IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION
fact that the Innovation Program would be managed at the state level allows for a straightforward method of comparing results from different states. Te respec- tive programs can be evaluated and the states that demonstrate the most successful record of delivering innovation rewarded with expanded programs and national recognition.
LISTEN UP
Command Sgt. Maj. Perlisa D. Wilson, Maryland National Guard senior enlisted leader, right, with Command Sgt. Maj. Mario Bagaric, the senior enlisted leader of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, speaking to a class of noncommissioned officers in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, during a key leader visit to the country. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Sarah McClanahan, Maryland National Guard)
and Oregon, can be leveraged to focus on innovation opportunities in specific niche areas. Te service-members-to-grants ratio can be adjusted to capture more represen- tation from localities that are likely to have pioneering technologies in areas of specific need, such as space, cyber, natural disaster response or aviation.
Working directly with the military at the state level provides a number of advantages for both DOD as well as the local inno- vators. Te state National Guards have similar needs as the larger active forces but are better positioned to identify targeted solutions. Tey are often more capable of quickly leveraging a standing pool of resources required for testing and evalua- tion. Tey also benefit from a compressed approval process. Achieving proof of concept can be reached in an expedited timeline via the National Guard compared with active-duty forces.
Another benefit is that National Guards are more capable of connecting with local industry. Guard members have a unique understanding of their local state’s compet- itive advantages and organic resources. Tey also have a much more direct line of communication with local stake- holders than DOD, resulting in greater responsiveness and expedited outcomes. Te fact that National Guard person- nel often spend much of their lives in the same areas they are stationed allows for a level of awareness and accessibility that is especially relevant for capturing quickly evolving technologies.
The Innovation Program model also helps to bridge the incentive gap that exists between innovators whose live- lihood depends on the success of their business today and DOD, whose innova- tion adoption timeline is often measured in years. From the DOD perspective, the
Incentive for successful innovation is also realized at the state level. As the local lead, the innovation officer has significant personal interest in achieving meaning- ful innovation progress. Te state National Guards “own” the program and can leverage a successful program to garner additional resources and visibility. Because they are the champions for a specific inno- vation, the state is able to take the lead for implementation across the entire DOD. A successful program not only enhances the standing of a state’s National Guard but also generates economic growth for that area, incentivizing political prioritization of the program. Ultimately, a successful innovation program benefits stakeholders at the local, state and DOD levels.
WEAK LINKS? Despite the significant potential reward to DOD, this initiative still carries elements of risk. The reality that the innova- tion officer is the singular entry point for the program at the state level is the most prominent concern. An unqualified, unmotivated or underperforming officer serving in that role not only impedes inno- vation in the near term but erodes overall credibility for that state’s program moving forward. But there are ways of minimiz- ing this concern.
One mitigating factor already built into the system is that the higher-profile nature of the position becomes a de facto filter. Demonstrated achievers within a state’s Guard are more likely to gravitate to the
106
Army AL&T Magazine
Spring 2022
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
