the natick soldier center adam horton, joy poisel, kim mccraw, nick zola organizational study

The Natick Soldier Center

Adam Horton, Joy Poisel, Kim McCraw, Nick Zola

Organizational Study

Monday, November 3, 2003 Natick Soldier Center Organizational Study


RDECOM (One of Seven)

AMRDEC U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Research, Development & Engineering Center AATD Aviation Applied Technology Directorate AMSAA U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity ARDEC U.S. Army Armaments Research, Development & Engineering Center ARL U.S. Army Research Laboratory ARO U.S. Army Research Office CERDEC U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Research & Development Center ECBC U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center NSC U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center SOSI Systems of Sytem Integration TARDEC U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development & Engineering Center


General Organization• Began as dedicated Army Lab• Purpose of NSC

• To maximize the warrior's survivability sustainability mobility combat effectiveness and quality of life by treating the warrior as a system. •Technology generation•Soldier system generation •Solving field problems•Do not mass produce products


Personnel / Leadership

• Mostly Civilian • Civilian leadership • Education levels

• 52 PhDs (2 senior scientists)• 139 MS• 40 interns

• Mentorship program • Just reached end of 15 yr. hiring freeze• Transfer of knowledge from expert to

student


Directorates

• Individual protection • Combat feeding • Collective protection • Airdrop/Arial delivery • Supporting science and

technology (biotechnology, nanotechnology)

• Warrior systems technology integration


Individual Protection Directorate

• Covers Research and Development in:• Ballistic Protection• Directed Energy Protection• Environmental Protection• Camouflage• Multi-functional Materials• Chemical/ Biological Protection


Chemical Technology Team

• 18 total members• Supports NSC mission through:

• Percutaneous CB Protection• Microclimate Conditioning

• Cross-team/project consultation• Cross-functional teams + long standing

teams • Long/short-term goals

• Determined by technology transition point • Quantified by Technology Readiness Levels

(TRL’s)


Funding

• Total NSC Budget of $468 M• Sources

• DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency)

• MIPT (Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism)

• NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology)

• Competition within the IPD• Fit of Project to CTT mission


Marketing

• Identify needs?• 1) Government organizations• 2) Homeland defense/First responder

community

• Separate NSC teams create exhibits and handle marketing

• Self-promotion of CTT at Conferences • Feedback throughout development• License products for civilian use


Production

• Projects generally take 2-5 years• Technology push, not consumer

pull• Typically long product shelf life• CTT determines product

obsolescence • Equipment replacement beyond

CTT scope


6.1

6.3

6.2Focus

Engineering Sciences

Physical& MathSciences

Ocean, Atmosphere & Earth Sciences

LifeSciences

Acquisition

TechnologySuperiority

NationalSecurity

FundamentalKnowledge

Applied ResearchARL/NSC

Adv..Development NSC

Understanding

Option

Basic Research (ARL, Universities, DARPA)

DirectedKnowledge Engineering/

Operational Knowledge

OperationalRequirements

Opportunities

Investment Strategy

Process


Differences From The Private Sector

• Acquisitions of materials, labor and contracting

• Political/economic budget dependencies • Classified material vs. trade secrets• Different terms for success:

• Transitioning a technology or test methodology

• Insight into a specific technical dilemma• Spin off application for a technology• Milestones

• No established metrics for quantifying success


Thank you

• Dianne St. Jean• Dick Brown• Axel E.

Rodriguez • Beth McCoy• Pvt. Paul • All NSC staff

• Gate Guards• Guys who search

Adam’s trunk

the natick soldier center adam horton, joy poisel, kim mccraw, nick zola organizational study

Documents