STAFF: So, I think we should just launch kind of into the discussion and the questions. We only have 15 minutes. We're doing it on record. Everybody's recording. I think, Patrick, you really had the broad scope questions kind of on the trip so we'll start with you.
PATRICK TUCKER, DEFENSE ONE: Sure. So, just watching the interplay over the course of the trip, I heard a lot of people sitting in roundtables complain about some of the same things that people were complaining about for years with the Defense Department from the non-traditional side, you know, Byzantine contracting and unpredictability of DOD funding, particularly for startups, over classification, people hate that stuff. So, what are the things you are doing about those concerns now that are different? What are the things you want to start doing this year? And what will be your measures for success?
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE KATHLEEN HICKS: Yeah, so I think the -- I'm not sure where -- you know, my view isn't like I'm gonna magically unlock, you know, special secret approaches that haven't been touched before. I think it's more about how you start to shift the incentives, are you coming at the right time to solve some of these problems? So, timing can be a lot of it. I think we're at a really good time. There's a lot of bipartisan support, there's a lot of concern over the environment, and support for innovation. We already gotten things like middle-tier acquisition authority, you know, a range of authorities on the hiring side, which we've talked a little bit about over the course of the couple of days, to go after different ways to cut through, you know, hiring backups. You now have this explosion in entities within DOD that didn't exist a decade ago.
So, I think the real challenges are how do you surface the best ideas, demonstrate that they return, and scale them? So, again, there's nothing magical about that. That's those ideas, I think, are coming through with regard to areas of partnership, workforce, internal workforce challenges, and acquisition reform, frankly. So, some of the things we're doing -- let's go backwards there. So, on acquisition reform, as I said, the hard work on the authorities has been done on middle-tier acquisition. Now, what we have to do is demonstrate that we know how to use those authorities and we can create effects. So, let me give you an example. This is gonna be a long answer, I'm sorry.
Q: That's good. This is great.
DR. HICKS: Yes, a really big question.
DR. HICKS: So, let me talk about a big area there to prove out that we know how to use these authorities that have been given to us. We have this Pathfinders Initiative this year, picking areas that are aligned to the most important areas to us, to the U.S. So you can look at command and control, joint fires, contested logistics, things that line up to what we know are challenges or potential advantages for the U.S.
And we're going after we have working groups now underway to identify a series of things that they can move in a year. I'm asking for feedback on milestones you can show me in a year and we can turn in the 24th cycle when the budget goes up on the Hill next February.
To say, "You gave us these authorities. We know we have to move faster. Here are the following programs we've picked in these areas that are important to the warfighter and here's what we did. And here's where you can help us, timely appropriations, and things like that." Okay, so that's our Capability Pathfinders approach is one example. And again, it's less about big new acquisition reform pushes on the Hill -- it's more about, "Hey, there have been a million acquisition reform groups and changes. Now, let's show we can prove it out."
On partnerships, I think our biggest challenge there is mapping that ecosystem. Probably ecosystem is the most overused word of the trip potentially. But, you know, I've stood up the innovation steering group that Heidi Shyu oversees, that's cross-departmental, and the website that was mentioned this morning is actually the website that they're going to put out live that will demonstrate -- it will show to any, a researcher, a company, what that universe is, the 45-plus different organizations in DOD that use innovation somewhere in their branding or mission statement and start to show, "Hey, well, what does that mean for them? What are they actually innovating on? What are their key maybe issue areas that are of highest importance to the climate? Is it hypersonic systems? You know, is it basic research? And, you know, where -- how to identify that universe? I think that's kind of like the front door piece that SpaceWorks pointed to.
So, you can see in these pieces coming from the bottom up, what I'm trying to do is not crush that innovation and that ability to have lots of different approaches, but to illuminate that, and create transparency, and thus, both through the mapping and through the ISG to have a venue of governance approach that is able to look across and pick and then promulgate strong approaches. And by the way, that's where the military innovation also works very well, a lot of disparate, you know, innovative pieces, but you have to be able to build joint doctrine and spread it across. So, it's a very similar kind of approach.
And then I think -- so, it's kind of the -- the partnerships. The workforce piece, I think, is the hardest, and it goes through everything, it goes through the acquisition workforce itself, you heard a lot about that. It goes across our STEM talent, how we recruit and retain STEM talent, even if it's -- there's sort of the STEM talent that you need on the research and engineering side, but then there's the STEM-savvy, tech-savvy piece throughout the Department.
So, that's an initiative for this year, and that's part of why we're on this trip that Colleen who's sitting right back there is leading. And we're gonna build off a lot. The DIB, the Defense Innovation Board, has done a lot of past research on that, which is why Colleen, who's the Federal officer for that, is able to pull forward, I think, a lot of the research that's already been done to-date and good ideas and start to get some of those into test. So that would be my broad answer.
And everything -- you're right, everything we're hearing, that's a good news thing -- that we're hearing the same problem statements, so we know we know the problem. It's the solution set that seems quite elusive. And I think we're just going to have to keep going after those big-scaled incentive-structure approaches to try to get after them.
TUCKER: Okay. I have follow-ups but I'll let you guys go because I don't want to eat up all the time.
DR. HICKS: Yeah, sorry,
TUCKER: No, no, thank you, that's good.
STAFF: Go ahead.
MACK DeGEURIN, GIZMODO: Yeah. I can go next. I'll be really quick. I just -- there are two main areas which I want to touch, which is A.I. strategy and then also climate change as it pertains to the last few days. So, the first part of the A.I. strategy, specifically with autonomous weaponry, this is something that has a lot of pushback in civil society by certain privacy groups and ethical groups. And I just wanna know how you balance the interests there with the interests of maintaining competitiveness internationally and with other -- you know, with all the new threats the U.S. may face.
DR. HICKS: Sure. So, it's like any emergent area of warfare where, you know, the United States has to be grounded in who we are as a democracy and as a people and what our values are if we're going to have a strategic approach. So, by that, I mean, could you be more effective in a very near-term sense, in a battlefield sense if you weren't ethically grounded? I think we're seeing the Russians try to play that out right now in Ukraine, you know, by going after civilian targets, hospitals, things like that, we wouldn't do that.
Well, same on A.I. We want to make sure our approach to A.I. reflects, you know, smart approaches, sure, we want to make sure we understand what A.I. can do for us in terms of both strategy and battlefield advantage, but it has to be within the context of what we believe is the right approach to war, just war approaches, and then again, in our case, with responsible A.I. principles, which I re-endorsed just within the last year on behalf of the Department.
We have heard from partners in Europe, for instance, we have heard from the commercial sector that that approach also has the advantage of being the leading approach, that they're using the DOD approach as a model. So, imagine that kind of world that we're in where DOD is actually a model for a responsible and ethical approach to A.I. What that does for us, it turns out, is it opens up a lot of partnership that a Russia or a China really doesn't have when they're trying to build out their datasets and test their A.I. and build world-class capabilities. They're not able to access because of the disconnect from values what we hope to be able to access by being a leader.
DeGEURIN: Right. If I could, a really quick follow-up to that, so I've -- one of the -- that makes sense, but one of the criticisms I've heard is that a lot of the leading voices, at least in the tech industry, who are influencing strategy in A.I. are people like Eric Schmidt, right? Leaders in the tech industry, who critics will say come from maybe a bias background that doesn't necessarily emphasize the concerns that people have around A.I. How do you make sure those people's concerns are still being heard at the top level?
DR. HICKS: Definite -- well, two ways. The first is making sure our principles are very clear and we're standing by those principles. The second is engaging with that, you know, the broader community.
DeGEURIN: Yeah.
DR. HICKS: So, we have a responsible A.I., essentially, you know, working group that engages with everything from ethicists to folks in the commercial sector and the academic and research community and internationally. So, a lot of the European interlocutors that we have, this is an area of great concern for them. So, we have to make sure that communication channel is open and at a high level. With the standup of our CDAO organization, they will have leadership for all of our A.I. efforts as the vanguard, and certainly, responsible A.I. is one of those priority areas, it was in the last administration, I'll emphasize, in DOD, and it absolutely is today.
DeGEURIN: Okay, absolutely. And then switching gears a little bit, I'm just really curious because climate change has been such a big priority.
STAFF: Well, why don't we let Valerie get in?
DeGEURIN: Okay, thank you.
DR. HICKS: Okay, all right.
VALERIE INSINNA, BREAKING DEFENSE: I appreciate it.
STAFF: And then we'll --
INSINNA: Sorry.
DeGEURIN: That's okay.
INSINNA: Yeah. I kind of wanted to go back to like the topic of innovation. I know we -- innovation theater has been, you know, something that has -- we've discussed a lot over the past couple of days – I’m trying to avoid that. I feel like what I'm sort of still missing from this trip is like, what did you see over the past couple of days that you didn't have -- that you hadn't seen before, that you hadn't heard before, that you're going to take with you when you go back to, you know, the Defense Department and, you know, maybe make some changes or it’ll spur something new or something additive, I guess?
DR. HICKS: Sure. You accumulate knowledge, and the same is true here. So, while some of the themes are very enduring and we hear them lots of times, there are synergies that are building in terms of how to think about the constructive solutions. And I think this morning’s, SpaceWorks-hosted event was one of those sessions where people came to the table with really constructive ideas.
And so, I certainly took from that building on, you know, various rounds with other sectors, other groups, because I do this fairly routinely, starting to build out some ideas of what could actually help. Now, I'm not going to relay what those are right now because I'm still thinking about them. But what I would say is, and much as we talked about on the first day, it's not about trying to find this special thing or as you heard, the young Galaxy guy say it's not looking for the secret sauce. It's really about understanding the incentives that drive the behavior, understanding deeply what the barriers are, not just the symptoms, but really starting to understand those underlying problems. And from that, I am starting to build out some ideas of new approaches that we might be able to pursue in the three areas I've already discussed.
STAFF: I think we got time for one more. I already see Sarah coming in, which is always the sign of…
INSINNA: I just wanted to follow up really quickly about that, like, I -- so, like, you've accumulated knowledge for so many years in this field, though, like, I mean, what sort of like was the additive thing this time that you -- I know that you don't want to unveil what your thinking is about how you go forward, but, like, what sort of -- did -- what was the “a-ha” moment?
DR. HICKS: I don't think I had a single “a-ha” moment. I think what the accumulating point is, is trying to understand the unique value proposition for the government and how that is fitted and ill-fitted to certain solution sets that we have gone after in the past. I think the valley of death is probably the most obvious of those because we talk about it so much.
I think there are going to be aspects of the valley of death that are -- for which the government can come with better solutions. And then I think there are going to be aspects of it where we where we are not well-suited to that. And so, thinking through what could come from the commercial side, you've heard folks talk, of course, about the VC side as an example. But I think that, to me, is becoming clearer and clearer. There will not be government solutions to all of the challenges that the government is facing with regard to how to kind of manage through that full innovation cycle.
That said, I think there's a lot more that we can do. And I mentioned today in one of the sessions the multiplicity of handoffs in our system that are required internally to get something from point A to point B is really striking and hard to imagine an analogous challenge set because of our scale and the way we're structured. And so, getting innovation through that system is especially challenging.
STAFF: Okay. Unfortunately, we got to go.
