2
Workshop Participant Observations and Key Themes
Key Theme. Several participants repeatedly stated that AFOSR is a unique organization fulfilling a mission important to national security by connecting the broad relevant basic research community to national security needs in the near and far term.
The evolving U.S. national security environment demands greater scope and depth from science and technology. The Air Force, more than ever before, requires the products of basic research, which are critical to future success. It is essential that fundamental research supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) map to Air Force strategy and that the basic research community be wholly embraced for its long term focus. Figure 2-1 provides an illustration of AFOSR’s strategy to manage Air Force basic research
Air Force science and technology must expand at an accelerating rate in order to keep pace with increased complexity of the Air Force mission set and the accelerating spread of relevant technologies to potential adversaries. The emergence of novel science and technology areas will create new threats and opportunities not traditionally considered mission critical by the Air Force. The Air Force continues to perform two fundamental missions: strategic nuclear deterrence and engagement in joint operations. Several decades ago, engagement in joint operations was primarily with kinetic and airlift operations in a single operating domain—creating effects in and from the air. Today, Air Force engagement in joint operations is increasingly demanding, both in scope and in meeting individual mission needs. Joint operations engagement now involves complex operations in and from air, space, and cyberspace with continued and more technically complex kinetic operations and greatly increased intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); mobility operations; delivery of other space-based capabilities; and non-kinetic operations. Basic research provides the essential underpinning for delivering the needed science and technology to meet these continually expanding demands for Air Force missions. It also provides an essential window onto emerging frontiers in science and technology, both in the United States and internationally, in areas directly relevant to current and future Air Force priorities.
AFOSR has the unique mission of providing the base for science, technology, and engineering growth and development. It connects broadly relevant basic research to national security needs in the near and far term. It provides thought leadership for academia and industry to establish new disciplines that deliver uniquely critical technologies. It supports growth in depth and breadth of the best and brightest researchers, helping them become
FIGURE 2-1 AFOSR technical strategy. SOURCE: Thomas Christian, AFOSR Director, “AFOSR Snapshot,” presentation to the committee on April 27, 2015.
leaders in their fields. It establishes strong ties between those future technology leaders and Air Force mission needs. It mitigates the risk of technology surprise and imbues the Air Force with an integrated awareness of both novel offensive measures and orthogonal countermeasures to Air Force capabilities that will materialize from emerging fields of science and engineering.
In the opinion of several workshop speakers, AFOSR international offices are especially critical for building ties with leading researchers throughout the world, obtaining current knowledge about foreign scientific advances, and building international good will. Overseas grants made by AFOSR, although modest in size and number, are particularly welcome in many countries because they usually involve less cumbersome reporting requirements and serve as strong endorsements, often attracting other funding. The AFOSR international program officers are the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL’s) “boots on the ground.” As noted by one speaker, however, all this is of little value if the information obtained is not shared with the rest of AFRL. AFOSR international offices need the resources to do so.
Several speakers and committee members expressed the view that the collocation of AFOSR with the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) basic research office, and other federal funding agencies in the Washington metropolitan area is highly beneficial. The last Base Realignment and Closure Commission made a similar statement,1 as have many universities and professional societies. Some went on to say that collocating AFOSR with other AFRL directorates would push it toward near-term, risk-averse research, perhaps even putting its continued existence at risk.
On the other hand, most speakers felt that AFOSR support of quality basic research at other AFRL directorates has merit and should be continued. They noted that such research strengthens the qualifications of AFRL researchers, builds ties to the academic community, and facilitates basic research technology transition, the subject of a later theme at the workshop. AFOSR contributes not only funds but also establishes academic contacts and provides quality control. However, block-funding basic research for AFRL technical directorates would not be wise, according to speakers who addressed the issue.
Merging DoD basic research offices has been proposed from time to time, and this topic came up during
_________________________
1 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Final Report to the President, Vol. 1, pp. 281-282, 2005.
the workshop. Generally, there seemed to be little enthusiasm for it among most of the participants. However, in the opinion of several workshop participants, the JASON committee recommendation to “create a basic research advisory committee reporting to the USD(AT&L)” has merit.2 “The membership of this committee should include the DDR&E (now, ASD(R&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.”3
Historically, some participants asserted, AFOSR has performed its responsibilities well, but faces obstacles to continued mission efficiency and effectiveness in meeting future needs. The key themes discussed below provide specific examples of why more attention is needed on facilitating the mission, including program officer numbers and diversity, rapid management turnover, and reductions in mission support.
Key Theme. In the opinion of numerous participants, stable, qualified, committed leadership at the top in AFOSR and its mission and support organizations also is essential for effective mission performance. These participants noted that all key functions should report to the AFOSR director.
The need for stable, qualified, committed leadership at the top in AFOSR and its mission and support organizations was strongly emphasized by multiple workshop participants as being essential for effective mission performance. Reductions in AFOSR senior positions have reduced the senior civilian leadership to a single Senior Executive Service (SES) member and a single senior scientific or professional (ST) member, when less than a decade ago the number of SES members was as many as five. This challenges the ability of AFOSR to engage both within the Air Force and with the external technical community at the senior leadership level. Numerous participants asserted that additional SES, ST, or equivalent positions are needed to support enhanced outreach to the basic and applied research and advanced technology development communities.4 This added investment in leadership could more effectively enhance communications with federal and university science and technology leaders, promote technology transition, and articulate the criticality of basic research to Air Force mission success. Based on comments by several speakers, it appears that AFOSR has a disproportionately small number of SESs for its size as a basic research organization. In the words of one speaker, AFOSR “needs big dogs.”
One participant suggested that the AFOSR director and other senior leaders should be expected to occupy their positions for at least 4 years, as has been the case until recently. In contrast, AFOSR has had four directors or acting directors in the past 2 years. As recommended in an earlier review of DoD basic research, “Personnel policies should provide for the needed continuity of research management in order to ensure a cadre of experienced managers capable of exercising the level of authority needed to effectively direct research resources.”5 Further, many speakers believe that AFOSR leadership should, in general, have technical qualifications at least comparable to those of program officers. Perhaps, as suggested by one speaker, national searches should be conducted for future directors.
AFOSR leadership does not have authority over some functions essential to effective and efficient mission accomplishment. A critically important example is the contracting office. The performance of this office is essential to the efficient execution of grants and contracts in alignment with basic research goals and academic timelines (namely, semester and graduation dates). According to former AFOSR directors, it is critical that program officers and contracting personnel work as a team, but separate reporting chains inhibit close, timely collaboration. Others spoke of the “tyranny of the functionals.” Consolidation of mission support functions removed from AFOSR has been characterized by many as being in pursuit of efficiency. As noted by one participant, there may be efficiencies in support functions, but when it is at the expense of the mission performance, the priorities are questionable at best. Many participants believe that mission effectiveness should have priority.
_________________________
2 JASON Committee, S&T for National Security, JSR-08-146, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Va, 2009.
3 Ibid.
4 Equivalent positions might include DR-5 positions, like those in the Army, Sec 1101 positions, like those at DARPA, or IPAs experienced in science and technology management.
5 National Research Council, Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Several speakers and committee members suggested that financial policies appropriate to the Air Force as a whole may not be appropriate for basic research management. For instance, several speakers stated that failure to obligate most funds for universities in the spring of each year compromises the quality of the funded research. Participants added that the timely obligation of funds could be accomplished by (1) assuring that AFOSR receives all its funds very early in the fiscal year and providing it with sufficient administrative personnel to deploy those grants quickly or (2) allowing AFOSR to carry a significant fraction of its funds into the second year of appropriation. In that light, the requirement that research development test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds be 88 percent obligated at the end of the first year is a “self-inflicted wound” that leads to less-than-optimal deployment of grants. The participants were told that AFRL is seeking an exemption to this and other financial policies for AFOSR. Year-to-year variations in the basic research budget also are harmful, according to several speakers.
Key Theme. The mission execution force for the work of AFOSR is its cadre of program officers, according to several participants. Therefore, they argued, recruiting and retaining the right number of well-qualified program officers, including through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), is extremely important.
Most of the workshop participants supported the idea that AFOSR’s effectiveness and efficiency in fulfilling its mission rests on the effectiveness and efficiency of its mission execution force—its cadre of program officers. Several pointed out that the highest-quality program officers—with high levels of technical competence and the leadership and management experience to lead basic research—are essential to the success of AFOSR. These individuals must be recognized thought leaders and technical champions in their fields. They should have a broad and critical understanding of their technical fields in order to provide the essential foundation to frame the Air Force research agenda and attract ideas from the best and brightest, both domestically and internationally. (These same views have been expressed by the Defense Science Board, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, the JASON Committee, the Science and Technology Policy Institute, and others.) To paraphrase one of the Air Force chief scientists at the first workshop session, program officers need to be able to speak to Nobel Prize winners one day and a four-star general the next.
AFOSR program officers at the first workshop session tended to agree with the idea that it was beneficial to develop and nurture deep and constant engagement with the technical communities of enduring significance to the Air Force to better understand leading-edge technical concepts. To ensure continued attention to emerging technical opportunities and needs, several participants suggested that the cadre also needs those who rotate into the role for specific periods. To fill this requirement, the cadre needs to be drawn from multiple sources: federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) at universities, University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), government laboratories, and industry laboratories. Many speakers and committee members emphasized the importance of utilizing the IPA to bolster the AFOSR program officer cadre and facilitate the infusion of new ideas and concepts into the office. Several speakers expressed the view that AFOSR consider increasing turnover in its program officers, perhaps by blending its current model with that of DARPA or NSF to ensure competitiveness, creativity, and transition focus. Some added that AFOSR also might consider exchanging program officers with other basic research funding agencies in order to further build cooperation and absorb best practices from others.
As observed by a senior member of AFRL management at the second workshop session, the diminishing number of program officers, the expanding range of disciplines to be covered, and the increasing rate of innovation combine to limit the effectiveness of AFOSR. Currently, AFOSR is understaffed in program officers from its optimum level by about 25 percent, and important research efforts are being reduced due to vacancies. A number of workshop participants asserted that correcting this situation must be the foremost priority of AFOSR and will require special attention to recruiting and retention.
Some speakers suggested allocating time on a weekly basis to allow program officers to maintain their technical stature by performing, presenting, and publishing research. The Army Research Office and NSF, for example, encourage program officers to undertake these activities. It was noted that AFOSR policy also permits personal research, but little time is available in practice to do so. Most participants hold the view that the most important
focus should be to leverage the knowledge, experience, and commitment of program officers by ensuring that the entire enterprise recognizes and treats the program officer cadre as the mission execution force. The function of all other activities must be to make this mission force as successful as possible. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 provide suggestions from two current Air Force major command chief scientists, presented at the first workshop session, related to improving the professional experiences of AFOSR program officers.
FIGURE 2-2 Developing people. SOURCE: Janet Fender, Chief Scientist, Air Combat Command, “Improving the Air Force Scientific Discovery Mission: Leveraging Best Practices in Basic Research Management (Personal Views),” presentation to the committee on April 28, 2015.
FIGURE 2-3 Observations and perspectives. SOURCE: Donald Erbschloe, Chief Scientist, Air Mobility Command, “Perspective on Improving the Air Force Scientific Discovery Mission: Leveraging Best Practices in Basic Research Management,” presentation to the committee on April 28, 2015.
Key Theme. Many participants raised the need for practices and processes that facilitate and support discovering and leveraging the best S&T work, wherever it is taking place, and others stated that establishing relationships with the best and brightest in national security work are essential to program officer effectiveness.
Several participants asserted that AFOSR program officers need to focus on the mission. In this context, they noted that every hour spent on paperwork in the office is less time interfacing with the research community, attending conferences, reading journals, and fostering interactions across all the various academic and Air Force stakeholders, customers, and performers. Hence, having adequate administrative support is essential. In this connection, as noted by many, AFOSR’s improved electronic work flow system and other internal information technology business processes are certainly valuable in reducing the administrative workload and were viewed as a best practice. But both current and past program officers and AFOSR leadership expressed the view that by eliminating assistant program officers and some other support personnel, administrative efficiency has been allowed to take precedence over mission effectiveness. Nearly every speaker stated that this situation needs to be corrected immediately. This thought has been captured by others, including the Defense Science Board.
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.6
Many participants argued that organization, practices, and processes that facilitate and support discovering and leveraging the best S&T work, wherever it is taking place, are essential to the success of AFOSR. Several added that they are essential to establishing relationships that produce relevant proposals, funded grants, and other interactions with outstanding researchers in the national security arena. There was broad understanding among many of the speakers and participants that, to be effective in performing these functions, program officers must participate in a wide range of conferences, workshops, and visits to centers of excellence. Relationships matter. A recurring concern heard from several presenters was that onerous bureaucratic processes have been institutionalized, restricting the attendance of scientific and technical conferences.7 Many spoke about the detrimental impacts that current policies and practices are having, not only at AFOSR but across the DoD science and engineering (S&E) community. Further, some participants added, the globalization of technology requires that this participation include interfacing in domestic and foreign venues. Many participants agreed that approval authority for conference attendance could be delegated to the AFRL commander and, whenever possible, to the AFOSR director.8
There was also agreement by many participants that program officers must have the broadest practical access to information sources to understand the pace of technology, again, both foreign and domestic. Several program officers stated that they did not have access to the journals needed to perform their work. These program officers also emphasized the growing importance of data analytics in identifying important research opportunities, as did several speakers and committee members. For instance, a committee member with relevant experience stated that “DoD S&T is behind the private sector in making use of data and data analytics. We should be supporting access to data sets and tools that can help them do their jobs more effectively.” He added that a technical librarian and others with expertise in big data also are needed. A few speakers and committee members expressed concern over the lengthy delays involved in obtaining Air Force approval of human and animal use research protocols.
_________________________
6 Defense Science Board, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Basic Research, 2012.
7 Government Accountability Office, Further DOD and DOE Actions Needed to Provide Timely Conference Decisions and Analyze Risks from Changes in Participation, GAO-15-278, Washington, D.C., March 2015, highlights page.
8 Report to Accompany S. 1376, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016,” Report 114-69.
Key Theme. Multiple participants at both workshop sessions cited that technology transition from AFOSR relies excessively on personal relationships established by program officers, and several claimed that a more formal and focused approach to transition is needed.
Many speakers and committee members stated that AFOSR’ focus on basic research, with other directorates within AFRL focused on applied research and development, is a desirable and successful model to sustain robust basic research. But several committee members and workshop presenters expressed concern that this model can leave the process for transition undefined, ad hoc, and excessively dependent on personal relationships and the initiative of the individual program officer. (In contrast, other speakers felt that personal relationships were an effective and desirable mechanism for fostering transition.) The expectation is that many AFOSR-funded basic research results should lead to future operational mission capabilities. There are certainly numerous examples to validate this expectation. For this to occur, in the view of many participants, there needs to be an orderly process for movement to applied research and eventually to industry activity to exploit the science and technology successes. A sentiment expressed by many participants is that fostering relationships between AFRL leadership and the combatant command and major command (MAJCOM) chief scientists is essential. Figures 2-4 and 2-5 provide suggestions from two MAJCOM chief scientists on potential game changing research areas for AFOSR investment that were presented at the first workshop session.
Several speakers suggested that AFOSR consider approaches to strengthen critical connections in novel ways, such as establishing a transition office, holding focused workshops, and exchanging personnel with industry and other parts of DoD. Of course, they added, such initiatives would require additional personnel. In fact, one program officer remarked that sufficient time no longer was available for effective interactions with counterparts in other parts of AFRL.
Interestingly, a few AFOSR program officers described DARPA as more receptive than AFRL to transitioning AFOSR discoveries. Several participants believe that AFOSR needs to “market” its successes better. One such approach suggested is showing a timeline of the transition of basic research to applied research and advanced technology development and capability delivery. In this context, one participant stated, a history of game-changing investments initially conceived and funded by AFOSR would be particularly valuable in communicating the impor-
FIGURE 2-4 AFOSR grand challenges. SOURCE: Janet Fender, Chief Scientist, Air Combat Command, “Improving the Air Force Scientific Discovery Mission: Leveraging Best Practices in Basic Research Management (Personal Views),” presentation to the committee on April 28, 2015.
FIGURE 2-5 AFOSR grand challenges. SOURCE: Azar Ali, chief scientist, Pacific Air Forces, “Improving the Air Force Scientific Discovery Mission: Leveraging Best Practices in Basic Research Management (Personal Views),” presentation to the committee on April 28, 2015.
tance of basic research and fostering transition to higher-level research and development. One example cited by the executive director of ONR at the second workshop session is how ONR uses its Naval Reserve Unit to document successful transitions and mine lessons learned to improve the transition process. There was not an expectation by the workshop participants that all basic research will transition, but given the speed of technology development today, several noted that it is important to develop a climate where new ideas generated can be brought to fruition more rapidly. A speaker suggested that AFOSR sponsor a few basic research grand challenges. The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program often served in the past as an important vehicle for transitioning discoveries to industry for further development, according to several speakers. Whether this remains the case, now that AFOSR no longer manages this program, is unclear.
PERSPECTIVES FROM A FORMER U.S. AIR FORCE CHIEF OF STAFF
Larry Welch was the 12th chief of staff of the Air Force. Box 2-1 provides his personal thoughts on AFOSR as a national security organization, which reflect on the presentations and discussions over the two workshop sessions.
BOX 2-1
AFOSR as a National Security Organization
Larry D. Welch, Senior Fellow, Institute for Defense Analyses
The workshop heard a widely held view from presenters and participants that AFOSR is a unique organization fulfilling a mission important to national security. Holders of this view included the Air Force operational major commands, Office of the Secretary of Defense organizations involved in basic research, representatives from the Air Force acquisition community, and the Army and Navy basic research organizations. AFOSR serves the role of connecting the broad relevant basic research community to national security needs in the near and far terms. To perform this mission, AFOSR must have broad and deep knowledge of what is going on nationally and globally in basic research, where it is being done, and who is doing it. They must also have broad and deep awareness of Air Force needs, including long-term strategic plans, priority gaps in current capability, ongoing programs at the 6.2 (applied research) and above level to fill those needs, and issues with fielded systems that could require 6.1 work. Using this knowledge of basic research work and sources and the broad and deep set of Air Force needs, AFOSR connects the relevant source to the Air Force need. I am aware of no other organization that serves this purpose or has the requisite focus and experience set to serve this purpose for the Air Force at the basic research level.
The mission execution force for the work of AFSOR is the cadre of program officers. The efficiency and effectiveness of AFSOR in fulfilling its mission rests on the effectiveness and efficiency of the mission execution force—the program officers. Strongly held views from AFOSR program officers, past AFSOR directors, and others who attended the workshop were that important best practices have been compromised by cost-cutting masquerading as efficiencies. These departures from best practices are the antitheses of efficiencies. Instead, they transfer inappropriate workload to program officers detracting from the performance of their mission of understanding priority needs, finding the best sources to address those needs at the basic research level, funding the work, managing the portfolio of that work, and facilitating the transition where appropriate to research and development beyond 6.1.
