New ideas brainstorm SAS panel Nov 2010


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New ideas brainstorm SAS panel Nov 2010

  1. 1. New Ideas Brainstorm NATO RTO SAS-Panel Meeting Brdo, SVN, 28 Oct 2010 Troy Harting Stephan De Spiegeleire
  2. 2. Objectives <ul><li>Generate ideas to ensure and improve SAS Panel (and national) operations analysis, especially in a restrictive financial environment </li></ul><ul><li>Produce compelling ideas for new SAS Panel work </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment with facilitation as a means for improving the Panel’s brainstorming process </li></ul>
  3. 4. Not ‘business as usual’ <ul><li>Normally, panel business meetings discuss new business – identify new topics ‘bottom-up’ </li></ul><ul><li>There may be good reasons for doing things somewhat differently this year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The age of austerity: money [extra problem for certain SAS topics, as they have more ‘diffuse’ customers] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very quickly changing security environment (‘global weirding’) – technology, power shifts, epochal change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More comprehensive definition of ‘defense and security’ => broader scope </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changes within NATO ( NATO agency review ) </li></ul></ul>
  4. 5. SAS-’Business model’ <ul><li>Issues : </li></ul><ul><li>Selection of issues (slow, non-exhaustive) </li></ul><ul><li>(Self-)selection of countries </li></ul><ul><li>Huge disparities between countries </li></ul><ul><li>Long lags + punctual, not pervasive </li></ul><ul><li>Commitment issues </li></ul><ul><li>Effectiveness (travel costs, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Deliverables non-committal </li></ul><ul><li>No tracking of ACTUAL results/effects (whether in NATO or in nations) </li></ul><ul><li>+ also </li></ul><ul><li>Real centres of knowledge insufficiently networked (HUGE potential – still duplication AND holes) </li></ul><ul><li>Very imperfect situational awareness </li></ul><ul><li>No real ‘market’ for SAS-type knowledge </li></ul>Can we think of other ways of ‘doing business’ ?
  5. 6. Yes there probably are… <ul><li>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): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More joint work (e.g. finding ways to have researchers work together in teams on NATIONAL work) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Models & tools exchanges: some models huge investment, not used regularly – how to sustain them (e.g. Andrew) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More peer review of existing NATIONAL work (especially SAS-type work) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of which SAS-efforts really ‘land’ (assessment //RTB effort) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More like-minded (-sized) groups (re-empower disenfranchised countries) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Having a depository of ‘best practices’ (both national and joint activities) – ACT? </li></ul></ul>
  6. 7. SAS Mandate <ul><li>SAS Mission: The mission of the SAS Panel is: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To conduct studies and analyses of an operational and technological nature, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To promote the exchange and development of methods and tools for operational analysis as applied to defence problems. </li></ul></ul><ul><li> more focus also on the SECOND mandate and looking for ways how we can do things better </li></ul>
  7. 8. Why crises can be good
  8. 9. Protocol for brainstorm <ul><li>2 sessions, each with 2 syndicates </li></ul><ul><ul><li>First session – New ways of doing business (45’) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Second session – Ideas for new studies (45’) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Think (5’) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify key problems (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify some solutions (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Write + Post (15’) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ONE idea on ONE post-it note; color coded (will allow us to capture these and analyze them afterwards): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Problem = blue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Solution = green </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>post those on some wall, and try to (self-)organize them (and do discuss amongst yourselves) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>as you go through them, put your feedback on the ones you see (‘+’; ‘-‘; ‘?’)  </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Discuss (25’) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Back to table (or standing around): which ones got a lot of pluses (focus discussions on solutions) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 10. The Output <ul><li>Facilitators will work to consolidate ideas for outbrief in plenary tomorrow </li></ul><ul><li>We will look for volunteers to produce short write-ups or elaboration on proposals and topics </li></ul>
  10. 11. New Ideas Brainstorm First Insights – Take-aways NATO RTO SAS-Panel Meeting Brdo, SVN, 29 Oct 2010 Troy Harting Stephan De Spiegeleire
  12. 13. Overview – Some Stats Problem Problem Total Solution Solution Total Grand Total 1 2 1 2 Money 7 8 15 7 7 22 Stakeholders 18 18 18 Efficiency 18 18 18 Brokering/sharing info 4 4 12 12 16 Time 8 8 6 6 14 Output 8 8 6 6 14 Expertise 13 13 13 Nationalism 8 8 5 5 13 Process & Organization 3 3 5 4 9 12 Methods 1 1 9 9 10 People 4 4 4 4 8 Requirement definition 8 8 8 Competency 3 3 4 4 7 Participation 7 7 7 Ownership 5 5 1 1 6 Assessment of research results 6 6 6 Organization 3 3 3 NATO-specific 1 1 1 Grand Total 48 49 97 53 46 99 196 Almost 200 ideas generated in 45’! (+ many excellent ones) (A few) more solutions than problems
  13. 14. 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
  14. 15. Top Issues 1 Problem Brokering/sharing info Structure of the RTO knowledge base does not allow for easy browsing ++++++ 1 Problem Expertise Problem how to translate (analyze, taxonomize) commanders demands into research topics (SAS panel research topics) +++++ 2 Solution Money More use of VTCs, email, sharepoint to reduce need for meetings +++++ 2 Solution People Slovenian cuisine J +++++ 1 Solution Stakeholders Consider implementing collaborative tool to speed up the cycle for generating new activities +++++ 1 Solution Brokering/sharing info Create direct lines between commanders and NATO/national research programme (SAS themes) ++++ 2 Problem People To find right people ++++ 2 Solution People Get SAS to task academia ++++ 1 Solution Brokering/sharing info Set up a network of peer experts for specific SAS areas (e.g. costing, logistics, defense planning +++ 2 Solution Competency International mentoring +++ 2 Solution Money Reduction of meetings tele/video conferences, friendly knowledge exchange tools (online) - also more people participate this way +++ 2 Solution Nationalism Share national interests (S&T needs), share PoWs +++ 2 Solution Nationalism Databases with docs +++ 2 Solution Time Institutionalize processes for immediate work (fast track) BUT maintain balance between fast track and medium to long-term studies +++ 2 Solution Time Use 2-level approval (board AND panel) only by exception, e.g. by panel request +++
  15. 16. ‘ Personal’ Take-Aways <ul><li>Much low-hanging fruit (even cost-neutral) – but we need true ownership to make these things happen </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Much scope for better situational awareness (both of NATO but especially of national efforts, and especially ‘en amont’) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outreach to others – especially the end-users, but also other panels, private sector </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to up the tempo </li></ul><ul><ul><li>of the RTO process itself and of the studies (many ideas) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need for quick and (hopefully not too  ) dirty OA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inklings of a ‘market’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Desire to find ways to use experts from other nations (+ private sector) to do national work </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Assessment <ul><li>Strengths </li></ul><ul><li>Was useful to take a ‘step back’ from just ongoing and new work (business) and look at the ‘business model’ itself </li></ul><ul><li>Fascinating results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Informed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and IMO much low-hanging fruit here </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In very short time, we created many (excellent) ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Weaknesses </li></ul><ul><li>Not everybody here </li></ul><ul><li>First-cut: no/few pros/cons (also from other – non S&T – stakeholders) considered </li></ul><ul><li>No sense of feasibility </li></ul><ul><li>(for most nations) somewhat ‘spur-of-the-moment’, impressionistic (e.g. quite a few references to the JSI-topics) </li></ul>
  17. 18. Follow-on work <ul><li>Clean this work up </li></ul><ul><li>Make this available to others (Sharepoint?) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Allow others (AND this group) to add items </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discuss – pros and cons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Get a better view of priorities (scale?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Get a sense for feasibility of solutions (lo-med-hi?) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Match problems to solutions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are there solutions that tackle multiple problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allow NATiOns to document existing work (many ideas already being worked on) </li></ul></ul><ul><li> Low-hanging fruit  Allocate ownership  Repeat? </li></ul>09 March 2010