Welcome everyone and thank you for
joining us today for this Defense
Innovation Board public meeting . My
name is Doctor Marina Fou and I'm the
executive director and uh the
designated fi federal Officer for the
Defense Innovation Board . Today's
meeting is being live streamed and
recorded to allow members of the public
to attend the meeting virtually now or
watch later meetings like this require
a lot of work behind the scenes . So
I'd like to thank the Defense media
agency for providing their expert
support today and everyone uh that was
involved including the Defense
Innovation Board staff team to make
this happen . The board will now
convene in its public session and I'd
like to share with you a few procedural
remarks . The board is discretionary
independent advisory board operated
under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act and Government Sunshine Act .
Today's meeting was announced in the
federal register notice and posted on
April 3rd 2024 . There have been no
significant changes to the meeting's
agenda as posted in the federal
register notice . The public was
invited to submit written comments for
the board members to consider . We
received a handful of comments in
advance of today's meeting . And uh we
will reference those at the end uh
towards the end of the meeting as a
reminder , these are comments for the
board's consideration rather than a
question and answer session or exercise .
These comments are also posted on the
di website http S
innovation.defense.gov . So with that ,
I'd like to welcome the board and turn
it over to our Defense Innovation Board
chair , Mr Mike Bloomberg . Mike over
to you Mara . Thank you and good
afternoon to everyone and to the
members of the public watching online .
Thank you for joining us . Uh We are
joined by a few members of the board ,
Admiral Mike Mullen , former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff president
of MGM Consulting , and a Bloom
philanthropies board member , Charles
Phillips , managing partner and co
founder of recognize and a member of
the Board of Bloomberg , Inc Mac
Thornberry , former Texas congressman ,
chairman of the House uh House Armed
Service Committee back then . Um and uh
a great American who's been
phenomenally helpful here and his
service is great appreciated Gilda
Barabino . She is president of Olan
College of Engineering and uh have
always had some great insights for us
and will Roper Ceo and founder of ISTA .
Uh I speak for all the members when I
say that we're honored to help you to
help do our part through the Defense
Innovation Board . Our job is to
conduct independent research and
interviews and then provide
recommendations for change to the
department , senior leaders , uh the
United States you should know has the
strongest , best prepared military in
the world . And as events over the
weekend underscored the urgent work to
keep it that way , cannot stop and has
to move even faster . And we think that
the public meeting will continue
conversations that we started last
month and that that would be useful to
you . So as we mentioned , then our
focus is on the two current studies
that of Secretary Austin and under
secretary Xu directed us to take
and our job is to do uh conduct an
independent research and interviews and
then provide recommendations for change
to the department's senior leaders .
First , we'll resume our , look at how
the US can work in closer partnership
with our global allies with the help of
two special guests . But before we hear
from them , I'll ask board member
Charles Phillips to say a few words
about where we stand . He's
coordinating the study . So Charles ,
we'll start with you . The floor is
yours . Thank you , Mike . Um This
project is about leveraging our
relationships with other countries to
make us collectively stronger , want to
expand our industrial base through
partners . Uh We have limited scale on
what we've built over the last uh
couple of decades . But one way to uh
address that is to help partners in
different countries with similar
systems become part of our defense
industrial base . I think the quality
of us weaponry is now clear , more
people want to cooper with us uh given
the events of the last year or so , but
we also have partners who help break
through technologies that we want to
leverage . So instead of us just
helping other countries , this is a
mutual benefit . They , we discover
technologies and a lot of our allies
that we weren't aware of . And we want
to figure out a way to kind of scale
that and make it more systematic .
There are barriers we need to overcome
to do that . Um We have regulations
that were put in place in a time where
we didn't collaborate as much like the
international traffic in arms
regulations . I tar so there are things
that have to be modified and changed so
we can speed up collaborations . Uh But
generally people do want to do that .
Uh We also have something called the
Buy American Act . So some of the
equipment that we purchase uh require
certain specific components to be made
in America , even though they're
deployed in far away places and we
can't sustain them that way . So we
need to take the stuff back to look at
that as well . So as part of this
process , we've been interviewing uh
lots of different agencies , the
Defense Security Corporation Agency
just last week , Defense Threat
Reduction agency , us , special
operations come in and so on . Uh
literally dozens and dozens of agencies
because they all have different
relationships with different countries .
On specific projects . And so we're
looking for best practices , what's
common among them , what is work ,
which countries are the best allies ,
where is the innovation and how did it
surface ? And so we'll be documenting
all of that . We're also taking
advantage of uh some conferences that
are designed to bring out some of this
information like the conference for
National Armaments Directors that took
place earlier this year , that was led
by the US under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Sustainment . And
we've also been talking through the
NATO Support Procurement Agency . So
with that , I'll , I'll stop there ,
but that's kind of the tone and the
tenor of the research so far . Um
Thank you , let us turn to our guest
speakers in a few minutes . We'll hear
from Chief Master Sergeant , Ron Larch .
He is the senior enlisted leader of the
intelligent Directorate at Space
Systems Command in Los Angeles , which
gives him one of the longest titles of
anybody I have ever introduced . But um
sergeant , thank you . Um Ron oversees
the Space Forces acquisition
intelligence programs and he is focused
on instilling a culture of innovation .
So we look forward to hearing from him .
But first let us welcome a friend from
the Netherlands who has extensive
experience working in his country's
defense ministry throughout his career .
He has worked closely with
international partners and allies and
that includes his current role at the
Dutch Embassy in Washington DC and as
chair of the defense Mou Attache's
Group , which is an association of 25
Foreign Ministries saunder . Thanks for
being here and we're looking forward to
hearing your perspective . Would you
please say a few words ? Good afternoon .
Uh Mr Bloomberg . Good afternoon
audience . And it's uh it's a great
honor to be invited to speak with the
Defense uh innovation Board as chair of
the defense uh M EU at Shape Group . Um
And as I understand you would , you
would like me now to uh to hold my , my
brief , sir . Exactly . Um Well , I
can assure you , sir and , and also the
board and , and , and the audience that
uh your future report optimizing
innovation with allies and partners
will be read with great interest by the
27 nations represented in our group .
Uh As we believe , allies and partners
do remain the most important strategic
uh asset to the uh to the United States .
Um But please allow me to first
introduce the defense mou attache group
briefly to your board and the , and the
audience online . The , the D MA
represents 27 of the 28 nations with a
reciprocal defense procurement mou So
our purpose is just to promote
standardization , interchangeability
and interoperability of defense
equipment between the US in the
qualifying country . So the um
principal mechanism used in the RDP M
EU is a mutual commitment between both
nations not to discriminate against the
supplier of the other country .
Um Later research development and or
production of defense equipment . And
these two so-called 28 qualifying
countries with an RDP M . You are
exempt from the Buy American Act that
was just mentioned by the previous
speaker and the domestic content
threshold to be considered domestic and
products in the defense , federal
acquisition rules uh supplements . So
these RDP M us provide incentives to
provide crucial components and material
shortfalls that decrease near term risk
and mitigate supply chain
vulnerabilities and severely can have
impact on both deterrent and war
fighting . In other words , security is
enhanced by leveraging our collective
resources and capabilities through
these RDP M US . In some countries like
the Netherlands and Norway have an RDP
MU since 1978 other nations joined
later over the last 10 years , the
three Baltic states signed the RDP me
US , Japan signed their RDP ME US in
2021 . And the Republic of South Korea
actually is negotiating RDP as we speak .
And countries in the global South like
Brazil and India are on the brink of
starting conversations with the US on
future agreements . So as you can see ,
sir and the board RDP M US are not a
relic of the past or are extremely
relevant in a time when production is
uh deterrent . As is often quoted , the
US and its allies have made great
progress in innovation , collaboration
with the recent examples of NATO Diana
and the trilateral partnership of
August as pathways for further
integration and collaboration . But how
can we innovate better to provide the
warfighter , the capability needs for
the fight of today and the fight of
tomorrow ? In other words , what are
the barriers to us and partner
innovation and how can they be lowered ?
And please allow me to share three
issues with you . I would
argue that the first barrier is us
export control systems system . The
system was developed in the seventies .
At the time , the US was responsible
for the vast majority of global
research and development spending
worldwide . However , ever since other
countries including us , allies and
partners have recognized the importance
of R and D to the industrial innovation
and competitiveness . The vast
increases in the investments by other
governments and industries since the
seventies has eroded the US
technological dominance . And at the
same time , the commercial marketplace
is le leading in innovation in many
areas of relevance to our national
security . So I would argue that the US
export control and technological
security and foreign closure processes
undermine the ability to collaborate
effectively with allies and partners at
the speed and at the scale needed today ,
the barriers to technology sharing from
the US export control mean that the
United States runs the risk of losing
access to allied and partner innovation
and production capability . The recent
national defense and industrial
strategy does acknowledge the
challenges posed by us export control
regimes such as the international
traffic in arms regulations and the
export administration regulations .
However , its acknowledgment is not
enough to neutralize the impact on
cooper operation with allies and
partners . And therefore , I would
argue that there needs to be more than
just a call for action . The US should
expedite the modification of the
regulatory framework to make it easier
to share technology and information
with selected US allies and partners .
For example , based on the great work
that has already been done regarding
August pillar two and the executive and
legislative branch should prioritize
specific areas of cooper operation . It
seeks to prioritize with partners and
the second barrier is by American and
more specific , a lack of knowledge and
awareness regarding the full exempt for
the 28 qualifying countries with an RDP
mu . The full exception of the by
American Act has been recognized in the
NDA A of last year , fiscal year 2024
and an important clarification has also
been made in the defense federal
acquisition rules supplement earlier
this year . Nevertheless , there is a
lack of knowledge about the reciprocal
value of these RDP mo USA no risk
compliance culture . For example ,
within the acquisition community , too
often dictates the classification , no
foreign . This cuts out access to
innovative and sometimes allied and
partner capability for the US war
fighter that is required given the
current threat environment and also
global competition . So by reducing no
foreign restrictions , the US can
foster better information sharing and
joint developments in the NDIS So the
national defense and industrial
strategy references us allied and
partnerships and delivers such a firm
call to action and I quote leveraging
existing bilateral multilateral
relationships such as NATO Aus and the
NT I , the national technological and
industrial base . But the NDIS does not
mention RDP MU . I would argue that the
DUD should enhance the knowledge of RDP
me us within the acquisition community
at all levels through training . For
example , based on the recent text in
the darce ammendment and incorporate
allied and partners within the RDP M EU
in the beginning of development and
production phases . And this will bring
me to my last and final point .
Partnerships as the US national
technological and industrial base and
August partnerships have created
vehicles for cooper operation between
the US and some of its closest
historical allies . However , these
partnerships only tap into a small
group of countries excluding the
advanced capabilities , platforms and
expertise in other RDP countries in
Europe and the Indo Pacific , bringing
new partners into the US orbit V , an
AUS pillar two plus framework or
extending the N tip to other close
allies with cutting edge expertise and
capabilities would open up new
acquisition pathways . It could
facilitate the enhanced corporation
developments , experimentation and the
industrial corporation needed for the
United States to outpace competitors in
today's threat environments and
expanding the existing frameworks such
as the N tip , Aus Indiana or using
them as a template uh to reform and
evolve other bilateral multilateral
frameworks will provide the us the
necessary technological advancements .
And in addition , it provides new
perspectives , attitudes and concepts
for technological innovation and
industrial production in order to
prevail on the uh future battlefields .
And that will conclude my , my brief
and I'm I'm happy to take , to take
your questions . Are there any
questions from the uh from the board ?
Let me , let me ask you a question then
um from the perspective of our allies ,
what are the biggest challenges to
working with the defense department ?
I think one of the uh the , the , the ,
the , the most difficult part I think
is the , is the , is the lack of uh is
my second point I think is that it is
mainly within the acquisition community .
I think it's the lack of , of knowledge
about the uh the importance and the ,
the relevance uh and the reciprocal
relevance , I think of the RFP MA U .
So um having within the acquisition
um by de by default , too often , I
think uh no , no foreign classification .
Uh and , and having enough , I think
enough access uh to uh to , to uh to
the market , I think that would , that
would be one of the uh the most
important uh issues even though we , I
think as allies and partners work
closely and , and very fruitfully , I
think with the United States . Um but
to be able to uh work on production is
deterrence and as Doctor LaPlante says
to work on , I think co development ,
co production and Kosher statements . I
think that is a um a crucial , crucial
point that I would , I would like to
share with you , sir and , and the
board and , and what can private sector
companies do to help government and
work together with them in very
different cultures of private sector
from the government sector ? And um
they would approach problems , I would
think from different perspectives , but
they have to work together and how do
they do that ? Um I think it would be
very important to and a very early on
stage , I think government to
government understand what , what ,
what the requirements are and what the
US needs . Um uh And , and the
platform's needs in terms of , for
example , their supply chain
vulnerabilities and make sure that
their governments get uh the industries
in the markets outside of the US on
board as soon as possible . Uh to make
sure that we address those , I , I
think address those , those those
vulnerabilities . Um And I think , and
I think among all and partners
industries , I think there is a clear
realization after the uh after the
invasion of Ukraine uh by , by Russia
that uh that , that things need to be
done and , and things needs , needs ,
needs to be stepped up . Uh Thank you
very much . If there's no other
questions , I'm sorry , go ahead . Yeah ,
just I really appreciate , I really
appreciate the presentation just
quickly , I mean , one of the
challenges in my experience working
with uh allies and partners , NATO in
particular is one of scale . Uh And uh
do you have any insights in terms of
how you view where we are now ,
particularly with respect to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine and the , the
demand on capabilities ? Certainly in
inside NATO on how we might scale
capabilities better . Usually we're the
one the US is the one that ends up
scaling . Uh and uh I find partners ,
allies and partners , particularly in
the European theater , uh certainly can
participate . But the scale issue seems
to always come up if anything is
sustained over time , any thoughts on
that ? Uh Yes , sir . II , I think
there is a AAA clear incentive from and
the government and also from industry
to uh to scale up and to provide um
the Ukraine but also the , the war
fight or I think in respective country
with , with the capabilities that ,
that they need . Um And I think it's ,
it , it's requires a good discussion ,
government to government . But also I
think with uh us primes to um to , to
work on co production uh also overseas
uh where we could uh also produce
outside of the United States . And I
don't think also only in Europe . Um
but I think also in the in the Indo
Indo Indo Pacific , I think that's , I
think that's where , where we should be ,
where we should be looking at . Thank
you . Do any anybody else ? One
question from me , Mike . I , is there
any of the 27 nations that are under
the mo US that have a , a
classification system that the US ought
to look at ? Meaning uh , having
systems be classified for release to
partners by default as opposed to being
classified as , as no foreign and then
going through a release process
secondarily that , that I would , that
I would have to go back to the specific
countries . I , I couldn't speak ,
unfortunately , I couldn't , I couldn't
speak for the , for the specific
countries . Um But for example , the ,
the the three , the two countries that
are working together with the United
States in the , in the AUS framework ,
they are part of this , they are part
of this , this group and they also have
an R PM EU but then I think there is
something that I would have to go back
to the individual countries to give you
there . Give you a right answer on that
one . I appreciate that we've talked
about the , the classifying things
similarly to the intelligence community
where you have things that are
releasable to partners by default as a
model to follow . But if any of the
nations have uh have cracked the code
on this for acquisition , it'd be good
to , to talk with them . I will , I
will take that as an action , sir .
OK . Uh Anybody else ,
if not uh son did you want to introduce
Ron or you want me to ?
I'll go ahead . Go ahead , you go ahead .
Uh Ron Lech is the , as we said before ,
chief master sergeant . Uh He is the
senior enlisted leader of the
intelligence directorate at the Space
Systems Command in Los Angeles and
we're gonna hear from him now . Ron
floor is yours ? Good afternoon , Sarah
Bore . Thanks for the opportunity to
speak today . Uh Over the next few
minutes , I'm just gonna briefly
discuss a couple challenges , one
information sharing and two the need
for government standards . Uh And as I
briefly go over these items , I think
that load will sort of pull the thread
on a couple of the questions that I
just heard here in the past few minutes .
So , uh the first challenge I'm gonna
discuss today's information sharing
just as an example . Recently in
December of last year , Space Systems
Command International Affairs Office
hosted the Commander of German Space
Command General Trout . Uh We as the
intelligence director were tasked to
provide a briefing at the secret
releasable to Germany level . Uh And
what I can tell you now is that
researching secret releasable to
Germany is essentially unproductive ,
uh finding intelligence reporting ,
especially that space domain related
and is releasable to Germany is few and
far between uh so much so that over 90%
of the briefing that we provided was
actually gathered from publicly
available information . And this is a
similar limitation that we as a command
are facing when engaging with any of
the 28 nations who've reached out to
space systems command as they view the
US as their partner of choice . Uh And
this challenge exists beyond just the
intelligence community products . Um
Even though there are efforts to make
them more releasable as sort of
referenced earlier internally within
dod the security classification guides
for space programs almost automatically
enter the classified no foreign level
as the more detailed specifics of those
programs uh become um discussed or at
least mentioned in those documents . Um
overclassification is a significant
challenge on its own . Um And on the
industry side , and we've reached out
and talked to our partners , what we've
heard from them is that the smaller non
IP OS out there also have a
increasingly more difficult time to get
clear to these programs in the larger
primes because of the pre established
relationship and uh existing large
programs of record . Um while they got
less capital to access , you know ,
these smaller companies do believe they
can innovate faster due to the absence
of the uh shareholder dilemma . That's
evident with some of the larger primes ,
they can move out quicker on some of
the decision making that they need to
do . And this issue is unfortunately uh
further compounded when they try to
engage uh with any of our allies .
Ideally , they would like to know who
they should be engaging with and more
importantly , uh who they should not be
engaging with to navigate these
challenges . We should consider an
action of formulating or advocating for
a space allies and partner engagement
strategy that also details in
intelligence community efforts to
support information sharing uh strategy .
Like this could preemptively address
the classification issues and create
demand signal to the intelligence
community . The IC uh for products that
are releasable to essentially space
allies of choice . Uh such strategy
would not only benefit industry but it
also could enhance ongoing joint
efforts such as the International uh J
Rock or the joint requirements
Oversight Council . Moving on to the
second issue . Uh Sort of the Big Rock
is the need for government standards .
Um This is a challenge that's routinely
communicated to us . Um This is rooted
in the fact that we have the industrial
base that's ready and willing to
innovate in areas such as spacecraft
refueling . Uh But the lack of
standards from the government is
creating a void that can potentially be
exposed by our competitors , leaving
the US to essentially play catch up .
One of the companies I recently had
talked with , uh we were discussing how
they had developed a concept for
reviewing satellite , but the lack of
government standard free from
intellectual property was a significant
barrier for them . Uh Their concern was
if they commit the possibility exists ,
the government will later create a
different standard . And if they wait a
separate commercial standard could
emerge that was later then backed by
the government uh thereby walking it in
as intellectual property , removing
balanced and fair competition . Our
allies are affected by this challenge
as well . A common theme they've
communicated when they've engaged with
space systems command is that the lack
of us standards stymies their ability
to build their own national systems
that are meant to be allied by design .
And thus , they have no clear road
ahead for interoperability and also as
referenced earlier in terms of uh sort
of the specific impact that this can
have on our allies . One of the things
that's been noted is that they are
opting to go for more specific systems
that are focused on just their area of
operations as opposed to going all in
on sort of helping develop these
proliferated low earth orbit networks
and systems . Uh certainly the lack of
government standards , views of a
contributor to the valley of death in
the US . But this is also something
that's been communicated and as an
issue with our allies as well . Um And
so as for actions for this , especially
on niche areas such as I mentioned
earlier for spacecraft fueling , uh
where the government could essentially
be the only customer , the government
really needs to consider developing
fully intellectual property , free
standards and release them as soon as
possible . Um Having these in place
will be able to help us innovate
domestically . And in turn , it's gonna
enhance our ali ability to do so as
well . Uh So to summarize uh big rocks
that I wanted to address today were
just the information sharing piece and
the need for government standards . Uh
This is essentially what stood out as
the top challenges as we've talked and
engaged with , not just our partners
and industry , with our allies uh out
here in L A . So , advocacy in dealing
with these is undoubtedly going to put
us on track to remain the premier space
power for the foreseeable future . Um
And pending any questions . Thanks for
your time . And again , I'm happy to
address any questions from you or the
board , Ron . Thank you . Any questions
from anybody
run the issue that you brought . Oh ,
you had a skill there about the
government standards , like from your
point of view , what is the appetite
for that or the outlook of positive or
negative for really getting to the
point where we realize having better
government standards ? Yeah . So one
that is uh very , very near and dear to
our heart is just the fact that without
government standards , you know , I've
been to several conferences across the
US where we hear our leadership for ,
you know , CEO S , you name it from the
different industry partners out there .
And the common theme that they
communicate is they are ready to get
after the most difficult challenges
that we have , especially in the space
domain . But the problem is , and I
sort of alluded to this earlier , with
the shareholder dilemma , it is very
difficult for them to commit to
something that could be that uh costly ,
especially if a different standard
arises uh down the road . Uh And then
essentially it becomes out of their own
I AD or just their own funding that
they basically have to cut their losses
because a completely different standard
shows up . And so they're hesitant to
move forward and actually achieving
some true innovation and some critical
areas that we need this innovation in .
Um And the allies are seeing this and
they're just sort of um it's , you know ,
it's a domino effect and they're just
seeing this discussion happen , they're
seeing sort of this logjam and they're
very , very hesitant um to sort of
weigh in because in their minds , they
want to see the US figure this out
domestically first before we start
letting the international partners know
sort of how to abide by it . Thanks .
Thank you . One of the issues you
mentioned before was uh the private
sector and the public sector working
together where they have different
standards and particularly on security
and you have a , a different dimension
as well across 35 odd allies around the
world . And so there's no easy answers
to any of this stuff . If you want to
be perfectly secure , you don't tell
anybody anything and that's not a good
solution . So , uh but thank you for
your service , uh Ron and thank you uh
Sander . Uh We'll go to the next uh uh
topic of the second study uh will is
the study focuses on different
timelines and incentives of innovators
both inside and outside the defense
department . Uh We think with a better
understanding of these incentives , our
goal is to help the Pentagon speed up
its adoption of promising new
technologies . And rear admiral Mike
Mullen is coordinating this study , so
I'll turn it over to him now . Admiral ,
like uh you might be uh
muted . Can you hear us ?
Yeah . Yeah , I was muted . Sorry .
That's ok . Um This study , this is in
an incentive study uh is really
foundational tori what we believe ,
driving faster tech adoption and
aligning with the secretary's
priorities of modernizing the
department um to , to uh assess the
discrepancies between existed existing
incentive structures uh of the
Department of Defense and those that
are prevalent in industry . So we're
looking internally and externally at ,
at incentives and , and the , the
baseline assumption here is that many
incentives are , are misaligned . Um
We're also trying to extract and refine
key elements and practices from
industry that could enhance dod s
incentive framework . Um We're also
looking at a , a way to formulate a
comprehensive plan as a result of this
study to effectively communicate and
implement a realigned incentive
structure . And finally , to look at
quantifiable metrics , come up with
quantifiable metrics to monitor and
evaluate the success of aligning
incentives among the various
stakeholders and there are lots of them .
We're currently where we are currently
in this study is synthesizing
information from academia industry ,
the Department of Defense to develop a
comprehensive viewpoint and distill
relevant actionable recommendations .
The study has facilitated a four study
group engagements . We've actually
looked uh reviewed 43 different reports
conducted over 15 key stakeholder
engagements with more than 30
stakeholders from various sectors
including the dod venture capitalists ,
small businesses , academia and the
acquisition community . Among others .
Participants in this study include
program , executive officers ,
requirement , officers and members of
innovation hubs and cells encompassing
both uniformed personnel and civilian
employees all at various levels .
The next steps , uh We expect to uh
that and , and when do we expect to
publish the results ? The next steps
are really for the remainder of this
month , we will persist in our
engagements and gather further
information . And from mid May to early
June really intensify the analysis
associated with what we have collected .
And then starting in June will be
basically writing the report which will
be published uh on July 17th . So
again , we're just looking at what the
incentives are across the department
and in industry where they're aligned ,
where they're misaligned , uh
everything that's associated with that
and making recommendations to the
secretary . Hopefully he can implement
to , to move tech adoption through the
system much more quickly with that ,
Mike . I'll turn it back over to you .
Uh Mike . Thank you . Um any questions
for the admiral ? If not , let me
introduce two more experts . They are
the former commander of the US . Cyber
Command , retired army General Paul
Nakasone , who will speak in a moment .
But first let us bring in Colonel
Kristen sailing for the past seven
years . She has been using data and
analytics to help the army improve its
decision making in human resources . So
Colonel , thank you for joining us and
please go ahead . All right . Thank you
very much , sir . And thank you um to
these team members of the Defense
Innovation Board for an opportunity to
talk about incentivizing innovation and
new technology adoption across the
Department of Defense . The angle I'm
gonna take uh not surprisingly given my
background is people looking at our
talent management and the type of
talent development we need to be able
to do in order to get people who are
capable of utilizing implementing and
adopting the new technologies that
we're talking about and integrating
them into our army into our defense
business processes , not just focus on
army . Um So looking at our different
initiatives , the primary challenge we
have within our talent incentive
structure is the alignment or the
misalignment with contemporary career
expectations and the evolving skill
sets required in modern defense . This
isn't uniform across the services . I
will acknowledge that there are some
areas we're better at this than others ,
but we do have some pervasive problems
despite the authorities that we were
given in the 2019 NDA A , our approach
to talent management is still heavily
reliant on rank and tenure based
rewards . And we have a single entry
point system . We're looking at
different ways of bringing in alternate
types of talents , moving more
permeability across our components ,
bringing across our uh reservists and
our guard members who have expertise in
these areas and direct commissioning .
But those have largely just been
piloted in limited capacity . But we're
not anywhere close to mimicking the
fast paced skills driven job market
that we have out in the commercial
sector . We are creating tools to make
for more flexibility within our
services , for assignments and
developmental opportunities . But
largely , this is seen as a detractor
for our primary incentive , which is
promotion and advancement . We are
promoting people who go out and get
diverse skills who have other
nontraditional opportunities in spite
of these opportunities rather than
because of them . And this results in
difficulty attracting and retaining top
talent in these areas , particularly
when we're looking at critical
technology areas such as cybersecurity ,
data science , artificial intelligence .
And as we're talking about here in
innovation , we don't , we don't
adequately recognize or cultivate
nontraditional career paths and skills
which are becoming more and more
essential as warfare and , and defense
technologies evolve . We're seeing this
every day , we need to be able to
leverage and reward unique
contributions of our technologists ,
particularly looking again at our
civilian experts and our reservists
whose expertise can be absolutely
pivotal in these times . We come up
against the traditional approach , uh
rank and tenure . We don't necessarily
know how to integrate folks coming in
from outside of our system . And
instead , we tend to look and lean
towards seniority , the folks who have
been there longer , who understand the
business processes without figuring out
a way to merge these two to address
these challenges . Um We're looking at
a number of different things that we
would need to support to implement . Um
The first is looking at additional
skills based pay systems . We've been
talking in army compensation for a long
time about figuring out more ways to
uncouple grade and skill and moving to
a model that better emphasizes skills
and contributions . We don't have the
freedom to align pay with market
standards for specific skill sets , but
we have to be able to prioritize
aligning incentives to those we can in
these very high demand areas . We're
also examining the impact of non
monetary incentives such as uh choosing
different methods of development ,
other additional skills training with
industry post of choice , other types
of things that we can offer without
looking at the premium for um for
dollars which constrain us heavily in
looking at um flexible career pathways
as an entity , we need to be able to
create multiple career tracks that
allow for lateral movement between
disciplines and recognize and reward ,
cross functional skills and expertise .
This lets us not just , you know ,
reward the capability of our
individuals , but lets us increase
readiness by not having to stick uh
strictly along cohort and career
boundaries . And let us attract and
incentivize talent with increased
variety and diversity of experience ,
finding better fit for new emerging
requirements . As they , as they show
up , we want to enhance our
professional development opportunities ,
investing in continuous learning and
upscaling programs , especially in
emerging technologies and credentialing .
We're running into the same problem
that um the private sector is running
into the demand signal for some of
these keys , technologists is greater
than anybody can keep up with . So we
have to find creative ways of
cultivating these type of talents and
skill sets within our own formations .
We want to introduce project based and
performance based bonuses for roles
that contribute to critical projects ,
particularly in innovation and
technology development , introducing
these type of bonuses that reflect
impact and success of these initiatives ,
which is something we haven't
previously done . The last piece we
want to be able to continually
modernize people and the way we think
about our people . We have dabbled
around this , at least it's on the army
side and I've seen it in the other
services with the army talent
management task force , the army people ,
first task force , army recruiting ,
task force and recruiting enterprise
transformation initiative . And I could
go on . We have a lot of these
temporary entities that we have brought
in to modernize people without fully
instantiating the same type of
capability , modernization that we use
in the material space . What I'm
proposing , at least on the army side .
And I'm hoping that we get adopted uh
across the services is that we
establish centers of excellence for
people and talent that look at
modernizing the capability of our
individuals . The same way that we
modernize our systems . We're
definitely gonna need this coming up .
We've seen the proliferation of
generative A I and other capabilities
and the emergence of skills like prompt
engineering . So we started thinking
about what we need to have in order to
assess , develop and even just identify
the attributes that make someone a good
partner with a machine partner . How do
we optimize our capabilities and our
attributes for human machine , teaming
of various uh types . Looking just ,
you know , looking at generative A I
all the way to autonomous vehicles . So
looking at this by offering competitive
skills based compensation , flexible
career pathways , moving away from
seniority and cohort based management
de emphasizing the traditional career
path and figuring out ways to emphasize
those different career paths that we
very much need people to take . In
order to develop their skills , we're
more likely to be attractive as a
hiring entity to people with this type
of intellectual curiosity and
creativity and with the cutting edge
skills that we need , we're also
enabling ourselves as an as an entity
to get greater readiness because we can
move more flexibly between career paths
and address putting talent into
critical capabilities as those
requirements emerge . We want to be
able to move outside a one size fits
all definition of best talent and
identify the right talent as that
emerged . So with that , I'll wrap that
up . I wanna thank you very much for
your time to talk about this and I
greatly support or I greatly appreciate
the board's support to defense talent
management and innovation . Anybody
have any questions for the colonel ?
Yeah , if not , thank you , Colonel .
And uh now we have the US . Yes .
Is it OK . In question for the colonel ,
if that's OK . Colonel , how are ,
how are you thinking about roles for
the Guard and the Reserve for accessing
the high skill talent that you need and
any thoughts about creating uh the
ability to have people in temporary
positions so that you're not competing
with the private sector but but can
cooperated with it or maybe even the
civilian equivalent of the Garden
Reserve . Any thoughts on that in your ,
in your talent plan , we , we've done a
number of different experiments in that
space . Um Looking all the way to some
of the work that's been done on the Gig
Eagle kind of freelance type market for
reservists to come in and do job based
work versus time based work . We also
have the 75th Innovation Command in the
Army which is made up primarily of
technologists where we are looking at
them not to pursue their traditional
army roles that they have in the
Reserve , but to use their day job
skills . Um I leverage heavily the
Silicon Valley Detachment of the
Innovation Command . Most of the folks
who make up that uh particular
organization are fairly junior officers
and NC OS , but in their day jobs ,
they're doing um A I integration into
customer experience for auto desk for
Airbnb , for a number or different
commercial entities . And they can
bring that expertise over into the army
with also the , the business practice
expertise that we need . So what I
think we need to do as far as this goes ,
this is obviously my opinion and not
necessarily the opinion writ large is
really think about how we want to
leverage army service . We have people
with these tremendous skills and we try
to integrate them into , you know ,
what we think they should be doing
using just two data points grade and
branch rather than looking at the whole
person skill set and figuring out ways
to use um temporary job
assignments , use temporary hires , use
kind of gig and freelance type economy
um practices to bring them in to work
on critical projects where we need
their entire skill set .
Hey , Mike , I've got one , I've got
one I one uh Thanks for the
presentation . Uh and uh and I'm also
delighted and this is not a question
but uh an observation , I'm just
delighted to not hear the phrase human
capital anymore , which I always
thought was pretty inhuman and focusing
on talent management because that's
really what it is . Uh Although I still
do hear it on occasion , um uh I , I uh
I wanna pick on one specific area you
talk about project bonuses if you uh uh
do you have any read on how well that's
received in , in the army , in
particular in the hr world is , how do
you , how do you shape bonuses for ?
You know , I'm very familiar with
bonuses . How do you shape bonuses for
something like this which has never
been on anybody's plate . Uh Is there
any receptivity uh with respect to that
uh at uh at army hr or somewhere else ?
So there , there's a lot of
receptiveness to the idea . But when we
start talking about it in practice ,
you , you realize that the our forces
have interesting set notions of what
fair is and they have a lot of distrust
for a new definition of what fair is .
Um , a lot of what we do is based on .
Well , if we do this for one group of
people , we have to do it for all
people under certain definition . And
until we can really define those
standards in a way that can be clearly
communicated and people understand and
trust them as fair , we're gonna have
difficulty . So we're , we're talking
about this a lot . But when we start
getting into the implementation side of
things . There's a lot of cultural
pushback . Thank you . Uh Anything
else ? If not , then let me introduce
our other speaker , General Paul Nacao
Nakasone . Um and uh
General Lalo is yours , Mayor
Admiral Mullen ? Um Doctor Roper . It's
good to see all of you again . I would
just share with you that uh life after
military service is good and I'm
certainly enjoying myself and I
appreciate the opportunity today to ,
to say just a few words . Uh I think
Christine really had a good job in
terms of uh as Kristen was talking
about the , the , you know , the bolts
of , you know , trying to get
compensation . Let me uh attack it from
a different perspective in a , in a
light . And this is from my uh both my
roles as the commander of us Cyber
Command and the director of the
National Security Agency . First of all ,
uh the supply lacks in terms of what we
need . We need a much bigger supply in
terms of the talent that needs to work
so many of our projects . The other
piece that I would say with the supply
is the fact that the supply is out
there . In fact , it's really
interesting to see on my role as the
director of the National Security
Agency . Uh We were able to bring in
every summer , well , over 500
different scholars from different
organizations and different schools to
be part of a director summer program ,
as I think about what the department
needs . However , it's really a set and
a skill set that is much different than
what we've recruited before . And so ,
one of the things that uh has led me to
really consider is how do we attract
the gen Z of the world . And one of the
ways that they are looking to
contribute is to contribute to high
profile programs . Uh It's interesting
uh that one of the things that most
people told me is that they wanted to
be part of the directors summer program .
And so as I thought about it , why
don't we have a Secretary Summer
program or Chief Naval Operations
Summer Program or chief of staff of the
Army Summer Program ? The big piece of
this is not only generating the supply
but also being able to fill the demand
that's out there . Let me give you a
statistic of the 500 people that
normally took place in the director
Summer program at the National Security
Agency . We hired 70% of them , 70%
that's 350 new hires every single year .
And what the exit surveys told us was
the fact that they were interested in
learning about our mission . They were
interested in learning about where we
work . They were interested in learning
about being part of something that was
larger than themselves and part of that
was also being able to expose them to
what our agency did as I think about
what our department needs to do across
hypersonics and big data and cloud
computing and networked uh analysis .
Why don't we have some type of program
such as this department wide that will
allow us to have a greater supply and
then be able to fill our demand . One
of the challenges I had as commander us ,
Cyber command is as one of 11 different
combatant commands . We had to have the
infrastructure upon which we would
actually go out and recruit these
people . We would have to have the
infrastructure upon which to apply .
We'd have to have the infrastructure in
which we interviewed all these people
as opposed to a central pool . Perhaps ,
you know , maybe even a chairman summer
program or chairman's internship ,
being able to uh you know , apply both
the um you know , the infrastructure
that exists at the department and the
stature uh of the nation's top military
leader to those that might come and
work our hardest problems . Uh This is
our moment in terms of being able to
look at this differently . And I think
that one of the things that I saw is
that Congress was very , very anxious
to give us the money that we needed .
In fact , they gave us a number of
different hiring and , and bonus monies
that we needed at Cyber Command . What
we didn't have again was the supply and
the ability to fill our demand . Let me
break there . For your questions or
comments , uh
any questions from anybody ? Hey , hey ,
Paul Black Mullet . Is this , is this
uh college kids , high school kids .
They mainly in the summer program . And
how long was it ? So , the summer
program lasted 10 weeks . It was
designed for uh college students . Uh
And with the idea of , you know , we
take them in an application by October ,
we would clear them to a TS clearance
by the time the spring time rolled
around and then they'd start with us
the following summer . Now , a couple
of thoughts about that one is normally
when you're 19 or 20 years old , it's
much easier to clear someone . Well ,
maybe not some , but for the most part ,
it was easier for us to clear them .
But once they had their clearance , uh
you know , there was an incentive for
them obviously to think not only about
working for us or the intelligence
community , but also dod writ large ,
but it allowed us to , to really
attract a , a really promising group of
folks . Yeah , it's just terrific ,
terrific . Anybody , anybody
else . Good to see you again . And this
is maybe working for , for you was part
of the reason you got such good
retention when you moved from interning
to being hired as you certainly were a
breath of fresh air and the positions
you served in . I I when you stepped
away from that program and looked at
your broader uh attempt to hire the
talent that you need through usa jobs
and other outlets . Did you find those
wholly inadequate ? And did you see any
ability , any , any ways to make those
more relevant ? So that you don't have
to work around the hiring system ? You
can work through it over ? Yeah . So ,
well , first of all , it's great to see
you again and great to see you not in
the tank . Uh , what I would share with
you is the fact that um we got away
from USA jobs because it was just not
very conducive for us to be able to ,
to do this rapidly . Secondly , was the ,
the fact that we had to rook our hiring
program . So , um you know , when
you're going out to Carnegie Mellon ,
sending someone that's come from
Carnegie Mellon within the past five
years , it's working at your , with
your command , your agency . Uh That's
normally not something that is second
nature to us in the department . Uh And
it should be and , and so we have to do
those type of activities . Here's the
other thing . Um And I would , I would
offer that one of my great challenges
is that people don't want to stay for
three decades , whether or not it's in
the department or whether or not it's
an intelligence community . And so we
should make it as easy as possible
after they've been away for 35 years to
come back . Uh And we are the greatest ,
you know , we are the greatest enemies
of that because our , our processes are
so bureaucratic , particularly on the
security side . Uh uh
Gilda . Yeah , I , I don't have a
question but a really quick comment and
endorsement for that approach of having
a high prof high profile program with
the ab uh a the ability to work on a
very serious problem as a way of
attracting and retaining um my
experience uh in engineering and
engineering uh education and research
in particular is that , that is a
winning strategy . So I just want to
echo and uh endorse that strategy .
You know , if I might just to follow up
a comment on that , you know , one of
the things that I thought about is ,
you know , as we're trying to look at
big data , why , why don't we have a
big data focus for the department ?
Right ? And we say , hey , they're
gonna work the cutting edge uh issues
for the department on big data that is
going to allow us a leap ahead in terms
of what we have to do to secure our
nation and , and , and go , you know ,
go across the nation and say , hey , we
need the top 20 the top 20 scholars
that want to come and work at the
department for a period of 10 weeks or
12 weeks or whatever it is , give them
a very , very high profile sponsor uh
and be able to , to look at that
differently in terms of this is what we
need you to do . Absolutely . The right
way to go . The clearance of working
has always been a big issue . That's
wonderful that the program that you ran
started working the clearances and
aside from getting people in and
getting them cleared , there's also the
tyranny of once someone leaves to your
point , they don't want to be there for
30 years , the clock starts ticking on
their clearance and if they don't do
something for a clear defense
contractor within two years and their
clearance expires . So I think , I
think the the hurdle of clearances is
part of the , the thing that makes it
too big of a hurdle to get talent
unless they come through a special
program that's high profile , that
works those details for them .
Uh I was just thinking of my clearance
expired . I worked for the same company
for 43 years with the exception of 12
years in City Hall , but I still have
my clearance . Marian . Marian
checked us to make sure I'm sure it's
fine . Um Thank you
General and thank you all to our guests
for taking the time today . Um uh
Marina before we close . Are there any
public comments that have come in or
any other updates ? Thank you . Thank
you , Mike . Yeah , so we received as
always , we are uh listening . The
Defense Innovation Board is listening
and we welcome comments uh throughout
the year on our website
innovation.defense.gov , we did receive
a couple of comments about general uh
national security redness on for
protection and uh software engineering .
We've shared those uh with the , with
the board and with that no additional
updates . Uh Mr Chair , I'll turn it
over back to you . Uh Well , if that's
the case , um we have our work cut out
for us before our next public meeting .
Uh That meeting will be on Wednesday ,
July 17th . I put it on your calendar ,
Wednesday , July 17th and we're looking
forward to it and everybody who
participated . Thank you so much for
your time and all the work that you do
and the board members who couldn't be
with us today who have done Yeoman's
work and see you all then and all the
best . Thank you , everyone . And this
board meeting is now adjourned . Thank
you .