DARPA -Transition of Technologies

DEFENSE
ADVANCED
RESEARCH
PROJECTS AGENCY
Key Factors Drive
Transition of
Technologies, but
Better Training and
Data Dissemination
Can Increase
Success
Report to Congressional Committees
November 2015
GAO-16-5
United States Government Accountability Office

United States Government Accountability Office
Highlights of GAO-16-5, a report to
congressional committees
November 2015
DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS
AGENCY
Key Factors Drive Transition of Technologies, but
Better Training and Data Dissemination Can Increase
Success
Why GAO Did This Study
After the Soviet Union launched the
first satellite into orbit in 1957, the U.S.
government made a commitment to
initiate, rather than react to, strategic
technological surprises. DOD relies on
DARPA’s disruptive innovations to
maintain this promise, backed by
congressional appropriations of over
$2.9 billion in fiscal year 2015 alone. In
April 2015, DOD reported that U.S.
technological superiority is again being
challenged by potential adversaries
and renewed efforts to improve its
products. Meanwhile, GAO found
deficiencies in DOD’s technology
transition processes that may hinder
these efforts and DARPA’s goals.
Senate Report 113-176 included a
provision for GAO to review DOD’s
technology transition processes,
practices, and results. This report
focuses on DARPA and assesses its
(1) effectiveness at transitioning
technologies since fiscal year 2010,
including identifying factors that
contribute to successful transitions,
and (2) implementation of DOD
policies and programs intended to
facilitate technology transition. GAO
reviewed DARPA programs completed
since 2010; identified transition factors
by analyzing program documentation
for a random sample of 10 cases;
reviewed DOD policies; and
interviewed DOD officials.
What GAO Recommends
DARPA should regularly assess
technology transition strategies, refine
training requirements, and increase
dissemination of technical data for
completed programs. DOD did not
agree to take GAO’s recommended
actions, which remain warranted, as
discussed in the report.
What GAO Found
Since 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has had
success in technology transition—the process of migrating new technologies
from the research environment to military users, including Department of
Defense (DOD) acquisition programs and warfighters. However, inconsistencies
in how the agency defines and assesses its transition outcomes preclude GAO
from reliably reporting on transition performance across DARPA’s portfolio of 150
programs that were successfully completed between fiscal years 2010 and 2014.
These inconsistencies are due in part to shortfalls in agency processes for
tracking technology transition. Nevertheless, GAO’s analysis of 10 selected
programs identified four factors that contributed to transition success, the most
important being military or commercial demand for the planned technology and
linkage to a research area where DARPA has sustained interest. Both of these
factors were generally evident at the time a program started, while the other two
factors were observed later, once the program was underway. The figure below
highlights the four factors.
Factors That Contributed to Successful Technology Transition in Selected DARPA Programs
DARPA’s implementation of DOD programs intended to foster technology
transition has been limited and neither DOD nor DARPA have defined policies for
managing transition activities. DARPA has also largely elected not to participate
in DOD technology transition programs, with the exception of federally mandated
small business programs, citing challenges in meeting program requirements
within DARPA’s typical three- to five-year timeframe for executing its research
initiatives. Instead, DARPA primarily focuses its time and resources on creating
radically innovative technologies that support DOD’s warfighting mission and
relegates technology transition to a secondary priority. DARPA leadership defers
to its program managers to foster technology transition, but provides limited
related training. Moreover, while its leadership conducts oversight of program
managers’ activities through periodic program reviews, these reviews do not
regularly assess technology transition strategies. GAO has found that this
approach does not consistently position programs for transition success. Further,
while DARPA disseminates information on its past programs within DOD, to the
public, and among private companies, it does not take full advantage of
government-sponsored resources for sharing technical data, which may obscure
visibility into its programs and lead to missed transition opportunities.
View GAO-16-5. For more information, contact
Michael J. Sullivan at (202) 512-4841 or
sullivanm@gao.gov.

Page i GAO-16-5 DARPA Technology Transition
Letter 1
Background 3
Overall Transition Rates Not Determinable, but Selected
Programs Illustrate Factors for Transition Success 7
DARPA Prioritizes Innovation and Deemphasizes Technology
Transition in Key Processes 17
Conclusions 27
Recommendations for Executive Action 28
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 32
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 37
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40
Tables
Table 1: Overview of DARPA Programs Selected for GAO Case
Study Analyses 6
Table 2: Technology Transition Paths Tracked by DARPA 8
Table 3: Technology Transition Data Inconsistencies among
Selected DARPA Programs 11
Table 4: GAO Analysis of Technology Transition Success Factors
and Outcomes within Selected DARPA Programs 13
Table 5: Overview of DOD Technology Transition Programs 25
Figures
Figure 1: DOD Technology Management Process 4
Figure 2: DARPA Process for Assessing Technology Transition
Outcomes 10
Figure 3: Several Factors Contributed to Successful Technology
Transition in Selected DARPA Programs 12
Contents

Page ii GAO-16-5 DARPA Technology Transition
Abbreviations
ADHELS Architecture for Diode High Energy Laser Systems
AWNS Advanced Wireless Networks for Soldier
DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DAU Defense Acquisition University
DOD Department of Defense
DTIC Defense Technical Information Center
FaCET Falcon Combined-cycle Engine Technology
JCTD Joint Capability Technology Demonstration
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
PHD Predicting Health and Disease
QNT Quint Networking Technology
SBIR Small Business Innovation Research
SRS Self-Regenerative Systems
STTR Small Business Technology Transfer
TRANSTAC Spoken Language Communication and Translation System
for Tactical Use
VBG volume bragg grating
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

GAO-16-5 DARPA Technology Transition
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
November 18, 2015
Congressional Committees
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is a
Department of Defense (DOD) agency whose mission is to create new,
disruptive technologies in the interest of national security. Its genesis
dates to the Soviet Union’s launch of the first satellite, Sputnik 1, into orbit
in 1957, which spurred a commitment by the U.S. government that, from
that time forward, it would initiate, rather than react to, strategic
technological surprises. DOD relies on technological innovation produced
by DARPA to maintain this promise—and ensure superiority of the
nation’s weapon systems and armed forces—to protect U.S. interests
both at home and abroad. In fiscal year 2015, Congress appropriated
over $2.9 billion to DARPA to support its mission and objectives, which
include basic and applied research activities, as well as advanced
technology development.
In April 2015, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics reported concern that U.S. technological superiority is being
challenged by potential adversaries in ways not seen since the Cold
War.1
As a result, the Under Secretary is leading new efforts aimed at
strengthening DOD innovation and technical excellence and the ability of
DOD products to continue providing military technological superiority.
However, we have previously found deficiencies in DOD’s processes for
migrating new technologies from the laboratory or research environment
to the acquisition and warfighter communities—a pursuit known as
technology transition—that may undermine the Under Secretary’s efforts
1
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Memorandum, Subject: Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power 3.0—Achieving
Dominant Capabilities through Technical Excellence and Innovation (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 9, 2015).
Letter

and DARPA’s goals.2
Congress also recently expressed concern
regarding barriers to technology transition. Senate Report 113-176 to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 included a
provision that GAO review DARPA and other DOD technology transition
processes, practices, and results.3
Our work focused exclusively on
DARPA and assessed the agency’s (1) effectiveness at transitioning
technologies since fiscal year 2010, including identifying the factors that
contributed to successful technology transitions, and (2) implementation
of DOD policies and programs intended to facilitate the transition of
technologies.
To assess DARPA’s effectiveness at transitioning technologies, including
identifying the factors that contribute to transitions, we reviewed data on
150 programs that DARPA identified as having completed as planned and
producing a substantive technological gain or innovation for fiscal years
2010 through 2014, regardless of whether that technology or innovation
transitioned to an end user.4
We confined our analysis to this time frame
owing to availability of data from DARPA. Using this portfolio-level data
set, we randomly selected 10 programs—5 that transitioned and 5 that
did not—for case study analyses. We then analyzed relevant program-
level documentation for our selected cases to identify factors that facilitate
transition success. While reviewing these case study programs, we
identified inconsistencies between agency portfolio-level transition
outcome data and program-level information. As a result, we concluded
that DARPA’s portfolio-level data were not sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of assessing agency-wide transition rates and outcomes since
fiscal year 2010. However, these inconsistencies did not significantly
affect our program selections; therefore, these data were sufficiently
2
GAO, Defense Technology Development: Management Processes Can Be Strengthened
for New Technology Transition Programs, GAO-05-480 (Washington, D.C.: June 17,
2005); Best Practices: Stronger Practices Needed to Improve DOD Technology Transition
Processes, GAO-06-883 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2006); and Defense Technology
Development: Technology Transition Programs Support Military Users, but Opportunities
Exist to Improve Measurement of Outcomes, GAO-13-286 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7,
2013).
3
S. Rep. No. 113-176, at 60-61 (2014).
4
The data covered programs funded under DOD budget activities 6.2 (applied research)
and 6.3 (advanced technology development) that DARPA identified as having completed
as planned and producing a substantive technological gain or innovation. We interviewed
knowledgeable officials and reviewed existing documentation about the data.

reliable for case study selection purposes. We then analyzed DARPA
provided documentation—including program briefings, memorandums of
agreement, and program completion reports—for our selected programs
to identify factors that facilitated or precluded their individual transitions.
We then conducted a content analysis of these individual factors to
identify common themes among the programs, which led us to identifying
the four significant factors that underpinned transition outcomes in the
programs we reviewed.
To assess DARPA’s implementation of DOD policies and programs
intended to facilitate the transition of technologies, we analyzed policy
instructions, guidance, training materials, and technical data repositories
intended to promote technology transition. We also reviewed our prior
reports and DOD documentation on the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs and other DOD-wide initiatives aimed at facilitating technology
transition to understand the extent to which DARPA participates in these
programs. We supplemented the above analyses through interviews with
current and former officials from DARPA, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, selected military service acquisition and requirements offices,
and selected DOD research centers.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2015 to November
2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
DOD invests about $12 billion in funding to support its science and
technology community, which it relies upon to identify, pursue, and
develop new technologies to improve and enhance military capabilities.
This community is comprised of DOD-wide research agencies, including
DARPA, as well as military service research agencies and laboratories,
test facilities, private industry, and academic institutions, and is overseen
by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering. The research and development activities these different
components engage in are intended to produce mature technologies that
Background
DOD Technology
Management Process

DOD can integrate and deliver in systems that support its warfighters.
This integration process, known as product development, represents the
handover of breakthrough technologies from DOD’s science and
technology community to its acquisition community. Although not
precisely defined, technology transition generally occurs at the point when
advanced technology development ends and this new product
development begins. Figure 1 illustrates DOD’s technology management
process.
Figure 1: DOD Technology Management Process
DOD has long noted the existence of a chasm between its science and
technology community and its acquisition community that impedes
technology transition from consistently occurring. This chasm, often
referred to by department insiders as “the valley of death,” exists because
the acquisition community often requires a higher level of technology
maturity than the science and technology community is willing to fund and
develop. In 2007, DOD reported that this gap can only be bridged through
cooperative efforts and investments from both communities, such as early
and frequent collaboration among the developer, acquirer, and user.5
5
DOD, Department of Defense Report to Congress on Technology Transition
(Washington, D.C.: July 2007).

We have also reported extensively on shortfalls across DOD’s technology
management enterprise in transitioning technologies from development to
acquisition and fielding. In June 2005, we found that DOD technology
transition programs faced challenges selecting, managing, and
overseeing projects, and assessing outcomes.6
In September 2006, we
found that DOD lacked the key planning, processes, and metrics used by
leading commercial companies to successfully develop and transition
technologies.7
More recently, in March 2013, we found that the vast
majority of DOD technology transition programs provide technologies to
military users, but tracking of project outcomes and other benefits derived
after transition remained limited.8
DARPA’s scientific investigations run the gamut from laboratory efforts to
the creation of full-scale technology demonstrations in the fields of
biology, medicine, computer science, chemistry, physics, engineering,
mathematics, material sciences, social sciences, neurosciences, and
more. The agency solicits proposals for research work in support of its
scientific endeavors through broad agency announcements.9
These
solicitations seek thought leaders and technological pioneers that can
leverage new ideas in science to advance the state of the art beyond the
practical application of knowledge. Non-DARPA entities respond to broad
agency announcements by submitting proposals for executing work to
meet the agency’s stated needs. DARPA reviews those proposals based
on technical merit, and entities receiving awards are thereafter referred to
as performers.
To execute solicitations, awards, and program oversight, DARPA relies
on approximately 220 government employees, including nearly 100
program managers. Program managers report to DARPA’s office
directors and their deputies, who are responsible for charting the strategic
directions of six technical offices. The technical staff is supported by
6
GAO-05-480.
7
GAO-06-883.
8
GAO-13-286.
9
A broad agency announcement is a competitive solicitation procedure, which may be
used to obtain proposals for basic and applied research and that part of development not
related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. See Federal
Acquisition Regulation §§ 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016.
DARPA Processes and
Programs

experts in security, legal and contracting issues, finance, human
resources, and communications. DARPA’s Director and Deputy Director
approve new programs and lead scientific and technical reviews of
ongoing programs, while setting agency-wide priorities and ensuring a
balanced investment portfolio. Currently, DARPA has about 250 ongoing
research and development programs in its portfolio.
The 10 recently completed programs that we reviewed for this report
together spanned a broad range of research areas, including
communications, navigation, and health and marine sciences. Table 1
highlights the research focuses of these 10 programs in more detail.
Table 1: Overview of DARPA Programs Selected for GAO Case Study Analyses
Program name Program description
Advanced Wireless Networks for Soldier The program sought to develop a cost-efficient military radio system that integrated
commercial hardware with the Army’s radio waveform and delivered improved capability,
including the ability to dynamically identify available radio spectrum and transmit on it.
Architecture for Diode High Energy Laser
Systems
The program developed technologies for combining different laser beams together in
order to generate laser output powers needed to support military applications, but with
ultra low size, weight, and power attributes.
Dynamic Prevention of Biofouling The program sought to develop surfaces and coatings that resist biofouling for extended
periods—without use of chemical substances or microorganisms—in the static marine
environments in which Navy ships often operate.
Falcon Combined-cycle Engine
Technology
The program developed advanced hypersonic turbine engine technologies for use with a
separately developed hypersonic cruise vehicle.
Nastic Materials The program developed controllable, active materials capable of changing shapes to
adapt to different environments, similar to the way plants move under different strains
and forces.
Predicting Health and Disease The program developed a predictive model and diagnostic test platform for detecting pre-
symptomatic exposure to infectious diseases and predicting future illness, creating the
potential for early preventative treatment and control of viral infections.
Quint Networking Technology The program developed and demonstrated modular multi-band network data link
technologies that worked across five nodes—aircraft, unmanned combat air vehicles,
weapons, tactical unmanned air vehicles, and dismounted ground forces.
Self-Regenerative Systems The program sought to develop technology that would permit military computing systems
to provide critical functionality at all times, despite damage caused by unintentional
software errors or malicious attacks.
Spoken Language Communication and
Translation System for Tactical Use
The program developed and demonstrated two-way translation systems for Iraqi Arabic,
Dari, and Pashto languages using digital platforms of various sizes and forms.
Tactical Underwater Navigation System The program integrated various commercial navigation technologies into a single unit that
provided divers and smaller diving propulsion devices with an accurate and economical
system for navigating underwater.
Source: GAO analysis of DARPA information. | GAO-16-5

Since 2010, DARPA has had success in transitioning new technologies
from the research environment to military users, including DOD
acquisition programs and warfighters. DARPA maintains a portfolio-level
database that identifies these outcomes by program. However, the
agency’s process for tracking technology transition outcomes is not
designed to capture transitions that occur after a program completes and
does not provide DARPA with an effective means for updating its
database. We used outputs from this database to select 10 case study
programs, but later identified inconsistencies affecting three programs in
how transition outcomes were reported in the portfolio-level database
versus how they were reported in other program documentation. We then
concluded that DARPA’s portfolio-level database was unreliable for
assessing transition rates and outcomes since fiscal year 2010. Our
analysis of the 10 selected programs did, however, identify four factors
that contributed to transition successes, the most important of which were
military or commercial demand for the planned technology and linkage to
a research area where DARPA has sustained interest.
DARPA’s technological approach focuses on radical innovation that
addresses future warfighting needs, rather than developing technologies
that address current warfighting needs. This approach shapes how the
agency defines, pursues, and tracks technology transition. DARPA
considers a successful transition to be one where its program, or a
portion of its program, influences or introduces new knowledge. This
knowledge is often passed through program performers, which DARPA
relies on to execute technology development in its programs. Typical
performers include commercial enterprises; other DOD entities, such as
military service laboratories and research agencies; and academic
institutions. Further, DARPA generally does not develop technologies to
full maturity. Instead, the agency focuses on demonstrating the feasibility
of new technologies, which includes verifying that the concepts behind
the technologies have potential for real life applications. As a result, most
DARPA technologies require additional development before they are
ready for operational or commercial use. Therefore, follow-on
development is the predominant path of technology transition at DARPA.
Table 2 highlights the different technology transition paths that DARPA
technologies can take.
Overall Transition
Rates Not
Determinable, but
Selected Programs
Illustrate Factors for
Transition Success
DARPA’s Approach to
Developing Technology
Contributes to a Broad
Definition of Transition
Success

Table 2: Technology Transition Paths Tracked by DARPA
Transition Path Description
Enable other government agency Another federal government agency outside of the DOD funds and manages additional
development of the technology, or appropriates the DARPA technology.
Direct to operational use DARPA research or technology transfers directly to an end user organization—such as a
military service, another DOD agency, or other federal, state or local organizations—and
is used in current operations/missions.
Program of record
a
The DARPA technology is transferred to another DOD component for further development
in a program of record.
Commercialization DARPA performers or other commercial entities sell the developed technology to the
federal government or on the commercial market.
DARPA program insertion Occurs in one of two ways: (1) performers who successfully complete technology
development in one DARPA program then propose work on another DARPA program
using solutions demonstrated in the earlier program or (2) DARPA initiates a follow-on
program based upon or including the technology from an earlier completed program.
Follow-on development Performers or others use non-DOD resources to further develop and eventually use,
implement, or commercialize the technology following DARPA program completion.
Follow-on development by a DOD
component
Another DOD component funds continued development, use, or implementation of the
technology following completion of the DARPA program.
Influences or establishes a defined
technology standard
A DARPA funded program directly leads to the development of a standard or defined
technological benchmark within the science and technology community.
Source: GAO analysis of DARPA information. | GAO-16-5
a
DOD defines a program of record as an acquisition program that is currently funded or has
successfully achieved formal program initiation.
DARPA’s definition of what constitutes technology transition reflects one
of many in use within DOD. In June 2005, the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts10
in
collaboration with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) published
guidance defining technology transition as “the use of technology in
military systems to create effective weapons and support systems—in the
quantity and quality needed by the warfighter to carry out assigned
missions at the ‘best value’ as measured by the warfighter.”11
However,
DOD officials told us the 2005 guidance is outdated, does not constitute
10
According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts was
disestablished and its activities have since transferred to the Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Emerging Capability and Prototyping.
11
DAU and the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Systems
and Concepts, Manager’s Guide to Technology Transition in an Evolutionary Acquisition
Environment, Version 2.0 (DOD/DAU University Press, Fort Belvoir, Va.: June 2005).

department policy, and should only be considered as a useful reference
source. In the absence of current DOD policy, in a March 2013 report we
identified three communities that DOD technologies typically transitioned
to: acquisition programs; directly to the field for use by the warfighter; and
to other users such as science and technology organizations, test and
evaluation centers, or industry.12
The communities we identified in 2013
are similar to the transition outcomes listed in the 2005 guidance, which
broadly lists commercialization, acquisition program, and follow-on
development by the prime contractor as primary pathways of technology
transition. In a subsequent report in December 2013, we found further
differences among what the military services define as technology
transition and additional confirmation that DOD itself lacks a formal
definition for technology transition across the department.13
These
variations, in tandem with the absence of a standard DOD-wide definition
of technology transition, prevents the military services, DOD research
agencies, and other DOD entities from consistently defining and tracking
technology transition. This lack of a formal definition of technology
transition means that DOD entities, such as DARPA, are free to define
and categorize technology transition for themselves.
Following a program’s completion, DARPA officials identify and record
transition outcomes in accordance with the technology transition paths
identified in table 2. DARPA collects this information within a portfolio-
level database that spans all of its recently completed programs. The
agency uses this database primarily to provide incoming program
managers with training on potential transition opportunities. Figure 2
illustrates in more detail DARPA’s process for assessing technology
transition outcomes in its programs.
12
GAO-13-286.
13
GAO, Small Business Innovation Research: DOD’s Program Supports Weapon
Systems, but Lacks Comprehensive Data on Technology Transition Outcomes,
GAO-14-96 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2013).
DARPA’s Tracking of
Technology Transition
Concludes at Program
Completion, Which Limits
Data Reliability and
Precludes Evaluation of
Transition Rates

Figure 2: DARPA Process for Assessing Technology Transition Outcomes
DARPA’s process for tracking technology transition outcomes is not
designed to capture transitions that occur after a program completes and
the agency’s agreements with program performers have ended. After this
point, however, program performers often continue to develop their
technologies using non-DARPA sources of funding. According to DARPA
officials, these efforts can result in later transitions of technologies to
commercial products—including ones that are sold back to DOD for
military use—without the agency’s knowledge.14
This process for tracking technology transition outcomes also does not
provide DARPA with an effective means for updating its portfolio-level
database. We used outputs from this database to select 10 case study
programs (5 that transitioned and 5 that did not transition), but later
identified inconsistencies affecting three programs in how transition
outcomes were reported in the portfolio-level database versus how they
were reported in other program documentation that we reviewed. This
confusion about ultimate transition outcomes persisted during our
interviews with DARPA officials. As a result, we concluded that DARPA’s
portfolio-level database was unreliable for assessing transition rates and
outcomes since fiscal year 2010.15
Table 3 highlights the inconsistencies
we found in our reviews.
14
This outcome is consistent with DARPA’s approach to intellectual property rights for
non-sensitive technologies, which allows DOD to retain government purpose rights to the
technologies and program performers to introduce and sell the innovation within the
commercial marketplace.
15
These inconsistencies did not significantly affect our program selections; therefore, the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of selecting the 10 case study programs.

Table 3: Technology Transition Data Inconsistencies among Selected DARPA Programs
Program name According to DARPA portfolio-level database According to GAO analysis
Advanced Wireless Networks
for the Soldier
Non-transition: program completed as planned, but lacked
sufficient transition interest outside DARPA
Transition: follow-on development by a
Department of Defense (DOD)
component
Dynamic Prevention of
Biofouling
Transition: follow-on development by a DOD component Non-transition: program funding was
terminated shortly after program
initiation
Self-Regenerative Systems Non-transition: program achieved its technical objectives,
but transition partner(s) desired a more mature technology
Non-transition: program did not
achieve its technical objectives
Source: GAO analysis of DARPA and DOD data and information. | GAO-16-5
The inconsistencies we identified suggest that DARPA’s current approach
to tracking technology transitions can limit its understanding of transition
outcomes. This may undermine its ability to craft transition plans for new
programs based on the lessons learned from previous programs. We
have previously identified technology transition tracking as a longstanding
issue at DOD. For example, in September 2006, we found that tracking
technology transitions and the effect of transitions, such as cost savings
or deployment of the technology in a product, provided key feedback that
can inform the future management of programs. However, in March 2013,
we found that DOD stopped tracking transition outcomes in many
programs once a program stopped receiving funding, which consequently
limited visibility into the extent of successful transitions within the DOD
portfolio.
DARPA has undertaken efforts to understand the elements that contribute
to or impede successful technology transitions. According to DARPA
officials, a technology’s maturity level, availability of military service
funding, alignment with military service requirements, and transition
planning by the program manager influence whether or not a DARPA-
developed technology successfully transitions. These characteristics align
with the findings of a 2001 DARPA-funded study, which reported that
mission, program manager turnover, timing, funding, and regulations,
among other elements, affect transition success.16
16
Transitioning DARPA Technology, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (Arlington, Va.:
May 2001).
Selected Programs
Indicate That Several
Factors Contribute to
Successful Transitions

In our review of 10 case study programs, we found different, but related,
factors for transition success as compared to the ones put forward by
DARPA: (1) military or commercial demand for the technology, (2) linkage
to a research area where DARPA has sustained interest, (3) active
collaboration with potential transition partners, and (4) achievement of
clearly defined technical goals. Based on our analyses, we identified two
factors—military or commercial demand for the planned technology and
linkage to a research area where DARPA has sustained interest—as
factors that were generally evident at program initiation and were most
important to transition. The remaining two factors—active collaboration
with potential transition partners and achievement of clearly defined
technical goals—sequentially follow the first two factors and become
observable once a program is underway. Figure 3 highlights these four
factors.
Figure 3: Several Factors Contributed to Successful Technology Transition in
Selected DARPA Programs
In reviewing the 10 programs, we found that the existence of the factors
identified varied from program to program. We assessed the extent to
which the four factors were present within the 10 programs we reviewed,
and table 4 highlights these results.17
17
More details on our analysis are described in appendix I.

Table 4: GAO Analysis of Technology Transition Success Factors and Outcomes within Selected DARPA Programs
Factors for success
Program name Military or
commercial
demand for the
planned
technology
Linkage to a
research area
where DARPA has
sustained interest
Active collaboration
with potential
transition partners
Achievement of
clearly defined
technical goals
Successful
transition
Advanced Wireless
Networks for Soldier
◑ ● ● ◑ 
Architecture for Diode High
Energy Laser Systems
● ● ● ◑ 
Dynamic Prevention of
Biofouling
◑ ○ ○ ○
Falcon Combined-cycle
Engine Technology
● ● ● ● 
Nastic Materials ○ ○ ◑ ◑
Predicting Health and
Disease
○ ○ ◑ ●
Quint Networking
Technology
● ● ● ● 
Self-Regenerative Systems ○ ○ ○ ○
Spoken Language
Communication and
Translation System for
Tactical Use
● ● ● ● 
Tactical Underwater
Navigation System
● ◑ ◑ ○
Legend: ●: Fully Present ◑: Partially Present ○: Not Present
Source: GAO analysis of DOD documentation and information. | GAO-16-5
We found that successful transitions were often underpinned by existing
military or commercial demand for the technology. DARPA officials told us
that all of the agency’s programs are linked to military and joint service
needs at a high level, but through our analyses, we found that this
commitment was exemplified when any of the following components were
present in the program files:
• Agreement between DARPA and (1) a military service, (2) a DOD
research agency or laboratory, or (3) other warfighter representative
that a related military capability gap or requirement exists; or
• A private company identified a commercial demand for the technology
or showed an interest in commercializing it.
Military or Commercial
Demand for the Planned
Technology

For example, the Spoken Language Communication and Translation
System for Tactical Use (TRANSTAC) program addressed a known
capability gap for speech translation technology within the Army. As a
result, the Army developed the appropriate requirements documents that
allowed the technology to successfully transition to an Army acquisition
program of record. These documents identified desired performance
attributes and system parameters, which served to better define and
communicate the Army’s need for TRANSTAC. The Army’s decision to
validate specific performance requirements provided TRANSTAC an
opportunity to transition into an Army program of record.
Within our 10 case studies, we found that a military or commercial
demand was fully present within four of the five programs that
successfully transitioned. In two cases—TRANSTAC and Quint
Networking Technology (QNT)—near-term military demand was a result
of DOD’s ongoing involvement in warfighting operations. However, in the
other two cases, an immediate military need for the technology was not
as prevalent. A fifth program that transitioned, Advanced Wireless
Networks for Soldier (AWNS), initially was in demand by the Army, but
interest waned over time as other options for radio networking platforms
emerged. In addition, several programs developed technologies that
demonstrated military applicability but lacked a military or commercial
demand, which precluded successful transition. For example, the
Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) and Nastic Materials programs
successfully demonstrated innovative research concepts that had
potential military applications, but an immediate military/commercial
demand simply did not exist without further maturation of technologies
past the point of program completion.
We also found that a program’s linkage to a research area in which
DARPA has sustained interest often facilitated successful transition. This
interest was demonstrated by evidence that in the years preceding the
program’s initiation, at least two related DARPA or other related DOD
science and technology programs had been completed. Sustained
interest is also exemplified by a program’s reuse of existing research
facilities and data from related programs, among other things. Of our 10
case studies, all 5 programs that successfully transitioned were fully
linked to sustained research interests, whereas 4 of the 5 non-
transitioning programs did not have any such linkage.
Linkage to a Research Area
Where DARPA Has Sustained
Interest

DARPA’s program portfolio is currently organized around 10 research
focus areas under four key research themes.18
DARPA officials report
that the Hypersonics Capability focus area, for example, reflects an
ongoing interest for the agency that dates back to the mid-1980s. The
Falcon Combined-cycle Engine Technology (FaCET) is one of several
recent DARPA programs within the Hypersonics Capability focus area. In
addition, FaCET’s research was done in concert with other hypersonic
programs within DOD. As a result of this sustained interest, FaCET
technologies transitioned to other hypersonics programs, including
DARPA’s Mode Transition program, the joint DARPA/Air Force
Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept program, and the Air Force
Research Laboratory’s Robust Scramjet and Enhanced Operability
Scramjet Technology. Moreover, due to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration’s (NASA) sustained involvement in FaCET,
technologies were also transitioned to NASA’s Glenn Research Center’s
Combined-Cycle Engine Large Scale Inlet Mode Transition Experiment
program.
We found that in all five cases where transition occurred, active
collaboration with potential transition partners was fully present. This
collaboration generally consisted of early program involvement by
stakeholders within the government and commercial sectors, service
requirements officials, and military liaison officers, among others. DARPA
program managers were responsible for facilitating this early stakeholder
involvement, including identifying the potential transition partners needed
to assist with their programs. According to DARPA officials, achieving
active collaboration with potential transition partners is highly dependent
on the nature of the program and background of the program manager,
which might be in academia, private industry, or military services. For
example, a program manager with a military background might be familiar
with DOD’s acquisition process and have connections with service
officials who can facilitate transition. On the other hand, a program
manager with an academic background might lack DOD service
18
DARPA’s four research themes include (1) rethinking complex military systems, (2)
mastering information at massive scale, (3) biology as technology, and (4) new
foundations for technological surprise. The 10 focus areas related to these overarching
themes are (1) air superiority in contested environments; (2) undersea capabilities; (3)
electromagnetic spectrum dominance; (4) position, navigation, and timing beyond global
positioning satellites; (5) hypersonics capability; (6) overmatch squad; (7) robust space;
(8) defense against terrorism; (9) cyber capability; and (10) big data.
Active Collaboration with
Potential Transition Partners

connections, in which case DARPA’s military liaison officers can be used
to facilitate collaboration.
DARPA’s Architecture for Diode High Energy Laser Systems (ADHELS)
program exemplifies how active collaboration with potential transition
partners can facilitate successful technology transition. ADHELS
development included several technological components, including
volume bragg grating (VBG) technology. VBG is a transparent device
made of refractive glass that when combined with a diode laser can
control the laser output—such as by magnifying laser power, narrowing a
laser beam, or controlling the beam quality of the laser diode. According
to DARPA officials, the agency contracted with the foremost experts on
VBG technology to develop ADHELS components, recognizing that
adaptations of the VBG technology had potential applications within the
commercial marketplace. As ADHELS development progressed, DARPA
continued to engage its performers, who then licensed the VBG
technology to an ADHELS subcontractor. This subcontractor formed the
commercial entity Optigrate to further develop the VBG technology for
commercial sale.
Conversely, the programs that lacked active collaboration with potential
transition partners encountered challenges such as funding shortfalls,
requirements uncertainties, and underperforming technologies. For
example, early technical challenges prompted DARPA to restructure the
Self-Regenerative Systems (SRS) program to focus exclusively on
technology maturation, canceling initial plans to demonstrate and
evaluate SRS technologies on a transition partner’s system. This decision
constrained opportunities to identify potential transition partners and
actively collaborate with them during the program.
We found that defining and, ultimately, achieving clear technical goals
helped facilitate technology transition. Of the five programs that
successfully transitioned, this factor was fully present in three programs
and partially present in the remaining two. Clearly defined technical goals
often existed in the form of documented agreements among stakeholders
that outlined technical specifications and desired capabilities, funding
requirements, development schedule, and organizational responsibilities
for technology development. These agreements allowed DARPA to share
development, management, and funding responsibilities with its service
partners, which facilitated shared understanding of technical goals and
mutual commitments to the program’s success and transition. Equally
important to this factor though was the degree to which a program
achieved its stated technical goals. Most of the programs we reviewed
Achievement of Clearly
Defined Technical Goals

identified clear technical goals, but fewer than half actually achieved the
technical goals that were originally set.
DARPA’s QNT program represents one example where clearly defined
technical goals were set and achieved. QNT was initiated with support
from the Air Force and Navy, which helped DARPA craft clear technical
goals including size, weight, robustness, transmission rates, and other
performance attributes of the technology. Defining technical goals during
the early stages of the program also secured each organization’s
commitment to playing a role in managing, developing, funding,
demonstrating, and testing QNT. As a result, stakeholders then worked
together to test QNT technical performance at several military exercises
and in theater, where the system performed to expectations and gained
added exposure within DOD. Ultimately, QNT transitioned to the Army’s
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Network program, which
fielded the system in Afghanistan in September 2011. QNT also
transitioned to two Navy weapons programs and was also selected by the
Air Force for use in its Battlefield Airborne Communications Node
program, which hosts a data link communications system between aircraft
and ground units.
In other cases, such as AWNS, ADHELS, and Nastic Materials, technical
goals were clearly defined, but only partially met. These partial
successes, nonetheless, produced substantive technological gains. In the
cases of AWNS and ADHELS, these gains—coupled with the presence of
other key factors—proved sufficient to promote technology transition. On
the other hand, three programs lacked clearly defined goals—or did not
substantively achieve those goals—which led to significant restructuring
or development of technologies that did not align with the needs of a
planned transition partner. For example, Marine Corps’ officials stated
that the Tactical Underwater Navigation System relied on divers
swimming at unsustainable speeds to calibrate its positioning, which was
not responsive to their interests.
DARPA’s investment of program funds and staff are primarily focused on
the highest priority of its agency mission, which is creating radically
innovative technologies that support DOD’s warfighting mission.
Technology transition is a secondary priority at the agency. DARPA
leadership conducts periodic reviews of agency programs, but these
reviews are focused on scientific and technical aspects of the programs
and do not assess technology transition strategies. Instead, the Director,
DARPA, delegates responsibility for oversight and assessment of
technology transition strategies to a subordinate office. DARPA also
DARPA Prioritizes
Innovation and
Deemphasizes
in Key Processes

provides limited training to program managers related to technology
transition, instead relying on others within the agency to assist program
managers with this activity, as needed. In addition, although DARPA
disseminates information on its past programs, it does not take full
advantage of available, government-sponsored resources for sharing
technical data. DARPA has also elected not to participate in most DOD
programs intended to facilitate technology transition, with the exception of
mandated small business programs, citing the challenges it perceives in
meeting the process and reporting requirements of these DOD programs
within DARPA’s typical timeframes for executing its research initiatives.
At DARPA, the desire for innovation drives investment, both in terms of
recruitment and programs. DARPA hires world-class scientists and
engineers from private industry, universities, government laboratories,
and research centers to serve as program managers. According to
DARPA officials, program managers are given great flexibility in leading
their programs, building their teams, and allocating funds to achieve their
programs’ objectives, including technology transition. DARPA officials
stated that these expectations are outlined to program managers during
new hire orientations, but are not codified in any agency-wide policy or
guidance. To ensure that new ideas for advanced technologies are
continuously coming into DARPA, the agency usually limits the tenure of
its program managers, as well as the duration of its programs, to 3 to 5
years. In this environment, program managers prioritize achieving
programs’ technical objectives, which can require the overwhelming
majority of their available time.
This focus on innovation, which corresponds with undertaking bold,
ambitious programs, makes the pursuit of technology transition a
secondary priority for the agency. Consequently, programs generally seek
to prove the art of “what is possible” rather than refining, producing, and
delivering tactical equipment to warfighters. According to DARPA officials,
the agency views these latter processes as the responsibility of military
service research agencies, laboratories, and acquisition programs of
record. However, DARPA officials report that potential transition partners
in the acquisition community are often unwilling to commit to incorporating
new technology into their programs of record without additional
maturation, and service research agencies and laboratories both have
their own programs and priorities to pursue. Consequently, the additional
maturation work needed to position DARPA programs for effective
transitions can go unfunded. According to DARPA officials, this dynamic
has proven to be a major impediment for the agency in transitioning
technology.
DARPA Investments in
People and Programs
Drive a Culture of
Innovation

In addition, the introduction of DARPA’s radically innovative technologies
can disrupt the status quo for military programs, budgets, and warfighting
doctrine, which can drive cultural opposition within the military services.
DARPA officials stated that the agency’s research sometimes leads to the
identification of technologies and capabilities that military service officials
do not initially want or think their services will need, although these
technologies can eventually provide important military capabilities. For
example, DARPA officials said that the Air Force was initially highly
resistant to investments in stealth technologies for aircraft. Despite this
resistance, DARPA proceeded with the development of stealth
technologies, and today they are in use on multiple DOD weapon
systems, including the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.
DARPA’s secondary emphasis on transition is a long-standing
characteristic of the agency’s culture, as evidenced in studies
commissioned by DARPA in 1985 and 2001, which found that the agency
does not place enough emphasis on technology transition.19
The 1985
report recommended that DARPA designate full-time technology
transition facilitators, due to problems that were identified in the transition
of technologies to the military services. The 2001 report recommended
matching program manager tenure to the expected length of the
programs to which they are assigned—rather than setting arbitrary dates
of departure—and defining additional training and incentives for
technology transition.
According to DARPA officials, the Director, DARPA, has undertaken
several initiatives to improve the agency’s emphasis on technology
transition, including transition-focused quarterly meetings with each of the
military service chiefs or their deputies and establishment of the Adaptive
Execution Office in 2013, which was chartered to accelerate the transition
of game-changing DARPA technologies into DOD capabilities. In addition,
DARPA officials stated that the Director has shifted the role of the
agency’s military service liaisons to focus exclusively on assisting
program managers with military service engagement and transition of
DARPA technologies. DARPA officials report that these actions have
elevated the priority of and resources devoted to technology transition
within the agency.
19
Technology Transfer at DARPA, Technology Transfer Center, George Mason University
(Fairfax, Va.: Dec. 1985) and Transitioning DARPA Technology, Potomac Institute for
Policy Studies (Arlington, Va.: May 2001).

The Director, DARPA, conducts oversight of programs through periodic
milestone reviews. These reviews assess a program’s scientific and
technical merit, and, according to DARPA officials, provide the Director
with information on the transition status of the program. According to
DARPA officials, the scope of these reviews is reflective of and consistent
with the agency’s top priority of creating innovative technologies.
However, these reviews do not assess a program’s strategy for achieving
technology transition. DARPA leadership delegates oversight and review
of technology transition strategies to the agency’s Adaptive Execution
Office, which coordinates with program managers to review and provide
input on technology transition strategies, particularly in the latter stages of
programs.
DOD policy, however, assigns to the Director, DARPA, the responsibility
to pursue “strategies” that “increase the impact of DARPA’s research and
development programs” and “speed the transition of successful research
and development programs to the military departments and defense
agencies,” among other scientific and technical functions.20
Consequently, by not assessing technology transition strategies at the
program milestone reviews it chairs, the Director, DARPA, is forgoing key
opportunities to perform this function. This approach undermines
transition planning and introduces risk that DARPA programs will not
achieve their full transition potential.
Apart from the policy cited above, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
does not maintain other instructions or directives related to technology
transition at DARPA. In previous years, different components within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense have issued nonmandatory guidance
on technology transition, which has, at times, applied to DARPA
programs.21
However, the guidance is now outmoded in that it does not
address changes in key science, technology, and acquisition processes
that have occurred during the last 10 years. The Office of the Assistant
20
DOD Directive 5134.10, Subject: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) (May 7, 2013).
21
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,
Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Manager’s Guide to Technology Transition
in an Evolutionary Acquisition Environment, Version 1.0 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2003)
and Defense Acquisition University and Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Advanced Systems and Concepts, Manager’s Guide to Technology Transition in an
Evolutionary Acquisition Environment, Version 2.0 (DOD/DAU University Press, Fort
Belvoir, Va.: June 2005).
DARPA Leadership
Forgoes Opportunities to
Assess, and Thus
Potentially Improve,
Strategies

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, which has primary
oversight of DARPA and other DOD research agencies, provides a great
deal of latitude to these agencies to define their own technology transition
policies and procedures. Most notably, officials from this office stated to
us that technology transition is no longer an explicit function of the office
and that the DOD division formerly responsible for technology transition
no longer exists. Instead, the office now limits its technology policy
responsibilities to minimizing unnecessary duplication of research efforts
within DOD, disseminating research knowledge throughout DOD, and
sharing that information with the general public.22
DARPA’s program managers receive limited training on how to effect
technology transition in their programs. This training consists primarily of
overviews on DARPA’s technology transition paths and considerations to
make at program milestones with respect to technology transition.
DARPA program managers are not subject to the formal training and
certification requirements applicable to permanently hired science and
technology managers at military service laboratories. DOD requires
managers in these laboratories to complete Defense Acquisition
University (DAU) training courses in science and technology, including
how they apply to technology transition. These courses lead to
progressively higher knowledge and certifications over their careers.
DARPA officials countered that the training necessary to complete these
courses and achieve science and technology manager certifications
would require DARPA program managers to devote an inordinate amount
of time to training, particularly if DAU requires DARPA staff to complete
all the typical prerequisite courses that other managers are required to
complete. Further, given the agency’s unique mission, DARPA officials
stated that they do not consider the DAU training courses to be as
relevant to their program managers given the agency’s broad discretion to
pursue breakthrough technologies versus specific management of
acquisition programs.
In lieu of more robust training, DARPA officials stated that the agency
supports its program managers’ transition efforts by providing them with
access to various transition planning and outreach resources. For
example, DARPA program managers are also supported by the agency’s
22
These policies include DOD Instruction 3200.12, Subject: DOD Scientific and Technical
Information Program (Aug. 22, 2013); and DOD Instruction 5535.8, Subject: DOD
Technology Transfer (T2) Program (May 14, 1999).
Current Training for
Managers Does Not
Consistently Position
Programs for Transition
Success

Adaptive Execution Office, which provides them with assistance in
developing their transition plans and in communicating with the military’s
transition stakeholders at DOD’s combatant commands. Program
managers are further supported by DARPA’s military liaison officers from
the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, who help program
managers identify and reach out to potential transition partners or other
stakeholders in the military services. These liaisons also arrange for
DARPA leadership to meet with the military’s senior leaders, which is
done in part to advocate for the transition of DARPA programs to the
military services. As we found in September 2006, these liaisons can also
provide operational advice for planning and strategy development and
provide an understanding of service perspectives, issues, and needs so
that potential customers can be identified and effective agreements can
be written.23
Program managers also are authorized to use program funds
to hire experienced contractors and government staff from other agencies
to aid technology transition activities in their programs.
Previous guidance and studies, including one commissioned by DARPA
in 2001, have recommended that DARPA improve its technology
transition training for program managers through additional training and
mentoring programs related to technology transition.24
Further, in 2005,
DOD issued guidance on technology transition stating that developing
and executing a training plan for the members of the team supporting
technology transition is essential to their success.25
Similarly, Standards
for Internal Control in the Federal Government indicates that effective
management of an organization’s workforce, which includes providing
necessary training to the organization’s staff, is essential to achieving
results.26
DARPA’s limited training for program managers on technology
transition is inadequate to consistently position programs for transition
success. Without sufficient training, program managers may not develop
23
GAO-06-883.
24
Transitioning DARPA Technology, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies (Arlington, Va.:
May 2001).
25
DAU and the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Systems
and Concepts, Manager’s Guide to Technology Transition in an Evolutionary Acquisition
Environment, Version 2.0 (Fort Belvoir, Va.: June 2005).
26
GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

the skills and knowledge that they need to identify and engage potential
transition partners and facilitate transition successes.
While DARPA does not currently rely on other DOD entities for
technology transition training, individual DARPA program managers may
voluntarily elect to take training related to technology transition in DOD or
other federal organizations. For example, the Federal Laboratory
Consortium for Technology Transfer was established by law in the
Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 to, among other things, (1)
develop training for federal lab employees engaged in technology transfer
and (2) facilitate communication and cooperation between federal
laboratories.27
The Consortium offers both in-person and online training
regarding commercialization of technologies, as well as guidance
regarding best practices. In response to our inquiries on this subject,
DARPA officials indicated they were in discussions with the DAU staff
regarding potential future training options.
Disseminating information regarding developed technologies is a way for
agencies to promote technology transition after the conclusion of a
program, particularly once program managers and staff are no longer
actively advocating for the transition of their program’s technologies. For
many years, DOD has maintained website-accessible databases that
disseminate information within the department, and to a lesser extent, to
the public and to private companies. These websites allow their users to
search for related technologies while considering new programs or
products that could possibly use them.
While DARPA disseminates information on past programs through the
use of public government websites, its selective approach to posting this
information does not maximize the chances of DARPA technologies being
identified and selected by potential transition partners. Currently, DARPA
disseminates information on past programs through both internal and
external means, but does not share information with key data repositories
that the federal government sponsors, which may obscure visibility into its
programs and lead to missed transition opportunities. Since the 1960s,
DARPA has provided substantial amounts of information regarding its
technologies to the official DOD dissemination website managed by the
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). Although the majority of
27
Pub. L. No. 99-502.
Shortfalls in Disseminating
Program Information May
Lead to Missed Transition
Opportunities

DARPA-related information in this database is restricted to DOD staff, it is
by far the largest repository that private companies and the general public
can access for information on DARPA technologies. For instance, we
found that while non-DOD users can access approximately 3,600 DARPA
technical records through DTIC’s public website, DOD users can access
over 30,000 of these records. DARPA also maintains an “Open Catalog”
public website for disseminating information on its programs, although it
currently only has technical information on about a few dozen active and
completed programs. In comparison, DARPA’s public website also
provides brief, non-technical descriptions of 194 active DARPA programs.
Two other government-sponsored websites, operated by the DOD
TechLink public-private partnership and the Federal Laboratory
Consortium for Technology Transfer, also exist to help science and
technology agencies disseminate technology information. DARPA officials
indicated they do not share information with either of these entities and
instead exclusively rely on DTIC, which DARPA officials stated
represented DOD’s official repository.
In recent years, the White House has provided direction to broaden
access to non-sensitive information on government-developed
technologies, in recognition of government research’s potential for
catalyzing innovative breakthroughs that drive the U.S. economy, and
helping to drive progress in areas such as health, energy, the
environment, agriculture, and national security. In February 2013, the
White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy instructed the
federal government’s science and technology community to begin
planning how to disseminate information on technologies they have
developed.28
According to DARPA officials, the lead DOD agency for
implementing this system is DTIC, and they do not expect DOD to have a
dissemination system in place that fully addresses the requirements of
the memorandum until 2017.
28
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Subject:
Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 22, 2013).

The Office of the Secretary of Defense manages several DOD programs
intended to accelerate development, testing, and delivery of mature
technologies that provide new solutions for military needs. The general
purpose of these programs is to facilitate the transition of technologies,
but vary in terms of what types of technology developers and operational
needs they target. For example, in partnership with the military services,
the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration program addresses joint
warfighting needs of the combatant commands by demonstrating mature
technology prototypes that may transition to acquisition programs or
directly to the warfighter in the field. Other programs such as the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program fund small business
research and development with the goal that innovations produced will be
commercialized and eventually sold back to DOD. Table 5 lists these
programs.
Table 5: Overview of DOD Technology Transition Programs
Program
Year
established
Typical
funding
Time Frame for
completion Description
Small Business
Innovation Research
(SBIR) and Small
Business Technology
Transfer (STTR)
1982 and 1992 $1.65 million
or less
42 months
or less
Government-wide, legally mandated programs coordinated
with the Small Business Administration, in which all federal
agencies with research budgets in excess of $100 million
(SBIR) and $1 billion (STTR) must reserve about 3 percent
of contracts or grants for award to small businesses.
Joint Capability
Technology
Demonstration (JCTD)
1994 Varies 12-36
months
Facilitates fast and cost-effective technology transition to
end-users in the U.S. military. JCTDs assess the military
utility of new technologies and facilitate their transition.
Manufacturing
Technology
1956 Varies Varies Develops technologies that can improve manufacturing
capabilities, processes or costs, or that may improve
sustainment practices.
Quick Reaction Fund 2002 $2.5 million-
$3.0 million
12 months
or less
Funds high priority and short duration technology
development efforts in response to new threats and to help
meet the urgent needs of conventional military forces.
Rapid Reaction Fund 2004 $0.5 million 6-18
months
Identifies and develops near-term military capabilities to
support irregular warfare needs.
Rapid Innovation
Program
2011 $3.0 million
or less
24 months
or less
Accelerates the transition of technologies developed by
small businesses participating in SBIR projects, other
businesses and defense laboratories; primarily supports
major defense acquisition programs, or acquisition
programs meeting a critical national security need.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. | GAO-16-5
According to DARPA officials, the only programs that DARPA participates
in are the SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs because it is legally required to do so. However, the agency’s
knowledge of transition outcomes associated with SBIR and STTR
DARPA Participates in
Mandated Small Business
Programs, but Refrains
from Other DOD-Wide
Programs Intended to
Facilitate Technology
Transition

expenditures is limited. DARPA officials said they do not maintain a
comprehensive list of agency programs using SBIR or STTR funds—or
the transition paths of technologies developed with these funds—because
these data are not always reported or accessible. According to DOD
small business program management officials, who oversee the use of
these funds throughout the department, transition outcome data is not
required from any military service or agency, including DARPA. These
officials further stated that once a small business contract ends, DOD’s
means for compelling contractors to identify and report on successful
transitions expires. In December 2013, we recommended that DOD
improve its tracking of technology transition outcomes in SBIR-funded
programs by establishing a common definition of technology transition for
all SBIR projects and improving the completeness, quality, and reliability
of SBIR transition data that it reports.29
These tracking shortfalls
precluded us from assessing the extent to which DARPA’s SBIR and
STTR funds contribute to successful technology transitions. In lieu of
comprehensive transition data, DARPA officials have worked with some
of their prior program contractors—who successfully developed and
transitioned technologies—to identify small business program success
stories.30
In addition, DARPA officials stated that they are developing
contract language for future SBIR awards that would require firms to
identify their transition and commercialization outcomes as an addendum
to their final report.
Apart from the legally required small business programs, DARPA officials
said that the processes and reporting requirements associated with
participating in DOD’s other technology transition programs are generally
cumbersome and do not align with DARPA’s time frames for executing
programs or mission of creating disruptive technologies over relatively
long periods of time. Conversely, DOD transition programs are mainly
intended for mature technologies, or short-term efforts that can be fielded
quickly. DARPA officials explained that technologies their programs
29
GAO-14-96.
30
Among the successes DARPA cites are its (1) Micro Air Vehicle, which created a small
unmanned aircraft capable of flying up to a mile away, and whose components became
enabling technologies for the hand-launched, Raven unmanned aerial vehicle that DOD
has employed in operations around the world and (2) MeerCAT visualization tool, which
helps security teams discover, visualize, analyze, and report wireless threats across
various locations and time periods by showing two- and three-dimensional visualizations
of these threats on a computer display.

develop usually require additional maturation in subsequent technology
development efforts, either within DARPA or at military service
laboratories, before transitioning to acquisition programs or warfighters.
DARPA officials also said that agency leadership generally views the use
of these funds as unnecessary given that DARPA’s budget currently
provides adequate funding to support its research endeavors.
DARPA officials also indicated that they are exploring stronger
relationships with the Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD)
program, particularly in the area of prototyping. In previous decades,
DARPA used funds from the predecessor to the JCTD program—then
known as the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program—to
develop and demonstrate technologies. These efforts include currently
fielded systems such as the Air Force’s Global Hawk and Predator
unmanned aircraft and Miniature Air-Launched Decoy systems. DARPA
officials also stated that Manufacturing Technology program funds have
been applied after DARPA program completions to improve the
affordability of and manufacturing base for semiconductors developed by
DARPA.
Technology transition does not have to occur at the expense of
innovation, but should instead be viewed as a natural extension of
innovation. When DARPA places technology in the hands of a user,
operational knowledge is gained that can be used to improve the
technology and further scientific innovation. However, DARPA leadership
does not fully subscribe to this viewpoint; instead, it is satisfied with
maturing technology to the point where feasibility, but not functionality, is
proven. Today, programs progress through DARPA without the agency
head fully assessing whether transition strategies make sense. Such
assessments, if measured against key transition factors, could improve a
program’s potential for transition success. Transition responsibilities then
fall almost exclusively on individual program managers, who are often not
sufficiently trained to achieve the favorable transition outcomes they seek.
Further, when the program manager’s tenure expires, the primary
advocate for transitioning the program’s technology is also lost. This
turnover increases the need for technical gains to be appropriately
documented and disseminated so that user communities have visibility
into potential solutions available to meet their emerging needs. An
important part of this process is the tracking of transition outcomes, as we
recommended DOD undertake for its technology transition programs in
March 2013, and which we have also found lacking at DARPA.
Conclusions

To improve technology transition planning and outcomes at DARPA, we
recommend the Secretary of Defense direct the Director, DARPA, to take
the following three actions:
• Oversee assessments of technology transition strategies for new and
existing DARPA programs as part of existing milestone reviews used
to assess scientific and technical progress to inform transition
planning and program changes, as necessary. Our analysis identified
four factors that could underpin these assessments, but the
uniqueness of individual DARPA programs suggests that other
considerations may also be warranted.
• Increase technology transition training requirements and offerings for
DARPA program managers, leveraging existing DOD science and
technology training curricula, as appropriate.
• Increase the dissemination of technical data on completed DARPA
programs through Open Catalog and other government-sponsored
information repositories aimed at facilitating commercialization of
technologies.
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In its
written comments, which are included in appendix II, DOD partially
agreed with our recommendations to oversee assessments of technology
transition strategies for DARPA programs and to increase technology
transition training requirements and offerings for DARPA program
managers. In doing so, DOD agreed with most of the principles contained
in our recommendations, but disagreed with the actions we
recommended. DOD did not agree with our recommendation to increase
the dissemination of technical data on completed DARPA programs. DOD
also separately provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as
appropriate.
DOD agreed that assessments of technology transition strategies, which
consider the four factors we identified for transition success, would help
inform program decisions by DARPA leadership. However, DOD did not
agree that such assessments be required at milestone reviews for
DARPA programs, citing active participation by the Director, DARPA, in
technology transition discussions throughout the life of a program. We
agree that leadership is focused on technology transition and holds
discussions often; however, we found it difficult to be able to identify
transitions—or changes to transition strategies—that arise from these
discussions. We believe that these discussions are an inadequate
Recommendations for
Executive Action
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation

substitute for assessing technology transition strategies as part of the
comprehensive program reviews that DARPA already undertakes.
Assessing transition strategies at these reviews, as we recommended,
would provide the opportunity to coordinate and prioritize transition goals,
objectives, and planned actions in the context of scientific and technical
developments in the program. By overseeing technology transition
strategies separate from these reviews, the Director, DARPA, risks
making decisions related to a program’s transition that are not
appropriately informed by other important program considerations.
Although DARPA asserted that our recommendation runs counter to its
current efforts to improve processes and procedures, we found no
evidence that processes and procedures were improving.
DOD also agreed that technology transition training improves transition
planning and outcomes, citing DOD science and technology training
curricula as a “rich repository of transition insight.” Yet, despite the value
it sees in its own training resources, DOD stated that DARPA program
managers’ relatively short tenure leaves few opportunities to expose them
to such “generic” training opportunities. Consequently, DOD did not agree
that technology transition training requirements should be increased for
DARPA program managers and stated that DARPA’s current approach of
“tailored curricula focused on a program’s unique transition needs”
remained appropriate. However, we did not find evidence of such tailored
curricula in our review. Instead, we found that DARPA program managers
all received the same limited training upon hiring, which was inadequate
to consistently position programs for transition success. DOD also stated
that DARPA continues to explore opportunities to offer tailored, concise,
and streamlined training to its program managers. Therefore, we stand by
our recommendation and continue to believe that expanded training
opportunities are necessary for achieving better transition outcomes in
DARPA programs, and we encourage DOD to capitalize on its existing
investments in this area, to the extent possible.
Further, DOD did not agree that increased dissemination of technical data
on completed DARPA programs was warranted. DOD stated that using
multiple information repositories “thins the DOD technology market by
spreading it across several venues,” in turn reducing the likelihood that
technology providers and potential transition partners will find a match.
DOD also stated that it intends to make DTIC the central data storage for
all DOD technical activities, including DARPA technologies, and views the
use of multiple information repositories as unconducive to improving
technology transition outcomes. In our review, we found DARPA’s
existing reliance on DTIC limited the chances of the agency’s

technologies being identified and selected by potential transition partners,
particularly those outside of DOD. We fail to see how increased
dissemination of technical data would actually “thin” the DOD technology
market. To the contrary, it would allow more portals with which to gain
access. Similarly, in 2013, the White House identified a government-wide
need to broaden access to non-sensitive information on government-
developed technologies, but improvements remain incomplete.
Consequently, we continue to believe that DARPA should pursue
dissemination of non-sensitive technical data through as many existing
government-sponsored outlets as possible, including its own Open
Catalog website and DOD TechLink, to improve the likelihood of transition
successes in the agency’s programs.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director, DARPA. In
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix III.
Michael J. Sullivan
Director
Acquisition and Sourcing Management

List of Committees
The Honorable John McCain
Chairman
The Honorable Jack Reed
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Thad Cochran
Chairman
The Honorable Richard Durbin
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Mac Thornberry
Chairman
The Honorable Adam Smith
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen
Chairman
The Honorable Pete Visclosky
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 32 GAO-16-5 DARPA Technology Transition
This report covers the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s
(DARPA) (1) effectiveness at transitioning technologies since fiscal year
2010, including identifying the factors that contributed to successful
technology transitions, and (2) implementation of Department of Defense
(DOD) policies and programs intended to facilitate the transition of
technologies.
To assess DARPA’s effectiveness at transitioning technologies since
fiscal year 2010, including identifying factors that contributed to
successful transitions, we requested and reviewed portfolio-level data
identifying the names, funding amounts, and technology transition of
those DARPA programs successfully completing technology development
during fiscal years 2010 through 2014. We confined our analysis to this
time frame owing to availability of data from DARPA. These data included
150 programs funded under DOD’s budget activities for (1) applied
research and (2) advanced technology development that DARPA
identified as having completed as planned and producing a substantive
technological gain or innovation, regardless of whether that technology or
innovation transitioned to an end user. We used these data as the basis
for selecting a simple random sample of 10 case study programs—5 that
transitioned and 5 that did not transition. In conducting our case study
analyses, we reviewed relevant program documentation to identify factors
that facilitate transition success. While reviewing these case study
programs, we identified inconsistencies between agency portfolio-level
transition outcome data and program-level information. DARPA officials
stated to us that this was due to the transition status of these programs
changing after they had collected the portfolio-level data. As a result, we
concluded that DARPA’s portfolio-level data were not sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of assessing agency-wide transition rates and outcomes
since fiscal year 2010. However, these inconsistencies did not
significantly affect our program selections; therefore, these data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of selecting the 10 case study
programs.
To identify factors that facilitated technology transition within the 10
selected programs, we analyzed DARPA provided documentation—
including program briefings, memorandums of agreement, broad area
announcements, budget documents, and program completion reports—
for selected programs to identify factors that facilitated or precluded their
individual transitions. We then conducted a content analysis of these
individual factors to identify common themes among the programs, which
led to us determining that four significant factors underpinned technology
transition outcomes in the programs we reviewed. Once we identified
Methodology

Methodology
these four factors, we developed a rating system to assess the extent to
which each factor was present in each of our 10 programs, as supported
through our analysis of program documentation. Our measures for each
of the four factors were as follows:
Military or commercial demand for the planned technology
• Fully present: Demand for the technology from a potential transition
partner existed throughout the program, which would include (1)
agreement between DARPA and a military service, DOD laboratory or
other warfighter representatives that a related military capability gap
or requirement exists; or (2) a private company identified a
commercial demand for the technology or showed an interest in
commercializing it.
• Partially present: Potential transition partners indicated to DARPA that
they believed a demand existed for the technology, as is described
above, although their interest was not consistent through the end of
the program.
• Not present: The factor did not exist at all, and DARPA appears to
have initiated the program without a potential transition partner
agreeing that a capability gap or potential commercial use existed at
any point during the program.
Linkage to a research area where DARPA has sustained interest
• Fully present: In the years preceding the program’s initiation, at least
two related DARPA or other DOD science and technology program
had been completed.
• Partially present: In the years preceding the program’s initiation, at
least one related DARPA or other science and technology program
had been completed (this was the second DOD science and
technology program of its kind).
• Not present: The factor did not exist at all, and this program appears
to not have any roots in previous similar DARPA or other DOD
science and technology programs.
Active collaboration with potential transition partners
• Fully present: Potential transition partners consistently participated in,
advised, or otherwise supported the program.

Methodology
• Partially present: Potential transition partners participated in, advised,
or otherwise supported the program, although their involvement was
not consistent through the end of the program or was not present until
after the prototype demonstration (relatively late in the program).
• Not present: The factor did not exist at all. The program appears to
have lacked assistance from any potential transition partners, or their
assistance was very infrequent or insignificant.
Achievement of clearly defined technical goals
• Fully present: Measurable technical goals were set in the program
and fully achieved to the satisfaction of DARPA and any transition
partner involved in the program, to the extent that one or more had
been identified for the technology.
• Partially present: Measurable technical goals were set in the program,
but met with varying levels of success. The technical successes
achieved, however, were sufficient to produce a technology
responsive to the interests of a transition partner, to the extent that
one or more had been identified for the technology.
• Not present: Measurable technical goals were either not set or
sufficiently met in the program. The level of technical success was not
sufficient to produce a technology responsive to the interests of a
transition partner, to the extent that one or more had been identified
for the technology.
Using this rating system, two GAO analysts analyzed and coded whether
each of the four factors was fully present, partially present, or not present
in each of the 10 programs we reviewed. Each GAO analyst coded all the
constituent items independently, and the two analysts then met to discuss
and reconcile the differences between their codings. Following this initial
round of coding, another GAO analyst independently verified the
accuracy of the coding by reviewing the supporting program
documentation. The final assessment reflected the analysts’ consensus
based on the individual assessments.
To assess DARPA’s implementation of DOD policies and programs
intended to facilitate the transition of technologies, we identified and
analyzed information sources including policy instructions, guidance,
training materials, and technical data repositories intended to promote
technology transition within DARPA, DOD and the federal government.
We also reviewed previous federal directives issued by the Executive

Methodology
Office of the President that were related to technology transition at
DARPA. We reviewed previous DARPA-sponsored reports on technology
transition produced in previous years. We reviewed our prior related
reports and program information regarding DOD’s technology transition
programs and relevant DOD funding information. We reviewed available
training, resources, and tools used by DARPA officials to help bring about
technology transition. We reviewed the contents of DOD computer
systems used to disseminate information on DARPA programs to
potential transition partners. We reviewed our prior reports and DOD
documentation on DOD transition programs, including the Small Business
Innovation Research, Small Business Technology Transfer, and Joint
Capability Technology Demonstration programs, among others, to
understand the extent to which DARPA participates in these programs.
We reviewed the extent to which DARPA uses DOD transition funds, and
requested data regarding DARPA’s use of small business funds and its
technology transition outcomes, although these data were unavailable for
our analysis, as is discussed elsewhere in this report. We also reviewed
historical information on DARPA’s use of DOD transition funds available
from public sources, including DOD budget documentation.
To gather additional information in support of our review for both
objectives, we conducted interviews with current and former officials
responsible for executing, managing, and overseeing transition of
DARPA-developed technologies, including representatives of DARPA’s
senior leadership and Adaptive Execution Office, program management
offices and selected program managers, military services liaisons, and
small business program officials. We also interviewed officials from the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering and DOD’s Office of Small Business Programs. Further, we
interviewed officials from selected military requirements and acquisition
offices, including the Joint Staff’s Force Structure, Resource, and
Assessment directorate; Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army
for Operation, Plans and Training; Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of
the Army for Logistics; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology; Army Program Executive Offices
for Intelligence Electronic Warfare and Sensors and Command, Control,
Communications—Tactical; and Marine Corps Systems Command. We
also met with staff from selected DOD research centers, including the Air
Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research, and with
the Director of Science and Technology curriculum at the Defense
Acquisition University.

Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from January 2015 to November
2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Defense
of Defense

of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Michael J. Sullivan, (202) 512-4841 or sullivanm@gao.gov
In addition to the contact named above, Diana Moldafsky, Assistant
Director; Christopher R. Durbin, Analyst in Charge; Emily Bond; Nathan
Foster; Aaron M. Greenberg; John Krump; Jean L. McSween; Sean
Seales; and Roxanna T. Sun made key contributions to this report.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff
Acknowledgments
(121260)

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates.
Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
GAO’s Mission
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
Order by Phone
Connect with GAO
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Congressional
Relations
Public Affairs
Please Print on Recycled Paper.

DARPA -Transition of Technologies

More Related Content

Similar to DARPA -Transition of Technologies (20)

More from Dr Dev Kambhampati (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

DARPA -Transition of Technologies