National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. The Army Research Laboratory: Alternative Organizational and Management Options. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9030.
×
Page R15

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.

i 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

ii NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose mem- bers 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 con- sisting 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 engineer- ing 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 initia- tive, 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 sci- ence 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

iii 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.

iv 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

PREFACE v 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

PREFACE vi 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.

CONTENTS vii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 20 The Army Research Laboratory 22 Organization 24 The Army Technology Base Infrastructure 26 The Research and Technology Process 26 Organizational Options 29 Vision of Future Army Research and Development and ARL's Role 30 The Committee's Approach 31 References 32 2 REVIEW OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TODAY 33 Assessment Criteria 33 Linkage to Army Strategies and Objectives 34 World-Class Land Warfare Research 39 Diversity and Quality of Research Sources 54 Technology Transfer to the Army 55 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs 59 Improving Productivity 60 General Recommendations 61 The Army's Choices 63 References 64 3 ARL ENHANCED OPTION 67 Enhancements 68 Defense Laboratory Demonstration Initiatives 68 Laboratory Quality Initiatives 69 Comparative Assessment 73 Linkage to Army Strategy and Objectives 73 World-Class Land Warfare Research 73

CONTENTS viii Diversity and Quality of Research Sources 74 Technology Transfer to the Army 74 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs 75 Recurring Costs and Productivity 75 Implementation Issues 76 Overall Evaluation 76 References 77 4 NIST OPTION 78 The National Institute of Standards and Technology 78 Enhancements 80 Flexible Personnel Policies and Procedures 80 Objectives 82 Basic Features 82 Evaluations of the NIST Personnel Demonstration Project 83 External Review and Oversight for ARL 84 Comparative Assessment 85 Linkage to Army Strategies and Objectives 85 World-Class Land Warfare Research 85 Diversity and Quality of Research Sources 86 Technology Transfer to the Army 86 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs 87 Recurring Costs and Productivity 87 Implementation Issues 87 Overall Evaluation 88 References 89 5 ARL MULTICENTER OPTION 91 Enhancements 91 Permanent Staff 92 Centers of Excellence 93 Comparative Assessment 94 Linkage to Army Strategy and Objectives 94 World-Class Land Warfare Research 95 Diversity and Quality of Research Sources 95 Technology Transfer to the Army 95 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs 96 Recurring Costs and Productivity 97 Implementation Issues 97 Overall Evaluation 98 References 99

CONTENTS ix 6 GOCO ARL OPTION 100 Enhancements 101 Comparative Assessment 102 Linkage to Army Strategies and Objectives 103 World-Class Land Warfare Research 103 Diversity and Quality of Research Sources 105 Technology Transfer to the Army 106 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs 107 Recurring Costs and Productivity 109 Implementation Process and Issues 110 Establishing a GOCO Laboratory as an FFRDC 110 Inherently Governmental Functions 113 Potential Problems of Implementation 114 Choosing a Conversion Method and Creating a Contract 115 Time Required for Implementation 116 Costs 116 Overall Evaluation 117 References 119 7 COST, PERSONNEL, AND PROCUREMENT COMPARISONS OF OPTIONS 121 Assumptions 121 Previous Studies 122 Costing Approach 123 Cost Analysis 126 ARL Enhanced Option 126 NIST Option 129 ARL Multicenter Option 129 GOCO ARL Option 130 Cost Findings 130 Costing Limitations 131 Personnel 132 Contracting 134 References 135 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 137 Review of the Army Research Laboratory 137 Linkage to Army Strategies and Objectives 137 World-Class Land Warfare Research 138 Diversity and Quality of Research Sources 140 Technology Transfer to the Army 141 Ability to Leverage Funds and Programs 141

CONTENTS x Improving Productivity 141 General Recommendations 142 Comparing the Four Options 149 ARL Enhanced Option 152 NIST Option 153 ARL Multicenter Option 154 GOCO ARL Option 154 Comparing the Options 155 Selecting an Option 155 APPENDIX A: STATEMENT OF TASK 159 APPENDIX B: THE FEDERAL PERSONNEL SYSTEM 161 APPENDIX C: THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING SYSTEM 167 APPENDIX D: COST, PERSONNEL, AND CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS 176 APPENDIX E: GOCO HISTORY IN DOE 223 APPENDIX F: SCHEDULE OF THE COMMITTEE'S BRIEFINGS AND SITE VISITS 227 APPENDIX G: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES 233

FIGURES xi Figures 1-1 ARL organizational chart. 25 1-2 The Army technology base. 27 1-3 The ARL research and technology process. 28 2-1 Personnel: the Naval Research Laboratory versus the Army Research Laboratory. 43 2-2 Distribution of Ph.D.s in ARL's directorates. 44 2-3 ARL funding: fiscal year 1991 vision versus fiscal year 1993 reality. 50 2-4 Comparison of the linear research and development model used in the Department of Defense acqui- 58 sition process (top) with the interactive model now commonplace in industry and gaining accep- tance in some government agencies (bottom). 3-1 Implementation of Lab Demo initiatives at ARL. 70

TABLES xii Tables 1-1 ARL Program Data (Fiscal Year 1993, $ Millions) 23 2-1 Army and AMC Proposal For Distributing Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Person- 45 nel Reductions, By Agency 2-2 Technology Base (6.1 and 6.2) Funding (Fiscal Year 1993) 51 3-1 Crosswalk Between Initiatives 72 7-1 Cost Comparison (Fiscal Year 1993 $) 127 8-1 Summary of Options Assessed by the Committee, with Comparative Data on ARL for Fiscal Year 150 1997 8-2 Summary Comparison of Options with Respect to the Committee's Evaluation Criteria 156 D-1 ARL Baseline Study Comparison ($ Millions) 178 D-2 Staffing Structure Holding Total Budget Constant (ARL Study) 181 D-3 Staffing Structure Holding Salary Budget Constant (ARL Study) 181 D-4 Holding Recurring Operating Costs Constant (Study of the Office of the Secretary of Defense) 182 D-5 ARL Program Data (Then Year, $ Millions) 188

TABLES xiii D-6 ARL Recurring Operating Cost Comparison Fiscal Year 1993 versus Fiscal Year 1997 Projection 190 ($ Millions) D-7 ARL Overhead Cost Comparison Fiscal Year 1993 Versus Fiscal Year 1997 Projection ($ Millions) 191 D-8 ARL Fiscal Year 1997 Projection of Severance Cost if Converted to a GOCO 192 D-9 Range of Base Pay in Each Cell of NIST Personnel Management Demonstration Project 193 D-10 Average Salaries: NIST and NAWC, China Lake 194 D-11 Salary Comparability (to Industry) Study National Institute of Standards and Technology 195 D-12 DOE Laboratory Staffing and Costs Fiscal Year 1991 Dollars 197 D-13 DOE Multipurpose R&D Laboratory Employees Fiscal Year 1991 198 D-14 Fiscal Year 1990 Air Force Contract Summary For Three FFRDCs ($ Millions) 200 D-15 Staff and Conversion Cost Comparisons (Fiscal Year 1993 $) 202

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiv Acronyms and Abbreviations 6.1 Basic research 6.2 Exploratory development 6.3A Advanced development (nonsystems) 6.3B Advanced development (systems) 6.4 Engineering development (supporting prototypes) 6.5 Mission support 6.7 Operational systems development AMC Army Materiel Command ARL Army Research Laboratory ARO Army Research Office ASA(RDA) Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center FTE Full-time equivalent FY Fiscal year GOCO Government-owned, contractor-operated GS General service Lab Demo Laboratory Demonstration NAWC Naval Air Weapons Center NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NRC National Research Council OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy OPM Office of Personnel Management R&D Research and development RDEC Research, Development and Engineering Center RDT&E Research, development, test and evaluation RIF Reduction in force S&E Scientist and engineer SES Senior Executive Service TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command

xv THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY Alternative Organizational and Management Options

Next: Executive Summary »
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!