DARPA: INTO THE FUTURE DR. FERNANDO (FRANK) L. FERNANDEZ received his B.S. in mechanical engi- neering and M.S. in applied mechanics, both from Stevens Institute of Technology, and earned his Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology in 1969. He was appointed Director of DARPA in May 1998, where he is re- sponsible for the agency’s high- payoff innovative research and development. In 1994 Dr. Fernandez founded AETC, Inc., which specializes in the use of advanced process- ing technologies to improve the detection and identification of underwater and underground hidden objects. In 1976 he founded Areté Associates, an applied research firm. From 1975 to 1976 Dr. Fernandez was a Vice President at Physical Dynamics, Inc.; from 1972 to 1975 he served as a Program Manager for R&D Associates; and from 1963 to 1972 he was with the Aerospace Corporation. Until his appointment at DARPA, Dr. Fernandez was a member of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, where he provided advice to the CNO on a variety of issues. He is a former Director of the Green Foundation, a nonprofit endowment for earth sciences, and is listed in Who’s Who in Science. He is also a member of the New York Academy of Sciences. Dr. Fernandez spoke at the Millennial Challenges Colloquium series on 28 April 2000. The text of “DARPA: Into the Future” follows. JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1 (2001) 29 F. L. FERNANDEZ 30 JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1 (2001) DARPA: INTO THE FUTURE DARPA: Into the Future Frank L. Fernandez I am very happy to be here. I want to focus, after giving a little background on DARPA’s mission today, on some areas where I’d like to continue to solicit help from places like APL, which has the intellectual horsepower that is going to be needed in the 21st century. Some exciting and challenging things are happening at DARPA, and some of the changes that are affecting the DoD are extremely new. First, the threat that we once knew and understood from the standpoint of national security is shifting faster than most of our standard techniques are capable of defining. This is the kind of problem that will be routine in the future. The second factor is the globalization of critical technology. We don’t own in the Defense Department much of the technology that is critical for national security. That’s a big difference. When I was doing research many years ago, we could prioritize: if we didn’t get funded to work on five efforts, we worked on the top four and did the fifth a year or two later. Today we have to respond to challenges from the technology standpoint that other people are driving, a very different model than the one many leaders have been accustomed to. Third, the rules of engagement are changing. Biological warfare allows an individual to wage war, a distinct scenario shift from a nuclear war model where sophisticated engineering skills and machinery are needed. Also, with the emphasis on peacekeeping and coalition warfare, we have partners to deal with constantly. Our Navy can’t just fight another navy. They have to work with other people in a coalition environment. And finally, we have taken technology to a point where we can bankrupt ourselves. So the affordability of technology becomes as important as per- formance. We can’t just ask for the best because we can’t afford the best that technology has to offer. One point made by Peter Drucker1 in a recent book is that change today is the norm, not the exception. Most of us would rather live in a time where predictability and control are the norm. Well if change is the norm—and I think this will be the case for the next 20 years— we have to accept that fact. We really can’t manage change because most of what’s going on is being affected by outside forces that we can’t control. We have to adopt a strategy that lets us stay ahead of change. We have to run faster. Words like speed, flexibility, and adaptability apply. We need to plan in such a way that we can adapt and react to a future we can’t predict. Some wise people over 40 years ago created DARPA, which has really been structured to be the change leader for the Department of Defense—from the space days, to the Internet, to stealth. Some of those changes have become standard and have had incredible effects on the DoD. Looking back to 13 years ago, for example, DARPA started funding work at universities JOHNS HOPKINS APL TECHNICAL DIGEST, VOLUME 22,NUMBER 1 (2001)31 F. L. FERNANDEZ on devices called microelectromechanical systems. They were an oddity. Now, work we are doing in some of our most advanced systems with respect to radars and transmitter/receiver modules, etc., is totally dependent on this technology, which is having a significant impact from the standpoint of weight, cost, and all the things that count when you’re building systems. Significant Sustaining, Performance dependable Radical, gains are constantly being made by looking for change disruptive for defense. MISSION AND APPROACH Investment (time, resources) I have broken down DARPA’s mission statement— Technical Innovation in Support of National Security— Figure 1. The two kinds of innovation are contrasted in terms of performance and investment. into three general areas: 1. Solve national-level problems because it takes patience, the innovation will need 2. Enable operation dominance champions who are willing to go into it for the long 3. Develop and exploit high-risk, high-payoff technology haul. Nuclear submarines were not built in a day. It took National-level problems are those that threaten our a long time to learn how to operate a nuclear submarine national survival. Our responsibilities in this regard force. And if it had not been for certain people in the within the national security environment are not well Navy like Admiral Rickover who had champions in the established. The second area, operational dominance, Congress, the whole concept would have been killed is where we’re looking for ways to solve some of the several times over—by the Navy itself! problems that will help realize the vision of the CINCs Innovation is risky. The first thing that usually and Joint Staff, i.e., we’d like not just to win wars but happens with a radical innovation is that it challenges to dominate military situations. Finally, our core fo- an ongoing business area. Let’s say you’re the CEO of cus—high-risk, high-payoff technology development a pharmaceutical company whose job is pain relief and and exploitation—is really over the long term what has your research lab comes up with a brand new way of brought DARPA continued success. I will be talking providing it. As soon as you start to promote this new about these three areas later in more detail. way of doing business, the vice president in charge of DARPA is DoD’s enabler for innovation. Innova- aspirin sales says, “What are you doing? You’ll be com- tion is much more than invention. It is taking an peting with your own cash cow.” And the answers is yes, invention and using it to change the way business is but soon we won’t be making any money from aspirin done in a large organization. Innovation can be sparked sales and we have to go for a new product. That requires by technical, financial, or operational inventions, but leadership. If the leader doesn’t handle these problems it goes far beyond the initial idea. It means taking the and lets the system take care of itself, the odds are that idea into the operation and using that idea to change the innovation will be killed. the operation itself. People like Dr. Clayton Christen- Innovation also requires dedication, usually from a sen2 of Harvard have argued that there are really two zealot, somebody who will bank their career on it. And kinds of innovation (Fig. 1). There’s the well-planned, so in almost every case where there has been some evolutionary, sustaining innovation, which is where radical innovation that has persevered, you find two you have a road map and, based on this road map, you people: the zealot—somebody who wants to get it change the way you do business in a fairly predictable done—and the champion—somebody in a powerful manner. Most good organizations have such road maps. position who protects the zealot until the innovation The second kind of innovation is radical, disruptive starts to mature. Again, this new way of doing business innovation, where something new happens that initial- may not perform as well as the standard ways that have ly doesn’t fit into and probably doesn’t improve upon been honed down to the last degree. And it’s risky. It’s the current way of doing business. But if this radical risky because it challenges the same organization. It’s innovation can be nurtured, it will eventually far ex- risky because it depends on people. If something hap- ceed the performance of the standard business model. pens to some of the people who are involved, there’s How do you look for and nurture these radical in- a good chance that you’ll be back to square one because novations? First you need patience, because changing innovation is extremely people dependent. the way an organization does business takes time, no For example, you all know about the Arsenal Ship.