Department of Defense

Completely Revamp/Overhaul Air Force Research Laboratory

Community Member kudos icon + Community member

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is stuck in the 20th Century and is in bad need of complete systemic overhaul - personnel, procedures, records & files management, as well as leadership:


Physicists, PhDs, Engineers, and Technical personnel are required to be a “one person SPO” – being a program manager, logistician, financial manager, test engineer, data entry clerk, etc. Each “engineer/program manager” is required to be proficient in no less than SIX different computer programs (Sharepoint, AFCORP, LiveLink, Clarity, CCars, WebEIS, and probably more). This is exceedingly inefficient and requires the “researcher” to draw expensive work time away from purely scientific endeavors to doing redundant, unproductive, and non-essential work that could be done by data entry folks.


Archaic records are required to be kept & maintained. In the “old days” such records were probably essential. In today’s data-centric computerized world, such files are an albatross. They take up too much server space (or paper file space), require too much time to maintain, are a burden to all involved, and many of the documents are NEVER even looked at beyond the researcher/scientist.


Management hierarchy is too top heavy. The old saying “too many chiefs, and too few workers” is plain to see at all levels. The “headquarters” and support groups are too numerous with their top-down requirements exceedingly too onerous. Time to trim the fat – get rid of the multiple layers of “management” level providing “advice” versus actually contributing to THE MISSION. Many times the “advice” is of little value to the researcher, tester, scientist or engineer.


Overhauling the entire AFRL management hierarchy would save millions of dollars in labor, positions, as well as time and efforts for its engineers, researchers, and their multitude of programs.

I agree to have my idea, not my name or information, posted online. YES


Idea No. 8935