DOD relies on its S&T community—DOD research laboratories, test facilities, industry, and academia—to identify, pursue, and develop new technologies that improve and enhance military operations and ensure technological superiority over adversaries. These activities by DOD’s S&T community support the development of technologies for new or existing weapon systems, as well as development of capabilities that are transitioned directly to warfighters in the field. The S&T community engages in activities ranging from basic research through advanced technology development that are conducted by the government or externally by universities and commercial industry. Once the S&T community has completed its technology development, additional product development activities, such as technology demonstration and testing, are often needed before incorporating the technologies into military weapon systems. Under the management of the acquisition community, product development further advances technology received from S&T developers and integrates it into systems that are ultimately delivered to support the warfighter. Supporting these activities is DOD’s research, development, test, and evaluation budget. As shown in figure 1 below, this budget is divided into seven categories that follow a generally sequential path for developing technologies from basic research to operational system development. The first three categories represent DOD’s S&T activities to advance research and technology development, while the remaining categories support product development for DOD acquisition programs. Appendix II provides further details on research and development activities in these budget categories. The large size and scope of DOD’s national security mission imposes broad and competing demands on the S&T community, and determining the right mix of technology investments to pursue is challenging. One key expectation is that S&T funding will result in relevant and feasible technologies that can transition into weapon system programs or go directly to the warfighter in the field. DOD has also tasked its S&T community with anticipating its technological needs for an uncertain future. Further, the S&T community serves as a technology innovation mechanism to expand scientific knowledge and investigate technologies that may provide breakthrough warfighting capabilities. As a result, some investments focus on conducting research to generate scientific knowledge, exploring new technologies, demonstrating the feasibility of a technology concept, and other science and technology endeavors. The challenge is finding the right balance between taking risk to develop breakthrough technologies versus investing in moderate technology enhancements that are likely to transition to a military user. Although not precisely defined, technology transition generally occurs when advanced technology development ends and product development begins. Figure 2 below provides a notional picture of how DOD’s S&T community manages technology investment, development, and transition to a user. DOD’s research laboratories and test facilities, as well as industry and academia, provide many examples of developing new technologies that improve warfighter capabilities and enhance military operations. However, as we have reported in the past, for a variety of reasons DOD historically has experienced problems in transitioning technologies out of its S&T environment and into military systems. Technologies may not leave the lab because their potential has not been adequately demonstrated or recognized, acquisition programs may be unwilling to fund final stages of development, or private industry chooses to develop the technologies itself. Despite these challenges, technology transition can be facilitated in many ways, and is affected by choices made throughout the S&T management cycle. Before technology development is begun, critical S&T investment decisions must be made that balance needs, resources, and technical feasibility in a way that ensures the S&T community is responsive to warfighter priorities. Once S&T projects are underway, technology development provides opportunities to demonstrate feasibility and management decisions must be made along the way by S&T developers—with input from the acquisition community—on which technologies should be developed to a final state that would facilitate technology transition. We identified 20 technology transition programs, managed by OSD and the military departments, that provide structured mechanisms and funding to facilitate technology transition. These programs vary in size, mission, approach, funding, and technology maturity expectations. However, all are consistent in providing opportunities to transition technologies from the S&T community to a military user, such as an acquisition program or the warfighter in the field. Many of the transition programs are focused on rapid response to warfighter needs, which has received greater emphasis in the recent past because of the United States’ operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, most programs target fairly mature technologies, which are suitable for final stages of development and demonstration. Collectively, the programs we reviewed use a mix of S&T and other research, development, test, and evaluation funding—about $7.9 billion obligated from fiscal years 2010 through 2012—to facilitate technology transition. OSD manages seven transition programs that are intended to accelerate development, testing, and delivery of mature technologies that provide new solutions for military needs. Six programs are managed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Rapid Fielding, who reports to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. They include three programs authorized by Congress—the Defense Acquisition Challenge (DAC), Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT), and Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF)—and three programs established by DOD—Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD), Quick Reaction Fund (QRF), and Rapid Reaction Fund (RRF). In addition, OSD manages a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, which was established by Congress and has technology transition—described by the program as “commercialization”—as a tenet. The OSD programs share the general purpose to transition technologies, but vary in what type of technology developers and operational needs are targeted. For example, the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration program addresses joint warfighting needs of the combatant commands, in partnership with the military services, by demonstrating mature technology prototypes that may transition to acquisition programs or directly to the warfighter in the field. In contrast, the Foreign Comparative Testing program mission is to identify and test technologies that have already been developed by other countries and may have utility in addressing U.S. military needs. Other programs like the Rapid Innovation Fund and Small Business Innovation Research seek to leverage technology solutions from small businesses. And still others, like the Quick Reaction Fund and Rapid Reaction Fund programs, seek to target specific urgent conventional and irregular warfighting problems, respectively, and rapidly deliver technologies to operational users. Collectively, research, development, test, and evaluation funding for the OSD technology transition programs we reviewed included about $1.75 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. The Joint Capability Technology Demonstration and Rapid Innovation Fund programs were the most substantial part of that funding—over $1.2 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. The majority of OSD technology transition programs constrain project time frames to 2 years or less, since their focus is rooted predominately on providing funds to accelerate transition for technologies that rapidly respond to current or near-term military needs. Individual projects also represent relatively small funding commitments for the department, with $3 million on the high end of costs, although Joint Capability Technology Demonstration projects can be higher. It also is important to note that several of the programs utilize co-funding provided by prospective technology users to further advance projects. Table 1 provides further information on funding as well as project-related details for each OSD program. The Departments of the Navy, Army, and Air Force have created distinct programs that rapidly respond to pressing warfighter needs, while also initiating programs that work to address needs that are more mid-term in nature. In addition, as directed by Congress, DOD has established a Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) program and Small Business Innovation Research program that provide technology transition opportunities. All three of DOD’s military departments manage ManTech and Small Business Innovation Research programs. In the Navy, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has a well-established technology transition focus. ONR’s Office of Transition manages the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) portfolio, which is the Navy’s largest transition program—for which nearly $450 million was budgeted in fiscal year 2013. The program, which was initiated in 1999, seeks to provide the best technology solutions to address operational requirements, delivering technology products to acquisition programs that enhance capabilities within a 5-year time frame. ONR’s Offices of Transition and Innovation also support rapid technology transition to the fleet, force, and acquisition communities via the Rapid Technology Transition (RTT), Technology Insertion Program for Savings (TIPS), TechSolutions (TS), and SwampWorks and Experimentation (SW/Exp) programs. The Army’s efforts to facilitate transition are evolving. In 2011, the Army began a new Technology Enabled Capability Demonstration (TECD) program, which is replacing Army Technology Objectives-Demonstrations (ATO-D). According to Army officials, Technology Enabled Capability Demonstration characteristics were influenced by the Navy’s Future Naval Capabilities program, with the Army identifying a need for a more integrated S&T approach. Key characteristics of Technology Enabled Capability Demonstrations include senior leadership input at the outset for S&T decisions, greater focus on providing capabilities, and better planning on how a technology will transition to provide an operational capability. When fully implemented, the Army expects Technology Enabled Capability Demonstrations to garner about 50 percent of its advanced technology development budget. The Army also established another technology transition effort in 2012, the Technology Maturation Initiative (TMI), which is intended to encourage a stronger partnership between the S&T and acquisition communities. The Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) program straddles the boundary between being a technology transition program and rapid acquisition program, scanning the S&T base for technologies that require limited development, testing, or both, as well as readily available technologies that can be delivered immediately to the warfighter to fill capability gaps. Similar to the Army, the Air Force is modifying its approach to technology transition.