How NATO’s Emerging Culture of Innovation Is Reshaping The Alliance
NATO was built for the cold-war, but a focus on innovation & interoperability is helping it adapt to new challenges in the 21st century. We’re joined today by Rob Murray, the Head of Innovation at NATO, to discuss his role addressing challenges across the NATO Alliance using creative organizational ideas, innovative policy formulation, and leveraging emerging technologies.
Rob, welcome! You’ve been with NATO now for just almost 8 years, but before that, you had a very successful career as an Army Officer with the UK Ministry of Defence. I’d like to start by asking what led you to NATO and your current role as the Head of Innovation?
Hey, Tim, many thanks for that very generous introduction. My career spans more than 20 years and started at quite a young age when I joined the British Army. I’ve always had quite a sense of duty and the desire to serve, and that’s what inspired me to join the military when I was 17. I spent the remainder of my teenage years and most of my twenties in uniform serving all over the world in various operations.
By the time I was 29, I’d been selected for the rank of major and was married with children and family responsibilities — and while I still wanted to serve, I felt it was time for a bit of a career change. I liked NATO, and having served on numerous allied operations around the world, I had a strong sense of the values that underpin the NATO Alliance. For me, applying to join the International Staff was an easy decision to make.
Now, I serve on the Secretary General’s staff at NATO, and our mission brings with it a sense of duty and purpose that’s very foundational. It was a big step leaving the British army and moving to Brussels to work for NATO, but the origins of this institution and the values that it’s built upon deeply resonate with me on a personal level.
Now, for a little background, NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance between 30 European and North American nations, so there are a lot of moving pieces involved. As I understand things, your role has a focus on technology, but also on organizational strategies and policy work. Can you tell me a bit about how you apply innovation to these areas?
The fundamental role of NATO headquarters is politically focused which means being involved with a lot of policy work across all Allied countries. This means that in every area we focus on, we’re always having to look for where that middle ground exists. We have 30 Allies who are members of NATO, and we’re always trying to find that sweet spot that works for all of them.
Now, in terms of innovation, finding that middle ground is somewhat tricky, and in some ways, that’s because of NATO’s organizational structure. Keep in mind that NATO was created back in 1949 near the beginning of the cold war, and it could be said it was created to help maintain the status quo of that post world war two era.
Innovation is about change, and sometimes it can be difficult to shift the needle on various technologies & policies within a large, mature organization like NATO, but it’s not impossible. In fact, over the last few years, we’ve had quite a lot of success demonstrating that change & refinement is indeed achievable when all of the allies work together towards common goals.
So, in Brussels, our job is to craft policies that find that middle ground, and then put in place the various measures to implement them. This is a multi-faceted role that involves work with organizational and technological change, as well as adjustment of the NATO operating model. We have a lot of goals, but there’s only so much the market can bear, which means that we have to be cognizant of the scope of our efforts and the timeline it takes to achieve them.
As I understand things, NATO is something of a cross between the DoD and the State Department, which means that diplomacy and policy play a key role in NATO initiatives. What are some of the most important policy areas that you’re working to implement, and how do you work with various NATO member countries to implement them uniformly?
Let me frame this by saying that right now the Alliance is in a technological adoption race, which is subtly different than a technological development race. In terms of emerging innovative technologies, our goal right now is focused on trying to adopt them as quickly and uniformly as possible in a manner that reflects the values of the Alliance and the principles of responsible use.
NATO is very much a network type of organization where nations can plugin and come together, and we can add disproportionate value in areas like creating standards for interoperability and helping allies ensure that innovative technologies can work together. By developing the right sorts of policies, we can help guide the smooth use of these technologies across the Alliance.
In today’s world, many of the technologies we’re looking at are already in use in the commercial sector — such as AI algorithms which many of us use when we shop on Amazon or watch Netflix. These algorithms are always running in the background, and society is becoming accustomed to them, so one of our goals is to ensure that our military is also able to leverage these sorts of technologies in a responsible way that reflects the values of the Alliance.
One of the challenges you’ve described is the distribution of new processes & technologies between member nations avoid creating a two-tier alliance of “haves” and “have nots” that reduces interoperability. Has that been an issue in the past, and are there any examples of that you can share?
Yes. I mean, it’s never going to be perfect. It’s always going to be a little messy when you’ve got 30 countries involved. Let’s put some numbers around this — the collective defense budgets of the allied nations are around a trillion dollars annually, and they’re tasked with the protection of a billion people across the territories of the Alliance.
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone’s going to be able to move in formation when it comes to these new technologies, but our job is to help and encourage nations to adopt these new & innovative areas of technology and make them as interoperable as possible, not only with other allies where appropriate, but also with legacy equipment.
Legacy interoperability is easy to overlook, but it’s a big consideration when you’re investing in new technologies that need to work alongside traditional hard power assets such as jets, tanks, ships, submarines, etc. Making sure that these legacy systems can interact with new technologies is a significant challenge, and trying to minimize what we call the “interoperability stretch” is something we’re working quite hard to address.
Now, back on September 1st last year, you wrote an article in the NATO Review entitled “Building a resilient innovation pipeline for the Alliance”, where you talked about leveraging diversity and the comparative advantage of the alliance to build an innovation pipeline to maintain our technological edge. Can you tell me a bit about this concept?
When I was writing that article, I looked at the 30 countries in the NATO Alliance, which are filled with a wonderful array of talented individuals, amazing universities, huge flows of capital, and all of the ingredients you need for a persistent pipeline of innovation design. This is our primary competitive advantage, and it’s the result of open, democratic governance across the Alliance.
Not only does the overall Alliance offer a huge competitive advantage in terms of innovation, but there are also comparative advantages that each of the various NATO nations offer in different areas of innovation as well.
The question is how we can take advantage of the development ecosystems that cluster in certain countries and then stitch them together to benefit not only our shared Allied national defense and security needs but also benefit society in general as well. This kind of strategy should be baked into national industrial policies, while serving as a signpost to indicate where allies should be investing both fiscally and educationally.
If we focus on reinforcing the innovative efforts already underway in the Alliance, it not only benefits the public sector but it naturally supports the growth of dual-use capabilities that benefit the private sector as well. In terms of defense, this is a total reversal of what we saw in the 20th century, where it was the government driving forward technological breakthroughs such as touch screens, GPS, the internet, and so forth.
Yesterday, innovation was publicly funded, but that structure for innovation has flipped, and today innovation development is mainly privately funded. Thus, we need to think about not only the comparative advantages that each member nation can bring to our innovation pipeline, but also we need to think about how this benefits both the public & private sectors from a dual-use perspective. This raises a lot of big questions that we need to consider. It’s very macro, and I recognize that. However, there’s a huge opportunity that having a transatlantic Alliance like NATO brings to this area.
In terms of building this pipeline, you’ve said that today’s era is unique because of the rate of technology development in the private sector, and that building an innovation pipeline needs to involve academia, government & and an array of private-sector concerns such as banks, investors, universities, tech startups, and venture capitalists. How do you envision something like this coming together?
It’s not very realistic to try and create a comprehensive plan when you’re dealing with 30 countries and all of the various universities, financial institutions, accelerators, and start-ups they contain. What is realistic is to start doing specific projects within those communities of innovation — and from a NATO perspective, this helps to signpost areas of interest for further innovation.
The notion of guiding innovation is something that’s already established on a national level, and a good example of this is the In-Q-Tel venture capital fund in the United States, originally spun out from Central Intelligence Agency in 1999.
In itself, In-Q-Tel is one of many venture capital funds, and not even that impressive when you look at it in relative terms. However, what makes In-Q-Tel special is the fact that they’re able to signal government needs through where they put their investments, which starts to drive a whole series of innovative activities by private investors who crowd-in with In-Q-Tel on new areas of technology investment which otherwise may not have occurred.
In-Q-Tel plays a great role in this ecosystem of academia, the private sector, and government, where despite being a small government venture capital fund, it’s able to signpost to the rest of the actors in that ecosystem where there is future market potential. Similar things are happening in France with the Defense Innovation Fund, in the UK with the National Security Strategic Fund, and in Estonia with the Centre for Defence Investment.
National governments are already involved in market signaling for dual-use technologies, and this is something NATO can make a difference with as well — and help scale up new areas of innovation across 30 potential markets. So for entrepreneurs, the fact that you might be competitive across 30 markets simultaneously should make the endeavor much more attractive.
So, to answer your question succinctly, I don’t think it’s realistic to try and map out innovation on a granular level and plan it line by line. However, creating a community and an ecosystem with clear signals as to where the Alliance wishes to go will create a crowding-in effect for both entrepreneurs and investors alike that will generate strong market opportunities for innovative dual-use capabilities.
Now, I understand that you’ve had a particular interest in technologies such as AI, quantum communications & computing, and biometrics. These are primarily computing & information security-related technologies, and I’d like to ask what attracts you to these and how they might fit in the NATO alliance?
These emerging technologies are at varying levels of technology readiness, and NATO doesn’t like to get ahead of nations. You know, our job is to be more of a network that Allies plug into politically, militarily, technically, or however they wish to do so. Therefore, when we see that this is the direction that nations are heading in terms of technological development, it makes sense for the Alliance to try and utilize those technologies as they emerge.
So, in terms of innovation, this cycle of technology adoption is nothing new. This just happens to be the next wave of technologies that we feel are going to have a role with regards to national defense and security. Again, these technologies are at varying levels of maturity, and for some of them we can probably start to look at adoption, but for others, it may take a bit more time.
As I said earlier, we need to be working with university research labs as well as private industry and nationally sponsored government research to stay abreast of the latest developments with each of these emerging technologies for future adoption. This kind of innovation is very much where the Allies are going nationally and therefore it’s beholden upon us to make sure as an Alliance we keep up with that.
It seems like these technologies reflect an expanding focus in NATO to encompass new threats such as hack state-sponsored groups such as Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, and others. Has cyberwarfare become one of the new battlegrounds of the 21st century, and how is NATO responding to this change?
NATO has been aware of cyberwarfare for quite some time. Back in 2016, Allied Heads of State came up with the NATO Cyber Defence Pledge, which acknowledged that nations will ensure that our cyber infrastructure is secured and defended appropriately.
That’s very much in the context of Article 3 of the Washington Treaty, the founding treaty of the NATO Alliance. Therefore, over the last four years, it’s been very publicly known that NATO has an increasing focus and competency in our cyber-defense capabilities. That’s not necessarily new, and I agree with your assessment that cyber will continue to increase in dominance throughout the 21st century.
From my perspective, it might be more insightful to say that it’s worth remembering that for every cyberattack that is successful like the ones making headlines in 2020, countless more attacks are foiled and don’t get reported upon.
So, I think the discussion of cybersecurity needs to be placed into the context of the incredible skills of our various engineers and operators in the cyber realm and their success in quietly rebuffing attacks regularly. Sometimes an attack gets through, and I’m not downplaying the significance of it. However, in the larger scope of things, the job that the NATO cyber teams do is quite exceptional.
In addition to cyberwarfare, another intriguing area of change is the rise of drone warfare. I think everyone is familiar with the evolution of the Predator aircraft from surveillance to actual warfighting, but I understand that drone ships and tanks are also under development. Is that something that NATO is actively addressing yet, and if so, what kind of role do you foresee drones playing in the future?
The advances we’re seeing with drones is very advanced with airborne ones but somewhat nascent when it comes to land and maritime-based systems. There are some very practical advantages for unmanned & remote systems — such as being able to go places that manned systems can’t, or doing jobs with minimal risk to life or indeed just working at a lower overall cost-factor.
I co-wrote a piece a few months ago in Defense News about unmanned maritime systems where I discussed the cost of a US Virginia-class submarine, which is about $3 billion. As global climate change opens up new waterways, it will be very cost advantageous if we’re able to delegate some of these patrols to unmanned vehicles — and that’s just one example among many.
I also anticipate seeing a greater degree of manned and unmanned teaming in the future, where unmanned systems function in a support capacity while manned systems provide the necessary commands. But it is worth emphasising that today’s drones are an example where the vehicle itself might be remote, but any life and death decision-making remains fully under the control of a human.
However, even in non-combat roles, fully autonomous vehicles are important for surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as autonomous resupply to help solve the last-mile supply challenge and even casualty evacuation.
In a NATO context, there’s an excellent program in existence between allied nations to facilitate multinational collaboration with unmanned maritime systems. This goes back to my point about interoperability and ensuring that unmanned maritime systems can share data and operate in an Alliance setting — and there’s truly groundbreaking work going on in this area at the moment.
Another changing theater is the emergence of space-based threats, which I understand was one of the inspirations for the creation of the United States Space Force. Is this an area that you work with at all, and are you able to tell me a bit about NATO’s position regarding space?
I work alongside other colleagues who focus on our space work, however, NATO does have a space policy and that’s being implemented and there are a couple of core principles in it that are worth highlighting. The first is ensuring that we maintain our responsibilities under international law, and also that our adversaries and competitors recognize international law as well when it comes to space-based capabilities.
Another key area worth mentioning is that emerging capabilities provide a significant opportunity for persistent communications, surveillance, and communications activities. Again, NATO can help provide a level of interoperability between nations in space that might not otherwise exist, which adds value to it.
I think space is a very interesting domain right now, especially when you consider the private sector, which is reducing the cost of space-based capabilities with innovations like shoebox satellites. The cost of these sorts of satellites has reduced exponentially over the last decade, which gives smaller allies with limited defense budgets the ability to acquire space-based capabilities now that the barrier to acquisition has been significantly lowered.
So again, this opens up lots of interesting opportunities for smaller nations to provide capabilities, which perhaps historically they weren’t able to do. As more NATO members deploy space assets, it reinforces the need for strong interoperability underpinned by NATO standards so that data and communications can be shared between allies as required. This is a core role of the Alliance.
Now from a geopolitical perspective, we’re also seeing a shift from asymmetric warfare in the Middle East to what’s being called the “Great Powers Competition” between the United States, China, and Russia to a lesser extent. How does this change affect NATO, and how is that affecting the types & priority of innovation across the alliance?
On a fundamental level, those challenges underline why NATO must continue to adapt and innovate. With regards to China in particular, when we look at the origin of new technologies in academia, the private sector, and government, it’s important to understand where the flows of capital are coming from. This is something we’re seeing with Allied nations becoming much more attentive to recently in terms of financial screening.
Not only do we, NATO, want to foster innovation, but we also need to protect it. If you strip out the geopolitics of this for a moment, this need to protect intellectual property and technology development is something that every company tries to do when developing a new product to make sure that competitors can’t rip you off in the marketplace.
The same need for protection applies in geopolitical terms to technology development and innovation on an international level, and the allies wish to ensure that the very latest innovations, insights, and technologies are protected from both adversaries and competitors.
So, protecting and fostering innovation is something that’s already happening on a national level — and it’s something we’re looking at in more depth in NATO as well with the hopes of perhaps bringing this up to a multinational level. By looking at what the allied members are doing we hope to see if we can use best practices across all 30 nations as a set of guidelines on how to protect those technologies and transfers. That’s one area which I think is probably going to be growing with respect to adversaries and competitors.
Let me close by asking what comes next for NATO — and what comes next for you. I’d especially like to know where we can look for future articles or writing from you, and where we can expect to see you in future headlines on innovation.
I think what comes first for NATO is trying to get back to some degree of normality once we start to see the COVID-19 vaccine roll out across the world. I’m not quite sure what the new normal is going to be, but as an organization, we’ll be working hard to maintain transatlantic defense and security, which 30 countries and a billion people depend upon.
We’ll also be welcoming a new US administration and looking for their thoughts and perspectives on the Alliance — this is a very standard practice for NATO whenever there’s a new US administration. So I think that that’s going to be one of the main focal points in the immediate term.
For me personally, I’m very much struck by the links between modern defense, finance, economics, and technology. I think these subjects are far more acute now than they have been historically.
In the 21st century, we, the national security profession, really do need to understand that intersection of defense, foreign policy, finance, and technology to a level of detail that truly empowers us to lean-in and take advantage of innovations that are coming down the pipe. This is an area that I’m excited to explore in more detail, and I hope to inspire others with some insights later this year.
About Our Guest
Rob Murray is NATO’s Head of Innovation on the Secretary General’s International staff in Brussels. He is responsible for crafting policy associated to Emerging and Disruptive Technologies and innovation writ large.
Rob holds an MA in International Policy and Diplomacy, an MSc in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Management and an MBA from the University of Chicago. Before joining NATO, Rob was a British Army Officer. Learn more about him on his NATO bio page or in the FT story, “From army commander to Nato executive”.
