{"id":22789,"date":"2015-10-07T06:00:11","date_gmt":"2015-10-06T19:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=22789"},"modified":"2015-10-06T13:28:59","modified_gmt":"2015-10-06T02:28:59","slug":"defence-science-and-engineering-same-inquiry-different-roles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/defence-science-and-engineering-same-inquiry-different-roles\/","title":{"rendered":"Defence science and engineering: same inquiry, different roles"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n I noted with interest and bemusement that the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade has announced an inquiry into the capability of Defence’s physical sciences and engineering (PSE) workforce<\/a>. I’m interested because in my previous working life in Defence I first worked as a scientist and later managed engineers on a major Defence project. The two experiences had so little in common that I’m bemused as to why the two groups have been lumped together in this inquiry.<\/p>\n It’s a bit like a state government deciding to inquire into the capability of its teaching and firefighting (TFF) workforce. Both professions are critical parts of the workforce, but there’s not a lot of synergy between them, and there doesn’t seem to be much point to trying to manage them collectively. In fact, trying to do so would likely conflate the roles to the detriment of both. I think that might’ve already happened in Defence’s PSE workforce. In that sense the parallel focus of the enquiry might work, if only to disentangle the issue.<\/p>\n Just as states need teachers and firefighters, Defence needs engineers and scientists. It needs engineers to help identify and manage risk in projects and to manage its fleets of complex platforms and its complicated data and communications architectures. It needs scientists to collect data and conduct operations research that help inform operations and force structuring decisions, and to investigate novel and promising technologies. To draw on another term that conflates two different things, scientists are best at the ‘R’ part of ‘R&D’ and engineers at the ‘D’ part.<\/p>\n Sometimes the two groups work together in ‘upper R\/lower D’ activities, such as identifying and solving problems that arise in managing platforms when existing techniques and materials aren’t adequate. Examples include the composite patching developed for aircraft skins<\/a> (PDF) and solutions for the hydrodynamic problems during the development of the Collins<\/em>-class submarines<\/a>. But working together isn’t the same as being parts of the same profession, and we shouldn’t conclude that scientists and engineers can seamlessly transition to each other’s jobs.<\/p>\n Take for example the role played by the Defence Science and Technology Group (nee DSTO) in technical risk assessments (TRAs)<\/a> (PDF) for major projects, a role they took on as part of the Kinnaird recommendations for the management of Defence projects. TRAs are important, given the difficulties that systems integration can pose for projects, especially when immature technologies are involved. It’s important to have a realistic and robust sense of the potential difficulties ahead so some serious thinking can be done about the benefits and risks associated with various options. Underestimating risk at the early stages of a project has consequences for schedules, costs and sometimes capability later on.<\/p>\n