Defence boffins need a leg up

V.K. Aatre

Jan 19, 2015 

For some reason, DRDO has turned the favourite punching bag of all and sundry in recent days. The organisation has been slammed for cost and time overruns, for not excelling in design and development of advanced weapons and systems required by the armed forces, and of course for not planning the line of succession both at the top and in selection of directors of different laboratories.

It is true that several projects are delayed, some even beyond acceptable limits, but one must understand that defence projects are never accomplished on time even in countries like the United States because the technologies involved are extremely complex.Besides, nobody acknowledges the fact that the organisation lacks the support of indigenous industry when it comes to sourcing certain devices, components, and subsystems for some of its projects, and therefore has to develop them because advanced countries are not ready to part with them.

Despite denial of technology and critical components and subsystems, the DRDO has managed to design and fly the Tejas, the light combat aircraft, which has logged more than 3,000 hours of flying without a single snag. The same is the case with sonar systems, radars and communication systems. And yet, some people ask why other organisations are doing well, and DRDO has no achievements to talk of.

First and foremost, the organisation must address the task of not just attracting the best talent but retaining them with incentives and provide opportunities to constantly interface with the academia. It means the HR department should become thoroughly professional, and not restrict itself to recruitment but also expand its scope of activity so that the talent available is harnessed to cater to the vast canvas encompassing more than 50 laboratories.

In every laboratory, two or three talented engineers must be identified, mentored and sent to IIMs for training so that they do not lack leadership qualities in case they are chosen to head the facility. And, most important, the most technically qualified engineer need not head the facility because he might not be the best person to manage manpower, and encourage his colleagues to get the results.

With retention of talent proving a daunting task in recent days, incentives should be announced for pioneering work, and opportunities to go on a sabbatical and work in academic institutes so that they not only get an opportunity to pursue a doctoral degree but also interact with the best brains in the field.

Simultaneously, experts in academic institutions should be allowed to work on projects in DRDO’s laboratories for a year or two. Such a cross-flow will help the organisation address technological challenges quickly, and even overcome technological denials.

It will help if the organisation allows lateral entry of experts, particularly those who are keen to return from advanced countries or from the academia, as otherwise futuristic technology could prove to be out of reach.

And, to provide young engineers opportunities to head a laboratory, the retirement age should be fixed at 63 with no extension in service as even one instance of extension will send a wrong signal to those down the hierarchy.

If those in academic institutions are allowed to retire at 65, engineers in DRDO should continue till they are 63 rather than sign off at 60.

Lastly, to steer clear of criticism over delays, every laboratory should not set the timeframe for projects in the beginning but only after technology readiness evaluation, and announce a realistic date of completion after a mid-course review as this exercise will help take into account the availability of components and sub-systems in the country, as also complexities of technology.

Also, directors of laboratories should be empowered to acquire components or devices from abroad rather than run to the headquarters for approval, and await the outcome of a long-drawn process. To sum up, a couple of changes will help DRDO excel in a very short time.

The writer is former scientific adviser to the defence minister