Change and Transformation in the IDF R&D Systems

3. A large part of the R&D work of the unit is in upgrading these core technologies.

4. In some cases where a breakthrough took place, the technological breakthrough occurred in response to a need and not due to creativity.

5. The number of brilliant personnel assigned to breakthrough R&D was very small (less than 1% of the total personnel).

6. The unit succeeded in creating new connections between existing technologies in order to create new breakthroughs.

7. Innovation in the unit was mostly “sustaining innovation”, which is clearly a paradox. Even when a unique and innovative product was created, conservative guidelines were immediately adopted regarding the characteristics of the product.

In light of this, the unit understood that the process of innovation, especially today, is essential for a number of reasons as follows:

1. Retaining personnel – In a technological unit the personnel are not seeking operational challenges, but rather technological challenges. Due to their curious and inquisitive nature they are aware of external developments – in technological and innovation processes. The combination of these processes within in the army framework facilitates their retention within the framework.

2. Creating new value from existing building blocks – the unit has many existing technological building blocks which serve as infrastructure for the unit’s unique systems and for additional technological infrastructures. Creating new products based on these technologies brings a significant “profit” to the unit’s capabilities by shortening timeframes, making development processes more efficient and creating greater flexibility in providing solutions to diverse and sudden challenges.

3. Improving pride in the unit, especially in comparison to the civilian world – The unit’s personnel follow the activities of friends in the hi‐tech industry and expect challenging and technologically innovative work and not just “routine” work on everyday projects. The existence of innovation processes shows the personnel that innovation is needed in the unit, and that there is value to new ideas and directions and not just more of the same.

4. Generating dialogue and networking between personnel of different ranks, organizations and disciplines.

5. Creating group knowledge instead of solutions created by individuals.

The Process of Creating Innovation within the Unit

Together with the Knowledge Center for Innovation at the Technion, an organized process was started in several lines of effort. The process started by defining the innovation strategy together with the unit’s commanders, moved on to processes with mid‐level commanders, and included work with a specially selected group of leading technologists intended to create new “startups” inside the organization and in practice to deal with innovation.

For the purpose of designing the processes, a group of 30 leading personnel from the unit were chosen with ranks from first lieutenant to lieutenant colonel who were identified by their commanders as having the potential for innovation and who were keen to engage with the issue. Together with the Knowledge Center for Innovation, facilitated by Dr. Iris Arbel, and led by senior officers in the unit, a work plan was built with five stages. The work plan was intended to stimulate innovation and initially the participants were trained on it. The plan worked around the motif “The Journey of an Idea” and included stages beginning with the definition and refinement of the challenge; studying the ideas that were raised; refinement and prioritization; and included processes of marketing and integration of the ideas to the organization’s leaders. The participants were divided into five groups, with each group given a technological issue or techno‐operational challenge which was formulated and approved by the unit’s Strategic Forum. Each group was provided with a mentor who is a graduate of the unit and who has broad technological knowledge and familiarity and experience in entrepreneurship.

The process took six months with close supervision by Dr. Arbel and the author, during which five day‐long meetings, a course on inventive‐methodical thinking and a concluding meeting of the Strategic Forum of the unit took place. The participants allocated about a day per week for the mission between the different meetings. During this time they implemented what they had learned in the previous meeting, in order to move forward with the initiative. Some of the groups went even further and moved forward faster than expected. They contacted operations personnel with whom they hadn’t previously been in contact, and added intelligence and additional technological personnel to the group, thereby enriching themselves and their technological and operational knowledge. Two of the groups outdid themselves and during the program period developed prototypes to demonstrate their ideas and to make it easier to realize and market the idea.

At the end of the process three of the groups had innovative, original and implementable ideas, of which two were chosen for implementation and were added to the R&D work of the unit. Two additional groups developed ideas which were assimilated into existing projects within the unit. The fifth group developed a database which two years later was used by another workgroup and stimulated a significant broad scale R&D project within the unit.

The Greenhouse

As a continuation of the above process another new framework for innovation was established in order to create additional impact in R&D within the unit’s areas of responsibility and to transition to a method of “solution seeking a problem” or “technology seeking a problem.” A technological “greenhouse” was created in the form of a new section with five brilliant technologists – each from a different field and with totally different specializations.

The section chose its own research and development areas while maintaining continuous direct contact with intelligence and operational personnel. The section was attentive to their ideas while at the same time, it was updated on many and varied technological fields through meetings with reservists and through connections with industry and academia and through direct connections with all the technologists in the unit. After a period of technological “wandering” and analysis of several directions, the section chose to focus on four key fields, while building laboratory infrastructure for research into those technological fields.

The nature of the unit’s work included detailed testing and independent research in each field, contact with startups in each field in order to upgrade the section’s capabilities, and even included the addition of developers from one startup to the section. This was done in order to create a large and more substantive workgroup for one of the areas. In the framework of this work, brilliant technologists from other sections were integrated into the process, contributing one workday per week to some of the section’s initiatives.

As a result of the section’s work, three key fields came to fruition. One of them was the continuation of the work of one of the technological groups from the previous program, and was assimilated into existing sections in the unit. Another of the fields became operational last year and the third continues as a development project within the unit.

Without a doubt, though the “greenhouse” was later closed and its personnel dispersed throughout the unit, the stamp that it left on the organization is significant. Today the issues that were developed and researched in the greenhouse are the cornerstones of R&D in the unit, and it is doubtful that these fields would have been researched or surfaced in another form without the greenhouse.

Cast Study 2 – Innovation in Unit 8200[10]

Unit 8200 is not just a technological unit, it is the key SIGINT unit in the IDF, and includes advanced technological bodies and has groundbreaking capabilities. Within Unit 8200 there are a wide range of technological professions from the development of tools and intelligence gathering capabilities (SIGINT and cyber), to the development of production and advanced information extraction capabilities.

The technological bodies in Unit 8200 have a range of organizational cultures, diverse ways of working and thinking, and wide‐ranging force design means – some more organized and others less so. The common thread between all of these bodies is a greatly overburdened workload and a very wide range of projects to be implemented over different time frames – from several months to many years.

Due to the entry of the unit into the cyber field and due to the many and varied challenges facing the unit (and all intelligence actors), innovation has become a code word for the advanced processes of generating and analyzing intelligence as well as a way to change the organizational culture itself.

The innovation mission of Unit 8200 was assigned to two personnel who fulfilled it successfully: The CTO of one of the technology centers and a “Commissioner of the Law for Preserving Madness,” who together initiated a wide range of innovation processes and conducted organizational “experiments” that eventually led to the full implementation of an innovation plan that itself produced new operational and organizational capabilities.

At first several “standard” innovation tools were tried, including assigning 20% of the time of selected personnel to do as they chose and the launching of an internal “Venture Capital Fund” to evaluate and assess ideas. These work practices did not produce results, primarily due to the high workload of the personnel and the lack of organizational maturity which prevented personnel from being freed up to engage in the “not important” missions of innovation and looking to the future. This lack of capability can be explained by the fact that the intelligence output of each “man hour” is immediate, while the future output of initiative is unclear.

In light of this, the unit launched a new program called: SOOT – SIGINT Out of the Box. This program includes operational hackathons which take place several times a year, with the participants confined to base for their duration. Approximately 30 participants come to each event from across the unit (mostly technological personnel, but not exclusively). At the start, ideas are refined, and then technological prototypes are developed (based on existing technological capabilities brought in from outside and on the basis of raw intelligence information) and at the end of the week the ideas are presented and marketed to relevant interested stakeholders from partners to clients and including the unit’s commanders.

Before each event the ideas are more widely distributed via the unit’s information systems to all 8200 personnel and on the basis of the “crowdsourcing”, the topics which will feature at the hackathon are chosen. This is based on the topics and ideas which attract the greatest number of participants who want to help with an idea (in a somewhat similar fashion to Kickstarter).

Within the framework of the SOOT, a large number of topics and ideas were raised, and many were eventually implemented. Some of the ideas were not at all related to technological or intelligence problems, but rather dealt with efficiency, bureaucracy and service conditions. These topics were also dealt with through this organizational platform, and improved the service conditions and organizational functioning in many and varied ways.

One of the systems which was developed at one of the first events created “ innovative” communications between the intelligence community in the 8200 unit and afterwards across the whole Intelligence Directorate. The idea was to imitate, in certain ways, the style of communication on social media. This manner of communication marketed itself and spread like wildfire, thanks to the fact that it gave the young generation a way to communicate and work which was similar to what they were familiar with “at home.”

Of course, during these processes the leaders faced difficulties, especially in marketing the ideas and in bringing them to the point where they could take shape outside of SOOT.

Cast Study 3 – Innovation in the Lotem Division

Lotem, the C4I Technological Division of the C4I Directorate is the largest technological unit in the IDF. The unit is responsible for a wide and varied range of fields of endeavor at all levels of the computing and cyber worlds. The division deals with the installation and maintenance of the IDF’s computing and telecommunications infrastructure in the operational and combat support fields; provides telecommunications and electronic warfare solutions to actors across the IDF; provides solutions to the operations and combat support worlds; and takes the lead on issues of cyber defense in the IDF and the defense establishment by developing techno‐operational tools and capabilities in these many and varied fields.

A wide range of technological personnel serve in the unit – from graduates of programming courses to academic graduates and with access to diverse knowledge centers.

In recent years, at the initiative of then Division Commander, Brig. Gen. Daniel Bren, the unit has changed in nature and it now leads the field of operational ICT in the IDF, while emphasizing a broad perspective and deep analysis of operations and not just on technology. In this framework deep and direct connections were built with operations actors across the army. Looking at operational needs and the desire to be relevant “here and now” and not “there and later” led to an understanding in the unit that current force design processes are no longer relevant. When talking about solutions for operational needs that have recently arisen or for operational capabilities that can be enabled by absorbing and assimilating new technologies in the organization – these are needed today, and no later.

These processes have been accompanied by numerous and diverse processes in the field of innovation, and they are taking place in order to reach a number of objectives, including: Upgrading the abilities of the unit’s personnel; emulating the civilian world; creating shorter technological development cycles, primarily to provide a higher quality operational response and on time; and enabling more advanced capabilities for operational units and personnel.

In this framework, direct contacts were built between officers in the unit and a wide range of operations personnel. These contacts have even begun to yield unique operational solutions, in short time frames and with a high degree of relevancy.

Hackathons in Lotem

The key innovative process which was adopted by the Lotem unit is the hackathon. These events are initiated by the CTO body in the unit and by other personnel who are responsible for innovation in the unit.

These events began in Lotem a few years ago, and are divided into technological hackathons and hackathons with an operational objective. The technological hackathons take place within the unit as “CTOLead” or with the assistance of different technology companies, and their central purpose is to develop unique technological capabilities in a short time frame. Within the framework of these events, which take place on civilian campuses, the unit’s personnel can within 5 days develop any technology product that comes to mind in a range of technology fields, as long as there is a chance that the product or idea will have an operational use in the unit or outside it. Some of the hackathons deal with specific technologies such as mobile or advanced user interfaces and some are of an open nature.

A Lotem Hackathon in 2015. Photo: C4I Directorate

The second type of events are the operational hackathons “OPLead” whose objective is different. These are classified events, meetings between technologists and operational personnel and their objective is to provide solutions to operational challenges. Even in these cases, sometimes technological ideas lead the process (even when a solution to an operational challenge does not yet exist) and sometimes the operational challenges lead. To date, a number of initiatives have developed from these events, which have become development projects in the division, from projects in the cyber defense field to projects in the electronic and spectrum warfare fields to communications and operations research.

Interim Conclusions from the Case Studies

The advantages of events such as these which are not found in the standard accepted work practices (as we have partly seen in the description of the SOOT events in Unit 8200) are as follows:

1. Separating the personnel from their regular framework and daily life and directing them to work of a different type;

2. Formation of heterogeneous teams made of personnel with different skills who complete one another;

3. A concentrated marathon effort with an expected output which enables the presentation of a genuine “product” and not just a presentation or working paper;

4. The capability to test the final product “in the field” and not just in a laboratory;

5. Generating a feeling of proficiency for all of the participants so that they realize it is possible and achievable to generate fast solutions (although not as a final product, but rather as a prototype);

6. Creating a platform to test new and innovative technologies, and not at the expense of risking large and complicated projects, given that new technologies could put these projects at risk;

7. Breaking the routine of personnel and creating a different type of work environment.

All of these advantages were realized in each of the events described above and therefore enabled the creation of different work practices in parallel to more traditional work practices. These work practices are now diffusing into the traditional work practices. They are causing even the more rigid technologists to understand that there are other ways to develop and other ways to solve problems aside from in an ordered and organized fashion.

An example of the trickling down of these processes into the day to day functioning of the unit is the creation of a culture that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship within the organization not just in the context of the hackathons. Within this framework, several computerized and organizational platforms were created to enable an “entrepreneur” to marketing and sell their idea, to recruit participants in order to enable the implementation of the initiative (at least initially), thus allowing the production of a prototype even before the idea or issue has been added to an organized work plan. It should be emphasized that these platforms were also initiated from below, by fanatical visionaries, and then built up momentum within the organization. In this way, the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship is enabled in the day to day work of the unit and not just through structured processes directed from above.

Conclusion

We have seen in this article that there is another way. It is possible to create a culture of innovation and creativity, not just in technology companies in the business sector, but also within a military framework. Sometimes these events take place within the existing frameworks, and sometimes they break the frameworks in one way or another. Breaking the existing molds enables the creation of new capabilities; the connecting to new and innovative technologies which are today generally developed in the civilian market and not in the military; and the creation of new and innovative operational solutions and concepts within short time frames which in the past were unheard of.

This culture that has been recently created is only the beginning. As additional operational deliverables come out of these work practices, and as additional senior commanders catch the innovation bug, we will find additional new work practices and different ways of thinking within the technology frameworks in the army. An unmediated familiarity and direct dialogue between the ranks and between technologists and operations personnel can produce wonders. Likewise, the dialogue between technologists and intelligence officers can produce new and ground breaking intelligence sources.

These new patterns of behavior adopted from the hi‐tech sector enable technology bodies within the IDF to operate differently, to be more “agile” (available and flexible) and to provide solutions on time. They have proved that not everything needs to be done by the book and in familiar molds, despite the fact that the IDF is an ordered hierarchical organization.

These patterns of behavior have additional advantages. A very important advantage is preventing a brain drain to the business sector. Developing of familiarity between the ranks and greater freedom of expression for young technology personnel helps keep the highest quality technology manpower within the military framework. The moment that technology personnel see and feel that they have the ability to have significant influence, that there is importance to their ideas and initiatives, and that there is positive friction with new technologies, the chances rise of their staying with the IDF for longer periods.

As we saw with the example from Unit 8200, it is possible to harness unique innovation processes such as these not just within the technological and operational fields, but also for supporting processes. This can lead to improvements, increase efficiency and make the lives of those serving in the IDF more comfortable, better and more caring. The moment that work practices, behavior and process creation changes in these areas too, we can not only improve operational tools and capabilities, but also organizational tools and capabilities.

The capabilities and approaches of innovation, creativity and thinking differently, as we have seen in the technology world, can and should also serve the wider operational world in the IDF. Creative thinking and innovation optimally correspond with the need for subterfuge. The capability to generate subterfuge among the combat forces and the capability to cope with a challenging and changing environment can only be achieved through the processes described in this article, whose objective is to genuinely bring “something new”.

The field of innovation and the tools within the world of innovation rest on a number of basic cultural principles, whose implementation, in any framework can contribute greatly to the quality of the deliverable:

1. To provide innovation with organizational and physical time and space;

2. To allow wasting of time and resources (within limits) to enable the testing of directions and ideas;

3. To be tolerant of failures and to learn from them;

4. To seek and exalt fanatical devotees;

5. To appoint commanders who are attached to the issue and are leaders in the field.

In summary, the IDF must undergo significant change in its approach to technological development and innovation, in order to remain relevant and to enable significant successes on the battlefield. Technology can and must be the forerunner of change and it can open the way to innovation and change in the organization. This change can be achieved as we have seen from the examples above. While this type of innovation cannot be allowed across the entirety of the IDF, given the challenging regional environment we have no choice but to adopt it.

[1] LTC Ori serves as the Deputy Head of the Coding And Security Center in the C4I Directorate.

[2] Kaomi Goetz, "How 3M Gave Everyone Days Off and Created an Innovation Dynamo," Co.Design, 02.01.2011. http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663137/how‐

[3] Michael Arndt, "3M's Seven Pillars of Innovation," Bloomberg, 10.05.2006.

[4] Mauro Biscotti, "IBM Jam – Introductory Concepts," IBM, 27.04.2007.

[5] Satya Nadella, "Satya Nadella email to employees on first day as CEO," Microsoft, 04.02.2014.http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006‐05‐09/3ms‐seven‐pillars‐of‐innovationhttp://www.sociologia.unimib.it/DATA/Insegnamenti/4_3116/materiale/5‐3%20innovation%20jam%20‐%20introductory%20concepts%20v%202.0.pdfhttp://news.microsoft.com/2014/02/04/satya‐nadella‐email‐to‐employees‐on‐

[6] Hackathon – a word which is a combination of Hack and Marathon, where the concept is a marathon of coding (or development) which generally continues for 24‐48 hours (and sometimes longer). It is composed of groups of 1‐4 individuals who compete to build a software or other product from zero in the given timeframe and according to the topic of the hackathon (if there is one).

[7] Pedro Hernandez, "Microsoft Pushes Innovation In 'Oneweek' Hackathon", eWeek, 28.07.2014. http://www.eweek.com/it‐management/microsoft‐pushes‐innovation‐in‐

[8] R&D that creates new concepts and is groundbreaking; and primarily shatters existing paradigms or changes conceptual worldviews or technologies. For example, the smartphone was “groundbreaking” in that it cancelled out a negated the need for a large number of devices that came before it.

[9] R&D that improves the capabilities of a system but does not create new markets or paradigmatic change.

[10] Inbal Orpaz, “Preserving the Madness' in IDF Intelligence”, 26.09.2013. http://www.haaretz.com/israel‐news/business/.premium‐1.549075

Bibliography