COMMENTARY
National Guard to “hire” that company after the initial invest- ment of time and resources. With that said, the program would be structured to cultivate small companies with promising, DOD- relevant innovations, in a mutually beneficial way that maximizes the likelihood that DOD will be able to harvest innovative prod- ucts that provide needed capabilities.
Twelve to 18 months after initial implementation, companies that received Tier I grants would be able to compete for a smaller number of Tier II grants. Tier II grants include a slightly larger funding amount (approximately $200,000) and allow for the
continuation and maturation of innovations that proved prom- ising during the Tier I trial period. Since this program would ultimately only look to capture commercial-off-the-shelf solu- tions, “maturation” in this case would be limited to minor refinements and realization of cost-related efficiencies. Total costs of the Innovation Program can be quantified using the Maryland National Guard as a reference.
STATE FOCUS Te Maryland National Guard has roughly 5,000 total service members across the state, including both those in the Army and Air National Guards. Using the reference ratio of service members to grants, this equates to five Tier I grants (one per 1,000 service members), and one additional billet for an innovation officer. Assuming an approximately 2-to-1 ratio for Tier I to Tier II grants, the Maryland National Guard also would qualify for two additional Tier II grants ($200,000 per grant). Te total cost of those five Tier I grants, two Tier II grants, one full-time addi- tional innovation officer billet, and associated expenses adds up to less than $1 million annually. From a return-on-investment standpoint, the actual investment is relatively minimal.
Te real value of the Innovation Program is in the realization of return on DOD’s investment. Using the Maryland National Guard example, the state’s proximity to numerous DOD facilities along with a number of other factors (access to top-tier universi- ties, significant defense industry presence, etc.) mean that the state has thousands of small businesses already operating in specialties that have relevant applications for DOD. Te Maryland Guard could work with these companies and, using the tiered grants as a catalyst, generate utility from their innovations that benefits both the Maryland National Guard and the larger DOD. Te value realized from any one of those grants resulting in a “hit” for DOD could easily exceed the cost of the state’s entire program.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs, and Bosnia- Herzegovina defense attaché Col. Zoran Batarilo speaking to Maryland senior leaders, February 1, 2020 at the Dundalk Readiness Center. (Photo by Maryland National Guard)
One of the benefits of this model is that it allows DOD to surge funding to states that have a competitive advantage in areas of particular need. Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York have the largest National Guards in the United States. Each of these states has industries, geography and business cultures that uniquely position them to support initiatives that align with various DOD priorities. Capturing innovative IT develop- ments in California or Texas, industrial developments in Ohio or Pennsylvania, or finance-related technology in New York would afford DOD access to the most advanced developments in each these areas, some of which inevitably have defense-related appli- cations. Additionally, smaller National Guards from states with highly specialized units, like those in Vermont, West Virginia
https://asc.ar my.mil 105
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
