|
 From
the admiral: Technology Transfer Authority
Editor’s
note: Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, Commander U.S. Joint
Forces Command, recently discussed increased efforts
USJFCOM has
pursued to work more closely with industry and other
organizations to deliver capabilities to the joint warfighter.
The quotes
below are from remarks delivered March 22, 2005 at a
net-centric warfare conference held in Norfolk, Va.
On
why is it so important for the command leading the transformation
of the U.S. military to work closely with
other organizations inside and outside of the government…
Former
Xerox chairman David Kearns once said, "In
the race for quality, there is no finish line." We've
adapted both the spirit of that attitude and the sense
of urgency it conveys in delivering ever-transforming,
effects-based collaborative tools to the joint operator.
Look
at this from the perspective of the customer: the joint
warfighter. And like all good customers - and in
my mind a good customer is a demanding customer - the mindset
that I'll convey is "what have you done for me lately." Or
to put it more precisely, have you - the smart folks from
industry, battle labs and think tanks - kept the customer
at the forefront of your technological development?
Those organizations understand that a key focus for Joint
Forces Command is strengthening the capability for combatant
commanders and joint task force commanders to execute coherently
joint battle management command and control of our forces,
from the strategic to tactical levels.
And there's no time to waste. Combatant and NATO joint
force commanders do not really care where a particular
capability comes from so long as it is relevant to their
operational needs, is interoperable across the force and
works as advertised and when needed.
On
what Joint Forces Command has done to encourage these
partnerships…
As we move to a more interdependent, networked force,
we at Joint Forces Command see a need to more aggressively
seek out the best ideas from technical experts who understand
what the joint operator needs.
Until
now, though, our relationship with industry - which I
believe is an asymmetric strategic advantage our nation
needs to exploit - has been governed by a formal and cumbersome
acquisition process. As a result, I know that some members
in industry have found it difficult to interact with joint
operators to share information and innovate within what
I call "a common joint context." Well, it may-or
may not-come as a surprise to you, but this formal process
is frustrating for us too.
That is why recently, the Secretary of Defense empowered
Joint Forces Command with a broader set of Technology Transfer
Authorities. We now have the same authorities and flexibility
as any national laboratory to structure partnerships with
industry to exchange personnel, technical data and technology
assessments. This is exceptionally important.
On
what does the new authorities mean and how it will help
other groups wanting to work with USJFCOM…
These new Technology Transfer Authorities are but a means
to an end- not the end itself. The whole point of these
authorities is to speed the process of turning the best
ideas from industry and academia and other national and
international research laboratories into integrated capabilities.
We see great value in allowing innovative entrepreneurs,
from small businesses to large corporations, to participate
in USJFCOM's transformation process.
That is why it is important for industry to gain an appreciation
of the operational challenges of establishing what we like
to call a collaborative information environment. This not
only goes for U.S. forces but also for our allies, multinational
partners, other federal agencies and even non-governmental
organizations.
On
the idea of the national lab structure within the USJFCOM
structure versus NATO…
First of all, this (technology transfer) authority is
only on the U.S. side. We are not a national laboratory,
but DOD recognizes that so much of what we do has national
laboratory-like implications, processes, and the rest,
which is why we were given this technology transfer authority.
So,
the question is… do I see it extending to NATO?
I have talked in a number of NATO forums already about
this capability. I don’t know if there is anything
similar to this in NATO. I will tell you, on the NATO side
I am promoting industry engagement, just like I am on the
USJFCOM side. Back in September, we had our first industry
engagement sponsored by Allied Command Transformation (ACT)
in Berlin. This coming September we will do our second
one in Rome.
Whether
we get this technology transfer authority, I don’t
know, but we are working with the NATO Consultative Command
and Control Agency (NC3A).
Could
I see it happening some day? Yes, but it’s
not as easy and clear with 26 separate nations.
On
the construct of interdependency, from the industrial
perspective and how information might move from JFCOM to
industry…
Inside
the U.S., the government and organizations like this
(NDIA) are absolutely essential and my view is that
we don’t have proprietary solutions that we are trying
to develop in USJFCOM. You have to understand, my Joint
Systems Integration Center (JSIC), is not in business to
compete with industry. I’d like to have a full two-way
street, and if there’s something that we come up
with then industry should have access. This is the whole
purpose of having technology transfer authority.
The
bottom line is: I’m a tremendous supporter of
this open two-way avenue. The JSIC is not in business to compete with industry, research institutes
and the rest. But, we have to have a location where we
can bring you together with us to work on command and control
systems.
|
