You’d think that the Defense Department’s higher-ups would be happy, when their research agencies start demanding results from the scientists and engineers that they fund. Not necessarily. Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon’s comptrollers have slashed Darpa’s budget by $300 million — about 10% — for the next fiscal year. Another $200 million is supposed to come off the top, the year after that. The reason: “A project management oversight structure introduced in DARPA… mandat[ing] that projects are reviewed at regular execution intervals to ensure that they are meeting defined program goals and objectives.“
The switch “has resulted in more effective linking of resources to outcomes,” according to “Program Budget Decision 704,” an internal Defense Department document obtained by Inside Defense. Which would be a good thing, ordinarily. Except that Darpa hasn’t been spending the money it’s been given, apparently. While funding for the agency has gone up, up, up since 9/11, the number of program managers hasn’t increased as fast. Combined with the new, results-driven process, that “has slowed execution of DARPAs funding.… resulting in a significant decline in obligations and expenditures,” says PBD 704. So what happened to all that excess cash? I haven’t been able to get a straight answer, yet.
The subtext to all this wrangling is the leadership of Darpa chief Tony Tether. In the military research world, he’s known as a hands-on manager — a very, very hands-on manager. No item in his $3 billion budget is too small; even some of the names of Darpa research efforts require his approval. “Nothing happens without his say-so,” one Darpa-funded researcher tells me.
That’s a change for the agency, which has traditionally let its program managers — and its researchers — more or less follow their imaginations. Some current and former Darpa types mumble that the quality of research has been undermined, as a result; after all, “Darpa-hard” problems can take longer than six months to solve. But with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are sucking up more and more money, Defense research budgets are tightening up; demanding results doesn’t seem like such a bad thing. We’ll see how this one shakes out.
While PDB 704 takes from Darpa, it adds $300 million to the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. That’s the widely-criticized effort to build new nukes — a construction effort many sage observers thinks is completely unneeded.
|
Darpa Takes $300 Million HitLeave a Reply |
|
This article brings to mind the ‘80s film “Real Genius” with Val Kilmer, wherein a research professor was misusing grant funding to buld his dream home while his undergrads were developing an airborne laser.
In my opinion (and for my tax money), research scientists damn well better be able to demonstrate progress to continue to justify their funding. The rarefied atmosphere of academia seems to engender the wildest notions of entitlement, when to most of us in the business world it more closely resembles a permanent vacation.
DARPA has been the root cause of some of the most incredible advances in technology by allowing nearly unfettered innovation. I have no quarrel with that. I do know that, given the opportunity, some will abuse this privelege.
It’s a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the funds being disbursed are generating a return of some sort, and the DARPA administrator referenced in the article seems to understand that.
From the comments in the article, he may be over-bearing, which can very easily stifle an otherwise talented research department. If so, then he needs to take a more moderate course.
It’s a well-known aspect of human psychology that the most creative people are often the most unwilling to adhere to rigid guidelines and have an innate aversion to structure.
Moderation, folks.
Wonder toys of the future are cool, but can anyone defeat IED’s and Snipers? Basic research is fine, but tangible projects need to be relevent to the war fighter.
DARPA is a truly unique government agency that has the ability to execute contracts and hire personnel in a much more commercial and flexible manner than the rest of DoD. Its director, Dr. Tether, also has enormous leeway with which he can manage his entire budget. As a result of this flexibility and responsibility, he is a strict manager to make sure that projects don’t get off track.
The problem with a lot of other DoD acquisition programs is that managers and proponents of the programs are so blinded by their desire for them to be successful that they never concede failure. They perceive (usually accurately) that the need for their project is so great, that they must continue to prolong its funding and its budget to get it back on track, when sometimes it clearly is not possible. DARPA runs quite to the contrary.
The agency director reviews detailed weekly program reports from all of his program managers — we’re talking thousands of pages a week. Huge program milestones are broken into smaller tasks called inchstones, which allow close tracking of a program’s progress, both with respect to budget and schedule. The most minute details are never overlooked, and the director never gets caught by surprise at an annual milestone review by a program gone astray. Dr. Tether also reigns in program managers who he feels are losing track of their programs, and gives more flexibility to those who have had some success — good management practice. A program that has gone too far off track and is not recoverable is killed, contracts stop getting billed immediately, and money gets reallocated to something that is going better or has a higher chance of success.
So while some may see this as hampering the process, I see it as a refreshing change from the way that most DoD acquistiions work. Make no mistake, DARPA is engaged in high risk, high payoff projects. The only problem I see is that its mission of trying to think for the future (ie: 15 years away) is being compromised by immediate needs for the war in Iraq, and program managers are trying to accomodate both.
And for the record, BT, DARPA is applying resources for both sniper and IED threats. Check out Crosshairs (http://www.darpa.mil/TTO/solicit/sn03-31.htm) and RIEDAR (http://www.darpa.mil/BAA/Baa06-17.html)
Demonstrating results in research depends on what you mean by results. Research means it’s new — it may work, it may not. If you want to move forward you have to be willing to make mistakes. I’ve watched DARPA programs grind to a halt because we could not convince all the consultants it would work without trying it. No results guaranteed, no funding. OK. I understand. But if you stick to that — you’ll only be making stuff you knew how to make before. Results-driven is fine — but one has to accept ‘it failed and we learned something’ as a possible result you’re willing to fund or you aren’t funding research.
With all due respect to cultural ignoramus, in 30+ years in engineering I have never seen a research & design project go well once the micro-managers and bean counters move in. Being naturally naive, politically, the more imaginative and gifted people just move on or find a corner to hide in resulting in a loss of either the person or the focus; both resulting in a dead project. While we can’t all be on Walt Disney’s crew (although those fellas didn’t do so bad, eh?), more self-autonomy than usual is required when dealing with escoteric folks / projects. Haul in a crew from the “buy it, strip it, sell it” crowd will just destroy the organization from the inside out. Only time will tell … let’s hope we’ve got the time.
There are several layers of research. Some such as applied research should have some results, including a small percentage of failure.
The basic and fundamental research may not have a large amount of successful output since the research is conducted on scientific principles and curiosity. This is also called blue sky research. Major break throughs in science can then be applied to current problems.
Applied research can be greatly enhanced by the reduction of bean counters. Bean counters and micro managers take up too much time of the researchers. Skunk Works operatons where a group of researchers get together to solve problems without distractions is generally very productive in the short term.
Although I already buy dofus kamas to you, and you will not put this in your heart.
Afterward my several schoolmates forced me to play; I did not want to sweep their interests, and to play, from the very beginning they have given me 100,000,000 cronous cro.
Perhaps that I should not accept your gift and your Habbo Coins.
For in the game I can have a family, I was go all out to work make Lord Of The Rings Gold, so long as there were the methods which could make money I has tried.
Because each people is not so rich, you have Hellgate London gold and you might save much time that practice the level.
So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lovable gray wolf became collapses at the first blow.
But you every time always were left after you took my imvu money. You will also be not giving me a smile.
Now I already feel hungry, so I go to the shop to buy some food. But the shopper says that my holic money is not enough.
Now I already feel hungry, so I go to the shop to buy some food. But the shopper says that my holic money is not enough.
Of course the Metin2 yang can bring funs. I believed that you will love this Metin2 gold new game.
If you want to Buy metin2 gold you can go to the company. I hope that we will become good friends in the Cheap metin2 gold game.