ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

New ideas brainstorm SAS panel Nov 2010

?Download as PPT, PDF?
?
Stephan De Spiegeleire
Stephan De Spiegeleire

The document summarizes ideas generated during a brainstorming session on improving the operations of the NATO RTO SAS Panel. Over 200 ideas were produced in two sessions focused on new ways of doing business and potential new studies. Key issues identified included reducing costs through less travel, better information sharing across stakeholders, improving expertise mapping, and increasing collaboration between countries. Many solutions involved using virtual conferencing more, setting up expert networks, and institutionalizing faster processes for new work while maintaining a balance with longer term studies. Follow-up work was proposed to further develop and prioritize the ideas.

1 of 18
Download to read offline
New Ideas Brainstorm NATO RTO SAS-Panel Meeting Brdo, SVN, 28 Oct 2010 Troy Harting Stephan De Spiegeleire
Objectives Generate ideas to ensure and improve SAS Panel (and national) operations analysis, especially in a restrictive financial environment Produce compelling ideas for new SAS Panel work Experiment with facilitation as a means for improving the Panel¡¯s brainstorming process
?
Not ¡®business as usual¡¯ Normally, panel business meetings discuss new business ¨C identify new topics ¡®bottom-up¡¯ There may be good reasons for doing things somewhat differently this year The age of austerity: money [extra problem for certain SAS topics, as they have more ¡®diffuse¡¯ customers] Incipient discussion about our value proposition ¨C not just less money, but also value for money issues (cost of operations since 2001 2 TRILLION euros; and how much ¡®security¡¯ has it brought us?) Very quickly changing security environment (¡®global weirding¡¯) ¨C technology, power shifts, epochal change More comprehensive definition of ¡®defense and security¡¯ => broader scope General recognition that we need MORE SAS-type work ¨C French Livre Blanc (connaissance et anticipation); UK Green Paper (uncertainty and affordability PLUS Partnerships!) and even the latest SDSR; the Dutch Future Policy Survey, the QDR; JO2030 Changes within NATO ( NATO agency review )
SAS-¡¯Business model¡¯ Issues : Selection of issues (slow, non-exhaustive) (Self-)selection of countries Huge disparities between countries Long lags + punctual, not pervasive Commitment issues Effectiveness (travel costs, etc.) Deliverables non-committal No tracking of ACTUAL results/effects (whether in NATO or in nations) + also Real centres of knowledge insufficiently networked (HUGE potential ¨C still duplication AND holes) Very imperfect situational awareness No real ¡®market¡¯ for SAS-type knowledge Can we think of other ways of ¡®doing business¡¯ ?
Yes there probably are¡­ There ARE other models for this ¨C some very personal observations, based on about 20 years of defense research in 5 different countries (Belgium, France, Germany, US and now the NL): Better situational awareness of ongoing work, existing tools, models (e.g. this morning ¨C e.g. SAS-078 Canada doing non-lethal weapons work ¨C mentioned; but not done systematically) More joint work (e.g. finding ways to have researchers work together in teams on NATIONAL work) Models & tools exchanges: some models huge investment, not used regularly ¨C how to sustain them (e.g. Andrew) More peer review of existing NATIONAL work (especially SAS-type work) More benchmarking ¨C NOT just ¡°I do things this way, you that way¡±; but SYSTEMATIC comparisons of different ways of doing thing, best practices, etc. (OECD example) Evaluation of which SAS-efforts really ¡®land¡¯ (assessment //RTB effort) More like-minded (-sized) groups (re-empower disenfranchised countries) Having a depository of ¡®best practices¡¯ (both national and joint activities) ¨C ACT?
SAS Mandate SAS Mission: The mission of the SAS Panel is: To conduct studies and analyses of an operational and technological nature, and To promote the exchange and development of methods and tools for operational analysis as applied to defence problems. ? more focus also on the SECOND mandate and looking for ways how we can do things better
Why crises can be good
Protocol for brainstorm 2 sessions, each with 2 syndicates First session ¨C New ways of doing business (45¡¯) Second session ¨C Ideas for new studies (45¡¯) Think (5¡¯) Identify key problems (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) Identify some solutions (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) Write + Post (15¡¯) ONE idea on ONE post-it note; color coded (will allow us to capture these and analyze them afterwards): Problem = blue Solution = green post those on some wall, and try to (self-)organize them (and do discuss amongst yourselves) as you go through them, put your feedback on the ones you see (¡®+¡¯; ¡®-¡®; ¡®?¡¯)? Discuss (25¡¯) Back to table (or standing around): which ones got a lot of pluses (focus discussions on solutions)
The Output Facilitators will work to consolidate ideas for outbrief in plenary tomorrow We will look for volunteers to produce short write-ups or elaboration on proposals and topics
New Ideas Brainstorm First Insights ¨C Take-aways NATO RTO SAS-Panel Meeting Brdo, SVN, 29 Oct 2010 Troy Harting Stephan De Spiegeleire
FIRST SESSION NEW WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS
Overview ¨C Some Stats Problem Problem Total Solution Solution Total Grand Total 1 2 1 2 Money 7 8 15 7 7 22 Stakeholders 18 18 18 Efficiency 18 18 18 Brokering/sharing info 4 4 12 12 16 Time 8 8 6 6 14 Output 8 8 6 6 14 Expertise 13 13 13 Nationalism 8 8 5 5 13 Process & Organization 3 3 5 4 9 12 Methods 1 1 9 9 10 People 4 4 4 4 8 Requirement definition 8 8 8 Competency 3 3 4 4 7 Participation 7 7 7 Ownership 5 5 1 1 6 Assessment of research results 6 6 6 Organization 3 3 3 NATO-specific 1 1 1 Grand Total 48 49 97 53 46 99 196 Almost 200 ideas generated in 45¡¯! (+ many excellent ones) (A few) more solutions than problems
Overview ¨C Viz Money #1 issue ¨C more problems than solutions BUT still some good ideas Lots of ideas on how to improve efficiency and interaction with stakeholders A few issues with only problems, no solutions ¨C require some thinking
Top Issues 1 Problem Brokering/sharing info Structure of the RTO knowledge base does not allow for easy browsing ++++++ 1 Problem Expertise Problem how to translate (analyze, taxonomize) commanders demands into research topics (SAS panel research topics) +++++ 2 Solution Money More use of VTCs, email, sharepoint to reduce need for meetings +++++ 2 Solution People Slovenian cuisine J +++++ 1 Solution Stakeholders Consider implementing collaborative tool to speed up the cycle for generating new activities +++++ 1 Solution Brokering/sharing info Create direct lines between commanders and NATO/national research programme (SAS themes) ++++ 2 Problem People To find right people ++++ 2 Solution People Get SAS to task academia ++++ 1 Solution Brokering/sharing info Set up a network of peer experts for specific SAS areas (e.g. costing, logistics, defense planning +++ 2 Solution Competency International mentoring +++ 2 Solution Money Reduction of meetings tele/video conferences, friendly knowledge exchange tools (online) - also more people participate this way +++ 2 Solution Nationalism Share national interests (S&T needs), share PoWs +++ 2 Solution Nationalism Databases with docs +++ 2 Solution Time Institutionalize processes for immediate work (fast track) BUT maintain balance between fast track and medium to long-term studies +++ 2 Solution Time Use 2-level approval (board AND panel) only by exception, e.g. by panel request +++
¡® Personal¡¯ Take-Aways Much low-hanging fruit (even cost-neutral) ¨C but we need true ownership to make these things happen Much scope for better situational awareness (both of NATO but especially of national efforts, and especially ¡®en amont¡¯) Outreach to others ¨C especially the end-users, but also other panels, private sector Need to up the tempo of the RTO process itself and of the studies (many ideas) Need for quick and (hopefully not too ? ) dirty OA Inklings of a ¡®market¡¯ Desire to find ways to use experts from other nations (+ private sector) to do national work
Assessment Strengths Was useful to take a ¡®step back¡¯ from just ongoing and new work (business) and look at the ¡®business model¡¯ itself Fascinating results Informed Creative and IMO much low-hanging fruit here In very short time, we created many (excellent) ideas Weaknesses Not everybody here First-cut: no/few pros/cons (also from other ¨C non S&T ¨C stakeholders) considered No sense of feasibility (for most nations) somewhat ¡®spur-of-the-moment¡¯, impressionistic (e.g. quite a few references to the JSI-topics)
Follow-on work Clean this work up Make this available to others (Sharepoint?) Allow others (AND this group) to add items Discuss ¨C pros and cons Get a better view of priorities (scale?) Get a sense for feasibility of solutions (lo-med-hi?) Match problems to solutions Are there solutions that tackle multiple problems Allow NATiOns to document existing work (many ideas already being worked on) ? Low-hanging fruit ? Allocate ownership ? Repeat? 09 March 2010

More Related Content

New ideas brainstorm SAS panel Nov 2010

  • 1. New Ideas Brainstorm NATO RTO SAS-Panel Meeting Brdo, SVN, 28 Oct 2010 Troy Harting Stephan De Spiegeleire
  • 2. Objectives Generate ideas to ensure and improve SAS Panel (and national) operations analysis, especially in a restrictive financial environment Produce compelling ideas for new SAS Panel work Experiment with facilitation as a means for improving the Panel¡¯s brainstorming process
  • 3. ?
  • 4. Not ¡®business as usual¡¯ Normally, panel business meetings discuss new business ¨C identify new topics ¡®bottom-up¡¯ There may be good reasons for doing things somewhat differently this year The age of austerity: money [extra problem for certain SAS topics, as they have more ¡®diffuse¡¯ customers] Incipient discussion about our value proposition ¨C not just less money, but also value for money issues (cost of operations since 2001 2 TRILLION euros; and how much ¡®security¡¯ has it brought us?) Very quickly changing security environment (¡®global weirding¡¯) ¨C technology, power shifts, epochal change More comprehensive definition of ¡®defense and security¡¯ => broader scope General recognition that we need MORE SAS-type work ¨C French Livre Blanc (connaissance et anticipation); UK Green Paper (uncertainty and affordability PLUS Partnerships!) and even the latest SDSR; the Dutch Future Policy Survey, the QDR; JO2030 Changes within NATO ( NATO agency review )
  • 5. SAS-¡¯Business model¡¯ Issues : Selection of issues (slow, non-exhaustive) (Self-)selection of countries Huge disparities between countries Long lags + punctual, not pervasive Commitment issues Effectiveness (travel costs, etc.) Deliverables non-committal No tracking of ACTUAL results/effects (whether in NATO or in nations) + also Real centres of knowledge insufficiently networked (HUGE potential ¨C still duplication AND holes) Very imperfect situational awareness No real ¡®market¡¯ for SAS-type knowledge Can we think of other ways of ¡®doing business¡¯ ?
  • 6. Yes there probably are¡­ There ARE other models for this ¨C some very personal observations, based on about 20 years of defense research in 5 different countries (Belgium, France, Germany, US and now the NL): Better situational awareness of ongoing work, existing tools, models (e.g. this morning ¨C e.g. SAS-078 Canada doing non-lethal weapons work ¨C mentioned; but not done systematically) More joint work (e.g. finding ways to have researchers work together in teams on NATIONAL work) Models & tools exchanges: some models huge investment, not used regularly ¨C how to sustain them (e.g. Andrew) More peer review of existing NATIONAL work (especially SAS-type work) More benchmarking ¨C NOT just ¡°I do things this way, you that way¡±; but SYSTEMATIC comparisons of different ways of doing thing, best practices, etc. (OECD example) Evaluation of which SAS-efforts really ¡®land¡¯ (assessment //RTB effort) More like-minded (-sized) groups (re-empower disenfranchised countries) Having a depository of ¡®best practices¡¯ (both national and joint activities) ¨C ACT?
  • 7. SAS Mandate SAS Mission: The mission of the SAS Panel is: To conduct studies and analyses of an operational and technological nature, and To promote the exchange and development of methods and tools for operational analysis as applied to defence problems. ? more focus also on the SECOND mandate and looking for ways how we can do things better
  • 8. Why crises can be good
  • 9. Protocol for brainstorm 2 sessions, each with 2 syndicates First session ¨C New ways of doing business (45¡¯) Second session ¨C Ideas for new studies (45¡¯) Think (5¡¯) Identify key problems (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) Identify some solutions (both for NATO-level AND for national-level work) Write + Post (15¡¯) ONE idea on ONE post-it note; color coded (will allow us to capture these and analyze them afterwards): Problem = blue Solution = green post those on some wall, and try to (self-)organize them (and do discuss amongst yourselves) as you go through them, put your feedback on the ones you see (¡®+¡¯; ¡®-¡®; ¡®?¡¯)? Discuss (25¡¯) Back to table (or standing around): which ones got a lot of pluses (focus discussions on solutions)
  • 10. The Output Facilitators will work to consolidate ideas for outbrief in plenary tomorrow We will look for volunteers to produce short write-ups or elaboration on proposals and topics
  • 11. New Ideas Brainstorm First Insights ¨C Take-aways NATO RTO SAS-Panel Meeting Brdo, SVN, 29 Oct 2010 Troy Harting Stephan De Spiegeleire
  • 12. FIRST SESSION NEW WAYS OF DOING BUSINESS
  • 13. Overview ¨C Some Stats Problem Problem Total Solution Solution Total Grand Total 1 2 1 2 Money 7 8 15 7 7 22 Stakeholders 18 18 18 Efficiency 18 18 18 Brokering/sharing info 4 4 12 12 16 Time 8 8 6 6 14 Output 8 8 6 6 14 Expertise 13 13 13 Nationalism 8 8 5 5 13 Process & Organization 3 3 5 4 9 12 Methods 1 1 9 9 10 People 4 4 4 4 8 Requirement definition 8 8 8 Competency 3 3 4 4 7 Participation 7 7 7 Ownership 5 5 1 1 6 Assessment of research results 6 6 6 Organization 3 3 3 NATO-specific 1 1 1 Grand Total 48 49 97 53 46 99 196 Almost 200 ideas generated in 45¡¯! (+ many excellent ones) (A few) more solutions than problems
  • 14. Overview ¨C Viz Money #1 issue ¨C more problems than solutions BUT still some good ideas Lots of ideas on how to improve efficiency and interaction with stakeholders A few issues with only problems, no solutions ¨C require some thinking
  • 15. Top Issues 1 Problem Brokering/sharing info Structure of the RTO knowledge base does not allow for easy browsing ++++++ 1 Problem Expertise Problem how to translate (analyze, taxonomize) commanders demands into research topics (SAS panel research topics) +++++ 2 Solution Money More use of VTCs, email, sharepoint to reduce need for meetings +++++ 2 Solution People Slovenian cuisine J +++++ 1 Solution Stakeholders Consider implementing collaborative tool to speed up the cycle for generating new activities +++++ 1 Solution Brokering/sharing info Create direct lines between commanders and NATO/national research programme (SAS themes) ++++ 2 Problem People To find right people ++++ 2 Solution People Get SAS to task academia ++++ 1 Solution Brokering/sharing info Set up a network of peer experts for specific SAS areas (e.g. costing, logistics, defense planning +++ 2 Solution Competency International mentoring +++ 2 Solution Money Reduction of meetings tele/video conferences, friendly knowledge exchange tools (online) - also more people participate this way +++ 2 Solution Nationalism Share national interests (S&T needs), share PoWs +++ 2 Solution Nationalism Databases with docs +++ 2 Solution Time Institutionalize processes for immediate work (fast track) BUT maintain balance between fast track and medium to long-term studies +++ 2 Solution Time Use 2-level approval (board AND panel) only by exception, e.g. by panel request +++
  • 16. ¡® Personal¡¯ Take-Aways Much low-hanging fruit (even cost-neutral) ¨C but we need true ownership to make these things happen Much scope for better situational awareness (both of NATO but especially of national efforts, and especially ¡®en amont¡¯) Outreach to others ¨C especially the end-users, but also other panels, private sector Need to up the tempo of the RTO process itself and of the studies (many ideas) Need for quick and (hopefully not too ? ) dirty OA Inklings of a ¡®market¡¯ Desire to find ways to use experts from other nations (+ private sector) to do national work
  • 17. Assessment Strengths Was useful to take a ¡®step back¡¯ from just ongoing and new work (business) and look at the ¡®business model¡¯ itself Fascinating results Informed Creative and IMO much low-hanging fruit here In very short time, we created many (excellent) ideas Weaknesses Not everybody here First-cut: no/few pros/cons (also from other ¨C non S&T ¨C stakeholders) considered No sense of feasibility (for most nations) somewhat ¡®spur-of-the-moment¡¯, impressionistic (e.g. quite a few references to the JSI-topics)
  • 18. Follow-on work Clean this work up Make this available to others (Sharepoint?) Allow others (AND this group) to add items Discuss ¨C pros and cons Get a better view of priorities (scale?) Get a sense for feasibility of solutions (lo-med-hi?) Match problems to solutions Are there solutions that tackle multiple problems Allow NATiOns to document existing work (many ideas already being worked on) ? Low-hanging fruit ? Allocate ownership ? Repeat? 09 March 2010