What do we mean by "transformation"? An exchange - defense policy, United States

Naval War College Review, Wntr, 2002 by Andrew L. Ross, Michele A. Flournoy, Cindy Williams, David Mosher

The recommendations I would offer are largely drawn from the Defense Science Board task force on transformation. The number-one recommendation is to establish a sense of urgency at the top. Such a sense may be growing inside the office of the secretary of defense, but not in all of the services. It is largely absent on Capitol Hill, among the people who control the purse strings. Next, we need an implementation road map to energize and focus transformation efforts. The broad vision of Joint Vision 2020 has to be converted into much more specific articulations: what are the key operational challenges? On what mission areas will we focus? What capabilities do we want the transformation process to yield?

Then we need to establish and use appropriate metrics to assess progress. Also, we should strengthen the voice of joint force commanders; they will be the people in the field upon whom we will rely in the future, and they should be engaged today to help articulate needs.

I am urging us to change organization cultures and incentive structures, so as to allow and reward real experimentation, open competition between concepts and ideas, and innovation. I am also calling for an overarching vision that links military transformation with the department's own transformation and that ultimately creates a cadre of professionals who are committed to and, very importantly, accountable for progress in transformation.

CINDY WILLIAMS

Let me begin by agreeing wholeheartedly with Michele--the Department of Defense and the U.S. military have been stuck for a decade in a Cold War mindset. They need to change, and change quickly, both to overcome the challenges of the future and to take advantage of new technologies. Instead of the term "transformation," however, I prefer the old-fashioned words "innovation" and "change." "Transformation" has come to evoke specific solutions, like precision weapons or the Army's current transformation plan. In that regard, the term is often associated with a view of military change that starts with the technologies and then seeks problems for the technologies to solve, instead of the other way around. In looking to the future, it is critical that we start with the military problems and then seek solutions. Some of the solutions will be technical, but others may be procedural or conceptual.

Another reason I shy away from the term "transformation" is that transformation as often touted--large and fundamental change in every aspect of military affairs--may be too much to hope for. Transformation, or revolution, is relatively rare in large institutions, which are conservative by nature; how do we make it happen unless something big and bad occurs? In industry, for example, transformation is most likely not when a firm is riding high, but when it has lost market share and is worried about its very survival. Military transformation is most likely not when a state enjoys overwhelming primacy, as the United States does today, but when the military has lost a war or otherwise lost the confidence of civilians. The fact is, an institution that is already best-in-class typically finds it difficult to make even modest changes, let alone transform itself. I worry that when the vision of large-scale transformation is not realized, disappointed advocates may lose confidence that even more modest change is poss ible or worth pursuing.