Dr. Som Karamchetty

Sole Member, SomeTechnologies LLC
Potomac, Maryland

Accomplishments while at U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Adelphi, MD

Management and Supervision

As a Special Assistant to the Director of Computational and Information Sciences Directorate (CISD), I developed a section of the Army Science and Technology Master Plan (ASTMP) that dealt with the technology area of Battle Command, Control, Computers, and Communications (BC4). I represented the Director on the Tri-Service Reliance Panel in ensuring that Army briefings on information science and technology programs received excellent reviews.

As Deputy Chief (GS-15 (under the ARL Personnel Demonstration program, the grade is designated as DB-IV)), Computer and Communication Sciences Division (C&CSD), Computational and Information Sciences Directorate (CISD), I assisted the Division Chief in devising strategies and in managing several Branches executing a variety of technology programs. I served on panels to recruit Branch Chiefs in the Division, and many key personnel in the Directorate and the Laboratory. I assisted in establishing budgets and project execution methods. I have been actively engaged in personnel, financial, administrative, resource, and technical aspects of management. I managed the planning, coordination, and monitoring of a variety of technology development programs.

As Branch Chief, supervised the work of six or more senior military and civilian personnel engaged in defining and building advanced mobility and logistics technology programs to address Army’s future requirements. Conceptualized, defined, promoted, and won approval for multimillion-dollar advanced technology programs through several command levels.

I received recognition for proficiency in managing committees and achieving consensus on affordable technology programs delivering essential systems capabilities.

Biometrics SBIR Program
I initiated and won approval of several command levels for SBIR proposals. I chaired evaluation panels and contracted two SBIR Phase I projects. After successful completion of the Phase I projects, I provided guidance to the COTR and launched Phase II project on a military grade, field deployable Biomteric identification system.

AI Master Plan Development

In the late 1980’s, when I joined the Laboratory Command, there was a strong interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, as witnessed by many programs and projects. DOD recognized AI as a Critical Technology. The Army Materiel Command (AMC) leadership wanted an AI Master Plan to be developed. I chaired the Committee and lead the plan development effort. I used my skills in dealing with people with widely varying agendas. Despite a strong and common interest in developing AI technology, the AMC Major Subordinate Commands (MSC’s) were nervous about losing funding from other programs to AI programs. There were apprehensions among Army managers that any discovery of unnecessary duplication of AI efforts would lead to loss of championship of programs along with the funding in those programs. With the help of my colleagues on the committee, I developed the taxonomy of the AI area. I led the group in studying AI technologies and programs and their benefits to various Army systems. I identified the state of the art of the technology development. I delineated what technologies AMC can leave to the academic researchers and private industry. I guided the group in choosing specific technical areas and focused the AMC scientists and engineers on those areas. I recognized many leveraging opportunities with other government agencies, other Service researchers, and international coalition partners. I convinced TRADOC staff of the need for AI technology. I briefed various levels of senior leadership including the AMC Commanding General. My briefings and the committee work convinced the AMC to champion the plan. After more than a year of work, the plan was developed and several programs were approved, which have since yielded excellent results.

JDL AI Technology Panel

I was an Army member on the Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL) Technology Panel on Artificial Intelligence (TPAI). I contributed to the panel’s discussions on the state of the art of AI technology development. I led the identification of Army needs for AI technology developments as dictated by the weapons systems and information systems capabilities. The identification process looked at the AI taxonomy and the developments that were germane to various sub-disciplines of AI, e.g. expert systems, natural language interfaces, speech recognition, image identification, pattern recognition, theorem proving, algorithm development, automatic programming, and so on. I participated in evaluating the funding issues. Then, we scrutinized Service programs for unnecessary duplication and gaps in the programs. We developed lists of programs for each Service to undertake. We agreed upon levels of cooperation and collaboration in programs. AMC leadership and my management recognized my contributions to the AI program, and its visibility in AMC. I briefed several levels of management to apprise them of the science and technology implications and resource requirements.

I also addressed the need for consolidation of certain programs to ensure that a critical mass of research effort existed at one or more locations chosen to conduct research. I created the concept of the JDL Centers of Excellence out of this need to have strong research groups. I championed the cause of these Centers, convinced my colleagues from other Services, and obtained concurrence of the Army scientists, management, and leadership. The Centers became a reality. I also arranged for long-term training funding for Army scientists to visit the Centers to conduct joint research. All through this process, I represented the Army at high levels and to the JDL Principals, who were two-star flag officers. I prepared briefings for the Principals to present the case of the Centers to Joint Logistics Commanders (JLC), who were the Service Four-Star Generals.

Software Engineering Plan

In the early 1990’s, a DARPA program manager proposed a $500m software technology development plan. Initially, a number of the Army scientists embraced the proposal with enthusiasm. They were eager and ready to participate in the plan development. But, I observed that the DARPA PM’s ambitious program was placing many Army software-intensive systems funding in jeopardy. The PM’s proposal would have all existing Service R&D program elements with software-intensive systems be used as bill-payers to pay the $500m bill presented by the software engineering plan. This would have caused undue damage to the Army and other Service technology base programs.

I took the lead role in analyzing the impact of the plan proposal and in preparing the briefings to the Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL) Principals. I laid out the shortcomings of the plan for the Principals to take a position. With help from other members of the JDL Panel, I analyzed the technical aspects of the DARPA Software Engineering Plan and identified portions that were technically attractive with an affordable bill. I also proposed cost sharing by academic and industrial communities so that the cost for DOD and the Services was reasonable and affordable. I applied the rationale that software was fast becoming a commercial problem in addition to it being a military problem. I assisted the Principals of the JDL in their briefing to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) and formulated their recommendations. DDR&E accepted the recommendations and the DARPA Software Engineering Plan was modified. The service weapon systems programs were protected.

Chair of the ARL Information Assurance (IA) Study Group

I chaired the ARL Information Assurance Study Group (IASG) to develop a technology development plan. The initial situation was that there was no Information Assurance program at ARL. There are some recent efforts at information security improvement programs. The success with one network intrusion detection application had pushed ARL into the limelight. Consulting assistance from ARL is being sought in these areas. ARL programs in survivability analysis of information systems also put the laboratory on the IA map. ARL is fortunate to have a number of specialists and experts in specific areas within the broader field of information security. The question is how do we make a viable long-term research, development and application program out of these islands of specialized strengths? How do we provide a strong capability for the Army?

The Information Science and Technology Directorate Director asked me to undertake the study of IA. I started the task on several fronts. I began reviewing the technology. I established the group that is willing to work together to understand the problem. I arranged for information sessions with help from experts from industry and academia. I organized regular meetings, workshops, discussion groups, and visits, which allowed us to become well informed about the field. I proposed a subdivision of the broader field into several subject areas that scientists could identify with and focus on. I developed an information flow model upon which to build the plan. I ensured conformity with the natural mission areas of the ARL Directorates.

I applied my skills in team building. For example, noting that I have a mix of extraverts and introverts in the group, I encouraged for inputs in both oral and written form so that I can get contributions from both types without inhibition. I also varied the group sizes to take advantage of group dynamics. By using the Internet and Web for reference resources and email for sharing information, I caused the ready sharing of available information. I sought and received guidance from ARL leadership. After several working drafts and reviews, I delivered a preliminary draft to our Directorate Director. I expect further and rapid progress toward a final plan in the next few months.

Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate (RPA) Advanced Technology Transition Demonstration (ATD)

As Chief of Mobility Branch, (Technology Planning and Management (TPM) Directorate of the Army Materiel Command (AMC)) and as the Action Officer for Aviation Systems Command (AVSCOM) RDEC programs, I oversaw the program development for the Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate (RPA) Advanced Technology Transition Demonstration (ATTD). {In the early 1990’s, the Assistant Secretary for Army Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASARDA) promulgated a program concept called the ATTD’s. These were roll-ups of several small research programs and technology demonstrations into sizable programs that could be defended easily before OSD and Congress, and which would yield significant results.}

I worked with AVSCOM RDEC in proposing the RPA program. We recognized that the primary goal of the program was to demonstrate a capability for Army rotorcraft, where much of the pilot’s load will be entrusted to computers. With the successful implementation of the RPA technologies, rotorcraft pilots can focus on the essential tasks and allow computers to take over more control functions. We developed and presented arguments that such a technical capability would ultimately provide significant savings.

In addition to my background in aerodynamics, gas turbines, and systems analysis, I developed a keen appreciation for technology issues in Aviation systems including, structures, power plants, controls, weapon systems, cockpit design, avionics, and human machine interfaces. I understood that besides computer and software technologies, artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive sciences played key roles. I applied my skills in technology management to make an assessment of how these emerging technologies would progress during the time frame of the ATTD and how the results could be integrated into advanced demonstrations. Then, I evaluated program resource requirements.

I developed a program plan in close collaboration with AVSCOM program managers and scientists. As the AMC Technology Planning and Management (TPM) action officer responsible for this area, I presented it to LABCOM leadership and assisted the AVSCOM Technical Director in presenting the program to DA and OSD leadership. I coordinated with DA Technology Staff Officers (TSO), and developed a program plan acceptable to Army and DOD. RPA ATTD had become a marquee program in AVSCOM technology base.

c) Natural Computing System

Just before I joined the Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM) in the late 1980’s, I conceived the idea of Natural Computing. I developed the invention disclosure and presented the concept to Army Research Laboratory (then Harry Diamond Laboratory (HDL)) for review and evaluation.

I will explain briefly the genesis of the concept. While developing expert systems for diagnostics at Mechanical Technology Incorporated, (MTI), I observed that the existing expert systems were essentially consultative. They were neither able to interface with real time diagnostic tools nor deal with data acquired from a dynamic system. At the time MTI was interested in steam turbines, gas turbines, internal combustion engines, and other thermal and mechanical systems. I developed a simple system called HARVEST that analyzed fault trees and provided diagnostics. It was as good as any contemporary system but the question of connection to real time diagnostics remained unsolved.

For example, when diagnosticians investigated the causes of failure or malfunction of a steam turbine, they gathered data form an operating (or malfunctioning) system, analyzed that data by means of some relationships, obtained other information from tables (such as steam tables), or from charts such as a steam chart. The diagnosticians did some calculations on the fly and then applied some rules, such as those in rule based expert systems, and determined the causes of failure. In the mid- 1970’s, some expert systems applications attempted to provide this functionality by hard coding the relationships and tables. But any hard coding of domain specific data and information might be useful in the short term but negated the concept of intelligent systems. I developed a next generation HARVEST that had the capability to capture equations from any domain. It was a significant improvement and I applied it on an Air Force rotor diagnostics project. But it still was not capable of handling data contained in tables and graphs as they existed in textbooks and handbooks.

As I studied the developments in AI, I discovered that the problem is one of fundamental computer science issue. Then I conceived the idea of Natural Computing. I surmised that by developing equations, tables and graphs as objects and defining their characteristics and operations on them as suitable classes, the problem could be solved. After writing the initial invention disclosure, I developed several examples and flow diagrams for coding the objects and the operation of the system. Finally, in 1997, the US Patent and Trademark Office, granted me a patent. I have been working with ARL Technology Transfer Officers to reach out to industry and have the system developed under a Patent Licensing Agreement (PLA).

Managerial Qualifications

1. Leading Change:

As a technologist, I understood that practical systems are always less efficient than their ideal counterparts. I learned that one could improve the performance and efficiency of an engineering system through a judicious application of technologies. After joining the Federal Government and receiving training in personnel management, I developed a thorough knowledge of the causes for good human performance. I believed that constant improvement in human systems is also possible by studying the parameters and changing them in the right direction. On the job, however, I learned from my senior leaders, the effect of constraints on the pace of change in practical human systems.

In my career spanning academic research, industrial research, and government research management, I led change. In my association with professional societies (e.g. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)), I took every opportunity to lead change.

I will present three examples of my leadership role in change.

a) Computer Systems and Simulation Technology (CS&ST) Division Planning

As the Deputy Chief of the Computer Systems and Simulation Technology Division, I assisted the Chief in the operation of the Division. By a historical coincidence, the Division inherited a discordant mission, and technical staff with diverse interests and qualifications. The mismatch between the Division mission and the capabilities of its technical staff was a constant source of problems and a cause for inefficiency. I noticed that conflict existed between the highly applied engineering groups and the basic research teams. I developed a strategic plan for the Division Chief. I applied strategic planning skills acquired on my previous jobs and in training courses.

I analyzed the National security goals, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Army guidance. I ensured that we were responding to the ARL Grand Challenges by setting information dominance on the battlefield as the theme for the Division technologies. I studied the skills of individual engineers and scientists and project teams. I focused the Division technology thrusts on Command and Control and advocated it to the Branch Chiefs, who would be responsible to implement the technology development programs of the Division. Recognizing the resource constraints, I identified opportunities for leveraging external research efforts. I proposed initiatives in marketing, personnel development, and resource allocation. I recommended an organizational structure that would allow a research environment to thrive while producing engineered software systems.

I ensured that my plan approach was in sync with the new ARL Director’s challenge of a doubling of the ARL budget in the next five years. I argued that if we followed conventional arithmetic, our Directorate would expect an increase proportionate to its current financial resources. But I contended that the time was ripe for Information Technology, our Directorate’s mission, to grow at a much higher rate than other technical missions of ARL. I identified new technical thrusts that our Division might undertake on behalf of the Directorate. I proposed that by taking advantage of the flexibility offered by the new Personnel Demonstration system, the Division could hire competent computer scientists and information technologists to address technology development issues. I recommended a target of a fivefold growth in the Division budget in the next five years. I am currently working with the Division Chief and the Directorate Director in implementing the conceptual plan.

b) Factor IV Process Improvement

Factor IV Process is a promotion method available to Army Research Laboratory (ARL) scientists who excel in scientific and technical accomplishments. These scientists and engineers need not go through open competition to obtain promotions to higher grades. Candidates develop statements of qualifications, which are reviewed by promotion panels. While serving on these panels, I observed that the candidates lacked a good understanding on how to develop their statements of qualifications. I noticed that most panel members, being physical scientists, lacked an appreciation for the accomplishments of computer engineers and software developers. In the absence of a competitive salary structure, and promotion potential, ARL would lose competent software engineers to lucrative offers from the private sector. I concluded that the situation would have serious implications and negative consequences. The government’s computer science and software systems research mission would suffer.

I studied the personnel regulations and the Factor IV process. In the first instance, I developed a guide for self-assessment by candidates seeking promotion through the Factor IV promotion. I used the guide in advising candidates as they prepared their statements of qualifications. Next, I proposed to IST Directorate Director that the guide be used to plan scientists’ careers in the Laboratory. I analyzed the work of computer engineers and software developers and identified expected accomplishments by various grade levels. I developed criteria for evaluating accomplishments of these categories of scientists and engineers and defined metrics for use by the members of promotion panels. I briefed ARL leadership and gained their acceptance of the new criteria and metrics. My initiative and efforts helped the laboratory to promote and retain highly qualified research scientists working in computer and information sciences.

c) Technical Review Process

Army Research Laboratory (ARL) inherited a cumbersome and bureaucratic process to gain approval for technical publications. I discovered that the process consisted of securing as many as nine signatures on a form (called, Form 1). Notwithstanding the need for the process when it was introduced, ARL scientists felt that the process added no technical value but acted as a bottleneck in expeditious publication of technical reports and papers. I learned that chasing the form meant a considerable waste of scientists’ time. I studied the process and assessed the essential elements in the process and I identified them to be technical editing, upholding quality standards, and protecting classified information. I developed a new process that would be more efficient while preserving the essential elements. One key element was protecting technical information critical to national security. I decided that it was best to train a small group of technical reviewers in operational security (OPSEC) reviews of technical publications. I contended that they were best equipped to judge the security implications of the technical information. They could evaluate the security implications while conducting a technical review of a manuscript. I argued that by combining technical and security reviews, we improved the process productivity.

I recommended to the Information Science and Technology Directorate Director to set up a technical review and editorial panel, to help authors in addressing the essential elements in publishing papers. I gained his acceptance and support.

I commenced the next step of promoting the new process with the ARL leadership. I am ensuring that the prospects for approval are good. I am currently working on the implementation phase. I am convinced that the new process will improve the quality of publications by ARL scientists, while saving hundreds of hours of scientists’ time, with out jeopardizing sensitive and classified information.

a) Army Lead person (ALP) on BAST STAR Panel

The Chief Scientist of the Army Materiel Command (AMC) selected me as the Army Lead person (ALP) to work with the National Research Council’s (NRC) Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) for Strategic Technologies for Research (STAR). The study group consisted of eminent scientists and engineers from the US private sector. The Board’s mission was to recommend technologies for the Army to focus on for the 2020 time frame. I represented Army research community in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. I served as a technical expert and as a liaison between the industrial experts and army developer and user communities.

My membership and chairmanship of the AMC AI Functional Coordinating Group (AIFCG), AI Master Plan Group, and other AI responsibilities gave me a head start. I consulted with several groups of Army AI scientists, engineers, and program managers. However, when dealing with a future research scenario, the emphasis was not on current work and immediate accomplishments but our ability to project into future. I applied my experience with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) model. According to the MBTI model, not every one could be expected to imagine a scenario for the future. I understood that the NT’s (Intuitive and Thinkers) and the SJ’s (Sensors and Judgers) had their predispositions. I took advantage of their respective strengths by seeking futuristic outlines from the NT’s and requesting the SJ’s to fill the outlines with proper technical details.

While the Army was the customer for the Panel’s study, the panel members were my customers. I had the responsibility to provide the information on Army systems and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) future requirements to the panel members. My help expedited the panel’s work, and made their recommendations more relevant to the Army’s situation.

I played several lead roles and completed them. One of those roles was to brief the Army leadership on the state of progress of the Panel’s study and ensure that practical problems were addressed. I identified a set of future technologies of relevance to the future Army as opposed to the civilian sector and ensured that the BAST subpanels addressed them. I wrote several drafts of the Technology Forecast Assessments (TFA’s) in various technical areas. I contributed to the many deliberations, several draft reports, and the final BAST STAR report, I arranged for a representative group of BAST STAR experts to brief the ARL leaders and scientists at the ARL Technology Opportunities Conference (ATOC) on the importance of the Study recommendations. The BAST STAR report is still a reference resource for ARL and AMC RDEC community.

Mobility Branch Chief and Program Planning

As Chief of the Mobility Branch, I developed resource budgets of two types: one was to manage the Branch, and the other was to develop R&D programs for aviation systems and ground systems. I developed and vigorously defended technology development program budgets for Army Aviation Systems Command (AVSCOM), Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM), and Program Manager for Training and Development (PM TRADE). I led the Branch in being the Army Materiel Command (AMC) proponent for technical programs advanced by these AMC Major Subordinate Commands (MSC’s). I responded to national security needs and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) requirements, while recognizing the resource constraints imposed by the Congress, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and the Department of the Army (DA). I accomplished these tasks by identifying the technology barriers, by applying technology planning principles, and by coherent communication with all the stakeholders.

The first budget action at the Army Laboratory Command (LABCOM) was the PM TRADE funding issue I presented to the AMC Technology Base Advisory Group (TBAG) at Huntsville, AL. I prepared the issue and presented it along with the rationale and justification for funding. I briefed the meeting chaired by the LABCOM Commanding General. I secured the $1.1 million request for the program. Subsequently, I prepared a number of programs and defended them successfully.

The AVSCOM’s Rotorcraft Pilot’s Associate (RPA) program, at over $100 million, was one of the largest I presented and defended successfully. I also conducted program reviews.

I prepared estimates of resource requirements to run my branch and secured adequate funding to manage the branch. I exercised full control of the branch resources and accomplished the assigned mission within the allocated budget. I provided funds to train my Branch staff to improve their skills and for their educational programs. I ensured professional growth of my staff and helped them in gaining the promotions they deserved.

AI Briefings, and Papers with BG Malcolm O’Neill

As a professor at universities in India, Australia, and the USA, I demonstrated strong oral communications skills. With student and faculty committee positions of leadership, I developed skills of persuasion. I honed my presentation skills during professional association and seminar leadership responsibilities. My writing skills were in evidence in terms of technical reports, papers, and proposals. At the University of Newcastle, Australia, the department felt that the students were not doing well in communications, especially in the communication of technical issues to the non-technical world. The Chairman of my Department asked me to conduct both the technical seminar classes and the general seminar classes. The former emphasized communication of technical knowledge while the later focused on general topics. I guided the students in learning how to analyze a topic; how to understand the audience; and how to present what is important to the listener.

After I joined the Laboratory Command (LABCOM), I realized that there was need for skills of a different type. One related to the strict form and format specified by the military hierarchy. The other pertained to the high levels of abstraction of briefings and information papers. I developed these skills through orientation courses given to AMC action officers and on the job.

I worked with BG Malcolm O’Neill, Commanding General of LABCOM, and developed an AI Briefing for him to present to a general audience at the Logistics Symposium. In the first instance, I prepared briefings that were more tutorial in nature to inform the leadership on the latest advancements in AI. The next step was to collect information on LABCOM programs and accomplishments. Finally, I developed the General’s briefing. Since that briefing was meant for a general audience and was being given by a General Officer, I designed it to be rich with pictures and used text sparingly. The briefing had made such an impact on the audience that BG O’Neill directed the LABCOM staff to use that format as a standard for all future briefings by the Commanding General.

After compiling information on AI technology, General O’Neill and I wrote two articles on AI and published them in the AMC RDA Bulletin and the Army Logistics Bulletin.

d) Dual Use Technology Transfer Project Plan

I was asked to lead the technology aspects of the Dual use technology plan in early 1992. The context was that the new President directed that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) drop the ‘D’ from its name and develop dual use technologies to assist the civilian industrial sector. The Joint Dual Use Program Office (JDUPO) was coming into being. Large investments were proposed to be made by the Administration in the Dual use area. ARL leadership committed to work with the President’s directives and wanted to play a big role. But, that role was yet unidentified and undefined. I was then working in the Advanced Concepts Division and was given the lead in the technology aspects of the task. My counterpart in the Technology Transfer Division had the lead for understanding and describing the new ‘landscape.’

I started with a review of the legislation. I studied the successful cases being cited by the Dual Use proponents. Those cases involved the Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories and consortia of industries, such as the steel industry and the auto industry. I felt that the DOE model was a good one for ARL to follow. It gave national exposure with high impact. We still had to identify the technology developments each ARL Directorate would contribute so that the results would be useful both to the Army and the civilian sector. We gave presentations to the DARPA Program Manager and held discussions with him.

My technology transfer colleague and I prepared a presentation for the Director of ARL and his senior staff. After their preview, the proposal was presented to all the Directors of ARL Directorates. Several industrial proponents came to ARL and proposed concepts and offered to make joint proposals. One proposal would use ARL composite material expertise and develop economical but strong components for bridge structures. It would ring well with national infrastructure improvement also.

Finally, ARL signed on to the project and placed a senior staff member to work at DARPA and played a major role in dual use within the guidelines provided by DARPA, who were given charge to manage the program.

Once again, this is an example of my abilities to take part in a national program by studying, understanding the scientific, technical, legislative and programmatic nuances, and to define a proper role for my organization.

Return to capabilities.