Innovation in the AF R

1
Innovation in the AF RD process

• Dr.. Daniel Hastings
• Co-Director, MIT Engineering Systems Division
• Director, MIT Technology and Policy Program
• May 8th, 2003

2
Outline

• Why does the USAF care about RD?
• The ideal organization people
• The process for investment (industry vrs AF)
• How much to invest
• Lessons learned

3
Why does the AF care about RD in ST?
4
Value of ST Investment

• The first essential of the airpower necessary
  for our national security is preeminence in
  research...American air superiority ..has
  resulted in large measure from the mobilization
  and constant application of our scientific
  resources
• Gen. Hap Arnold

5
Air Force STWhy invest?

• Create technology options in time to meet
  emergent warfighting needs
• Maintain in-house expertise to make good
  technology acquisition decisions be a smart
  buyer
• Position U.S. industry to deliver and sustain
  technologically superior systems
• Shape the future (game changers, e.g. stealth,
  GPS) and avoid technological surprises
• React rapidly to solve the Air Forces technical
  problems (911 service)

6
What is the ideal Lab?
7
Ideal State for ST lab

• Corporate Purpose
• Clear mission understood internally externally
• Productive People
• Quality people in an enabling management
  environment with a culture of excellence
• Recognized Value
• High perceived value by owners major customers
• High connectivity
• With outside scientific and military world

From 1993 AF/ST report
8
The Ideal ST Workforce

• Description of the Force
• Motivated, customer-focused, technically
  excellent
• Understands and embraces AF roles and values
• Agile and responsive
• Appropriate mix of experience and skills
• Steady influx of new personnel
• Leavened by super-stars, innovative and
  resourceful
• Well-connected to suppliers and customers
• Culturally diverse

• Leading the Force
• Corporate commitment to a workforce strategy
• Direct control over hiring, firing, and promotion
• Ability to attract, develop, reward, and retain
  outstanding people
• Environment to motivate and protect risk-takers
• Performance culture based on stretch goals,
  individual accountability
• Manage to budget

Home runs require heavy hitters!
9
The value of people What information is in
documents?
FORD THROTTLE BODIES
Most System level knowledge is in the heads of
designers
10
What is the difference between industry RD and
AF?
11
Industry STWhy invest?
12
Industry STWhy invest?
13
Air Force and Industry STKey contrasts
What drives industry ST investment?
What drives Air Force ST investment?

• Financial objectives
• Marketplace
• RESULT Industry prioritizes ST investments
  toward near-term, high-return, and high-dollar
  programs business case.

• Warfighter needs
• Battlespace
• RESULT Air Force prioritizes ST investments to
  ensure continuing operational superiority no
  fair fights.

Air Force can rely on industry only when
RESULTS align
14
Top-level Findings
Areas to Improve
Enterprise Best Practice Process
Leadership Vision Guidance
Accountability
Strategy
Technology Opportunities
Customer Needs
ST Planning
ST Budget
Execution
15
Attributes of Successful Enterprises

• Benchmarking Results
• Leadership involvement The CEO champions the
  vision and top-level goals, and recognizes ST as
  important to both present and future business
• Vision A widely-shared and clear idea of purpose
  that is the basis for action throughout the
  corporation.
• Strategy A shared sense of direction to achieve
  the vision.
• Goals Clear, compelling, measurable, derived
  from the vision, that stimulate ST planning and
  progress.

16
Attributes of Successful Enterprises

• Benchmarking Results (cont.)
• Plan The goals allow the creation of ST plans
  that provide coherent schedules and investments
  for attaining the goals.
• Clear linkages between customer needs and ST
  projects
• Tools for valuing and prioritizing investment
  opportunities.
• Buy before make - high awareness of relevant
  marketplace
• Accountability The CEO holds the Chief Technical
  Officer (CTO) accountable for executing the ST
  plans to achieve the goals.
• Motivated Workforce Quality people driven by
  culture of excellence.

17
How much should be invested?
18
Setting the AF ST ToplineFindings

• Previous studies have established a comprehensive
  compilation of industrial ST investment.
• DSB 1998 Mr. Walter E. Morrow Jr./MIT Lincoln
  Laboratory.
• Basic Research (0.05 to 3.5).
• Development focused research (0.05 to 15).
• No unassailable way to establish topline from
  these data policy issue.
• Industrial RD investment determined by
  technology needs to support core business.
• Level of investment guidelines used after the
  fact to ensure ballpark posture relative to
  competition.
• Most propose a bottom-up process for annually
  establishing the topline based upon Air Force
  warfighter needs.
• However, there must be some revolutionary
  investment (14-20) which is typically not
  advocated by warfighter

19
Industry Study at MIT

• Global Benchmarking of the Strategic Management
  of Technology
• Prof. Ed Roberts, MIT Sloan School
• Surveyed 209 companies in US, Europe Japan
• All companies invested more than 100 million in
  RD last year

20
Industry Study at MIT

• Relevant results
• 62 of companies say CEO is important to linking
  technology to overall strategy
• 80 in US say there is a high linkage between
  technology strategy and business strategy
• RD intensity in RD/ in sales
• US Mean 7.4 with 40 in medium and long term
  investment ( gt 3 years)
• Approx 20 of US gt 10 in RD intensity

21
What are some lessons learned over the years?
22
Lessons Learned

• The Air Force has always depended on technology
• The Air Force Long Range Plan future vision is
  critically dependent on technology
• There has always been a tension between current
  operations and future capabilities
• Most new weapons systems are a synthesis of
  technological opportunity and military
  requirements

23
Tension between the past future

• In the history of the Air Force, tension between
  current operations and future capabilities have
  been common
• In 1947, Air Staff uniformly opposed increasing
  the research budget, rather they wanted to spend
  more money on current operations

24
Lessons learned

• There is a long development time from initial
  research to capability (5 to 20 years depending
  on technology)
• Sustained funding
• Initial basic research has large risk (Only
  1 out of 5 projects payoff big!)
• Surprises happen frequently
• Must be able to exploit them
• Broad funding necessary (Market approach)

25
Technology Maturity Curve Example for Materials
26
LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS HAVE PAYOFF
From a presentation by Dr. Anita Jones, DOD, to
the NRC Governing Board, Feb. 1996.
27
Lessons learned

• New capabilities will emerge!
• Not always predictable often resisted
• Long term investment has payoff!
• Backing away from some critical areas has enabled
  others to lead
• Rocket funding repeatedly cut
• US now buys engines for launch and orbit
  stationkeeping from Russians

28
Some part of RD must take the long view

• Investment in ST is not about doing more of the
  same but about new ways of fighting wars
• Development of new technologically based
  capabilities takes years of sustained funding.
• Current technological leadership has come from
  such sustained funding
• Laser weapons, GPS, F-22
• ST investment is about the future future
  leadership demands such investment.

29
Past Dependence on Technology

• Air Force of 1950
• Strategic bombers, fighters, transport aircraft
• Air Force of 1970
• Strategic bombers, fighters, transport aircraft,
  ballistic missiles
• Air Force of 1990
• Strategic bombers, fighters, transport aircraft,
  ballistic missiles, satellites,stealth aircraft
• Air Force of 2000
• Strategic bombers, fighters, transport aircraft,
  ballistic missiles, satellites, stealth
  aircraft,UAVs
• Technology Dependent Systems
• THE HIGH TECH SERVICE

30
Current Air Force Technological Leadership

• Consider current Air Force technological
  leadership in three areas
• Night Vision Goggles, GPS, F-22
• NVG Current Future capability
• Own the night
• GPS Current Capability
• Precision Navigation, Precision bombs
• F-22 Current Capability
• Stealthy air dominance

Each of these changed how the Air Force fights!
31
GPS The path from basic research to AF capability

• Sputnik orbit determined from Doppler shift
  (1957)
• Navy Transit satellite used to give Polaris fix
  (1964)
• Space qualified Atomic clocks developed in 1960s
• GPS Constellation defined (1973)
• More precise positioning based on
• AFRL Nobel work(1997)

GPS - A new AF Capability
32
Current Revolutionary Technologies
Nanofiller in self-healing polymer

• Hypersonic missiles
• Rapid strike
• Bio-inspired materials
• High strength materials
• Nanomaterials
• Long term untended
• sensors

Hypersonic Vehicle
Infrared Pit Organs
Nanodevices
Infrared Pit Organ
33
Issues with ST

• What should be the reliance on commercial RD?
• Some for short term, little for long term or for
  military unique
• What is the right niche for AF directed RD?
• Focus on military unique RD work
• Fund revolutionary technologies

34
What are some other issues?
35
Issues with ST

• How robust should be the funding?
• AF funnels 80 of AFST money outside to
  academia industry
• Most money supports people
• large cuts mean loss of capability
• Supporting ST is not like buying engines, less
  now and more later
• There is a phase lag due to the people intensive
  nature of the business - like pilots.!!!

STABILITY IS CRITICAL!
36
Myths

• Industry will fund long-term research
• I am ashamed to tell you that Lockheed Martin no
  longer invests in any basic research
• Norman Augustine, CEO, Lockheed Martin
• COTS technology replaces the need for the AF to
  invest in many technologies
• COTS will not supply military unique needs
• ST can be used as a management reserve
• This has costs the organization dearly in its
  credibility

37
Conclusions

• Innovation is driven by innovative people
• RD spending must be largely connected to the
  needs of the overall organization
• Some revolutionary spending is always necessary
• Much innovation has required champions
• GPS is an example
• Innovation will continue to happen in the right
  environment