`
LCDR Jason Schwarzopf is a Surface Warfare Officer currently serving in the Innovations and Concepts Department within the Navy Warfare Development Command.

—

Where is the one-stop shop for all things tactical in the United States Navy? Is it held within the hallowed halls of the Navy Warfare Development Command? NWDC aggregates lessons learned, fuses experience with doctrine, models and simulates how we fight (and how we can fight better), innovates to provide warfighters with the latest technical solutions, and is best positioned to influence the future of Navy warfighting. We would be remiss if we didn’t periodically ask the question: how do we better communicate with those frontline Sailors who are executing doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures such that we improve our ability to change doctrine when necessary? Be it the blog, the formal request, or feedback in the form of professional journal articles, NWDC should tap the innovative spark residing in every combat information center in the Fleet.

In every organization that thinks, the old guard is wary of the perspectives of the new, but has a healthy appreciation for their views, energy, and willingness to discuss their experiences. That feedback loop has always existed in any organization willing to robustly challenge the status quo, but the desired feedback is not available at a macro level within the Navy for a variety of reasons–cultural, technological, and social. Imagine the differences between a junior and senior officer sharing perspectives of a generation ago (when they might have privately shared a bridge-wing discussion of a professional article published in Proceedings), juxtaposed with the immediacy and reach of the modern professional blog:

“Gosh…I am writing about something online, which I care enough about to expose my opinions and limited intellect to the great unknown–which could result in numerous fanboys championing my cause and lauding me as the next Mahan–or could result in numerous subject matter wonks illuminating my ignorance and lambasting my conclusions…all in full view of my superiors in the chain of command.”

The perceived risks and rewards of sharing ideas online have never been greater in an era where the center of gravity in naval warfighting thinking has shifted from the dusty Naval War College Review lying unread on the shelf in the empty wardroom, to the simulator and the blogosphere. Speaking of the latter, where is the sailorbob or cdrsalamader ‘site on the high side? Given the requirement to keep much of our tactical discussion away from prying eyes, how easy has the Navy made it for the average watchstander to find high-side sites where tactics are routinely and robustly discussed?

The generational difference above most keenly illustrates the loss of intimacy in professional feedback. Whereas every Commanding Officer wishes to create his or her own wardroom of “Preble’s Boys,” there isn’t a big-Navy “brand” that elicits a similar desire for fixing problems; rather, the average junior officer views the naval bureaucracy with the same degree of mistrust and fatalism most Americans feel about big government bureaucracy. Additionally, Gen Y expects feedback to generate change (or at least to generate transparent discussion)–not to sit in some fonctionnaire’s to-do queue for months as tired stakeholders and “antibodies” deliberate change.

Why is it so difficult to attract Gen-Y thinkers to post about naval warfighting? For a generation raised online, which Dov Zakheim, Art Fritzson, and Lloyd Howell discussed in the article Military of Millenials, one would think that information-sharing is second nature.

“…deeply ingrained habits challenge established organizational values. To command-and-control organizations like the military (and many corporations), knowledge is power and, therefore, something to be protected – or even hoarded. To Gen Y, however, knowledge is something altogether different; it belongs to everyone and creates a basis for building new relationships and fostering dialogue. Baby boomers and Gen Xers have learned to use the Internet to share information with people whom they already know, but members of Gen Y use blogs, instant-messaging, e-mails, and wikis to share information with those whom they may never meet – and also with people across the hall or down the corridor. Their spirit of openness is accompanied by a casual attitude toward privacy and secrecy; they have grown up seeing the thoughts, reactions, and even indiscretions of their friends and peers posted on a permanent, universally accessible global record.”

Unfortunately, the article also sheds light on barriers which senior leaders need to be aware of, when it comes to sharing those innovative thoughts.

“And there is a still more challenging issue: A Concours Group report on generational change proposed (in August 2004) that Gen Y’s comfort with online communications may mask the group’s inexperience in negotiating disagreements through direct conversation and a deficit in face-to-face social skills. Beyond the implications for this generation’s future management style, how might such a skill deficit affect the military’s ability to “win hearts and minds” in future conflicts? In recent years, the military has done extensive training to offset educational deficiencies. Indeed, the promise of such training has been among its greatest attractions for recruits. Should the military now begin to focus on developing new recruits’ interpersonal skills, neglected through years of staring into cyberspace?”

How does Navy leadership make Gen Y more comfortable with confrontation online, in a command-and-control environment, to engage in that robust discussion essential to the discovery of better ideas and processes? Recruit football players? Take boxing classes? Teach verbal judo? Train a generation of naval officers that a prerequisite for robust discussion is the ability to confront, even to the detriment of consensus? Or do we encourage anonymous blogging in such a way that an individual feels comfortable expressing his or her thoughts without fear of repercussion? A blogger should always expect to face contention. Most ideas works at a certain level, but become cannon fodder for memes on other levels. To mitigate as much ridicule as possible, one needs to consider additional perspectives to preempt the ridiculous assumptions of online “trolls.”

The greatest factor we are fighting, regarding the target audience of young leaders is quite simply TIME. The average sea duty workload is something close to 74 hours a week. That’s lowballing the estimate, for the very leaders we somehow expect to be having these discussions and sharing their vital experiences (beyond their internal training teams). I still expect that junior officers, mid-grade enlisted, Chief Petty Officers are all engaged in those midwatch conversations about the best way to accomplish a mission, to fix a process, to kill more efficiently…but are simply too busy to push those ideas out to yet another feedback loop outside the lifelines, to whom sailors owe no particular loyalty nor do they expect to see any returns for their hard work.

The more insidious factor being a silencing of innovation in warfighting thought because of the perception that sharing of views outside of one’s own chain of command is seen in a negative light. Jeff Gilmore’s excellent post titled “Where is Lt Zuckerburg“  illustrates the challenges the military has placed upon its own innovators, from the lack of a coherent social media policy to the impediments placed upon junior thinkers by senior staffs. When coupled with the perception of ideas flowing into a doctrinal “black hole” once they leave the unit (due to the length of the vetting process, or due to failing to find advocacy outside the lifelines), what motivation do junior leaders have to share their ideas?

Another factor (WAIT, was that a picture of a chicken wearing a birthday hat?): Distraction in the workplace is yet another detractor to naval Warfighting cognition. Let’s face it: war at sea is cerebral. Our ability to forecast, plan ahead, and train for those “what-if” scenarios is fundamental to preparing for adversity.

The omnipresent distraction of email, administrivia, meetings, drills, texts, and social networking sites creates a pervasive environment of “ADHD management” rather than the silence (and admittedly, for better or for worse, boredom) of a sanctum. However, should we not consider that it is from this very boredom that some of our greatest innovations stem? Think tanks do not hold a monopoly on innovation; rather, we should be tapping the limitless potential of our young watchstanders, disaffected with processes and TTPs that simply don’t make sense. Without a meaningful (and easy to use) method to feed those innovative ideas back to the doctrine-makers, we will continue to belabor the proverbial “open” in the feedback loop.

So how should the Navy engender robust participation in the warfighting discussion? Here’s a few thoughts on improving our Fleet warfighting advocacy:

One: Utility

Make a Navy-wide SIPR repository of all things tactical. You need to find that TACMEMO? We’ve got it. You want to rant about why page 348 of the pub is misleading? Post about it. You want to engage in knock-down, drag-out “discussions” with your peers and your seniors on more effective ways to take an enemy apart? Get in the game.

Two: Network

Centers of Naval Strategy, like the Navy Warfare Development command staff, should directly engage the mid-grade strategic thinkers at the CSG, ESG, squadron, and individual unit levels–and ensure they have access and opportunity to post. Usually, this comes when there are slow times for the umpteenth under-instruction watchstander in combat, who was tasked with looking something up online.

Three: Improve Inertia

Provide timely feedback, especially in cases where a particular TTP conflicts with AOR practices–essentially acting as the tactics referee for the Navy, ready to feed back to Fleet commanders when something doesn’t work as intended.

We can overcome the lack of organizational inertia that bureaucracy forces upon warfighting; but doing so requires us to train our young leaders to use a healthy dose of critical thinking, some self-righteous zeal, and a bulldozer when necessary.

_
LCDR Mike Llenza is a Federal Executive Fellow at the Atlantic Council.  He gave this speech at a recent DC-based conference on the future of Additive Manufacturing as it applies to the Naval Service. 

—

I’m LCDR Mike Llenza, and unlike Dr. Schuette, have absolutely no background in this field except that of an operator interested in the potential of the technology on the service.

When I arrived at the Atlantic Council they had all of the new fellows sit with the program directors so we could listen to what each different center was working on and perhaps find a project or program that interested us. One of them was their Strategic Foresight Initiative and one of the things they were working on was the Global Trends 2030 report they were preparing for the new administration in conjunction with the National Intelligence Council.

Part of the report dealt with disruptive technologies, and among those was 3d printing. So having been the maintenance officer, as well as the guy in the ready room who always had the latest gadget, the topic immediately grabbed my attention. I thought it could have incredible implications, especially for the Navy and so I decided to focus on it. My time at the council has afforded me the ability to engage with leaders not just in government but industry and In fact we were fortunate enough to host a working group at the Council last November, which Dr. Schuette was kind enough to attend, where we were able to get representatives from the White House, OSD, Army, Navy and all the major players in industry, to include a few of their CEOs to talk about the future of 3D Printing and Defense. So tonight I’d like to go over some of the current applications and research going into 3D printing and a few possible future implications for our service.

I’m preaching to the choir, but one of the many things that make our service unique is our ability to forward deploy our force and sustain operations in the blue water or the littoral, hundreds of miles from a friendly shore, thousands of feet in the air or hundreds of feet beneath the sea. But like the rest of the services, we rely on a relatively intricate global supply chain. With the levels of instability currently present in many of the theaters we currently operate in, it is all too easy to imagine a scenario where a geopolitical event causes us to lose an ally or a basing point critical to sustaining our operations. Which is one of the arguments used to support sea basing. 3D Printing is in essence, an enabler for Sea Basing. Instead of relying on a large shore based footprint subject to regional instability, 3D printing has the potential to move a significant part of your logistical requirements closer to the fight.

But what is truly revolutionary about 3D printing, is what Neil Gershenfeld, from MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms, refers to as the ability to make things into data and data back into things. This is the capability which has the biggest impact on the Navy because 3D printing potentially allows us to shift from a physical inventory to a digital one. A Digital inventory allows you to carry the digital designs for multiple parts vice the actual physical ones, taking up memory instead of shelves, and when you couple that with the ability to print out said parts on demand at the point of use, you reduce the requirement for valuable storage space while at the same time increasing the number of parts you can make.

It’s therefore not much of a stretch to see how we could repurpose not only some of the spaces aboard surface combatants and submarines with this capability, but convert some of our Military Sealift Command fleet into printing ships, or a combination thereof, floating factories able to take orders from the battlegroup and have readily available on demand part creation capability to support the fleet.

But even if you don’t get rid of your shore-based logistical footprint, which is the most likely scenario for the foreseeable future, the technology still has an impact by allowing you to set up a distributed global production network where you can send out an e-mail with a digital scan or design for a part you need and have it created at the nearest certified printer.

Replacement parts are often the first thing that come to mind with regards to 3D printing and defense, but whole UAVs have been printed by EADS, UVA, the University of Southampton and Virginia Tech. The one VA tech created was a quadrotor completely composed of printed parts except for the motor and electronics. They started making it on a Friday and were done by Sunday and it folds up so it can be stowed in a backpack. The University of Southampton UAV had a geodesic airframe like the old Vickers bombers from WW2, which is a very robust but incredibly expensive design to manufacture. Luckily, with 3D printing, complexity is free.

UVA’s UAV flew 45 mph and was controlled by a cheap android phone which was embedded in the aircraft and allowed use of its camera while in flight for imagery. The first time they flew it they actually crashed it and destroyed the nosecone, so they just went back to the lab and printed out another one. I wish I could have done that back when I was the mo. But the eventual goal is not just to print out the parts to assemble the drone but one that flies right out of the printer. An organic ability to print out cheap replaceable drones from ships, FOBs or during disaster relief operations could be a huge enabler for our sailors and marines.

Speaking of disaster relief, the technology has applications for disaster relief as well and if you need to create a shelter, or any kind of structure on a fob or beachhead, USC has developed a system called contour crafting where 3d printing is scaled up and a 2500 sq’ home can be produced in about 20 hours. The walls are printed from a special blend of cement and the end-design has over 3 times the structural strength of ordinary construction. They were the same folks who were funded by NASA to show they could 3d print structures on the moon using lunar soil, which they did using a substitute. Coincidentally, a group using a solar powered 3d printer were able to print out glass objects in the sahara desert using the sand surrounding the machine. Which begs the question, what if we could harvest some of the minerals from the surrounding ocean to create some of these parts?

One of the other possible applications is ammunition. My Army colleague at the Atlantic Council used to be the commanding officer of Radford Ammunition Plant where among other things, they make the nitrocellulose and propellants for much of the U.S. arsenal. So when we started talking about the possibility of printing out ammunition, he explained casings would be relatively easy but it would be a non-starter unless you were able to print the energetics. So we arranged for representatives from Virginia Tech’s 3D printing labs to visit Radford and look into the possibility. They did so and have conducted several meetings since and believe it’s not only worth exploring, but the capabilities afforded by 3D printing could allow them to produce propellants with geometries that could provide better and more efficient burn rates. Although you need weapons in such large numbers that it would not be pragmatic, what if you could print some ordnance on demand to tackle stop gaps or specific targets?

Another area which is already having one of the biggest impacts is Healthcare. 3D Printing has the potential to radically change how we take care of our sailors and marines. In fact it’s already being used extensively at Walter Reed. They have a pretty robust 3D lab called the 3D Medical Applications Center where they’re using 3D Printing not only for modeling but for the creation of prosthetics and implants. They 3D scan soldiers in order to model custom prosthetics which they then print out in the lab and its allowed them to scan the skull of a soldier with cranial damage so they can in turn print out a titanium plate that fits perfectly on the first try. So this is one field where 3d Printing’s ability to make multiple items, each different than the other makes it ideal.

But what about replacing skin tissue, or organs? The field of regenerative medicine has taken advantage of 3D printing, but uses living cells instead of powdered plastics and metals. Organovo, a company out of San Diego is the first commercial producer of bio-printing machines. They’ve successfully created the thickest bio printed living tissue to date with an embedded capillary system and can re-create lung and heart tissue as well as cartilage and even bone. One of the best features of this technology is that they use the patient’s own cells, thereby eliminating the issue of transplant rejection altogether. The main customers right now are pharmaceuticals such as Pfizer who are using them to conduct human testing without actual humans, but you can see defense applications for skin or bone grafting and testing the effects of bio-terrorism agents and irritants on lung or skin. On an interesting note, although their goal is to print out entire organs, during one of our conversations, their director of research explained to me that they don’t necessarily have to re-create an organ itself but something like it that can restore a certain percentage of the disabled organ’s functionality. In fact, why not create a specialized organ which works even better than the original? This opens up opportunities not just for on site medical care where removal of the patient is not feasible or safe, but possible bio-enhancement.

Finally there is research currently being conducted into bio-printing drugs and vaccines. This has incredible implications for defense, imagine the CDC e-mailing us the blueprints for a vaccine to avert an impending pandemic or defend against a possible biological attack?

So we can print parts, drones & shelters, and perhaps some ammunition, how do we feed our sailors and Marines? A company called Modern Meadow, actually an offshoot of Organovo, based at NASA Ames and also partially funded by USDA and the NSF, is working on that. In 1932 Churchill said ”…we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium,” which is exactly what Modern Meadow is working on. Brewing meat by extracting muscle cells from the biopsy of an animal such as a cow or pig, allowing them to multiply to sufficient numbers, and then inserting them into cartridges to be used as bio-ink. The printer then lays down the cells that eventually develop into muscle, which can be flavored, shaped and cooked. In fact the CEO’s father and scientific co-founder did a TEDMED talk where he cooked and ate a tiny pork chop they created. Additionally, all of the requirements for this process exist aboard a carrier or a sub and all you would need to add is the machinery and the ink, which in this case is comprised of bags of powder. Currently they’re working FDA certification and are focusing a lot of their efforts on creating leather, so in the meantime (slide) maybe we can get ready room chairs with real leather covers and we can protect the Nauga-herd from further slaughter. So 3D printing, in this case bioprinting, has just shortened our logistical tail again with an organic ability to produce food on site, reducing security risks, costs and energy consumption.

Taking into account the current state of the technology and its advantages, you can see where it could potentially enhance our Naval capabilities in the future. I think the Navy is strongly poised to benefit from this technology, more so than any other service, for the same reason NASA has expressed so much interest in it. What if Apollo 13’s astronauts could have just printed out the part they needed? We both work in remote environments, have a very optimized yet fixed inventory space and are tied to long, vulnerable and at times costly supply chains which in turn drive us to become as self sustained and self-sufficient as possible. It therefore stands to reason that a capability which increases our autonomy and grants us an organic ability to produce those items which keep us in the fight as long as possible would have a huge strategic impact on the service.

Thank you.

_
Ethan Mayers is the principal consultant and President of Synthenai Inc,a New York City based business management consulting firm focused on the needs of small to mid-sized businesses. He developed the concept of the “7 Pillars” a business insight tool specifically designed for small business owners to efficiently assess how they are running their businesses

There’s an immutable truth about work. A good deal of it is, and always will be, mundane and boring.

It doesn’t matter what you do or how much you love your job. I used to work for ESPN as a television producer. Currently, I am an entrepreneur. My brother is an F18 pilot. My brother-in-law is an FBI agent. All cool jobs. All with boring components. For every celebrity met, flight flown, bad guy nabbed or presentation given, there are hours of research to conduct, PowerPoint slides to create, reports to write and emails to return until 3 AM. That’s because the part that makes it exciting requires hours upon hours of preparation and analysis. One can’t take the good without the bad. It’s all necessary to accomplish the task.

It’s with this framework that I looked at disruptive innovation, one of the most compelling thoughts in business in the past 20 years. Disruptive innovations are ideas that reframe and rethink business, and in doing so, create new markets and disrupt existing markets. They are game changers. I won’t spend time in this article listing the many, many companies and ideas that have become disruptive (and the number is growing daily).

Disruptive innovation differs from sustaining innovation in that sustaining innovation does not seek to create wholesale changes in an industry, but rather tweak or modify existing systems and processes. It’s about doing what you do better.

Individuals, companies and governments that solely focus on sustaining innovation can find themselves unable to “think outside the box” and may be ill-prepared for the rapidly changing world. On the other hand, disruptive innovations can be so radical, they may be difficult to implement, especially in a large group. Another challenge with disruptive innovation as an end is the inability for all participants to participate equally. Some people are simply more creative thinkers. Some people work well at filling in the details but may not be great at seeing the big picture. Disruptive innovation, rather than an end, should be a thought process intended to facilitate change. Fortunately, there is a third option: pursue both.

Pursuing both types of innovation simultaneously is about creating a culture that fosters creativity, enlists everyone and allows both sustaining and disruptive innovations to take place simultaneously. It’s about championing the big AND small ideas that arise. It’s about recognizing that ideas that can save $5 million and $5 thousand can both have value (especially when the $5 thousand ideas are easily implementable…get a few of those and you start talking real money). And continuously innovating is about being open to any and all ideas so as to not miss the truly game-changing ones.

Recently, companies have focused on disruptive innovation and disruptive thinking. As an end. A big mistake. One cannot create a goal to disrupt anything (except maybe in war). Creativity doesn’t work like that. People don’t work like that.

One danger many organizations run into are Bright Shiny Objects. And Disruptive Innovations, by their very nature, are usually among the brightest, shiniest objects in the room. BSO’s are sexy and appealing. BSO’s are so appealing that, at times, a business becomes obsessed with finding the next one without properly building and support the previous. The mundane work never gets finished. The boring stuff doesn’t receive the proper attention. But, when the boring stuff is neglected, an organization creates a fragile environment susceptible to forces well beyond its control. Forget about resilience.

Business operations are the lifeblood of any organization. This is what turns an idea from a thought into an action and a consequence. The systems and processes companies build to support their ideas are part of the intellectual property they own, and these systems and processes can be just as valuable as the idea itself. Innovations in operations can lead to big business success. Ask Walmart (supply chain), FedEx (logistics), Zappos.com (HR/customer service). When organizations foster a culture of innovation, they set themselves up to be disruptive. A culture of innovation enables ideas to take root, sprout,grow and succeed. Properly. With operations to support it.

Even the companies that are disrupting industries need the operational support and the wisdom of iterative innovation. Take the example of Warby Parker, a startup company that’s hoping to disrupt the multi-billion eyewear market. Warby Parker is up against Luxottica, a big player that has a near monopoly in the industry. Amongst other brands, Luxottica owns Ray-Ban and Oakley, and has licensing arrangements with Chanel, Anne Klein, Ralph Lauren, DKNY and more. Warby Parker is building quality eyewear for $95, a cost that can be a one-quarter what Luxottica charges. Warby Parker has created a business model that is disruptive, attracted funding and is succeeding against a Goliath of a competitor. The idea may be disruptive, but the work necessary to achieve the mission would fit into the boring bin: Orders to be taken, computer systems to be handled, emails exchanged, books reconciled, HR Issues to be addressed. The normal operations of a business. If the company wasn’t willing to constantly innovate, on the disruptive stuff and the boring matters, it could end up just as stale as its competitors.

Continuously innovating demands leaders act as stewards of their organizations and take responsibility for innovation. And that innovation must happen on every level. For every game-changing moment, there are countless actions that happened to arrive at that moment. For example, the ninth inning home run is hit by a bat that is manufactured properly, was brought to the field by the batboy at the right moment. The batboy acquired the bat from the equipment manager, who made a wise ordering decision, after which the item was shipped in a properly-made box and delivered without incident to an admin at the baseball facility. The admin logged it into the IT system, which managed the team’s inventory and alerted a staff member to pack the bat on the plane for the upcoming game. The plane took off and landed on schedule thanks to the travel manager who coordinated the busses and hotels that delivered the bat and the player to the stadium, where the bat boy took possession of the bat and delivered it to the player in the ninth inning, during which he hit a home run.

All the boring stuff. All of which demands innovation, both disruptive and sustainable, for continued success.

The author, Dylan Leckie, is an analyst with TechSolutions in the Office of Naval Research.

“Going down the old mine With a Transistor Radio” –Van Morrison 1967

On Dec. 16, 1947, while most Americans were preparing for the Christmas holiday, three physicists were locked in their laboratory, hunched over a work bench, constructing a peculiar gadget that would forever change the world. The transistor — the Bell Laboratories invention built by John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley — would become ubiquitous in the future world.

Since its invention those many years ago, investments made by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) have extended and improved the transistor technology developed by Bell Labs. This month, which marks the 65th anniversary of the first transistor, ONR officials remember the invention and are reflecting upon the organization’s contributions to the evolution of the transistor — a technology regarded by many as the most significant scientific development of the 20th century.

ONR’s mission to serve the warfighter has benefitted enormously from the transistor.

“I can’t imagine how cumbersome and clunky some of the equipment that I used as a Navy electronics technician would be without the use of transistors,” said ONR Master Chief Charles Ziervogel.

This past Friday afternoon, Dec. 14, the Office of Innovation hosted a command-wide cake cutting in the Fran Rothwell Room to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the invention. Dr. Lawrence Schuette spoke about the importance of the transistor to the work ONR has done over the years.

To cite just one example, ONR has long invested in compound semiconductors to extend the germanium and silicon technology developed at Bell Labs into new materials with enhanced performance. These compound semiconductors, such as gallium arsenide, formed the basis for many Department of Defense electronics platforms, and stimulated the development of an entire pillar of modern commercial communications technology, including the cell phone.

More recently, ONR’s investment in gallium nitride (GaN) transistor technology enabled the transistors powering the Navy’s latest, most capable radar systems, including the proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar. GaN devices are also found in portable systems Marines are using to defeat improvised explosive devices.

“Beyond the Navy, ONR-supported GaN technology is also at the heart of the latest generation base stations, and is being developed for more efficient power converter technology,” said Dr. Daniel Green, program officer in ONR’s Electronics Sensors and Network research department.

Such technology will be found in future hybrid electric vehicles, which will achieve unmatched efficiency in power conversion.

“There is an allure to the story of the transistor, one that spans generations in depth and breadth,” said Dr. Lawrence Schuette, director of innovation and acting director of research at ONR. “To build the first transistor in 1947, Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley drew upon lifetimes of work by other scientists and ever since, engineers around the world have been working on the technology. Scientists have dedicated their lives to evolving and improving the transistor and today, Americans cannot imagine their lives without it.

“It is a story of American innovation and imagination and what Americans can create.”

In 1980, Brattain told the Los Angeles Times: “The only regret I have about the transistor is its use for rock ’n’ roll music. I still have my rifle, and sometimes when I hear that noise, I think I could shoot them all.”

We are never more than a few feet away from transistors — they are everywhere. Without them, the world as we know it would be unrecognizable. If Brattain had decided to pick up his rifle and shoot all transistors, mankind would have never seen the space age, the academic study of solid-state physics, the computer revolution, the internet, wireless communication, the transistor radio or, yes, heard the noise of rock music.

Luckily, he let the band play on.

The following is the transcript of the speech given to the current students at my alma mater, Edina High School, for their Veteran’s Day school assembly on 9 November 2012.  

—-

The last time I spoke in front of this many high school students in Edina was the day I ran for class president in 1999. They say the only ways to win a race like that are to be the most popular kid in school or resort to bribery. Since I was a socially awkward bookworm, I resorted to the latter technique by tossing candy bars into the crowd. I got crushed. So, I hope this time works out a bit better…but I did learn that sometimes you’ve just got to be yourself.

I also want to give a shout out to the boys cross-country team who just finished Second in State last weekend. It’s been 12 years since I was on that team, but I still keep track of how y’all are doing – and it was a Godsend to watch the team’s rise via raceberryjam in the fall of 2009 as I sat deployed on the USS Nimitz flying combat missions over Afghanistan. There’s something about home and nostalgia that can get you through challenging times.

I want to focus on two areas this morning: What it means to service something greater than yourself. And what it means to stay true to your own beliefs, even when up against powerful and entrenched interests.

I come from an inadvertent military family. My grandfather was a WWII Naval Aviator, flying Corsairs in the Pacific. My other grandfather, here in the audience today, served in Germany following WWII. My Great Uncle was an F-104 pilot in Vietnam, and spent 5 torturous years in the Hanoi Hilton as a POW of the North Vietnamese. My brother-in-law served twice in combat zones, and many of you saw my brother speak last year.

We fly boys have a bit of a reputation…arrogance being only one of them. There’s an old joke that asks “how do you know if a guy is a fighter pilot?” The answer, of course, being that within about 5 seconds, “He’ll tell you…”

But the reality is that Military Aviation exists for one reason and one reason alone: to support the guy on the ground getting shot at. Despite our swagger and cool looking airplanes, we really are at the service of the boot Army and Marine Infantry man.

I’ve only made one combat deployment in my eight years of service. The eight months I was gone, aboard a floating city that came to feel like a prison at times , were some of the most psychologically challenging of my entire life. Yet, everyday I strapped into that jet, and was catapulted off the carrier with a full load of bombs, I had never felt more meaning. Our job was to save lives. And we did. In some of the most desolate places on earth, including The Hindu Kush.

The Hindu Kush is a gorgeously desolate place in the Northeast corner of Afghanistan. Huge mountains rise, creating a mesmerizing landscape, but also making it one of the most challenging places to fight in the world. On Thanksgiving Day, 2009, my wingman and I were called upon to support a group of SEALs being attacked by insurgent Afghan forces. It was a quick, in and out mission, but our bombs fell true and we saved our compatriots on the ground.

On the last combat mission I flew, this time near the dessert of southern Afghanistan, we were tasked with supporting a convoy of 12 British vehicles making their way to a village. All of us were excited to get back home, but in the waning minutes of our overwatch, the front vehicle was hit by an IED. The first thing the Brit on the radio said, after a prolonged silence, was “My computers all busted up, so I lost your rover feed.” Nothing about himself, but care for we aviators safely flying above. Only the Brits…But this brought home the fact to me that as often as we leave, there is still a job left to be done. And that job remains unfinished to this day, being carried out by Americans too often forgotten about by the media.

For many of us here at home, myself increasingly included, the two wars of the past ten years are nearly forgotten. This is only getting worse But I’m here to assure you, they are very real, and men and women the age of our seniors in this audience are getting shot at right now.

I know because one of my close friends is deployed to Afghanistan right now as a Forward Air Controller. He’s a Marine Cobra pilot, but is embedded with a ground unit. He encounters IED’s on a daily basis, and was in his first firefight just a few days ago. Fortunately, he came away unscathed, and called one of my brethren in a Harrier jump jet over to help keep him alive.

And speaking of harriers, two months ago the US has its worst loss of aircraft to enemy action since the Vietnam War – it was little reported on, but nearly an entire squadron of Marine Harriers were wiped out, and the squadron’s commanding officer killed during a daring Taliban raid on Camp Bastion. The full story makes for incredible reading, and while I don’t have time here to share it, I would highly encourage you to read tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal and an article by my friend Maj Marc Wientraub.

I see the older veterans sitting in this front row who have the shoulders our generation stands upon. They didn’t have email or skype, and instead of losing 3,500 compatriots over 10 years, lost that many in one week We merely carry on the service they gallantly displayed for us in decades past. Many thanks to them as well.

But defending your buddies from enemy attack is only part of effective military service. The other is following what you believe is right, even amidst strong and well established opposition. Leadership and sacrifice requires pointing out the hard truths, and doing your best to make the organizations you love a better place. This is a lesson that is applicable to any profession.

Last year, a buddy of mine and I were having a beer, discussing the frustrations we had with a bureaucratic military establishment. As an aside, many of you will find as you age that the best ideas come over a frothy beverage. Anyway, in brainstorming what we, as mere junior officers, could do, we decided to link successful civilian entrepreneurs directly with combat experienced military folks. It evolved into an organization now known as Disruptive Thinkers.

We’ve run up against opposition to our perceived insubordination for daring to question sacred shibboleths. Yet, we’ve also discovered immense opportunity and an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that we are trying to remedy. Mentors have popped up out of the woodwork, and whatever “risk” there was associated with rocking the boat has been far outweighed by the reward for asking the hard questions, and doing something about it.

We, and I include every one of you in this auditorium, is a member of what I call the Innovation Generation. My peers and you all like to solve problems – and we like creative ways to solve those problems. There are some who scoff at what our generation has to offer. But I know differently from my friends who have tried to transform two alien societies to those entrepreneurial civilians transforming our own every day. There has to be a starting point for this, though, and the foundation of my own disruptive thinking, occurred right here in this building.

Two classes had an immense impact on my intellectual development. Without them, a mindset of disruptive thought and passion for changing the status quo would never have been born.

The first was Junior AP US History taught by Lonni Skretner. She’s on the school board now, but even then she was a firebrand liberal of the very outspoken type. I was the diehard conservative. We had some very engaging, forthright and remarkably civil debates during my time in her class. Yet, she made history come alive, and I learned how individuals have shaped the course of our nation. She inspired us to be the change we seek in the world.

The second was AP Lit with the now retired Mrs Betsy Cussler. She is the only teacher to make me cry, but it worked wonders on my writing. I visited her with drafts of my college essays, and she absolutely tore them to shreds – doing so because she knew I was capable of so much more. And she was right. There is no more powerful thing than an idea, and the ability to communicate that effectively is a skill not soon ignored.

in closing, 12 years ago, I sat in the same seats you do now. My future was unknown, but bright. In those years, my peers and I have seen the world. We flew off of aircraft carriers, dropped bombs to save friends in combat. We saw our society in need of improvement, and chose – CHOSE – to make a difference.

We’ll continue to do so, but the torch is being passed. Take what you have learned here at Edina High School. Find your passion, and serve the other. Make our world a better place. We’ve got untold challenges to tackle in an increasingly uncertain world. I chose the military, but if your passion lies with education or poverty or starting a business, dont be afraid to stick your neck out, serve your nation and make a difference. I’m filled with hope when I look into this audience today, and trust the service my brethren and I have given is sufficient to make America a better place for y’all.

Thank you.

 

A Disruptive Thinker from the East Coast emailed me with a request:  to advertise a military job she will soon be vacating.  After reading the description, and knowing the diverse talents among our readership, I hope this is something we can help fill.  She came to us for good reason.  Having just gone through the detailing process, I know how very interesting opportunities can be lost in the shuffle; we’re trying to publicize those hidden gems.  

DT is about exploring new ideas, but also implementing creative solutions to the hardest challenges.  Taking on a role within the more innovative elements of our military is an effective way to devise and implement needed change.   I will be headed to Naval Warfare Development Command in February to help with their innovative efforts out there — and I foresee lots of collaborative opportunities for whoever ends up in this billet.  Please see the below, and if you fit the bill, apply!  

“I am writing the DT community hoping to find a replacement for my position when I leave the Navy next May. I love my job, and hate to leave, but I am ready for other adventures. The job in question is at a cNavy command located in the Norfolk/VaBeach area. . Nominally, the title is Deputy Director of the Commander’s Initiatives Group. Our group consists of two full time and two part time personnel; there’s no hidden small army, just a couple people to move a project. The work is both strategic and visionary, but because of the ‘lean’ nature of the CIG, you will be involved in networking among the command and externally to test and execute projects, as well as all the grunt work of paperwork and budgeting issues that come with implementing good ideas.

We are seeking a Navy O-3 or O-4, who would be available between approximately April to July 2013, any designator is acceptable.

The CIG is similar in nature to more senior commands that have Commander’s Advisory Groups, Strategic Action Groups, etc. The difference being that we are an O-6 command – we have a broad reach of capability and some of the most aggressive, innovative people on the planet, but we don’t have stars to help us get something done, we hustle, outperform, and network to implement our objectives.

We are searching for someone who is independent, autonomous, needs little direction, works well in adhoc teams, is humble and hard-working.  For those of you interested in being screened, please send a CV to CIG (at) vb (dot) socom (dot) mil. Thank you.”

This past week, a Republican led filibuster in the Senate succeeded in derailing a “Veteran Jobs Bill.” Their reasons for doing so were largely partisan and fiscally related, namely that the proposed support would add an additional $1 billion to the federal debt over the next five years.

Digging deeper however, it seems both parties have missed the larger question of how best to actually support increasing unemployment for those leaving the service after spending time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The problem of veteran unemployment is a real one.  Combat experienced veterans from the past 10 years have a 3 percent higher unemployment rate than the already disconcertingly high civilian rate.  Much of this is because skill sets learned on the battlefield translate poorly, if at all, to an Information Age economy.  Military Service has never been as highly regarded, yet private companies concerned with the bottom line have a hard time finding slots for these patriots.

The “Jobs” program, as designed, was meant to emulate the Civilian Conservation Corps designed in the depths of the Depression.  It would have placed unemployed veterans into State and National parks working on conservation projects.  Additional provisions would have given incentives for local police and fire departments to hire these vets.

Both parties have completely missed the ball on how best to fix veteran unemployment.  Even the Republicans, for all their fiscal concerns, raised few if any objections to the actual nature of the bill. And therein lies the problem.

1930s era solutions to Information Age problems are at best irrelevant, and at worst, exacerbate the veteran unemployment conundrum.  Furthermore, relegating veterans to only government jobs, even as first responders, woefully understates the diversity of talents soldiers, Sailors, airmen and Marines have.  It may be politically expedient to tout nostalgic programs from a century past, but it will do nothing to truly fix our current crisis.

The deficit of relevant civilian skills referenced as a cause for the current malaise would not be helped one bit by putting vets into government sponsored make work programs.  What skills would they learn in a Veteran Conservation Corps that would help them get jobs in the civilian world?  They would be left in the same position they already are.  Instead of weaning themselves off of Uncle Sam, they become increasingly dependent upon his employment throughout their lives.  A perpetual Corps would need to be established to solve this insidious loop.  The solution to the original problem only adds to it.

Furthermore, such a program would remove these vets from the very society they are trying to reintegrate into.  Part of the disconnect in understanding between civilian and military citizens is the fact that the latter are already physically isolated from the former based on where many of our military installations are located.  To fully integrate returning, unemployed veterans, requires directly engaging them in the society they fought so hard to protect.  This requires social and professional interaction with the diversity of skill sets only large urban areas can provide.

A better solution can be found by using the Post-9/11 GI Bill as a model. The original 1940s solution worked for decades, until a new generation of warriors returned home needed something different.  It was updated to reflect the increased costs of education, while opening up payments for vocational skills and other useful civilian programs.  It is time to try something similar for jobs, leveraging the advances of the 21st century.

A 21st Century Veterans Job Corps needs to be fundamentally different from anything the government has ever tried. It needs to rely upon public/private partnerships, melding the leadership and agility gained on the battlefield with the skills required in civilian businesses.

Even if civilian companies don’t think combat experience is relevant, part of the program needs to showcase the talents our returning veterans do have, and how they can be integrated.

As an example, three months ago, a civilian architect friend of mine with no military background was curious how those returning from Afghanistan could help solve issues of urban blight back here in America.  He invited the three of us, a naval aviator, a marine joint tactical air controller, and Navy SEAL, to take part in a round table to brainstorm ideas.

In the course of our conversation, we talked about how our troops are not simply fighting from foxholes and destroying the enemy.  “Combat” in the 21st century involves rebuilding wartorn societies both physically and psychologically.  It is about developing relationships and reconstituting crumbling infrastructure.  Even if the strategy has mixed results overseas, these are very real skills that could be put to use in cities like Detroit, New Orleans and Cleveland that have seen their own share of unanticipated upheaval.  His proposal rooted in our discussion ended up being recognized as a Finalist for a national recognized design competition.

What if a soldier returning from village stability operations were given an advisory job with an architectural firm working with a state or city government?  Not only would this “skill less” vet be able to contribute his very real experience, but he would see first hand project management, design theory and gain a network of diverse civilian professionals to call upon when he decided to move on.

This is but one example of relevantly blending seemingly unrelated talents into the equation.  A larger Corps concept could, as a launching point, look something like this:

The monies that would have been paid to employ veterans in the conservation corps would instead be dedicated to a matching program.  Businesses would basically take on a veteran at a significant salary discount, with the government making up some of the difference.  The company would help develop the skills of the veteran while also enabling him to contribute materially to the company.  This relationship, however, would be more of a mentorship one rather than an employee/employer one.   There would be a term of employment, after which the company could elect to hire the veteran full time, or the vet could choose to leave and find another job with his newly developed skills and civilian work experience.

However it would be ultimately structured, Congressional action should be focused on creating a program that enables veterans to get the skills required of the 21st century, not simply give them make work jobs to inflate employment numbers.  The latter is a myopic solution to what will only become a larger problem as greater numbers of veterans leave the service in the coming drawdowns.

Creative thinking is required if we want a truly effective and timeless solution to what nearly all recognize as a pervasive problem.  Warfighters returning from 21st century conflicts deserve Information Age solutions that help them navigate the society they fought so hard to preserve.

Entrepreneurs and small business owners are invited to support the inaugural San Diego Entrepreneur Day on Saturday, Sept. 22, 2012, from 10:00am to 5:00pm on J St between 6th and 10th Ave. in East Village, San Diego. The event will recognize San Diego’s entrepreneurs and business owners, and create a network of resources to promote entrepreneurship, networking and business growth. San Diego Entrepreneur Day 2012 will be a breakthrough event – giving the event producers the opportunity to plan programs throughout the year that will create a favorable atmosphere for San Diego-based startups.

“This event provides attendees the opportunity to explore different types of businesses and concepts evolving in San Diego County, and potentially open the doors for collaboration, partnerships and job creation,” said Ray Hivoral, founder of San Diego Entrepreneur Day.

Over the course of the summer, entrepreneurs from 25 categories have competed in the event’s E-wards that highlight San Diego’s standout entrepreneurs, similar to an “Academy Awards” of entrepreneurship. Nominations are open to the public, and San Diego businesses are encouraged to nominate their team members. Winners will be announced during San Diego Entrepreneur Day ceremonies.  Disruptive Thinkers will have the opportunity to present one of these awards, and tell the community about our programs and purpose.

San Diego Entrepreneur Day, a free event open to the public, will provide business education and demonstrations from designated speakers and up to 100 exhibitors. The event will also include several components such as: Battle of the Bands in Town, Fashion Style Show, DJ Collaboration, Live Artwork, Elevator Pitch to Angel Investors, “Brewlevard” craft beer garden, and designated areas for San Diego’s business sectors.

Current title sponsors include: Microsoft, The UPS Store, U-T San Diego, car2go, Stone Brewing Company, Taylor Guitars, Sony, Mike’s Hard Lemonade, BASIC, Accion San Diego, Samuel Adams Brewing the American Dream, Etching Expressions, and Sign King. The event’s official community outreach partners, and nonprofit organizations, are the East Village Association, Rebuild Global and the Kiwanis Club of San Diego.

 
The Navy Center for Innovation, under the auspices of the Naval Warfare Development Command, has launched a new effort to solicit innovative ideas from the deckplates.

Their series of innovation events, featuring both junior and senior leaders, have helped to jumpstart a conversation within the sea-service pertaining to thinking differently about a 21st Century Navy.  The blog seeks to extend the conversation beyond in-person events and engage sailors on their own turf.

As the site mentions, “Here you will find posts and links focused on naval policy, operations, and tactics. We hope you will also step up to offer your ideas, solutions or challenges. We want to become the destination of choice for the Fleet  for bold and forward thinking debate.”

Additionally, the blog is a partnership between the Office of Naval Research, the Naval Postgraduate School, The Naval War College, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and NWDC.  Hopefully, the ideas generated will help kickstart projects at these institutions.

All are invited to contribute and propose unique solutions to both everyday and more far reaching problems.  It may just be a forum for discussion, but forward thinking action begins with new ideas.

Find the blog here.

LT Christopher Kona is a Naval officer stationed in Groton, CT.  He is currently serving as a strategic analyst assisting the development of submarine force strategy in response to emerging geopolitical challenges and opportunities provided by technological and organizational innovations.

—

At first blush, this post doesn’t necessarily seem to link to innovation and disruptive thinking. However, I consider myself a student of organizational innovation and systemic improvement. I strongly believe that it is almost impossible to pursue organizational improvement without addressing the generational gap that exists in today’s workplace. This is particularly evident in the military, where those in the highest ranks are rarely in intimate contact with deckplate leaders of the youngest generation.

I recently had the chance to help contribute to a document used to provide high-level vision for the submarine community. It was written by some incredibly wise people, and there was a great deal of interest by senior leadership in making sure we addressed the importance of people in our organization.  However, the differences in word choice between some of the different participants was enlightening.

One suggestion discussed the leadership challenges faced by new commanding officers and described the incoming generation as unaccustomed to structure, preferring to deal with other people through electronic means rather than in person.  This made its way to articulating the difficulty of trying to mold such a stock into viable military operators and leaders.

As an early-born (1982) member of the millennial generation, I am a bit offended by this representation of those sailors who are now entering the Naval Service. The aforementioned perspective is not unique – there is growing talk among existing deckplate leaders about how “the new kids just can’t seem to hack it.” (Though it’s worth noting that this view is opposed by senior leaders in my community.) These skeptical leaders are frustrated that attempts to engage young sailors and officers into shipboard life have stagnated – “this younger generation just doesn’t work as hard, they aren’t as dedicated to the job and they aren’t producing the performance required for the job.” These sentiments aren’t limited to the military, and indeed, are spread among industry at large.  Numerous articles and studies have been dedicated to the challenges of incorporating the Millennial generation and all its eccentricities into the workforce.

I am not here to claim that these assumptions about my generation are false – some are grounded in fact and reflected in performance. However, I do believe that as the military continues to measure the performance of the millennial generation by the same yardstick as the past generation, they risk marginalizing those strengths which Millennials bring to bear in a modern Navy.

The most frequent strength mentioned is the comfort with technology which millennials bring, among others. Credited with their affinity for relationships through social media, Millennials tend to seek out like-minded organizations to whom they are fiercely loyal. The Occupy and Libertarian movements are two, but Millennials are also inclined to be involved in a spectrum of organizations aimed to help others (within the Navy, the Coalition of Sailors against Destructive Decisions (CSADD) is an excellent example).

Millennials work well in teams, even preferring to seek advice and collaborative ventures with peers.  This ultimately leads to effective solving of complex problems,  especially in high-stress environments such as those found in the Combat Information Center of a ship. The passion they have for causes in which they believe is incredible – high-tech companies do not have cots simply so their workers can nap during the day.  The cots are there because their workers are willing to work day and night on projects they inherently believe in.  Millennials carry with them an optimism about the future which drives them to seek those changes which have been discussed in this blog and elsewhere.

With this in mind, there is a reasonable meeting ground between the old guard and the new. I have come to realize that the inherent Millennial optimism has little place in maintaining the safe operation of a nuclear propulsion plant, and that has helped guide some of my own career choices. However, in developing the incoming generation, organizations must determine what millennial strengths they wish to leverage, rather than attempting to mitigate perceived weaknesses. The former method enables a team to process more information, evaluate and react to complex situations, and produce decisions which are of higher quality than can be accomplished otherwise.

If older generations are willing to reach “more than halfway” across the generation gap to understand the values of the incoming generation, they will show Millenials that the organizations values the strengths which they have to offer, and will require those strengths to perform better.  Furthermore, once the incoming generation realizes how their contributions are essential to team performance, organizations will see the passion which drives the next generation driving the team. They will travel “more than halfway” in reciprocation once they see how their strengths fit into the traditional military values of discipline and order

This common ground is critically important as the older generation of leaders have much to teach younger generations. It is popular to focus innovation farming on those who are younger in trying to harness new ideas, but most great innovators with whom I have had the honor to work with have been over the age of forty. Wisdom and the perspective of another generation is invaluable to a continually improving organization.

Generation X (the other generation predominantly onboard naval vessels these days) is much more realistic and skeptical (in a good way), and their ability to function independently drastically improves how quickly and effectively the military can accomplish goals and adapt to emerging challenges. Millennials need to learn from this generation and learn how their strengths fit into organization as well.

There are a number of organizational traits in the military which must be passed on to ensure the ability of the organization to function well; traits which are not the results of generational behavior but thousands of years of organized warfare. As Capt. Michael Christman described in How the iPad Changed CAS in Afghanstan, the military is not an organization which must rely on constant innovation to survive, but on producing a consistent, reliable (and resilient) product. High-risk organizations tend to be conservative for good reason (to avoid the potential for grave damage associated with failure), and these traits must continue to be passed from generation to generation. However, this communication and mentoring cannot occur until the military is able to bridge the gap and both generations are able to reach more than halfway to understand the value each brings.

Thus, I implore those in the military to consider how the strengths of our incoming soldiers, sailors, airmen and officers are able to contribute to the goals of the organization as a whole. I implore those of the incoming generation to consider how your values which have helped to shape who you are can contribute to shaping the military organization for the better, and through that, help to close the generation gap which exists in our military. Once the incoming generation is invited to become a contributing member of the team on their own merits, they are more likely to see the need for those traditional values vital to the organization.