Analysis and the Innovation Imperative

The defense community is recently (and not-so-recently) awash in calls for innovation to ensure that we are militarily postured to meet future challenges and possess the agility necessary to turn toward those challenges we did not anticipate.

For example, we have the Pentagon's Third Offset Strategy and Air University's call for "Airmen to offer innovative solutions to address problems facing the Air Force in a time of increasingly daunting global and fiscal challenges." We also see what B. J. Armstrong describes as a small movement

... growing across the defense community which realizes that the challenges of the new century are going to require innovative and creative solutions. Parts of this movement, inspired from the junior ranks of our services, look to embrace the ideals of innovation and entrepreneurship from the business world. These dedicated women and men recognize that the budget, manpower, and resource challenges in a post-war drawdown mean that new ways of doing things will be required.

The Red Queen and Alice

The ways in which this small (but growing) movement manifests are legion, including formal organizations such as the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum and  CIMSEC, online venues for the exchange of ideas (The Strategy Bridge, War Council, The Constant Strategist, etc.), and the growth of peer-mentoring communities of practice (whether on the model of Scharnhorst's Militarische Gesellschaft or something less formal). I am a huge fan of these efforts, and I think the powers-that-be should support them in any way they can. They will, I believe, be a critical part of creating innovation going forward.

Why should the powers-that-be support such an effort, though, especially in the face of limited resources? In times of plenty, we have the resources but lack the imperatives for innovation. In times of need, we lack the resources but the necessity is much more clear. This is the conundrum.

That innovation (or at least the ability to innovate) is necessary in the abstract seems self-evident (and if not self-evident then compelling arguments can be made for its necessity). The world changes around us. There are adversaries, potential adversaries, allies, and potential allies all about us who all seek to increase their own relative advantage, and every change they make (whether they intend it or we like it) affects the calculus of our own continuing advantage. We are all trapped in a Red Queen Race, and survival depends upon our capacity to find new solutions to new problems, more efficient solutions to old problems, and the creation of new problems for our competitors.

But innovation for the sake of innovation is a mistake. The folks at the Havok Journal make a fine argument that not all "outside the container" thinking is worthwhile. Paraphrasing egregiously, they claim that the container was built by someone for some reason, sometimes the container is just fine, and those looking to operate outside its confines often "don’t really understand the fundamentals of [their] profession and don’t want to take the time to learn." (The full article is well worth reading, and I highly recommend it. My self-serving paraphrasing does not do it justice.)

Art, Science, and Engineering

There is a real and important tension here, described in the fields of expert systems and evolution as a trade-off between exploration and exploitation. If a particular strategy works, it makes sense to exploit that strategy. But we should also explore the strategic environment for approaches that work better and for changes in that environment that might compromise the approaches we've exploited so successfully. A nice metaphor for this tension has been described elsewhere in this space as the interaction between art, science, and engineering. (I won't lie. The parallel with Clausewitz's wonderful trinity and the chaotic dynamics of the three-body problem add an undeniable attraction to the model.)  The balance between these is the difference between evolutionary success and failure.

So, why post this thought in a forum all about analysis? I thought you'd never ask.

We (analysts, mathematicians, statisticians, modelers, computer scientists, etc.) are a part of this environment, too. Our worldviews and tools must be no less adaptable than those of the doctrine writers, planners, and strategists of the world. More important (and a little frightening) is the possibility of reified and static analytic ideas becoming framing concepts for the rest of the strategic world.

Optimality is a favorite and appropriate example. For what do we optimize force structure? A world and a worldview. What is the consequence if either situation fails to meet our assumptions? Something less than optimal. How do we minimize the probability that failures of optimality (or analysis in general) are catastrophic? Welcome to the problem of framing analysis in a way that supports the decision needs of leadership in a way that meets the needs of today, tomorrow, and the future. And welcome to the need for innovation in our own community.

So, what does this all mean? How are art, science, engineering, innovation, expertise, exploration, and exploitation to be managed? Not surprisingly, I have some thoughts on the matter:

1. Expertise matters. The problems we face as military analysts are trivial in neither their costs not their consequences. If military operations research is to synthesize inputs and techniques from diverse disciplines (math, statistics, economics, computer science, etc.) expertise in those disciplines is important. Destruction and creation can produce positive results by accident, but will produce innovation far more reliably if the agents involved really understand the underlying philosophical and technical principles.
2. Diversity is more than important. Without diversity of experience and expertise, it is difficult to find and exploit the skis, handlebars, outboard motors, and tank treads in our experience to create effective snowmobiles. This is an interesting concept for military operations research. Ours is an academic discipline that is inherently interdisciplinary, but an interdisciplinary field will always struggle with sufficient isolated expertise to facilitate effective interdisciplinary exploration.
3. Tolerance for individual failure is critical. Evolution and innovation are bottom-up processes, and there must be room for both exploration and exploitation. In an ecosystem, failure is fatal, but that is a system relying on chance to create the necessary genetic and phenotypic variations that facilitate adaptation to changing environments at a population level. The loss of individuals is not important, since the adaptation is neither social nor volitional. On the other hand, analytic innovation is a volitional act by rational social agents, and intellectual variation leading to dead ends cannot lead to deadly individual ends (unless the objective is abject conformity). This is the primary purpose of a community/institution in the context of organizational innovation. It exists to exploit the known, incentivize exploration, and protect the explorers from censure. We need to be free to disagree, argue, and explore.

For our community these observations result in some imperatives for action. Simply put, a structure that prizes expertise and diversity in that expertise (not expertise in that diversity) while facilitating exploration of new ideas and analytic approaches is what we should seek. 

Commission for Military
Reorganization at Konigsberg, 1807

This blog notwithstanding, I'm left wondering why there aren't analytic equivalents of CIMSEC, The Strategy Bridge, War Council, The Constant Strategist, the Militarische Gesellschaft, etc. I'm left wondering why so many of our analysts attend the same school (singular) to receive the same graduate education. I'm left wondering if we will find a way to be relevant in the face of a future that looks decidedly unlike the world in which our "discipline" emerged.

Free Soloing

The feature article in the May 2011, National Geographic is entitled, “Daring, Defiant, Free”. I believe these same three words characterize the essence of what is required to be on the front end of a scientific revolution. In his April 4th blog, Merf gives us a passage to read on scientific revolution taken from the book, “Chaos: Making a New Science”, by James Gleick. Gleick has applied his words to tip of the spear activities that were going on with the creation of chaos theory more than two decades ago. But his passage is timeless and applies to any worthy endeavor that must first overcome a mountain of resistance in order to succeed. It is within the words “mountain of resistance” that I see the parallels to the National Geographic article and begin this essay.

Seated in his office to my left is Alex Honnold. When he was 23 years old he climbed Half Dome in Califorina’s Yosmite Valley…without a rope. In this picture he is relaxing on what they call “Thank God Ledge” during an encore climb he executed, also without a rope. It’s important to understand that I am ghastly afraid of heights. As I stare at this picture I become physically ill. I experience vertigo while sitting in my padded  chair. I want to scream out in fear. I want to look away, turn the picture over, or otherwise remove the image from my mind. Alex is clearly a daring, defiant, and free individual. Some might also say…and here it is…that he is crazy. That he is stark raving mad, a lunatic, and belongs in a padded cell vice a comfortable chair. Sound familiar? But he has overcome gravity to climb a mountain as free and effortlessly as we ascend a flight of stairs…well maybe not as effortlessly…but certainly with no strings attached.

I cannot walk out onto a hotel porch above the fourth floor without backing myself up against the wall…even though I know the probability of me plummeting to my death is zero. These completely irrational fears must be deep seated in my psyche perhaps as an over manifestation of a survival instinct. Individuals without those instincts plummeted to their death and were removed from the gene pool of my linage. However, my direct ancestors survived, apparently by backing up against the wall when they walked out onto their cave balconies. Alex Honnold’s ancestors must have not only walked out on their balconies, but climbed higher in search of food. Those who stayed at home with their backs against the wall were the ones who perished. But it was a slower death, one via starvation rather than a fast decent to the rocks below. I am definitely in the slow starvation camp. Nevertheless some of my ancestors must have survived as well so living with your back up against the wall must have worked out in some cases. In fact, in the main, living life conservatively definitely increases ones chances of survival in most cases.

The same is true with most things we humans do. But if most of the scientific community is staying at home with their backs against the security of their cave walls, how then are we to discover the improbable? How do the scientists that start the revolutions become daring, defiant, and free individuals? I don’t think it’s magic. I think it’s through hard work.

As improbable as his feat may seem it didn’t just happen. Alex works unbelievably hard at his sport. All world class athletes do. It would be easy to dismiss Alex as a crackpot with a death wish. But that’s the furthest thing from the truth. In order for him to climb Half-dome without a rope he climbed Half-dome many times before. He has climbed the route so many times he has memorized the moves and holds necessary. In fact they are so ingrained in his brain; he can, as so many world class athletes do, visualize his movements ahead of time. He didn’t just show up at the granite wall of Half Dome and begin his ascent, free of ropes. So too is true with all great genius. The foundations for genius are set through hard work and discipline. Mandelbrot could visualize the equations in his head because his head was full of the math he needed to see a fractal in the clouds. That doesn’t mean that everyone with equations jammed in their head can be Mandelbrot…or with climbing acumen can be Honnold for that matter. It takes more…much more. And equations are not even the science. Equations form the discipline behind the science.

In rock climbing the engineering behind the sport is found in the discipline of the equipment. The devices that are used to secure climbers safely to a smooth granite surface, the knots and the rope which serpentine through high strength aluminum carabineers, and of course the tight fitting rubbery climbing shoes that when smeared cross a granite face stick like glue. And then practice...a lot of practice.  Mind numbing repetition of these same skills over and over again.  After the foundational basics become routine then more advanced studies can proceed.  The science is in the experimentation and discovery of new tools for the rock climber’s arsenal as well as the techniques of movement and conservation of movement. If you get tired lifting your 180 lbs carcass up a flight of stairs consider climbing a ladder that’s 1300 feet straight up. Years of climbing science came ahead of the current generation of modern climbers that now enable what comes next…the artistry.  Until Honnold first climbed Half Dome with all his equipment, and then free climbed Half Dome with minimal equipment, he was not ready to create his free solo masterpiece.

With the final package comes the inspiration and creativity to do something new with the foundation and legacy of what came before. Sometime that path leads to incremental changes in the status quo. Occasionally, a revolutionary leap can be made. Typically, when a revolution is at hand, there is no shortage of the old guard screaming about the impossibility of it all, telling the few that might see a better way that they are crazy, and laying before them a mountain of resistance that is the hallmark of a shallow thinker.

Now that is not to say there is no risk involved. There is huge risk involved. And the penalties for miscalculation, as Clausewitz has said, as are the miscalculations that lead to war, could very easily lead to death. Certainly a physical death for rock climbers ascending a stone face without safety gear, but they could also lead to the death of a publication, a reputation, or a career. But for those brave few, those that can be daring, defiant, and free from the gravity of the ties that bind a revolution awaits. Just make sure when you begin your free solo of your granite mountain you have nerves of steel and have prepared as well as Alex Honnold.

Science, Art, and Engineering

Thus far this has not been an exactly optimistic comment on truth. I actually do have a much higher opinion of human nature and believe that the vast majority of us are, in fact, in favor of the truth. Why then have I been so negative? I fundamentally believe that there is truth to be found. There are so many examples of things that were not don’t properly, they are unfortunately never really reported and heralded as something that was done right. We really only primarily here about the things that have gone wrong. It's typically said that that one ah shit erases a dozen or so atta boys. And this is true. Here is an example.

How many suspension bridges does the world have in place? These numerous spans are both beautiful and are the epitome of engineering marvels, but they are more than engineering. Most of us can name the more significant ones in our country, Brooklyn, Golden Gate, Verizono, but very quickly the list gets shorter. There are more, many more world wide. But if you are an engineer you also know the name of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Has that mistake ever been repeated? But we still hear about it today and it is used to describe an engineering mistake. At the time, however, I think it was probably more of a scientific mistake.

I use the suspension bridge as an example since more than anything, a project of this immense scale epitomizes the combining of three areas, namely science, art, and engineering. All three were necessary in order for the bridges, as we know them, to be standing therefore giving us functional examples of the success of truth, as we know it. When man first undertook construction of these grandiose extremes, the Brooklyn bridge, for instance. There were many things that were not understood. Steel and its properties had to be examined to get the cabling right. Significant additional work was necessary in order to understand how to get the foundation for that structure correct, let alone how to construct it. Yet throughout, there was a need to construct something aesthetically appealing. All three disciplines played together to get it right - John A. Roebling got all three right despite the efforts of many to throw him off.

What I would like to present is an understanding that when seeking the truth in our profession as well, a commitment to all three is vital in the search for the truth. True analysis, as is the case with a bridge, is a convergence of all three disciplines. Most often analysis is treated as an engineering problem, something to be solved by formula and repeated over and over. Formulaic analysis ignores 2/3’s of the true potential of analysis. It is not the analyst fault necessarily. This too was learned in school, which is most typically aligned with an engineering discipline and certainly not aligned with the school of science or art. This is not to suggest that a case could be made for creating an analysis curriculum in the other places, it is definitely in the right school. It is an understanding that analysis and engineering should not be done in isolation.