1 

Strengthening Government 

Laboratory Science and 

Technology Programs: 

Some Thoughts for the 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

Samuel Musa, Richard Chait, Vincent Russo, and Donna Back 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy 

National Defense University 

July 2011 
2 

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official 

policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the 

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

unclassified materials. 

Samuel Musa is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy (CTNSP). He was previously Associate Vice President for Strategic Initiatives 

and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Northwestern University. Dr. Musa 

received his PhD in Applied Physics from Harvard University and a BS in Electrical Engineering 

and a BA from Rutgers University. 

Richard Chait is a Distinguished Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously Chief 

Scientist, Army Materiel Command, and Director, Army Research and Laboratory Management. 

Dr. Chait received his PhD in Solid State Science from Syracuse University and a BS degree 

from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

Vincent J. Russo is the former Executive Director of the U.S. Air Force Aeronautical 

Systems Center. Dr. Russo received his PhD in Metallurgical Engineering from the Ohio 

State University, a MS from the Air Force Institute of Technology, and BS from 

University of Rochester. 

 Donna J. Back is the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Growing 

Splendid Leaders, LLC. She serves as a leadership instructor for Wright State 

University’s Raj Soin College of Business, University of Dayton’s College of 

Engineering, and the Ohio State University’s College of Engineering. She received her 

MBA from Wright State University and a BS from Miami University, Ohio. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from Starnes Walker, former Director of 

Research, Rolf Dietrich, Acting Deputy Undersecretary, and Capt. David Newton, Office 

of University Programs, Science and Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland 

Security. Also, we are pleased to acknowledge Timothy Coffey, John Lyons, and William 

Berry for their contributions during the early stages of the study, and Samuel Bendett, 

Research Associate at CTNSP, who assisted the team and provided editing of the paper. 

Defense & Technology Papers are published by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy, 

National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, DC. CTNSP publications are available 

at http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/publications.html. 
3 

 

Table of Contents

Introduction 4 

 

Part One: Best Practices—-DOD Laboratory Leaders 5 

 

Part Two: Lessons Learned for Growing a Science and Technology 

Workforce—-DOD Laboratory Leaders 11 

Part Three: Summary and Recommendations 13 

Appendix A: Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy (CTNSP) Team Membership 15 

Appendix B: Other Views of Laboratory Characteristics 17 

Appendix C: Leading Technical Organizations 20 

Appendix D: Introduction to DHS Laboratories 25

 
4 

Introduction

Members of the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) at the 

National Defense University in Washington, DC, examined various management 

practices and implications of laboratory administration for the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). This paper summarizes the second phase of a research and 

analysis project that stemmed from the initial work which provided DHS Science and 

Technology (S&T) leadership with examples of practical approaches to risk-informed 

decisionmaking and metrics for program and project selection.1

 The second phase was 

undertaken to provide additional relevant information to DHS as it seeks to strengthen its 

laboratory programs. 

This paper is in three parts. Part One summarizes the CTNSP Team’s (hereafter referred 

to as the Team) key lessons learned based on their experiences leading Department of 

Defense (DOD) laboratories. A list of the Team members is provided in Appendix A. In 

Part One, the Team developed responses to several questions posed by DHS leadership. 

To develop Part One, the Team compiled a study on the management and organization of 

DOD laboratories and documented lessons learned from their personal experiences 

leading laboratories in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Additionally, the Team conducted 

research into existing methods and practices outlined in journals, periodicals, and 

publications dealing with the topic of managing laboratories. Part Two of this paper 

contains a synopsis of the factors considered by the Team to be important to the 

development of an S&T workforce. In Part Three, a summary and recommendations are 

provided. 

To supplement the text contained in the body of this report, several Appendices are 

provided. Appendix B presents other views of important characteristics of successful 

laboratories. In Appendix C, a summary is provided of the work of a Team member 

(Russo) and his co-author (D. J. Back), on leading technical organizations. Finally, 

Appendix D contains a summary description of the various DHS laboratories. 

The concepts presented here summarize the results of reviews of relevant academic 

research, exposure to broad executive training, consultation with government leaders, and 

extensive experience by the authors in leading a variety of S&T organizations. It is hoped 

that understanding these concepts will help S&T organizations within the DHS and 

elsewhere to fulfill their vision, achieve their mission, and produce high-quality 

laboratories with a dedicated, productive and motivated workforce. 

 

1 Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Science and Technology, Defense and Technology Paper 76, 

Washington, DC, September 2010. 
5 

PART ONE 

Best Practices—DOD Laboratory Leaders 

In order to discuss the practice of leading government laboratories, the CTNSP Team first 

outlined the best management practices for leading DOD laboratories. These practices 

were drawn from the Team members’ personal experiences, as well as from literature on 

the subject. This resulted in a framework for consideration as DHS works to overcome 

the challenges faced in their organizations. Clearly, there are several differences between 

what makes a successful DOD laboratory, and what makes a successful DHS laboratory. 

But there are also be several similarities the authors believe are fundamental to the 

operations of good government laboratories. 

In order to set the stage for this chapter, it is necessary to introduce the organization of 

the DHS Science and Technology Directorate. The organizational chart is shown below: 
6 

The Directorate is now organized to better serve its customers in DHS and the state and 

local first responder community. It consists of four groups. The Homeland Security 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) now serves as the home to all technical 

units within the directorate. The second group is the Homeland Security Enterprise and 

First Responders, which serves as the lead for supplying solutions to state and local 

government agencies. One DHS Laboratory, National Urban Security Technology 

Laboratory (NUSTL), is part of this group. The Acquisition Support and Operations 

Analysis group devotes its activities to assisting operational DHS components with 

acquisitions. One Laboratory, Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL), reports to this 

group. The Research and Development Partnerships group focuses on resources DHS can 

leverage when conducting research and development. Three of the DHS Laboratories are 

part of this group. 

 The former Deputy Director of Research at DHS Science & Technology Directorate 

(now Director for Knowledge Management and Process Improvement) requested the 

Team to investigate the best practices in DOD laboratories in five areas: 

1) Forecast future work and relationship to DHS Labs; 

2) Influence future work to be consistent with requirements; 

3) Consideration of other labs in determining capabilities and staffing of DHS 

labs; 

4) Information about competitors; and 

5) Sources of information and practices in generating resources such as physical 

infrastructure and staffing profile. 

All of the areas addressed an ultimate theme—how can the DHS laboratories be led best 

to successfully accomplish their missions? Below is a summary of the CTNSP Team’s 

thoughts on these five areas. 

1. Forecasting Future Work 

It is always important to periodically conduct a comprehensive technology forecast in 

areas relevant to a laboratory’s mission. There are many ways to do this, and all three 

Departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) have conducted such studies2

. With today’s 

web-based data gathering and sorting capabilities, technology forecasting can be a 

relatively short activity compared to past practices. Whatever technique is used to 

 

2

 Board on Army Science and technology, Commission on Engineering and technical systems, National 

Research Council, STAR 21-Strategic Technologies for the Army Twenty-First Century (Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press, 1992); Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, Technology for the 

United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000–2035 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997); Air 

Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas, Air and Space Power for the 21st Century

(Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, 1995). 
7 

accomplish the forecasting, it is important to insure the ultimate user of the technology 

has the ability to influence the resulting priorities. The user should be engaged in the 

process from day one. Additionally, there should be strong connections to industry and 

universities during the forecasting process. Industry, through its independent research and 

development (IR&D) programs, can provide ideas, conduct early research, and develop 

proof of concepts. Their involvement in the forecasting activities also helps prepare them 

for subsequent contractual activities. The relationship with the universities, (in particular 

for DHS their University Centers of Excellence (CoEs)), should be long-lasting to assure 

continuity and connectivity. It is important to involve academic experts in the forecasting 

efforts. Mechanisms to incorporate this expertise via tools such as Internal Governmental 

Personal Act (IPAs), on a limited-time basis, have been proven to be effective. These 

IPAs can supplement the talent of the laboratory and industry workforces. Finally, the 

laboratory staff, if they are “card-carrying” members in their fields of science and 

technology and are held in high regard, can be an excellent resource for forecasting. 

Without highly knowledgeable staffs who are members of the scientific community in 

good standing, successful forecasting will always be in doubt. 

2. Influence Future Work to be Consistent with Requirements 

Each of the DOD Military Departments has an organization that tracks or monitors 

technology advances: Army Research Office, Office of Naval Research, and Air Force 

Office of Scientific Research. Part of their function is to interface with the DOD 

Laboratory counterparts to assure continuity from basic research to exploratory 

development and to be a source for identifying and funding the early stages of a new 

technology. Likewise, each Service has a formalized method of identifying the 

requirements from their users. With inputs from their forecasting activities, their basic 

research organizations, their user identified requirements, and their own staffs, DOD 

laboratory managers then identify work to be performed within allocated budgets. 3

The 

managers are then responsible to advocate their work to appropriate levels for approval. 

Key to accomplishing these tasks is a laboratory staff that is skilled in these various 

activities. 

3. Consideration of Other Laboratories in Determining Capabilities and Staffing

DHS, like any other government agency, should seek ways to “tap into” the broad and 

robust capabilities in the government laboratory system (National Institutes of Health, 

Commerce, DOD, NASA, etc.) for technical authority. These capabilities are well 

established and can be readily accessed. Experience within the DOD has shown the 

different missions of each laboratory often result in work being performed at one lab can 

be leveraged at another lab. Additionally, joint funding of common use technology 

leverages limited resources and adds to the productivity of laboratories. Important to any 

involvement with the DOD labs is the consideration of multi-year commitments in order 

to stimulate cooperation. In the coming years, defense technologies should become 

increasingly relevant to DHS. This provides an opportunity for DHS to form real 

partnerships with DOD and with the DOD laboratories. 

 

3

 See NDU paper “Risk-Informed Decisionmaking for Science and Technology,” September 2010. 
8 

In addition to the classical government-owned/government-operated (GOGO) and the 

government-owned/contractor-operated (GOCO) laboratory models, another effective 

model for the DHS laboratories to consider is the government-owned/contractor-assisted 

(GOCA) laboratory. In such a laboratory, typically 50–60 percent of the work is 

performed by government employees and 40–50 percent is performed by contractors. 

This concept provides the stability necessary via the government workforce while at the 

same time providing the flexibility provided via the contracted workforce. The 

“contractor” workforce in this case could consist of IPAs, visiting scientists, and post 

docs in addition to a classic contract with a research organization. 

4. Information about Competitors 

The DOD laboratories usually conduct peer reviews by externally recognized experts, 

which generally provide good information about the competition in other labs within and 

outside DOD. Leveraging knowhow of competitor/peer laboratories instead of engaging 

in unnecessary duplication of effort should be an important goal of any government 

laboratory. An example of efforts to avoid unnecessary duplication is DOD Project 

Reliance4

. Project Reliance was formed to provide a mechanism for sharing information 

among the DOD labs that allowed them to better coordinate their efforts. 

Another approach is to organize a laboratory by discipline or multidiscipline versus a 

project basis. This is widely practiced in the Army and Navy Labs. In the case of DHS 

Laboratories, this approach may be difficult since they are charged to advance the science 

and technology in support of relatively near term products. At a higher level, Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) tries to provide interagency coordination. 

Finally, a good and well-connected staff should have a broad-based understanding of the 

capabilities of competitors. They should be in a position to provide relevant information 

about the future work of competitors. 

5. Sources of Information and Practices in Generating Resources

Regarding funding opportunities, good advocacy processes by the senior leaders of a 

laboratory are essential. Additionally, the stature and connectivity of the staff with the 

ultimate users of the technology are critical. Processes that routinely engage users to help 

establish funding priorities are valuable to help create a community of supporters who 

can assist with defending budget requests. 

A suggested approach to protecting and growing the budget is to conduct periodic 

meetings with congressional staffers. In the DOD Laboratories, this practice is usually 

accomplished by having the appropriate members of the Service’s legislative staff 

coordinate such activities. 

 

4

 http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd5status-b.html 
9 

With respect to physical infrastructure, one approach suggested is to allocate a fixed 

percentage of a laboratory’s annual budget to upgrading equipment. Outstanding 

laboratories need outstanding equipment, and a clearly identified source for funding 

equipment is important. 

In addition to the five areas discussed above, the Team also responded to the following 

requested areas of evaluation identified during discussions with DHS leadership. 

A. Balance of short term technology solutions versus long-term research. 

Based on their experiences leading DOD laboratories, the Team defined the duration of 

research as follows: near-term for 1-2 years; mid-term for 3–5 years; and long term for 

5+ years. The Team suggested the following distribution for research laboratories: 

approximately 55 percent of the research should be near term, 30 percent mid-term, and 

15 percent long term5

. These numbers are proposed for a full-spectrum laboratory; for 

development and engineering laboratories, the distribution may be different. 

B. Interagency and interdepartmental coordination of basic research. 

The Team recommended the following: the driver for interagency coordination must be at 

the OSTP level in order to be successful, and there are specific committees that handle 

such coordination. They are the OSTP Federal Interagency Coordination Research Group 

and the OSTP Committee for Homeland and National Security. The Team also suggested 

a peer review process independent from and external to DHS be considered. Furthermore, 

DHS should leverage other organizations (NIH, Service S&T research offices etc.) for 

longer-term research. 

C. Quick response to new urgent requirements. 

The Team recommended DHS identify a dedicated group of individuals throughout the 

country whose expertise can immediately be brought to any problem or emergency. The 

concepts of “One phone call away from the Country’s best” and “Bags packed and ready 

to go” should be followed. In order for this concept to be successful, it is necessary to 

have the appropriate contracts/agreements in place. Examples include such existing 

organizations as the Army Rapid Equipping Force (REF)6

 and the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO)7. 

D. Cost of doing business in a Laboratory 

 

5

 John Lyons and Richard Chait, “Assessing the Health of Army Laboratories, Funding the Basic Research 

and Laboratory Capital Equipment,” Defense & Technology Paper, Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy, National Defense University, September 2010. 

6

 http://www.ref.army.mil/portal/

7

 https://www.jieddo.dod.mil/index.aspx
10 

There are two components of interest here. One is the direct expense that includes 

salaries and benefits. The other is overhead. Salaries and benefits are comparable from 

one lab to another in the public sector and not too different in the private sector. Higher 

salaries in the private sector are offset by the generally better benefits in the Federal 

government. Overhead is often cited as a differentiating factor. The problem with this is 

that there is no standard definition of overhead or of the means of expressing it. In 

general, the costs of investing in a government lab are the same or slightly less than that 

of the private sector. 

The controlling factor is the competitiveness of the lab (excellence of staff, 

equipment, etc.). Typically a government laboratory has areas of deep expertise that 

attract investment. Another advantage of a government lab is the ease of contracting from 

a government perspective, since money can be moved faster within the government than 

from government to the private sector. Informal relationships and marketing the strengths 

of the labs within the government are important factors in this process. 

An important part of leveraging best practices includes understanding lessons learned for 

growing an S&T workforce. The next part of this paper covers those lessons learned. 

 
11 

PART TWO 

Lessons Learned for Growing a Science and Technology 

Workforce—-DOD Laboratory Leaders

To complement the best practices discussed in Part One, the CTNSP Team developed the 

following summary of the key elements they believe important for the development of a 

first class S&T workforce. Again, these concepts are largely based on experiences gained 

from leading DOD laboratories. May elements, however, are generic and potentially 

widely applicable. The elements are not listed in a priority order. 

• There must be clear and well documented criteria for promotion for scientist and 

engineers. For example, items that should be considered are: 

– Accomplishments 

– Publications in refereed journals 

– Reference index 

– Honors and awards 

– Leadership skills 

– Peer recognition 

• The S&T workforce must maintain a close connection with the “best in class”. 

This is often manifested by being only one phone call away from the best and 

being active in professional societies, including leadership positions in the 

societies. 

• There must be a strong connection with the ultimate user(s) of the technology 

being developed. Even the most innovative and productive scientist should be 

able to articulate the potential benefits to the user when their technology is 

transitioned. 

• The organization must have some level of “patient capital” to allow for long-term 

investments in promising technologies. It would be desirable for organizations to 

have a core budget that is relatively stable over the long run. Additionally, the 

leaders of the core budget should periodically have opportunities to compete for 

additional funds from their parent or external organizations. 

• In cases where external funding is available, the organization must have efficient 

processes to accept and expend such funding. This is important since many 

funding organizations have relatively short commitment times for their funding. 

Strong S&T organizations must have strong business practices. 

• A good S&T workforce is made stronger by interactions with other scientist and 

engineers in similar and related fields. Robust programs to bring other scientists 

such as Post Docs, National Research Council Fellows, University Professors, or 

Contractors for tours in an organization are very important. The flexibility offered 

by such arrangements allows fresh ideas to be periodically introduced to the 

organization. Additionally, when the other scientists and engineers return to their 

parent organizations or move on to other jobs, a natural synergy is developed. 
12 

• Separate promotion paths for managers and scientist should be identified. Further, 

it is important for individuals to understand the differences between the two paths 

and to have opportunities to participate in either path. 

• Several of the DOD laboratories have developed innovative compensation 

programs outside the rigor of the traditional government GS schedule. Examples 

include pay banding, special hiring authority, and local certification. These 

programs allow for more competitive salaries and benefits, resulting in better 

recruitment, improved job satisfaction, and retention. 

• It is very important for strong S&T organizations to have appropriate support 

staffs. A good ratio of trained technicians-to-scientists is of prime importance. 

Likewise, proper levels of administrative help are important. Highly skilled 

scientist and engineers become disenchanted when burdened with excessive nontechnical issues. 

• World class equipment is mandatory to support a world-class S&T workforce. 

One technique for consideration is to set aside a dedicated portion of budgets for 

up-grades or purchase of new equipment. 

• Opportunities to publish in open literature are important for peer recognition. 

Clearly for DOD and DHS laboratories, this is not always possible because of 

security considerations. Nonetheless, the S&T workforce should be provided 

every effort to publish and to participate in national societies. 

• Adequate travel funds to permit broad interactions with peers are necessary. A 

strong S&T workforce has a “presence” in their technical communities and is 

recognized for their contributions. 

• S&T workforces are strengthened by periodic peer reviews of the quality and 

relevance of their work. The peer reviewers should be able to share criticisms and 

accolades with the workforce in a non retribution environment. Additionally, 

summary reports to organizational leaders are required to help them prioritize 

workload. 

• Periodically hosting “world class” scientists (e.g., Nobel Laureates) to review an 

organization’s work and to interact with the organization’s S&T workforce is a 

very effective morale and quality building technique. Exposing an S&T 

workforce to the best in their class has many positive elements. 

 
13 

PART THREE 

Summary and Recommendations

The study Team of former DOD Laboratory Directors provided lessons learned from 

their experience and best practices. The lessons learned were presented to the DHS 

Science and Technology officials (Director and Deputy Director of Research, DHS 

Director of Office of National Laboratories, DHS Laboratory Directors) at the DHS S&T 

Headquarters in the Fall of 2010. The common themes of the lessons learned are: a highly 

competent and dedicated workforce; good connectivity to the larger scientific and 

technical community; and creating institutional advocacy for the laboratory. In the best 

practice area of forecasting future work, considering capabilities of other laboratories, 

and accessing information about competitors, the common thread is having laboratory 

staff members who are “card-carrying” members in their fields. In addition, the Team 

responded to the DHS requested areas of evaluation in the areas of balance between 

short-term versus long-term research, interagency coordination, and quick response to 

new urgent requirements. 

The Team recommends that peer reviews be conducted for the DHS laboratories to 

evaluate the S&T programs and identify areas of strength and weakness, as well as 

potential areas of collaboration with other internal or external laboratories in the 

government, industry, and universities. These reviews can enhance the posture of the 

laboratories as well as the responsiveness to the customer base. The Team recommends 

that the DHS labs have strong linkages with the DHS University Centers of Excellence 

(COEs). Currently, the linkages of the labs to the CoEs are processed through the focal 

points at the Divisions instead of direct connectivity at the working level. This is a 

cumbersome process. The Team also recommends that the laboratories conduct a selfevaluation by utilizing the metrics of successful laboratory management identified by the 

“Federal Advisory Commission on Consolidation and Conversion of Defense Research 

and Development Laboratories” (See Appendix B). The self-evaluation could be as 

simple as grading each element with green for positive, yellow for marginal and red for 

negative score. This evaluation could provide a measure of the general health of the 

laboratories and reveal the areas that need to be strengthened. 

There was general agreement among the former DOD Laboratory Directors that a basic 

research program was essential to the technical success of their laboratories. Furthermore, 

a meaningful and in-depth review process of the technical program was necessary. 

Metrics such as the number of patents, publications, and number of PhDs should be 

utilized. These and other factors are discussed in detail in a related Defense Technology 

Paper.8

 

 

8

 Richard Chait, “Perspectives from Former Executives of the DOD Corporate Research Laboratories,” 

Defense and Technology Paper #59, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, March 2008. 
14 

The above-mentioned ideas demand successful leadership, which is often based on the 

four pillars discussed in Appendix C. The CTNSP Team believes that leadership can be 

learned, and the best way to become a leader is to practice these pillars in both one’s 

professional and personal lives. The members of the CTNSP Team presented their 

findings on the laboratory management and leadership characteristics to the DHS 

officials in the October of 2010. The characteristics include: clear and stable missions, a 

highly competent and dedicated workforce, and stable organization and funding. More 

details on the characteristics are discussed in Appendix B. The presentation generated 

extensive dialogue among the laboratory directors. 

The DHS laboratories have different management structures, ranging from a Federally 

Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), to Government-Owned/ContractorOperated (GOCO) models, to Government-Owned/Contractor-Assisted (GOCA) 

structures. They are also much smaller than the DOD Laboratories in terms of budgets 

and personnel. As a result, some of these characteristics from DOD experience may not 

be applicable. The Team initiated direct contacts with the laboratories to discuss best 

practices and lessons learned. Presentations were made at each individual laboratory 

either in person or via VTC. Also, an overview of the book The Splendid Leader (see 

Appendix C) was presented to various DHS laboratory leaders and received a positive 

response. Based on the feedback, a full version of a leadership seminar may be offered to 

DHS laboratories at a later time. 

 
15 

Appendix A 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) 

Team Membership

Samuel Musa is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Technology and National 

Security Policy (CTNSP). He was previously Associate Vice President for Strategic 

Initiatives and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Northwestern 

University. Dr. Musa received his PhD in Applied Physics from Harvard University and a 

BS in Electrical Engineering and a BA from Rutgers University. 

 

William Berry is Deputy Director for Science and Technology and Distinguished 

Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously Acting Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Laboratories and Basic Sciences. Dr. Berry received his PhD in Zoology 

from University of Vermont and BS in Biology from Lock Haven University. 

Richard Chait is Distinguished Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously 

Chief Scientist, Army Materiel Command, and Director, Army Research and Laboratory 

Management. Dr. Chait received his PhD in Solid State Science from Syracuse 

University and a BS degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

Timothy Coffee is the former Edison Chair at the Center for Technology and 

National Security Policy. He was previously the Director of the Naval Research 

Laboratory. He received his BS degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

and an MS and PhD, both in Physics, from the University of Michigan. 

John Lyons is a Distinguished Research Fellow at CTNSP. He was previously 

Director of the Army Research Laboratory and Director of the National Institute of 

Standards and technology. Dr. Lyons received his PhD from Washington University and 

a BA degree from Harvard. 

Vincent Russo is the former Executive Director of the U.S. Air Force Aeronautical 

Systems Center. Dr. Russo received his PhD in Metallurgical Engineering from the Ohio 

State University and BS degree from the University of Rochester. 

 Donna J. Back is Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Growing 

Splendid Leaders, LLC. She serves as a leadership instructor for Wright State 

University’s Raj Soin College of Business, the University of Dayton’s College of 

Engineering, and the Ohio State University’s College of Engineering. She received her 

MBA from Wright State University and a BS from Miami University, Ohio. 
16 
17 

Appendix B 

Other Views of Laboratory Characteristics

The characteristics of the best management practices presented below are based on one 

member’s involvement as Director of the Army Research laboratory, and when earlier, as 

a member of the Federal Advisory Commission on Consolidation and Conversion of 

Defense Research and Development Laboratories.9

 The Commission’s findings were then 

reported to the Secretary of Defense, in September 1991. The Commission findings 

included the following criteria for successful lab management: 

• Laboratories must have clear and stable missions. 

• Laboratories must have highly competent and dedicated workforce. 

• Laboratories must have highly qualified and empowered leadership. 

• They should have state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. 

• Labs should have close relations with the user/customer. 

• Laboratories should have a strong basic research component. 

• There should be budget stability for the laboratories. 

• There should be a champion in senior management above the laboratory. 

• There should be strong ties to other laboratories inside and outside the 

government. 

This list generated considerable interest among the DHS Laboratory Directors. In 

particular, there was interest in applying the characteristics to each laboratory to 

determine where they stand on a scale of green, yellow and red. 

The panel members also presented other characteristics of successful Laboratories as 

follows: 

• Labs should be connected, or be “one phone call away” from world’s top experts. 

• Use visiting scientists, NRC post docs, etc. for refreshing and new ideas. 

• Keep on the cutting edge by maintaining latest state-of-the-art equipment. 

• Assure a critical mass for each research topic pursued. 

• Assure frequent interaction with customers: co-locate lab staff with customers. 

• Obtain support from local community through service on boards, etc. 

• Provide opportunities for individual growth of workforce, such as training and 

advanced degrees. 

• Be an effective advocate, not only for technology programs, but for your people. 

Help them grow! 

• The two most important decisions a lab makes are who it hires and who it 

promotes. 

 

9

 http://www.stormingmedia.us/78/7883/A788323.html
18 

• Recognize that scientists and engineers make tradeoffs between real income 

(salary and benefits) and psychic income (e.g., quality of colleagues, 

importance/quality of program, quality of facilities, etc.). 

• Lab managers and directors should work to create institutional advocacy for the 

laboratory (within the reporting chain, the policy/political chain, the financial 

chain, and the scientific and technical community). 

• Like most things, it comes down to people, facilities and funding and the calculus 

that optimizes the lab’s output subject to the constraints on the above. As the 

calculus is done, keep the lab mission in mind. 

• The basic metric is: how did the lab do in meeting its internal goals and its 

external obligations. 

The CTNSP Team also utilized material by Dr. Hans Mark, NASA Deputy Administrator 

between July 10, 1981 and September 1, 1984,10 who outlined his findings in the book 

titled The Management of Research Institutions: A Look at Government 

Laboratories.11 The pertinent selections were presented to the DHS lab directors on 

December 10, 2009, and include the following: 

Successful laboratories are able, again and again, to reinterpret their missions in light of 

changing conditions—and that is really what the book means by “success.” 

• Successful lab should have the following expenditure: $75,000-$100,000 per 

employee (1980s dollars). 

• Professional and Support Personnel: ratio of direct program people to support 

people is between 1:1 and 1:2. Full-time research to laboratory staff 1:10. 

• Size: Optimal size is 1,000-7,000 people. If the institutions too small, too little 

flexibility for a few people to strike out into new territory, or for new ideas to spill 

over into research work. 

• Mission: Part of the organic development of the laboratory is that it constantly 

redefines its own missions and its reason for being. 

• Transfer: People should transfer in and out of basic research directorate to other 

units in the course of their careers. 

• Composition: 10 percent of people in the organization should be devoted to longterm work. Also needed a place for small, non-mission oriented research groups. 

Dr. Mark did acknowledge that there was no single approach to hiring and retaining 

technical personnel, and that an influx of new basic research employees is essential for 

new ideas. If the laboratory tries to maintain a low average age and an “up or out” policy 

in promotions, older staff members may indeed feel undervalued and their work will 

suffer accordingly. 

 

10 http://history.nasa.gov/Biographies/mark.html

11 http://openlibrary.org/b/OL20701059M/management_of_research_institutions
19 

Dr. Mark proposed in his book that productivity tends to climb after age 50, and that 

scientific and professional contributions made during this late period are usually more 

“productive” than “creative.” He outlined that following his observations, scientists 

continue to produce throughout their careers. Lab management can - and should - 

encourage these people through rotating assignments, offering continuing education and 

sponsoring some to study at leading management schools or other institutes. 

Dr. Mark wrote that all organizations could be divided into two general categories - 

“mechanistic” and “organismic” entities: 

• Mechanistic organizations are hierarchical, with well-established personnel roles 

and boundaries, and focus on stable conditions. 

• An Organismic organization is characterized by a network structure of control and 

authority, a lateral rather than vertical direction of communications, greater 

emphasis on commitment to mission than to decisions and judgments of superiors, 

and acceptance that knowledge may be located anywhere in organization. 

According to Dr. Mark, the average “technology development laboratory is a 

mechanistic organization trying to behave like an organismic one.” His book outlines 

that most successful corporations are organismic organizations where: 

• Executives need to push decision-making down to lowest practicable level, with 

great flexibility as to methods of getting things done. 

• Goals are defined and managers partners in a common effort, by delegating 

authority to work out new tasks in detail. 

• Leaders of an institution provide a vision of the future. 

• Vision must be easy to understand, intellectually challenging, and credible so that 

it can be turned into reality. 

• Many people in the institution must be involved in many different ways to create 

this vision of the future. 

Dr. Mark’s findings stated the following principles that should guide executives in 

shaping their organizations: 

• Do not move too far out ahead of the rest of the organization–build on what is 

already there. 

• Personnel development and considerations of the organization’s structure cannot 

be separated. 

• Importance of some scientific research in the lab not tied to specific missions. 
20 

Appendix C 

Leading Technical Organizations

Clearly, the characteristics of a successful laboratory as described above heavily depend 

on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the laboratory leaders. Thus, in today’s 

competitive, dynamic, results-driven laboratories, there is undoubtedly a need to assure 

the highest quality of leadership is present. In the discussions below, the authors present a 

“framework” that can be used to achieve high quality leadership. This framework for 

successful leadership can apply to every level in an organization, not just the “senior 

positions.” The framework is identified in the following four pillars: 

• Behavior Realities

• Leadership Tenets

• Essence of Leaders

• Life Balance

These Pillars are especially poignant when it comes to leading governmental scientific 

and engineering institutions at a time of decreasing budgets and changing economic 

realities. 

Pillar One: Behavior Realities 

According to a paraphrased quote by Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Leadership is the art of 

getting people to do what needs to be done because they want to do it.”12 Thus, if one 

wants to inspire people to do what needs to be done, one should understand why people 

behave the way they do—a concept envisioned as “Behavior Realities.” 

Dr. Steve Cato of the Federal Executive Institute points out that Behavior Realities are 

aligned in three categories: historical, current, and anticipatory. 13 Historical realities are 

those factors that are set early in our lives; such as, cultural background, education, 

heredity, socialization, personality, values and morals. While these ingrained factors 

certainly do influence behavior, leaders have a limited ability to affect these factors in 

others. However, leaders need to be aware of historical realities as they can manifest 

themselves as behavior responses in the workplace. 

The second category of Behavior Realities is current realities, which includes such 

factors as peer pressure, needs, recognition, personal gain, loyalty and habits. These 

 

12 http://leadership.uoregon.edu/resources/quotes 13 https://www.leadership.opm.gov/
21 

factors are somewhat influential in shaping how employees behave in the workplace. 

Employees often respond positively to efforts to satisfy their needs for recognition of 

their accomplishments and contributions. While historical and current realities should not 

be ignored for their ability to sway behavior, we do not believe they are the dominant 

reasons for workplace behaviors. 

Anticipatory realities, the third category, touch the hearts of people, and therefore, are 

truly at the core of what most motivates people’s behaviors. Anticipatory realities focus 

on dreams, visions, and “utopian,” or far-reaching ideas. 

When thinking about Behavior Realities, the most important aspect of understanding why 

people behave the way they do is this: Anticipatory Realities far outweigh the sum of 

Historical Realities plus Current Realities in affecting behavior. There is an undeniable 

link between understanding the power of anticipatory realities and the ability to be a 

leader. Visions, words, and actions that touch the hearts of others go a long way to impact 

desired behaviors in the workplace. 

Pillar Two: Leadership Tenets

Bookstore shelves are overflowing with theory, advice, and anecdotal experiences on 

leadership. In this pillar, we have captured our version of the “laws of leadership,” or as 

we refer to them, the Leadership Tenets of successful leaders. These tenets are: 

1. Start with the Heart 

2. Create Trust 

3. Equip People to Excel 

4. Use the Word Why 

5. Have Fun 

6. Cast a Splendid Shadow 

We use the term “laws” when explaining these tenets because they are applicable in most 

leadership situations. Irrespective of where one resides in the organizational pyramid, 

these laws are relevant. 

1. Successful leaders find many ways to start with the heart. We have already discussed 

one such way—-the use of anticipatory realities. There are many others including 

expressing care and concern over non-job related difficulties, expression of appreciation, 

assigning challenging projects, displaying confidence in an employee’s ability to exceed 

expectations, and tending to the health and safety of employees. 

2. As exemplified by newspaper, television, and internet headlines about corporate 

corruptions, personal misbehaviors, ethical misgivings, and organizational failings, trust 

has become a scarce commodity in the public and private sectors. Successful leaders 

create trust in the workplace by adhering to the following six beliefs: 

 
22 

• Value Contributions 

• Possess Competency 

• Constancy of Purpose 

• Reciprocal Support 

• Create Safe Zones 

• Keep Promises 

3. The third Leadership Tenet is to equip people to excel in achieving the organization’s 

vision and mission while simultaneously reaching their full potential. There are many 

venues for equipping people to excel such as providing resources, eliminating barriers, 

investing in their education, mentoring, coaching, and networking. 

4. Leaders love to use the word “why.” They do this because they are compelled to 

improve their organizations. The intent is to neither challenge nor criticize operational 

processes and procedures or to put people on the defensive. Instead, the purpose of using 

the word why is to improve, enhance, and upgrade the status quo as well as to encourage 

employees to open their minds to new possibilities. Leaders want to leave an organization 

better than when they joined it—-they want to add value. 

5. The next Leadership Tenet, have fun!, is often underutilized or even absent from the 

workplace. Leaders should create an environment where people enjoy coming to work 

each day, and at the end of the day, they know their efforts and contributions are 

appreciated. Having fun in the workplace manifests itself in a variety of ways such as 

celebrations, sporting competitions, social gatherings and cook-offs. 

6. The final law of leadership, cast a splendid shadow, has to do with leaders living the 

values, norms, and ethics that represent the desired culture of the organization. Actions of 

the leader speak volumes about the leader’s beliefs, and these beliefs (good and bad) will 

be reflected back to the leader as behaviors in the workplace. 

 

Pillar Three: Essence of Leaders

Up to this point, the framework of splendid leadership has dealt with the “hard” side of 

leadership. In pillar three, we will discuss the “soft” side of leadership—-and the “soft” 

stuff is really the “hard” stuff! The Essence of Leaders is the ability to make feelings 

work to achieve desired results by using emotions to facilitate exceptional performance 

from oneself and from others—-and social scientists have documented over a thousand 

distinct emotions in the workplace! The concept of essence of leaders is often referred to 

as emotional intelligence. 

 

There are five elements of the Essence of Leaders: 

• Self-Awareness 
23 

• Self-Management 

• Self-Motivation 

• Interpersonal Expertise 

• Relationship Building 

Great leaders learn the fundamentals of these five elements and practice them daily. 

Pillar Four: Life Balance

Until recently, the topic of Life Balance was not widely discussed in the workplace. Work 

and personal life were seen as competing demands. Some people assume that life balance 

is nothing more than time management. However, life balance is so much more than time 

management; it is what you derive from the things you do with the time you have 

(Galinsky 1). Life Balance underpins the proverbial debate posed by the question: “Can I 

have it all?” You can have it all; just not all at once. Thus, life balance has to do with 

work and personal life choices based on priorities. 

By definition, Life Balance is a personal blend of competing commitments to optimize 

your full work and life potential over time. It is a process that dissects work and personal 

activities into mental, physical, emotional and spiritual life accounts. These life accounts 

are bombarded every day by competing commitments that either make deposits (add to) 

or withdrawals (subtract from) to the status of your life accounts. These commitments 

originate from a variety of sources: job, community, relationships, family, health, friends 

and even oneself. The objective of Life Balance is to seek equilibrium among your life 

accounts over time. It is nearly impossible to maintain optimal balance in all your life 

accounts at all times. Therefore, through striving to achieve the objective of Life Balance, 

you are constantly making choices among competing commitments that impact the status 

of your four life accounts.
24

Leadership Summary 

We have outlined the framework of splendid leadership based upon the four pillars: 

Behavior Realities, Leadership Tenets, Essence of Leaders and Life Balance. It is 

important for individuals to not only strive to use these attributes, but to also recognize 

them in others. We believe that leadership can be learned, and the best way to become a 

great leader is to practice the four pillars in your professional and personal life. A full 

treatment of these four Pillars can be found in the book, The Splendid Leader.14 

Selected members of the Team presented the Pillars of leadership to the DHS 

Laboratories (TSL, NUSTL, Plum Island, National Biodefense Analysis and 

Countermeasures Center (NBACC) and Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC)). 

The response from the laboratories was very positive, ranging from an invitation to come 

back with a full day of in-depth presentation and interaction to a presentation on selected 

areas of interest to the laboratory. Some of the laboratory leadership felt that the 

presentation should focus more on building trust among the personnel in light of recent 

reductions in force. Some of the laboratories have young staff and there is a sense of 

growing pains that need to be addressed. Follow-up activities are anticipated with each 

laboratory. 

Works Cited 

Boyatzis, Richard, Daniel Goleman, and Annie McKee. Primal Leadership. Boston, MA; 

Harvard Business School Press, 2004. 

Cato, Steve. The Federal Executive Institute, Executive Development Course, Currently 

Distinguished Honorary Fellow, Antioch University, Seattle, WA, 1990. 

Fitz, Raymond, SM. Notes from personal interview, 2006. 

Galinsky, Ellen. “Dual Centric—A New Concept of Work Life.” Families and Work 

Institute, 2004. 

Russo, Vincent J., and Donna J. Back. The Splendid Leader. Dayton, OH; BookFactory 

Publishing, 2008. 

 

14 “The Splendid Leader,” Vincent J. Russo and Donna J. Back. Dayton, OH; BookFactory Publishing, 

2008 
25

Appendix D

Introduction to DHS Laboratories

A brief description of the DHS Laboratories and their structures is presented here to set 

the stage for the potential application. DHS Science and Technology Directorate oversees 

five national laboratories. National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center

(NBACC) provides the nation with the scientific basis for awareness of biological threats 

and bioforensic analysis to support attribution of their use against the American public.15

It is operated as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for the 

Department by the Battelle National Biodefense Institute, LLC. The Center is 

programmatically aligned to the Office of National Labs under the Director of Research 

and Development Partnerships. Its activities include studies and research to better 

understand current and future biological threats; assess vulnerabilities and conduct risk 

assessments; determine potential impacts to guide countermeasure development and 

conduct bioforensics analysis of evidence from a biocrime or terrorist attack to help in the 

investigation of the perpetrators and method of attack. NBACC is located within the 

National Interagency Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick, Maryland. 

National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) tests, evaluates and 

analyzes homeland security technologies and capabilities while serving as a technical 

authority to first responder, state and local entities in protecting our cities.16 NUSTL also 

serves as a Federal technical authority promoting the successful development and 

integration of homeland security technologies into operational end-user environments. It 

is a government-owned/government-operated facility organized under and operated by 

the Department’s Science and Technology Directorate. The laboratory is 

programmatically aligned to the Director of Support to the Homeland Security Enterprise 

and First Responders. The Laboratory is located in New York City. 

Transportation Security Laboratory (TSL) is tasked with independent testing and 

validation of technology; maintaining “Gold Standard” electronic databases for data 

validation. Additionally, it develops RDT&E solutions focused on improvised explosive 

devices (IEDs) and other potential threats to the nation’s transportation systems.17 The 

Laboratory is a government-owned/ government-operated facility organized under and 

operated by the Department’s Science and Technology Directorate. The laboratory is 

programmatically aligned to the Test and Evaluation & Standards Office under the 

Director of Acquisition Support and Operations Analysis. It is located at the William J. 

Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey. 

Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC) provides DHS S&T with the scientific 

basis for the awareness of chemical threats and the attribution of their use against the 

 

15 http://www.dhs.gov/files/labs/scitech.shtm 

16 Ibid. 

17 Ibid. 
26

American public.18 It analyzes and integrates chemical threat characterization data, 

including toxic industrial chemicals, chemical warfare agents, and other chemicals of 

interest. The Center is programmatically aligned to the Office of National Labs under the 

Director of Research and Development Partnerships. The Laboratory is staffed with a few 

government employees and several contractors. It is located at the Edgewood Area of 

Aberdeen Proving Ground and draws upon the expertise in chemical defense, chemical 

agents, and toxic industrial chemicals resident at the Proving Ground. 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) protects the nation against animal 

diseases that could accidentally or deliberately be introduced into the country, for 

example foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).19 It works to provide confirmatory diagnostic 

capability for specific high-consequence foreign animal diseases in livestock, such as 

cattle, sheep, and swine. The Laboratory is programmatically aligned to the Office of 

National Labs under the Director of Research and Development Partnerships. It is located 

in Plum Island, New York. The Center will be relocated to Manhattan, Kansas as part of 

the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), which is tasked with protecting 

the nation’s agriculture livestock and public health against numerous foreign animal and 

emerging zoonotic diseases.20 The NBAF will be built on a site on Kansas State 

University adjacent to the existing Biosecurity Research Institute. 

The customer of the study was the Director/Deputy Director for Research, Science & 

Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security. The Director of 

Research was one of three functional portfolio managers reporting to the Undersecretary 

of Science and Technology. The others were the Directors of Innovation and Transition. 

A new organization of the Office of the Undersecretary for S&T was completed in 

October 2010 with four Directors and a Chief Scientist. The Directors are the previously 

mentioned Director of Research and Development Partnerships, Director of Acquisition 

Support and Operations Analysis, Director of Support to the Homeland Security 

Enterprise and First Responders, and Director of Homeland Security Advanced Research 

Projects Agency. There are six Divisions that report to the latter Director where the 

majority of the programmatic resourcing and execution originates. The lion’s share of the 

DHS laboratories research budget funnels through one of the six Divisions within S&T. 

 

18 Ibid. 

19 Ibid. 

20 Ibid.