proposed equipment designs are also excellent. It uses simulation to conduct comprehensive and accurate analyses of developmental systems without costly large-scale experimentation such as live-fire testing (Taulbee, 1993). It has been responsible for the basic research underlying night vision systems and has made major contributions through this research to the Army's night warfare capabilities. Much other excellent R&D goes unrecognized because it is classified. But ARL still does not have the reputation enjoyed by some government laboratories like the Naval Research Laboratory and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The committee believes that the conditions for maintaining consistent excellence have not yet been fully established. As experienced by many government laboratories and engineering centers, ARL suffers undue constraints on management, restrictions on hiring and promotion, unresponsive procurement systems, and reductions in personnel and funding. Unless corrected directly with administrative changes or indirectly with an organizational or management structure change (e.g., a

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 41 GOCO laboratory), these and other conditions will prevent ARL from achieving, let alone maintaining, world- class status. The Director, Senior Leadership, and Staff The quality of research in ARL depends primarily both on capable managers and supervisors and on talented and experienced senior scientists and engineers, who stand outside the management chain but guide and inspire younger colleagues. Yet, in personnel management, ARL is highly constrained. Salaries are uncompetitive.4 Managers have little local authority to hire, reward, and fire personnel. There are rigid limits on the numbers of high grades and total personnel. The process of approval for hiring scientists and engineers and senior managers is cumbersome and slow, and requires many months and layers of approvals. Promotions, merit-based pay raises, and firings are limited (see Chapter 7 and Appendix D). Many personnel reforms permitted by the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act of 1990 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 have not yet been implemented (Army Laboratory Command, 1991). In order to assert its world-class status, ARL needs the administrative flexibility to hire and reward the best possible technical personnel, from the director to the bench level. The Director. As an implementation of the Lab 21 study, the directorship of ARL changed from a two-star general officer to a civilian Senior Executive Service (SES) position with a protocol rank of a two-star general. The decision to have a civilian director was wise. Since military commanders typically rotate in and out of their assignments within two years, a civilian director brings stability. A civilian also has the potential to have much more technical experience, at the bench and in directing research, than the typical Army general officer. Senior Technical Leadership. ARL has 26 other general officer equivalent civilian positions—19 SES and 7 Scientist-Technologist positions.5 These 4 The average salary per ARL scientist and engineer was found to be $52,700 as opposed to the average GOCO scientist and engineer salary of $70,000 (see Chapter 7 and Appendix D). In addition to differences in averages, the GOCOs also have a much wider pay band available at equivalent grade levels. 5 An SES is a senior manager, while a Scientist-Technologist is an SES equivalent, nonsupervisory, technical person (senior researcher).

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 42 positions are difficult to fill with qualified research and development personnel. Approval by AMC, Department of the Army, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Office of Personnel Management takes at least nine months. (At the time of this report, there were 6 SES positions unfilled [3 since October 1, 1992]. Concern over downsizing the Army and anticipation of a larger than usual number of SES retirements in 1994 has drastically slowed down the system [Kirby, 1994].)6 The next level of supervisors and senior researchers are also difficult to recruit or promote because of hiring freezes and imposed limits on the numbers of GS-13s, 14s, and 15s allowed in ARL. All Army organizations have similar limitations which can be attributed to downsizing and reduced funds. However, an organization primarily oriented toward R&D needs a high proportion of experienced Ph.D. and M.S. scientists and engineers in grades GS-13 and above. This ideal condition is not the case in ARL, as it is within the Naval Research Laboratory (see Figure 2-1). ARL is thereby prevented from recruiting experienced scientists and engineers, and from promoting capable scientists and engineers from within. These current restrictions have the further negative impact of encouraging talented young scientists and engineers in ARL who realize that promotion above GS-12 is unlikely to seek employment elsewhere. Scientists and Engineers. ARL employs about 3,600 people, half of them scientists and engineers; about 400 of the scientists and engineers hold Ph.D.s. By fiscal year 1997, employment is projected to drop to about 3,100 people. At that time, ARL hopes to increase its number of Ph.D. scientists and engineers to 800 (40 percent of the total scientists and engineers). The current distribution of Ph.D.s in ARL's directorates is described in Figure 2-2. ARL is not as well endowed with Ph.D.s as some well regarded federal laboratories. Even if it can double its current number of Ph.D. scientists and engineers by fiscal year 1997, it still will not match the current 47 percent at both NIST and the Naval Research Laboratory. With the current freeze, the most recent proposed reductions in Table 2-1, and other restrictive personnel policies, it is not clear how, by 1997, ARL will fulfill its goal of increasing the number of Ph.D. scientists and engineers to 800. The Naval Research Laboratory credits its high levels of Ph.D.s to its innovative personnel office (which is highly sensitive to the special needs of 6 The large SES pay raise in 1991 encouraged SESs to stay in service until 1994 in order to maximize retirement pay, since it is based on a percentage of the average of the last three years of salaries. The committee could see no apparent reason for this to slow down the system unless the elimination of positions will be somewhat dependent on which SES positions are vacated from retirements.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY FIGURE 2-1 Personnel: the Naval Research Laboratory versus the Army Research Laboratory. Source: Data from the Army Research Laboratory. 43

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY FIGURE 2-2 Distribution of Ph.D.s in ARL's directorates, Source: Army Research Laboratory. 44

TABLE 2-1 Army and AMC Proposal for Distributing Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Personnel Reductions, By Agency. Source: Prather, 1993. Proposed New AMC Program Budgetary Guidance (Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Spaces) Fiscal Year 1994 Fiscal Year 1995 Fiscal Year 1996 Fiscal Year 1997 Fiscal Year 1998 Fiscal Year 1999 Percent Loss Fiscal Years 1994–1999 AMCCOM 3,709 3,299 3,299 3,299 2,969 2,756 25.7 ATCOM 1,826 1,619 1,619 1,619 1,513 1,445 20.9 CBDCOM 1,223 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,012 966 21.0 CECOM 1,429 1,366 1,366 1,366 1,351 1,267 11.3 MICOM 1,603 1,406 1,406 1,406 1,390 1,304 18.7 STRICOM 250 250 250 250 250 250 0.0 TACOM 403 403 403 403 399 385 4.5 REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY TECOM 6,691 6,638 6,522 6,445 6,181 5,996 10.4 ARL 3,496 2,961 2,932 2,847 2,819 2,678 23.4 AMSAA 328 280 276 276 275 275 16.2 NOTE: U.S. Army Agency in AMC AMCCOM Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command ATCOM Aviation and Troop Command CBDCOM Chemical and Biological Defense Command CECOM Communications-Electronics Command MICOM Missile Command STRICOM Simulation, training and Instrumentation Command TACOM Tank-Automotive Command TECOM Test and Evaluation Command AMSAA Army Materiel Systems Analysis Agency 45

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 46 the Naval Research Laboratory and has implemented many of the Defense Laboratory Demonstration [Lab Demo] initiatives), to its concern for the professional morale of its scientists and engineers (e.g., permitting them to control their own programs as they progress from basic research on through engineering development), and to its long-term reputation of excellence. Additionally, the Naval Research Laboratory augments its pool of government Ph.D.s through the use of the Inter-government Personnel Act which authorizes salary payments to universities and industry for visiting researchers, whose appointments are not to exceed one year (Tolles, 1994). Acquiring Highly Qualified Scientists and Engineers. One approach for ARL to upgrade current education levels in its workforce is to enroll its scientists and engineers in advanced degree programs. The Army provides its civilian employees a variety of opportunities for relatively short-term training (ranging from several weeks to a year), which lend themselves to the pursuit of master's degrees. But it has been forbidden by law (Public Law 101-510) to support full-time study leading to degrees, and therefore cannot generally support doctoral studies. However, exceptions have been provided since May 1992, with the issue of the Office of Personnel Management Bulletin 410-132. If a shortage of qualified personnel can be shown to exist, an agency may support full-time doctoral or other studies. AMC is exploring this option for ARL and the RDECs. Another approach is recruitment, however, the Army must take into account the quality of scientists and engineers being recruited. The most qualified candidates available to ARL, considering limitations in hiring, paying, and rewarding technical personnel, may not be of world-class quality. AMC recognizes this problem and has taken actions to attract highly qualified scientists and engineers, but AMC's hiring freeze and the Army's mandated personnel and budget cuts have limited the success of innovative recruitment efforts. An AMC-wide hiring freeze over the past two years has prevented ARL from hiring the young scientists and engineers that might bring the knowledge and the quality that ARL needs. ARL (and its predecessors in the Laboratory Command) hired only 45 people in fiscal year 1992 (9 of them scientists and engineers) and 7 people in 1993 (none of whom were scientists or engineers). There is merit in the saying that quality begets quality. The reputation of ARL's R&D efforts (and of Army laboratories in general) is not considered comparable with that of the Naval Research Laboratory, NIST, or of many of the world-class laboratories in industry or academia. The committee believes that this less favorable reputation also hinders ARL's ability to attract promising young researchers from excellent graduate programs. The current ARL efforts to publicize research accomplishments, sponsor seminars and

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 47 workshops, participate in science conferences, and promote a public relations program should help build its reputation. Personnel Management. Despite the overwhelming need to improve the technical makeup of its workforce, ARL is highly restricted in its current management of personnel. Limitations on competitive salaries and promotions and shortcomings in the current hiring and firing policies persist in ARL, despite initiatives from DOD acquisition officials to implement the Defense Lab Demo program of reforms,7 that would streamline personnel and procurement procedures and generally give managers greater discretion and accountability (Atwood, 1989; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1989). The Lab Demo initiatives could be carried out by administrative fiat, within the letter of the regulations of the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The reasons why the Lab Demo initiatives have not been fully implemented at ARL could not be determined by the committee. In addition, the committee believes that some of the personnel management decisions of the Defense Management Review Decisions will make a bad situation worse. Defense Management Review Decisions are a current DOD initiative to regionally consolidate support functions such as maintenance, finance, and personnel. For R&D organizations, some of these moves may degrade the local decision authority necessary to exploit opportunities and respond rapidly to new needs. Intended to improve efficiency, they have the perverse effect of robbing ARL of flexibility in assigning personnel. For example, the proposed Defense Management Review Decision 974 for consolidating personnel administration, authorized by AMC in the draft Civilian Personnel Consolidation Mandate 93-01 (dated July 19, 1993), will hamper ARL's recruiting by preventing timely offers to qualified scientists and engineers and by reducing the influence of the Director in personnel decisions. In general, it might reduce ARL's ability to establish innovative personnel policies suited to its own needs; for example, ARL might want to enhance or tailor the performance reviews of its scientists and engineers, but the regional personnel office might want standard performance review evaluations. Impacts of Personnel Cuts. Personnel reductions, caused by downsizing, significantly constrain ARL's efforts to improve the quality of its workforce. ARL cannot set its own personnel levels to meet its budget and work 7 These initiatives are described more fully in Chapter 3, as part of the description of the ARL Enhanced option.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 48 requirements. Like most other federal organizations, its personnel numbers are set by higher headquarters, in this case by the Army and AMC. Current plans call for additional cuts, with the burden falling heavily on ARL. Table 2-1 shows the Army's and AMC's most recent proposal for distributing Army-mandated job cuts among ARL and other research, development, test, and evaluation organizations. ARL may be forced to use a reduction in force to reach the fiscal year 1995 allocation of 2,961. The committee believes that ARL's cuts are based on Army program guidance and recently proposed budgets. ARL's proposed budget available to this committee more closely supports the new 1997 figure of 2,847 (assuming the Army intends to implement its plan to contract out 30 percent of the ARL budget).8 A rationale could not be determined for the wide variance in percentages of cuts in AMC commands. Additionally, President Clinton's Executive Order 12839, dated February 10, 1993, required each agency to reduce its workforce by 4 percent, with at least 10 percent of those cut at grade 14 or higher. ARL has not received any relief from bearing its proportional share of these cuts, along with acquisition and logistics organizations. Procurement Practices The committee believes that, in general, as one moves away from government practices and toward those of private industry, contracting and procurement become more efficient. Sluggish procurement practices, for even a seemingly simple item, slow down research progress and hurt staff morale. In some cases a less than desirable item is delivered, as a result of adherence to regulations governing bidder selection. The Competition in Contracting Act is frequently applied in ways that result in time-consuming competitions for procurements over certain threshold values. According to policy, the Director of ARL, as Head Contracting Authority, may approve sole source contracts for up to $10 million. However, in practice, the Director must justify such decisions to both Army contracting officials and Congress, sometimes causing the process to become as tedious as full and open competition (Holmes, 1993). At the Branch Chief level, sole source procurement is allowed only for items under $25,000, insufficient when compared to the cost of high-tech laboratory equipment (Holmes, 1993). Purchases of greater than $25,000 normally take more than three months to complete (National Performance 8 The committee was initially briefed with a 1997 personnel strength of 3,100 for ARL. Based on proposed budgets, personnel salaries, and overhead, this figure would restrict ARL to contracting out only about 20 percent of its budget. Thus, the committee used 20 percent in its calculations (see Chapter 7 and Appendix D).

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 49 Review, 1993). The General Services Administration's supply schedule limits managers in what they can buy and how much they must pay. The entire system is not designed to support one-of-a-kind and rapidly changing research projects. Many of these problems would be substantially reduced by implementing the Lab Demo initiatives, thus simplifying procurement and generally increasing the decision-making authority of laboratory managers (see Chapter 3). This is evidenced by some of the Lab Demo procurement reforms that ARL has managed to implement. For example, the procurement of low-value items has been streamlined in some laboratories by using commercial credit cards with spending limits of $2,500 up to, in some cases, $10,000. A few laboratory managers are permitted to set their own level of bench supplies. These practices represent a formative start, but they should be exploited fully. Funding Indicative of the defense budget as a whole, ARL's funding for research, development, test and evaluation has declined from about $368 million in fiscal year 1993 to about $316 million in fiscal year 1994.9 However, the budget is expected to stabilize at about this level through fiscal year 1997, despite further reductions expected in the Army's research, development, and acquisition budgets. These figures reflect the tension between the declining budgets and the Army's policy of trying to protect the technology base. The Army's Flagship Technology Base Laboratory. The mission and program emphases of the Army Research Laboratory were largely developed in the Army's Lab 21 study (Department of the Army, 1991). To establish ARL as the flagship technology base laboratory for Army materiel, Lab 21 established institutional funds for ARL's core research mission. The customers for the output of this institutionally funded research were to be primarily the RDECs (Army Research Laboratory, 1993a). However, the funding in support of the flagship laboratory did not materialize as it was envisioned. Figure 2-3 shows a graph (top) used to illustrate the Lab 21 vision for ARL in 1991 (Department of the Army, 1991). 9 The reduction includes about $13 million for basic research (6.1) and exploratory development (6.2), almost all ($38 million of $40 million) of nonsystem-specific advanced development (6.3A) funding, and about $7 million for mission (analytical) support (6.5). The decline in 6.3A was expected as part of ARL's reorganization. Along with these reductions there is an increase of about $5 million for operational systems development (6.7) in support of technology insertions into existing systems. Table D-5 provides more details on funding data.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 50 FIGURE 2-3 ARL funding: fiscal year 1991 vision versus fiscal year 1993 reality. Sources: Data from the ASA(RDA) Lab 21 Vision Briefing, 1991, and Table 2-2.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 51 While this graph was only notional and was not intended to convey precise funding quantities, it can be considered a reflection of ARL's intended role. The corresponding graph in the bottom half of the figure shows the actual distribution of funds in fiscal year 1993. ARL's actual percentage (white area) of 6.1 and 6.2 funding in AMC is much smaller in fiscal year 1993 than the Lab 21 vision. ARL today receives only 16 percent of the Army's 6.1 funding total, and 24 percent of its 6.2 funds (Table 2-2) for a total of 22 percent of the Army's science and technology funds. (The Naval Research Laboratory operates with 34 percent of similar funds in the Navy, but also receives advanced engineering, development, and procurement funds [Singley, 1993].) ARL does not dominate either category of funds in the Army, and its limits for contracting out research have been reduced from 50 to 30 percent. This pattern raises committee concerns that the Army may have failed to provide ARL with the resources and flexibility needed to carry out its intended mission of promoting the development of the technology base for future systems. Additionally, this change in funding does not support the Army's science and technology strategy to improve efficiency by stabilizing science and technology funding (Department of the Army, 1992). TABLE 2-2 Technology Base (6.1 and 6.2) Funding (Fiscal Year 1993) 6.1 (millions) AMC/Army (percent) 6.2 (millions) AMC/Army (percent) Army Research Office 56.8 43/29 0 0 Army Research Laboratory 32.3 24/16 170.2 32/24 AMC Research, Development and 43.1 33/22 354.3 68/49 Engineering Centers AMC Total 132.2 /67 524.5 /73 Army Research Institute for 3.7 /02 13.6 /02 Behavioral Sciences The Surgeon General 49.7 /25 91.2 /13 The Corps of Engineers 10.9 /06 78.2 /11 Program Executive Office for 0 9.4 /01 Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Total Army 196.5 716.9

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 52 At current funding levels, ARL must compete with the RDECs—its own customers—for funds from other services, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, program executive offices, and program managers to make up for institutional funding shortfalls. In fiscal year 1993, ARL received $50 million from program executive officers and program managers and $32 million from other Army and DOD agencies, as well as only $28.1 million direct from the RDECs. Too Broad a Research Program. With a $200 million institutionally funded R&D budget, can ARL support world-class research in 10 broad business areas? Most likely not. The committee's collective experience suggests that at least $40 to $50 million per year is needed to support an adequate R&D program in each technology area (i.e., business area). As a comparison, the Advanced Research Projects Agency has spent about $100 million per year on its Armor/Anti-Armor program (mostly with 6.2 funding and some advanced development [6.3] funding). In comparable technology areas, the Advanced Research Projects Agency averages about $120 to $140 million per year in its advanced materials research programs (6.1 and 6.2 funding) (Richardson, 1993). While based on 1993 expenses, ARL's Materials Directorate will probably receive about $13 million (6.5 percent) of ARL's institutional 6.1 and 6.2 funds. ARL's broad research program is a result of its broadly-stated ARL mission statement with its associated business areas and core competencies derived from historical areas of emphasis. Although ARL's mission statement can be used to justify nearly any conceivable technical effort undertaken, it doesn't have the funding to support such efforts (Army Research Laboratory, 1993a). In addition, its mission does not separate ARL responsibilities from those of the RDECs, and allows for possible unnecessary overlap and duplication. Some may agree that overlap and duplication may increase the probability of finding a breakthrough in research. However, at a time when funding shortfalls necessitate the use of cooperative agreements and other cost-saving research efforts, overlap and duplication are an unnecessary drain on funds. Quality of Research Facilities The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (1991) directed that parts of ARL be physically moved to consolidate its operations (see Chapter 1). This decision required funding for new facilities in Maryland, at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Adelphi. The Commission allocated about $400 million in fiscal years 1991– 1997 for the construction of materials and

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 53 electronics laboratory facilities and the relocation of personnel and equipment into these facilities. The new facilities will provide the modern infrastructure required of world-class laboratories. However, funds for repair, maintenance, and operation of existing and new facilities are insufficient. For example, $25.6 million have been programmed for fiscal year 1997, which is $20.2 million less than what ARL estimates is required (ARL Fiscal Year 1996-10 Long Range Research, Development and Acquisition Plan for Base Operations). The committee has no way of judging the accuracy of ARL's maintenance estimates, but such a discrepancy suggests that ARL in the future may be hindered from making significant changes to facilities to support new research thrusts or changes in emerging technologies. Reporting Channel and Status The committee believes that to some degree, the status of an organization influences the perception of its ability to conduct world-class research. A laboratory's status may be enhanced by external agencies' views of how important that laboratory and its efforts are to its parent organization. That perception can be influenced by its governance mechanisms, including its reporting channel. As a nationally recognized laboratory, the Naval Research Laboratory's importance to the Navy's research program is reinforced by its reporting channel to the Chief of Naval Research, who in turn reports directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. NIST enjoys similar importance in the Department of Commerce and within the government. It reports to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, an arrangement that ensures high- level support. The perception of ARL by industry, academia, and other government research and development organizations may not be equivalent, since its reporting channel is not directly to the Army's research and technology leadership, the ASA(RDA). In the discussion of this criterion, the committee has identified several problems in ARL in personnel management, contracting, procurement, and funding (research, development, and facility maintenance). The committee also concludes that ARL has too broad a research program for available resources. In this context, it is difficult to see ARL, however well managed, as a successful world-class laboratory even though some world-class research may be conducted in it. Additionally, the committee believes that its current reporting channel does not hold the same status as other government world-class laboratories.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 54 Diversity and Quality of Research Sources The Army's technology base is a moving target. ARL must be agile enough to exploit the best sources of research and technology, inside or outside the government, at any given time. ARL should cultivate a diverse and flexible network of contacts and partnerships with industry, academic researchers, and other government laboratories, rather than attempting to cover all of the Army's technology needs itself. It should concentrate its internal resources in areas of technology where it has unique strengths, or where it alone can meet an emerging Army need. Restrictions Imposed by the Army. The Army has required that all of ARL's basic research (6.1) be conducted internally. In comparison, ARO is responsible for buying basic research from universities. The RDECs may buy basic research from industry or from ARL. For exploratory development (6.2), ARL is somewhat less limited, but it cannot contract out more than 30 percent of its work. Such restrictions were established to maintain an internal capability to conduct basic research and exploratory development, but do not provide ARL the flexibility to provide its customers the best research and technology available internally or externally. Restrictions Due to DOD Contracting Mechanisms. Responsive contracting mechanisms are essential to effective R&D. Yet, DOD persists in using traditional procurement contracts—suitable for purchases of aircraft, rations, or hand grenades—in buying research and development. These highly regulated contracts, which often require layers of approval and have inflexible contract terms, degrade ARL's ability to buy from a diversity of sources, especially commercial ones, in a timely way. The tedious process for establishing and implementing such contracts not only slows progress, but also limits diversity and quality by discouraging many potential sources from participating. Once a contract is signed, changes in its deliverables are slow, cumbersome, and expensive to obtain which prohibits ARL from quickly altering the focus of the research to meet changing needs. ARL, for these reasons, must depend on internal expertise for quick responses or for projects that require changes in research focus. This dependence may be a reason for ARL's broad and overambitious program of 10 business areas. By relieving these contracting limits, the Army could allow ARL to focus its program on its own areas of greatest expertise, while contracting for, or otherwise acquiring, the best research and technology from the outside for other areas.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 55 DOD has had full statutory authority for several years to establish cooperative agreements—a form of contract widely used by other federal agencies to support research and development—and has not used that authority except in the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Successful purchases of research and development often involve interactions between the government and the contractor that are unavailable in the standard DOD procurement contract, but to which cooperative agreements lend themselves. Technology Transfer to the Army ARL must be able to identify potentially useful technologies, develop them, and transfer the results through the various stages to ultimate practical use. These are key considerations in evaluating ARL and the plans for its management and governance. Normally, ARL does not transfer technology directly to users, but instead transfers its technologies to the RDECs, who complete the transfer to the Program Managers and Program Executive Officers (the managers for the development and acquisition of hardware and software systems). Technology transfer is promoted in a number of ways: • As explained earlier in this chapter, ARL and the RDECs establish Technology Program Annexes, which define the responsibilities of an ARL directorate and an RDEC in a specific joint research project and provides a specified transition point of project leadership. • ARL is responsible for 38 of the Army's 200 Science and Technology Objectives: agreements to make defined major technology advances within a given time schedule (Department of the Army, 1992). Science and technology objectives are developed by both the materiel and combat development communities. Fixed transition points from ARL to an RDEC are set on time lines, and funding is programmed to support the transferred effort. • ARL held an ARL Technology Opportunities Conference in October 1992, which brought together 600 bench-level ARL scientists and engineers, RDEC personnel, and representatives of TRADOC's battle labs for discussions of technologies and user needs. ARL's linkages and ability to transfer technology directly to the RDECs are made easier by its reporting channel to AMC. A change in ARL's reporting channel outside of AMC could inhibit direct linkages to the RDECs. Technology transfer to the RDECs would become a greater challenge, but with care and attention, this challenge could be met. The committee also believes, however, that the anticipated enhancements in the quality of ARL's

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 56 research and development efforts will partially compensate for the weakened ties between ARL and the RDECs. The Importance of an Integrated Approach to Technology Development With research, development, and acquisition resources decreasing in the Army, there is a steadily increasing need to integrate the process of technology development to assure that particular technologies are supported from cradle to grave. ARL cannot do this alone, since it is limited to basic research (6.1) and exploratory development (6.2), and does not have direct contact with program managers who apply technologies in systems and report through program executive officers to the ASA(RDA). The RDECs, on the other hand, are able to conduct basic research, exploratory development, nonsystem- specific and system-specific advanced development (6.3A and 6.3B), and engineering development (6.4). Technology transfer thus should occur more easily within the RDECs than from ARL to the RDECs. An interactive relationship with the RDECs is therefore critical for ARL if it is to see its technologies applied to systems. The experience of the committee has shown that the best way to transfer technology is through personal interactions—in fact, by transferring people from one organization to another. While the Technology Program Annexes are the key means of forming these partnerships, they account for only half of ARL's program. Other than the AMC Board of Directors and the guidance of the ASA(RDA)'s Science and Technology Master Plan, there is no continuous overall management of the R&D activities of ARL, ARO, and the RDECs. While it is beyond the charter of this study to recommend the initiation of a program of overall management, the Army should consider this possibility, perhaps in the form of a single Army research and development laboratory integrating all of the R&D organizations currently under the supervision of AMC. This would certainly ease the technology transfer among the current three AMC organizations—ARO, ARL, and the RDECs—and to system program managers, as well as avoid duplication and unnecessary competitions for funds. A New Model of Technology Transfer The Defense Department's longstanding policy of funding research sequentially, from basic research (6.1) up to engineering development (6.4), and finally to production and use, with different agencies involved at different points along the way, leads to a large number of technology transfers. These

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 57 transfers are difficult when they take place among separate entities such as ARL, the RDECs, and system program managers. Industry and many government agencies have found this sequential approach to technology transfer too slow, too uncertain, and too unlikely to meet the real needs of users. They have substituted a nonlinear or systems approach to guide the work and facilitate technology transfer. Each stage from concept to production and marketing is guided by the needs of all the other stages and is highly interactive (rather than sequential). Figure 2-4, adapted from a presentation by the Xerox Corporation, provides one way of visualizing this process. This figure basically shows a matrix-type organization that requires the teamwork of all parties (including teams or individuals who stay with particular projects through at least several stages), highly increased interaction, considerable flexibility, and outstanding corporate management for its successful implementation. The best illustrations of this approach among the federal laboratories are probably the nuclear weapons programs of the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as the R&D teams at NIST, the China Lake facility of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and the Naval Research Laboratory. At these laboratories, projects are followed beyond the research phase, through development, and sometimes all the way to production; they are not constrained in scope as is ARL (to 6.1 and 6.2 work). In addition, such an approach was possible at one of ARL's predecessor organizations, Harry Diamond Laboratories. The team that developed the fuse for the Patriot air defense missile's new antitheater ballistic missile capability, in the buildup to Operation Desert Storm, was able to continue its involvement through the war, perfect the fuse, and get it to production for use in limited numbers against Iraqi Scud missiles. The team was able to do this only because in war the bureaucratic lines break down. Such issues arise more clearly in considering joint ventures or other types of projects with outside entities, whether with industrial companies or other DOD or federal activities. The “transfer point” as determined by ARL's current scope may be impractical, because it lacks the essential element of flexibility and concurrency. Should industrial joint ventures be with ARL and an RDEC, with one or the other having the overall responsibility? Such arrangements would seem unwieldy, but could be a consequence of the present organizational responsibilities. This difference in approach and the limitations on ARL's scope have significantly influenced ARL's management, governance, and integration with military and industrial R&D. In considering ARL's current governance, the Commander of AMC may be reluctant to allow ARL to venture into technology areas beyond the 6.2 (exploratory development) funding level and possibly infringe on the mission and efforts of one of his RDECs.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY FIGURE 2-4 Comparison of the linear research and development model used in the Department of Defense acquisition process (top) with the interactive model now commonplace in industry and gaining acceptance in some government agencies (bottom). The illustration of the interactive model is adapted from a presentation on the Xerox Corporation's Total Process Innovation system, which includes much more interaction and teamwork throughout. 58

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 59 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs The Army is not self-sufficient with regard to technology. The Army's technology base investment is about $12 billion. The nation as a whole spends about $150 billion on research and development. ARL must capitalize on these external sources of technology. By strategic spending on these sources of technology, military laboratories can share the costs of technology with commercial firms and other government agencies, thus leveraging its funds through joint ventures and cooperative research and development. ARL's success in this area so far has been limited. Technology from the Private Sector In many vital fields, such as electronics, commercial firms have produced technology that is more advanced and more cost-effective than its counterparts in government laboratories. It is necessary to exploit these sources of so-called “dual-use” technology to the extent possible, through small research contracts and other interactions that increase the payoff to the Army from relatively small investments. The term “spin-on,” a play on the familiar expression “spin-off,” is used to describe this process. ARL is always seeking partnerships of this kind. However, any leverage the government may have is limited by the DOD's insistence on using procurement contracts for research and development, rather than the more flexible cooperative agreement form, which permits real partnership in discussing aims and products. Neither party to a typical R&D contract is likely to be satisfied, and the administrative burdens are great. As a means to resolve this issue, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 allowed for the establishment of the cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA), a contractual form created to foster technology transfer from the federal domain to the private sector. The cooperating organization (which may be a firm, a university, a nonprofit R&D organization, another federal laboratory, or a state agency) provides personnel, equipment, or financing for R&D activities that complement a federal laboratory's mission. The federal laboratory can grant these collaborating parties patent licenses or assignments in inventions made by federal employees under the agreements; and permit federal employees or former employees to participate in commercializing any resulting inventions. The federal partner receives a royalty-free, nonexclusive license to any copyrights or inventions. CRADAs are no substitute for adequate research contracting procedures. They are required to be of no net cost to the government, and thus cannot be used to transfer funds to contractors.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 60 ARL has been a very active participant in this effort, with 54 active CRADAs as of late 1993. ARL plans to increase its CRADA activity by 15 percent per year from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1999 (Army Research Laboratory, 1993c). The rich opportunities for collaboration presented by CRADAs have therefore been a great opportunity for ARL. Technology from Other Government Agencies Another form of leverage, too little exploited in the world of defense technology, is the sharing of costs and effort with other government laboratories. Traditionally, each service has been responsible for its own technology, from basic research to engineering design. The recent establishment of the Tri-Service Science and Technology Reliance program is intended to help the Armed Services and other organizations in the Defense Department share the burdens of and reduce redundancy in research and development efforts, by defining the division of labor in more than 200 specific areas of technology. In each area, one of the participating organizations takes the lead responsibility. The program is too new to have demonstrated its success, but does offer a high-level forum for discussions aimed at increasing research productivity. It will surely grow in practical importance as defense budgets decline. Technology Program Annexes also serve as a leveraging function for both parties, through the formation of ARL-RDEC teams (see Technology Transfer to the Army in this chapter). ARL gains additional science and technology knowledge, which is most likely to be used for supporting near-term research and development. Improving Productivity Cost-effectiveness for ARL, as for every other organization in DOD, has a new urgency, owing to today's lower defense funding. A program of continuous improvement will be needed. The Army has therefore embraced the methods of total quality management, and has begun development of its own program, called Total Army Quality. This program is beginning to identify measurable standards for gauging progress (Army Research Laboratory, 1993b). ARL intends to take the following steps to improve quality in the next five years: • improve customer feedback mechanisms; • increase training opportunities;

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 61 • make benchmarking (comparison of ARL methods with those of other organizations) an expected activity throughout ARL; • examine the potential of business process engineering; • train at least two people as experts in the methods of Total Army Quality; and • expand employee quality survey participation to at least half of ARL employees. However, the total quality management approach of emphasizing quantitative measurement of multiple tangible inputs and outputs is not always suited to R&D organizations. ARL's inputs and outputs—mainly knowledge—are extremely difficult to measure in these terms. Industry and government laboratories are struggling with this problem. The consensus is that the quality of research and development can be assessed most accurately by expert opinion, through peer reviews and management judgment and a history of known successes. The committee feels that the ARL Board of Directors cannot provide this assessment as well or as independently as a group of nongovernment, nationally-recognized science and technology experts. Besides this difficulty, ARL, as now constituted, is also limited in its ability to implement other aspects of total quality management. Its personnel and procurement administrative procedures, as explained earlier in this chapter, are too rigid and unresponsive to permit the management and worker accountability and authority that are vital to continuous improvement. None of these problems is insurmountable, of course. As this report shows, there is a range of options for the Army, each of which offers important relief from these obstacles. ARL, if it is to thrive, must seek this relief. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The committee's review of ARL has revealed deficiencies in its program and its management. Many of these problems stem from unduly restrictive federal and Defense Department administrative procedures, which fail to give managers the authority and accountability that provides for excellent research and development needs. Other problems appear to reflect a confusion about ARL's mission, priorities, role in conducting research, and relations with its customers and its sponsor. After reviewing ARL, the committee believes even more strongly that an organizational and management change alone does not guarantee that ARL will be a source of high-quality research and technology. Deficiencies

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 62 exist that must be resolved with actions beyond the transition to a new organizational structure (if appropriate for the option). Many reforms can be made in ARL to resolve personnel, procurement, and funding issues while it is under the governance of AMC. However, the committee believes that implementation within the AMC could also be a problem. An AMC commander would find it difficult to single out ARL for elite status as long as it is closely intermeshed with the rest of his command, both organizationally and physically. No commander who has the responsibility of optimizing value of the entire AMC command would find it tenable to establish a differentiated, organizational entity with a separate culture and set of operating policies. The committee's general recommendations include: • streamlining ARL's procurement practices; • improving its personnel practices; • focusing ARL's own mission and research program to bring it into line with budgetary realities and unique Army needs; • improving the formation of partnerships with customers, users, and industry to broaden the technology base and to improve technology transfer out of and into ARL; and • changing its reporting channel from the Commanding General of AMC to the ASA(RDA). It is the committee's judgement that this change would better support a mission of Army-wide horizontal technology integration, make it easier for ARL to practice a nonlinear (nonsequential) approach to technology transfer, provide full-time research and technology leadership, and place ARL in a position which would reduce command concerns for giving it an elite status in terms of personnel, procurement, and other administrative reforms. The committee also believes that this move would enhance ARL's external status as the Army's flagship laboratory (putting it on a similar level with the Naval Research Laboratory and NIST). This recommendation also includes replacing the ARL Board of Directors with an independent science and technology advisory board. A detailed discussion of each of these recommendations is found in Chapter 8 (Conclusions and Recommendations).

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 63 THE ARMY'S CHOICES The four organizational and management options considered by the committee, described and assessed in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5 through Chapter 6, are all significant steps toward a more effective and responsive Army Research Laboratory. They offer a range of solutions to the deficiencies the committee has found in its review of the current ARL. All of the options have as their fundamental assumptions the implementation of the five general recommendations, to the extent that they are applicable. (The procurement and personnel reforms, obviously, would inherently be implemented by the contractors who play important roles in the ARL Multicenter and GOCO ARL options.) Regardless of the option chosen, carrying out these recommendations fully and quickly would give the Army Research Laboratory a more secure and unique mission, as the premier Army materiel laboratory.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 64 REFERENCES Army Laboratory Command. 1991. CMRL Baseline Study. Army Materiel Command. 1992a. Charter for Army Materiel Command Board of Directors. Alexandria, Virginia. August 21. Army Materiel Command. 1992b. Minutes of the AMC Board of Directors Meeting. Alexandria, Virginia. November 23. Army Materiel Command. 1993. Briefing to the ARL option panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory, Alexandria, Virginia. June 14, 1993. Army Research Laboratory. 1993a. Business Plan, Fiscal Years 1994–2004. Global Strategy. 1(January). Adelphi, Maryland. Army Research Laboratory. 1993b. Business Plan, Fiscal Years 1994–2004. Long Range Plan. 2(August). Adelphi, Maryland. Army Research Laboratory. 1993c. Business Plan, Fiscal Years 1994–1999. Responsive to Owners and Customers. 2. Adelphi, Maryland Atwood, D.J. 1989. Laboratory demonstration program: Actions for improvement of the quality, productivity, and efficiency of DOD laboratories. November 20. Memorandum. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1991. Report to the President. Washington, D.C. July 1. Department of the Army. 1991. LAB 21. Report prepared for Secretary of the Army. Draft. Department of the Army. 1992. Army Science and Technology Master Plan. November. Department of the Army. 1993. U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Board of Directors (BOD). February 19. Memorandum from Army Materiel Command Headquarters, Alexandria, Virginia.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 65 Gendason, P., and E.A. Brown. 1993. Measure of R&D effectiveness: A performance evaluation construct. 1993 Management for Quality in Research and Development Symposium. Juran Institute, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. Holmes, J. 1993. Personal communication from John Holmes, Office of the Director, Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland, to Albert A. Sciarretta, Study Director, November 17, 1993. Kamely, D., K.A. Bannister, and R.M. Sasmor, eds. 1993. Army Science: The New Frontiers, Military and Civilian Applications. Saratoga, New York: Borg Biomedical Books. Kirby, K. 1994. Personal communication from Kevin Kirby, Personnel, Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland to Albert A. Sciarretta, Study Director, March 11, 1993. National Performance Review. 1993. Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. September 7. National Research Council. 1993. Managing Air Force Basic Research. Committee on Air Force Research Management, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Porter, D. 1993. Briefing by D. Porter, Director, Mounted Battlespace Battle Lab, U.S. Army Armor Center, to the ARL option panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory, at Ft. Knox, Kentucky, June 16, 1993. Prather, Maj. Gen. T.L., Jr. 1993. Proposal for new staffing levels for U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) research, development, test and engineering (RDT&E) activities. November 15. Memorandum to Army Materiel Command subsidiary commanders. Richardson, J. 1993. Personal communication by James Richardson, Special Assistant, Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia to Albert A. Sciarretta, Study Director, December 6, 1993. Rosenkrantz, B. 1994. Personal communication by B. Rosenkrantz, AMC Headquarters, Alexandria, Virginia, to Albert A. Sciarretta, Study Director, March 11, 1994.

REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 66 Singley, G. 1993. Briefing by George Singley III, Director of Research and Technology, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition), to selected members of the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory, Pentagon. May 11, 1993. Taulbee, S., ed. 1993. ARL predictive technology. Adelphi, Maryland: Army Research Laboratory. Pamphlet. 1994. Personal communication by W. Tolles, Assistant Director for Strategic Planning, Naval Research Laboratory, with Albert A. Sciarretta, Study Director, January 28, 1994. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1989. Holding the Edge: Maintaining the Defense Technology Base. OTA-ISC-420. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. April.

Next: 3 ARL Enhanced Option »
The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!