Warfighting and Disruptive Technologies:Disguising Innovation
by Captain Terry C. Pierce USN
Explaining Navy and Marine Corps Disruptive Innovations from 1899 to 2001
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Doctoral Thesis 2001
Explaining Navy and Marine Corps Disruptive Innovations from 1899 to 2001
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Doctoral Thesis 2001
Forthcoming book publication:Summer 2004
Williamson Murray, Editor
Forthcoming book publication:Summer 2004
Williamson Murray, Editor
Achieving Major Warfighting InnovationsAchieving Major Warfighting Innovations
Two Questions:
How can senior military leaders achieve a disruptive innovation when they are heavily engaged around the world and they are managing sustaining innovations?
What have been the external sources of disruptive and sustaining innovations?
How can senior military leaders achieve a disruptive innovation when they are heavily engaged around the world and they are managing sustaining innovations?
What have been the external sources of disruptive and sustaining innovations?
Technological Innovation vs. Doctrinal Innovation
Technological Innovation vs. Doctrinal Innovation
No unified theory that could explain:
How major innovations were adopted and fully exploited first by an entity other than the inventor of the new technology.
No unified theory that could explain:
How major innovations were adopted and fully exploited first by an entity other than the inventor of the new technology.
Problem of Old Typology
Technology vs. DoctrineTechnology vs. Doctrine
Different Typologies:Technology-Driven
Different Typologies:Technology-Driven
• Vincent Davis – The Politics of Innovation: Patterns in Navy Cases, 1967
• He describes cases where new technologies were used to help perform existing missions better and not to change them radically.– Introduction of atomic bombs into the U.S. naval strike
force.– Introduction of nuclear propulsion into the U.S.
submarine force.– LT Sims’ advocacy of continuous aim gunfire.
• Vincent Davis – The Politics of Innovation: Patterns in Navy Cases, 1967
• He describes cases where new technologies were used to help perform existing missions better and not to change them radically.– Introduction of atomic bombs into the U.S. naval strike
force.– Introduction of nuclear propulsion into the U.S.
submarine force.– LT Sims’ advocacy of continuous aim gunfire.
Different Typologies:Doctrine-Driven
Different Typologies:Doctrine-Driven
• Stephen Rosen – New Ways of Warfighting, 1991• He describes cases where old and new
technologies were used with new operational procedures to perform a new way of war. – Blitzkrieg– Carrier Warfare– Amphibious Warfare
• Stephen Rosen – New Ways of Warfighting, 1991• He describes cases where old and new
technologies were used with new operational procedures to perform a new way of war. – Blitzkrieg– Carrier Warfare– Amphibious Warfare
Different Typologies:Hybrid: Doctrine-Technology Driven
Different Typologies:Hybrid: Doctrine-Technology Driven
• Captain Bradd Hayes, USN and CDR Douglas Smith, USN, Politics of Naval Innovation, 1994
• They could not determine which theory of innovation --technology or doctrine -- was more dominant.– Cruise Missiles and the Tomahawk– Aegis
• Conclusions:– Technology development precedes doctrine
development.– Programs that have the potential to be truly innovative
will have a better chance of being fielded if promoted as evolutionary rather than revolutionary systems.
• Captain Bradd Hayes, USN and CDR Douglas Smith, USN, Politics of Naval Innovation, 1994
• They could not determine which theory of innovation --technology or doctrine -- was more dominant.– Cruise Missiles and the Tomahawk– Aegis
• Conclusions:– Technology development precedes doctrine
development.– Programs that have the potential to be truly innovative
will have a better chance of being fielded if promoted as evolutionary rather than revolutionary systems.
Different Typologies:Hybrid: Doctrine-Technology Driven
Different Typologies:Hybrid: Doctrine-Technology Driven
• Jeffrey Isaacson, Christopher Layne, and John Arquilla, Predicting Military Innovation, Rand, 1999
• They describe cases whereby innovation is manifested by new warfighting concepts and/or means of integrating technology.
• New means of integrating technology may or may not include revised doctrine.– Israeli Defense Forces (1948-1982)– North Vietnamese Army (1965-1970)
• Jeffrey Isaacson, Christopher Layne, and John Arquilla, Predicting Military Innovation, Rand, 1999
• They describe cases whereby innovation is manifested by new warfighting concepts and/or means of integrating technology.
• New means of integrating technology may or may not include revised doctrine.– Israeli Defense Forces (1948-1982)– North Vietnamese Army (1965-1970)
Old Typology for Defining Technological Innovation
Incremental vs. Radical/ Breakthrough
Incremental vs. Radical/ Breakthrough
Old Typology for Defining InnovationOld Typology for Defining Innovation
• Why did successful companies that were well managed and investing in new technologies lose market dominance or fail entirely?
• Why did successful militaries, such as post World War I France, that were investing in new technologies, such as the Maginot Line, fail to anticipate and effectively counter the German Blitzkrieg?
• Why did successful companies that were well managed and investing in new technologies lose market dominance or fail entirely?
• Why did successful militaries, such as post World War I France, that were investing in new technologies, such as the Maginot Line, fail to anticipate and effectively counter the German Blitzkrieg?
Problem of Old Typology
Architectural Innovation
• New model explained why insignificant improvements in technology could result in a major new innovation.
• Components of technology stayed the same.
• Linkages among components changed in novel ways.
• New model explained why insignificant improvements in technology could result in a major new innovation.
• Components of technology stayed the same.
• Linkages among components changed in novel ways.
Rebecca Henderson and Kim Clark
Architectural Innovation TheoryArchitectural Innovation Theory
• The importance of this theory is that it explains why seemingly insignificant improvements in technology can result in a new way of warfighting.
• Linkage innovation (doctrine) and component (technology) innovation are both difficult.
• This explains why militaries that dominate a new generation of technology often fail to incorporate this technology in a novel doctrine that leads to a new way of war.
• The importance of this theory is that it explains why seemingly insignificant improvements in technology can result in a new way of warfighting.
• Linkage innovation (doctrine) and component (technology) innovation are both difficult.
• This explains why militaries that dominate a new generation of technology often fail to incorporate this technology in a novel doctrine that leads to a new way of war.
A New Typology for Defining InnovationA New Typology for Defining Innovation
IMPACT ON LINKAGES BETWEENCORE CONCEPTS AND
COMPONENTS
IMPACT ON LINKAGES BETWEENCORE CONCEPTS AND
COMPONENTSUnchangedUnchanged ChangedChanged
IncrementalInnovation
IncrementalInnovation
ModularInnovationModular
Innovation
ArchitecturalInnovation
ArchitecturalInnovation
RadicalInnovation
RadicalInnovation
ReinforcedIMPACT ON
CORECONCEPTS
Overturned
Eff
ect o
n L
inka
ges
Eff
ect o
n L
inka
ges
Lin
kage
s U
ncha
nged
Lin
kage
sC
hang
ed
A New Typology for Defining Technology & Doctrine A New Typology for Defining Technology & Doctrine
Reinforced Components
Overturned Components
Effect of ComponentsEffect of Components
IncrementalInnovation
IncrementalInnovation
Weapon andsystem upgrades
Weapon andsystem upgrades
ArchitecturalInnovation
ArchitecturalInnovation
BlitzkriegCarrier Warfare
Amphibious WarfareContinuous Aim
Gunfire
BlitzkriegCarrier Warfare
Amphibious WarfareContinuous Aim
Gunfire
ModularInnovationModular
InnovationAnalog to digitalShip’s steering
system
Analog to digitalShip’s steering
system
RadicalInnovation
RadicalInnovation
SubmarinesAircraft Carriers
VM-22 Osprey
SubmarinesAircraft Carriers
VM-22 Osprey
Understanding Military InnovationsUnderstanding Military Innovations
• In terms of their trajectory performance along paths that warfighters either value or do not value
• In terms of their parts – components and linkages– Components are core technologies or systems that
are being either reinforced or overturned– Linkages are relationships between components that
are being either changed or left unchanged
• In terms of their trajectory performance along paths that warfighters either value or do not value
• In terms of their parts – components and linkages– Components are core technologies or systems that
are being either reinforced or overturned– Linkages are relationships between components that
are being either changed or left unchanged
Two Different Ways:
Sustaining improves performance of established warfighting methods along an established trajectory that the warfighters currently value.
Sustaining improves performance of established warfighting methods along an established trajectory that the warfighters currently value.
Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation
Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation
War
fight
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Time
Demands of Warfighting
(Performance requirements of warfighting.)Progress due to sustaining technologies.
Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation
Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation
{
PerformancePerformanceGapGap
} PerformancePerformanceExcessExcess
War
fight
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Time
Demands of Warfighting
(Performance requirements of warfighting.)Progress due to sustaining technologies.
Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation
Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation
{
PerformancePerformanceGapGap
} PerformancePerformanceExcessExcess
Components and Linkages Sustaining Innovation
Components and Linkages Sustaining Innovation
Military leaders focus on creating new radical innovations that can replace existing components, but not on changing the linkages among components.
– For example, the aircraft carrier…a radical technical innovation.
Military leaders focus on creating new radical innovations that can replace existing components, but not on changing the linkages among components.
– For example, the aircraft carrier…a radical technical innovation.
• Military leaders focus on maintaining existing linkages among components.
– For example, battleship Admirals describe the role of aircraft carriers as extended “eyes” for battleships
– Aircraft carriers in line of column with battleships
• Military leaders focus on maintaining existing linkages among components.
– For example, battleship Admirals describe the role of aircraft carriers as extended “eyes” for battleships
– Aircraft carriers in line of column with battleships
Components and Linkages Sustaining Innovation
Components and Linkages Sustaining Innovation
IncrementalInnovation
IncrementalInnovation
ArchitecturalInnovation
ArchitecturalInnovation
ModularInnovationModular
InnovationRadical
InnovationRadical
Innovation
Weapons andSystem upgradeWeapons and
System upgrade
Analog to DigitalShip’s steering
system
Analog to DigitalShip’s steering
system
BlitzkriegCarrier Warfare
Amphibious WarfareContinuous Aim
Gunfire
BlitzkriegCarrier Warfare
Amphibious WarfareContinuous Aim
Gunfire
SubmarineAircraft Carriers
SubmarineAircraft Carriers
SustainingSustaining
DisruptiveDisruptiveSustainingSustaining
SustainingSustaining
SustainingSustainingSustainingSustaining
Disruptive Architectural Typology for Defining Technology & Doctrine
Disruptive innovation improves performance along a trajectory path that traditionally has not been valued.
Disruptive innovation improves performance along a trajectory path that traditionally has not been valued.
Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation
Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation
War
fight
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Time
Trajectory of disruptive Innovation.
DisruptiveInnovation
Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation
Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation
Progress due to sustaining technologies.
Demands of
Warfighting
(Performance
requirements of
warfighting.)
War
fight
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Time
Trajectory of d
isruptiv
e Innovatio
n.
DisruptiveInnovation
Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation
Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation
Progress d
ue to su
staining tec
hnologies.
Demands of
Warfighting
(Performance
requirements of
warfighting.)
Components and LinkagesDisruptive Innovation
Components and LinkagesDisruptive Innovation
Military leaders focus on changing theway components are linked in novel ways while leaving core design concepts of the technology (and the knowledge underlyingthem) untouched.
– For example, carrier warfare and blitzkrieg
Military leaders focus on changing theway components are linked in novel ways while leaving core design concepts of the technology (and the knowledge underlyingthem) untouched.
– For example, carrier warfare and blitzkrieg
Disruptive InnovationNovel Linkages of Existing Components
Disruptive InnovationNovel Linkages of Existing Components
• Carrier Warfare– Combined existing core technologies in novel
way• Carriers, aircraft, arresting/take-off gear
• Blitzkrieg– Combined existing core technologies in novel
way• Tanks, aircraft, radios, mobile troop carriers
• Carrier Warfare– Combined existing core technologies in novel
way• Carriers, aircraft, arresting/take-off gear
• Blitzkrieg– Combined existing core technologies in novel
way• Tanks, aircraft, radios, mobile troop carriers
Linear Armored WarfareTanks Aircraft Mobile Troop Carrier
TanksMobile Troop
Carrier
AircraftLi
nkag
e
Linkage
Linkage
Blitzkrieg
Disruptive InnovationNovel Linkages of Existing Components
Disruptive InnovationNovel Linkages of Existing Components
Sustaining vs. Disruptive InnovationSustaining vs. Disruptive Innovation
• Sustaining – Sustaining improves performance of established warfighting methods along an established trajectory that the warfighters currently value.
• Disruptive – Disruptive innovation improves performance along a trajectory path that traditionally has not been valued.
• Sustaining – Sustaining improves performance of established warfighting methods along an established trajectory that the warfighters currently value.
• Disruptive – Disruptive innovation improves performance along a trajectory path that traditionally has not been valued.
Sustaining Innovation “Overshoot”Sustaining Innovation “Overshoot”
• Eventually, sustaining innovations will exceed the performance requirements of the traditionally valued way of warfighting (for example, the physical size of Battleships).
• Eventually, sustaining innovations will exceed the performance requirements of the traditionally valued way of warfighting (for example, the physical size of Battleships).
Trajectory
Overshoot
19201920
Sustaining vs. Disruptive InnovationLinear vs. Non-Linear Armored Warfare
Sustaining vs. Disruptive InnovationLinear vs. Non-Linear Armored Warfare
TIME
CA
PAB
ILIT
IES
Disruptive Innovation
New Perf
orman
ce
Non-L
inear
Armore
d Warf
are
German
y
Demands of Warfighting
19161916 19401940
Susta
ining
Inno
vatio
n
Susta
ining
Inno
vatio
n
Linear
Armor
ed W
arfare
British
BLITZKRIEG
Importance of Distinguishing Disruptive and Sustaining
Importance of Distinguishing Disruptive and Sustaining
Two different ways to manage.Two different ways to manage.
War
fight
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Time
SustainingSustaining
DisruptiveDisruptive
DisruptiveInnovation
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention– Inter-service rivalry– Intra-service rivalry
• Throttle of change: How– Small group– Disguising– Zealot– Support/Promote junior officers
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention– Inter-service rivalry– Intra-service rivalry
• Throttle of change: How– Small group– Disguising– Zealot– Support/Promote junior officers
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention -- No– Inter-service rivalry -- Yes– Intra-service rivalry -- Yes
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention -- No– Inter-service rivalry -- Yes– Intra-service rivalry -- Yes
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
• Throttle of change: How– Small group -- Yes– Disguising
• Peacetime -- Yes• Wartime/Defeat -- No
– Zealot -- No– Support/Promote junior officers -- Yes
• Throttle of change: How– Small group -- Yes– Disguising
• Peacetime -- Yes• Wartime/Defeat -- No
– Zealot -- No– Support/Promote junior officers -- Yes
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
• Senior Military Champion establishes Disruptive Innovation Team– Serves as incubator for redefining warfighting tasks– Works directly for Senior Military Champion– For example, in 1933 USMC Commandant General
Fuller established a Disruptive Innovation Group comprised of four USMC Majors and a Navy LT for developing amphibious doctrine
• Senior Military Champion establishes Disruptive Innovation Team– Serves as incubator for redefining warfighting tasks– Works directly for Senior Military Champion– For example, in 1933 USMC Commandant General
Fuller established a Disruptive Innovation Group comprised of four USMC Majors and a Navy LT for developing amphibious doctrine
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
• Senior Military Champion disguises innovation– Promotes as sustaining innovation
reinforcing current way of fighting• For example, Admiral Moffett and carrier
warfare
– Protect and nurture nascent disruptive innovation in order to allow maturing
• Senior Military Champion disguises innovation– Promotes as sustaining innovation
reinforcing current way of fighting• For example, Admiral Moffett and carrier
warfare
– Protect and nurture nascent disruptive innovation in order to allow maturing
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Disruptive Innovations
• Senior Military Champion manages political struggle that leads to:– New stable career paths for younger officers
who are committed to the new way of warfighting
• For example, Naval Aviation, Composite Warfare Commander (CWC)
• Senior Military Champion manages political struggle that leads to:– New stable career paths for younger officers
who are committed to the new way of warfighting
• For example, Naval Aviation, Composite Warfare Commander (CWC)
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
• Senior Military Champion establishes Sustaining Innovation Team
• No disguising of innovation• Zealot• Civilian intervention
• Senior Military Champion establishes Sustaining Innovation Team
• No disguising of innovation• Zealot• Civilian intervention
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention– Inter-service rivalry– Intra-service rivalry
• Throttle of change: How– Small group– Disguising– Zealot– Support/Promote junior officers
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention– Inter-service rivalry– Intra-service rivalry
• Throttle of change: How– Small group– Disguising– Zealot– Support/Promote junior officers
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention -- Yes– Inter-service rivalry -- Yes– Intra-service rivalry -- Yes
• Engine of change: Why and When– Civilian intervention -- Yes– Inter-service rivalry -- Yes– Intra-service rivalry -- Yes
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
Naval Champions Managing Sustaining Innovations
• Throttle of change: How– Small group -- Yes– Disguising -- No– Zealot -- Yes– Support/Promote junior officers -- N/A
• Throttle of change: How– Small group -- Yes– Disguising -- No– Zealot -- Yes– Support/Promote junior officers -- N/A
Predictions for Championing Sustaining and Disruptive Innovations
• Engine of change: – Civilian intervention– Inter-service rivalry– Intra-service rivalry
• Throttle of change: – Small group– Disguising– Zealot– Support/Promote
junior officers
• Engine of change: – Civilian intervention– Inter-service rivalry– Intra-service rivalry
• Throttle of change: – Small group– Disguising– Zealot– Support/Promote
junior officers
DisruptiveNoYesYes
YesYesNoYes
DisruptiveNoYesYes
YesYesNoYes
SustainingYesYesYes
YesNoYesNo
Points to PonderPoints to Ponder
• Disruptive and sustaining constructs correlate to what Williamson Murray calls the “revolutionary” and “evolutionary” phenomena of innovation.
• 90 percent of innovations are sustaining in nature and most senior military leaders are adept at championing these innovations.
• 10 percent of innovations are disruptive in nature and most senior military leaders are not adept at championing these innovations.
Points to PonderPoints to Ponder
• Civilian leaders can help champion sustaining innovations but have failed to champion disruptive innovations.
• Disguising a disruptive innovation as a sustaining innovation is necessary but not sufficient for success.
• Small innovation groups are necessary but not sufficient for disruptive success.
Points to PonderTrajectory Overshoot Candidates?
Points to PonderTrajectory Overshoot Candidates?
War
fight
ing
Perf
orm
ance
Time
DisruptiveInnovation
SustainingSustaining
DisruptiveDisruptive
F-15/F-18
F-22/JSF
Armed UAV
Warfighting Evolution: Periods of Sustaining Change Punctuated by Disruption
Innovation
Warfighting Evolution: Periods of Sustaining Change Punctuated by Disruption
Innovation
Mag
nitu
de o
f Cha
nge
Time
Incremental Change Disruptive
Change
Disruptive Change
•• Managing Disruptive Change Fundamentally Different from ManaginManaging Disruptive Change Fundamentally Different from Managing g Sustaining ChangeSustaining Change•• The Most Successful Senior Leader/Teams can Manage Both.The Most Successful Senior Leader/Teams can Manage Both.
SustainingInnovation
DisruptiveInnovation
Senior Leaders
Navy as Ambidextrous Organization:Where Senior leaders simultaneously manage both sustaining and disruptive innovation for excelling today and tomorrow
Navy as Ambidextrous Organization:Where Senior leaders simultaneously manage both sustaining and disruptive innovation for excelling today and tomorrow
Result: Navy creates/manages streams of innovation (sustaining/ Result: Navy creates/manages streams of innovation (sustaining/ disruptive change) over time.disruptive change) over time.
NAVSEANAVSEA
NAVAIRNAVAIR
SPAWARSSPAWARS
ONRONR