External Collaboration in Army 

Science and Technology:

The Army’s Research Alliances

John W. Lyons and James Ratches

Center for Technology and National Security Policy

National Defense University

September 2013
Disclaimer. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the 

official policy or position of the National Defense University, the U.S. Department of Defense, 

or the U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from 

unclassified materials.

John W. Lyons is a Distinguished Research Fellow in the Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy (CTNSP) at the National Defense University. He was previously the Director of 

the Army Research Laboratory and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Dr. 

Lyons received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Washington University at St Louis and his 

B.A. from Harvard University.

James Ratches is a Senior Research Fellow in CTNSP, and on the staff of the Army Research

Laboratory’s Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate. He was previously Chief Scientist at the 

Army’s Night Vision and Electronic Devices Directorate. Dr Ratches received his Ph.D. in 

physics from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a B.S. degree from Trinity College.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Ms. Mary Miller, the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, and Dr. Linton Wells, Director of CTNSP.

2
Contents

I. Introduction.............................................................................................................4

II. Deciding on Formal Collaboration........................................................................5

III. Review of the ARL Alliances..............................................................................7

IV. Discussion of the CTAs, and the ITA..................................................................9

V. Findings and Concluding Remarks.....................................................................15

Appendix A - Some Other Army Investments in External Centers of Excellence

............................................................................................................................. ..A-1

Appendix B - Interviews........................................................................................B-1

Appendix C - Acronyms........................................................................................C-1

3
I. Introduction

No laboratory can be expert in every area important to its sponsor. The laboratory must therefore 

find other ways to provide the needed talent to complete a project. There are many ways to do 

this; some formal, some informal.

The U.S. Army gains new technical knowledge through investing in its internal laboratories and 

in external expertise including single investigator grants and larger, focused centers of 

excellence. These involve varying degrees of close collaboration with internal Army 

laboratories. For example, the Army has determined that investing in University Affiliated 

Research Centers (UARCs) is desirable to obtain new knowledge in areas such as 

nanotechnology for the soldier and biotechnology. These are large centers consisting of a lead 

university and a number of associated universities and industries. The information developed is 

available to Army science and technology (S&T) programs as well as to the general public.

These centers are contracted for specific lengths of time and are renewable. Other sizeable

investments are in Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURIs). There are also 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, specific Centers of Excellence, and the 

Small Business Innovation Research Program, which invests, typically, in small entrepreneurial 

companies that are able to add to existing internal Army research programs. Most of these 

programs are executed on contracts that do not specify in any detail how they should collaborate 

with Army laboratory work.

It should be noted that these programs were not created with the intent to develop collaboration 

with internal Army laboratories. In this report we focus on more formal modes of collaboration 

exemplified by the Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL) collaborative alliances. We do not 

attempt to analyze the other forms of investment in external centers of excellence.1

Collaborations expose a laboratory to new ideas and new approaches, and subject its programs to 

critical examination by peers. Collaborations can push the laboratory’s investigators to new 

heights of scientific accomplishment. For this reason, laboratories within the U.S. Department of 

Defense (DOD) engage in collaboration with the private sector. The Service laboratories offer a 

unique opportunity to collaborators in the private sector to explore new scientific research they 

might not otherwise get the chance to engage in. At the individual researcher level, close 

collaboration between internal laboratory research staff and external investigators is easily done 

through the Internet and other related technologies to plan and execute a joint project. This is 

common in most unclassified areas and happens regularly. Use of large groups of external 

collaborators in the private sector requires some sort of budgetary and legal arrangements.

This analysis will begin with a discussion of how to decide on doing external formal 

collaborations such as the ARL collaborative alliances. We then consider the ARL Collaborative 

Technology Alliances (CTAs), Collaborative Research Alliances (CRAs), and the Information 

Technology Alliance (ITAs). The discussion concludes by looking at whether the current 

collaborations have been effective, as well as list a set of questions about collaboration that 

should be answered by Army managers in the future.

1 For a brief discussion of the other forms of external centers of excellence, see Appendix A.

4

 
II. Deciding on Formal Collaboration

Individual collaborations with outside groups occur frequently with little formality, but largescale and long-term collaboration is a different matter. Whereas individual arrangements do not 

generally involve a transfer of funds or a contract, the large-scale ones considered here do 

require detailed justification, budget adjustments, and legal arrangements. Most of the 

discussion, though based on experiences with the ARL alliances, will also apply to any large 

external arrangements. The analysis of whether to enter into a formal collaboration involves at 

least the following seven steps.

1. List present program priorities for the laboratory.

The laboratory management should have a clear idea of its own priorities in the current program. 

This is needed in any case, but for a new effort it may be necessary to refer to the priorities when 

cutting or eliminating lower priority research programs to free up money, staff, and the like.

2. List requirements and priorities from the users (warfighters).

The laboratory managers should have the priority needs of the user clearly in mind to see 

whether these should be met by the laboratory or by someone else. (Some needs cannot be met 

by research but rather may require changes in doctrine, logistics, and training, or by purchase in 

the commercial markets of systems needing no adaptation, for example.)

3. Assess the capability of the laboratory to meet the new requirements.

If the problem is technical in nature, then one looks to see if it can be addressed using existing 

capabilities at the laboratory. For example, if the requirement is in the area of arms and 

armaments the Army laboratories are well placed to address the problem.

4. Define the gap(s) in the laboratory’s capabilities.

The laboratory should identify the gaps in its capabilities and look for ways to fill them.

The managers should consider whether they can fill the gap by strengthening the internal 

programs in a timely manner so as to meet the timelines of the proposed customer, or if going to 

the external technical community would be more responsive.

5. Assess the ability of the laboratory to fill the gap(s) from within in a timely fashion.

a) Ability to acquire the needed new staff

b) Ability to secure funding 

c) Ability to acquire the needed equipment and facilities 

Filling the gaps internally means that the needed expertise, facilities and equipment are available 

at the laboratory or can be obtained within the current budget.

6. If the laboratory cannot fill its gap(s), then an external arrangement is needed.

The analysis then turns to external collaborations.

7. A key question regarding external investment is whether the laboratory wants, ultimately to 

build up its internal expertise?

If the answer is yes then there must be provision for collaboration in which the internal staff will 

be in close contact with the outside group(s) working on the problem. If the answer is no, that is, 

5
the problem is expected not to require future expertise internally, then investment in arm’s length 

centers may be sufficient.

If the gap(s) are large and a long-term relationship is necessary, some kind of formal contract is 

required. The nature of the contract depends on the long term intention of the laboratory in the 

subject field. 

In the case of the ARL CTAs, CRAs, and the ITA, the Army needed to develop capabilities, 

ultimately in the Army’s own laboratories, in the fields selected. The Army used cooperative 

agreements, a relatively new, in the 1990s, contracting tool. Under this tool, the internal 

managers exercise both oversight and some supervision of the external collaborators. An ARL 

staff member serves as the Collaborative Alliance Manager.

The following language from the final Program Announcement for the recently awarded

ARL Collaborative Research Alliance for Modeling of Electronic Materials illustrates ARL’s 

intent for the collaboration:

Collaborations or transition links among the CRAs and the in-house Initiative for 

Multiscale Multidisciplinary Modeling of Electronic Materials will also be pursued and 

defined through continuous collaboration, technical exchanges, site visits, staff rotations, 

and mutual participation in technical reviews during the period of performance.2

By means of these mechanisms the in-house researchers stay close to the external members of 

the consortium, information flows back and forth, technology transfer into the ARL is expedited, 

and the capability gap is filled. 

Alternatively, if the need is not urgent and is likely to persist for a long time, the laboratory could 

probably create new capabilities through a combination of rearranging internal priorities and 

hiring new staff, using existing budget. If the need is not urgent and the laboratory sees no 

opportunity to address it internally, then external grants or contracts can be employed that are not 

closely tied to the laboratory. Such approaches have been preferred in the past and are still used 

today. Technical reviews by the sponsor will be at intervals specified in the contract. A final 

review to determine whether the center is fulfilling the terms of the contract, is conducted at the 

time of renewal or re-bidding

2 Program Announcement, Army Research Laboratory, undated, 7, available at 

<www.ARL.Army.mil/www/pages/532/FINAL_MSME_PA.pdf>.

6

 
III. Review of the ARL Alliances

Within the U.S. Army, approaches to collaboration include single investigator grants and larger 

awards to centers of excellence. Grants and contracts are usually not designed to require strong 

day-to-day interaction with in-house research staff. Rather, the awards are hands-off or armslength arrangements where the work statement is agreed at the outset and the awardee is 

independent of the contracting agency until time for renewal. This kind of arrangement supplies 

new information but is not focused on developing new capabilities of the in-house staff. 

In recent years a different kind of contracting authority, the cooperative agreement tool, became 

available within the DOD and has enabled the creation of collaborative arrangements where the 

laboratory participates, indeed may control, the work of the contractor on a regular basis. This 

includes planning and oversight conducted by in-house staff. It also allows for movement of staff 

back and forth from the laboratory to the contractor. In this way the transfer of expertise from 

contractor to the laboratory is more effective with resultant broadening and strengthening of the 

laboratory. The Army has made use of this authority in several instances with considerable 

success.

In this section, we will review the details of these external arrangements with emphasis on 

formal collaborations in large, multi-year centers, many as implemented by the Army, and 

discuss the pros and cons of using this approach. This will be accomplished by reviewing the 

various collaborative mechanisms used by the Army Research Laboratory, in particular, the 

CTAs, CRAs and the ITA. CTAs and CRAs are similar in many respects. CRAs are more 

explicitly focused on basic research; both have provisions for adding funds for applied work.

Mechanisms for adding funding vary. The alliances can add either to the existing contract or by 

establishing separate contracts. These alliances are formal collaborations very closely coupled to 

Army in-house researchers.

Begun in the 1990s in response to a request from the Army Chief of Staff, ARL was in support

of the Communications and Electronics Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

(CERDEC) in helping to field digital technology to the forces on the battlefield. ARL lacked 

overall competence in system of systems technology and therefore looked to the private sector 

for helping with the technology for fielding such products. The idea was to set up formal

collaborations in which an industrial firm would form a consortium of industrial and academic 

members to work in harness with ARL technical staff. This was initially called the Federated 

Laboratory but was later renamed the Collaborative Technology Alliances. The concept used

cooperative agreements, which allowed the ARL to participate, indeed manage, the planning and 

operational aspects in concert with the alliance leader. Rotation of technical staff was encouraged 

in both directions. The intent was that the ARL would begin to develop its own expertise and 

improve the speed and efficacy of the transfer of new results to the Research, Development, and 

Engineering Center (RDEC), and ultimately to the Program Executive Officers and Program 

Managers involved in building the systems and fielding them.3 At first, 3 consortia were funded 

for 5 years at a budget of approximately $5-6 million a year for each award. Since that time 

3 E.A.Brown, Reinventing Government Research and Development: A Status Report on Management Initiatives and 

Reinvention Efforts at the Army Research Laboratory, ARL-SR-57 (Adelphi, MD: Army Research Laboratory, 

1998), 6-13, 6ff.

7

 
several projects have been completed 

and new ones funded. Currently, there 

are four projects under way: 1) Micro 

Autonomous Systems and Technology,

awarded in 2008; 2) Network Science

CTA, awarded in 2009; 3) Robotics 

CTA, awarded in 2010 and 4) Cognition 

and Neuroergonomics CTA awarded in 

2010. These will be reviewed later in 

this paper.

The Army recently established two 

CRAs. The objective of the first CRA,

the Materials in Extreme Dynamic 

Environments, is to establish the 

capability to design materials for use in 

specific dynamic environments, 

especially high strain-rate applications.”4

The objectives of the second, “the MultiScale, Multidisciplinary Modeling of 

Electronic Materials, is to develop 

quantitative understanding of materials 

from the smallest to the largest relevant 

scales to advance the state of the art of 

electronic, optoelectronic, and 

electrochemical materials and devices.”4

The Army is preparing to award a third 

CRA, on cyber security. All three CRAs 

are too new to be assessed.

In April 2006, in partnership with the 

United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence, 

the Army established the International 

Technology Alliance (ITA). The ITA 

was patterned after the CTAs noted 

above. The following provides the 

purpose of the alliance:

“The ITA ... seeks to break down 

barriers, build relationships, develop

mutual understanding, and work in partnership to develop technology for the U.S. and UK

military. The ITA is studying the topics of network and information sciences.” 5

4 “Collaborative Research Alliance,” Army Research Laboratory, undated, available at 

<www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=532.

5 Networks and Information Science International Technology Alliance (ITA), Army Research Laboratory, undated, 

available at <www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=77>; also John W. Lyons, Army R&D Collaboration and 

the Role of Globalization in Research, Defense & Technology Paper 51 (Washington, DC: Center for Technology 

and National Security Policy, July 2008), 11, ff.

Regenerative Medicine.

The Army’s Medical Research and Materiel Command 

developed a concept modeled after the CTAs, using the 

cooperative agreement approach, to establish two 

consortia to perform research in regeneration of tissues 

and organs. Advances in adult stem cell research have 

led to techniques to stimulate the body’s mechanisms 

for recreating damaged tissues and organs. This 

approach is clearly useful in treating wounded soldiers. 

The new program is called the Armed Forces Institute 

of Regenerative Medicine. The first awards were made 

in 2008 to two groups of medical research teams: one is 

led by Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center 

and the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine 

in Pittsburgh; a second is led by Rutgers, the State 

University of New Jersey, and the Cleveland Clinic. 

These teams work in concert with the Army Institute of 

Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The 

program is funded by contributions from the Army, the 

Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Surgeon 

General, the National Institutes of Health, the Veterans 

Administration, and matching funds from local and 

private groups. The initial funding from the 

Government agencies was $42.5 million for five years. 

Funding from other sources have nearly matched this. 

We have not studied this effort for this paper.

The Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) 

awards provide opportunities for collaboration between 

the recipient of the award and the group at the DOD 

laboratory that added the topic to the lists in the SBIR 

solicitation for proposals. The awardees know who 

asked for the work and usually seek out the Army staff 

whose area is involved. These awards initially cover a 

small portion of the Army project and are narrowly 

focused. It is often the case that the Army individual 

will assign part of an ongoing project to the SBIR 

company. Frequent contact and information flow 

occurs between the two entities, an arrangement that 

provides real opportunities for collaboration although 

not required in the contract. 

8

 
IV. Discussion of the CTAs, and the ITA

Close collaboration with the private sector in research began at the ARL with the Federated 

Laboratory (Fed Lab) in 1996. Three five-year awards were made: Advanced Sensors, 

Telecommunications/Information Distribution, and Advanced Displays and Interactive Displays. 

These contracts contained key provisions that have continued in the later versions termed CTAs, 

CRAs, and the ITAs. However they have differed in some respects as ARL has learned from 

each round of awards. CRAs are too new to be assessed at this time.

• The first round (Fed Lab) was funded entirely from basic research 6.1 funds. Later contracts

(the CTAs, CRAs, and the ITA) provided for transition using 6.2 applied research funds.

However to obtain these 6.2 funds a separate contract competition is usually required. There 

were no options to extend the awards available in the Fed Lab round. Since then, options of 

from 3 to 5 years are now available.

• Recent awards have contained provisions for adding new members to the consortia as well as 

adding other Federal laboratories to join ARL in participating in the collaboration.

• With the funding of the ITA the program became international.

• To ensure collaboration across disciplines, ARL, in 2008, devised a two-stage competition:

initial proposals, separately, from each of the major disciplines followed by consolidation of 

the winners into the final consortium.

• In the Network Science CTA, an experimentation facility is available to all members to test 

new concepts.

• Rotation of staff from ARL to consortium and vice versa, originally intended to be 20 percent

of staff on each side has been made more flexible but with fewer rotations. 

• We received several comments to the effect that the collaborators are putting their top people 

in the consortia and this greatly enhances ARL’s effectiveness.

The CTAs

There is general agreement that the CTA approach has been effective in helping the Army fill 

gaps in its technology. All interviewees6 expressed satisfaction that the consortium members 

have been assigning top people and that this has been a plus for the Army science and 

technology program. There is some concern that the investment of large sums of money in a few 

large efforts in the private sector has diluted or even reduced the Army’s ability to scan a large 

variety of technical areas through single investigator grants. The single investigator grants are 

spread out over the technical horizon and provide some assurance that the Army is not missing 

any future possibilities. The CTAs and the other investments in large external centers have the 

opposite effect in that they drill down deeply into a few focused areas. Our judgment is that the 

Army is benefiting from both approaches; the management issue is one of balancing the 

investments.

As one might expect, the assessment of the individual awards varies across the CTAs and the 

ITA. (It is too soon to assess the CRAs.) There are differences in the contracting approach and in 

6 A list of individuals who made helpful contributions to this study is at Appendix A.

9

 
the manner in which more applied research is supported. We will point out some of these as we 

go along.

The first awards did not carry options for renewal beyond the first five years and so there was a 

new overall competition in 2001.7 This second competition produced five new consortia each 

with a possible option to extend by three years. Of the five awards, three were extended for the 

three years; the other two were discontinued after the first five years.

Staff rotation has never neared the original stated goal of having, at any one time, some 20

percent of the staff on both sides in rotation to the other side; that is, the ARL people working the 

area of the CTA spending time at the consortium, and the consortium sending staff to the ARL. It 

turned out to be too difficult to uproot this many of the key staff working on the subject matter.

But there has been some significant rotation that the managers believe has been helpful.

Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology Alliance (MAST)

The objective of the MAST is to “perform enabling research and transition technology that will 

enhance warfighter’s tactical situation awareness in urban and complex terrain by enabling the 

autonomous operation of a collaborative ensemble of multifunctional, mobile microsystems.”8

The MAST was competed differently than the early alliances. There are four major areas of 

technology in the MAST. Each of the areas was competed separately and the winners were then 

consolidated into a single alliance. This concept was first used in the ITA and was designed to 

ensure that each of the major areas within the resulting alliance would be properly emphasized. 

Interactions back and forth have been good. ARL has attracted new staff as a result of the MAST 

program. The MAST has a separate contract for applied research but no 6.2 funds were provided.

It is essentially an authorization for spending 6.2 if someone outside (including ARL) wants to 

invest their 6.2 funds. Both the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and U.S. Special Operations 

Command are investing in the MAST. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Navy are 

using 6.2 funds to transition MAST results into their programs.

Evidence of useful collaborations and impacts on the internal ARL program are many. MAST 

has hired several PhD students from MAST participants and one post doc trained under MAST.

There is now a new ARL program funded at $1.5 million dollars in MAST-related mission 

research. So far there have over 500 publications from the MAST of which several have been 

jointly written with ARL staff members.9

7 The facts presented are taken from a presentation by ARL’s Dr. Jay Gowens to the National Research Council’s 

Board on Army Science and Technology on May 11, 2010, titled “Rationale and benefits of Various Collaborative 

Technology Alliance Models.”

8 “Collaborative Alliances,” U.S. Army Research Laboratory, homepage, undated, available at 

<www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=510>; also see Micro Autonomous Systems and Technology Alliance 

(MAST), homepage, available at <www.mast-cta.org/>. 9 Brett Piekarski, ARL, email on August 17, 2013.

10

 
Sciences Alliance

This CTA was awarded in 2009 for five years with an option for renewal of another five years.

The purpose is to:

Bring together government, industry, and academic institutions to perform foundational, 

cross-cutting research for a fundamental understanding of interactions, interdependencies, 

and common underlying science among social/cognitive, information, and 

communications networks. Prediction and control of the composite behavior of this 

complex, interacting networks will ultimately enhance effectiveness in network-enabled 

warfare and counterinsurgency.10

There are many kinds of networks ranging from biological to electrical grids. In this CTA the 

Army is studying three networks that are important in conducting military operations and is 

attempting to understand the interplay among them will lead to better management of military 

systems.

The CTA is funded under its cooperative research agreement with both 6.1 and 6.2 dollars. In

addition there is a task order contract used to transition results from the CTA to Army user 

clientele. This vehicle has been used by CERDEC, the U.S. Marines, and the Office of Naval 

Research. There is an experimentation facility in Cambridge, Massachusetts operated by BBN

Technologies, a subsidiary of Raytheon, as a place for working with new results from the 

consortium. Staff rotation from the consortium, from ARL, and from CERDEC to this center 

provides good opportunities for collaboration. Similarly, BBN Technologies, a consortium 

member, is contributing technology that is relevant to this facility and to some ARL studies. And 

collaboration within the consortium has been increasing with the passage of time, as have

interactions with ARL, but to a lesser extent. The effort has led to the establishment of two new 

journals on network science: Network Science, published through Cambridge University Press;

and the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (J-SAC), Special Issues on Network 

Science.

As an example of collaboration and transition, a report of the predecessor alliance (the 

Communications and Networks Alliance) discusses work by the Alliance and ARL that 

developed the techniques, metrics, and tools for survivable, and secure tactical wireless networks 

on the battlefield. This transitioned to the Communications and Electronics Research, 

Development, and Engineering Center and thence to the program manager for WIN-T 

(Warfighter Information Network – Tactical).11

10 See “Collaborative Alliances” U.S. Army Research Laboratory, home page, undated, available at 

www.arl.army.mil/default.cfm?page=510.

11 Gregory Cirincione, ARL, email on August 6, 2013.

11

 
Robotics

The objective of this CTA is to, “enable the creation of future highly autonomous unmanned 

systems and permit these systems to effectively conduct military operations in mixed 

environments.”12 This is the second CTA titled “Robotics.” The first was awarded for eight years 

(five years plus an option for three more). The second began in 2010. The robotics program at 

ARL had originally been funded from the Office of the Secretary of Defense Joint Robotics 

Program with funds for advanced technology development or 6.3 category dollars. That effort 

was devolved to the Army and funding to ARL became applied research funds (6.2) with the 

U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC)

assuming the transition role with 6.3 funds. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology added some 6.1 funding to the ARL in-house program

later. The second Robotics CTA has $4.5M in 6.1 funds and $6.5M in 6.2 funds. The CTA 

differs from the others in the presence of so much 6.2 money and the built-in transition point at 

TARDEC.

It appears that the restructuring the research in robotics has produced a more balanced program

in terms of funding, and defined responsibilities. The CTA has brought needed expertise to the 

internal program.

Cognition and Neuroergonomics

This CTA was awarded in 2010 with the following purpose:

The Alliance is expected to implement computational modeling and to execute and link 

neuroscience based research from multiple levels to produce advances in fundamental 

science and technology, demonstrate and transition technology, and develop research 

demonstrators for Warfighter experimentation.13

There are six members of the consortium of which two are from overseas; one at Taiwan and one 

in Germany. The consortium is funded with 6.1 dollars, and has an authorization for 6.2 funding, 

but so far no funds for 6.2 have been appropriated. The latter provision is similar to that in the 

MAST CTA. The work involves mapping the brains of many test subjects over lengthy periods 

followed by digesting the very large amount of collected data. The analysis is done by means of 

models and the computing power of the computer center at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. The 

results should help the Army select soldiers with particular aptitudes for certain operational 

assignments.

Collaboration with the ARL in-house program14 is evidenced by the fact that a substantial 

fraction of the ARL papers in peer-reviewed journals have been authored jointly with partners in 

the CTA. Joint efforts have produced a number of conferences and technical reports. Transitions 

12 See “Collaborative Alliances,” U.S. Army Research Laboratory, undated, available at 

<www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=510?>. 

13 See “Collaborative Alliances,” U.S. Army Research Laboratory, undated, available at 

<www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=510?>. 

14 Kelvin Oie, ARL, email on August 8, 2013.

12

 
have been made to the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command and to the Army Tank 

and Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Transitions are planned for 

the Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center. These last named transitions 

were planned under formal agreements between the ARL and the RDECs. The technology 

developed includes improved methods of measuring brain activity especially wireless techniques 

that enable measurements outside the laboratory. The work has produced new tools for handling 

data from studies of the brain. These are being incorporated in the MATLABTM computing 

environment, EEGLAB. The development and support of EEGLAB is done by the CTA 

members.

The International Technology Alliance (ITA)

The purpose of the ITA is as given on the ARL website:

The Network and Information Sciences International Technology Alliance is a bilateral 

cooperative technology agreement between ARL and the United Kingdom’s Ministry of 

Defence. The ITA brings together government, industry, and academia to address the 

fundamental science underpinning the complex network issues that are vital to future 

coalition military operations and engage the partners in a collaborative environment to 

fully exploit the joint development of emerging technologies.15

The relationships generated among the UK and US participants16 are critical to the success of the 

ITA. Compared to previous CTAs, the ITA was a significant step forward in collaborative 

research efforts by applying an integrated and multidisciplinary management approach. The ITA 

has transition contracts, one each in the UK and US. These were greatly aided by the ITA lead, 

IBM, which was the consortium lead in both countries. The British brought a strong focus to the 

effort and made valiant efforts to protect the continuance of the ITA in the UK. The relative 

funding size of the ITA in the UK to the UK’s military science and technology budget was 

significantly greater than the proportion of the U.S.’s contribution compared to the U.S.

budget.17

With respect to the sharing of technology, the International Traffic on Arms Regulations had to 

be overcome to enable the sharing of new US technology. Some effort was required to handle 

this restriction. The upshot for the ITA was that sharing technical information from basic 

research is authorized, so most of the findings can be sent back and forth. But applied technology 

has to be processed on a case-by-case basis. 

As a result of the ITA success in competing the components of the work separately and then

joining the pieces in the ITA, ensuing competitions for some new CTAs were handled in this 

manner.

15 “Networks and Information Science International Technology Alliance (ITA),” U.S. Army Research Laboratory, 

undated, available at <www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=77>.

16 The stimulus for this bilateral arrangement originated in correspondence between President George H.W. Bush 

and U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. 17 John Eicke, email on April 16, 2013.

13

 
Some results of the ITA are being transitioned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s

Intelligence Fusion Center in the United Kingdom. The technology will establish the policy for 

distribution of fused data from across sectors.

The global application of databases will be facilitated by use of an IBM construct (a Gaian data 

base) which will permit handling of disparate data bases. Gaian is an IBM product based on how 

biological systems self-organize. This approach was introduced in the ITA as a means of 

handling many different modes on a network producing information that needs to be integrated 

to answer specific questions. Another innovation associated with the ITA is a “boot camp”, a 

management technique for bringing people together for an extended time, for example at a 

university dormitory to do some formal planning. The process evolved into simply promoting 

interpersonal relationships and stimulating cross-technology discussions.

14
V. Findings and Concluding Remarks

Most of the CTAs appear to be successful. Questions that were asked of the interviewees

included the degree of collaboration among the members of a consortium and between the 

consortium and the ARL, the extent to which ARL staff were expanding their expertise as a 

result of their exposure to the staffs at the consortium, the various ways in which the competition 

was carried out, and evidence of successful transitions from the consortiums to ARL or to other 

groups. Based on these questions we found that almost all the CTAs have been successful. One 

or two of the early ones were not renewed or recompeted at the end of five years. The more 

recent CTAs and the ITA are considered by those involved in their management to be very

successful and have been extended. Positive aspects include the presence of top-flight people in 

the consortia and improved approaches to multidisciplinary work both at the consortiums and at 

ARL. The stepwise competition used in competing some of the CTAs and the ITA is intended to 

ensure a reasonable balance among the several disciplines in the final consortium. However not 

all the staff associated with CTAs agree with this approach; the use of stepwise competition has 

not been universal. With the advent of the ITA, international expertise has been added. It is too 

early to comment on the CRAs.

There has been no independent external evaluation of the Army’s research investment in the 

CTAs and the ITA. The assessment of ARL by the National Research Council’s Technology 

Assessment Board does not include CTAs. We recommend that a more careful, in depth, review 

of Army Research and Development collaborations be conducted with focus on quality of the 

work and the extent to which the intentions for the collaborations have been realized. The review 

should be done by a combination of external experts and in-house senior staff not associated with 

a CTA.

There are some questions of balance. There have been three different CTAs on robotics and three 

on network science (the Communications and Network CTA, the ITA, and the Network Science 

CTA). An issue is whether or not the emphasis on robotics and network science affects other 

ARL program areas in terms of competing for budget dollars and other resources. The focus of 

6.1 funds on these consortia has an effect on the amount of other basic research that can be done 

at ARL (or single investigator awards at Army Research Office). It is not clear how to balance 

these alternative means of doing research. It does mean that these areas will have a much broader 

base of fundamental knowledge than some of the other ARL programs.

In some areas the role of ARL may be questioned. For example, in the area of cyber security the 

U.S. Government is spending vast sums of money trying to keep up with or ahead of hackers. It 

is important in such a case that ARL clearly define a niche that is otherwise not being addressed.

The magnitude of staff rotation between the allied laboratories has not been as significant as 

originally contemplated. The original guidelines of 20 percent of staff be in rotation every year 

was clearly too much. More recent cooperative agreements have dropped the quantitative 

requirement but nonetheless emphasized the importance of rotations. There have been a number 

of rotations for varying lengths of time. In the past there had been some concern at the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense about the use of 6.1 funds for the CTAs. Discussions with the 

interviewees indicated that these concerns have no longer been raised at the DOD level.

15
There is a difference of opinion over how close the relationship is between other modes of 

collaboration and the in-house laboratories

Transitions from CTAs and ITA have not been quantified in this study; however, because most 

of the funding to the collaborators is 6.1, more 6.2 applied research will usually be necessary at 

ARL before the results can be sent along to the RDECs or to the program executive officers and 

managers. Participation by the potential customers in the management of the collaborations 

would ensure smoother transitions. This question could be examined in the course of 

management or peer reviews. We believe the questions listed below, uncovered during 

discussions with participants are worthy of further study by Army managers:

1. Reviews of progress by external subject matter experts. The National Research Council that 

reviews ARL’s in-house programs does not explicitly review the CTAs etc. Should this be 

addressed and, if so, how?

2. Source of funding. Some interviewees think that more 6.2 funding (vice 6.1) would be more 

accurate for at least some of the CTAs. The CTA charters are clearly aimed at addressing 

specific challenges for the Army. (Close adherence to DOD policy on 6.1 research would 

suggest that 6.2 funding would be more appropriate for at some of the work in the CTAs.18)

3. How many and how effective have been the transitions from the consortia to either internal 

ARL programs or to RDECs and program executive officers and managers.

4. To what extent have the consortia exhibited truly multidisciplinary work?

5. To what extent has the experience with the external collaborators resulted in improved 

collaboration across directorates within ARL?

6. What is the publication record of the collaborations; is authorship often shared between inhouse ARL staff and members of the external consortia? Patents?

7. What is the uniformity of staff rotation across all collaborations?

8. What has been the impact of the collaborations on hiring at ARL?

9. To what extent do the International Trafficking on Army Regulations provisions constrain 

the work being done in the UK portion of the ITA and the interactions between the U.S. and 

the UK segments of the ITA?

The trend in research is to utilize the strengths of many laboratories through collaboration rather 

than one laboratory trying to be expert in every area. Collaborations may be small, with one or 

two people from each component working together, to large collaborations including multiple

entities, substantial funding, and formal contracts. Collaboration is an efficient way to fill gaps in 

the internal capabilities of a laboratory. Some large scale collaborations such as the CTAs, 

CRAs, and the ITA at ARL have as the long-term intent, the gradual buildup of internal 

capabilities. In this case the cooperative agreement mechanism is applicable. We conclude that 

the collaborative alliances used by ARL as CTAs, CRAs, and the ITA under terms of 

cooperative research agreements are effective ways to promote close interactions between Army 

researchers and the technical staffs of the members of the external consortiums. We also believe 

that the details of the cooperative agreements have improved the internal collaborations within 

18 The DOD policy on the use of 6.1 funding limits such use to basic work not addressing specific problems. See 

Assessment of the Department of Defense Basic Research, Committee on DOD Basic Research, Division of 

Engineering and Physical Sciences (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 2005).

16

 
the consortiums as well as enhancing the expertise of the ARL staff. We have listed a few 

questions about the ARL alliances the answers to which would further strengthen this approach 

to external collaboration.

Finally, we suggest that consideration be given to more collaboration between the UARCs, the 

MURIs, and the like, with internal Army laboratories using the approaches of the cooperative 

agreement contract detailed here. 

17
Appendix A - Some Other Army Investments in External 

Centers of Excellence

UARCs

Contracts awarded to universities usually consist of a major research university that shares the 

work with others in academia or industry. The Army has five of these:

• The Institute for Collaborative Biotechnology (ICB) at the University of California Santa 

Barbara.

• Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) at the University of Southern California.

• Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

• The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology (MIT).

• Institute for Advanced Technology (IAT) at the University of Texas, Austin.

The ICB, first funded in 2003, works with a consortium of leading universities and companies to 

“transform biological inspiration into technological innovation... biomolecular sensors, bioinspired materials and energy, bio-inspired network science, and cognitive neuroscience.”19

The ICT, first funded in 1999, was first established “with a multi-year contract from the U.S. 

Army to explore a powerful question: What would happen if leading technologists in artificial 

intelligence, graphics, and immersion joined forces with the creative talents of Hollywood and 

the game industry?”20 This was an outgrowth of the Army program to digitize the force and to be 

more active in adopting the technologies of the information age.

GTRI has a broad base of technologies supported by many sponsors, which the Army is one. 

This UARC differs from the others in that the Army is not the dominant player. ARL supports 

work at GTRI on MAST.

The mission of the ISN at MIT, first funded in 2002, “is to help the Army dramatically improve 

the protection and survivability of the Soldier by working at and extending the frontiers of 

nanotechnology through fundamental research and transitioning with our Army and industry 

partners by combining high-tech protection and survivability capabilities with low weight and 

increased comfort. This Mission includes not only decreasing the weight that Soldiers carry but 

also improving blast and ballistic protection, creating new methods of detecting and detoxifying 

chemical and biological analytes, providing physiological monitoring and automated medical 

intervention, and enhancing situational awareness.”21

The work of the IAT at the University of Texas has focused on electric or rail guns. The work 

was sponsored for many years by the Army but recently the U.S. Navy has picked up the 

technical results and has developed the gun application for shipboard use. Presently the IAT has 

“... a unique team of world-class scientists and engineers in electrodynamics, pulsed power, and 

19 The Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies, homepage, available at <www.icb.ucsb.edu>. 20 The Institute for Creative Technologies, homepage, available at <http://ict.usc.edu>. 21 “About ISN,” The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, homepage, available at 

<www.mit.edu/isn/aboutisn/index.htm>.

A-1

 
hypervelocity physics, whose focus has been to develop the fundamental scientific basis for new 

classes of high velocity kinetic energy weapon systems.”22

MURIs

These initiatives are consortia of universities doing basic research reaching across disciplinary 

lines. They are typically funded for five years in response to calls from proposals by three U.S. 

Department of Defense (DOD) agencies: the Army Research Office, the Office of Naval 

Research, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. In 2011, DOD announced awards to 

27 consortia chosen from 113 proposals that were winnowed from 332 white papers. The 

funding was $191 million over five years.23 The topics of the proposals are guided by the details 

of the calls and so are aligned with the needs of the three services. The work is very much at the 

frontiers of knowledge. In 2011 the Army Research Office awarded eight MURIs. The topics 

included quantum science, biologics, nanotechnology and atomic layers, and light in filaments.

Centers of Excellence at ARL

The Army has long made awards to certain university programs of interest for topics rather than 

for individual investigators. Examples are:

• High Performance Computing at Stanford, Morgan State, University of Texas, El Paso, inter 

alia.

• Flexible Displays at Arizona State University.

• Materials research at the University of Delaware and Johns Hopkins University, inter alia.

The rationale for each center varies but they are all attempts to broaden expertise that the ARL 

needs or will need. Some have close collaboration simply because of a close geographical 

proximity to an Army laboratory, which helps to make interactions easier to manage. The centers 

involving the University of Delaware and the Johns Hopkins University are fairly close to the 

Aberdeen Proving Ground where the Army’s materials research is done. ARL staff have been, 

over the years, close to the two universities. The materials experts at the University of Delaware 

perfected a key step in the manufacture of the long rod penetrator for the 120mm main gun of the 

Abrams main battle tank.

The center on flexible displays was transferred from a commercial entity and program run by the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The intention here is to support the industry by 

strengthening the industry’s infrastructure for the manufacturing processes (somewhat similar to 

the electronics industry’s SEMATECH). Funding for the display center comes from the Army 

tech base, in the form of 6.2 research funding, and from the Army’s Manufacturing Technology 

(MANTECH) program.

22 “Institute for Advanced Technology,” United States Army Research Laboratory, homepage, available at 

<www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?page=510>.

23 “DOD Awards $191 Million in Research Funding,” U.S. Department of Defense, no. 333-11, April 22, 2011, 

available at <www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14432>.

A-2

 
Appendix B - Interviews

The following people have made helpful and substantial contributions to us as we conducted this 

study:

ARL Personnel

John Pellegrino, Directorate Executive, Computational & Information Sciences Directorate.

Mr. John Eicke, Division Chief, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate.

Mr. Gregory Cirincione, Computational & Information Sciences Directorate.

Kelvin Oie, Cooperative Agreement Manager, Human Research & Engineering Directorate.

Jon Bornstein, Cooperative Agreement Manager, Vehicle Technology Directorate.

Lyle Schwartz, former Chairman, National Research Council Technology Assessment Board for 

the Army Research Laboratory

Bret Piekarski, Cooperative Agreement Manager, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate.

Eric Forsythe, Assistant Program Manager, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate.

Robert Kokoska, Program Manager, Army Research Office.

David Skatrud, Director, Army Research Office.

Kelly Foster (Strachko), Director’s Staff, Adelphi Laboratory Center.

Tien Pham, Subject Matter Expert, Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate.

Others

Patricia Fox, Division Chief, Army Contracting Command, Durham, NC.

B-1
Appendix C - Acronyms

AMC – Army Material Command 

ARL – Army Research Laboratory

CAM – Cooperative Agreement Manager

CAN – Cognition and Neuroergonomics 

(CTA)

CERDEC – Communications & Electronics 

Research, Development and Engineering 

Center

COE – Center of Excellence

CRA – Collaborative Research Alliance

CTA – Collaborative Technology Alliance

DOD – Department of Defense 

DTRA – Defense Threat Reduction Agency

GTRI – Georgia Tech Research Institute

IAT – Institute for Advanced Technology

ICB – Institute for Collaborative 

Biotechnology

ICT – Institute for Creative Technologies

ISN – Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies

ITAR – International Trafficking on Army 

Regulations 

MANTECH – Manufacturing Technology

(DOD funding to reduce production costs)

MAST – Micro Autonomous Systems and 

Technology (CTA)

MURI – Multi-disciplinary University 

Research Initiative

NS – Network Science (CTA)

OSD – Office of the Secretary of Defense

PEO – Program Executive Officer

PM – Program Manager

RDEC – Research, Development and 

Engineering Center

SBIR – Small Business Innovative Research

SEMATECH – Semiconductor Technology

SIGS – Single Investigator Grants 

SOCOM – Special Operations Command

S&T - Science and Technology

TARDEC – Tank Automotive Research, 

Development and Engineering Center

UARC – University Affiliated Research 

Center

C-1