Throughout its history, the U.S. Air Force has relied on highly skilled scientists and technologists to manage the discovery, development, and integration of science and technology to advance the fielding of advanced Air Force weapon systems. Within the Air Force, which has historically placed a premium on scientific discovery, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) has responsibility for overseeing investments in basic research for Air Force applications.1
AFOSR continues to expand the horizon of scientific knowledge through its leadership and management of the Air Force’s basic research program. As a vital component of the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), AFOSR’s mission is to support Air Force goals of control and maximum utilization of air, space, and cyberspace.2
Over the years, AFOSR has played a large role in developing and nurturing talent in the nation. This starts with the graduate students that AFOSR funds at the universities and then also includes principal investigators who have been nurtured as assistant professors and whose career has developed as a result. Both the Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) have recognized the challenges in managing defense-focused scientific research in academia due to the uniqueness of educational institutions, Presidential and DoD basic research policy, and specialized skills and business practices required by basic research managers to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the investment. For purposes of this report, DoD basic research is defined as follows:
Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind. It includes all scientific study and experimentation directed toward increasing fundamental knowledge and understanding in those fields of the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences related to long-term national security needs. It is farsighted high payoff research that provides the basis for technological progress. Basic research may lead to: (a) subsequent applied research and advanced technology developments in Defense-related technologies, and (b) new and improved military functional capabilities in areas such as communications, detection, tracking, surveillance,
_________________________
1 Air Force Research Laboratory, Air Force Office of Scientific Research 2014 Technical Strategic Plan, 2014, https://community.apan.org/afosr/spring_review_2014/m/spring_review_2014_non_presentation_files/132008.aspx.
2 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, “AFOSR: About – Mission,” posted November 21, 2014, http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9492.
propulsion, mobility, guidance and control, navigation, energy conversion, materials and structures, and personnel support. Program elements in this category involve pre-Milestone A efforts.3
AFOSR accomplishes its mission by investing in basic research efforts for the Air Force in relevant scientific areas. As emphasized by the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB),
AFOSR is a vital resource to the Air Force and the Nation. It is one of only a few government organizations that funds high-risk, high-payoff research, and the only such organization devoted solely to basic research in support of USAF science and technology needs. Its aggressive approach to cultivate and fund high-risk, potentially high-payoff research is critical for the long-term development of technologies to ensure that the Air Force maintains its technological and competitive advantages over current and future adversaries.4
A recent study by the Institute for Defense Analyses Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) identified 28 mission-relevant capabilities that have basic science and technology needs that could be addressed by AFOSR in areas such as (1) command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (2) component systems and technologies; (3) vehicles (aircraft and spacecraft); (4) human-machine systems; and (5) design through operations.5 Key functions and attributes of the AFOSR mission include the following:
1. Broad and deep situational awareness. Science and technology (S&T) horizon scanning, both domestically and internationally, can ensure that the Air Force is aware of and can capitalize on the latest advances across the full spectrum of S&T fields.
2. Long-term focus and persistence in funding basic research topics of relevance to the Air Force. This is especially important now, given that industry is pulling back from longer-term research and development (R&D) investments.
3. Support of interdisciplinary research. Scientific breakthroughs increasingly occur at the interfaces among traditional scientific disciplines. Air Force basic research support is managed within a single office, so that AFOSR can effectively facilitate interdisciplinary investigations. Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURIs), often involving collaboration among the DoD basic research offices, are noteworthy for their successes, according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).6
4. Agility in funding. Some current fields may diminish in importance, and new fields may emerge. AFOSR needs to have the ability to judge quickly whether the Air Force should lead, collaborate, or monitor particular fields.
5. Effective talent scouting. Identifying and funding promising researchers and building communities can have lasting impacts on Air Force capabilities. The Air Force can draw from this pool of talented researchers to collaborate with Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and others in the national security community.
Central to AFOSR’s strategy is the transfer of fundamental knowledge gained from basic research to the other eight directorates of AFRL responsible for applied research and advanced technology development leading to acquisition programs, to other defense laboratories, to industry, and to the academic community. The benefits of Air Force basic research include not only a more effective Air Force but, more broadly, enhanced national and economic security.
The basic research mission requires continuous and specialized engagement with the academic community to foster intellectual thinking on long-term Air Force challenges. The size and complexity of the global academic base is increasing, and opportunities to harvest scientific knowledge to meet Air Force goals also are increasing.
_________________________
3 National Research Council, Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.
4 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Air Force Office of Scientific Research Science and Technology Review, 2014.
5 STPI, AFOSR Portfolio and Gap Analysis, 2014.
6 J. Belanichm et al, Institute for Defense Analysis, DoD’s Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) Program: Impact and Highlights from 25 Years of Basic Research, September 2014, https://www.ida.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/Publications/IDA_Documents/STD/D-5361.pdf?.
These and other factors led to this workshop to help ensure that AFOSR is postured to exploit the growing scientific base to meet more complex, long-term needs of the Air Force. AFOSR (and the Air Force, more broadly) need the right people, processes, and tools to effectively harvest knowledge amid the global explosion in research while simultaneously being efficient in light of declining budgets. This workshop focuses on AFOSR’s existing management and business practices and sheds light on similar organizations’ processes to allow AFOSR to benchmark best practices from the Army, Navy, OSD, and other agencies.
In this context, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering requested in 2014 that the Air Force Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine undertake a workshop to address the Air Force’s approach to managing its basic research portfolio.7 The Academies approved the workshop terms of reference and appointed the Committee on Improving the Air Force Scientific Discovery Mission: Leveraging Best Practices in Basic Research Management: A Workshop.8,9 The committee planned and participated in the workshop and prepared this report summarizing the observations of the numerous workshop participants over two workshop sessions held in April and May 2015.10 The report summarizes the views expressed by individual workshop participants. While the committee is responsible for the overall quality and accuracy of the report as a record of what transpired at the workshop, the views contained in the report are not necessarily those of all workshop participants, the committee, or the Academies.
Two workshop sessions were held, on April 27-28, 2015, and May 27-28, 2015, in Washington, D.C., during which speakers were asked to address such topics as the following:
- What are your expectations of AFOSR?
- What process is used to establish Air Force basic funding requirements?
- What types of metrics are used to assess AFOSR mission accomplishment?
- How are manpower requirements established for AFOSR?
- What are the key elements affecting AFOSR performance?
- How is basic research transitioned from AFOSR to the Air Force and Department of Defense?
- How does AFOSR measure the quality, relevance, and impact of its portfolio?
- Do AFOSR program officers have adequate resources to perform their duties?
- Is AFOSR funding sufficiently stable; are contracting, obligation, and expenditure policies appropriate?
- What are AFOSR’s principal strengths and opportunities for improvement?
- What would you change about AFOSR and its relations with other parts of the Air Force?
- What business practices in your organization should be considered for use by AFOSR?
- How do AFOSR grantees view AFOSR practices?
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONSIDERED IN THE WORKSHOP
While not all-inclusive, the following list provides a flavor of the topics discussed by the workshop participants: (1) organizational culture (e.g., collaborative, risk-taking); (2) senior management (e.g., continuity, background, grade); (3) recruitment, hiring, and retention of well-qualified program officers, including Intergovernmental Personnel Acts (IPAs); (4) effective utilization of program officers (administrative assistants, attendance of pro-
_________________________
7 Department of Defense (DoD) research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) budget activities are generally categorized as follows: 6.1, basic research; 6.2, applied research; 6.3, advanced technology development; 6.4, advanced component development and prototypes; 6.5, system development and demonstration; 6.6, RDT&E management support; and 6.7, operational system development. See DoD, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Basic Research, Washington, D.C., 2012, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/BasicResearch.pdf.
8 Appendix A provides the workshop terms of reference.
9 Appendix B provides short biographical sketches of the committee members. The committee was comprised of experts with backgrounds in government basic research, academic basic research, industry basic research, and congressional oversight of basic research.
10 Appendix C lists the speakers and participants.
fessional conferences, library access); (5) grant selection (criteria, processes, peer review, flexibility, turnover, duration, interdisciplinary); (6) contracting (timeliness, flexibility); (7) financial management (funds availability, obligation and expenditure requirements); (8) timely Institutional Review Board (IRB) determinations; (9) business information (tools, processes, products), workflow automation, and information technology support; (10) technology transition and transfer (processes, building ties, outcomes); (11) national and international collaborations; and (12) measures of success, reputation, and visibility.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
The management of Air Force and DoD basic research has been the topic of numerous reports over the years. Excerpted below are a handful of recommendations from several studies completed in the past 10 years that are related to the scope of this workshop. While this workshop report itself does not provide recommendations, the following recommendations from previous studies help to provide additional context for this workshop by illustrating that the topic of managing defense-related basic research is not a new one.
Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research (2005)11
DOD needs to realign the balance of its basic research effort more in favor of unfettered exploration. Senior DOD management should support long-term exploration and discovery and communicate this understanding to its research managers. (p. 2)
DOD’s personnel policies should be provide for continuity of research management with managers having an adequate level of authority. DOD should also include within the attributes it assigns to the management of its basic research the discovery of new fundamental knowledge, flexibility to modify goals and approaches, freedom to pursue unexpected paths and high-risk research questions, minimum requirements for detailed reporting, open communications, freedom to publish, unrestricted involvement of students and postdoctoral fellows, no restrictions on nationality of researchers, and stable funding. (p. 2)
S&T for National Security (2009)12
Focus on funding people before projects. The “payoff” to DOD is a cadre of people in the internal and external communities who are cognizant of both DOD needs and the forefronts of science, as well as the research itself. (p. 31)
Eliminate large fluctuations in 6.1 funding and schedules. Long-term research efforts cannot be turned on and off with yearly budget cycles and service rotations. Indeed, for a researcher, stable funding is more productive than more variable funding. Pressures to shape the basic research program around the “War of the Month” should be avoided. (p. 32)
Create a basic research advisory committee reporting to the USD(AT&L). The membership of this committee should include the DDR&E and appropriate Service personnel, together with an equal number of external members with high scientific and technical credentials from academia and industry. The committee would review and advise annually on the health of DOD basic research. (p. 34)
Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Basic Research (2012)13
DOD basic research program office directors should rotate active researchers from academia, industry, and FFRDCs using the IPA or HQE programs as appropriate. A useful goal may be to use these tools to keep the average time away from the laboratory low; less than five years for program managers if possible. Tours should be for nominally four years to best match up with the typical rotation of three-year grants. (p. 92)
_________________________
11 National Research Council, Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.
12 DoD, S&T for National Security, JSR-08-146, May 2009, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b360036.pdf.
13 DoD, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Basic Research, Washington, D.C., 2012, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/BasicResearch.pdf.
DOD basic research program office directors should provide funds and time for basic research program managers to attend relevant professional society meetings, both in the United States and overseas. These conferences provide excellent opportunities for performer meetings. In addition, program managers should fully participate in professional society activities, including publishing review articles and serving as editorial board members of professional journals. These and other activities enhance the skills and professional reputation of both the program and the program manager, and should be given great weight in the annual evaluation process and in promotion consideration. (p. 93)
DOD basic research program office directors should provide an adequate number of S&T program assistants to help execute the administrative activities associated with proposal review, grant administration, workshop organization, and other program management duties. Assistance with administrative tasks is needed to allow each program manager to perform at their best and to reserve adequate time for higher level activities. Program assistants should have degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. (p. 93)
AFOSR Science and Technology Review (2014)14
AFOSR is a vital resource to the Air Force and the Nation. It is one of only a few government organizations that funds high-risk, high-payoff research, and the only such organization devoted solely to basic research in support of US Air Force science and technology (S&T) needs. Its aggressive approach to cultivate and fund high-risk, potentially high-payoff research is critical for the long-term development of technologies to ensure that the Air Force maintains its technological and competitive advantages over current and future adversaries. (p. 3)
Issue: Funding and staffing are not necessarily driven by a strategic vision aligned with future needs of the USAF. In particular, important research efforts are being reduced due to PO vacancies (e.g., Dynamics & Control; Optimization & Discrete Mathematics; Sensing, Surveillance, and Navigation; and GHz-THz Electronics). Recommendation: These programs must be managed to prevent loss of critical capability and allow new proposals to be funded within these important research areas. AFOSR management are encouraged to develop and assess various options, including: 1) manage redistribution of the portfolios that do not have POs among the current POs, and 2) Recruit POs from AFRL TDs, Military, Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), US Air Force Academy (USAFA), and Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) program. (p. 6)
Issue: Insufficient PO development and management. The POs are the most important AFOSR resource. They have very specialized skillsets, and they serve a unique role interfacing with the S&T community. However, retirement eligibility, the potential move of AFOSR, and hiring difficulties have the potential to be highly disruptive to the team of POs and their S&T portfolios, and ultimately, the AFOSR mission. Recommendation: AFOSR should develop a strategic plan for PO development, management and retention. This includes establishing a more effective process for mentoring and monitoring PO development and rewarding success. AFOSR management should also require POs to periodically refresh the visions for their portfolios based on AF technical strategic plans and the research being done in the broader S&T community. (p. 6)
AFOSR Portfolio and Gap Analysis (2014)15
More agreement on AFOSR remaining based in DC and kept independent of other AFRL Directorates (minority of dissenting views). (p. 18)
Some interviewees proposed that AFOSR define and pursue a set of Grand Challenges as a way of both pushing truly breakthrough research and building closer ties between AFOSR and AF operational organizations. (p. 18)
Universal agreement that AFOSR’s success (both in portfolio creation and transfer to the rest of the Air Force and DoD) depends on the quality of its program managers (and that current tools for recruitment and retention had serious problems). (p. 19)
_________________________
14 Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, AFOSR Science and Technology Review, 2014.
15 STPI, AFOSR Portfolio and Gap Analysis, 2014.
