UK ACSC 23 Advanced Vocational Stream — Brain Blast
Innovation in Defence: Three Lessons from the Hacking 4 MoD Experience
In November 2019, the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom and King’s College London (KCL) launched the Advanced Vocational Stream (AVS) as part of Advanced Command and Staff Course (ACSC) 23. Over an eight-week programme, ACSC students Simon Gray, Stuart Ker, Cal Lowey, Karen McCullough and Frank Reeves sought to improve the Defence College of Air and Space Operations (DCASO) controller course pass rate using the Hacking 4 MoD (H4MoD) methodology. This blog summarises their experience and highlights three key lessons learned during the programme.
Lesson 1: The initial problem may not be the real problem
“Air Operations (Control) students need effective preparatory cognitive training in order to increase course preparedness and the pass rate in air operations control courses.”
At the start of the programme we were provided with this initial Problem Statement — but what exactly did it mean? And was this really the problem that needed solving? It is often said that to acknowledge you have a problem can be the hardest thing. In our experience, identifying the real problem and the related causes was much harder. In order to do so, we had to:
- Determine who we were trying to help — the beneficiaries;
- Identify the beneficiaries’ pains, and prioritise them;
- Develop value propositions to address the greatest pains.
It was clear early on that we didn’t understand the problem; we needed to get out of the building and immerse ourselves in the organisation. Over eight weeks, we interviewed 125 people from across Defence, industry and academia. Being part of the problem allowed us to gain insights and sparked ideas that we could test. By developing a series of hypotheses we were able to accelerate our understanding and create a minimal viable Product (MVP) to address the problem. Coming from outside the organisation, we were able to cut through the hierarchy and identify the DCASO’s greatest pains; however, during our beneficiary discovery we recognised that:
- Problem statements are shaped by heuristics and biases and may therefore be crafted with solutions in mind.
- Complex organizations experience multiple pains at different levels; the military hierarchy and bureaucratic structure inhibits awareness of pains between groups.
Lesson 2: Failure is frustrating and time-consuming, but free and necessary to achieve product-mission fit
Having established our beneficiaries, we developed value propositions to address their pains. After ranking the students’ and instructors’ pains, we developed our first MVP; an online application to increase knowledge of the Air Operations branch, provide pre-course training, and allow students to practice control techniques before starting the course. We tested the MVP with students using simple diagrams to demonstrate what an application might look like.
Disappointingly, they didn’t like it.
We continued conducting beneficiary discovery by interviewing more broadly. Through this process we were quickly able to pivot to our second MVP; a systems approach incorporating application-based smart learning and meta-cognitive coaching strategies to address student and instructor pains. An initial idea using a napkin sketch allowed us to rapidly test this MVP. Feedback highlighted that our MVP was desirable but was similar to initiatives the DCASO were already introducing; this forced us to go back to first principles and review the problem.
Returning to re-evaluate our value propositions, we used a ‘dotmocracy’ to rank our ideas before pivoting to our final MVP. Our proposal was a selection course which would provide potential recruits with exposure to the branch and test their suitability before they committed to joining the RAF. Our MVP included a deployment strategy involving a low-risk pilot which would validate our solution before DCASO scaled to a full course.
This product adopted a dual-fit approach to address multiple beneficiaries’ pains. By considering the beneficiary workflow, we were able to design a solution which would be deployed earlier in the students’ journey from civilian to qualified controller, which we believed would have the greatest impact. Our final MVP draws upon approaches proven within the RAF and more broadly across Defence and industry. Our experience of MVP development demonstrates the value of the H4MoD approach: our early ideas failed; however, we were able to use the feedback we received to learn, and to inform our subsequent products. Whilst failure was frustrating, it was essential to our eventual achievement of product-mission fit
Lesson 3: Overcoming organisational challenges will encourage better innovation in Defence and unlock H4MoD’s potential.
In the final week of the programme we focused on achieving buy-in and support, developing a deployment strategy, and considering the key activities, resources and partners required to implement our proposed solution. It was during this week that we faced our greatest challenges — resource and culture.
Innovation is an exciting proposition; however, converting an innovative idea into reality is often a significant challenge. Supported by DCASO executives, we offered several workable options for how best to resource a pilot course. We presented evidence which highlighted the level of wasted capital; however, our sponsor explained that Defence financial policies would likely prevent the DCASO from reallocating resource or spending-to-save — perhaps demonstrating how financial delegation restrictions and risk appetite is a barrier to innovation. Despite this challenge, DCASO executives have now found resource to run the proposed pilot — we eagerly anticipate the results!
Whilst we had buy-in from DCASO students, instructors and leadership, we needed to generate support elsewhere in the organisation in order to reduce the impact of potential saboteurs and ensure implementation of our product. The higher we went the more we were exposed to social dynamics that appeared to stifle creative discourse. Some individuals seemed uncomfortable committing an opinion without hierarchical oversight. Others highlighted that the appropriate chain of command had been bypassed. Perhaps if the product had been technology-based, or if our team had been made up of university students rather than military officers, a different response might have been given. Alternatively, our experience could be an insight into a military culture that unknowingly disempowers individuals and opposes change. If this is the case, more work must be done to improve Defence’s approach to organisational innovation and the ways ideas are translated into successful solutions.
Summary
The H4MoD programme has provided us with extremely useful insights into delivering innovation in Defence. By learning through doing, we identified that the initial problem is not likely to be the actual problem and that pains exist across the organisation. We also learned that failing fast is painful but necessary, in order to save resources in the longer term, and that H4MoD has huge potential, but faces challenges when implementing innovation in UK Defence.
