For those entrusted with defending the nation against increasing cyberspace-related threats while operating in a fiscally constrained environment, the need to innovate is clear. One way to manage the inherent risk associated with the imbalance between ends and means is to embrace innovation.1

While many in the defense community equate innovation with integrating private sector technologies, a more expansive understanding of the concept can help us more fully tap the most precious resource we have: our people. When we understand innovation to be more than just invention, but also the adoption of a new practice in a community, the need to appropriately resource the entire effort becomes apparent.2 Given the potential liability associated with lack of resource allocation oversight in large organizations and the risk to the mission posed by uncoordinated changes, some degree of bureaucracy will always be a necessary evil.

Below, I offer a brief discussion about this approach to innovation, but not before I provide some insights from the past few years of studying and doing innovation within an organization notorious for bureaucracy: the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Innovation happens in spite of bureaucracy, and providing some structure to support it will help us to better realize opportunities, decrease risk, and provide the American taxpayer with a better return on their substantial national security investments.

BUREAUCRATIZING INNOVATION TO BETTER SECURE CYBERSPACE

J. L. BillingsleyAdvisory Board Member, Cyber Security Forum InitiativeFounder, Military Cyber Professionals Association

United States Cybersecurity Magazine52

provided me his framework for generating successful innovation. At the heart of his approach are these eight practices of successful innovators:5

I applied this guide to the MCPA concept, a journey which formed the core of my NPS master’s thesis and laid the foundation for a successful non-profit organization. Whereas the Army 2020 project was an initial taste of innovation mostly focused on inventing (according to the above framework), getting the MCPA adopted in the community has demanded years of perseverance.

The Innovation Structure

While the powerful mission and vision of the MCPA continues to sustain my passion, it has not been without considerable challenges. Even though I had near-universal support for this effort as a student, once I rejoined an operational Army unit with a regular day job, I found it difficult to secure sufficient time, space, and other resources to see the project through. Facing such challenges early on, I began considering a wide range of potential solutions, including looking at how other DoD organizations approach innovation. Within the DoD, particularly among the special operations and intelligence communities, I found some inspiring examples of innovation structures built specifically to unlock the creative potential of their personnel.6 Informed by their work, I developed an initial concept paper for operationalizing innovation within the Army Cyber Command headquarters that was well aligned with the Commander’s vocal support for innovation. The main effort of the structure was to manage an incubation process to harvest, vet, and resource innovations.

Strategic Redesign

My first formal foray into deliberate innovation in the DoD happened soon after I arrived at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), about an hour drive south of Silicon Valley. While receiving a brief on NPS’s design thinking approach to complex problem solving, inspired by the likes of IDEO and the Stanford D School, the Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) became intrigued.3 He requested this approach be used to compliment Army strategic planning with fresh ideas from outside of the Beltway, specifically as input into the Army’s part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The eclectic design team included the handful of fellow Army Strategists (functional area 59 officers) on the campus, visionary academics like Drs. John Arquilla and Nancy Roberts, other military students, and civilians with a wide range of experience, from nonprofits to Hollywood. After months of work, we briefed General Odinero’s Strategic Studies Group (SSG) in 2012.4 The vision we provided for the Army of 2020 included a number of initiatives that have since been implemented, including a career branch focused on cyber warfare, the Soldier for Life program, and building dynamic cyber-focused organizations by national hubs of technology talent like New York’s Army Cyber Institute and Silicon Valley’s DIUx.

The Association

Working on the design project convinced me of the need to grow, support, and develop the coming American military cyber workforce (and the K-12 students who will become that workforce and/or the next generation of technology entrepreneurs). Drawing on inspiration from various sources, including other successful efforts like the Cyber Security Forum Initiative, I developed the concept for a military cyber professionals’ association (MCPA). Part of this concept included encouraging our military personnel to volunteer in support of computer science programs for kids, ideally in partnership with something akin to a cyber-focused Cub Scouts. Socializing this concept attracted the attention of the Cebrowski Institute, which was in the process of developing such a program. The Institute’s Director, prolific computer scientist Dr. Peter Denning,

The main work of invention

The main work of adoption

The environment for the other practices

1. Sensing2. Envisioning

3. Offering4. Adopting5. Sustaining

6. Executing7. Leading8. Embodying

Winter 2016 | www.uscybersecurity.net 53

Depending on the particular innovation, resources may include time, space, coaching, capital, and political support. The supporting efforts included increasing the organization’s exposure to fresh ideas, mostly via events featuring guest speakers and exchanges with other organizations.7,8

Employing nemawashi, I began socializing the concept with my immediate supervisors and key personnel involved with innovation inside the organization.9 At the 2014 ribbon-cutting ceremony of the Army Cyber Institute, I had the opportunity to informally pitch the concept to one of the most senior leaders in my organization, who recognized the potential value and invited me for a follow-up conversation. In the subsequent meeting he committed to take the concept to the Commander for further consideration, leading to its eventual enthusiastic adoption. We then began more specific planning and integrating the effort into the organization’s campaign plan. It is worth recounting this process, as I have found that many misunderstand the elevator pitch as some chance to seal a deal. Each successful instance of the impromptu pitch that I am aware of brings an opportunity to continue the discussion at a more comfortable time and place.10

Shortly after these events, I spent my second opportunity to present before the CSA’s SSG discussing this concept of operationalized innovation, which nests neatly within the years of strategic planning documents that have charged Army leaders to be innovative. Since that 2014 brief, we have seen the growth of innovation-focused efforts throughout the Army. Soldiers, students, and scholars alike need to know that there is a real thirst in the government for innovative ideas, to not only solve identified problems, but exploit the latent opportunities inherent in today’s complex world. More than just thinking outside of the box, you need to clearly and specifically articulate how your concept provides an overall benefit to the mission of the organization and then be prepared to lead in its successful execution.

Considerations

Given limits on control, influence, resources, diversity of perspective, and mission space, the kind of localized innovation structure offered above may be optimally scoped to brigade-sized organizations of a few thousand personnel. With a growing number of personnel involved

SOLDIERS, STUDENTS, AND SCHOLARS

ALIKE NEED TO KNOW THAT THERE IS A

REAL THIRST IN THE GOVERNMENT FOR INNOVATIVE IDEAS

in explicitly innovation-related activities across the public sector, the next logical step in this bureaucratization is implementing an enterprise-wide training course.

Overall, these distributed innovation structures can complement the traditional acquisition and decision-making processes at higher echelons that are widely cited as a challenge in the fast-paced world of cybersecurity. In such a way, we create the potential to provide less expensive bottom-up solutions and quicker resolution of problems that may normally take years to identify and solve. This approach benefits both our armed forces and taxpayers, and leverages America’s competitive advantage: creativity.

Resistance to this approach is expected for numerous reasons. Some ardently believe that real innovation comes from some spark of creativity, and adding structure will only dampen the innovator’s passion. Romanticism aside, innovators within large organizations face an uphill battle where failure is likely, especially in the relatively dynamic talent management environment in which American military personnel many times find themselves. This approach recognizes that innovators will emerge in unexpected ways, and offers resourcing and passion to champion their ideas

United States Cybersecurity Magazine54

because, even with a support structure, such endeavors may still require significant endurance.

Reminiscent of the rationale given by some who resisted the adoption of the MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle) in the earlier years of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there will be those who insist that such a distributed approach to innovation may negatively impact uniformity and overall efficiency across the enterprise. Unfortunately, it was years after I performed my duty of informing a fellow Soldier’s spouse of her husband’s death from an improvised explosive device (IED) that I witnessed MRAPs trickling in to Iraq. Despite the long hours put in by some to realign processes and funding streams, change was required. Then, like now, we must realize that the threat environment has evolved to exploit our weaknesses. We owe it to each other to innovate urgently and aggressively in order to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

Sources1. Lykke, Arthur F., Jr. “Toward an Understanding of Military Strategy.” In U.S. Army

War College Guide to Strategy. 2001. Accessed December 15, 2015. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/00354.pdf.

2. Denning, Peter J., and Robert Dunham. The Innovator’s Way: Essential Practices for Successful Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9TIspgTbLM

4. Stewart, Kenneth A. “Defense Analysis Professor Champions Design Thinking’s Problem-Solving Potential.” Naval Postgraduate School. August 19, 2014. http://www.nps.edu/About/News/Defense-Analysis-Professor-Champions-Design-Thinkings-Problem-Solving-Potential.html.

5. Denning, Peter J., and Robert Dunham. The Innovator’s Way: Essential Practices for Successful Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.

6. www.dia.mil/Business/Innovation.aspx.

7. Roche, Bill. “Army Cyber Command Innovation Program Aims to Harvest Creativity, Ideas.” ARMY.MIL, The Official Homepage of the United States Army. June 5, 2015. http://www.army.mil/article/149988/Army_Cyber_Command_Innovation_program_aims_to_harvest_creativity__ideas/.

8. Jones-Bonbrest, Nancy, PEO C3T. “Army Hosts Cyberspace Industry and Innovation Day.” ARMY.MIL, The Official Homepage of the United States Army. June 3, 2015. http://www.army.mil/article/149793/Army_hosts_Cyberspace_Industry_and_Innovation_Day/.

9. http://www.japanintercultural.com/en/news/default.aspx?newsid=234.

10. Denning, Peter J., and Nicholas Dew. “The Myth of the Elevator Pitch.” Communications of the ACM Commun. ACM 55, no. 6 (2012): 38. doi:10.1145/2184319.2184333.

2288 Blue Water Boulevard | Odenton, MD 21113

301.287.8254 | www.CambridgeUS.com

Your Closest Class A Office Space In Proximity to Fort Meade, NSA,U.S. Cyber Command and DISA!

We Can Accommodate SCIF Spaces!

Home of the Chesapeake Innovation Center

For Leasing Information, Contact:Katherine C. Freehof | William B. Czekaj | Ingo Mayr, CCIM

Conference Facility Available!

Fort MeadeCorporate Center

NOWAVAILABLE

Incubatorthrough60k sf

About the Author:J. L. Billingsley serves on the advisory board of the Cyber Security Forum Initiative. He is the founder of the Military Cyber Professionals Association, a Fellow at the Center for Network Innovation and Experimentation, pursuing a Ph.D. in Information Sciences at the Naval Postgraduate School, and an officer in the U.S. Army.

Winter 2016 | www.uscybersecurity.net 55