TARA: The DoD Technical Review Program
By Morton A. Hirschberg, Army Research Lab (Retired)
1. TARA Overview
The Department of Defense (DoD) Technical Area Review and Assessment (TARA) program has been in existence for over a decade. During that time the review process has undergone several changes but the general overall purpose remains the same. In this article we shall look at the current review procedures, primarily as it pertains to computer science and software engineering.
The TARA began originally as part of Project Reliance and remains as part of that project today. The Science & Technology (S&T) Reliance Coordinating Body (i.e., TARA Reviewers and their government superiors) helps to eliminate unnecessary duplication, and seeks out opportunity for synergy, integrating various component programs into a S&T Program. Under the auspices of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), the purpose of Reliance is to assist DDR&E and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology (DUSD (S&T)), the Services, and other Defense Agencies to coordinate planning and articulate the value of Research and Technology (R&T) within the DoD. Project Reliance has steadily improved over a 10 year period, has shown to be the best means of supporting the joint warfighter, provides a blueprint for the 21st century, documents the President's budget, and provides a coherent DoD wide planning, document preparation, and review process.
2. TARA Scope
The scope of TARA is that of overseeing the development and maintenance of the Defense S&T Strategy, the Basic Research Plan (BRP), the Defense Technology Area Plan (DTAP), the Joint Warfighting S&T Plan (JWSTP) and the Defense Technology Objectives (DTOs). The TARA and Service/Agency S&T plans feed the Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) and budgetary plans. The TARA reviews are mandatory.
3. TARA Goals
Systems Technology, Mantech, Nuclear, and Weapons met.
This article focuses on the Information Systems Technology Panel
under which there are 5 sub-panels. These are:
- Computing and Software Technology,
- Modeling and Simulation Technology,
- Seamless Communications,
- Information Assurance, and
- Decision Making.
Each sub-panel is further broken down into 3 or 4 sub-sub-panels. For instance, the Computing and Software Technology sub-sub-panels are: Information Management and Interaction, Autonomous Systems and Embedded Systems.
Specific TARA Goals are:
- to provide an independent assessment of a technical area;
- to provide a focus for the Defense Technology Objectives (DTOs)
(there are currently 386);
- to reduce unnecessary duplication and identify opportunities
for increased synergy; and
- to identify major S&T issues and concerns for the Defense Science
and Technology Advisory Group (DSTAG).
4. Information Systems Technology Panel
At present there are 12 TARA panels. In 2002 seven of these panels including; Air Platforms, Chemical & Biological Defense, Human Systems, Information
5. Review Process
Reviews are held over a period of several days with reviewers coming from DoD, other government agencies, academia, and commercial businesses. In the past, materials presented were from various Program Elements (PEs) with funding lines within Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the military services. DARPA was, and still is, the major stakeholder. In some instances ,topics could go down to the individual work package level. TARA 2000 was goal oriented as were many previous reviews. TARA 2002 however, was DTO oriented and 20 DTOs were reviewed. Basic Research (i.e., 6.1) is concerned primarily with academic research, while Applied Research (i.e., 6.2 and some 6.3) is contractor and in-house research. Budget figures for FY03 RDT&E total approximately $53.9 billion dollars. Here's a breakdown:
6.1 + 6.2 = $5.2B
6.1 + 6.2 + 6.3 =$9.9B
6.4 + 6.5 = $24B
6.6 + 6.7 = $20B
Closely aligned to the DTO's are Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATD's). These demonstration programs are administered by the services with blocked or reserved funding for them. They usually are funded for a few years and are expected to lead to fieldable products.
As far as time tables, programs in the 2002-2005 time frame are considered near term. Dynamic rather than static environments characterize them. Those in years 2006-2009 are mid-term where the focus is rapidly composed models and simulations. Finally, 2010 and the out years are considered far term. Their characteristics are consistent interoperable battlespace with rapidly configured human representations.
TARA reviewers were also presented with operations other than war such as social, economic, cultural, and political programs. Natural and synthetic environments were discussed. Comparisons between military and Commercial Science & Technology were given. In the commercial sector, rapid capitalization is the prime focus. In the military, capitalization is slower and a major focus is multilevel security. In the military, Software Science & Technology spending is near zero with expectations of leveraging off of commercial technology where Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) development
is deemed sufficient.
6. Conclusion
While I have purposely refrained from discussing any individual program, I have tried to give the full flavor of the TARA. In fairness, one should not ignore successes such as the Navy's Fleet Battle Experiment
or the Air Forces Joint Battle Space. The TARA provides a valuable service and provides our decision-makers the information they need. This being said, our job is far from done.
The author wishes to thank Captain Frank Garcia (USN), who chaired the 2002 TARA, for his time and providing information about recent TARAs and Mr. Marshall Potter of the FAA for providing specific information on TARA 2002.
About the Author
Mr. Hirschberg has over 40 years of experience as a computer scientist. His career has encompassed working in academia, industry and government, with a focus on scientific applications. Now retired, his last full time position was with the US Army at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Mr. Hirschberg holds a B.A. in Mathematics from UCLA and an M.A. in Experimental Psychology from UCSB. Currently consulting for the DACS, Mr. Hirschberg has authored and contributed to over 50 papers.
Author Contact Information
Morton Hirschberg
Army Research Lab (retired)
E-mail: Mortfran@aol.com
As a DACS consultant Mr. Hirschberg may also be contacted through the DACS:
775 Daedalian Dr
Rome, NY 13441
(800) 214-7921 | 
DACS Gold Practice Initiative
ROI Dashboard
