A Gordian Knot is a metaphor for an intractable problem. Today, the United States is facing several seemingly intractable national security problems simultaneously.
We intend to help solve them in Stanford’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation. Our motto of penitus cogitare, cito agere, think deeply, act quickly, embraces our unique intersection of deep problem understanding, combined with rapid solutions. The Center combines six unique strengths of Stanford and its location in Silicon Valley.
The insights and expertise of Stanford international and national security policy leaders
The technology insights and expertise of Stanford Engineering
Exceptional students willing to help the country win the Great Power Competition
Silicon Valley’s deep technology ecosystem
Our experience in rapid problem understanding, rapid iteration and deployment of solutions with speed and urgency
Access to risk capital at scale
Our focus will match our motto. We’re going to coordinate resources at Stanford and peer universities, and across Silicon Valley’s innovation ecosystem to:
Scale national security innovation education
Train national security innovators
Offer insight, integration, and policy outreach
Provide a continual output of minimal viable products that can act as catalysts for solutions to the toughest problems
Simultaneously, each of us was actively engaged in helping different branches of the government understand, react, and deliver solutions in a rapidly changing and challenging environment. It’s become clear to us that for the first time in three decades, the U.S. is now engaged in a Great Power Competition. And we’re behind. Our national power (our influence and footprint on the world stage) is being challenged and effectively negated by autocratic regimes like China and Russia.
GKC joins a select group of national security think tanks
At Stanford, the Gordian Knot Center will sit in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies run by Mike McFaul, ex ambassador to Russia. And Mike has graciously agreed to be our Principal Investigator along with Riitta Katila in the Management Science and Engineering Department (MS&E) in the Engineering School. MS&E is where disruptive technology meets national security, and has a long history of brilliant contributions from Bill Perry, Sig Hecker and Elisabeth Pate-Cornell and others. (Stanford’s other policy institute is the Hoover Institution, run by Condoleezza Rice, ex secretary of state). All are world-class leaders in understanding international problems, policies, and institutions. Other U.S. foreign affairs and national security think tanks include:
We intend to focus the new Center on solving problems across the spectrum of activities that create and sustain national power. National power is the combination of a country’s diplomacy (soft power and alliances), information, military and economic strength as well as its finance, intelligence, and law enforcement – or DIME-FIL. Our projects will be those at the intersection of DIME-FIL with the onslaught of commercial technologies (AI, machine learning, autonomy, biotech, cyber, semiconductors, commercial access to space, et al.). And we’re going to hit the ground running by moving our two national security classes — Hacking for Defense, and Technology Innovation and Great Power Competition (which this year is now a required course in the International Policy program) — into the Center.
We hope our unique charter, “think deeply, act quickly” can complement the extraordinary work these other institutions provide.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR)
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) has been planning, fostering, and encouraging scientific research—and reimagining naval power—since 1946. The grants it made to Stanford that year were the first to any university.
Today, the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps is looking to find ways to accelerate technology development and delivery to our naval forces. There is broad consensus that the current pace of technology development and adoption is unsatisfactory, and that without significant reform, we will lose the competition with China in the South China Sea for maritime superiority.
Rear Admiral Selby, Chief of Naval Research, has recognized that it’s no longer “business as usual.” That ONR delivering sustaining innovations for the existing fleet and marine forces is no longer good enough to deter war or keep us in the fight. And that ONR once again needs to lead with disruptive technologies, new operational concepts, new types of program management and mindsets. He’s on a mission to provide the Navy and U.S. Marine Corps with just that. When we approached him about the idea of the Gordian Knot Center he reminded us, that not only did ONR sponsor Stanford in 1946, they’ve been sponsoring our Hacking for Defense class since 2016! Now they’ve become our charter sponsor for the Gordian Knot Center.
We hope to earn it – for him, ONR, and the country.
Steve, Joe and Raj
Lessons Learned
The Center combines six unique strengths of Stanford and its location in Silicon Valley
The insights and expertise of Stanford international and national security policy leaders
The technology insights and expertise of Stanford Engineering
Exceptional students willing to help the country win the Great Power Competition
Silicon Valley’s deep technology ecosystem
Our experience in rapid problem understanding, rapid iteration and deployment of solutions with speed and urgency
Access to risk capital at scale
Our focus will match our motto. We’re going to coordinate resources at Stanford and peer universities and across Silicon Valley’s innovation ecosystem to:
Scale national security innovation education
Train national security innovators
Offer insight, integration, and policy outreach
Provide a continual output of minimal viable products that can act as catalysts for solutions to the toughest problems
We just completed the eighth week of our new national security class at Stanford – Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition. Joe Felter, Raj Shah and I designed the class to cover how technology will shape the character and employment of all instruments of national power.
In class 1, we learned that national power is the sum of all the resources available to a state to pursue its national objectives and interests. This power is wielded through a combination of a country’s diplomacy, information, its military capabilities, economic strength, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement. These instruments of national power employed in a “whole of government approach” to advance a state’s interests are known by the acronym DIME-FIL.
Class 2 focused on China, the U.S.’s primary great power competitor. China is using all elements of its national power, e.g. information/ intelligence, its military might and economic strength as well as exploiting Western finance and technology. China’s goal is to challenge and overturn the U.S.-led liberal international order and replace it with its own neo-totalitarian model where China emerges as the dominant regional and global power.
The third class focused on Russia, which since 2014 has asserted itself as a competing great power. We learned how Russia pursues security and economic interests in parallel with its ideological aims.
The fourth class shifted our focus to the impact commercial technologies have on the instruments of national power (DIME-FIL). The first technology we examined was semiconductors, and the U.S. dependence on TSMC in Taiwan, for its most advanced logic chips. This is problematic as China claims Taiwan is a province of China.
In the fifth class we examined the impact that AI and Machine Learning will continue to have on the capabilities and employment of DIME-FIL. We heard from the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), the focal point of the DOD AI strategy; and from the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) – a DoD organization that contracts with commercial companies to solve national security problems.
In class six we discussed unmanned systems and autonomy and how the advent of these weapons will change operational concepts and the face of war.
Class seven looked at the Second Space Age, how our military and civilian economy rely on assets in space, and how space is now a contested environment, with China and Russia capable of disabling/destroying our satellites
Pick one of the below questions and answer in approximately 100 words, based on the required readings. Please note that this assignment will be graded and count towards course participation.
What is the U.S. Cyber Command’s doctrinal approach to competing in the cyber domain? Do you agree with the current doctrine? Why or why not? Would you do anything differently?
Of the different types of cyber threats presented in this week’s readings (cyberattacks, PPI and IP theft, and political interference), which do you think presents the greatest threat to U.S. interests and why? What should the U.S do to address that threat? Be specific if your recommendations are for the government or private sector.
Class 8 – GuestSpeaker
Dr. Michael Sulmeyer is a Senior Adviser, USCYBERCOM (Cyber Command). He was the former Senior Director for Cyber at the National Security Council. The former Cyber Project Director at the Harvard Kennedy School-Belfer Center. He was a past Director, Plans and Operations, for Cyber Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Previously, he worked on arms control and the maintenance of strategic stability between the United States, Russia, and China.
Cyber Command formed in 2010 and is one of the eleven unified combatant commands of the United States Department of Defense. It’s commanded by a four-star general, General Paul Nakasone who is also the director of the National Security Agency and chief of the Central Security Service. It has three main missions: (1) defending the DoD information systems, (2) supporting joint force commanders with cyberspace operations, and (3) defending the nation from significant cyberattacks.
Dr. Sulmeyer has written, “A focus on cyber-deterrence is understandable but misplaced. Deterrence aims to change the calculations of adversaries by persuading them that the risks of an attack outweigh the rewards or that they will be denied the benefits they seek. But in seeking merely to deter enemies, the United States finds itself constantly on the back foot. Instead, the United States should be pursuing a more active cyberpolicy, one aimed not at deterring enemies but at disrupting their capabilities. In cyberwarfare, Washington should recognize that the best defense is a good offense.
In countries where technology companies are willing to cooperate with the U.S. government (or with requests from their own government), a phone call to the right cloud provider or Internet service provider (ISP) could result in getting bad actors kicked off the Internet.
U.S. hackers could pursue a campaign of erasing computers at scale, disabling accounts and credentials used by hackers to attack, and cutting off access to services so it is harder to compromise innocent systems to conduct their attacks.”
Our national defense cyber policy has now moved to “persistent engagement.” Defending forward as close as possible to the origin of adversary activity extends our reach to expose adversaries’ weaknesses, learn their intentions and capabilities, and counter attacks close to their origins. Continuous engagement imposes tactical friction and strategic costs on our adversaries, compelling them to shift resources to defense and reduce attacks. We will pursue attackers across networks and systems to render most malicious cyber and cyber-enabled activity inconsequential while achieving greater freedom of maneuver to counter and contest dangerous adversary activity before it impairs our national power.
We just completed the seventh week of our new national security class at Stanford – Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition. Joe Felter, Raj Shah and I designed the class to cover how technology will shape the character and employment of all instruments of national power.
In class 1, we learned that national power is the sum of all the resources available to a state to pursue its national objectives and interests. This power is wielded through a combination of a country’s diplomacy, information, its military capabilities, economic strength, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement. These instruments of national power employed in a “whole of government approach” to advance a state’s interests are known by the acronym DIME-FIL.
Class 2 focused on China, the U.S.’s primary great power competitor. China is using all elements of its national power, e.g. information/ intelligence, its military might and economic strength as well as exploiting Western finance and technology. China’s goal is to challenge and overturn the U.S.-led liberal international order and replace it with its own neo-totalitarian model where China emerges as the dominant regional and global power.
The third class focused on Russia, which since 2014 has asserted itself as a competing great power. We learned how Russia pursues security and economic interests in parallel with its ideological aims.
The fourth class shifted our focus to the impact commercial technologies have on the instruments of national power (DIME-FIL). The first technology we examined was semiconductors, and the U.S. dependence on TSMC in Taiwan, for its most advanced logic chips.
In the fifth class we examined the impact that AI and Machine Learning will continue to have on the capabilities and employment of DIME-FIL.
In class six we discussed unmanned systems and autonomy and how the advent of these weapons will change operational concepts and the face of war.
Today’s class: The Second Space Age: Great Power Competition in Space.
Pick one of the below questions and answer in approximately 100 words, based on the required readings.
Describe America’s space assets and the role of the U.S. Space Force in protecting and employing those assets. As the U.S. Space Force continues to develop, what changes in strategy and/or addition to its portfolio of responsibilities would you recommend?
What is the greatest current threat to U.S. interests in space? What recommendations would you have for the U.S. and its partners to mitigate that threat?
The Space Force was born as a separate service in December 2019. Previously General Raymond led re-establishment of U.S. Space Command as 11th U.S. combatant command, and was for a year the head of both a service (Space Force) and a combatant command (Space Command).
Raymond said a focus for the Space Force is being lean and fast, innovative and unified.
Space was once considered “benign,” largely uninhabited except by the United States and Russia and the Soviet Union. Today it is far more crowded and dangerous. Raymond pointed out that the ability to operate in space is critical not only to protect U.S. security, but also to power the U.S. and global economy, communications, transportation and other essential functions of everyday life.
“Space is clearly a warfighting domain and we’re convinced that if deterrence were to fail, we’re going to have to fight and win the battle for space superiority,” he said.
Our military depends on our assets in space (satellites) for communication, navigation, situational awareness (via photo, radar and electronic intelligence satellites) warning and targeting
Our civilian economy also depends on space assets for GPS and communication
Space is now a contested environment with China and Russia capable of disabling/destroying our satellites
Using directed energy (lasers), cyber, electronic warfare, ground or space-based kinetic weapons
We just completed the sixth week of our new national security class at Stanford – Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition. Joe Felter, Raj Shah and I designed the class to cover how technology will shape the character and employment of all instruments of national power.
In class 1, we learned that national power is the sum of all the resources available to a state to pursue its national objectives and interests. This power is wielded through a combination of a country’s diplomacy, information, its military capabilities, economic strength, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement. These instruments of national power employed in a “whole of government approach” to advance a state’s interests are known by the acronym DIME-FIL.
Class 2 focused on China, the U.S.’s primary great power competitor. China is using all elements of its national power, e.g. information/ intelligence, its military might and economic strength as well as exploiting Western finance and technology. China’s goal is to challenge and overturn the U.S.-led liberal international order and replace it with its own neo-totalitarian model where China emerges as the dominant regional and global power.
The third class focused on Russia, which since 2014 has asserted itself as a competing great power. We learned how Russia pursues security and economic interests in parallel with its ideological aims.
The fourth class shifted our focus to the impact commercial technologies have on the instruments of national power (DIME-FIL). The first technology we examined were semiconductors, and the U.S. dependence on TSMC in Taiwan, for its most advanced logic chips. This is problematic as China claims Taiwan is a province of China.
In the fifth class we examined the impact that AI and Machine Learning will continue to have on the capabilities and employment of DIME-FIL. We heard from the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), the focal point of the DOD AI strategy; and from the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) – a DoD organization that contracts with commercial companies to solve national security problems.
Pick one of the below questions and answer in approximately 100 words, based on the required readings.
Describe how the advent of autonomous weapon systems (i.e. drones) has changed the American way of war to date. What changes would you recommend America adopt as autonomous systems continue to develop?
Pick one domain of war (e.g. air, land, sea, subsea, space, etc.). How does the proliferation of autonomous weapon systems to great powers, lesser powers, or non-state actors (pick one of the three) threaten America’s traditional military advantages in that domain?
Class 6 – GuestSpeakers and Autonomy Panel
This class had seven guest speakers on unmanned systems and autonomy.
(Founded in August 1946, ONR provided support of research at universities when WWII government funding to universities had dried up. Fred Terman, Stanford’s dean of engineering, received ONR’s first research grants for electronics and microwaves. These grants funded the Stanford Electronics Research Laboratory and kick-started innovation in what would become Silicon Valley.) Fast forward to this decade and ONR funded our first Stanford Hacking for Defense classes and is the first funder of the Stanford Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation.
RADM Selby described the role of the Chief of Naval Research, the types of innovation, the role of ONR in capturing new/relevant ideas and pulling them in fast enough to compete with adversaries, but not disrupt the functionality of the Navy.
Our next guest was Maynard Holliday the DoD Director of Defense Research and Engineering for Modernization (5G; Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; Autonomy; Biotechnology; Cyber; Directed Energy; Fully Networked Command, Control, and Communications; Hypersonics; Microelectronics; Quantum Science; and Space). He described the role of his office as similar to DARPA. His 11 principal directors lay out the technical roadmaps for the DoD and help transition the technologies into operational use.
The principal DoD Modernization director for autonomy, Dr. Jaret C. Riddick, then joined us. He helped the class understand the DoD definition of Autonomy, the Lines of Effort the DoD is actively pursuing, and why it was important.
In the Department of Defense unmanned systems and autonomy are moving ahead rapidly. We gave the students a feel for the scope of the activities in two panel sessions.
Panel 1 – Autonomy/Unmanned Systems Research and Engineering
RADM Selby, Mr. Holliday, and Mr. Riddick joined a panel discussion on how their organizations set their research priorities and investment strategies. They discussed:
What time horizon their organizations consider when determining which technologies to invest in
How these investment strategies and time horizons compare and contrast with the same considerations made by China and Russia
What the future of autonomous systems looks like. What the largest gains their organizations hope to make with investments in autonomy
What ethical considerations they take into account when making technology investments Whether China and/or Russia have similar or different ethical considerations. How these ethical frameworks affect America’s ability to compete
Panel 2 – An Application of Autonomy – the Navy Unmanned Task Force
Four other experts on Autonomy in defense joined us for a discussion of the Vice Chief of Naval Operations Unmanned Task Force: Michael Stewart, Director of the US Navy Unmanned Task Force and Deputy Director Integrated Warfare; Bradley Garber, Deputy Director/Principal Civilian Advisor to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations; Dr. Jason Stack, the Office of Naval Research Portfolio Manager for Autonomy; and Dr. Shane Arnott, Chief Engineer, Anduril Industries. They discussed:
The impetus for the creation of their task forces
The biggest challenges and opportunities for integrating autonomy from the private sector to support the DoD
What the future of autonomous systems looks like. The largest gains that their organizations hope to make with investments in autonomy
Where China and/or Russia are making the largest gains with autonomous systems. What threat this presents to U.S. interests
As an entrepreneur at times you forget that being in charge doesn’t mean you have to know everything. When it feels like you’re trapped facing an unsolvable dilemma, and wrestling with a seemingly intractable problem, remember that “getting out of your head” is the personal equivalent of the Lean Startup mantra “get out of the building.”
Learning this was a big step in making me a more effective entrepreneur.
As a young, driven entrepreneur I prided myself on my ability to plan my way out of most business problems. But at times in my career I’d run into a problem I couldn’t solve. Sometimes these problems would keep me up at night worrying, thoughts racing around my head like a tornado between my ears. I’d imagine only the worst possible outcomes, thinking there were only black and white solutions, or no solutions. I’d get trapped in this loop with my wife telling me to “go to sleep,” until I finally passed out anxious and exhausted. At times this went on for days.
If the problems were about corporate politics, I’d show up the next day defensive and ready for a fight. (Relationships with sales versus my marketing department was a typical food fight and problem). If it was a meeting my boss called, I was convinced I was going to be fired (even though I couldn’t think of any rational reasons why). Half the time I’d be amazed to discover the problem or obstacle I had been worrying about didn’t even exist. I had magnified a comment, document, or an interaction, and my imagining the worst possible outcome let it spiral out of control.
It took me a long time to see there was an easy way to break this obsessive cycle and end up with much better options. The key, I found, was getting out of my head and talking to other people.
—
You are not alone
When I was younger, I didn’t realize:
Often, the problems I experienced at work were common problems. Others have these problems now or encountered them before
If others had the problems, then there were solutions or at a minimum, good advice was available
If I had shared that I was stuck, and needed help, lots was available
Not only was this true for problems at work, but even more so at home
1. These were common problems; others had these same problems now or encountered them before
When I was in the middle of trying to solve a problem, it never occurred to me that these problems were not unique to me. I felt they were my exclusively mine and that meant that I alone needed to solve them.
Since I hadn’t run into this problem before I assumed no one else had. (In hindsight this was likely due to my age/lack of experience.) Later in my career, I began to see common problems recur. But at the time, I never considered that others had encountered these same problems.
2. If others had faced these problems, then there were solutions or at a minimum, good advice was available
Here’s the critical opportunity that I missed. There was a whole world of people who went through, or were going through, what I was struggling with. Some of them had figured out how to solve it, some made bad decisions and didn’t solve it, but all had experience in seeing a resolution one way or the other. Some could tell you stories of what they went through, others could tell you what worked or didn’t, and a few had real wisdom to share. And often I would discover what I thought was a critical problem really wasn’t. It wouldn’t end my career, or no one would really care.
3. If I had only shared that I was stuck, and needed help, lots was available
Seek out the advice of others? Ask others for help? The thought never crossed my mind. (See item 1.) And if it had, I would have rejected it. Why? Well a loss of control, admission of failure, loss of stature, embarrassment, etc. I thought I should have all the answers.
Getting out of my head and asking for others for help also required a network of mentors/coaches and advisors. Early in my career I didn’t have any/many. Later I realized how valuable they were. As I began connecting I learned to ask not just about how to solve my specific problem, but also, what did they do when they felt stuck? How did they learn to do this rather than stay in their heads?
When I was an entrepreneur a face-to-face meeting or a phone call was the only way to get advice. That was a barrier to many. Today, the Internet has eliminated most of those obstacles. You can go online and with a simple search find others who have had the same issues you’re wrestling with and read how they solved them.
4. Not only was this true for problems at work, but even more so at home
Like most people, at times I had problems outside of work with personal issues like dating, marriage, etc., that made me distracted and less effective at work. I finally realized that getting out of my head at home gave me space to be more effective at work. However, it’s often even harder to ask for help because of embarrassment, denial, etc. On the other hand, there are entire support communities for non-work issues (psychologists, group therapy, etc.) There are even manuals that describe common psychological problems and their treatment.
Lessons Learned
The “get out of your head” strategy is the personal equivalent of the “get out of the building” mantra of the Lean Startup
Don’t spend a lot of time obsessing. Reach out to mentors, coaches and advisors for personalized advice. Use the web to find generic advice
“Getting out of my head” to seek advice and the wisdom of experience was a big step in becoming a more effective entrepreneur
We just completed the fifth week of our new national security class at Stanford – Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition. Joe Felter, Raj Shah and I designed the class to cover how technology will shape all the elements of national power (America’s influence and footprint on the world stage).
In class 1, we learned that national power is the combination of a country’s diplomacy, information/intelligence, its military capabilities, economic strength, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement. This “whole of government approach” is known by the acronym DIME-FIL.
Class 2 focused on China, the U.S.’s primary great power competitor. China is using all elements of national power: diplomacy (soft power, alliances, coercion), information/ intelligence, its military might and economic strength (Belt and Road Initiative) as well as exploiting Western finance and technology. China’s goal is to challenge and overturn the U.S.-led liberal international order and replace it with a neo-totalitarian model.
The third class focused on Russia, which since 2014 has asserted itself as a competing great power. We learned how Russia pursues security and economic interests in parallel with its ideological aims. At times, these objectives complement each other. At other times they clash, as Russian policy is run by Vladimir Putin and his political institutions.
The fourth class shifted our focus to the impact commercial technologies have on DIME-FIL. The first technology we examined were semiconductors, the oil of the 21st century. The U.S. is dependent on TSMC, located in Taiwan, for its most advanced logic chips. This is problematic as China claims Taiwan is a province of China.
Greg Allen & Taniel Chan, “Artificial Intelligence and National Security” Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center, July 2017. (Read the 7-page exec summary but the whole report is great).
China’s AI Strategy
Jeffrey Ding, “China’s Current Capabilities, Policies, and Industrial Ecosystem in AI” Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Hearing on Technology, Trade, and Military-Civil Fusion: China’s Pursuit of Artificial Intelligence, New Materials, and New Energy, June 7, 2019.
“The Final Report” The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. (Please read the executive summary but the whole report is excellent).
Pick one of the below questions and answer in approximately 100 words, based on the required readings. Please note that this assignment will be graded and count towards course participation.
How would you characterize the geopolitical AI Arms Race? Is an “arms race” the right lens through which to understand this phenomenon, or is there another way to better understand great power competition in the AI domain?
Can the U.S. learn any lessons from China’s AI strategy?
Class 5 – GuestSpeakers
Our speakers for our fifth class were Mike Brown, Nand Mulchandani and Jacqueline Tame.
Mike Brown is the director of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) – a Department of Defense organization that contracts with commercial companies to solve national security problems. Previously Mike was the CEO of Symantec and Quantum.
If you can’t see Mike Brown’s Defense Innovation Unit presentation click here.
Key takeaways from Mike’s talk were that 1) 50 years ago defense-related R&D made up 36% of global R&D. Today, defense-related R&D is 4%. Key technologies needed by defense today are made by commercial companies (5G, AI, biotech, quantum, access to space, batteries, etc.) 2) The top tech companies (Facebook, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple) outspend U.S. prime contractors 11 to 1 in R&D ($70.5B versus $6.2B.)
DIU’s role is to find and then funnel commercial technology into the DoD by prototyping, transitioning, and scaling solutions. They have (by DoD standards) an extremely fast pipeline from problem curation, to evaluating and selecting companies, then prototyping projects and inserting them into DoD programs. AI/MLis one of the six core areas DIU focuses on (along with space, autonomy, advanced energy and materials, cyber and human systems.) DIU AI/ML has three lines of effort: machine Learning predictions, big data analysis, enhanced decision making.
Gamechanger uses AI to tackle a problem only a government could create. The DoD and federal regulations have 10’s of thousands of policies, laws, regulations that tell decision-makers what they can or cannot do. These exist in different places on different networks and change almost daily. Now you could simply type a natural language query that asks, “Do I have the authority do x?” Or, “How can purchase this item quickly?” etc.
Slides 9-14 kicked off the discussion of the geopolitical implications of AI. Given both China and Russia have made a AI a national effort, how will AI impact all aspects of DIME (Diplomatic, Intelligence, Military, and Economic) and national power? What are the impacts of AI created deep fakes? AI automating image recognition of satellite data? AI creating optimal concepts of operations? AI-tuned cyber-attacks? AI cyber security? AI smart/predicative maintenance? etc. Where will we first see its impacts? What will our response be?
AI and machine learning is a critical technology that will impact all aspects of DIME (Diplomatic, Intelligence, Military, and Economic) and national power
Most of the advanced work in AI/ML is happening in commercial companies and universities not the DoD
China and Russia have made AI and machine learning national priorities
The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) exists to find and then funnel commercial technology like AI/ML into the DoD
Modern entrepreneurship began at the turn of the 21st century with the observation that startups aren’t smaller versions of large companies – large companies at their core execute known business models, while startups search for scalable business models. Lean Methodology consists of three tools designed for entrepreneurs building new ventures:
Customer Development – a process for testing those hypotheses outside the building;
Agile Engineering – to rapidly build minimal viable products to test product/market fit.
These tools tell you howto rapidly find product/market fit inside a market, and how to pivot when your hypotheses are incorrect. However, they don’t help you figure out where to start the search for your new business.
Rather than defining markets as existing, adjacent or new markets – or by verticals, technology, demographics, et al. all markets can be described by what job the user wants to get done
Their Jobs-to-be-DoneMarket Definition Canvas make the Lean Startup methodology even better by finding and defining a market up front. Here’s their description of why and how.
Problem – Lean Doesn’t Have a Market Definition Step The Lean Startup methodology asks innovators to interview potential customers within their “market” to discover the customer’s unmet needs and establish a product/market fit. Given the number of interviews to get meaningful data, this can take months.
As innovators deepen their understanding of the customer, they may pivot their product concept, target a different vertical, demographic, or customer activity, or incorporate a different technology into their solution.
Some innovators define markets around a product, e.g. the vacuum cleaner market or the espresso maker market. Others define markets around verticals, e.g. the financial services market or the healthcare market. Or defined around demographics (the people over 45 market), technologies (the brain sensor market), customer activities (the fitness market), and product portfolios (the heavy equipment market).
Here’s the consequence: Depending on how founders originally define their market, making one or more of these changes can inadvertently alter the original market definition, which in turn changes the “market” they are targeting and invalidates the customer needs they have captured.
This creates a recursive process in which the team is simultaneously iterating on the market definition, customer needs, and the value proposition, with no logical way to exit. This circular loop can cause them to churn, pivot, and fail.
Startups would have a greater chance of success if founders could avoid iterating the market they are targeting while at the same time trying to establish product/market fit.
In most cases, innovators don’t create markets; they create products to serve markets. Thus, the market must be defined and validated in the innovation equation before moving to needs discovery and product definition.
What’s Missing? What missing is a process for defining a market that reduces uncertainty, reduces iteration in the effort to establish a product/market fit, and aligns the team around the business objectives and the results.
We’ve spent a good number of years asking ourselves what constitutes the “perfect” market definition. What we have concluded is that a market should be defined in such a way that…
The market definition becomes a constant in the product/market fit equation, not a variable. It does not change as the study of that market unfolds.
It is stable over time. It does not go away when different solutions or technologies come along, thus making it a valid long-term focal point for value creation.
It is unique from any other market, making it distinguishable and unambiguous.
It does not assume a product or a solution. Rather, it is defined in problem space.
It indicates who the targets are for value creation—making it clear which group of people to focus on.
It makes the discovery of customer needs quicker, more effective, and less costly.
It reveals all sources of competition, making disruption and other surprises less likely.
It is relevant to and aligns the entire organization, e.g., sales, marketing, development, etc.
Given this set of characteristics, how should a market be defined?
How should a market be defined? It’s worth remembering that people buy products and services to get a “job” done. A job is defined as a task people are trying to accomplish, a goal or objective they are trying to achieve, a problem they are trying to resolve, something they are trying to avoid, or anything else they are trying to accomplish. More about Jobs-to-be-Done Theory here.
When looking at a market through the Jobs-to-be-Done lens, a market is best defined as: a group of people and the job they are trying to get done.
For example, parents (a group of people) who are trying to “pass on life lessons to children” (a job-to-be-done) constitute a market. As do surgeons (a group of people) who are trying to “repair a torn rotator cuff” (a job-to-be-done), or clinicians (a group of people) who are trying to “diagnose the cause of a patient’s sleep disorder” (a job-to-be-done).
When defining markets with a jobs-to-be-done lens, thousands of unique markets exist. They are stable over time, focus on what people are trying to accomplish rather than solutions, offer a focal point for analysis, and form a foundation for deeply understanding customer needs. Learn about needs through this lens here.
Because the market is defined using “Jobs-to-be-Done” before engaging in the first step of the Lean Startup methodology, the defined market will not change as customer discovery and validation of that market unfolds. This cuts back on the number of iterations and pivots.
Big idea – Even New and Disruptive Markets can all be viewed as “Jobs-to-be-Done” How does “Jobs-to-be-Done” work in new and disruptive markets? For example, people often talk about the cryptocurrency market as a new market, but is it really? It depends how you define “market.”
If you choose to define a market around a new product or a new technology, then, by definition, the “cryptocurrency market” would be considered new. But if you define the same market through a jobs-to-be-done lens, the story is very different, as consumers (a group of people) have for centuries been trying to intermediate the storage and exchange of value over time (the job-to-be-done).
When looking through a jobs-to-be-done lens, cryptocurrency is simply a new offering in a pre-existing market. Similarly, Uber, Netflix, electronic evidence discovery, cloud computing, smartphones, online learning, Airbnb, Spotify, Google Maps and many other products considered disruptions are in fact new offerings in pre-existing markets.
Why does this matter? When conducting needs discovery, potential customers struggle to articulate needs for a product that does not yet exist. But when you ask them about their job-to-be-done, customers can state with precision their needs associated with getting the job done better, making needs discovery faster and more effective.
To help you define your market through this lens, we have created the Jobs-to-be-Done Market Definition Canvas. We want to make this canvas available to everyone who has embraced the Lean Startup methodology and want to take it to the next level.
Instructions for using the canvas are included below, and the canvas can be downloaded here.
The Jobs-to-be-Done Market Definition Canvas is designed to help you define the market you are in or have chosen to serve as [a group of people] + [the job they are trying to get done].
The Market Definition Canvas works for both B2C and B2B applications. While it is optimized to define single-sided markets, it can be used twice to define both sides of a double-sided market. For component manufacturers who sell to OEMs or who are at the top of a long distribution chain, a canvas can be completed for each constituent in the distribution chain, including the end-user, as each constituent has its own unique job to get done.
What is the product/service/idea you seek to innovate? The exercise starts with something you’re familiar with—a product focus. We ask, “What is the product, service, or idea you’re looking to innovate around?” We use this as the grounding point, as the subsequent steps will help transition you from a product view to a jobs-to-be-done view of your market.
2. Job executor determination
Who’s using the product to get a job done? The focus on “jobs to be done” begins with this step. Ask, who’s using your product (or who would use your product once released) to get a job done? The goal is to reveal the diverse set of potential product users. So, list all the categories of people who use or would use the product to extract its value. Keep in mind; we are focused here on the job executors. Do not list out influencers, economic buyers, people who support the product throughout its lifecycle, or other customer types, just job executors.
For example, Bosch used this approach when trying to enter the North American circular saw market (yes, they began with a product-based market definition in mind). They concluded that finish carpenters, framers, roofers, general contractors, electricians, and plumbers use circular saws. Notice they did not use the formal job titles of the job executors; instead, they listed the categories of people who use circular saws.
3. Abstracted job executor
What overarching term can classify all the categories of people using the product to get a job done? Next, define the one overarching term that can be used to classify or describe all people using, or potentially using, your product these people as a single group. Remember, we are defining a market as a group of people + the job-to-be-done. When defining the group of people, try not to use an actual job title. Instead, look for an all-inclusive term that encapsulates all job executors, usually a higher-level, generic term.
The Bosch team, for example, abstracted roofers, framers, plumbers, finish carpenters, etc., into a higher-level category using the term “tradespeople.” In other words, the “group of people” using circular saws was conveniently referred to as tradespeople.
For consumer product goods, the job executors are often referred to simply as “consumers.”
4. Job executor
The group of people (job executor) is defined as: You may have come up with more than one way to describe the “group of people.” Choose a label that fits all types of people using the product, service, or idea you have in mind. For example, you may choose the term surgeons over cardiac surgeons, or tradespeople over tradesmen to be more inclusive. Other examples include educators over teachers, accountants over tax preparers, or consumers over adults.
It is important to define the “group of people” before defining the job-to-be-done, as you will be interviewing representatives of the group to determine, from them alone, the way they define the job they are trying to get done.
5. Function of the product
What “job” does the product/service/idea you want to innovate help the job executor accomplish? Products don’t have jobs-to-be-done; people do. But to uncover the targeted group’s job-to-be-done, it is often helpful to start by understanding what function/job the product you have in mind performs.
Work with your product team, or preferably use customer discovery to go directly to the “group” of people (defined in step 4) and ask: What does/will the product or service we have in mind help you accomplish from a functional perspective? Collect and cull the responses into a single statement according to this formula:
The product will help the group of people [verb] + [object of the verb] + [contextual clarifier (optional)].
For example, a kettle may be used to “heat + water + to the desired temperature,” or a dental drill may be used to “contour + the shape + of a tooth.”
Keep in mind; this isn’t the customer’s job-to-be-done—it’s the function or the job that the product gets done, which is often only part of the job the customer is trying to get done. For example, while people may use a kettle to “heat water to the desired temperature,” the overall job they are trying to get done may be to “prepare a hot beverage for consumption.”
The goal of the market definition canvas is to help innovators uncover the job-to-be-done as perceived by the customer, not the product developer.
6. Other products used and their functions
What other products do people use in conjunction with the product? What “job” does each of the other products get done?To get a feel for the entire job your customer is trying to get done, ask them what other products they use immediately before, while, and immediately after using your product/service.
For example, when tradespeople use a circular saw to “cut wood,” what other products are they using in conjunction with a circular saw? Perhaps they are also using a T-square, a measuring tape, sandpaper, and (or) a pencil.
List the products they use in conjunction with the one you have in mind.
Next, document the functions / jobs that each of these other products gets done for the group of people. Use the same format used previously: [verb] + [object of the verb] + [contextual clarifier (optional)].
The Bosch team, for example, determined through customer interviews that while the function of the circular saw was to “cut wood” (a job statement), that tradespeople were using a T-square to ensure they “make a cut in a straight line” (a job statement), and that they were using a pencil to “mark the cut path” (a job statement).
7. Abstracted job statement
When looking at the market through the job executor’s eyes, what core functional job do they say they are trying to get done? Putting all the pieces together helps reveal the customer’s ultimate job-to-be-done at the right level of abstraction. Assume your product is getting part of a job done. Assume people are using these other products to complete the entire job-to-be-done.
You want to define your customer’s job-to-be-done in a way that includes your product’s function (job) and rationalizes why customers are using all these other products as they cobble together a complete solution. The Bosch team, for example, determined that tradespeople are using a circular saw along with other products so they can “cut wood in a straight line” (the abstracted job statement).
A financial services firm determined that accountants use tax preparation software in conjunction with other products so they can “formulate and execute a tax strategy for a client” (the abstracted job statement).
Defining the market at this level of abstraction allows you to evolve your product over time to help customers get more, and eventually all, of their job done—preferably before competitors do. It offers the innovator a built-in path and vision for growth—tied directly to what customers are trying to accomplish.
Remember, complete steps 5-8 employing customer interviews. Make sure you encapsulate the job of the product you have in mind in the abstracted job statement. If the job of the product is not represented, you have abstracted the job statement to too high a level. Preventing you from capturing customer need statements that will help inform the improvement of the product you have in mind.
8. Customer’s Job-to-be-Done
Now that you have your customer’s job, you can document that job in this box. If you have multiple versions of the job statement, work with job executors to gain consensus on the best version.
With this, the Market Definition Canvas is completed, and your market is defined for you through a jobs-to-be-done lens. Your market = Group of people (Step 4) + Job-to-be-Done (Step 8)
Now you can iterate quickly during your lean innovation process—and more reliably succeed in your market.
To learn more about Jobs Theory and Outcome-Driven Innovation, check out the following resources:
We just completed the fourth week of our new national security class at Stanford – Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition. Joe Felter, Raj Shah and I designed the class to cover how technology will shape all the elements of national power (America’s influence and footprint on the world stage).
In class 1, we learned that national power is the combination of a country’s diplomacy (soft power and alliances), information/intelligence, military power, economic strength, finance, intelligence, and law enforcement. This “whole of government approach” is known by the acronym DIME-FIL. And after two decades focused on counter terrorism, the U.S. is now engaged in great power competition with both China and Russia.
The third class focused on Russia, which is asserting itself as a great power challenger. We learned how Russia pursues security and economic interests in parallel with its ideological aims. At times, these objectives complement each other. At other times they clash, Putin’s desire to restore Russia into a great power once again leads to a foreign policy that is opposite the interests of the Russia people. As Putin himself has said, “The collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century,” and that quote offers a window to his worldview as he tries to remake Russia into a great power once again.”
Having covered the elements of national power (DIME-FIL) and China and Russia, the class now shifts to the impact commercial technologies have on DIME-FIL. Today’s topic – Semiconductors.
Optional Rebecca S. Lowen, Creating the Cold War University [Great book if you want to learn more about Stanford’s military-industrial complex origins. Not required for class.]
Pick one of the below questions and answer in approximately 100 words, based on the required readings. Please note that this assignment will be graded and count towards course participation.
Describe the roles of Fred Terman, William Shockley, and Fairchild Semiconductor in the genesis of Silicon Valley. Who had a greater role in creating Silicon Valley, Fred Terman or the Traitorous Eight?
How would you characterize China’s attempt to catch-up in the semiconductor industry? Do you think China can credibly catch TSMC (without an invasion of Taiwan)? Why or why not?
Discussion Questions
Put yourself in the shoes of Mark Liu, chairman of TSMC: Do you view China as more of a competitor or customer – and why?
Now imagine you are the NSC Senior Director with responsibility for technology strategy. What’s the first thing the U.S. Gov’t should do regarding semiconductors?
Class 4: Guest Speaker Our guest speaker for our fourth class was John Hurley, former Member of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, an expert on semiconductors and supply chains, and former Captain, U.S. Army.
Slide 4. The critical role of semiconductors in great power competition. Both our commercial and military systems are dependent on semiconductors. China spends more on semiconductor imports than it does on oil. We framed the advances in technology as part of the 4th industrial revolution. Slides 5-7. We reminded the students of the role the DoD and IC played at Stanford turning it into an outward-facing university, which kick-started technology entrepreneurship here in Silicon Valley.
Slides 9-11 Dual-use technology. For the first time in 75 years, federal labs and our prime contractors are no longer leading innovation in many critical technologies including AI, machine learning, autonomy, biotech, commercial access to space, etc. Rapid advances in these areas are now happening via commercial firms – many in China. This is a radical change in where advanced technology comes from. In the U.S., the government is painfully learning how to reorient its requirements and acquisition process to buy these commercial, off-the-shelf technologies. (Products that are sold commercially and to the DoD are called “dual-use.”)
Slide 15. Semiconductor industry. We began a deep dive into semiconductors by drawing the map of the semiconductor industry (Slides 3-15 from this required reading.) Five companies provide the majority of the wafer fab equipment needed to make chips. TSMC is the leading fab for manufacturing logic chips. (Slides 32-33 from this required reading.) Of the 29 new fabs starting construction in 2021-22, over half are in China and Taiwan.
Slide 16. TSMC Case. We took the class through the TSMC case study and mapped out the roles and interests of TSMC, China, Intel, and the U.S. Slides 17-18. We discussed China’s drive for semiconductor independence, U.S. export controls on Huawei (why and its consequences,) the various constituencies of a U.S. semiconductor policy (Commerce Department, DoD, U.S. chip makers, U.S. semi equipment suppliers, etc.), whether TSMC’s success makes Taiwan more or less secure, given China’s goals of reunification with Taiwan.
Slide 19-20. Policy. How do decision makers formulate policy? Does it start by asking “What problem do we want to solve?” Using semiconductors as an example, is it China’s access to U.S. technology? Or is it China embedding this advanced U.S.-designed technology into their military systems? Or what happens to TSMC and Western access to advanced technology if China quarantines or invades Taiwan?
How do policy makers select and narrow a problem? Is it based on the value the policy adds for identified stakeholders? Is it a personal passion/interest? Specifically for China and semiconductors, what are potential solution ideas? Export controls? Stronger CFIUS regulations? How do you take into account stakeholder feedback (DoD, Commerce Department, commercial firms)? And once you create a policy, how do you effectively implement it?
Slide 21 -23. Class midterm assignment: Assume you’re a policy maker. Write a 2,000-word policy memo that describes how a U.S. competitor is using a specific technology (semiconductors, AI, autonomy, cyber, etc.) to counter U.S. interests. Propose how the U.S. should respond.
Slides 25- 32 Group Projects. We had several teams talk about their learnings from their out-of-the building interviews. Team ShortCircuit (Slide 29) is working on how the U.S. should improve its ability to design and produce semiconductors, and develop and retain relevant talent. They heard from a professor that the ratio of Stanford students taking software versus hardware courses was 10-to-1 software, a complete reversal from decades ago. We discussed whether 1) that was true or just anecdotal 2) if true, was it the same in other research universities, 3) why it happened (software startups are getting funded at obscene valuations)? 4) and what kind of incentives and policies would be needed to change that, and 5) where in the value chain those might be most effective (students, venture capitalists, government, etc.)
Get the Podcasts for Free