Menu Search Account

LegiStorm

Get LegiStorm App Visit Product Demo Website
» Get LegiStorm App
» Get LegiStorm Pro Free Demo

Defense Science and Technology: Adopting Best Practices Can Improve Innovation Investments and Management

  Premium   Download PDF Now (62 pages)
Report Type Reports and Testimonies
Report Date June 29, 2017
Release Date June 29, 2017
Report No. GAO-17-499
Summary:

Defense Science and Technology: Adopting Best Practices Can Improve Innovation Investments and Management

DOD plans to invest $12.5 billion on innovative technology in fiscal year 2017. We compared DOD's approach with how leading technology companies like Amazon and Dow manage their science and technology investments.

We found that DOD's ability to innovate is limited by its funding policies, as projects are planned up to 2 years in advance, which can slow innovation and limit lab directors’ autonomy. Additionally, DOD’s culture prioritizes developing technologies only for programs that already have the needed funding.

We recommended that DOD define a science and technology management framework that uses leading commercial practices.

Department of Defense Technology Management Process

Graphic showing progression from technology investment, through development, then deployment.

Graphic showing progression from technology investment, through development, then deployment.

Additional Materials:

Contact:
Mike Sullivan
(202) 512-4841
sullivanm@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

What GAO Found

The eight leading companies whose practices GAO assessed take a disciplined approach to organizing and executing their technology development activities by grouping them into two portfolios: incremental and disruptive, as shown in the figure. Incremental development improves product lines whereas disruptive development is for riskier innovative and potentially market-shifting technologies.

Commercial Model Ensures Investments in Incremental and Disruptive Innovation

Commercial Model Ensures Investments in Incremental and Disruptive Innovation

By separating these two portfolios, companies reported that they could promote existing product lines in the short term while exploring opportunities to remain competitive in the long term, and mitigate the financial risk associated with disruptive technology development. Moreover, GAO found that leading companies also ensure technologies will be relevant in the marketplace by engaging a wide range of internal stakeholders. These companies also reported that they gain leadership buy-in by prototyping technologies before committing to further development and product integration.

While some Department of Defense (DOD) practices closely mirror those of the companies GAO reviewed, DOD's ability to adopt leading commercial practices in its approach to managing science and technology (S&T) investments is limited by its funding policies and culture. Unlike the companies GAO reviewed, DOD leadership does not provide guidance on or assess the mix of incremental and disruptive innovation. As a result, officials reported that DOD labs struggle to find the right balance between these investment areas. Under DOD's budget policy, projects are planned up to 2 years in advance, which can slow innovation and limit lab directors' autonomy as compared to companies. Congress has provided a means for lab directors to initiate work outside of this lengthy process, but it has not been fully utilized. Additionally, responsibilities for technology versus product development also contribute to a culture that discourages collaboration and limits labs' ability to prototype. Yet these issues are not insurmountable, as pockets of each military department have demonstrated, such as through recent efforts to expand advanced prototyping in the labs. Further, Congress has required that by February 2018 DOD create a new Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)), which will be charged with developing policies to improve innovation. This position creates an opportunity to develop policies that further promote adoption of leading commercial practices.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports