5
Principal Findings and Recommendations
To summarize the content of the preceding chapters, Chapter 1 addresses the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) need for military and civilian employees with graduate-level science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and management (STEM+M) education, and assesses DoD’s graduate education organization structure. Chapter 2 analyzes various DoD-funded and civilian university STEM+M graduate education sources. Chapter 3 concentrates on the value proposition of DoD’s two primary in-house STEM+M graduate education sources: the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS). In concert with its value proposition analysis, Chapter 3 reviews specialized DoD degree-granting graduate programs in STEM+M, including costs and benefits of maintaining DoD in-house graduate educational institutions. Chapter 4 offers alternatives to current graduate education solutions designed to ensure high-quality graduate education outcomes for DoD employees and military members. Finally, Chapter 5 summarizes the contents of the report and consolidates principal recommendations under six themes. References are provided for principal findings and recommendations related to each theme.
The importance of STEM+M graduate education for both uniformed and civilian components of the DoD workforce cannot be overstated. Underemphasizing it in times of constrained budgets will imperil DoD’s future and the security of the United States. The basis for this view is given in Chapter 1, where the differences between management practices for the two workforce components—military and
civilian—are also explored. The military workforce is essentially a closed population after admission at the entry level, whereas the civilian component sits in the overall marketplace with arrivals and departures at all levels of a career. This difference appears to be reflected in overall management and tracking of the two workforce components, with the civilian component largely managed locally with strategic oversight provided via the inaugural DoD Strategic Workforce Plan.1 Although rudimentary today, it is encouraging to note that the plan offers a framework for the future.
Education is distinguished from training in this report in accordance with the adage, “Train for the known, educate for the unknown.”2 Unlike training, quality graduate education outcomes require robust support by research programs, a requirement sometimes overlooked by DoD decision makers. This difference should be recognized and valued across the department. The committee took a narrow view of the management element in STEM+M, not because the broader area is less important, but simply to reflect the STEM emphasis in the study’s terms of reference (provided in Appendix A). Indeed, graduate education in “+M” is also of great importance to DoD, particularly in regard to business practices and theories outside of government that help DoD obtain what it needs.
The committee sought data from all DoD graduate-degree-granting institutions, with limited success. Ultimately, the committee focused on the two primary DoD STEM+M institutions—AFIT and NPS—together with a brief look at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) and the Information Resources Management College (iCollege) of the National Defense University. The path of this focus is discussed in Chapter 2. AFIT, NPS, and the USUHS constitute the jewels in the crown of DoD graduate-degree-granting institutions in general, and clearly with regard to STEM+M degrees. Indeed, this status follows from their dedication to the goals and standards of leading civilian institutions.
The committee took a limited look at civilian institutions for similar reasons of scope and time. However, the committee did explore a few “best practices” of civilian institutions and benefitted greatly from committee members with strong credentials in the academic community. Because the vast majority of DoD in-house STEM+M education is provided by AFIT and NPS, Chapter 3 examines their value propositions in detail. As noted, accurately estimating the cost of DoD in-house education is elusive. Even costing civilian institution education programs is less obvious than accepting the published “face values” for tuition rates. Accordingly, Chapter 3 provides a “first order” cost analysis of AFIT and NPS education and
_________________
1 Department of Defense, Fiscal Years 2013-2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., 2013.
2 Variously attributed to Art Cebrowski and VADM Rodney Rempt.
then focuses on the value that DoD, students, and sponsoring organizations receive for that investment.
The quality of AFIT and NPS offerings cannot be measured in ways common to civilian institutions (exclusivity of admissions, research reputation of students and faculty, etc.), and Chapter 3 explores how such quality might be viewed in comparison to state university systems. Chapter 3 also offers an illustrative “change model” to improve governance of AFIT and NPS for its military students, which may have merit for overall management of all DoD graduate degree programs. Lastly, Chapter 3 describes the committee’s perceptions of AFIT’s strategic priority within DoD relative to other DoD educational institutions and recommends an organization construct designed to enhance its priority.
Chapter 4 explores several ways to enhance the quality and quantity of DoD’s graduate education outcomes. The committee’s recommendations do not call for replacing AFIT or NPS with civilian institutions, nor the reverse (i.e., achieving all military graduate education objectives through AFIT and NPS). Rather, it is the diversity and a combination of education sources that will ensure national security in the future, in the face of large uncertainties. AFIT and NPS add significant value, particularly for the military component of DoD’s workforce. At the same time, civilian institutions should continue to educate a significant portion of DoD’s workforce—both military and civilian —in order to foster an intellectual environment driven by a diversity of experience and perspectives. This argues for the virtue and value of an overall graduate education strategy that leverages complementary elements of AFIT, NPS, and civilian institution education programs.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The report’s principal findings and recommendations align with six major themes. The themes, in priority order are as follows:
1. Strengthen the STEM+M competencies of DoD’s total workforce by placing greater emphasis on graduate STEM+M education.
2. Maintain a balanced portfolio of STEM+M graduate education sources consisting of DoD and civilian institutions.
3. Expand and adequately resource civilian workforce STEM+M graduate education initiatives.
4. Recognize and support the importance of STEM+M research at AFIT and NPS.
5. Enhance AFIT and NPS graduate education outcomes by increasing institutional collaboration through partnerships and effective distance learning methods.
6. Elevate AFIT’s strategic priority.
All report findings and recommendations, along with the supporting evidence for each finding and recommendation, can be found in Chapters 1 through 4. This chapter summarizes the contents of the report and consolidates principal recommendations associated with the above themes. Each theme is explained below.
1. Strengthen the STEM+M competencies of DoD’s total workforce by placing greater emphasis on graduate STEM+M education.
The world’s technical knowledge base and the technical complexity of modern warfare are rapidly increasing. By increasing its investments in graduate STEM+M education, even as the total workforce decreases in an increasingly constrained budget environment, DoD can continue developing and exploiting advanced technologies as key force multipliers. DoD leaders, regardless of background, will increasingly confront technical and technical management issues as the already rapid pace of technology change increases. DoD leadership should therefore encourage all graduate education programs to include technical and technical management-oriented components in order to send a strong signal of STEM+M’s importance to the workforce and increase the STEM+M literacy of DoD decision makers.
Finding 1-1. Looking forward to the next 50 years of greater leveling among the global economies and uncertainty about DoD budgets, the elements of superiority must be achieved in other ways. First among them is the need for a more, not the same or less, capable DoD workforce. This is likely to rest on individuals with greater knowledge, experience, and insight in STEM+M areas. This will be true for both military and civilian elements of DoD’s workforce, as well as its industrial base. Relevant graduate education and a culture of lifelong learning are means to those ends.
Recommendation 1-1. The Department of Defense should increase its investments in graduate STEM+M education, even as the total workforce decreases in an increasingly constrained budget environment.
Finding 1-2. The use of innovative technology solutions to address enduring DoD problems will not come simply by increasing the number of graduate degrees in STEM+M fields. Rather, it will require greater STEM+M “literacy” by all elements of the DoD workforce.
Recommendation 1-2. The Department of Defense should encourage greater inclusion of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and technically oriented management elements in all education programs in order to deepen the overall STEM literacy of the workforce.
Finding 1-3. The Air Force recently added STEM-related skills as an institutional competency for all military members and civilian employees. 3
Recommendation 1-3. The Air Force’s policy of instilling science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-related skills is one model the Department of Defense should emulate to further institutional competency for all military members and civilian employees.
2. Maintain a balanced portfolio of STEM+M graduate education sources consisting of DoD and civilian institutions.
AFIT and NPS each have important value propositions that yield significant return on DoD investments. Value-added elements include graduate programs built around defense-based curricula and supported by military-relevant graduate research, the formation of multiservice and multinational intellectual networks that aid students throughout their military careers, and infrastructure and policies that facilitate sensitive and classified research. With recognition and full support of DoD, AFIT and NPS can contribute to a balanced STEM+M portfolio. Faculty members also form a body of technical and management experts that DoD acquisition and logistics professionals use to obtain independent opinions on challenging issues.
A significant portion of DoD’s STEM+M graduate education needs could be met through civilian institutions. This is particularly important for degree programs in mission-critical areas, such as law, medicine, and life and social sciences, which are not offered at DoD-funded education institutions in sufficient quantity to meet DoD needs.
Finding 2-1. AFIT and NPS are primarily master’s degree-granting institutions because the number of Ph.D. degrees they confer is less than 3 percent of the number of master’s degrees.
_________________
3Air Force institutional competencies are defined as the basic and essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed throughout one’s career to operate successfully in a constantly changing environment. These education, training, and experiences provide the foundation upon which the Air Force’s lifelong continuum of learning is built. The major categories are “Organizational” (employing military capabilities, enterprise leadership, managing organizations and resources, and strategic thinking), “People/Team” (leading people and fostering collaborative relationships), and “Personal” (embodies airman culture and communicating). Within the “employing military capabilities,” competency is the “leverage technology” sub-competency that addresses STEM related behaviors. Institutional competencies apply to all members of the Air Force, military and civilian, and at all grades by proficiency levels. See U.S. Air Force, Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1: Leadership and Force Development, AFDD1-1, November 8, 2011, http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/.
Finding 2-3. AFIT and NPS do not have complete control over their admission process and are asked to take students assigned to them by other elements of DoD. For this reason, the range of preparation of their students is wider than many civilian universities, particularly at NPS. Both schools provide remediation help to incoming students who have been away from school for an extended time period due to operational demands.
Finding 2-5. NPS appears to place an emphasis on admitting personnel with non-STEM undergraduate degrees. Via a sequence of intense noncredit remedial courses, these students are offered an opportunity to go on to pursue a STEM-related master’s degree. On the other hand, AFIT normally requires an undergraduate degree in a STEM field for admission to their graduate programs.
Finding 3-1. NPS and AFIT have student-to-faculty ratios, respectively, of 4 and 8. Based on U.S. News and World Report rankings, top engineering schools such as MIT and Stanford maintain ratios between 5 and 8. Therefore, it appears both AFIT and NPS have sufficient faculty numbers to deliver accredited graduate master’s degrees and certificates. Based on the committee’s graduate STEM education expertise, to include leadership and evaluator roles with ABET accreditation bodies, NPS and AFIT teaching and research methods are pedagogically consistent with other leading universities.
Finding 3-4. AFIT and NPS foster teamwork and facilitate the formation of intellectual networks that follow students throughout and beyond their military experiences. Developing military-to-military, joint, and interagency relationships can play a critical role as students work in future multi-Service and multi-national operations.
Recommendation 3-2. The Air Force Institute of Technology’s (AFIT’s) chain of command should be changed, perhaps to resemble the Naval Postgraduate School, with its own board, budget, accreditation, and program authority, in order for AFIT to maximize its value to the Department of Defense and the nation.
Recommendations 3-3. A senior-level panel should be formed composed of former senior military and Department of Defense (DoD) civilians with leadership experience in civilian educational institutions to recommend specific means to (1) remove or reduce the impediments cited in Finding 3-8; (2) advance the value of DoD science, technology, engineering, mathematics,
and management (STEM+M) education institutions; and (3) assess the mission impact these impediments, and others that may develop, have on the STEM+M workforce. Such a panel should examine how the whole STEM+M education enterprise aligns programmatically and by research competencies with key DoD science and technology thrusts, and make recommendations with regards to programs, people (faculty and students), and, especially, business processes.
Finding 4-1. Quality civilian universities are a valuable source of STEM+M graduate education for all civilian and military DoD employees. For officers, they provide education in disciplines not covered by AFIT and NPS, as well as education for prospective military faculty at AFIT, NPS, and the Service academies. Because few DoD civilians attend AFIT or NPS, civilian universities are essential for their graduate education. DoD would be well served to continue to rely heavily on civilian institutions for its graduate STEM+M education needs.
Recommendation 4-1. The Department of Defense should continue and expand support for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management graduate education of its officers and civilian employees at civilian universities.
3. Expand and adequately resource civilian workforce STEM+M graduate education initiatives
DoD does much better strategically supporting the graduate education needs of its uniformed members than it does the needs of its civilian STEM+M workforce. This is true in terms of process, structure, opportunities, and funding. This issue could be addressed in three ways: (1) increase funding for civilian tuition assistance programs, (2) expand support for DoD’s SMART program, and (3) aggressively use Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Funds (DAWDF) or “DAWDF-like” funds for the entire STEM+M workforce, by obtaining authorization from Congress either to expand existing DAWDF to include all STEM+M workforce professionals or to establish similar funding to educate those not covered by DAWDF.
Finding 1-5. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines have a comprehensive and well-executed process for the career development of their military officers. Moreover, these Services track and support the graduate education of its officers quite well. The committee reviewed these processes and believes they provide a solid basis for tracking the evolution of the military workforce. The committee had inadequate information to reach a conclusion about the Army processes.
Finding 1-6. A strategic mechanism to track and manage the overall civilian workforce is emerging in the inaugural DoD Fiscal Years 2013-2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report.4 It appears to be a comprehensive effort to manage the civilian workforce.5
Recommendation 2-2. In an era of rapidly developing distance learning technology and opportunity, the Department of Defense should seriously explore the possibility of combining the networking and bonding benefits of military officers in residence at the Air Force Institute of Technology or the Naval Postgraduate School with the benefits of exposure to other institutions and learning opportunities at civilian universities by using distance learning.
Finding 2-6. There is no centralized source, within DoD, of clear and consistent data on how many STEM+M degrees are being obtained by military and civilian DoD personnel at civilian universities.
Finding 4-6. Military tuition assistance is a highly valuable military benefit. DoD spends some $560 million per year to support students under military tuition assistance, including nearly 5,800 master’s degree students. Although data are not available on what percentage of these students are active-duty officers seeking STEM+M degrees, it seems likely that this percentage is small. Encouraging more of these officer students to seek STEM degrees could help significantly to reduce DoD’s need for more STEM+M officers.
Recommendation 4-6. The Department of Defense (DoD) should create a new category of Priority Military Tuition Assistance for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management graduate education and do the following:
_________________
4 DoD, Fiscal Years 2013-2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report, Fall 2013, http://dcips.dtic.mil/documents.html.
5 From DoD, Fiscal Years 2013-2018 Strategic Workforce Plan Report (2013):
The plan incorporates the requirements of section 115b of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) and builds on lessons learned from previous efforts, which provide a unified process for workforce planning across the Department. The workforce planning process is guided by DOD Instruction (DODI) 1400.25, Volume 250, DOD Civilian Personnel Management System: Volume 250, Civilian Strategic Human Capital Planning, November18, 2008. This DODI establishes DOD policy to create a structured, competency-based human capital planning approach to the civilian workforce’s readiness (p. ii).
[It responds to] Section 935 of the NDAA FY 2012 amended section 115b of title 10, U.S.C. as follows:
• Biennial Plan Required: The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees in every even-numbered year a strategic workforce plan to shape and improve the civilian employee workforce of the Department of Defense; and
• An assessment of the critical skills and competencies of the existing civilian employee workforce of the Department and projected trends for five years out (vice seven years) in that workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and other attrition (p. 12).
• Significantly increase the maximum tuition payment per credit hour.
• Encourage, where possible, cohorts of students to take the same program together.
• Provide, as feasible, high-bandwidth connections to enable high-quality interaction for those courses.
• Encourage, where possible, release time for students to take courses synchronously or at a minimum to keep pace with their classmates weekly.
• Allow military tuition assistance funds to be used at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), to allow access to those courses and to give AFIT and NPS an incentive to compete for those resources and students.
• Assess the achievements of the students during their study and their contributions to DoD over their careers (see Figure 3-2 and associated discussions in Chapter 3).
Finding 4-7. SMART is achieving the purpose outlined for it in USC Title 10 Section 2192a. It offers full scholarships and post-degree employment in DoD laboratories to well-qualified, competitively selected students pursuing undergraduate or graduate degrees in STEM disciplines. SMART graduation and retention rates are high compared to national averages.
Recommendation 4-7. The Department of Defense (DoD) should continue and expand support for the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program and should provide a blanket exemption to current and future hiring freezes, as well as placement priority, to ensure SMART graduates are placed promptly and effectively employed. Furthermore, DoD should ensure the candidate selection process continues to be conducted on a competitive basis.
Finding 4-8. DoD does a much better job of supporting the graduate education needs of its uniformed members than it does the graduate education needs of its civilian STEM workforce. This is true in terms of process, structure, opportunities, and funding. AFIT, NPS and many civilian institutions have the capacity to better support civilians. DoD needs to find a sufficient and predictable funding source for all STEM professionals.
Recommendation 4-8. The Department of Defense (DoD) should aggressively use Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Funds (DAWDF) for the existing covered science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce members for graduate-level education through current long-term,
full-time education provisions. Further, DoD should obtain authorization from Congress either to expand existing DAWDF to include all STEM workforce professionals or to obtain “DAWDF-like” funding, backfilling positions behind students attending school and supporting their transitioning back to their former jobs after graduation.
Finding 4-9. Through the Civilian Institutions Program, NDSEG, SMART, and other graduate education programs, DoD provides both adequate stipends and full tuition for the graduate students it supports. In contrast, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provide adequate stipends at uniformly reduced tuition rates, which universities usually accept, for the Ph.D. students they support. West Point, NSF, and NIH have negotiated reduced tuition rates for Ph.D. students sent to civilian institutions. Adopting these practices across DoD would help the department stretch limited graduate education funds to support more graduate students.
Recommendation 4-9. The Department of Defense should provide a flat rate cost-of-education allowance to universities in lieu of tuition for Ph.D. students it supports, similar to allowances provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.6
4. Recognize and support the importance of STEM+M research at AFIT and NPS.
An active research program is essential to quality graduate education. Active, high-quality DoD research programs
• Provide critical elements of the student’s graduate education,
• Identify future education needs before requirements are specified,
• Exposes students early on to emerging technologies and new scientific and engineering discoveries,
• Instill a culture of lifelong learning in the students,
• Attract and retain quality faculty for all DoD educational institutions,
• Enhance the national visibility of DOD institutions, and
• Often result in cost savings and new capabilities for DoD.
Ensuring that AFIT and NPS are allowed to maintain active research programs and encouraging them to achieve international recognition in selected, DoD-rele-
_________________
6 NSF, for instance, currently pays $12,000 per year.
vant areas could lead to better education outcomes for students at and graduates of both institutions.
Finding 3-3. AFIT and NPS are often viewed solely as education enterprises by their constituents. These institutions, however, are coupled research/education enterprises with productive research programs that improve the quality of student education, play an essential role in attracting and retaining top faculty, and generate valuable weapon system insights and technologies.
Recommendation 3-1. The Department of Defense (DoD) should recognize and support the comprehensive value proposition offered by the Air Force Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School. Measures of convenience, cost, and quality are not sufficient to meet the demand for a technically superior workforce. When viewed from a total value perspective, as described in the benefits column of Table 3-9, DoD’s graduate science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management enterprise is a tremendous asset to the respective Services, DoD, and the nation.
5. Enhance AFIT and NPS graduate education outcomes by increasing institutional collaboration through partnerships and effective distance learning methods.
By jointly sponsoring research and teaching activities, and by continuing to maintain and broaden their partnerships with DoD laboratories and civilian research universities, AFIT and NPS can provide a wider range of degrees and problem-solving perspectives to their students and enhance the quality and relevancy of their research. Both AFIT and NPS understand the elements of effective, quality methods of distance learning (DL). For example, NPS has achieved a national reputation for its systems engineering programs via quality DL methods. In an era of rapidly developing DL technology and opportunities, DoD can actively leverage their proven DL approaches to connect students in residence at AFIT, NPS, and civilian institutions; broaden AFIT and NPS student bodies with more civilian DoD personnel; and expand the size of AFIT and NPS Ph.D. programs by offering a wider range of courses and research experiences.
Recommendation 2-1. The Air Force Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School should proactively seek to expand the December 4, 2002, memorandum of agreement between the Navy and the Air Force so as to increase collaboration with each other, as well as to partner with other selected universities to create a critical mass of Ph.D. students. This will enable a deeper
_________________
7 Ibid.
and wider range of courses and research experiences, particularly for some of the smaller Ph.D. programs.
Finding 2-2. At both AFIT and NPS, STEM+M master’s and Ph.D. students pursuing degrees on campus at AFIT or NPS, not explicitly in distance-learning programs, generally do not take for-credit courses via distance learning from either their sister institution or at civilian institutions.
Finding 2-3. AFIT and NPS do not have complete control over their admission process and are asked to take students assigned to them by other elements of DoD. For this reason, the range of preparation of their students is wider than many civilian universities, particularly at NPS. Both schools provide remediation help to incoming students who have been away from school for an extended time period due to operational demands.
Finding 3-1. NPS and AFIT have student-to-faculty ratios, respectively, of 4 and 8. Based on U.S. News and World Report rankings, top engineering schools such as MIT and Stanford maintain ratios between 5 and 8. Therefore, it appears both AFIT and NPS have sufficient faculty numbers to deliver accredited graduate master’s degrees and certificates. Based on the committee’s graduate STEM education expertise, to include leadership and evaluator roles with ABET accreditation bodies, NPS and AFIT teaching and research methods are pedagogically consistent with other leading universities.
Finding 4-2. The effectiveness and efficiency of AFIT and NPS can be increased by significantly enhanced collaboration and building on the strengths of the two organizations. This was recognized by the Air Force and Navy in the December 4, 2002, memorandum of agreement “Forming an Educational Alliance between the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force” and also by the findings and recommendation of the 2005 BRAC Commission, which called for establishing a “permanent oversight board responsible for curriculum review and approval, and program development for the resident and non-resident degree-granting programs at both schools,”7 which would be chartered by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and have substantial authority.
Recommendation 4-2. The Department of Defense should implement the recommendation of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Appendix Q, Section 197) to establish an empowered oversight board
for the Air Force Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School, reporting to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Finding 4-3. AFIT effectively uses its partnership with universities in Dayton, Ohio, to enhance its capacity and capabilities. Both AFIT and NPS have partnerships with other universities, but little evidence has been offered that they are used extensively.
Recommendation 4-3. The Air Force Institute of Technology and the Naval Postgraduate School should establish and use a limited number of partnerships with quality universities located near Department of Defense (DoD) installations or that otherwise possess unique partnering benefits. They should leverage distance learning tools and methods to exploit these partnerships, and in conjunction with DoD laboratories, provide a wider range of quality degrees that are available at remote locations (i.e., not Dayton or Monterey) and accessible to additional military personnel.
Finding 4-4. AFIT effectively uses the Wright-Patterson AFB component of AFRL to strengthen its graduate education program, employing its experimental facilities for thesis research and its technical staff as adjunct professors. AFIT’s collaborations with other components of AFRL, however, are not as robust. Finally, it appears that NPS does not significantly collaborate with DoD laboratories.
Recommendation 4-4. The Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) should permit their graduate students to conduct thesis research at Department of Defense laboratories and other suitable locations when doing so provides a quality education. AFIT and NPS should also involve adjunct professors drawn from those organizations to help guide and supervise graduate students. Effective distance learning tools and methods should be leveraged to reduce costs and enhance the education experience.
Finding 4-5. Distance education is rapidly expanding in the number of courses offered and in the quality of education provided. NPS has successfully taught many of its degree programs by distance education; AFIT has offered more certificate programs and fewer degree programs. Increased use of distance courses will offer much more flexibility to DoD personnel to attain advanced degrees, especially for those unable to relocate to AFIT or NPS.
Recommendation 4-5. The Department of Defense (DoD) should increase the use of distance education for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management degrees. Specifically, the Air Force should invest in converting some Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) M.S. degrees to be offered by distance learning, face-to-face, or any of the varieties of blended and hybrid delivery. In addition, AFIT and the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) should consider offering joint degrees, or joint courses, taught in person on one campus and by distance learning on the other. Finally, NPS and AFIT should use distance offerings to enable their students to be in residence at one of the DoD laboratories for their research while taking courses from their home universities.
6. Elevate AFIT’s strategic priority.
Many DoD organizations recognize the strategic importance of their educational institutions by having them report at the highest levels in the Services or Joint Staff. These institutions include the Service academies, the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, and NPS. AFIT currently reports to Air University, which reports to the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), where AFIT’s graduate STEM+M education and research activities do not align well with AETC’s Professional Military Education and training missions. By aligning AFIT with leadership that prioritizes its education and research mission, DoD can increase AFIT’s strategic value and give it the authority and autonomy it requires to effectively interact with institutional peers, such as NPS. In accordance with the examples cited above, the best way to achieve this result is to have AFIT report directly to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Finding 3-5. From an organizational structure and chain of command perspective, AFIT is at a disadvantage in comparison to the other graduate-degree-granting DoD organizations. This disadvantage was highlighted in the organization of the alliance between AFIT and NPS. While the alliance was purported to be between AFIT and NPS, responsibility for oversight of the alliance was given to the NPS Board of Advisors and the AU Board of Visitors. To ensure a connection between those boards, the NPS superintendent was appointed to the AU Board of Visitors and the AU commander, not the AFIT commandant, was appointed to the NPS board.
Finding 3-7. AFIT’s current command structure requires it to advocate for initiatives to maintain and strengthen its research-based graduate education programs via a lengthy chain of command that has limited graduate education
expertise, virtually no technical research expertise, and a focus on immediate training and professional military education requirements.
Recommendation 3-2. The Air Force Institute of Technology’s (AFIT’s) chain of command should be changed, perhaps to resemble the Naval Postgraduate School, with its own board, budget, accreditation, and program authority, in order for AFIT to maximize its value to the Department of Defense and the nation.
Finding 3-8. Sequestration, furlough, pay freezes, and limitations on travel, among other factors, have hampered the ability of AFIT and NPS to provide the required educational experience needed by its students, particularly its uniformed students. Further, it is vitally important for faculty and students at these institutions to be able to attend scientific conferences to present research to their peers, network, receive feedback, and remain current. To this end, the Services would be well served to implement DoD Conference Guidance Version 2.0, dated November 6, 2013, from the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Office that states that for most conferences that “approval authority at their discretion to General Officers/Flag Officers/Senior Executive Service members in their organization.”8
Finding 4-4. AFIT effectively uses the Wright-Patterson AFB component of AFRL to strengthen its graduate education program, employing its experimental facilities for thesis research and its technical staff as adjunct professors. AFIT’s collaborations with other components of AFRL, however, are not as robust. Finally, it appears that NPS does not significantly collaborate with DoD laboratories.
_________________
8 DoD. 2013. Memorandum: Implementation of Updated Conference Oversight Requirements. November 6. For additional information, see http://dcmo.defense.gov/products-and-services/conference-policies-controls/DoD%20Conference%20Guidance%20-%206%20November%202013.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2014.
