|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Interaction models between the research community and the technological agencies |
Air University Review, May-June 1968
It is well accepted that our future military security depends to a large extent on the continued rapid advancement of our technology. It is generally recognized that the advancement of technology is strongly related to the quality and relevance of the basic and applied research being performed. So it would seem appropriate to examine the problems involved in the interactions between the research community and the technological agencies* and to describe the programs designed to promote effective interactions.
First I shall describe three simple models of the interaction between science and technology and discuss problems inhibiting effective interactions. Then I shall describe the Air Force, Atomic Energy Commission, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration program designed to relieve these interaction problems. The Air Force programs are used by various components of the Air Force agency charged with performing research, the Office of Aerospace Research (OAR); the NASA programs have been developed by the NASA Office of Technology Utilization. Finally, I shall describe a program developed by an individual component of OAR, the Office of Research Analyses (ORA), and analyze it in terms of the shortcomings brought out by the discussion of the simple models.
interaction models and problems
Simple models have been used in many disciplines to gain understanding of complex phenomena. For example, the field of economics has made extensive use of models, and this may explain, in part, the advancements in understanding and the resultant better ability to control economic processes. It must be recognized that there are drawbacks to using simple models, as they can never completely describe or explain complex processes or interactions. However, models can be used to gain understanding of the dominant characteristics of a complex process, which is an important first step in the understanding of any complex phenomenon.
Let us consider three models of the interactions between research and technology, all shown in Figure 1. When these models are analyzed in light of current events, many problems inhibiting smooth and effective interactions between the research community and technology centers become evident.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Interaction models between the research community and the technological agencies |
Model A assumes that the results of research flow into a knowledge depository. The knowledge depository consists of books, journal articles, and technical reports. This depository is available for use by the technologists when they run into problems with their current technology or in their attempts to improve their technology.
Model B, which is similar to Model A, is the more nearly correct model and
shows that research feeds a pool of knowledge which is drawn on by groups or
agencies performing exploratory development, advanced development, and systems
engineering. Furthermore, Model B recognizes that additional knowledge is added
to the pool or reservoir of knowledge at each of the stages (i.e., exploratory
development, advanced development, and systems engineering) and that the
research community draws on this pool of knowledge as well as the technological
agencies. This model was originated by Shapero.1 It has received
additional support from the recent report of the Materials Advisory Board.2
Analysis of Models A and B, in light of the increase in money, people, and agencies engaged in research and development, reveals that there are many problems associated with an effective working of the interaction process. These problems include:
(a) The explosion in the number of journals, reports, and books. For
example, the
(b) The delay in the publishing of new research results. The interval between significant theoretical or experimental results and the publication of these results often exceeds a year. This delay is due to the time it takes the researcher to write up his results in a form suitable for publication, the time required for the judging or refereeing of a paper, the time to make the corrections resulting from the judging, and the time to print.
(c) The use of a different jargon and special mathematical formulism by each research discipline. As a result, systems engineers and technologists often have difficulty interpreting the results of the researchers.
Model C shows the research community as primarily phenomena-oriented. In other words, research is aimed at better understanding basic phenomena and developing models and theorems that describe these phenomena. As shown by the model, research has little direct interaction with technology. As stated by the originator of this model, technology usually feeds upon technology, and phenomena-oriented science feeds upon phenomena-oriented science.4 There are indirect interactions between research and technology; advances in one area will almost invariably be transferred to the other area through processes that resemble symbiosis. The main problems imposed by the lack of direct interaction concern timeliness, lack of recognition of significant research, and the relevance of research to furnishing military technologists with solutions to important problems.
An examination of Model C in light of the increase in R&D effort reveals that the same problems for effective coordination exist that were previously described for Models A and B. These problems are proliferation of publications, delay in publishing of results, and jargon or formulism used by a particular discipline or phenomena-oriented group. In addition to these problems, new problem areas exist:
(a) Certain aspects of a particular phenomenon are often understood only by the researchers examining the phenomenon; the researchers gained this understanding through the media of personal communication, unpublished reports, or unpublished talks before learned societies. This type of communication network within the research community virtually excludes the technological agencies from understanding important aspects of a phenomenon.
(b) The problem of when to inform the technological agencies of a research advance. The research community does bring new work to the attention of the technological community. However, the timing or significance of this disclosure of new work is based on the value judgment of a researcher. Since researchers are primarily phenomena-oriented and not systems-oriented, there is some question as to their qualifications to make the value judgment of timing, since the importance of the advance or discovery depends upon its impact on present or future systems.
(c) In a manner similar to (b), technologists often come up with new instrumentation or techniques that would be of assistance to researchers. These techniques or instruments are often available for a significant period of time before researchers become aware of and start using these new tools.
(d) Technologists usually work in the world of systems and complex interrelated processes. It is difficult for them to express their problems in terms of phenomena and therefore to express technological problems in terms meaningful to the research community. Better problem definition by the technologist, in terms meaningful to researchers, could assist the research community in its search for more relevant research projects.
attempts to solve the interaction problem
All these problems have been recognized, and some steps have been taken to alleviate
them. Considering non-Air Force agencies first, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Atomic Energy Commission both have active programs
designed to facilitate and encourage the applications of their research by
other organizations, both government and private industry. Both the AEC and
NASA have information retrieval programs similar to the DOD program (the
Several actions have been taken by the research agency of the Air Force, the Office of Aerospace Research, to alleviate the interaction problem between the research community and the technological agencies. Like AEC and NASA, OAR has established research application offices at the laboratory level. These application offices are staffed by experienced field-grade R&D officers, who have the responsibility of determining potential users of OAR research in the various Air Force development and technological centers. As a collateral action, OAR encourages its scientists to spend an appreciable part of their time coordinating or consulting with other agencies, primarily Air Force Systems Command units.5
One of the elements of OAR, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), has initiated a “colonizing” effort, which consists of organizing annual symposiums of researchers concerned with the examination of a particular phenomenon.6 Since these symposiums allow the technologists to update themselves in one phenomenon area in the period of a few days, this colonizing effort promises to be very fruitful in terms of interactions between the research community and the technological agencies, in addition to furthering an effective and high-quality research program.
Another program, with the aim of stimulating effective interaction between the research community and the technological agencies, is the research analysis program of the Office of Research Analyses. The research analysis program includes two types of studies: research-application studies, concerning determination of the cost-effective use of a recent research advance in a future weapon system; and technological-barrier studies, to indicate what advances are required in order to make future aerospace systems more cost-effective. Thus, research analysis is defined as the determination of cost-effective applications of the results of accomplished or ongoing research and the identification of promising opportunities for mission-relevant research. Let us now consider the methodologies of both research-application and technological-barrier studies and how these studies address the problems of effective interactions.
research-application studies
Research-application studies have their origin with an advance in a particular research area. The first step in a research-application study, as shown in Figure 2, is to employ the results of this advance in a component of a conceptual system necessary to perform a continuing or future Air Force requirement. The conceptual system is then compared with alternative (existing or proposed) ways that have performed or could perform the same function. An engineering analysis is performed to determine the effectiveness parameters. Specific missions are proposed, and the comparative systems are analyzed in terms of their effectiveness. Finally, the systems are priced and compared with the previous results to determine their cost effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Research-application study methodology |
In application studies, the analyst works with the researcher in order to conceptualize a component or subsystem, using as a basis the phenomena under investigation by the researcher. Next, the analyst turns to the technologist to determine the effectiveness parameters relevant to the component or subsystem and also to determine comparative devices to evaluate with the conceptual sub-system in question. The analyst then works with planning agencies to determine future missions for the conceptual and comparative devices. The devices are then evaluated in terms of the mission requirements and cost in terms of the effectiveness parameters.
Research-application studies cut through most of the interaction problems. With the analyst and basic researcher working closely together during the connectional design phase, the current and most relevant research data are brought out, and the time lag and publication explosion problems are not so severe. Through coordination between analyst and technologist, effectiveness parameters are selected which the engineers and applied scientists are familiar with and can easily evaluate. This eliminates the problem of jargon and terminology. In addition, the technical managers are given some insight to the cost effectiveness of the various devices and thus are better able to structure their exploratory development programs with due consideration to the relevance and importance of a new research finding.
technological-barrier studies
Technological-barrier studies normally start with a sensitivity analysis of the effects of variations of subsystem characteristics on the overall system performance. In a sensitivity analysis, reasonable increases in performance are postulated for the various subsystems. If the total system performance demonstrates a relatively large change with a change in a particular subsystem performance, a technological barrier is indicated.
Technological-barrier studies indicate where advances are needed to make future systems more cost-effective. However, the barriers must be interpreted in terms of research opportunities for the research community. The translation of technological barriers into research opportunities follows no set pattern. One approach is to break down into components the subsystem that affects the overall system performance the greatest. Through coordination with AFSC and OAR laboratories, the performance-limiting subsystem components are determined. Research necessary to improve the components’ performance or to develop new, superior components is then considered to be the key to improved capability.
The primary utility of barrier studies is to focus attention on critical areas of research. These types of studies identify critical areas for technologists, who then encourage direct contacts between technological and research groups. These direct contacts help alleviate the publication and communication problems. Also, highlighted problem areas give insight to research managers as to how to structure or reorient their research programs.
It is obvious that there are many problems concerning effective interaction between the research community, which is primarily phenomena-oriented, and the technological agencies. These problems have been recognized, and progress is being made to alleviate them. One approach is the research analysis program of the Office of Research Analyses, which should help alleviate some of the difficulties in effective interaction between the research community and the technological agencies.
Office of Research Analyses
*The research community includes the scientists engaged in basic and applied research; the technological community includes those engaged in exploratory and advanced development. Within the framework of the Air Force, basic research responsibility is assigned to the Office of Aerospace Research; technological development responsibility is assigned to the Air Force Systems Command. It should be recognized that the distinction between commands is not an abrupt interface; AFSC laboratories do perform research in addition to their exploratory development work in addition to their research.
For the purpose of this article, “research” is understood to include both basic and applied research. To appreciate the confusion concerning the distinction between basic and applied research, see M. D. Reagan, “Basic and Applied Research: A Meaningful Distinction?” Science, Vol, 155 (1967), p. 1383.
Notes
1. A. Shapero, Diffusion of Innovations Resulting from Research, Stanford Research Institute, 1965.
2. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Principles of Research-Engineering Interaction, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., July 1966.
3. R. L. Lesher and G. J. Howick, Assessing
Technology Transfer, NASA,
4. W. J. Price, W. G. Ashley, and J. P. Martino, Relating the Accomplishments of AFOSR to the Needs of the Air Force, AFOSR to the Needs of the Air Force, AFOSR 66-2423, November 1966.
5. The Office of Aerospace Research Scientific and Technical Information
Program, OAR 67-0009,
6. W. J. Price, “Concerning the Interaction between Science and Technology,” Research Review, V, 10 (December 1966), 1.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. T. E. Oberbeck for helpful discussions and a critical review of the material presented in this article.
Major George F. Heinrich (USNA; M.S., Air Farce Institute of
Technology; M.S.,
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor
