1

Transitioning Science & Technology Programs

Dr. Bill LukensProgram Director for Science & Technology

Defense Acquisition University(703) 805-4989

Bill.lukens@dau.mil

2

3

DoD S&T Community

• Department of Defense– Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency– Defense Threat Reduction Agency– Test & Evaluation

• Army– Army Research Laboratory– Research, Development &

Engineering Centers

4

DoD S&T Community

• Department of the Navy– Office of Naval Research– Naval Research Laboratory– Systems Commands Laboratories

• Air Force– Air Force Research Laboratory

5

Federal S&T Community

• Department of Defense• Health and Human Services• NASA• Department of Energy• National Science Foundation

6

T&E/S&T Program Goal

• Exploit new technologies• Expedite their transition from the

laboratory to the T&E community

T&E/S&T Program Manager:Ms. Lisa Davis703-681-4000x186l.davis@osd.mil

7

The DOD Lens Analogy• Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater

knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts

• Applied research is systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized or specific need may be met

• Advanced technology development includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests

6.1

6.3

6.2

Focus

Engineering Sciences

Physical& MathSciences

Ocean, Atmosphere & Earth Sciences

LifeSciences

Acquisition

TechnologySuperiority

NationalSecurity

FundamentalKnowledge

Applied Research

Adv..Development

Understanding

Option

Basic Research

DirectedKnowledge Engineering/

Operational Knowledge

OperationalRequirements

Opportunities

Investment Strategy

8

Science and Technology Planning Process(https://vte.dtic.mil)

Science and Technology Planning Process(https://vte.dtic.mil)

National Security Science and Technology Strategy

Defense Technology Area Plan

POM

&

Budget

Joint Warfighting S & T Plan

Basic Research Plan

Joint Vision 2020

TARA

Defense Science & Technology Strategy

Other Agency S & T Plans

Navy/Marine Corps S&T Investment Plan

Army S&TMaster Plan

Air Force Technology Area Plans

9

Director, Defense Research and Engineering Environment• Technology Acceleration

– Combating Terrorism– Tech Transition Programs

• Technical Support to Warfighter• Revitalize Labs• Transformation Thrusts

– National Aerospace Initiative– Advanced Reconnaissance & Knowledge

Architecture– Power & Energy Technologies

10

Speeding Technology Transition “The Challenge”

RDT&E

6.3 Adv Tech

Dev6.2

Applied Research

6.1 Basic

Research

Tech Base

S&T

Managed by Labs

6.4Adv Comp

Dev & Prototype

6.5Sys Dev &

Demo (SDD)

Managed by System Program Offices

“Perceptions” of the S&T Community• S&T’s job is complete at the tech

development stage• Implementation of the technology is the

customer's responsibility• The role of S&T is “tech push”— If it’s

good technology — they will come! • Development cycle for S&T is too long for

most Acquisition and Warfighter customers

• Focus on the technology and not on the business rationale for implementation

“Perceptions” of the S&T Community• S&T’s job is complete at the tech

development stage• Implementation of the technology is the

customer's responsibility• The role of S&T is “tech push”— If it’s

good technology — they will come! • Development cycle for S&T is too long for

most Acquisition and Warfighter customers

• Focus on the technology and not on the business rationale for implementation

Technology Transition “Seam”Technology Transition “Seam”

Key Impediments• Budget: Lack of

Transition Funds• Transition Process Lacks

Definition & Visibility• Culture: Difference Goals

& Timelines between S&T and Acquisition Managers

• Lack of Incentives

Val

ley

of

Dea

th

6.7Op System

Dev

11

Transition Processes

• DUSD(AS&C): Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTDs)

• Transition of Army S&T Products• DoN: Future Naval Capabilities• USAF: Applied Technology Council• DDR&E: Quick Reaction Programs

– Quick Reaction Special Projects– Technology Transition Initiative– Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

TEAMING

12

Best Practices

All Services are moving their acquisition processes

S&T Acq

Operational Requirements(Warfighter)

Enhanced ContactFewer Surprises

FROM:

TO: S&T Acq

13

Measuring Technology Maturity

Technology Readiness Levels Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations

Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration

System prototype demonstration in a operational environment

System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment

Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment

Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept

Technology concept and/or application formulated

Basic principles observed and reported

System Test, Launch & Operations

System/Subsystem Development

Technology Demonstration

Technology Development

Research to Prove Feasibility

Basic Technology Research

TRL 9

TRL 8

TRL 7

TRL 6TRL 6

TRL 5TRL 5

TRL 4

TRL 3

TRL 2

TRL 1

As Defined in 5000.2-R

14

ACTD Anatomy(http://www.acq.osd.mil/actd/)

• Addresses an important military need with a mature technology

• Provides a technical solution with demonstrated CONOPS

• Evaluates solution in field demonstrations by warfighters

• Usually joint, often combined/coalition

• Multi-agency

– Developer Service /Agency: Technical Manager

– Sponsoring Combatant Command: Operational Manager

– Lead Service/Agency (Title 10 Authority): Transition Manager

• Rapid: 1-5 Years – or less - to Final Demonstration/Prototype

– 2 Years of Support for Residuals and Transition

• Multiple Funding Sources

– OSD routinely provides 10-30% funding

15

A Look at the Army…

16

Force Operating Capabilities (FOCs)

TRADOC PAM 525-66 FOCs address the pursuit of advanced warfighting capabilities and describe them

in relevant operational terms (12 FOC areas).Strategic Responsiveness and Deployability Battle Command ConstructSensor FusionMounted / Dismounted Maneuver Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) Lethality (Net Fires) Line of Sight (LOS) / Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Lethality for

Mounted/DismountedAir / Ground OperationsSurvivabilityManeuver SupportManeuver SustainmentTraining and Leader DevelopmentHuman Engineering

FOCs articulate force level capabilities that form the basis for Future Force warfighting requirements in doctrine, training, leader development, organizations, materiel, personnel and facilities (DTLOMPF) domains.

FOCs form the basis for analysis to define and refine requirements across the full spectrum of operations throughout the transformation period.

FOCs establish requirements for the Army Science and Technology. FOCs assist in focusing the Army’s S&T investment in support of Future Force

overall development and Army transformation.

17

Science and Technology Objectives (STO)

• Fundamental “building blocks” of Army S&T program.– Highest priority efforts (limited to 200)

• Advanced technology development• Applied research program

– Promote innovation and competition

• Focus and stabilize the 6.2 and 6.3 program

• Practice management by objectives• Provide feedback

18

FY00-02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

TRL4 Scaleable RFMetric:• SWAP-reduced OFW transceiver module with PCMCIA card form factor (RF ICs)• Laboratory test and functional design verification (APIs)• Multi-channel, multi-band design with scaleable transmit power• Wearable antenna interface

TRL4 System-on-a-chipMetric:• SWAP-reduced OFW programmable radio modem (FPGA) and link-layer intranet processor, 2 CCAs PCMCIA card form factor• Laboratory test and functional design verification (APIs)• System-on-a-chip design, dual-channel modem• Multi-mode (AJ, LPD/LPI, extended range, TOA)

TRL4 Software defined radioMetric:• Application-specific, multifunctional networking protocols (sensors, munitions, robotics)• Programmable waveform, GP-processor (FPGA-based modem implementation )

7-30-02

TRL5 Software defined radioMetric:• OFW WNW HW/SW JTRS platform portability• Multi-channel, multi-band, multi-mode laboratory integration and test in OFW mechanical packaging• Simultaneous application-specific, multifunctional networking protocols (sensors, munitions, robotics)

TRL5 System-on-a-chipMetric:• SWAP-reduced dual-channel radio modem (ASIC) and link-layer intranet processor, 1 CCA PCMCIA card form factor• Multi-channel, multi-band, multi-mode laboratory integration and test in OFW mechanical package• JTRS platform portability• SMI and electric power source interface

TRL5 Scaleable RFMetric:• Laboratory integration and test in OFW mechanical packaging• Simultaneous multi-channel, multi-band design with scaleable transmit power• JTRS platform portability• Wearable antenna integration

5

C4ISR OTM/MOSAICATD Demo

6

OFW ATDDemo

6

FCS Block IFUE LUT

TRL6System integration, test and operational user demonstrationMetric:Test Readiness Reviews

TRL5 System-on-a-chipMetric:• SUOSAS Phase 3 system field test and performance validation• Modem & link-layer intranet processor• 2 CCAs with form factor (5”x7”x0.5”, each)• SWAP reduction trade-off analysis and communications reference architecture(TRL3)

TRL5 Scaleable RFMetric:• SUOSAS Phase 3 system field test and performance validation• Multi-channel operation with simultaneous Tx/Rx• 3 RF modules with form factor (5”x7”x0.5”, each) and shielding• Chassis-mounted antennas

TRL4 Software defined radioMetric:• Multi-mode Universal Handset laboratory demo (discrete HW)• P2P and PCS with bridge voice

JTRS Squad-Level Communications III.C4.2003.03

5

FCS/C4ISROTM Demo

19

The Navy…

20

New Process New Process FNC Program Initiated (FY02)FNC Program Initiated (FY02)

N-Codes

Prioritized Capabilitiesetc.etc.N4N4N1N1

N74N75N76N77N78

N74N75N76N77N78

N7/VCNO

Navy Balance

USN1. ----2. ----

5. ----

8. ---

NAVAL

USMC

3. ----4. ---

6. ----7. ----

VCNO/ACMC

DoN Balance

USN1. ----2. ----

5. ----

8. ---

USN1. ----2. ----

5. ----

8. ---

NAVALNAVAL

USMC

3. ----4. ---

6. ----7. ----

USMC

3. ----4. ---

6. ----7. ----

VCNO/ACMC

DoN BalanceONR/SYSCOM/N-Code Staff

IPT -- Continuing Program Improvement

ONR/SYSCOM/N-Code Staff

IPT -- Continuing Program Improvement

ONR

Program Execution

Naval OptionsDemos

Navy EssentialNational Resource Broad Awareness

ONR

Program Execution

Naval OptionsDemos

Navy EssentialNational Resource Broad Awareness

Naval OptionsDemos

Navy EssentialNational Resource Broad Awareness

21

FNC IPT ApproachFNC IPT Approach

IPT oversight responsibilities:Approval of the Strategy/Products

that Achieve the Enabling Capabilities

Development & Approval of Technology Transition Agreements

Approval of Business Plans

Key is Transition to AcquisitionKey is Transition to Acquisition

RequirementsRep (Chair)

Fleet/ForceRep

S&T Rep

AcquisitionRep

• Industry Board of Directors Model• Consensus Process

FNC IPT

22

FNCFNC ProfileProfile

1. Time Critical Strike2. Missile Defense3. Fleet Force Protection4. Littoral ASW5. Organic Mine Countermeasures6. Autonomous Operations7. Total Ownership Costs8. Knowledge Superiority & Assurance9. Advanced Capability Electric Systems10. Littoral Combat & Power Projection11. Expeditionary Logistics

Future Naval Capabilities Program Characteristics

• FY04 FNC Investment – $455M• FNCs – 11• Enabling Capabilities – 37• Product Transitions over the

FYDP ~ 300 (FY02-07)

23

And, the Air Force…

24

• Identify ATD Candidates

• POM for Technology Programs

• Develop Transitionable Technologies

• Define Requirements

• POM Transition Funds

Prod Ctr

• Interpret Requirements

• Build Transition Program

• Integrate Into Systems

Lab

The ATC Triangle

User

2525

Desired Outcome of the ATC Process

• Increase Probability of Timely Tech Transition

– Lab: Goal - 50% of S&T 6.3 Budget in ATDs

– Warfighter: No ATD Commissioned w/o Budget

Commitment to Transition

– SPO: Build and Implement Successful Transition

Program

• Build Greater Understanding of “Realm of the Possible”

Successful Tech Transition is the End Game

2626

ATD Candidates

• What is an ATD Candidate for an Applied Technology Council? – Any Funded 6.3 Program* That Is Projected

to Demonstrate an Integrated Set of Technologies That Will• Enable an Improved Warfighting

Capability/System, and • Be Ready to Transition Within the FYDP

* Programs can include 6.2 and 7.8 (ManTech) Funds

27

Finally…

28

Technology Transition Trilogy

• Quick Reaction program element established in FY03 at $25.4M*

• Congressional language directed 3 efforts to accelerate

technology transition – Quick Reaction Special Projects

• Provides flexibility to respond to emergent DoD needs within budget cycle• Takes advantage of technology breakthroughs in rapidly evolving technologies• Completion of projects within a 6-12 month period

– Technology Transition Initiative• Accelerate introduction of new technologies from DoD S&T programs into

operational capabilities – Jump starts selected components/subsystems into systems

– Defense Acquisition Challenge Program **• Open to any person or activity• Provides opportunities for inserting innovative & cost-saving technology into

acquisition programs

* Note: This is in “D” line PE 0603826D** This is the Cong. Duncan Hunter sponsored Challenge Program; not the pre-existing

SADBU Challenge Program

29

FY 03 FY04

FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09

PBR 04 24.6 74.4 99.5 100 101 103 105Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

12.3 18.6 24.9 25.0 25.2 25.7

26.3

Technology TransitionInitiative

6.14 18.6 24.9 25.0 25.2 25.7 26.3

Quick Reaction Special Projects

6.14 37.2 49.7 50.1 50.5 51.4 52.6

($ Millions)

Quick Reaction Program Funding Profile (PE 0603826D8Z)

30

Quick Reaction Special Projects

• Initiate high priority or high leverage technology efforts during the execution year– Must have under 12 month deliverable

• Provide opportunity to execute within technology cycle in rapidly maturing technology (e.g. Information, electronics, CBD Defense)

• Provide flexibility to respond to emergent DoD issues and address surprises and needs in real time– Technology matures in less than a year in some areas– Responds to technology opportunities in major acquisition

programs

• Address cycle time discontinuity between DoD-programming and execution for rapidly evolving civil sectors

31

Proposals Submitted 1

Funds Available

Project of

InterestODDRE

1 Based on Data Call soliciting “great ideas” from DDR&E to Direct Reports & Joint Staff (J-8) with copy to PDUSD (AT&L)2. Or at any frequency requested3. Need to line up J-8 to work this

Yes

Yes

Proposal Worthy Stop

Return for

RefinementYes

No

No

No

DDR&ETechnical

Review

ProjectTechnically

Sound

Return toOriginator

No

ProposalWorthy

No

StructureQRSP

Project

Report Annually to Congress 2

Yes

YesJoint Staff

for Relevance

Review

Initial Review

Technical Review

Need

s review 3

POC Mr. Al Shaffer, ODDR&E, alan.shaffer@osd.mil, 703-695-9604

QRSP Proposed Process

32

FY 03 QRSP Projects

Thermobaric Warhead Integration

Low Cost Guided Imaging Rocket

Dragon Eye Sensor Integration

WMD Intelligence Processing – Rapid Targeting System

Gryphon

Guidance Integrated Fuze

33

• Purpose:Purpose:– Accelerates introduction of technologies from DoD S&T

into operational capabilities by funding the execution year plus one

• Bridge the “Valley of Death”

– Services / Agencies nominate projects - Contribute up to 50% of the total cost

– Technology Transition Council helps prioritize• FY03 Selection ProcessFY03 Selection Process

– DUSD (AS&C) appointed to administer day-to-day activities – Apr ‘03

– First meeting of Technology Transition Council described the process, and requested nomination of candidates– May 2003

– Candidates received and evaluated against criteria in consultation with Service and Joint S&T representatives

– 13 projects selected

– Initial funding distribution – June 2003

Technology Transition Initiative (TTI)

34

Technology Transition Council

• Army – Assistant Secretary of Army (AL&T), Mr. Claude Bolton– Rep: Ms. Mary Miller

• Navy – Deputy AS of Navy (RDT&E), Mr. Michael McGrath– Rep: Dr. Paul Muessig

• Air Force – Assistant Secretary of Air Force, Mr. Marvin Samber– Rep: Mr. Bobby Smart

• DARPA – Director, Dr. Anthony Tether– Rep: Col. Otto Weigl

• DLA – Director, VADM Keith Lippert– Rep: John Christensen

• DISA – Director– Rep: Mr. Jim Moody

• NGA – Director, LtGen James Clapper– Rep: Mr. Steve Long

• MDA – Director, LtGen Ronald Kadish– Rep: Mr. Vincent Nguyen

• USSOCOM – CMDR Brown– Rep: Mr. Frank Wattenbarger/Mr. Duke Donnigan

35

Current TTI FY 05 Schedule

• Call for proposals: Aug 2004• Prioritized list submitted: Sep 2004• Panel review of proposals: Oct 2004• Panel submits consolidated, prioritized list to

Transition Manager: early Nov 2004• Transition Manger proposed selection: Nov 2004• TTWG meeting: mid Nov 2004• TTWG additional info submitted: late Nov 04• Transition Manager final selection: early Dec

2004• Funding distributed: mid-late Dec 2004

36

Selected TTI ProjectsTerminal Attack Communications (TAC) Earplug System

Radio Mic Radio

SpeakerExternal

Mic

Radio

Provides blast protection while increasing communications in high-noise environments. Allows for enhanced natural hearing in quiet, clandestine environs.

Air Force Research Lab, General DynamicsFIELDED 12-18 MONTHS EARLIER

IN IRAQ APPROX. 3RD QUARTER FY 04

Water Purification System Enable soldiers to treat up to 300 liters (nearly 80 gallons) of any available, non-brackish water source, eliminating the risk of their exposure to diseases and bio-chemical pollutants.

DARPA and MIOX Corp., Albuquerque, NMPROCURED AND DISTRIBUTED 2,494 PENS in FY

03. PROCURE AND DISTRIBUTE 4,157 ADDITIONAL PENS IN FY 04

SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Adv. Reconnaissance System (ARS) Improves SDV operator situation awareness/navigation ability, and provides capability to collect imagery in low-light and night-time conditions.

US/UK Cooperative Program, Navy Research Lab, SOCOM

ACCELERATES PURCHASE, 18 months

37

•Purpose:Purpose: Provides opportunities to insert innovative & cost-saving technology from domestic sources into DoD Acquisition Programs

– Funds test & evaluation of technologies/products that can improve current acquisition programs at component, subsystem, or system level

– Uses Foreign Comparative Test Processes and network

Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP)

• FY 2003/2004 Program ProcessFY 2003/2004 Program Process – BAA released – 15 March 03– 387 proposals processed to date– 287 Summary Proposals reviewed by PEOs/PMs – 83 Final Proposals submitted by PMs– 22 Final Proposals Selected for FY03 New-Starts– FY04 budget (will likely) allow 6 New-Starts

38

DACP Process• Annual Process Initiated by Broad Agency

Announcement (BAA)

www.FedBizOpps.Gov• Two-Phase Process – In Sync with Budget Cycle

– Phase I - Summary Proposal submitted by anyone• Proposals that pass Admin Review and Merit

Review are matched to Programs of Record (POR) that have potential to benefit

– Phase 2 – If POR “accepts” technology, Final Proposal submitted by Program Office

• All Proposals submitted through

https://bids.acqcenter.com/dacp

39

Defense Acquisition Challenge Program

Legislated ProcessBAA Released

Review Peer/Technical Experts

Summary Proposals (Unsolicited Proposals can be

submitted at anytime)

ProposalWorthy

No Yes Submitter/PM/PEO notified (Teamed with target program

PM/PEO)

Final Proposals

OSD REVIEW

SubmitterNotified

OSD Selection

Submitter & PM Notified

DACPProject Started

AdminReview

ReportAnnually toCongress

If accepted a Final Proposal is developed w/PM/PEO/Prime

SubmitterNotified

No

Will refer submitters toother programs as applicable

Yes

Yes

No

PM/PEO Review

Strong Industry and PM Support

40

Tentative FY05 DACP ScheduleEVENT Start Date End Date

BAA Open/Released 2/09/2004 2/20/2004

Phase I - Summaries Due/BAA Closed

2/20/2004 2/20/2004

Phase I Admin Review 2/09/2004 3/01/2004

Phase I Technical Review 3/1/2004 4/7/2004

Phase I Program of Record ID & Review

4/22/2004 6/2/2004

Phase 2 - Final Proposals Due

6/25/2004 6/25/2004

AS&C Review & Selection 9/14/2004 9/15/2004

FY 05 Selection Notification

9/16/2004 9/16/2004

41

How to Contact DACP

OSDMs. Adele RatcliffProgram Manager 703.602.3740/3

U.S. Army Ms. Tanya Litvinas 703.617.3219

USSOCOM Mr. Bill Burke 813.828.9426

Mr. Tom Wetterstroem 813.828.9512

USN-NAVSEA Mr. Mike Finnerty 202.781.0809

USN-SPAWAR Ms. Ann Van Haaren 858.537.0341

Ms. Sandy Davis 619.725.6593

USAF TBD

USMC Ms. Shawn Prablek 703.432.4296

E-Mail: defensechallenge@osd.milWeb: https://bids.acqcenter.com/dacpTelephone number: 703.788.9361

42

Selected On Going DACP Projects

Hemopure Packed red blood cells

RESUS – Restore Effective Survival in ShockIncreases Survivability Rate of Soldiers during hemorrhagic shock3-yr shelf stable, no refrigeration required, compatible w/ all blood types

Air Force/Navy, BIOPURE, MA SPECIAL TACTICS High Priority

SAVES LIVES - NEW CAPABILITY

Aerogel for Ships Fire barrier, IR Suppression, Blast Mitigation, and WT, VOL, and Fuel Savings

Navy, Aspen Aerogels, MAFOCUSED LOGISTICSFriction Stir Processing

75% Reduction in propeller casting time for VA Class SUBS

Navy, MTS Corp, MN and General Tool Co, OH

FOCUSED LOGISTICSCO2 Environmental Control Unit for Up-Armored HMMWV Single System Cooling/Heating rated for -50F to 125F environments with 50% wt, 25% size, and 25% fuel consumption vs. Mil Std

Army, Modine Manufacturing, KYFOCUSED LOGISTICS

43

CONTACT INFORMATION

Ms. Adele Ratcliff, 703-602-3740/3DACP http://bids.acqcenter.com/dacp

Mr. Tim Harp, 703-697-7922TTI www.acq.osd.mil/iti

Ms. Barbara Brygider, 703-614-9443QRSP www.acq.osd.mil/qrsp/qrsp.html

44

Summary

• Tech Transition is critical to maintaining capability edge• Need Reaffirmed at Highest Levels • DoD Implementing New Projects and Processes to Effect Transition• Effective Tech Transition remains a Contact Sport