From 2007 to 2010, innovation flour- ished for
the detection, neutralization
and mitigation of asymmetric threats for ground-based platforms. Tis was the result, in large part, to organizations such as the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Organization and the Army’s Counter IED Task Force, led by CERDEC NVESD, which success- fully adapted new processes for integrating innovative short and midterm initiatives into field-ready capabilities. Tese organi- zations explored the use of new outreach platforms, such as industry days, work- shops and online forums,
to engage in
dialog with industry, academia and inter- national research organizations to provide opportunities
for injecting orthogonal thinking into the development process.
Additionally, the asymmetrical threats in Afghanistan and Iraq led to a positive byproduct in unifying the military and federal S&T enterprise in examining inter- nal areas of research that could be applied in new ways against a unique threat. Engi- neers and scientists explored opportunities to look outside the traditional develop- ment cycles that bounded their thinking and discovered orthogonal applications and cross-domain solutions. Tis ated opportunities for S&T investments
cre- THREAT RESPONSE
The dynamic evolution of threats necessitates that conventional S&T acquisition development processes evolve as well. CERDEC is applying three overarching innovation lessons from OEF and OIF to its efforts in supporting the Army’s future strategic land power investment strategy. (U.S. Army photo)
By taking a fresh look at the fundamentals, NVESD was able to identify new opportunities for exploring cost-effective innovations.
in one area to find multiple applications; and created dual-use capabilities, which improved the overall cost-effectiveness of S&T exploratory investments across the federal enterprise. For example, micro- wave research by the Air Force for crowd control applications influenced the devel- opment of vehicle-based directed-energy systems that initiated IEDs used by the Army and Marine Corps. In another example, portal screening research by the Army, the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Secu- rity Administration directly influenced military checkpoints and suicide bomber detection systems deployed throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.
LESSON 3: WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE By definition, innovation creates organi- zational conflict. A disruptive new idea struggles to gain a foothold because it challenges convention. Te military conflicts of OIF and OEF demonstrated
that those organizations that could posi- tively and rapidly embrace change were at a significant advantage in meeting the unique challenges associated with asym- metric warfare.
Asymmetric warfare allowed the enemy to adapt quickly to address the technolog- ical and military advantages held by U.S. forces and their allies. Tey embraced the
“fail fast” approach often used in software development, which resulted in resilient organizations that were tolerant of
ures and adjusted quickly to minimize the impact and cost of flawed processes and methods.
Tis unique threat to the conventional strength of the U.S. military encour- aged the DOD acquisition community to embrace aspects of this fail-fast philosophy out of necessity to adapt to an ever-changing adversary. New organiza- tions such as the Rapid Equipping Force were formed—going to far as to include
ASC.ARMY.MIL 77 fail-
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172
