1) The document argues that more non-defense R&D spending by the federal government is not the solution and that the current system has significant problems including lack of clear goals, too much bureaucracy, insufficient incentives, and burdensome rules and regulations. 2) It asserts that defense R&D is more effective due to less bureaucracy, better incentives for performance, more competition, and fewer regulations. 3) The author recommends setting clear goals and measures for federal departments and agencies, dramatically shrinking the federal workforce, streamlining processes, requiring training in management and innovation, and implementing a performance-based promotion system to improve the effectiveness of non-defense R&D spending.

1. More Non-Defense Research and Development (R&D) Spending is Not the Answer!
By E. Fenton Carey, Jr., Ph.D., Captain U.S. Navy (retired)
May 3, 2016
I would like to provide a slightly different perspective to Mr. Bill Gates’ excellent article
America’s Secret Weapon1 that suggests that the federal government should spend more money
on R&D. Although I am only a “thousandaire” not a billionaire, I have had considerable insight
into the innovation process and the federal government’s role in particular.2 The answer is not
more money! The answer is a government that works with well-defined goals and priorities, less
bureaucracy, effective incentives, more competition, better management, streamlined processes,
and fewer rules and regulations. I have made one recommendation for Mr. Gates to consider at
the end of this article.
First, the large increase in R&D during the Reagan Administration was in defense and was a
result of President Reagan’s efforts to defeat the Soviet Union. Defense R&D is significantly
more efficient and effective than non-defense R&D! In Defense, there is much less bureaucracy.
There are incentives for military personnel to be promoted based on performance. If not
promoted, they are released. There is significant competition among the services and their
laboratories. Program managers receive considerable education and training and do not receive
increased responsibilities unless they perform. Finally, defense acquisition regulations are less
burdensome than federal acquisition regulations and many programs, especially classified ones,
are not as burdened by federal oversight. And, there is much more “bang for the buck” possible,
especially for the civil servants and political appointees. Except for basic science and the
application of defense R&D to non-defense uses, such as the DARPA program that led to the
Internet, non-defense R&D gets very little “bang for the buck.”
My assessment is as follows for non-defense federal R&D:
 Goals, priorities, and plans: As the famous British author Lewis Carroll stated in Alice in
Wonderland, “If you do not know where you are going any road will take you there.” Most
federal departments and agencies do not know where “there” is. There is no “there” there.
Few, if any, do any long-range and/or strategic planning. They need to know where there is
and how to get there. Their performance and budgets need to be based on their progress to
get there! Unfortunately, even if they can define where “there” is, continuously changing
Administration and Congressional priorities usually prevent them from achieving anything of
substance quickly and affordable for the American people. All need goals, a limited set of
priorities, and executable plans that do not change from election to election and/or
Administration to Administration. All need qualified managers to achieve them. Few do!
1
Gates, B., “The Great Debate: America’s secret weapon,” Reuters, April 18, 2016, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/18/bill-gates-
americas-secret-weapon/
2
Summary of 33-year career as a naval officer and federal senior executive (not a political). Afteroperational aviation assignments in the U.S.
Navy includingcombat, plannedandmanagedtheacquisition of a newspace systemanda missionplanningsystem (inless than ¼ the time) in
the Defense Department; serveddirectlythe Chief ofNaval Operations,Secretary of Energy, NASA Administrator, and Deputy Secretary of
Transportation in policyandplanningpositions; created and managed Federal Advisory Board task forces on space, strategic command and
control, energy,the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, personal excellence, andtransportation in theDepartments of Defense,Energy
andTransportation; directedthe government-wide transportationresearch anddevelopment (R&D)andtechnology (e.g., nanotechnology, high
performance computing, innovation) strategic planning processes for the White House National Science and Technology Council; managed
education, energy, environmental,andtransportation R&D programs in the Departments ofEnergy andTransportation; participated in several
government andprivatesectorinnovation initiatives; wrote the report for the United States Commission on the Future of the United States
Aerospace Commission; and wrote several National Aviation Research Plans for the Federal Aviation Administration..

2. 2
 Competition: There is little, if any, competition among non-defense federal departments and
agencies. Most are funded separately through various Congressional Committees and
appropriations. Although competition is important to generate the best ideas in and among
organizations, most federal departments and agencies have created their own bureaucracies
and fiefdoms with little regard for achieving what is the most important thing – transforming
new ideas into better products and services for the American people quickly and affordably.
 Incentives: There are few, if any incentives, for federal employees to deliver better products
and services cheaper, faster, and smarter! There is little, if any, accountability for failure.
There are few, if any, incentives to take risk! There are many incentives to preserve their turf
and jobs and build empires. Performance is measured more by how much money they
receive and how many people they manage than on delivering anything of quality quickly
and affordably. Typically, the more money they get, the less they work together and the less
they produce.
 Management: There are too many layers of bureaucracy and too many bureaucrats whose
main mission is to preserve their jobs, maintain the status quo, and earn bonuses whether or
not deserved. As Tom Peters stated, “Good management is the No. 1 (Ace of Hearts) reason
that big firms fail. Because, all too often, ‘good management’ means big, bureaucratic
blobs…people by big, bureaucratic, blobby employees…paying attention to big,
bureaucratic, blobby customers…supplied by big, bureaucratic suppliers. It’s time to change
all of that dramatically.”3 Few are given the education and training to manage. When people
volunteer for training, they are often suspected of having a “problem.” The people who do
not get trained are the ones with the problem – they are wasting the taxpayers’ money!
 Processes: The process to get new ideas into practice is too complex, inefficient, and
ineffective. Everyone in the process – consumers, the public, government, industry,
academia, labor, and non-governmental organizations – pays the “price” for this in terms of
increased cost, delays, and risk, and sub-optimal quality and performance. No organization
looks at the nation’s innovation process as a system from idea to impact and tries to make it
“better, cheaper, and faster” for both the private and public sectors. Because of everyone’s
different role in the process, organizations have few incentives to: work together; prepare the
nation’s future leaders to be more innovative; generate new ideas and knowledge; and
accelerate the transformation of these ideas and knowledge into better (internationally
competitive) products, processes, services, business models, and markets for the sake of the
United States and its people.
 Rules, regulations, and oversight: Burdensome government rules, regulations, and oversight
govern all steps of the innovation process. As a result, it takes an inordinate (and
unnecessary) amount of time and money to create new ideas and transition them into new
products and services. For example, a regulation that would prevent the use of turbines for
wind energy, because they kill a large numbers of birds, would needlessly stifle innovative
renewable energy solutions. It is easy to make a rule or regulation. Most are made without
fully understanding their consequences. And, once made, it is hard, if not impossible, to
reverse them and their consequences! The number of government committees, organizations,
3
Peters,Tom, Re-imagine! Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age, DorlingKindersleyLimited, London, U.K., 2003.

3. 3
and commissions that oversee federal departments and agencies further slows the product and
service development and delivery process, stymies innovation, and increases the cost and
time to market.
I believe, if the federal government addressed these issues, that it and the American people
would realize at least an order of magnitude improvement in the quantity, quality, and impact of
federal R&D. The issue is not the need for more money. The issue is government that works
and delivers quality results faster and cheaper from the R&D already funded. I would
recommend that the federal government set the following management goals for itself.
 Leadership. Establish visions, mission statements, and measureable goals for every federal
department and agency. The Vice President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
should approve them. Programs not directly supporting them should be canceled.
 Management. Put the capital M back in the OmB. Establish a performance-based,
government-wide, strategic management process. Use a Federal Advisory Board in each federal
department and agency to: review programs, processes, and progress; recommend corrective
actions; and monitor implementation.
 People, Processes and Products. Dramatically shrink the federal government, streamline
processes, and institutionalize total quality management government-wide! Reduce the number
of federal employees and, hence, personnel costs by at least twenty-five percent by 2020 (fifty
percent by 2024). Freeze hiring, pay raises, and unnecessary travel. Produce much much more,
much much more quickly for much much less!
 Excellence. Require training on leadership, innovation, quality, and financial and program
management for all employees. Employees must manage smaller programs successfully before
being awarded additional responsibilities.
 Accountability. Create a promotion system for all federal employees that is competitive and
performance-based much like the military – perform or “you’re fired,” limit the time in each
assignment, require rotations among departments and agencies to minimize fiefdoms, and move
up or “you’re out.”
Federal R&D is critical to the nation’s future but so is stopping the waste of taxpayers’ money.
Let us get smart and make a difference not just waste more time and money!!!
Finally, I have one suggestion for Mr. Gates. I believe as he does that R&D is essential to
address the many issues facing America and the world, such as clean energy and the
environment. To improve innovation in both the public and private sectors, all of our college
and university students need to understand the innovation process before they enter the
workforce. Therefore, they all should be required to take a course on innovation to graduate.
Students from all academic backgrounds and disciplines (e.g., arts, sciences, engineering,
business, medicine, and law) need the skills to work together to foster innovation regardless of
where they ultimately work – industry, government, academia, labor, or non-governmental
organizations. They all need the skills to innovate, communicate, think creatively, solve
problems, build teams and partnerships, achieve value-added results, and lead.

4. 4
Several colleges and universities have established centers of or courses on innovation, but they
are typically voluntary and/or include only some engineering and business students.
Conspicuously absent are those people who tend to be the most creative – from the arts and
sciences – and those who will eventually make and interpret the laws, rules, and regulations that
govern the process – lawyers! All students need a course on innovation to graduate. It should
acquaint all students with the innovation process and ways to make it “better, cheaper, faster, and
smarter,” including regulatory reform!!!