New Ideas Brainstorm

NATO RTO SAS-Panel MeetingBrdo, SVN, 28 Oct 2010

Troy HartingStephan De Spiegeleire

Objectives

• Generate ideas to ensure and improve SAS Panel (and national) operations analysis, especially in a restrictive financial environment

• Produce compelling ideas for new SAS Panel work

• Experiment with facilitation as a means for improving the Panel’s brainstorming process

Not ‘business as usual’

• Normally, panel business meetings discuss new business – identify new topics ‘bottom-up’

• There may be good reasons for doing things somewhat differently this year– The age of austerity: money [extra problem for certain SAS topics, as they

have more ‘diffuse’ customers]– Incipient discussion about our value proposition – not just less money, but

also value for money issues (cost of operations since 2001 2 TRILLION euros; and how much ‘security’ has it brought us?)

– Very quickly changing security environment (‘global weirding’) – technology, power shifts, epochal change

– More comprehensive definition of ‘defense and security’ => broader scope – General recognition that we need MORE SAS-type work – French Livre

Blanc (connaissance et anticipation); UK Green Paper (uncertainty and affordability PLUS Partnerships!) and even the latest SDSR; the Dutch Future Policy Survey, the QDR; JO2030

– Changes within NATO (NATO agency review)

SAS-’Business model’Issues:•Selection of issues (slow, non-exhaustive)•(Self-)selection of countries•Huge disparities between countries•Long lags + punctual, not pervasive•Commitment issues•Effectiveness (travel costs, etc.)•Deliverables non-committal•No tracking of ACTUAL results/effects (whether in NATO or in nations)+ also•Real centres of knowledge insufficiently networked (HUGE potential – still duplication AND holes)•Very imperfect situational awareness•No real ‘market’ for SAS-type knowledge

Can we think of other ways of ‘doing business’ ?

Yes there probably are…• There ARE other models for this – some very personal

observations, based on about 20 years of defense research in 5 different countries (Belgium, France, Germany, US and now the NL):– Better situational awareness of ongoing work, existing tools, models (e.g.

this morning – e.g. SAS-078 Canada doing non-lethal weapons work – mentioned; but not done systematically)

– More joint work (e.g. finding ways to have researchers work together in teams on NATIONAL work)

– Models & tools exchanges: some models huge investment, not used regularly – how to sustain them (e.g. Andrew)

– More peer review of existing NATIONAL work (especially SAS-type work)– More benchmarking – NOT just “I do things this way, you that way”; but

SYSTEMATIC comparisons of different ways of doing thing, best practices, etc. (OECD example)

– Evaluation of which SAS-efforts really ‘land’ (assessment //RTB effort) – More like-minded (-sized) groups (re-empower disenfranchised countries)– Having a depository of ‘best practices’ (both national and joint activities) –

ACT?

Why crises can be good

Protocol for brainstorm• 2 sessions, each with 2 syndicates

– First session – New ways of doing business (45’)– Second session – Ideas for new studies (45’)

• Think (5’)– Identify key problems (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) – Identify some solutions (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work)

• Write + Post (15’)– ONE idea on ONE post-it note; color coded (will allow us to capture these

and analyze them afterwards):• Problem = blue• Solution = green • post those on some wall, and try to (self-)organize them (and do discuss

amongst yourselves)– as you go through them, put your feedback on the ones you see (‘+’; ‘-‘; ‘?’) 

• Discuss (25’)– Back to table (or standing around): which ones got a lot of pluses (focus

discussions on solutions)

The Output

• Facilitators will work to consolidate ideas for outbrief in plenary tomorrow

• We will look for volunteers to produce short write-ups or elaboration on proposals and topics

New Ideas BrainstormFirst Insights – Take-aways

NATO RTO SAS-Panel MeetingBrdo, SVN, 29 Oct 2010

Troy HartingStephan De Spiegeleire

FIRST SESSIONNEW WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS

12

Overview – Some StatsProblem Problem Total Solution Solution Total Grand Total

1 2 1 2Money 7 8 15 7 7 22Stakeholders 18 18 18Efficiency 18 18 18Brokering/sharing info 4 4 12 12 16Time 8 8 6 6 14Output 8 8 6 6 14Expertise 13 13 13Nationalism 8 8 5 5 13Process & Organization 3 3 5 4 9 12Methods 1 1 9 9 10People 4 4 4 4 8Requirement definition 8 8 8Competency 3 3 4 4 7Participation 7 7 7Ownership 5 5 1 1 6

Assessment of research results 6 6 6Organization 3 3 3NATO-specific 1 1 1Grand Total 48 49 97 53 46 99 196

Almost 200 ideas generated in 45’!(+ many excellent ones)

(A few) more solutions than problems

Overview – Viz

Money #1 issue – more problems than solutions BUT still some good ideas

Lots of ideas on how to improve efficiency and interaction with stakeholders

A few issues with only problems, no solutions –

require some thinking

Top Issues1Problem

Brokering/sharing info Structure of the RTO knowledge base does not allow for easy browsing

++++++

1Problem ExpertiseProblem how to translate (analyze, taxonomize) commanders demands into research topics (SAS panel research topics)

+++++

2Solution Money More use of VTCs, email, sharepoint to reduce need for meetings+++++

2Solution People Slovenian cuisine J+++++

1Solution StakeholdersConsider implementing collaborative tool to speed up the cycle for generating new activities

+++++

1SolutionBrokering/sharing info

Create direct lines between commanders and NATO/national research programme (SAS themes) ++++

2Problem People To find right people ++++

2Solution People Get SAS to task academia ++++

1SolutionBrokering/sharing info

Set up a network of peer experts for specific SAS areas (e.g. costing, logistics, defense planning +++

2Solution Competency International mentoring +++

2Solution MoneyReduction of meetings tele/video conferences, friendly knowledge exchange tools (online) - also more people participate this way +++

2Solution Nationalism Share national interests (S&T needs), share PoWs +++

2Solution Nationalism Databases with docs +++

2Solution TimeInstitutionalize processes for immediate work (fast track) BUT maintain balance between fast track and medium to long-term studies +++

2Solution TimeUse 2-level approval (board AND panel) only by exception, e.g. by panel request +++

‘Personal’ Take-Aways• Much low-hanging fruit (even cost-neutral) – but we

need true ownership to make these things happen– Much scope for better situational awareness (both of

NATO but especially of national efforts, and especially ‘en amont’)

– Outreach to others – especially the end-users, but also other panels, private sector

• Need to up the tempo– of the RTO process itself and of the studies (many ideas)– Need for quick and (hopefully not too ) dirty OA

• Inklings of a ‘market’– Desire to find ways to use experts from other nations (+

private sector) to do national work

AssessmentStrengths•Was useful to take a ‘step back’ from just ongoing and new work (business) and look at the ‘business model’ itself•Fascinating results

– Informed– Creative– and IMO much low-hanging fruit here

•In very short time, we created many (excellent) ideas Weaknesses•Not everybody here•First-cut: no/few pros/cons (also from other – non S&T – stakeholders) considered•No sense of feasibility•(for most nations) somewhat ‘spur-of-the-moment’, impressionistic (e.g. quite a few references to the JSI-topics)

Follow-on work• Clean this work up • Make this available to others (Sharepoint?)

– Allow others (AND this group) to add items

– Discuss – pros and cons

– Get a better view of priorities (scale?)

– Get a sense for feasibility of solutions (lo-med-hi?)

• Match problems to solutions– Are there solutions that tackle multiple problems

– Allow NATiOns to document existing work (many ideas already being worked on)

Low-hanging fruit Allocate ownership Repeat?

09 March 2010 18