R&D Categorization:A Tool for Researchand DevelopmentManagementJ. W. ROACH
Office of the Director of Defense Research and EngineeringThe Pentagon, Washington, D. C.
Abstract
This paper presents a categorization of research and developmentwithin the U.S. Department of Defense, to improve overall manage-
ment of the R&D function within the Department. Criteria for evalua-
tion of the application of management techniques and systems must be
provided for the integration of functional areas.
Key Words-Management, research and development,technical management.
Introduction
During the past several years, the Department of De-fense has been giving increasing attention to ways andmeans of improving the management of Research andDevelopment. The management of R&D must considernot only the technical characteristics of R&D items inorder to achieve the objectives of the item but also theclosely related, functional areas that interface with thetechnical characteristics and their achievement-func-tional areas such as financial management, logistics plan-ning, procurement, and a host of others. R&D manage-ment must try to integrate the objectives and procedures ofthese related functional areas into the R&D process with-out distorting the basic purposes of the R&D.To make this integration possible, the R&D manager
and the managers of the other functional areas must havecriteria for evaluating the application of various manage-ment techniques and systems-again, application withoutdistortion.
R&D CategoriesOne of the more useful tools for providing the needed
criteria is the R&D categorization used by the Depart-ment of Defense. The categories of Defense R&D are sixin number, entitled Research, Exploratory Development,Advanced Development, Engineering Development, Oper-ational Systems Development, and Management/Support.They were introduced in early 1962 as the result of con-siderable study directed toward definition of the types ofeffort comprising the total R&D process. The categorieswere intended to facilitate the achievement of R&D objec-tives by
1) Identifying the several, distinct kinds of R&D effort.2) Making possible a better evaluation of resource re-
quirements for the kinds of effort.
Use of the categories during the past three years hasserved to emphasize their utility in the overall manage-ment of R&D.
Category UseThe R&D categorization enables the R&D managers to
apply technical and business management techniques tothe types of effort differentiated by the categorization.By relating the objectives of the types of R&D effort to
the R&D cycle of systems and equipment and to the R&Dcycle of subsystems, components, materials, and processes,technical management has been made more effective.
Understanding the criteria of the categorization hasenabled management to select the appropriate contracttype, and to judge application of techniques such as con-figuration management, project management, and PERT.Budgeting and programming procedures have been tailoredto increase the effectiveness of the R&D yet still achievethe financial and schedule objectives. Technical review,and approval and control techniques have been estab-lished at the proper echelon of management. Reportingsystems have been initiated which communicate but do notconstrict necessary latitude in the R&D process. Contract-ing practices such as price competition and "breakout"Manuscript received August 12, 1965.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. AES-1, NO. 2 OCTOBER,1~965 67
have been applied at appropriate points in the R&D pro-cess, while technical management policies--such as thedegree of technical advancement and associated technicalrisk allowed, use of military standards and general specifi-cations at the proper time, and demands for data --havebeen established from an understandable base.The R&D categorization has served as the criteria which
have improved the integrated application of the manypolicies and management techniques necessary in our De-fense environment. Using the definitions as criteria, DODhas improved the determination of the management envi-ronment which enhances both the R&D process and theresultant production/operations/logistics activity.Now let us turn to the definitions of the categories.
ResearchThe Research category consists of effort directed toward
increasing knowledge of the natural phenomena and envi-ronment, as well as effort directed toward identifyingquestions and answers in the physical, biological, medical,behavioral, social, and engineering sciences. The emphasisin this category is knowledge for knowledge's sake on thepremise that even the most eminent scientist cannot foreseethe possible application of each newly discovered phe-nomenon. Effort in the Research category has no limitimposed by weapon or system considerations. Further, nolimit is placed on technological advancement or state-of-the-art. Avenues have been explored in areas thought tobe of interest until off-shooting avenues appear to promisegreater reward in increased knowledge. Consequently, thescope has been limited only by the technical judgment ofthe investigator working within the normal environmentof a total budget level.
Exploratory DevelopmentExploratory Development consists of the dual effort to
develop technology from the results of Research'and toestablish the technical feasibility of new techniques, pro-cesses, materials, components, devices, and subsystemswhich may have military application.
Exploratory Development includes the exploration anddemonstration--- via experimental hardware and or studies--of the technical feasibility of processes, materials, com-
ponents, and subsystems. Examples of this area of explora-tory effort include new concepts for antennas such as
phased array, or new re-entry vehicle concepts, or hydro-lift techniques such as demonstrated by hydrofoils or
ground effect machines. Other examples of exploratoryeffort include new projectile ideas, as embodied in theflechette, or tracked vehicle concepts as demonstrated bythe screw or pneumatic tracks.
Exploratory Development is not considered as develop-ment for production or inventory, and therefore is not
expected to yield production or logistics data useful forprocurement, price competition, provisioning, or training.
Advanced DevelopmentThe effort within Advanced Development is concerned
with the demonstration of the operational and technicalsuitability of a specific solution(s) to a particular technical
objective or for a particular military problem.The technical objective or military problem may demand
demonstration via studies and developmental hardwareranging from systems and equipments down to compo-nents, materials, or processes.Advanced Development may include system level effort
whose end objective is the demonstration of suitability viadevelopmental hardware and or studies. Systems effortmay include complete system hardware, or may addressonly subsystem or component hardware in the high-riskareas with system effort limited to integration studies. Itis normally expected that the effort on large systems duringAdvanced Development will be concerned with integra-tion studies and suitability hardware at the subsystem andcomponent level in the high-risk areas highlighted by thesystem studies conducted both in Exploratory and in Ad-vanced Development.
In every case, Advanced Development effort is orientedtoward suitability demonstration. It is not considered asdevelopment for production or inventory, and therefore is,not expected to yield production or logistics data useful forprocurement, price competition, provisioning, or training.
Engineering DevelopmentEngineering Development consists of effort directed
toward design engineering, engineering prototype fabrica-tion, and engineering test of a specific, operationally andtechnically suitable solution intended for service engineer-ing test and eventual service inventory. The prime objec-tive of this category is the design, engineering prototyping,and engineering test for- eventual service inventory. Thedecision on entering Engineering Development is a deci-sion to design and test an item intended for inventory butnot to prepare for production or to produce the item inquantities needed for inventory.The objective of the category encourages application of
the policies, practices, and procedures governing produc-tion which are generally applicable to effort in this cate-gory and, in turn, in the category of Operational SystemsDevelopment. For example, Configuration Management,full (though possibly deferred) data call, Integrated Logis-tics Support Planning, Standardization of parts and com-ponents where compatible with the design objectives arerepresentative of the management systems and policieshaving full or partial application to Engineering Develop-ment.
Operational Systems DevelopmentThe effort in this category is concerned with design
engineering, fabrication, and test of a specific, opera-tionally and technically suitable solution intended forservice inventory; the effort is also concerned with thepreparation for production and, in some cases, limitedproduction of articles for producibility demonstration andfinal service test. As can be seen, the objective of this cate-gory is similar to that in Engineering Development but isincreased to include preparation for production, e.g., pro-duction tooling, production test equipment and proce-dures, and production processes. Thus the decision to enterOperational Systems Development instead of Engineering
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS68 OCTOBER, 1965
TABLE I
Change in Environment
Element Advanced Development Engineering DevelopmentContract typeContracting method
Orientation to specific military needApproach to solutionsData acquisitionTechnical risk allowedTechnology advancement allowed
Definition
Mil standards complianceSystem/project management complianceStandardization
Cost progressing to incentiveSole source progressing to competitive nego-
tiationsFlexibleMultipleLimited to concept/design evaluation
HighExtrapolation permittedLimited to mission description or to generic
solution descriptionLimited to safety considerationsLimitedLimited to design planning
Logistics and maintainability considera- Limitedtions
Preprocurement and provisioning plan- Nonening
Configuration management None
Incentive progressing to fixed priceCompetitive negotiations progressing to
price competitionCompleteSingle (generally)Complete but excluding provisioning and
competitive procurement dataLow (relatively)Limited to that quantitatively demon-
stratedComplete and rigorousFullFull per DOD directiveMaximum, compatible with design ob-
jectivesFull
Limited
Complete per DOD directive
Development is a decision to design, test, and prepare forproduction.Management Environment of the Categories
It is appropriate now to consider the management envi-ronment of the categories. The management environmentmay be defined as the sum total of policies, managementsystems, procedures, and techniques necessary to achievethe R&D, financial, schedule, and logistic objectives of theR&D. It is obvious that the varying objectives of R&Ddemand different environments. The categorization ofR&D permits the application of suitable environments tothe different R&D objectives.
For the sake of brevity, discussion here will be limitedto the environments of Advanced Development and Engi-neering Development. The environments of Research andExploratory Development are quite similar to, thoughmore flexible than, the environment of Advanced Develop-ment; at the same time the Operational Systems Develop-ment environment is similar to, but more definitive than,that of Engineering Development. Our point on suita-bility of environment can be made by the summary pre-
sented in Table I above.There is an abrupt change in the management environ-
ment between the two categories. This change is inherentbecause of the end objectives of these categories. While notas abrupt a change is apparent between Exploratory andAdvanced Developments, a change in environment shouldbe expected since, again, the end objectives of these cate-gories differ. Greater latitude is allowed in ExploratoryDevelopment in elements such as technical risk, standardscompliance, etc. Similarly, as a project moves into Opera-tional Systems Development, many of the elements de-scribed in Table I become more definitive or more rigor-ously applied.
In summary, there are many policies, management sys-tems, and techniques necessary for proper prosecution ofthe Defense effort, but these practices integrate for maxi-mum effectiveness. One tool to assist in that integration isthe technique of research, development, test, and evalua-tion (RDT&E) categorization. Through the categorizationtechnique, a better integration of management techniqueshas resulted, with a consequent improvement in R&Deffectiveness.
James W. Roach was born in St. Louis, Mo., on February 3, 1922. In 1943 he wasgraduated from the University of Illinois, Urbana, with the B.S. degree in mechanicalengineering.From 1947 to 1961 he was associated with the Chance Vought Corporation in vari-
ous positions, including Manager of Manufacturing Engineering Control, AssistantProject Engineer KDU-1, Project Engineer of Regulus 1, and Manager of Long RangePlanning for the Astronautics Division. In 1962 he joined the Aircraft Missiles Divi-sion of Fairchild Stratos Corporation as Director of Marketing, supervising themarket planning and analysis, the R&D planning and control, and the direct salesefforts of the Division's aircraft missile and space projects. At present he is AssistantDirector for Engineering Management, in the Office of the Director of Defense Re-search and Engineering (ODDR&E), responsible procedures of the R&D effort.Mr. Roach is a member of the American Management Association, the AAS, and
the AIAA, and has served as director of the AAS.
ROACH: R&D CATEGORIZATION 69
