USJFCOM: From the admiral: Technology Transfer Authority

Adm. Giambastiani 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.