1. Science, Salt Water, Submarines and Symbiosis
Knowledge for Development Seminar, Center for International Development
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
October 30, 2003
Science, Salt Water, Submarines and Symbiosis
Doing R&D with the Navy
Robert A. Frosch
Part I: Theory
Oct 30, 2003

2. Political Science Theory - I (As per Cote)
Change in doctrine (and means) caused by:
Civilian Executives intervene (Posen)
Internal Structural Processes (Rosen)
(struggles for power, therefore slow):
Inter-service rivalry
Intra-service competition and struggles for power
(In my experience, both frequently true.)

3. Political Science Theory - II
Conservatism encouraged by:
weapon system sunk costs
education & training sunk costs: conservatism for career preservation
learned routines and tactics
rarity of war leads to untested (therefore trusted) weapons, systems and tactics
difficulty of changing interservice/interallied coordinated systems

4. Political Science Theory - II+
In this view, R&D is (presumably) a byproduct of political battles.

5. Macnamara’s Revolution: PPBS
Planning, Programming & Budgeting System (PPBS)
Plan from foreign policy and national strategy on down to detailed budgeting
In the process develop detailed strategy, weapons system and people needs, and R&D ‘requirements’
R&D presumably a byproduct of military requirements?

6. However, a place for ‘pure science’, and the ‘linear sequence’, is implied (6.X is always RDT&E in the DoD budget):
6.1 Basic Research
6.2 Applied Research
6.3 Advanced Technology Development
6.4 Demonstration and Validation
6.5 Engineering & Manufacturing Development
6.6 RDT&E Management Support
6.7 Operational Systems development

7. Consequences of PPBS Theory
Not an unreasonable idea, but impossible to carry out, so it became:
A giant bureaucratic/budgeting tangle:
No PPBS was ever finished, or ever complete:
It became: “Please Pass the BS”
And produced:
The ‘military requirements’ muddle:
Can’t do R&D without a ‘MilReq’, but how know possible MilReqs without R&D….?

8. Solutions to the PPBS ‘Military Requirements’ Muddle:
MilReqs not required for 6.1 and 6.2,
Which, in Navy, belong to the civilian Secretariat (which ‘owns’ the 6.X budget anyway).
but hard to get to 6.3, 6.5 without a MilReq
Therefore, ignore and proceed
If/when successful, get a sponsor for the appropriate MilReq, and synthesize ‘benefit of clergy’ when necessary.

9. The Military-Industrial Complex Theory
The Arms Merchants (Lobby) made me do it!
Partly true
What assumptions does this theory make about the actors?
Is this good or bad, and when?

10. Another Theory Many Naval officers think! Many Scientists think!
Sometimes Naval officers and Scientists think together! Symbiosis!
Which Naval officers?
Which Scientists?
Note: Arms Merchants sometimes think, too!
Is this good or bad, and when?

11. Some Frosch Theory The Customer for R&D is always wrong!
But…what’s the real question?
Use System Engineering thinking
Use matrices of knowledge for the task
To escape bureaucracy:
find loopholes,
use (purposeful) ignorance of rules, politics, and processes (‘synthetic innocence’)
An experimental ship is a facility, not a ship, and therefore can be contracted to the Coast Guard yard under contract.

12. The Customer for R&D is Wrong
What do they REALLY want?
Eg fast airplane: why, to do what?
How do they know what the possibilities are?
What are we technologists selling?
Do they also want to tell us how to do it?
Time relationships of need and possibilities?
Etc., etc., etc……..

13. System Engineering Thinking
What are we really trying to accomplish?
Where in the generalized environment does the proposed system fit?
With other systems, including ‘natural’
Institutions and organizations
Investment and operating costs: For how long?
What else could it do?
How hard will it be to change?
How could it be manufactured?
Who will run it, and how?
Etc, etc, etc…...

14. Knowledge Matrices
A more efficient, lower emissions auto engine involves:
combustion chemistry
electric spark/plasma physics
fluid flow
heat transfer
mechanical systems
materials
etc., etc., etc…..
And then the next level down of detail…..
Etc.,etc.,etc…….

15. And, as will be illustrated:
In the real world individual pure theories don’t control(sometimes the theories don’t apply at all):
Mix and Match!

16. (Stay tuned!) (To be continued next week.)
On to Practice
(Stay tuned!)
(To be continued next week.)