COMMENTARY
position, as they currently do with the State Partnership Program. Additionally, the innovation officer’s role as the sole manager of the program means that their performance will be conspic- uously on display. Poor performance can be quickly identified, and personnel changes made to optimize benefit. A requirement for program management training would be essential, along with at least a basic introduction to fiscal law and the federal govern- ment’s acquisition process. Tis combination would help ensure that those managing the program have a fundamental under- standing of key management principles.
Given the projected costs, it is certain that there will be significant risk associated with securing funding for the program. By extrap- olating the formula applied in the Maryland National Guard example across all state Guards, it can be deduced that the cost of a fully inclusive Innovation Program is roughly $88 million (based on approximately 440,000 National Guard members nationwide). Realistically, however, a smaller-scale program that places programs in select states or regions would allow for mean- ingful return on investment while still allowing for the program to be scaled nationally, mirroring the evolution of the State Part- nership Program.
Funding from both research and development (R&D) and oper- ations and support “pots” could be reprogrammed to support the innovation program in a minimally impactful way. Te Innovation Program is inherently R&D in nature, but exclu- sively focused on small-scale projects. By taking ownership of the smallest programs in development, the Innovation Program would allow larger program offices to shift their focus to higher- profile efforts. Te reallocation of funding to the Innovation Program would be offset by increased efficiencies for the estab- lished, conventional program offices. Integrating this program with the Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer would provide access to existing funding sources and authorities, greatly simplifying the implementation of this program.
A reduction in operational requirements may also lead to avail- able funding for the Innovation Program. As an example, the Army is moving toward reducing the pace of combat training center (CTC) rotations for their operational units. One train- ing center alone can cost up to $25 million, so the cost savings garnered from just one canceled rotation would be enough to fund a pilot for the Innovation Program. Tis is not to advocate for a cancellation of combat training center rotations; they serve a critical role in maintaining operational readiness. If the deci- sion to scale back CTCs is made, however, even a small portion
of the funding would be enough to initiate this program. Once the program achieves proof of concept, follow-on support can be included in the program objective memorandum (likely through the National Guard Bureau) and the program formalized as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Regardless of where funding comes from, program champions at the flag level will need to focus on the investment aspect of this initiative. Despite the requisite investment, this program would lead to a net cost savings for the federal government, secondary economic benefit for states and a more capable military. Only when Congress understands this, however, will the potential value be compelling enough to gain support.
CONCLUSION By establishing the Innovation Program, DOD can leverage the National Guard in a manner that mirrors the State Partnership Program. Te disproportionate “bang for the buck” that the State Partnership Program has realized through bilateral partnerships can similarly be garnered by DOD via investment in local indus- try. Tis initiative relies on a small footprint of National Guard resources to find cutting-edge innovation in local communities and harness it for the purpose of enhancing DOD capabilities. Te National Guard can use the Innovation Program to capture groundbreaking technology at the state level in a way that bene- fits federal, state and military stakeholders.
For more information on the State Partnership Program, go to
https://go.usa.gov/xzcfk.
LT. COL. BENJAMIN POSIL is a security cooperation professional with more than 15 years’ experience in the field. He is a lieutenant colonel in the Maryland Army National Guard, currently serving at J-4, logistics. He has earned MBA degrees from the University of South Carolina and Wirtschaftuniversität Wien in Vienna, Austria, along with an M.S. in international relations from Troy State University. He also has a B.A. in international relations and Latin American studies from the University of Delaware. He is an Acquisition Corps member, a Level III-certified program manager with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and is currently enrolled at the Eisenhower School as an M.S. in national security resource strategy candidate. His work has appeared in Army AL&T many times, and his article, "Radio ANASOC," received the ALTies Editor's Choice Award in 2019.
https://asc.ar my.mil
107
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
