Air University Review, November-December 1969

Research Planning 
and Coupling in OAR

The Air Force depends on a science-based technology to accomplish its mission, and the Office of Aerospace Research (OAR), a science-oriented activity, helps make it possible for the Air Force to exploit technological opportunities and avoid technological surprise by any adversary. It is important that Air Force officers understand the complex interaction between research—the accumulation of new knowledge and understanding—and the solution of Air Force problems. Understanding research planning and coupling is especially important because of the current public and private discussions on supporting research, with the associated questioning of the benefits that accrue therefrom.

Research includes all efforts directed toward increased knowledge of natural phenomena and environment and toward the solution of problems in the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences. Thus, by definition, it includes all basic and applied research efforts directed toward the expansion of knowledge in various scientific areas. Even military research does not necessarily include efforts directed toward proving the feasibility of solutions to problems of immediate military importance or time-oriented investigations and developments.

One of the difficulties of managing a research program lies in the articulation of our convictions in meaningful ways. The tendency exists to describe the scope of our research in terms of the resources we put into the operation rather than in terms of the yield from that research. Our productivity is described in terms far more meaningful to us than to those who support us.

There is much to learn of ways by which we can make a more convincing case for science, but we are beginning to perceive the scope of the task. One of the stumbling blocks to understanding research processing is a valid but completely inadequate notion of the innovative process in which research interacts with technology in a mission-oriented organization. This notion prescribes that research of potential relevance to the mission-oriented organization be nourished. The selection of such research would have a connotation of research planning. As such research yields new knowledge or understanding, it is translated into technology, which then forms the basis for new company products or, in the case of the Air Force, new military systems. This translation constitutes coupling. The only real problem is to optimize the process with respect to the near and long-term utility of research which the Air Force nourishes—and to the extent possible, we undertake to do so in OAR.

No one challenges this model of the process, but it has been our experience that almost everyone challenges its optimization. Throughout the history of OAR the orientation of that challenge has posed particular problems. With possibly a few deeper historical sidelights added, it is sufficiently instructive to look at the general and particular assessments of the challenge to optimization as they have existed since World War II. The general case is the national view of science, and the particular case is the national view of science within the Air Force.

Concerning the general case, science has only recently become the subject of political scrutiny. In the fifties, the national view of science appeared to be influenced largely by after-the-fact accounts of scientific exploits during World War II. It was a view that good men of science should be supposed and left largely to their own desires because the utility of science is inevitable. For many years Congress seemed to go along with the premise that the future of the nation was dependent on large investments in science and technology primarily controlled by scientists and engineers.

This view gradually yielded to the more critical attitude that it was not enough to support good scientists and leave them alone. It was necessary to find ways to put research and technology to use. Research had to be exploited. This changing view clearly implied more economic constraints, which have been imposed increasingly in an unsettled environment influenced by a number of interrelated factors, including the imbalance of international payments, the skewed distribution of federal R&D funds among universities, the escalation of spending on Southeast Asia, civil disturbances, urban needs, the manifest restlessness of youth, and a seemingly growing antagonism to things military. There also seems to be a current aversion to investing in the solution of tomorrow’s problems when apparently we have not invested sufficiently in today’s.

As for the particular case of Air Force research, what more urgent military situation confronts the nation than Vietnam? Why not concentrate all available research into the support of technology pertinent to Vietnam?

The widely held notion of the innovative process is a valid model because it is an after-the-fact view of innovation. Donald A. Schon in Technology and Change says that we like this view because it tends to relieve uncertainty and convey the impression that innovation can be controlled, managed, and justified when in fact it is nonrational and uncertain.

This uncertainty is apparent from the results of a recently supported National Science Foundation study, “Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science (TRACES),” which demonstrated that in a number of developments studied most of the key scientific discoveries necessary to those inventions were already made by scientists seeking knowledge in their respective fields without regard to applications long before management conceived of the technological development or the product.

If uncertainty is the general condition, then the greatest value of OAR is to stimulate a meaningful dialogue between the scientific and technological communities. Actually this is what coupling is all about. Even so, scientists at a recent symposium on coupling research and production concluded that the greatest need for innovation was not coupling but rather the motivation for coupling.

In any event, if we conclude that our model of the innovative process is only discernible after the fact, what is the value of planning? Is it worthwhile to formulate objectives which invariably will have to be modified in light of discoveries made in the process? What is the balance between the formulation of objectives and the need for flexibility? Is radical revision of a plan a confession of failure? Must planning be so general as to be meaningless? Is it not possible that the attraction to the rational view is so strong that plans which begin as flexible programming devices become myths about the process?

These questions concerning what we might call the certainty of uncertainty serve as a backdrop for what we consider coupling and planning in OAR. Our approach to coupling in this sense is to be found in the scope of our organization and activities. We use five principal means to help bring about a meaningful dialogue between science and the Air Force.

    · The first means is through in-house research. The Air Force research program encompasses research in the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences. OAR in-house programs are concentrated in the physical, engineering, and environmental sciences. Our Aerospace Research Laboratories (ARL) have significant research under way in both the physical and engineering sciences. OAR’s largest in-house research laboratory complex, the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (AFCRL), emphasizes research in the environmental sciences. At AFCRL research in the environmental sciences, however, is supplemented by their programs in both the physical and engineering sciences. Air Force scientists at our newest mission element, the Frank J. Seiler Research Laboratory (FJSRL) at the Air Force Academy, do research in both the physical and engineering sciences. Finally, the Office of Research Analyses (ORA) at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, does research in the physical and social sciences.

    · The second means of bringing the products of science to bear on Air Force problems is through the support of external research with universities, research institutes, and industry. Most of this sponsored research is within the United States. Because there is a mutuality of interest, however, limited research is supported throughout the free world. Such research is supported in Great Britain, Western Europe, the Near and Middle East, and Latin America through the European Office of Aerospace Research (EOAR) and the Latin American Office of Aerospace Research (LAOAR). OAR also supports research in Canada and the Far East.

All Air Force-sponsored research is in one of two categories. The first category, comprising about 40 percent of the external effort, is research to complement in-house programs. This complementary research is directly related to current internal programs at ARL and AFCRL, plus a small amount in support of Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) in-house laboratories. This category of external and extramural research either extends internal investigations or provides for parallel approaches to internal investigations.

The other category of sponsored research makes up the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSH) program, which accounts for the remaining 60 percent of funds available to the OAR for extramural research. This category is predominantly under a program of research agreements, mainly university grants. The AFOSR program includes research in each of the broad areas of science enumerated earlier but performed in the national and international scientific communities. Thus AFOSR sponsors and administers an extramural program of scientific research relevant to Air Force interests. It is charged with helping to build a stockpile of knowledge that will provide the know-how for solving Air Force problems of the future.

Through these two means, then, the Office of Aerospace Research seeks to conduct and sponsor research in general areas of Air Force interest, with the expectation, of course, that the results may provide answers to Air Force problems—or forestall problems.

    · It is clearly recognized, however, that the Air Force can never expect to do or buy all the research that is likely to be relevant to Air Force needs. Accordingly, a very important means of helping to exploit science for future Air Force technology is to be aware of all current research whose results may be pertinent to the Air Force. The extent to which the Air Force is involved in the conduct and support of research enables it to observe research by others. This is a third means of achieving a meaningful dialogue between science and the Air Force. It comes about through the continuing exchange of information and ideas in day-to-day contacts, in technical meetings, and through scientific symposia.

The doing, buying, and observing of research all relate to Air Force involvement with science. Who has the responsibility to bring science to bear on Air Force technology? Any notion that a research agency’s work ends with publication of research results leaves the problem of finding and interpreting those results to someone else. The vast expansion of science has made communication even among scientific disciplines difficult. Communicating between science and technology is far more difficult. A recent study at the University of Denver supported by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) described the difficulty as due to natural barriers--costs, management, procurement, development, and even survival barriers. OAR tries to help reduce these barriers by becoming involved both with Air Force technology and Air Force long-range planning.

    · Involvement with technology is a fourth source of rapport between science and the Air Force. OAR involves itself with Air Force technology in a number of ways. AFCRL, in addition to its environmental research programs, manages the Air Force exploratory development program in the area of environment. It conducts and sponsors other exploratory development in avionics and ground electronics in direct support of AFSC.

Whereas it has proven effective to have OAR research people participate in AFSC development programs, it has also been profitable for the Air Force to enable the development laboratories of AFSC to participate in other Air Force research programs. Accordingly OAR supports research in engineering and life sciences through a number of AFSC laboratories.

While our involvement with technology within AFSC is a principal means of helping to couple research to Air Force needs, it is not the only means. The ultimate effectiveness of OAR is the extent to which the Air Force research programs underlie a superior Air Force, and so we talk continuously with the operating commands of the Air Force to seek out problem areas or new concepts which can be assisted by the research talents available in OAR.

Visits to and from other elements of the Air Force are important sources of new ideas. Perhaps even more important is the exchange of people. In carefully selecting military people for assignment to OAR, we weight operational experience along with scientific and engineering qualifications. We also recognize the value of releasing research-experienced officers for Air Force-wide assignment. For comparable reasons we are interested in increased opportunities for the mobility of our civilian staffs.

Still another method of research involvement with Air Force and Defense technology is through consultation. Consultation is inherent throughout OAR activities, often in ways that are not apparent. The scope of AFOSR programs is an indicator: it currently supports about 1100 active research investigations involving some of the nation’s best scientists. These scientists are available and have been consulted repeatedly, on short notice, to provide advice on unforeseen Air Force problems. More than 80 percent of the university scientists supported under the engineering sciences program serve as consultants to companies working for the Air Force or on Air Force-related problems. OAR-supported scientists serve on advisory groups to AFSC elements such as the Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO), the Electronic Systems Division (ESD), and others.

Earlier I mentioned motivation for coupling. OAR experience with industry suggests that motivation is a strong factor in coupling science and technology. Much research is, of course, done in industrial laboratories and some of it is supported by OAR, but recent case studies within OAR reveal many instances where industry actively reached out so as to exploit Air Force research results. An example is the OAR-sponsored university scientist who developed computer programs to analyze and synthesize active circuit networks. Industry took this idea directly from a scientific journal report. Interestingly enough, these research results also found application through summer short courses conducted by the scientist and were in time incorporated into the curricula of a number of universities—all a good example of coupling between science and industry.

OAR in-house scientists consult with scientists and engineers in the more product-oriented elements of the Air Force; and laboratories have been located to facilitate communication. All OAR laboratories are tenants of other elements of the Air Force. ARL is located in the midst of the Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) and other AFSC laboratories at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. AFCRL is a tenant of the Electronic Systems Division of AFSC. AFCRL also maintains an environmental consultation service. FJSRL is a tenant of the Air Force Academy (USAFA). ORA is a tenant of the Air Force Missile Development Center (AFMDC) of AFSC.

    · The fifth means by which OAR undertakes to bring about an impact of science on Air Force technology is through education. This takes place through Air Force educational facilities and in a broader sense through the support of research in civilian universities.

OAR collaborates extensively with the two major Air Force in-house educational establishments, Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and United States Air Force Academy. AFIT has a cooperative program in which graduate students at the master’s level spend six months in residence at Aerospace Research Laboratories. During this period students do the research for their theses under ARL sponsorship. In addition, there are joint research tasks in which both ARL scientists and AFIT faculty members participate. In this way additional scientific talent is brought to bear on research of Air Force interest from both the faculty and students. Equally important is the working knowledge that the students receive of the Air Force research program. Not infrequently some of these students are assigned to one of the OAR laboratories upon graduation. Those who are assigned elsewhere in the Air Force carry that research familiarity with them, and it has the inherent potential for coupling science and technology. In addition to the master’s program, there is a newer ARL-AFIT program for doctoral students in which officers spend four years in residence at ARL.

Seiler Laboratory was established as a cooperative undertaking of OAR and USAFA.¹ It is a small laboratory with predominantly military scientists. As in the AFIT-ARL program, faculty members and OAR scientists undertake joint research programs. FJSRL scientists do some teaching at the Academy. FJSRL provides a means whereby scientifically interested cadets may become better acquainted with Air Force research. This experience has significant value in future assignments of Air Force Academy graduates.

OAR also has an important role in the training of young officers who are assigned directly to the in-house laboratories. Usually these are officers with advanced degrees on their first Air Force assignment. They are a valuable source of scientific manpower in the OAR laboratories.

While the overall topic of DOD-university relationships is too broad to be treated adequately here, it is appropriate to touch on aspects of it as it relates to coupling. It is meaningful in this sense to consider that when we provide support to a university scientist we create a resource which has many facets

First and foremost, OAR facilitates the exploration of an idea. When it decides to support a particular scientist, OAR does so on the basis of his scientific competence and the relevance of the idea to future Air Force needs. OAR then makes it possible for him to explore that idea. In that way the mission orientation is not employed to interfere with or to direct the activities of the research scientist. An important spin-off of the process is the support of scientific education on which the Air Force and Defense Department are dependent.

The necessarily intricate concept of coupling, in contrast with the after-the-fact view of coupling implied by the idealized model of the innovative process, is pertinent to the OAR approach to research planning.

Because OAR is engaged in “phenomena-oriented research in a mission-oriented organization,” it shares some of the semantic difficulties associated with planning that plague both industry and the government. OAR investigators try to dig deeper into the nature of some kinds of natural phenomena that the Air Force needs to know more about. We do this in hopes of solving some of the Air Force problems that we have today and are likely to have in the future. This kind of research requires special considerations in trying to plan it.

Phenomena-oriented research is somewhat a venture into the unknown, and hence planning is almost a contradiction in terms. This is not quite so, as there are ways in which we can indeed plan certain related matters.

The OAR staff does planning with respect to the goals, products, and strategies of OAR. In a very broad sense, our goal is to be responsive to near and long-term Air Force needs.

A major source of long-range Air Force guidance is the publication, USAF Planning Concepts. This document, authenticated by the Air Force Chief of Staff, is the official source of broad guidance for all Air Force planning objectives and concepts resulting from actual or anticipated changes in world environment. This is a fifteen-year assessment of future Air Force needs in functional terms. Part IV, “Desired Capabilities,” is of particular interest to OAR. OAR is a major contributor to the “Technological Horizons” section in Part IV, which identifies projected opportunities in six broad technological areas: Aerospace Vehicles, Electronics/Sensors, Computers/Information Processing, Environmental Sciences/Global Operations, Weaponry, and Life Sciences/Human Resources.

The OAR planning task is to extract the scientific needs from these desired capabilities. There is no magic formula for doing this planning, and we suspect that none will ever be found. However, searching for answers to these all-important questions in responsible and intelligent ways increases the contribution of our activities.

The OAR counterpart to USAF Planning Concepts is the Office of Aerospace Research Five Year Plan. It contains organizational research objectives directed toward the attainment of desired Air Force operational capabilities as outlined in USAF Planning Concepts. It includes the projected corporate development of OAR, a compendium of planned scientific and technical efforts, and an estimate of resources needed to accomplish the work.

While these published planning documents are only partial indicators of the extent to which we do planning, they are quite important. The preparation and use of the compendium of scientific and technical efforts are especially significant because they are instrumental in bringing many of the coupling mechanisms into play and illustrating ways in which research coupling and planning blend together. The extent to which research planning forms the basis for day-to-day decision-making requires that such planning be iterative. Accordingly, objectives have to be revised as the current scientific base evolves and as Air Force objectives are altered by the dynamics of the national and world environments.

Overall, Air Force scientific and technical objectives are examined continuously and altered as appropriate at least annually. Key OAR scientists participate on each research panel along with members of the headquarters scientific staff. The AFSC Director of Laboratories also designates a representative for each of these subelement panels. This is a particularly effective method for insuring that Air Force technological needs are considered in the research planning process.

The OAR Five Year Plan is given wide distribution within DOD, and the scientific and technical objectives portion of it, entitled Air Force Research Objectives, is given much wider distribution—to universities, research institutions, and private industry. This dissemination of Air Force research interests has the twofold purpose of stimulating participation in the Air Force research program and of encouraging the exchange of information so vital to the scientific community.

In support of these broader objectives, the best scientific talent within the Air Force is brought to bear directly on the OAR planning process. Additionally, the use of subelement panels provides a forum for constructive involvement of laboratory scientists in the management of OAR; a feedback loop from Air Force needs to science; and a natural tie-in with Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) discussion forums, which include scientists from the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The choice of research program areas and of research projects within those areas is considered a part of planning. In this context, incidentally, an admonition of Russell L. Ackoff and Maurice W. Sasieni, in Fundamentals of Operations Research, is appropriate: There are no such things as physical problems, engineering problems, environmental problems, and so on; there are only problems, and the disciplines of science represent different ways of looking at them.

The scope of OAR involvement in the four major categories of Defense research sciences and in thirteen of the fourteen scientific subelements² gives a number of apertures for looking at Air Force problems.

The Air Force research program is structured through the choice of fields in which research is to be supported. The availability of competent scientists to do research within those fields is a major factor in the selection of individual research efforts.

While there is no substitute for scientific competence, there are other prerequisites to a successful research program and experience has shown that certain of these can only be achieved through planning.

It seems that there has to be a “critical mass” of capability in each of the fields of science mentioned previously in order to make the involvement meaningful to the Air Force. There also should be an adequate range of disciplines represented in the organization, to cover the general areas of scientific interest to the Air Force.

Because resources—money, facilities, and, most important, people—are necessarily limited, planning must maintain a balance between scope and depth of coverage. This is largely a matter of judgment by experienced and well-qualified research administrators, as is the balance between involvement with technology and freedom from excessive involvement in detailed, short-range engineering problems.

OAR scientists have contributed significantly to the support of military operations in Southeast Asia—for example, by developing sensors, a whole family of compact weather instruments, and personnel rescue techniques. Most of the OAR research resources are assigned, however, against longer-term Air Force needs.

In OAR, research planning and coupling are continuous processes, with the overall objective of helping to secure the benefits of science for the Air Force, for the present and as far into the future as it is possible to project.

Office of Aerospace Research

Notes

1. See Gage H. Crocker, “Frank J. Seiler Research Laboratory,” Air University Review, XX, 1 (November-December 1968), 40-48.

2. OAR has projects in general physics, nuclear physics, chemistry, mathematical sciences, electronics, materials research, mechanics, energy conversion, terrestrial sciences, atmospheric sciences, astronomy and astrophysics, biological and medical sciences, behavioral and social sciences. It has none in oceanography.

Brigadier General Harvey W. Eddy (M.B.A., University of Chicago) is Commander, Office of Aerospace Research. After completing the Engineering Cadet Training Program, he served as an aircraft maintenance officer, 47th Bombardment Squadron, and, during World War II, as engineering officer, 41st Bombardment Group, Seventh Air Force. Subsequent assignments include Project Engineer, Air Research and Development Command, Wright Field, Ohio; Research and Development Administrator and later Assistant to the Chief of Operations, Equipment Laboratory, Hq Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Executive Officer and Assistant to the Deputy Commander, Ballistic Missiles, Air Force Ballistic Missile Division, Inglewood, California; Technical Adviser, Hq Electronics Systems Division, L. C. Hanscom Field, Massachusetts; and Deputy Assistant, Research and Development Programming, and Deputy Director of Development, Research and Development, Hq USAF.