Summary

The Army Research Office (ARO) describes its mission as follows:¹

This report summarizes the findings of the review of ARO’s Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) in 2018,³ the Physical Sciences Directorate (PSD) in 2019,⁴ and the Engineering Sciences Directorate (ESD) in 2020 conducted by the panels of the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB).

INFORMATION SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

Research programs in the ISD are focused on discovering, understanding, and exploiting the mathematical, computational, and algorithmic foundations that are expected to create revolutionary capabilities for the future Army. Discoveries in this area are expected to lead to capabilities in materials, the information domain, and soldier performance augmentation, well beyond the limits facing today’s

___________________

¹2019 ARO in Review, U.S. Army, Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC)—Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Office (ARO), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

² Basic research is defined by the Department of Defense (DoD) as the “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,” while applied research “is a systematic expansion and application of knowledge to develop useful materials, devices, and systems or methods” (DoD 7000.14-R Volume 2B, Chapter 5, 2017). Basic research drives directed studies toward revolutionary discoveries that will lead (and have led) to groundbreaking new capabilities for the Army in the time frame of 30 years and beyond, whereas applied research focuses on the near-term realization of new or improved technologies to meet a specific need.

³ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019, Assessment of the Information Sciences Directorate at the Army Research Office, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25426.

⁴ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2020, Assessment of the Physical Sciences Directorate at the Army Research Office, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25830.

Army.⁵ In addition, such discoveries are intended to help prevent technological surprises. The ISD’s programs are organized in three divisions: Computing Sciences, Network Sciences, and Mathematical Sciences.

Computing Sciences Division

The vision for the Computing Sciences Division is to conceive of and develop transformational research programs in the computing sciences for the U.S. Army, exploit new computing paradigms and novel information processing techniques, and provide the scientific foundation to create revolutionary capabilities for the future warfighter. The division has selected its areas of focus to complement work supported by other agencies and does coordinate extensively but informally with them. The intent is to conduct longer term research in areas of Army-specific need that is not addressed by commercial and other government entities. This is a challenge in computing, because the rate of change is so rapid, particularly since the end of Dennard scaling and the rise of data-centric computing. Needs are assessed annually; examples of currently targeted Army needs are modeling of adversaries’ learning, behavior, and social/cultural factors; interaction of soldiers with autonomous systems; and modeling of soldier situational awareness and decision making.

Overall, the scientific strategy and selection of projects were of high quality. The principal investigators (PIs) engaged for the selected projects were highly qualified, and the resulting science was of high caliber. The scientific objectives were generally focused on nearer term opportunities; longer term opportunities could be considered, and higher risk, potentially higher payoff topics could be included in the portfolio.

The programs generally performed very well in terms of funding leverage, relevance to Army needs, number and quality of publications, students supported, and transitions. The mapping of project accomplishments to programs’ strategic plans was not always clear, and consistent, meaningful metrics for assessing progress were generally lacking. Appendix A of this report lists a broad set of metrics that ARO could consider for assessment of its programs.

The division’s programs showed impressive examples of transitions to other Army and wider Department of Defense (DoD) research and development elements and in some cases to commercial organizations.

Network Sciences Division

The vision for the Network Sciences Division is to characterize, logically and quantitatively, the emerging macro properties in multigenre networks made up of autonomous agents, human networks, online social networks, and communication networks, leading to design of robust networks with predictable properties.

The division has a unifying scientific vision defining the program area. Scientific objectives were given for fulfilling this vision. Thrust areas were defined to achieve these program objectives. Across the division, the overall scientific quality is high, although some specific programs and investment areas are stronger than others. New areas identified for investment are unique and promising, with strong possibilities for contributing to the Army science and technology (S&T) goals.

The division’s program managers evinced a high level of engagement in community building and discipline building, in venues such as disciplinary meetings and academic institutions. They showed a strong sense of stewardship for these communities, particularly where the division pursued a distinct strategy, as in the social and cognitive networking area. Across the division, program managers are

___________________

⁵ Army Research Laboratory, “Army Research Office: Information Sciences,” http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=3227, accessed October 10, 2018.

actively seeking emerging developments in relevant scientific fields that can help move their programs forward in useful ways, as well as working to capitalize on recent major scientific advances. It is important that the program managers continue to seek ripe opportunities at the gaps between major fields (e.g., self-organizing biological network structures for applications in medicine) and continue to collaborate across disciplines.

Programs across the division evidenced forethought and focus. As a result, all programs showed strong evidence of recent and ongoing transitions to applied research programs within the Army, as well as several to the broader defense science community.

In the area of quantum networking, considerable benefit could be gained from allying with other research thrusts elsewhere in ARO, the ARL, or elsewhere in DoD to obtain a combination of basic science (e.g., theoretical analyses or mathematical models) and the best experimental science.

Mathematical Sciences Division

The vision for the Mathematical Sciences Division is to develop mathematical understanding and methods that enable fundamental investigations and disciplinary progress in a variety of physical, biological, engineering, and informational areas of study, providing the scientific foundation for revolutionary capabilities for the future warfighter.

The investigators are producing high-quality research, and the subject areas seem to be appropriate and of use to the Army. Examples include projects in quantum annealing, contributions to health monitoring, and contributions to helicopter engine monitoring. The program managers are well qualified and maintain a close and continuous contact with PIs. This way of operating promotes two-way contact and can help to ensure that information is shared. By and large, the program managers followed a deliberate and reasoned process behind the choice of project areas.

The PIs and research outcomes are of generally high quality. The quality of the research outcomes has been tangibly demonstrated through the transition of a number of projects to Army applied research and development (R&D) activities. The research addresses problems of importance to the Army and DoD. Programs and projects tend to address problems or use approaches that are not considered by other funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The division’s implementation of ISD strategic initiatives within the research portfolios of its program managers reflects a view of research approaches that is very much tied to the interests and expertise of the program managers. The division would benefit from enhanced consideration of alternative approaches to address research problems. The division would also benefit from a systematic addition of mid-performance period review of all projects for which this is not performed. The feedback from these reviews would provide a basis for the refinement of future funding allocations.

There are several examples of short-term funding (e.g., 6-9 month grants) being used to explore new lines of research. The division’s program might be strengthened if such short-term funding were used as part of an entrepreneurial model with the goal of developing a diverse set of competing technical approaches to high-opportunity topics.

ISD Crosscutting Recommendations

Overall, the ISD is producing work of high scientific quality. In general, the ISD program managers are well qualified, and the PIs that were selected for the funded projects are of high caliber. In general, the funded research is relevant to the Army’s S&T goals; there were many examples of transitions of the research to the Army and to the DoD community more broadly.

While the Information Sciences Directorate is producing high-quality research overall, the ISD programs did not evince a clear and consistent set of metrics by which to evaluate program impact and

effectiveness. It is necessary that metrics be counted by consistent and transparent methods (e.g., what is meant by a publication, how to count graduate students who are supported by multiple programs, how to assess caliber of awards and recognition) to facilitate measurement of progress. Metrics should reflect accomplishments actually attributable to the ARO projects. Appendix A of this report lists a broad set of metrics that ARO could consider for assessment of its programs.

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 1: The Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) should develop and apply a set of clear and consistent metrics by which to evaluate program impact and effectiveness. (Part I, Chapter 5)

The directorate follows a system of establishing personal connections between the program managers and their PIs; this almost amounts to collaboration. This system is effective, but it runs the risk that research foci might not change on appropriate time scales and that promising alternative approaches to problems might be missed if they fall outside the knowledge and experience base of the program managers. The system would benefit from deliberate efforts to inject more competition among different research approaches. This would include more rapid turnover in the PI base.

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 2: The Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) should consider ways to expand the knowledge base beyond that possessed by the program managers when formulating approaches to selecting programs for funding. (Part I, Chapter 5)

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 3: To the extent that program managers in the Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) demonstrate management of successful programs and expanded knowledge of their discipline and of relevant opportunities to support research with potential application to Army needs, they should be encouraged to exercise their vision for basic science to meet Army needs and be encouraged to maintain their entrepreneurial style in program management. (Part I, Chapter 5)

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 4: The Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) should consider shorter time scales and more rapid turnover of the principal investigator base for projects that are not jointly funded or targeted for long-term funding by collaborating ISD divisions, Army Research Office (ARO) directorates, or other funding agencies. Consideration should include potential impacts on graduate students supporting funded projects, should ARO deem graduate student support a project goal. (Part I, Chapter 5)

ARO supports research by PIs and by centers of multiple researchers. In contrast with single investigator programs, the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) programs at ARO support centers whose efforts intersect more than one traditional research specialty, typically at $1.25 million per year for 5 years. Research topics increasingly benefit from such multidisciplinary participation, even in pairs or small sets of investigators and over shorter time periods. Including in such collaborations researchers with knowledge of transitions would be useful.

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 5: The Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) should consider funding mechanisms to encourage pairs or small sets of researchers from divergent perspectives to work on the same problem. (Part I, Chapter 5)

The program managers in the Information Sciences Directorate evinced varying levels of engagement with other DoD research, development, and funding agencies such as the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and other elements within the Army, such as the Research, Development, and

Engineering Centers. Such engagement is important for the maintenance of shared situational awareness and is a key enabler for ARO to continue to “outpunch its weight.”

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 6: Program managers within the Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) should maintain and seek to expand their engagement with other Department of Defense funding agencies such as the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and other elements within the Army. (Part I, Chapter 5)

Diversity of gender, age, and geographic location was acknowledged across the ARO as requiring attention.

ISD Crosscutting Recommendation 7: The Information Sciences Directorate (ISD) should continue encouraging the participation of females and minorities in research funded by the Army Research Office and should collect statistics to track diversity in the broad sense, including gender, age, and geographic location. (Part I, Chapter 5)

PHYSICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

Research in the PSD is focused on basic research to discover, understand, and exploit physical, chemical, and biological phenomena. This research is of a fundamental nature; however, in the long term, discoveries in this area are expected to lead to revolutionary capabilities in sensing, communications, protection, wound healing, power/energy storage and generation, and materials that extend the performance of Army systems well beyond current limits.⁶ The PSD’s programs are organized into three divisions: Physics, Chemical Sciences, and Life Sciences.

Physics Division

The Physics Division supports research to discover and understand exotic quantum and extreme optical physics, where new regimes are expected to create revolutionary capabilities for the future warfighter.⁷ Four programs were reviewed: Atomic and Molecular Physics, Condensed Matter Physics, Quantum Information Science, and Optical Physics and Fields.

The overall scientific quality of the work presented was excellent, and in many cases was significantly innovative, being at or near the forefront of the relevant fields. From a management perspective, the research funding strategy appeared to be coherent and was clearly enunciated. The objectives were designed to promote critical advances in the fields of concern. The quality of research carried out under the auspices of the ARO-funded programs was excellent. However, it was difficult to evaluate the level of risk versus payoff, because only a few examples of failures (that is, where program objectives were not met) were given. Nonetheless, all of the presentations described results that were excellent, and in some cases outstanding.

Many of the research activities supported by ARO are in “hot” fields in which many other researchers are working. In the four fields mentioned above, there were two accomplishments cited that represent significant advances. These were the work done on super-radiant laser and the materials-agnostic demonstrations of the quantum anomalous Hall effect. It is likely that four other accomplishments will

___________________

⁶ Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Office, http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=217, accessed August 6, 2019.

⁷ Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Office, https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=217, accessed October 1, 2019.

achieve breakthroughs: computing with neuromorphic dissipative quantum phase transitions, analyzing physical phenomena on topological surfaces, scaling up of trapped ion multiqubit systems, and exploitation of super symmetries in optics.

Some cross-disciplinary opportunities are listed below along with associated recommendations.

Recommendation 1: Army Research Office (ARO) program managers (PMs) should view condensed matter physics and materials science as parts of a larger whole and be proactive in stimulating connections between them. ARO management should encourage regular interactions between the ARO Physics Division condensed matter PM and the materials science PMs elsewhere to coordinate funding of multiple principal investigators (PIs). (Part II, Chapter 7)

Recommendation 2: Army Research Office (ARO) management should encourage interdivisional activity on the quantum/classical algorithmic frontier, using appropriate incentives like Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) grants. (Part II, Chapter 7)

Recommendation 3: The Army Research Office (ARO) should consider exploring breakthrough opportunities that may exist in the boundaries between the disciplines and divisions it has traditionally supported. (Part II, Chapter 7)

Recommendation 4: The Army Research Office (ARO) should seek a better balance between funding well-established and well-funded principal investigators (PIs) in “hot” disciplines and funding early-career investigators who are entering the “hot” fields or starting entirely new fields. (Part II, Chapter 7)

Chemical Sciences Division

The Chemical Sciences Division supports research to discover and understand the fundamental properties, principles, and processes governing molecules and their interactions in materials or chemical systems to provide the scientific foundation to create revolutionary capabilities for the future warfighter, such as new protective and responsive materials, sensors, and munitions.⁸ Four programs were reviewed: Reactive Chemical Systems, Electrochemistry, Molecular Structure and Dynamics, and Polymer Chemistry.

Overall, the Chemical Sciences Division supports strong science and innovative research projects that have clear potential for improving the future performance of the Army. Notable examples of the impactful science funded by this division include the following: the development of melt-castable highly energetic materials made by co-crystallization; the design of self-regulating liquid crystals triggered by motile bacteria; the combinatorial synthesis and discovery of electrochemically active Perovskite materials; and the stabilization of biological materials using novel designer polymer coatings based on mapping of hydrophobic/hydrophilic regions on a targeted protein.

The four program presentations outlined the collective efforts of researchers of significant stature who are working on an array of projects of varying degrees of risk. It is important that ARO fund the leaders in the fields it chooses to support so that the Army’s agenda will be pushed forward as fast as possible, but it must not ignore the need to identify and fund the next generation of leaders whose work in emerging fields may lead to breakthroughs that also impact the future Army. In that regard, a greater degree of funding directed toward new investigators in the field (Short-Term Innovative Research [STIR] or single

___________________

⁸ Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Office, https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=217, accessed October 1, 2019.

investigator [SI] grants) would be beneficial. It is important to use mechanisms like conference grants and STIR grants to identify and encourage high-risk/high-payoff research.

Overall, the research being supported by this division is innovative. However, the research conducted would benefit greatly if the interaction between theory/simulation and experiment was stronger. There is great value in the Chemical Sciences Division’s programs to support fundamental research, for the discovery of new science, and the development of new technologies for defense applications.

Life Sciences Division

The Life Sciences Division supports research efforts to advance the Army and nation’s knowledge and understanding of the fundamental properties, principles, and processes governing DNA, RNA, proteins, organelles, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes, as well as multispecies communities, biofilms, individual humans, and groups of humans. The interests of the Life Sciences Division are primarily in the following areas: biochemistry, neuroscience, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, genomics, proteomics, epigenetics, systems biology, bioinformatics, and social science. The results of fundamental research supported by this division are expected to enable the creation of new technologies for optimizing warfighters’ physical and cognitive performance capabilities, for protecting warfighters, and for creating new Army capabilities in the areas of biomaterials, energy, logistics, and intelligence.⁹ Five programs were reviewed: Biochemistry, Genetics, Microbiology, Neurophysiology of Cognition, and Social and Behavioral Sciences.

The overall quality of the five programs was judged to be very high, with strong and innovative projects in all of the programs. The emphasis is on basic research, although there was an impressive record of transitions of successful projects to customers. Many, but by no means all, projects were deemed to be high risk and high reward and would probably be too risky for funding from more conventional federal agencies like ARO. The panel saw a clear connection to future Army needs in the projects chosen.

The Life Sciences Division has a well-balanced portfolio that includes support of new investigators, who may be at particularly creative and innovative stages of their careers, as well as new directions for established investigators, through SI, STIR, and Young Investigator Program (YIP) funding. The emphasis is thus on important ideas that do not have enough data to support proposals to conventional funding organizations such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Here, the division could have a very positive impact on innovation, and this emphasis, which is already evident, needs to be encouraged. In several cases, the PMs funded pairs of PIs (not necessarily at the same institution) to work together on a single SI grant. This mechanism for crossing disciplinary boundaries to accomplish innovative studies has produced outstanding results. The division needs to continue to facilitate partnerships between pairs of investigators with diverse expertise through appropriate grant mechanisms.

PSD Crosscutting Recommendations

Advances in the fields covered by the PSD increasingly rely on contributions made by scientists who have different areas of expertise. For example, in chemistry, combined efforts in modeling and experiment are often essential for significant advances. Similarly, progress in condensed matter physics often depends on collaborations between individuals skilled in materials synthesis and scientists pursuing new phenomena. In addition, all the physical sciences are increasingly relying on data analytics. The PSD currently has some selected examples where funding of pairs of researchers from different disciplines, working synergistically, has led to significant success. Priority could go to those who have a

___________________

⁹ Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Office, https://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=217, accessed October 1, 2019.

demonstrated history of successful collaborations. PMs could set priorities in terms of desired outcome and let researchers get together to make proposals.

PSD Crosscutting Recommendation 1: The Physical Sciences Directorate (PSD) should encourage the funding of pairs of principal investigators (PIs) from different disciplines who will work together on common problems, including those that are interdivisional and interdirectorate. For the Physics Division, the Army Research Office (ARO) should consider collaborative projects that involve both materials synthesis and condensed matter physics, as well as joint quantum information algorithms and information sciences projects, which would all be interdirectorate. For the Chemical Sciences Division, ARO should consider funding of pairs of PIs who will work together on modeling and experiment, which are both within the division. For the Life Sciences Division, ARO should consider mechanisms to improve data analytics to inform their explanatory models, which is also interdirectorate. (Part II, Chapter 10)

Many advances in science now occur at the boundaries between traditional disciplines, and consequently, multidisciplinary research has become increasingly important. This stretches the limits of traditional disciplines such as those found, for example, in university departments. The projects supported by the Life Sciences Division of the PSD encompass five disciplines in the biological and social sciences. The division is already multidisciplinary, even if not as much as it could be. By contrast, the Physics and Chemical Sciences Divisions are organized along more traditional disciplinary lines, and they seem to be having more difficulty broadening the boundaries of their disciplines, where the research being done crossed over into areas that they have not supported in the past. That kind of focus can miss many important new research developments.

PSD Crosscutting Recommendation 2: The Physical Sciences Directorate (PSD) should explore mechanisms to identify and support research in areas that do not fall solely within its core disciplines, including those that rely on contributions from research areas that are not funded within these core disciplines at all. (Part II, Chapter 10)

The PMs within the PSD currently do a good job of going to conferences and staying abreast of the exciting new work within their fields. They also do well in advertising their programs and interests to their own communities at such conferences. However, this highly targeted approach to publicizing the activities of ARO means that many members of the broader scientific community are unaware that ARO is a potential source of funding. That means that ARO is not seeing all the proposals from new PIs with different perspectives that it might. This limitation is of particular importance when it comes to attracting researchers in biology and other life science disciplines because a life scientist is very unlikely to think that an organization called Physical Sciences Directorate would be interested in what he or she does.

PSD Crosscutting Recommendation 3: The Physical Sciences Directorate (PSD) should find ways to further disseminate its funding opportunities to the broader community. In particular, the PSD should find ways to reach the broader biology and life sciences community, which is unlikely to be recognized as an opportunity given its Physical Sciences name. (Part II, Chapter 10)

ENGINEERING SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

The Engineering Sciences Directorate (ESD) is focused on basic research to harness high-risk discoveries in electronics, materials science, mechanical sciences, and earth sciences. In the long term, fundamental discoveries in these areas are expected to initiate unprecedented and disruptive capabilities in protection, mobility, sensing, computing, propulsion, networks, manufacturing, and sustainment to

ensure the future technological superiority of our warfighters and Army.¹⁰ The ESD’s programs are organized into three divisions: Electronics, Materials Science, and Mechanical Sciences.

Electronics Division

The vision of the Electronics Division is to strategically drive new capabilities through discovery and enhancement of electronic and photonic phenomena and functions in entities ranging from inorganic materials and devices to single living cells that result in visionary performance characteristics that enable the U.S. Army to maintain technological overmatch across the Army functional concepts. The division’s aim is to discover and enhance electronic and photonic interactions and functions in new devices and a broad range of materials. Some of the outstanding achievements encompass inorganic materials such as intercalated graphite for inductors; low-energy, high-speed optoelectronics; and optical control of ion transport in single living cells. Division-level strategy emphasizes interdisciplinary interactions between physics, chemistry, materials science, and biology. The overarching aim is to achieve device and system performance characteristics that enable the U.S. Army to maintain technological superiority vis-à-vis adversaries.

Four programs were reviewed: Biotronics, Electronic Sensing, Optoelectronics, and Solid-State Electronics and Electromagnetics. Key performance parameters include, in addition to peer-reviewed publications, transitions to ARL and to industry.

The projects highlighted were uniformly of high quality but only a small percentage of the entire portfolio was presented. Overall, the quality of programs reviewed was high, but there were limited initiatives aimed at new research directions—pursuing high-risk and high-reward projects that could lead to discovery and inventions of greater scientific significance.

Recommendation 5: The Engineering Sciences Directorate (ESD) Electronics Division should expand on new research directions and high-risk, high-reward projects that could lead to discovery and inventions of greater scientific significance. (Part III, Chapter 12)

Materials Science Division

The vision of the Materials Science Division is to create novel materials with extraordinary structural and functional properties and to explore underlying deterministic composition-processing-structure-external stimuli-property relationships through initiating, promoting, and embracing high-risk, high-payoff scientific ideas with special emphasis on materials design, synthesis and processing (S&P), mechanical behavior, and physical properties of materials to transform the future Army’s capabilities. Four programs were reviewed: Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Synthesis and Processing of Materials, Materials Design, and Physical Properties of Materials.

The projects presented were uniformly of high quality, but only a small percentage of the entire portfolio was presented for review by the panel. The projects overall were found to be excellent in terms of collaborations and interdisciplinarity as well as scientific quality. Thus, it is hard to assess which opportunities may have been missed, and how successful connecting scientific discovery to Army functional concepts for these funded areas will be over time.

Overall, the Materials Science Division is conducting very high-quality research. The programs are driven, in an entrepreneurial manner, by well-qualified individual program managers (PMs) who can take their programs in different directions without significant bureaucracy. However, these individual PMs

___________________

¹⁰ Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Office, https://www.arl.army.mil/who-we-are/aro/army-researchoffice-directorates/, accessed October 3, 2020.

need strategic positioning and appropriate incentives to coherently drive their programs for maximum transitions to the Army.

It was observed that many of the publications referenced in the presentations were funded by multiple funding agencies. This leveraging of funds is to be commended; however, with multiple support agencies, it is difficult to judge the impact that ARO funding had on the research. A better metric of publications, one factoring in the dominant funding organization, would be more useful both to ARO and to a review panel.

Recommendation 6: The Army Research Office (ARO) should develop a publication metric that quantifies the extent of ARO funding to the publication. ARO should present this metric in future Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) reviews. In addition, ARO should highlight in these reviews the key scientific advances attained primarily by ARO funding. (Part III, Chapter 13)

The programs funded by ARO are intended to be high-risk, high-payoff research projects that drive cutting-edge research and lead to disruptive science and technologies. This science plays an important role in innovation, in follow-on investments in Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)/ Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs, and in patent generation. Numerous metrics were provided but did not include metrics for patent-related activities.

Recommendation 7: The Army Research Office (ARO) should track the number of technology disclosures, patent applications, and patent issuances that have resulted from ARO-supported funding or collaborations. (Part III, Chapter 13)

The research strategy within the ARO Engineering Sciences Directorate seems to be principally a bottom-up organization, where the PMs have primary discretion and authority regarding project selection and funding decisions. The PMs are all well qualified for their positions. The directorate strategy is to pose bold scientific questions; to seek collaborations; to engage with the Army laboratories for transitioning the research; to seek out high-risk, high-reward opportunities; to venture into new areas with long-term impact on enhancing Army capabilities; and to hire and retain an excellent workforce. All of these items are meritorious. This strategy includes “casting a wide net,” even though funding levels for materials science programs are relatively small compared to peer organizations, such as the Department of Energy (DOE), National Science Foundation (NSF), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), Office of Naval Research (ONR), and so on. By having the PMs follow both directorate program planning and respective division strategy, transitions to the Army could be enhanced. Because the directorate investment is relatively small and the opportunities in engineering sciences are large, focusing on fewer research topics with greater funding on those identified could possibly result in greater benefit to the Army through transitions without loss of scientific excellence.

Recommendation 8: The Army Research Office (ARO) Program Managers (PMs) should be encouraged to prioritize directorate and division strategy with respect to focusing project selection by further improving the connection of scientific discovery to Army transitions. (Part III, Chapter 13)

All of the programs have listed the transitions; however, no quantitative metric of transitions was presented and no information about how transitions are evaluated or used in program planning was presented. Transitions appear to be an important metric of the effectiveness of the scientific programs and are highlighted in the Directorate Planning Program as program assessment.

Recommendation 9: The Army Research Office (ARO) should develop a transition metric that quantifies the effectiveness and importance of transitions to the Army and use this metric as a guide in the selection of future projects. ARO should present this metric in future Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) reviews. (Part III, Chapter 13)

Mechanical Sciences Division

The vision of the Mechanical Sciences Division is to conceive of and develop transformational research programs in mechanical sciences for the U.S. Army to provide the scientific foundation to create revolutionary capabilities for the future warfighter. The division supports research aligned with the following Army functional concepts: command and control, fires, maneuver, protection, and sustainment. Five programs were reviewed: Complex Dynamics and Systems, Earth Materials and Processes, Fluid Dynamics, Propulsion and Energetics, and Solid Mechanics.

In general, the scientific quality of the work funded is of sufficiently high quality and is not of concern. As expected, this fundamental research program of ARO, when considered as a whole, supports a large number of smaller projects that have a distribution from very high risk, unproven concepts (e.g., dynamic analysis frameworks) to very low risk, historically vetted methods (e.g., shock tube methods). The majority of the questions are aimed at understanding the methodology for PM-selected focus areas within their proposal. In general, the PM appears to have significant autonomy in adjusting the focus areas of the research portfolio—it is the PM who can target potential PIs, manage the proposal review process, assemble proposal review scores, and make final recommendations as to prioritization of funded projects. The individual PM-centric approach for managing division portfolios raised questions related to transparency and methodology of proposal solicitation, proposal review and final assessment, and proposal selection for risk balancing and strategic alignment. This level of PM independence could impede ARO’s top-down distillation of Army needs into research thrusts for funding.

As demonstrated by the newer PM, focus questions were adjusted at review time in order to give the research portfolio a cohesive focus. This indicates that the portfolios are not being managed by a strategic plan with a long-term timeline; instead, the goals of any given year are adjusted on demand. This has implications for the autonomy of the PM to follow research that may not be best aligned with the long-term ARO strategy.

Recommendation 10: The Army Research Office (ARO) management should establish processes that help ensure that proposed research is unique, pioneering, and/or novel. ARO management should place emphasis on envisioning and conducting workshops or other events that reach beyond the current cadre of funded principal investigators to explore fields broadly and define new directions and new investigators for the programs. (Part III, Chapter 14)

In a number of divisions, areas of missed opportunity for interdivision collaboration and an apparent stovepipe of projects under each PM were identified. There were certainly examples where this is not the case, but in an agile and responsive research portfolio, more interdisciplinary projects are expected. The MURI projects provide a good example of interdisciplinary projects, yet there are not many collaborations between these and most other projects within a PM’s portfolio. Efforts to promote improved collaboration across ARO divisions and scientific disciplines would be beneficial.

Recommendation 11: The Army Research Office (ARO) management should develop mechanisms that facilitate interactions within the Mechanical Sciences Division and with the Materials Science, Chemical Sciences, and Physics Divisions. ARO should focus these interactions to be on funding projects with aligned priorities within the programs, be they within the same division or across divisions. (Part III, Chapter 14)

ESD Crosscutting Recommendations

The research strategy within the ARO ESD seems to be principally a bottom-up organization, where the PMs have primary discretion and authority regarding project selection and funding decisions. The PMs are all well qualified for their positions. The directorate strategy is to pose bold scientific questions; to seek collaborations; to engage with the Army laboratories for transitioning the research; to seek out high-risk, high-reward opportunities; to venture into new areas with long-term impact on enhancing Army capabilities; and to hire and retain an excellent workforce. All of these items are meritorious. This strategy includes “casting a wide net,” even though funding levels are relatively small compared to peer organizations, such as DOE, NSF, DARPA, AFOSR, ONR, and so on. By having the PMs follow both directorate program planning and respective division strategy, transitions to the Army could be enhanced. Because the directorate investment is relatively small and the opportunities in engineering sciences are large, focusing on fewer research topics with greater funding for those identified could possibly result in greater benefit to the Army through transitions without loss of scientific excellence.

ESD Crosscutting Recommendation 1: The Army Research Office (ARO) program managers (PMs) should be encouraged to prioritize directorate and division strategy with respect to focusing project selection by further improving the connection of scientific discovery to Army transitions. (Part III, Chapter 15)

Efforts to promote improved collaboration across ARO divisions and scientific disciplines would be beneficial. In addition to technical diversification or collaboration between projects, some portfolios would also benefit from increased diversity of research PIs to include early-career PIs and less long-term continued funding provided to late-career PIs.

ESD Crosscutting Recommendation 2: The Army Research Office (ARO) management should establish processes that help to ensure that proposed research is unique, pioneering, and/or novel. ARO management should place emphasis on envisioning and conducting workshops or other events that reach beyond the current cadre of ARO PMs and funded principal investigators (PIs) to explore fields broadly and to define new directions and new, early-career, and more diverse participants for the programs. (Part III, Chapter 15)

Overall, the ESD is conducting very high quality research. The programs are driven, in an entrepreneurial manner, by well-qualified individual PMs who can take their programs in different directions without significant bureaucracy. However, these individual PMs need strategic positioning and appropriate incentives to coherently drive their programs for maximum transitions to the Army. Overall, the quality of programs reviewed was high but limited initiatives aimed at new research directions and pursuing high-risk and high-reward projects that could lead to discovery and inventions of greater scientific significance.

ESD Crosscutting Recommendation 3: The Army Research Office (ARO) should expand on new research directions and high-risk, high-reward projects that could lead to discovery and inventions of greater scientific significance. (Part III, Chapter 15)

In a number of divisions, areas of missed opportunity for interdivision collaboration and an apparent stovepipe of projects under each PM were identified. There were certainly examples where this is not the case, but in an agile and responsive research portfolio, more interdisciplinary projects are expected. The MURI projects provide a good example of interdisciplinary projects, yet these are not readily accessible to most projects within a PM’s portfolio. Efforts to promote improved collaboration across ARO divisions and scientific disciplines would be beneficial.

ESD Crosscutting Recommendation 4: The Army Research Office (ARO) management should develop mechanisms that facilitate interactions within the ARO directorates and divisions, including for example the Mechanical Sciences and Electronics Divisions and with the Materials Science, Chemical Sciences, and Physics Divisions. ARO should focus these interactions to be on funding projects with aligned priorities within the programs, be they within the same division or across divisions of different directorates. (Part III, Chapter 15)

ARO-WIDE CROSSCUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the 2018-2020 reviews whose assessment is summarized in this report, the ARLTAB offers the following ARO-wide crosscutting recommendations.

ARO Crosscutting Recommendation 1: The Army Research Office (ARO) Program Managers (PMs) should be encouraged to prioritize directorate and division strategy with respect to focusing project selection by further improving the connection of scientific discovery to Army transitions.

ARO Crosscutting Recommendation 2: The Army Research Office (ARO) should expand on new research directions and high-risk, high-reward projects that could lead to discovery and inventions of greater scientific significance.

ARO Crosscutting Recommendation 3: The Army Research Office (ARO) should encourage the funding of pairs of principal investigators (PIs) from different disciplines who will work together on common problems, including those that are interdivisional and interdirectorate. For example, for the Physics Division, ARO should encourage the funding of collaborative projects that involve both materials synthesis and condensed matter physics, as well as joint quantum information algorithms and information sciences projects, which would all be interdirectorate; for the Chemical Sciences Division, ARO should consider modeling and experiment, which are both within the division; and for the Life Sciences Division, ARO should consider mechanisms to improve data analytics to inform its explanatory models, which is also interdirectorate.

ARO Crosscutting Recommendation 4: The Army Research Office (ARO) should find ways to further disseminate its funding opportunities to the broader community. For example, the Physical Sciences Directorate should find ways to reach the broader biology and life sciences community, which is unlikely to be recognized as an opportunity given its Physical Sciences name.

ARO Crosscutting Recommendation 5: To increase diversity within the Army Research Office (ARO) and the programs it supports, ARO should carry out a detailed assessment of the diversity of participants, both within ARO itself and in the programs that ARO supports. ARO should then establish a clear diversity policy and plan and should measure its progress against this plan.

__________________

This page intentionally left blank.