Organization and Management of 

 Scientific Activities 



The management cycle for the Army's research 

 and development program including requirements, 

 program initiation, review, and evaluation is ac- 

 complished on an annual basis. More specifically, 

 the Army stafT annually prepares and distributes 

 to Army laboratories a user-oriented document 

 called the "Science and Technology Objectives 

 Guide" (STOG). This guide provides the Army 

 research and development community with clear 

 and concise descriptions of the Army's concept 

 for future military operations, the deficiencies or 

 short-comings of current systems, and the equip- 

 ment and manpower capabilities required to meet 

 the Army's needs. The STOG lists, as concretely 

 as possible and in priority ranking, the Army's 

 science and technology objectives, the user pro- 

 ponents for these objectives, and the laboratories 

 responsible for coordinating the research and 

 development. 



In response to STOG guidance, laboratory sci- 

 entists and engineers propose science and technol- 

 ogy programs. These are reviewed at the laborato- 

 ry level by the laboratory technical director. Pro- 

 posed laboratory programs are then submitted 

 through channels for review at command/staff 

 levels. Also, management summary sheets 

 (MSS's) delineating work actually being per- 

 formed in all laboratories are prepared to show 

 the effort addressing each of the science and tech- 

 nology objectives. The MSS's permit an across- 

 the-board examination and evaluation of the sci- 

 ence and technology base program in terms of 

 requirements and program thrusts and emphases. 



In March and August of each year, the Re- 

 search, Development and Acquisition Council 

 (RDAC), composed of senior Army personnel, 

 reviews the orientation of the science and tech- 

 nology base program in terms of major thrusts 

 and areas of emphasis. The RDAC considers the 

 work being done to address pacing problems and 

 the distribution of funds. The objective of this 

 review is to identify critical issues and determine 

 a science and technology base program. Army 

 policy is to maintain an adequate in-house capa- 

 bility so the Army will be a smart buyer, to en- 

 courage and ensure investigation of new ideas and 

 concepts that may contribute to the Army mis- 

 sion, and to maintain effective contact between 

 the Army and scientists of the United States and, 

 when appropriate, other nations of the free world. 



Money is provided for support of research pro- 

 posals submitted by scientists and engineers in 



other Government agencies, universities, industry, 

 and nonprofit institutions. Each such proposal is 

 evaluated by scientific peers for scientific quality 

 and relevance to Army requirements. Current 

 funding limitations permit supporting only the 

 most outstanding proposals that also satisfy the 

 relevance requirement. The Army research pro- 

 gram is accomplished approximately one-half in- 

 house and approximately one-half through re- 

 search contracts and/or grants. Decisions in spe- 

 cific cases depend on capabilities and availability 

 of resources in terms of personnel, equipment, 

 and facilities. 



Basic research efforts are initiated in two 

 ways — scientists and engineers in Army laborato- 

 ries and by scientists and engineers outside the 

 Army organization. Although guidance is provided 

 for the research program in general terms, respon- 

 sibility for the content of the in-house basic re- 

 search effort has been delegated to each technical 

 director of an Army laboratory, and each is re- 

 sponsible for the initiation and termination of ba- 

 sic research tasks in the laboratory. The initiation 

 of an external basic research effort depends on 

 the evaluation of a proposal as to quality and re- 

 levance, and the availability of funds. The sup- 

 port of a contract or grant is normally for a speci- 

 fied period of time such as three years. A contract 

 or grant for basic research is seldom terminated 

 before the specified time period has elapsed, un- 

 less the principal investigator dies or for some 

 other reason cannot complete the investigation. 

 The renewal of a contract or grant (i.e., the sup- 

 port of a new contract or grant with the same in- 

 vestigator) depends on an evaluation of past per- 

 formance and the pertinence of the new proposal 

 at the time of its consideration. 



The Army is sensitive to the importance of pro- 

 tecting research, and generally supports the sci- 

 ence and technology base program including re- 

 search on a level-of-effort basis. Current policy is 

 to support the research program at approximately 

 5 percent of the total research, development, test, 

 and evaluation program, and to implement ap- 

 proximately half of these funds through contracts 

 and grants. So although a definite effort is made 

 to establish an appropriate level for support of the 

 research program and then "fence" these funds, 

 it is not always successful. For example, during 

 the Vietnamese effort the pressure of responding 

 to urgent requirements and supporting U. S. 

 troops in the field, combined with inflation, did 

 erode the Army's basic research program. Current 

 efforts and the current trend are to restore the 

 support of basic research to the pre-Vietnamese 

 level. 



DEFENSE 69 



