Strategic Engagement in Global S&T Opportunities for Defense Research (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Global S&T Engagement by the DOD
2 Global S&T Engagement by the DOD
Pages 27-54
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 27... ...
In addition, each of the Services maintain an overseas presence to monitor technological developments (and to collaborate as necessary) in order to prevent "technological surprise." 2 DoD's international S&T engagement and collaboration efforts serve two purposes: to maintain awareness of, and to ultimately leverage, militarily relevant S&T capabilities developed outside the United States, and to develop and nurture 1 Globalization of S&T: Key Challenges Facing DOD.
|
From page 28... ...
Section 2.2 describes DoD's most recent International Science and Technology Strategy, and Section 2.3 examines mechanisms for global S&T awareness and engagement currently employed by the DoD, specifically the Services' international field offices and corporate laboratories. Section 2.4 looks at the current DoD S&T workforce, and Section 2.5 concludes by examining current efforts throughout various components of the DoD to coordinate and leverage others' global S&T engagement and awareness practices, as well as to build an integrated picture of the global S&T landscape across the entire Defense Research Enterprise (DRE)
|
From page 29... ...
, the Office of Technical Intelligence, the Office of Basic Research, the Office of International Cooperation, and liaisons to the NATO STO, TTCP, and other bi- and multi-lateral S&T dialogues. In addition to maintaining international S&T offices (discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections)
|
From page 30... ...
research, which is conducted either in-house or through research grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with researchers from academia and industry. ARL is composed of six technical directorates10 and the Army Research Office (ARO)
|
From page 31... ...
As this study is focused on DOD international science and technology challenges and opportunity at the 6.1 and 6.2 research levels, only activities associated with the RDECOM/RFEC/ITC are addressed. 13 The operating budgets for the field offices are approximately: $3.96 million (ITCAtlantic)
|
From page 32... ...
international relationships and to identify, assess, and facilitate cooperative science and technology fundamental research opportunities.14 Historically, all of the Army international offices were organized under and wholly supported by ARO; following the establishment of RDECOM in 2004, the international field offices were transferred into the RFECs. 2.1.2 Air Force S&T Enterprise The Air Force's S&T budget15 is managed by the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)
|
From page 33... ...
it supports the overall AFRL International Enterprise in developing strategies, representing AFRL at international forums, maintaining a database of international AFRL activity, performing data-mining and related training, publishing the tri weekly AFRL International Notes, hosting the annual AFRL-wide IPOC (international point of contact) Workshop, and representing AFRL as the international liaison in the National Capitol Area.17 AFOSR also has three forward-deployed detachments that "provide direct interchange with members of the scientific and engineering community and encourage the establishment of beneficial relationships between Air Force scientists and engineers and their foreign counterparts within their respective geographical and technical areas of responsibility."18 The three detachments are located in Tokyo, Japan (Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development, or AOARD)
|
From page 34... ...
ONR-G engages the broad global research community to build and foster international collaboration, and it maintains an overseas presence with international field offices in London, Tokyo, Singapore, Santiago, and Prague. ONR-G staff include associate directors who "serve as the international arm of ONR, help to shape the Navy's international engagement strategy, and establish insight into research agendas of ONR, NRL, and the NRE [Naval Research Enterprise]
|
From page 35... ...
The strategy presented the rationale for international S&T cooperation and proposed the following six broad areas of interest: basic research, information assurance, battle space awareness, force protection, reduced cost of ownership, and transformation initiatives. The strategy also described a tiered approach to international cooperation that begins with Services' and Agency's program officers who have global awareness of their technical discipline.
|
From page 36... ...
researchers at universities, industry, and foreign government S&T offices; scientist exchanges; overseas research funding (small seed grants) ; data analytics and horizon scanning; TTCP; NATO STO; and U.S.
|
From page 37... ...
) on their international programs, as well as observations from committee subgroup visits to the Services' corporate research laboratories in Adelphi, Maryland; Washington, D.C.; and Dayton, Ohio, and to the Services' international field offices in Tokyo, Japan, and London, England.
|
From page 38... ...
researchers. While seed funding represents an overall small investment, field office staff emphasized its importance for establishing new relationships, for accessing foreign research capabilities, and for leveraging research investments within their home offices and across each of the colocated field offices.
|
From page 39... ...
Discussions with field office staff, as well as with other components of the DRE, suggest that DoD researchers are unable to fully take advantage of trip reports and technology papers filed in online knowledge management systems due to inaccessibility issues, poor system searching capabilities, and insufficient or 29 Following past year travel cuts and restrictions (similar to those described by the Services S&T field offices) , Australia's Defense Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)
|
From page 40... ...
While coordinating personnel exchanges between field offices,31 hosting workshops and S&E visits, and occasionally cofunding seed grants for overseas research are useful, they are insufficient for fully leveraging tri-service investments.32 It appears to the committee that while each of the Service field offices has significant knowledge about the internation 30 Examples of success include Magnetic Energy Recovery Switch transition to ONRGlobal's Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) , Nippon paint that turns opaque when correct thickness (ONR-G)
|
From page 41... ...
embassies, which are influential and more extensively engaged with the local government and industrial sectors, may open doors for the field offices and expedite their S&T engagement and scouting efforts.33 The field offices would also benefit from coordination with U.S. government offices that have joint international research programs and S&E exchanges, host international workshops, and maintain international offices and staff overseas, such as the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration34 and the National Science Foundation.35 2.3.2 Global Engagement by the Service Laboratories Committee subgroups visited AFRL, ARL, and NRL to learn about those laboratories' strategies and mechanisms for global S&T awareness and engagement, as well as the barriers to engagement both at the lab management level and at the individual researcher level.
|
From page 42... ...
While AFRL researchers reportedly do not derive a lot of value from trip reports produced by the international field offices (AOARD, EOARD, SOARD) , they are strong advocates for the role those offices play in main taining in-region relationships and opening doors.
|
From page 43... ...
ARL management also indicated that there is some consideration of establishing an enhanced Ar my basic research function in their international field offices, as well as the use of analytics to future cast technology trends. Despite having the smallest international budget of the three Services, ARL researchers noted that money is only one ingredient for successful international engagement; just as important is a culture change led by the leadership that emphasizes the importance of international engagement at the fundamental science level.
|
From page 44... ...
A wide range of mechanisms are used by each of the Service laboratories to engage and collaborate with the international research community and include conference attendance, scientist exchanges, bi- and multilateral S&T cooperation agreements, and S&E participation in multilateral S&T panels and working groups of NATO STO and TTCP. Each of the laboratories acknowledged that as technology advances accelerate and defense budgets become tighter, international engagement will become increasingly important.
|
From page 45... ...
. While the Service laboratories are thinking about new ways to do business in a global community, the study committee did not observe specific objectives, strategies, or metrics for their international engagement efforts.
|
From page 46... ...
In-country international programs and outreach efforts, such as those shared by the Services' field offices in Europe and Asia, are excellent opportunities for the defense research enterprise to establish reputations in other countries and regions of the world as reliable collaborators and research colleagues in basic research. The DoD S&T enterprise needs to be engaging and collaborating with the best researchers anywhere in the world, not only in all areas in which the DoD has basic research investments, but also those areas which the DoD has divested.
|
From page 47... ...
Based on its discussions with various defense research components, the committee observed that information sharing within each Service, across the Services, and to OSD, is inadequate. 2.5.1 Coordination of International S&T Activities within the Services Each of the Services has an expansive S&T workforce and includes S&Es at Service laboratories, warfare centers, universities (in the United States and overseas)
|
From page 48... ...
While cost sharing is a valuable metric, it does not capture how well the field offices are engaging the global S&T community, building relationships, facilitating research collaborations, identifying emerging international S&T developments, or providing inputs for building an integrated picture of the global research landscape. The study committee did not observe any metrics that clearly identified intended outcomes and measures of success for any of these objectives.
|
From page 49... ...
Leadership within each Service needs to articulate the importance of its S&T workforce being aware of global research advances within their fields (and that publications are not sufficient) and that maintaining a seat at the global research table requires engagement and collaboration with other countries -- both with S&T powerhouses that already reside at the leading edge and with those developing S&T capabilities for the future.
|
From page 50... ...
efforts in any country where needed at the basic research level, including federated access to research activities; integrate information from OSD and the Components to provide comparative analyses that inform DoD investments and strategic guidance; and ensure that international research activities protect the security of critical U.S. technologies while enhancing access to global developments in basic and applied research.
|
From page 51... ...
also have international activities and collaborations. While, collectively, these international activities and collaborative activities enhance the Services' overall awareness of, as well as participation in, the global research landscape, opportunities exist to more effectively coordinate, integrate, and leverage international efforts across the DRE.
|
From page 52... ...
Tightened DoD restrictions on conference travel and attendance and security protocols that unnecessarily delay or prevent S&E discussions, visitations, and collaborations are significant barriers for defense engagement of the international research community. Poor connectivity between laboratory researchers and the Services' international S&T offices compounds these challenges and also leads to missed opportunities for the field offices to provide DoD researchers in the United States with insight into global technology developments.
|
From page 53... ...
that have international roles and responsibilities, including the Office of Technical Intelligence, the Office of Basic Research, the Office of International Cooperation, DARPA, and liaisons to NATO STO and TTCP Each of the Service S&T field offices also needs to improve coordination and engagement with DoD's defense attachés posted to U.S. embassies.
|
From page 54... ...
However, effective reachback mechanisms between field offices and their respective headquarter activities do not exist, which results in missed opportunities to provide value to defense researchers back home and to support the broader DoD mission. While there is significant potential for the defense research enterprise to gain awareness of and leverage global S&T, DoD needs a strategy composed of an integrated suite of approaches that are coordinated both horizontally across the Services and vertically to ASD(R&E)
|
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.