Summary: The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on its science and technology community to develop innovative technologies for weapon systems, spending $13 billion on basic, applied, and advanced technology research. Several GAO reports have addressed problems in transitioning technologies to the acquisition community. This report, which was prepared under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations, compares DOD's technology transition processes with commercial best practices. Specifically, GAO identifies technology transition techniques used by leading companies and assesses the extent to which DOD uses the techniques
Leading commercial companies use three key techniques for successfully developing and transitioning technologies, with the basic premise being that technologies must be mature before transitioning to the product line side. (1) Strategic planning at the corporate level: Strategic planning precedes technology development so managers can gauge market needs, identify the most desirable technologies, and prioritize resources. (2) Gated management reviews: A rigorous process is used to ensure a technology's relevancy and feasibility and enlist product line commitment to use the technologies once the labs are finished maturing them. (3)Corroborating tools: To secure commitment, technology transition agreements solidify and document specific cost, schedule, and performance metrics labs need to meet for transition to occur. Relationship managers address transition issues within the labs and product line teams and across both communities. Meaningful metrics gauge project progress and process effectiveness. Not only does DOD lack the breadth and depth of these techniques, the department routinely accepts high levels of technology risk at the start of major weapon acquisition programs. The acquisition community works with technologies before they are ready to be transitioned and takes on responsibility for technology development and product development concurrently. A defined phase for technology transition is not evident. These shortcomings contribute significantly to DOD's poor cost and schedule outcomes. A stark contrast exists between DOD's and private industry's environments for developing technology. The numerous examples of DOD programs that have incurred cost overruns, schedule delays, and reduced performance serve as reminders that inserting a few best practices and changing the mechanics of technology transition processes without changing the environment that determines incentives may not produce better outcomes.
