Findings and Conclusions The Presently, only the early development phases (6.1 and 6.2) have visibility across all services, through inclusion in the Defense Technical Information Center data base. only centralized work that is done involves high-risk research programs managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -- which are basically high-risk projects that the services are reluctant to undertake. However, even this minimal effort at centralization is frustrated, because the services often consider the DARPA efforts to be competitive with, rather than complementary to, their own, and are often hesitant to pick up DARPAinitiated programs for further development. It appears to the OSD Task Force that a centralized, coordinated effort to disseminate data among the services and the laboratories is crucial. This should provide the operational forces with a better understanding of the potential value and limitations of emerging technologies before committing specific technologies to weapons systems programs. Improved data exchange between the services and the laboratories should also ensure that prior work is fully utilized and will not be repeated. In the past, some DOD laboratories have continued their development projects through the engineering development phase (6.4), either in-house or through contractors. It appears that this serves only to aggravate the dissemination problem to the point where the ultimate weapons system contractors are obliged to re-engineer for production. It appears to the OSD Task Force that engineering development is not a cost-effective in-house role for DOD research laboratories, and that all development work should be transferred to the services no later than the completion of the advanced development phase (6.3). The elimination of engineering development on the part of the laboratories will result in a substantial decrease in personnel. Recommendations OSD 19-1: A coordinated effort between the laboratories and the services will be necessary for DOD to realize the savings estimated herein. We recommend that DOD consider the following initiatives in its development of a program to more effectively integrate laboratory research efforts into the appropriate process. OSD should monitor advanced development (6.3) and DARPA should: Sponsor only technology programs having very Transfer advanced development (6.3) demon- Service labs should not normally carry out engi- Where appropriate, service labs should serve as Service lab technology position papers should be Service labs should be given broad mission Communications and data exchange programs should DOD laboratory managers should be permitted a Savings and Impact Analysis Engineering development (6.4) and operational development (6.6) expenditures will total $14 billion in FY 1983. Based on OSD Task Force industry experience, we believe that at least a 5 percent savings, approximately $700.0 million annually, can be realized when the above recommendations are fully implemented. The first-year savings would be about 33.3 percent of the amount possible with full implementation; second-year savings would be about 66.7 percent. Assuming three years to implement the recommendations, the savings, including inflation, would be: The Secretary of Defense should direct that research data be more effectively integrated into the acquisition process, and that laboratory research programs be better coordinated and limited as discussed above. II. ISSUE AND RECOMMENDATION SUMMARIES B. WEAPONS (CONT'D) OSD 20: COMMON PARTS AND STANDARDS Summary Recommendations The Department of Defense (DOD) should mandate the use, where possible, by all services of common hardware components, subsystems, equipment, and other parts in order to minimize initial acquisition and life-cycle costs. The use of military standards and specifications should be decreased, and not all components included in the end item being procured should be subject to special military standards and specifications. Financial Impact $3.3 billion annually $0.1 billion annually Potential Savings: Approximately $2.3 Implementation Cost: Annual appropriations |