The U.S. Department of State thinks about thinking.

Yesterday fp21 led by Dan Spokojny hosted an intriguing mid-day session on a current proposal by the 美国国务院 to create a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, or FFRDC. FFRDCs have been around since World War II as a mechanism to mobilize energy and academic thinking around hard problems. If you've been in and around government, they're nearly synoymous with organizations like MITRE and RAND . They're often talked about in the same breath as University Affilitated Reserarch Centers (UARCs), which are funded at twice the level as FFRDCs as of 2020 according to the Congressional Research Service. FFRDCs exist to help understand wicked problems and generate insights through evidence and data backed approaches.

The BLUF - Bottom Line Up Front

A FFRDC will be a boon for State, if the Department uses its capabilities effectively as a fulcrum for modernization and change, as a method for researching and vetting ideas, and as a common ground for bringing together operational personnel, researchers, academics, and industry in meaningful ways. There is an opportunity and value proposition in having this unique mechanism available to the Department, with a couple of important caveats and criteria.

At face value, the initial announcement in the Federal Register looked as though there might be three different centers created with a focus on different changing areas within State's day to day work. Since then, an update has clarified that the intent is to have a single center for the Department's needs, with language that looks remarkably like an optimization around the Department's execution of management functions. This has arguably always been the intent; the original notice placed the Center in the Bureau of Administration under the Undersecretary for Management - the most "management-y" place you could possibly find for such a thing in the Department.

The Advantage of Having a Management-aligned Center

The Department already spends money on MITRE. Multiple bureaus engage with them regularly to execute performative tasks related to the investigation, understanding, evaluation, and exploration of operational activities, mostly in areas which are heavily process and technology related. USASpending.gov tells us in the past three fiscal years, MITRE has received more than $23M in funding. Although opinions vary of the efficacy of this spend, the reality is that the work is being performed and so having a dedicated Center would reduce the overall contracting burden on awards for work ostensibly already being conducted. In other words, this is a streamlining activity, not a new capability.

A Department-based, management-aligned center is a net positive for the Department if we look at this as evolution of existing practice and not new capability. In an ideal scenario, an internal thinktank could effectively launch State's overseas platform management, arguably one of the most pivotal roles the Department currently plays, into the 21st century.

What Is Missing?

The downside is that a management-aligned center that evolves current work is not a net new capability for the rest of the State Department, and in some ways could threaten to continue to expand the gulf between the policy and operational components in the adoption and use of data. A Center focused on diplomacy and policy could have significant and positive impacts on the Department.

As proposed, it would not move the needle on policy, impact the Department's policy role in the interagency, or create more resources for Ambassadors and field personnel to draw on to ask, understand, and evaluate hard questions. To do that, the Department would need another Center, or one with expanded focus, aimed specifically at policy questions, aligned alongside S/P, the Deputy Secretary (D), or possibly in the Undersecretary for Political Affairs (P).

And meanwhile, outside of the Undersecretary for Management family of bureaus, known collectively as the M family, programs like the Jefferson Science Fellows, AAAS Fellows, a smattering of other funded Fellowships, and Public-Private Partnerships (including DiplomacyLab) creates a disjointed crowd-worked best effort without any real organizational support or scaffolding to support research in the rest of the Department. It is the result of smart people seeing a real need and doing their best to develop solutions that make an impact, devoid of an organization that actively supports, enthusiastically encourages, and adequately resources.

Imagine a world where a Secretary, the Deputies, Undersecretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and Ambassadors had the advantage of working with a team of private-public researchers and pause for long enough to consider the real impact of policy and operational decisions. That's a remarkable vision and end state.

The Pitfalls

There are a lot of places this can go wrong or significantly and negatively impact existing successful efforts. Of those considerations, perhaps the most important of which is how a State Department FFRDC would be funded, and whether the Congress has an interest in giving the Department a color of money earmarked for these types of questions. Or, like most current efforts, expect the money to just be realigned internally. The approach of adding dedicated R&D money would create clear lines of separation between operations and research, something that tends to get blurred within the halls of the Harry S. Truman building.

If this is just realigning current obligations, then it is something that should be monitored and evaluated but the imminent danger of disruption is mostly contained. If the concept or model is to significantly ramp up these activities, then there are some good questions to ask on the actual details of funding. These discussions have likely already taken place, and maybe even already shared with Congress. It would still be useful for the rest of the community to understand how this new Center will be funded. In the follow-up to the original announcement, the Department highlighted that no additional funding is being sought or directed.

The cultural implications and roadmap of having a Center in the Department needs to be considered. Importantly, finding an organization during the RFP process who is a "cultural fit" for the Department is important. For all MITRE's accolades, they are an engineering firm with a direct lineage back to MIT. A better fit for State might be a Center run out of UChicago's Center for Public Policy, for example. Or, as design and aligned with management activities, even Penn State, CMU, or several other institutions might be just as or more effective. When the RFP is issued, ensuring cultural alignment and fit will be a critical component of finding a path to success.

There are plenty of stories where FFRDCs provide valuable insight and research to the federal community. There are just as many stories where a Center wasn't used appropriately, given a task that wasn't really a research question because of operational necessity and contractual speed, or had mission creep that put them dangerously close to operational work. Those are the activities that require careful monitoring, especially in such an operationally focused organization like the Department.

Finally, if it turns out that what the Department really needs isn't a Center, but expanded or alternative acquisition authorities, there should be an open and honest conversation about pivoting as well. It would not be impossible, given the current state of the world, to petition Congress for Other Transaction Authority to expedite mission readiness. OT Authority might be able to accomplish many of the same things without worrying about whether research and operations were being blended.

Who cares?

The fact that with about a week to go before comments close and only ten comments on the Federal Register announcement, there's a underlying question: Who cares?

Everyone should care. A Department with a FFRDC is better than a Department without. A solely management-aligned Center is okay, so long as it isn't disruptive. Missing the opportunity to bring new capabilities to the Department is something that may complicate the conversation further down the road.

Understanding that research does have a role in a largely operational State Department is a necessary and massive cultural mindshift. Getting Headquarters and Field personnel in the mode of thinking instead of reacting will be a long process. The benefits of doing this, however, could change how diplomacy is perceived by the country and within the interagency.

Finally, if this is seen as a way to expedite contracting, maybe there are other authorites that should also be investigated. A Center is not a forever program and needs to be renewed on a reoccuring basis like any other contract. There is an opportunity to ensure that the objectives and outcomes generated by a Center meet the expectations and value demanded by the taxpayer.

And, if this is being read before the close of comments, most importantly there is still time to care. Add your comments and be heard!

About the Author

John Janek is a former member of the Foreign Service and helped write the 2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. He is currently the Chief Technologist at Dev Technology Group, Inc. where he oversees the technical community delivering mission-impacting outcomes for some of our nation's most critical systems. The views expressed here are personal and do not reflect the views or opinions of Dev Technology Group.