Government/Industry/Academic Relationships for Technology Development A Workshop Report (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Relationships
3 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Relationships
Pages 12-33
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 12... ...
. He introduced the two panelists, Steve Welby, Deputy Director of the Tactical Technology Office at DARPA, and Bobby Joe, Northrop Grumman, Joint Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (JUCAV)
|
From page 13... ...
The programs covered by that budget were executed with approximately 150 technical program managers and a senior management staffof approximately 20. DARPA also has an experimental hiring authority under 5 USC 3104,1 which allows it to quickly hire expert program managers from industry at competitive salaries.
|
From page 14... ...
Only one core management level exists between the individual technical program manager and the overall agency director. With such a small senior management cadre, decisions are easier to make.
|
From page 15... ...
DARPA uses a variety of mechanisms and methods for identifying risks, but Welby said it had no specific, formal, agency-wide standards. Program managers often work with their ~ Further information on DARPA's Grand Challenge may be found at |
From page 16... ...
Welby also stated that DARPA program managers had an ambivalent relationship with what the military calls "requirements." Requirements are a collection of specifications, features, and capabilities that defines an approved military materiel product available for acquisition or purchase. While program managers understand that requirements capture important elements of a product's function, Welby said program managers often perceived them as limiting innovation, producing inefficiencies, and reflecting the status quo because they were often defined in terms of the presumed product rather than the statement of need.
|
From page 17... ...
The first phase of the UCAV program under Birckelbaw was a 1-year competition among four vendors based on concept design, risk management approach, and analysis of overall effectiveness. The second phase of the program focused on demonstrating the capability of multiple A-model vehicle prototypes in key risk areas such as autonomous ground operation, intervehicle communication, multivehicle flight operations, and dynamic retasking.
|
From page 18... ...
.4 The goal for the joint program office is maturation of the UCAV systems and the seamless transition of the technology base from a DARPA research and development effort to a formal military acquisition program. As part of this transition activity, the technical design approach to the vehicle has been changed somewhat to reflect new service requirements.
|
From page 19... ...
Walker continued this line of questioning by askir g Welby to elaborate on the technology risk management processes that DARPA used. Welby responded that because of the broad range of work involved, it was hard to point to a single example.
|
From page 20... ...
At the Grand Challenge main event, there were several thousand spectators out m the Mojave desert watching the launch of the vehicles and several thousand more people back m Las Vegas waiting for the vehicles to come m. In every way, the Grand Challenge overwhelmed expectations.
|
From page 21... ...
Finally, Macauley asked Welby to elaborate on specific examples that demonstrate some of the problems that DARPA faces. Welby responded that his presentation had so far discussed DARPA processes from an Eternal viewpoint.
|
From page 22... ...
Welby mentioned that DARPA was actively engaged with the armed services, with other organizations in the Office of Secretary of Defense, and with outside agencies. The agency's director and senior staffmeet with the chiefs of staffof the individual military services monthly or bimonthly.
|
From page 23... ...
Branscome then asked Welby to expand on the types of authority and flexibilities that OTA provides. Welby replied that the OTA allowed DARPA to negotiate almost every aspect of the contractor relationship, from intellectual property rights to a set of generally binding FAR requirements.
|
From page 24... ...
The Grand Challenge activity was a result of several years of thought on how to use novel mechanisms to inspire nontraditional innovation. The technical Investment required for entry m the event was more or less affordable, but the technology challenges and that the prize itself were (and remain)
|
From page 25... ...
Joe then provided a synopsis of the competition and award process. Northrop Grumman was already under contract to design and produce air vehicles to demonstrate certain capabilities of unmanned platforms.
|
From page 26... ...
Joe described the Northrop Grumman perspective on the process. The company came up with an approach that would comply with the various requirements and that would utilize the company's own mternal technology rnvestrnents.
|
From page 27... ...
However, Northrop Grumman basically provided a cost estimate for each part of the proposal and told Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney that this was what was going to be included m the proposal for their part of the work. Representatives of the two companies mformally acknowledged that they agreed on the estimates and would attempt to obtain official management approval.
|
From page 28... ...
Walker contmued by asking what processes Northrop Grumman had m place for conflict resolution and management among team members. Joe replied that for the JUCAS program, teammates such as Lockheed Martin, GUN, and Pratt & Whitney were essentially treated as companies within the corporate structure.
|
From page 29... ...
These conferences are conducted at various locations in the United States. Branscome asked Welby to provide a DARPA perspective on its interaction with small busir ess.
|
From page 30... ...
He mentioned that many DARPA programs consisted of teams of small participating universities. However, for the agency's larger efforts and prototype programs, particular challenges exist for universities, including challenges associated with ITAR requirements, restricted rights, and the requirement to maintain academic and intellectual freedom.
|
From page 31... ...
This government-developed capability has now been made available to all the contracting teams that are part of the J-UCAS follow-on acquisition programs. Welby believed J-UCAS was a good example of a very close collaboration early m the DARPA technology development effort leading to key advances that the agency hoped to see deployed m the aircraft acquisition program An attendee asked if there had been any explicit attempts to exclude universities from the UCAV or J-UCAS programs or if any other conditions had been set.
|
From page 32... ...
At the end of the first year of investment, during concept development, the agency can determme whether the technology that has resulted from the focused small business efforts is mature enough to continue via a larger DARPA program or if a Phase II SBIRISTTR award would be the preferred path. Branscome contmued the questions by asking how success was measured.
|
From page 33... ...
A Workshop Report quite a bit of continuity in the contractor base and in the DARPA-affiliated technical community as a whole.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.