School is out, and at most universities that means final exams have given way to fun and sun. While the semester wrap-up at Georgetown University had its share of parties, students in Washington’s first-ever Hacking for Defense course prepared for perhaps their biggest challenge yet: reshaping the American military. As entrepreneur and Stanford University professor Steve Blank, the founder of the Hacking for Defense initiative, wrote on his blog introducing the movement: “We will not lose because we had the wrong technology. We will lose because we couldn’t adopt, adapt and deploy technology at speed and in sufficient quantities to overcome our enemies.”

Accepting that mission, these resourceful undergraduates spent 10 weeks painstakingly working to intimately understand and respond to the U.S. government’s toughest national security challenges. Using Silicon Valley innovation methods based on the premise that true innovation comes from grasping a customer’s problem better than they do, the students iterated threat-busting artificial intelligence algorithms, hunter drones, and augmented reality glasses, among other products.

Merging lessons learned from leading technology engineers, entrepreneurs, executives and investors, the Hacking for Defense movement is gaining momentum on campuses nationwide amid a growing recognition that status quo defense acquisitions are increasingly being outpaced by new national security challenges. After kicking off last year at Stanford University, the class has now expanded to seven universities. With support from the Defense Department’s MD5 tech accelerator, the Georgetown students applied Silicon Valley-style lean startup methods to acute (and unclassified) national security challenges put forth by government agencies keen for a fresh perspective. The problem statements and results aren’t academic exercises; these are real-world problems. As course mentors, we expected students to develop actual prototypes for “minimum viable products” (or MVPs as they’re often called) over the 16-week class. Think of it as show-and-tell from a future battlefield, all broadcast live on social media.

Each “product” is more than the sum of its parts. It starts with government sponsors pitching students on their problems. The students then conduct hundreds of sponsor and expert interviews, countless product iterations, and many late nights. Just like a real-world startup would, students received “relentlessly direct” feedback from their instructors and “customers” (problem sponsors) and “investors” (instructors). This forged their approach into an entrepreneurial mindset. Survival depended on real-time technological and business-plan adaptation as well as acceptance of failures along the way. Along with other mentors from across the national security community, our role was to give advice and otherwise support students along the way. This could mean helping to structure problems, understand market developments, and identify potential partners.

What the four student teams ultimately produced was impressive. For example, working a problem posed by the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG), Team Spyglass developed an AI algorithm that in real-time identifies threats – including images – posted on social media. To their credit, the students recognized that identifying the threats alone wasn’t enough. They then created a messaging service that within seconds notifies relevant military users that a threat exists.

The Hacking for Defense approach is about more than technology, something that can be overlooked given its Silicon Valley origins. The students discovered that what truly mattered was solving the right problems. While AWG originally asked for a way to monitor broad trends on social media that could indicate unrest, after several dozen interviews the team had its a-ha moment. They realized the Army’s real problem was actually protecting individuals and units from being photographed and geotagged for potential ambushes or flash-mob style attacks. With that revelation, Team Spyglass rapidly adapted its approach.

This type of ongoing discovery is essential to Hacking for Defense. And it applies to more than students.

The broad lessons are applicable to pretty much anyone in the public and private defense sector, from executive-level leadership to strategic planning groups and technology development organizations. For DoD, one of the most important benefits is a process that hones in on placing innovation where it matters most: in the hands of warfighters. From a defense industry perspective, we believe these approaches can help large corporations stay nimble and truly understand a customer’s often unspoken priorities.

Consider these takeaways from the course:

1. Start with the mission problem. It’s not uncommon for us to see people build technology solutions first and then try to figure out mission applications.  A more effective approach is to invest in deeply understanding the operator (or customer) and the mission problems these people face. Only then does it make sense to develop a technology solution that addresses their needs. Even better, identify the problems they didn’t even know existed. Deeply understanding mission problems, however, is not a casual endeavor. Follow the lead of Hacking for Defense students: conduct scores of interviews and collect in-depth data about technology beneficiaries and partners. Then integrate this ongoing, detailed discovery into development planning. When mission challenges are clearly understood, it’s far more likely the solutions created will be the correct ones.

2. Live your vision. Too often – but not always – strategy in the defense sector is the result of periodic process, perhaps annually or every three to five years. The reality is that technologies and threats are evolving too quickly for a rigid planning process alone to be a highly effective approach. Instead, turn strategic planning into a real-time activity.  Hacking for Defense students do this by constantly iterating a “Mission Model Canvas” throughout the semester as they collect new information on beneficiaries and partners. For those involved in crafting industry or government strategy, build this type of living dashboard to augment or supplant a strategic plan. Constantly revisit customer or operator knowledge, market data, internal portfolios, and goals.

3. Ditch the static roadmap. Like highways, technology roadmaps can accelerate progress, but they also give people fewer choices to exit when it makes the most sense rather than what a planner once envisioned as the optimal outcome. Hacking for Defense teams recognize this reality by presenting weekly updates on their MVPs that reflect their daily inputs. Therefore keep planning dynamic by conducting real-time research into beneficiary needs and the broader marketplace. Based on findings, quickly update roadmaps – even before milestone reviews if possible. Some organizations should even consider setting up small rapid innovation cells propelling development efforts outside normal R&D procedures.

The first Hacking for Defense classes in Washington may be over, but the work of some students continues as they look to get their ideas into the hands of warfighters. Given the speed and intensity with which the students worked, and the eagerness of their sponsoring agencies, that could even be sooner than they ever believed possible when they first signed up for the class.

Joshua Pavluk is a principal at Avascent, where he advises clients across the global aerospace and defense technology sector. His commentary has appeared in TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and War on the Rocks.

Jim Tinsley is a managing director at Avascent, specializing in major defense platforms and subsystems.


Share:
More In Opinion