Science and Technology Management

On 25 Jan 24, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the 68-page report GAO-24-106122 titled "Federal Regulation: Selected Emerging Technologies Highlight the Need for Legislative Analysis and Enhanced Coordination." The report discussed legislative and regulatory efforts of three federal agencies (see below) in regards to emerging technologies such as drones and AI/ML-enabled medical devices, While the DoD wasn't a focus of this report, how other federal agencies are regulating emerging technologies also used by the Department is of interest.

Agencies mainly discussed: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and Department of Transportation (DOT). Other agencies were also interviewed as well as foreign government entities and U.S. industry.

The GAO made three recommendations, one each to the FAA, DOT, and FDA.

The Atlantic Council's Commission on Defense Innovation Adoption, co-chaired by former SecDef Mark Esper, PhD, and former SecAF Debra Lee James, released its 42-page final report on 16 Jan 24.

The report contains 10 recommendations on how the DoD can better adopt cutting edge technology and improve the National Defense Industrial Base. I don't think any of these recommendations are new. They are:

1. Introduce a new capability portfolio model in 2024
2. Consolidate program elements
3. Reset reprogramming authorities
4. Modernize DoD to align with the twenty-first century industrial base
5. Strengthen alignment of capital market to defense outcomes
6. Incentivize tech companies to do business with DoD
7. Modernize budget documents
8. Establish bridge fund for successfully demonstrated technologies
9. Scale the Space Development Agency (SDA) model
10. Modernize the DoD's requirements system

The report also contains eight vignettes (aka case studies) of recent successes in areas covered by the recommendations.

1. Leveraging operational innovation and experimentation to demonstrate the value of commercial capabilities to meet operational needs
2. Purposeful experiementation and scaling SBIRs (Small Business Innovation Research) for more rapid and well-aligned tech adoption
3. Tying experimentation to acquisition outcomes and leveraging DIU (Defense Innovation Unit) commercial-landscape monitoring
4. Pivoting to modern information-technology capability portfolio management
5. Modernizing capability requirements
6. Communicating demand signal to leverage commercial-sector innovation and adopt private-sector best practices
7. Leveraging warfighting insights and commercial product vision to develop new innovative products
8. Incorporating robust user feedback with government and private seed funding to deliver unique commercial capability

The report can be accessed from the Atlantic Council site.

There is also an Inside Defense article about the report's release.

OUSD(R&E)'s Office of the Executive Director for Systems Engineering & Architecture (SE&A) released an updated Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidebook on 30 Jun 23. This 98-page guidebook replaces the TRA Guidance published in 2011.

For those who remember the TRA Deskbook last released in 2009, this guidebook is similar in scope to that deskbook in that it goes beyond the 2011 TRA Guidance in discussing content beyond just a TRA.

Section 1 coveres the benefit of conducting TRAs, TRA in statute and DoD policy, TRAs in the commercial sector, and the GAO's TRA Guide released in 2020.

Section 2 discusses Critical Technology Elements (CTEs) and Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), including TRLs for hardware and software. The section also include discussion of assessing hardware CTEs for aircraft, ground vehicles, missiles and guided weapons, ships and ship systems, hardward for IT applications, and hardward for space systems. There's also a discussion of assessing software CTEs.

Section 3 covers four "Characteristics of a High-Quality TRA." Lilmitations of TRAs are also discussed along with Human Systems Integration considerations in TRA.

Section 4 discusses "Initiatiing and Conducting High-Quality TRAs," including key players and their roles & responsibilities, the five-step TRA process, and options for addressing immature CTEs. The section also addresses the Independent Technical Risk Assessment (ITRA) required for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). The section wraps up with a discussion of a Technology Maturation Plan (TMP).

Section 5 is titled "TRAs for the Adaptive Acquisition Framework Pathways." Table 5-1, TRA Guidance for AAF Pathways, contains a "TRA Relevance" column for each pathway, with the Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) pathway discussed in detail in a sub-section.

Section 6 discusses four "Other Types of Readiness Levels." These are Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs), Integration Readiness Levels (IRLs), System Readiness Levels (SRLs), and Sustainment Maturity Levels (SMLs).

The guidebook contains three lettered appendices. Appendix A contains "Guidance and Best Practices for Identifying Critical Technology Elements." Appendix B contains a "Suggested TRA Outline." Appendix C contains a "Technology Maturation Plan Template."

The guidebook concludes with a glossary, list of acronyms, and references.