National Academies Press: OpenBook

2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory (2019)

Chapter: Appendix C: Assessment Criteria

« Previous: Appendix B: Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board Members and Staff Biographical Information
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Assessment Criteria." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. 2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25419.
×

C

Assessment Criteria

The Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) assessment considered the following general questions posed by the ARL director:

  • Is the scientific quality of the research of comparable technical quality to that executed in leading federal, university, and industrial laboratories both nationally and internationally?
  • Does the research program reflect a broad understanding of the underlying science and research conducted elsewhere?
  • Does the research employ the appropriate laboratory equipment and numerical models?
  • Are the qualifications of the research team compatible with the research challenge?
  • Are the facilities and laboratory equipment state of the art?
  • Are programs crafted to employ the appropriate mix of theory, computation, and experimentation?

To assist ARL in addressing promising technical approaches, the board will also consider the following questions:

  • Are there especially promising projects that, with improved direction or resources, could produce outstanding results that can be transitioned ultimately to the field?
  • Are there promising outside-the-box concepts that should be pursued but are not currently in the ARL portfolio?

The ARLTAB also considered the following factors commonly applied to the assessment of scientific and technical work:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Assessment Criteria." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. 2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25419.
×

PROJECT GOALS AND PLANS

  • Are the objectives clearly stated and are tasks well defined to achieve objectives?
  • Are milestones defined? Are they appropriate? Do they appear feasible?
  • Are obstacles and challenges defined (technical, resources, time)?
  • Assuming success, what difference will it make to the science base, to the end user, or in a mission area context?
  • Does the project plan identify dependencies (i.e., do successes depend on the success of other activities within the project or on the success of projects developed outside ARL)?
  • Does the project represent an area where application of ARL strengths is appropriate?
  • What stopping rules, if any, are being or should be applied?

METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

  • Are the methods (e.g., laboratory experiment, modeling/simulation, field test, analysis) appropriate to the problems? Do these methods integrate?
  • Are the hypotheses appropriately framed within the literature and theoretical context?
  • Is there an alternative approach that facilitates the progress of the project?
  • Is there a clearly identified and appropriate process for performing required analyses, prototypes, models, simulations, tests, and so on?
  • Is the data collection and analysis methodology appropriate?
  • Are conclusions supported by the results?
  • Are proposed ideas for further study reasonable?
  • Do the trade-offs between risk and potential gain appear reasonable?
  • If the project demands technological or technical innovation, is that occurring?

CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES

  • If staff or equipment is not adequate, how might the project be triaged (which technical thrust should be emphasized, which sacrificed?) to best move toward its stated objectives?
  • Will the project recruit new talent into ARL?

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

  • Presentations and colloquia.
  • Participation in professional activities (society officers, conference committees, journal editors).
  • Papers in quality refereed journals and conference proceedings (and their citation index).
  • Educational outreach (serving on graduate committees, teaching/lecturing, invited talks, mentoring students).
  • Fellowships and awards (external and internal).
  • Participation on review panels (Army Research Office, National Science Foundation, Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, etc.).
  • Patents and intellectual property and examples of how the patent or intellectual property is used.
  • Involvement in building an ARL-wide cross-directorate community.
  • Public recognition (e.g., in the press and elsewhere) for ARL research.
  • Collaborations (lead, partner, support).
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Assessment Criteria." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. 2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25419.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Assessment Criteria." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. 2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25419.
×
Page 232
Next: Appendix D: Acronyms »
2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $70.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) is the corporate laboratory for the U.S. army, which bridges scientific and military communities. The ARL is critical in maintaining the United States’ dominant military power through its advanced research and analysis capabilities. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) conducts biennial assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the facilities. These assessments are necessary to ensure that the ARL’s resources and quality of programs are maximized.

2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory includes findings and recommendations regarding the quality of the ARL’s research, development, and analysis programs. The report of the assessment is subdivided by the ARL’s Science and Technology campaigns, including Materials Research, Sciences for Lethality and Protection, Information Sciences, Computational Sciences, Sciences for Maneuver, Human Sciences, and Analysis and Assessment. This biennial report summarizes the findings for the 2017-2018 period.

  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. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    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!