Hacking for Defense @ Stanford 2024 – Lessons Learned Presentations

We just finished our 9th annual Hacking for Defense class at Stanford.

What a year.

Hacking for Defense, now in 60 universities, has teams of students working to understand and help solve national security problems. At Stanford this quarter the 8 teams of 40 students collectively interviewed 968 beneficiaries, stakeholders, requirements writers, program managers, industry partners, etc. – while simultaneously building a series of minimal viable products and developing a path to deployment.

At the end of the quarter, each of the teams gave a final “Lessons Learned” presentation. Unlike traditional demo days or Shark Tanks which are, “Here’s how smart I am, and isn’t this a great product, please give me money,” the Lessons Learned presentations tell the story of each team’s 10-week journey and hard-won learning and discovery. For all of them it’s a roller coaster narrative describing what happens when you discover that everything you thought you knew on day one was wrong and how they eventually got it right.

Here’s how they did it and what they delivered.

New for 2024
This year, in addition to the problems from the Defense Department and Intelligence Community we had two problems from the State Department and one from the FBI.

These are “Wicked” Problems
Wicked problems refer to really complex problems, ones with multiple moving parts, where the solution isn’t obvious and lacks a definitive formula. The types of problems our Hacking For Defense students work on fall into this category. They are often ambiguous. They start with a problem from a sponsor, and not only is the solution unclear but figuring out how to acquire and deploy it is also complex. Most often students find that in hindsight the problem was a symptom of a more interesting and complex problem – and that Acquistion of solutions in the Dept of Defense is unlike anything in the commercial world.

And the stakeholders and institutions often have different relationships with each other – some are collaborative, some have pieces of the problem or solution, and others might have conflicting values and interests.

The figure shows the types of problems Hacking for Defense students encounter, with the most common ones shaded.

Guest Speakers: Doug Beck – Defense Innovation Unit, Radha Plumb – CDAO.  H.R. McMaster – former National Security Advisor and Condoleezza Rice – former Secretary of State
Our final Lessons Learned presentations started with an introduction by Doug Beck, director of the Defense Innovation Unit and Radha Plumb, DoD’s Chief of the Digital and AI Office– reminding the students of the importance of Hacking for Defense and congratulating them on their contribution to national security.

H.R. McMaster gave an inspiring talk. He reminded our students that 1) war is an extension of politics; 2) war is human; 3) war is uncertain; 4) war is a contest of wills.

If you can’t see the video of H.R. McMaster’s talk, click here.

The week prior to our final presentations the class heard inspirational remarks from Dr. Condoleezza Rice, former United States Secretary of State. Dr. Rice gave a sweeping overview of the prevailing threats to our national security and the importance of getting our best and brightest involved in public service.

As a former Secretary of State, Dr. Rice was especially encouraged to see our two State Department sponsored teams this quarter. She left the students inspired to find ways to serve.

Lessons Learned Presentation Format
For the final Lessons Learned presentation many of the eight teams presented a 2-minute video to provide context about their problem. This was followed by an 8-minute slide presentation describing their customer discovery journey over the 10 weeks. While all the teams used the Mission Model Canvas, (videos here), Customer Development and Agile Engineering to build Minimal Viable Products, each of their journeys was unique.

By the end the class all the teams realized that the problem as given by the sponsor had morphed into something bigger, deeper and much more interesting.

All the presentations are worth a watch.

Team House of Laws
Using LLMs to Simplify Government Decision Making

If you can’t see the Team House of Laws 2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Team House of Laws slides, click here

Mission-Driven Entrepreneurship
This class is part of a bigger idea – Mission-Driven Entrepreneurship. Instead of students or faculty coming in with their own ideas, we ask them to work on societal problems, whether they’re problems for the State Department or the Department of Defense or non-profits/NGOs  or the Oceans and Climate or for anything the students are passionate about. The trick is we use the same Lean LaunchPad / I-Corps curriculum — and the same class structure – experiential, hands-on– driven this time by a mission-model not a business model. (The National Science Foundation and the Common Mission Project have helped promote the expansion of the methodology worldwide.)

Mission-driven entrepreneurship is the answer to students who say, “I want to give back. I want to make my community, country or world a better place, while being challenged to solve some of the toughest problems.”

Caribbean Clean Climate
Helping Barbados Adopt Clean Energy

If you can’t see the Caribbean Clean Climate 2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Caribbean Clean Climate slides, click here

It Started With An Idea
Hacking for Defense has its origins in the Lean LaunchPad class I first taught at Stanford in 2011. I observed that teaching case studies and/or how to write a business plan as a capstone entrepreneurship class didn’t match the hands-on chaos of a startup. Furthermore, there was no entrepreneurship class that combined experiential learning with the Lean methodology. Our goal was to teach both theory and practice.

The same year we started the class, it was adopted by the National Science Foundation to train Principal Investigators who wanted to get a federal grant for commercializing their science (an SBIR grant.) The NSF observed, “The class is the scientific method for entrepreneurship. Scientists understand hypothesis testing” and relabeled the class as the NSF I-Corps (Innovation Corps). I-Corps became the standard for science commercialization for the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, to date training 3,051 teams and launching 1,300+ startups.

Team Protecting Children
Helping the FBI Acquire LLMs for Child Safety

If you can’t see the Team Protecting Children  2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Team Protecting Children  slides, click here

Origins Of Hacking For Defense
In 2016, brainstorming with Pete Newell of BMNT and Joe Felter at Stanford, we observed that students in our research universities had little connection to the problems their government was trying to solve or the larger issues civil society was grappling with. As we thought about how we could get students engaged, we realized the same Lean LaunchPad/I-Corps class would provide a framework to do so. That year we launched both Hacking for Defense and Hacking for Diplomacy (with Professor Jeremy Weinstein and the State Department) at Stanford. The Department of Defense adopted and scaled Hacking for Defense across 60 universities while Hacking for Diplomacy is offered at  JMU and  RIT  –, sponsored by the Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security (see here).

Team L Infinity
Improving Satellite Tasking

If you can’t see the Team L∞ 2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Team L∞ slides, click here

Goals for the Hacking for Defense Class
Our primary goal was to teach students Lean Innovation methods while they engaged in national public service. Today if college students want to give back to their country, they think of Teach for America, the Peace Corps, or AmeriCorps or perhaps the US Digital Service or the GSA’s 18F. Few consider opportunities to make the world safer with the Department of Defense, Intelligence community or other government agencies.

In the class we saw that students could learn about the nation’s threats and security challenges while working with innovators inside the DoD and Intelligence Community. At the same time the experience would introduce to the sponsors, who are innovators inside the Department of Defense (DOD) and Intelligence Community (IC), a methodology that could help them understand and better respond to rapidly evolving threats. We wanted to show that if we could get teams to rapidly discover the real problems in the field using Lean methods, and only then articulate the requirements to solve them, defense acquisition programs could operate at speed and urgency and deliver timely and needed solutions.

Finally, we wanted to familiarize students with the military as a profession and help them better understand its expertise, and its proper role in society. We hoped it would also show our sponsors in the Department of Defense and Intelligence community that civilian students can make a meaningful contribution to problem understanding and rapid prototyping of solutions to real-world problems.

Team Centiment
Information Operations Optimized

If you can’t see the Team Centiment 2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Team Centiment slides, click here

Mission-Driven in 50 Universities and Continuing to Expand in Scope and Reach
What started as a class is now a movement.

From its beginning with our Stanford class, Hacking for Defense is now offered in over 50 universities in the U.S., as well as in the UK and Australia. Steve Weinstein started Hacking for Impact (Non-Profits) and Hacking for Local (Oakland) at U.C. Berkeley, and Hacking for Oceans at both Scripps and UC Santa Cruz, as well as Hacking for Climate and Sustainability at Stanford. Hacking for Education will start this fall at Stanford.

Team Guyana’s Green Growth
Water Management for Guyanese Farmers

Screenshot

If you can’t see the Team Guyana’s Green Growth  2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Team Guyana’s Green Growth slides, click here

Go-to-Market/Deployment Strategies
The initial goal of the teams is to ensure they understand the problem. The next step is to see if they can find mission/solution fit (the DoD equivalent of commercial product/market fit.) But most importantly, the class teaches the teams about the difficult and complex path of getting a solution in the hands of a warfighter/beneficiary. Who writes the requirement? What’s an OTA? What’s color of money? What’s a Program Manager? Who owns the current contract? …

Team Dynamic Space Operations
Cubesats for Space Inspection Training

Screenshot

If you can’t see the Team Dynamic Space Operations  2-minute video, click here

If you can’t see the Team Dynamic Space Operations  slides, click here

Team Spectra Labs
Providing real-time awareness of ..

This team’s presentation is available upon request.

If you can’t see the Spectra Labs slides, click here

What’s Next For These Teams?
When they graduate, the Stanford students on these teams have the pick of jobs in startups, companies, and consulting firms. House of Laws got accepted and has already started at Y-Combinator. L-Infinity, Dynamics Space Operations team (now Juno Astrodynamics,) and Spectra Labs are started work this week at H4X Labs, an accelerator focused on building dual-use companies that sell to both the government and commercial firms. Many of the teams will continue to work with their problem sponsor. Several will join the Stanford Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation which is focused on the intersection of policy, operational concepts, and technology.

In our post class survey 86% of the students said that the class had impact on their immediate next steps in their career. Over 75% said it changed their opinion of working with the Department of Defense and other USG organizations.

It Takes A Village
While I authored this blog post, this class is a team project. The secret sauce of the success of Hacking for Defense at Stanford is the extraordinary group of dedicated volunteers supporting our students in so many critical ways.

The teaching team consisted of myself and:

  • Pete Newell, retired Army Colonel and ex Director of the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force, now CEO of BMNT.
  • Joe Felter, retired Army Colonel; and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania; and William J. Perry Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation.
  • Steve Weinstein, partner at America’s Frontier Fund, 30-year veteran of Silicon Valley technology companies and Hollywood media companies. Steve was CEO of MovieLabs, the joint R&D lab of all the major motion picture studios. He runs H4X Labs.
  • Jeff Decker, a Stanford researcher focusing on dual-use research. Jeff served in the U.S. Army as a special operations light infantry squad leader in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our teaching assistants this year were Joel Johnson, Malika Aubakirova,  Spencer Paul, Ethan Tiao, Evan Szablowski, and Josh Pickering. A special thanks to the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and its National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) for supporting the program at Stanford and across the country, as well as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

31 Sponsors, Business and National Security Mentors
The teams were assisted by the originators of their problems – the sponsors.

Sponsors: Jackie Tame, Nate Huston, Mark Breier, Dave Wiltse, Katherine Beamer, Jeff Fields, Dave Miller, Shannon Rooney, and David Ryan.
National Security Mentors helped students who came into the class with no knowledge  of the Dept of Defense, State and the FBI understand the complexity, intricacies and nuances of those organizations: Brad Boyd, Matt MacGregor, David Vernal, Alphanso “Fonz” Adams, Ray Powell, Sam Townsend, Tom Kulisz, Rich Lawson, Mark McVay, Nick Shenkin, David Arulanantham and Matt Lintker.
Business Mentors helped the teams understand if their solutions could be a commercially successful business: Katie Tobin, Marco Romani, Rafi Holtzman, Rachel Costello, Donnie Hassletine, Craig Seidel, Diane Schrader and Matt Croce.

Thanks to all!

You’re Invited: Hacking for Defense and Lean LaunchPad Final Presentations

Join us for the final presentations of our two Stanford classes this Tuesday June 4th and Wednesday June 5th.

Tuesday = Hacking for Defense

Wednesday = Lean Launchpad

The presentations just get better every year.  Attend in person or via Zoom.

This year AI seems to be part of almost every team.

Zoom link and RSVP for Hacking for Defense here


Zoom link and RSVP for Lean LaunchPad here

Gordon Bell R.I.P.

Gordon Bell passed on this month.

I was a latecomer in Gordon Bell’s life.  But he made a lasting impact on mine.


The first time I laid eyes on Gordon Bell was in 1984 outside a restaurant in a Boston suburb when he pulled up in a Porsche. I was the head of Marketing for MIPS Computer, a RISC chip startup. The entire company (all of five of us) were out visiting the east coast to meet Prime Computer who would become our first major customer. (When Gordon was CTO of Encore Computer he encouraged the MIPS founders to start the company, thinking they could provide the next processor for his Multimax computer.)

My West Coast centric world of computing had been limited to custom bit-sliced computers, HP 2100 and 21MX, Interdata 8/32 minicomputers and Zilog microprocessors. Gordon was already a legend – as VP of Research and Development at Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) he designed some of the early minicomputers and oversaw the creation of the VAX 11-780. His work at DEC revolutionized the computing industry, making powerful computing accessible.

Even so, as we talked over dinner at first I couldn’t understand a word he was saying, until I realized that he had three or four levels of conversation going simultaneously, all interleaved. If you could keep them sorted it was fun to keep up with each thread. By dessert I became another member of the Gordon Bell fan club.

Two years later, on a lunch break in downtown Palo Alto I ran into Gordon again. He was out to attend a Teknowledge board meeting. I invited him over to meet the founding team of Ardent, our new startup, whose founders he knew from DEC. By the end of the day Gordon had joined our team as founding VP of Engineering and another phase in my education was about to begin.

As an entrepreneur in my 20’s and 30’s, I was lucky to have four extraordinary mentors, each brilliant in his own field and each a decade or two older than me. While others taught me how to think, it was Gordon Bell who taught me what to think about. He could see the destination clearer than anyone I’ve ever met. The best part of my day was hearing him tell me about 3 ideas at a time and me do the same back to him. He had an extraordinary instinct for guiding me away from the purely dumb paths that would lead nowhere and nudge me on to the more productive roads. (He had this warm laugh, a kind of a chuckle when he was listening to some of more dumber ideas.)

At Digital Equipment Gordon had developed a heuristic that attempted to predict the evolution of the next class of computers. And when he left DEC he created the Bell-Mason diagnostic to help predict patterns in successful startups. The idea that there was a pattern about startup success and failure would stick in the back of my head for decades and shape the second half of my career. And as he was brainstorming about some of the early ideas about what became his MyLifeBits project I was inspired to start a small version of my own.

For the next 15 years Gordon would help me understand how to think critically about the possibilities over the horizon. Yet at the same time Gordon was looking forward, he was teaching us to respect and learn from the past.

Gordon and his wife Gwen started a computer history museum and by 1983 moved it into renovated warehouse next to the Boston Children’s Museum. In 1986 I spent two weeks making a short movie about the history of high-performance computing at the museum. Gordon and Gwen put me up in their guest bedroom overlooking Boston Harbor and a short walk across the Congress Street bridge to the museum. This not only began my long-term love affair with the museum but also made me realize that computer history and the history of innovation clusters were missing the story of how the military and intelligence community had shaped the trajectory of post WWII technology.

Seven years later, in my next startup, I would end up staying in their apartment again, this time with my wife and two young daughters, to attend the MacWorld trade show. I vividly remember the girls running around their living room decorated with many of the artifacts the museum didn’t have room to display (with Gwen patiently telling them that the Arithmometer and  Napier’s Bones weren’t toys.) For the next few years, we’d return (with the artifacts safely hidden away.)

By the time I started my final startup Epiphany, Gordon was at Microsoft, and he became my most valuable advisor.

Gordon was not only a mentor and inspiration to me, but to countless engineers and computer scientists. It was a privilege to know him.

2004

I’ll miss him.

The Venture Mindset – Worth A Read

Ilya Strebulaev at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and Director of the Stanford Venture Capital Initiative just came out with a book that should be on your reading list – The Venture Mindset.

The books premise is that Venture Capitalists (who were responsible for the launch of one-fifth of the 300 largest U.S. public companies) have a different mindset then that found in the rest of the business world (and I would add in government agencies.) All these startups could have come from inside an existing company—but they didn’t.

The book answers why that’s so. And why are venture firms good at finding start-ups that turn into unicorns – what are the skills that VC firms have that companies don’t? And most importantly, can you/your company learn those skills?

The Venture Mindset is built around 9 key ideas:

If you’re a founder looking to raise capital, this book will help you understand how VC’s are evaluating your company. (I wish I had read this book at the beginning of my entrepreneurial journey.)

If you’re in a large company or government agency this book will help you understand the difference between “fail-safe” bets needed in sustaining the core business, versus “safe-to-fail” bets, needed in creating new businesses and/or disruptive capabilities.

Definitely worth a read.

Secret History – When Kodak Went to War with Polaroid

This part 2 of the Secret History of Polaroid and Edwin Land. Read part 1 for context.

Kodak and Polaroid, the two most famous camera companies of the 20th century, had a great partnership for 20+ years. Then in an inexplicable turnabout Kodak decided to destroy Polaroid’s business. To this day, every story of why Kodak went to war with Polaroid is wrong.

The real reason can be found in the highly classified world of overhead reconnaissance satellites.

Here’s the real story.


In April 1969 Kodak tore up a 20-year manufacturing partnership with Polaroid. In a surprise to everyone at Polaroid, Kodak declared war. They terminated their agreement to supply Polaroid with negative film for Polacolor – the only color film Polaroid had on the market. Kodak gave Polaroid two years’ notice but immediately raised the film price 10% in the U.S. and 50% internationally. And Kodak publicly announced they were going to make film for Polaroid’s cameras – a knife to the heart for Polaroid as film sales were what made Polaroid profitable. Shortly thereafter, Kodak announced they were also going to make instant cameras in direct competition with Polaroid cameras. In short, they were going after every part of Polaroid’s business.

What happened in April 1969 they caused Kodak to react this way?

And what was the result?

Read the sidebar for a Background on Film and Instant Photography

Today we take for granted that images can be seen and sent instantaneously on all our devices — phone, computers, tablets, etc. But that wasn’t always the case.

Film Photography
It wasn’t until the mid-19th century that it was possible to permanently capture an image. For the next 30 years photography was in the hands of an elite set of professionals. Each photo they took was captured on individual glass plates they coated with chemicals. To make a print, the photographers had to process the plates in more chemicals. Neither the cameras nor processing were within the realm of a consumer. But in 1888 Kodak changed that when they introduced a real disruptive innovation – a camera preloaded with a spool of strippable paper film with 100-exposures that consumers, rather than professional photographers, could use. When the roll was finished, the entire camera was sent back to the Kodak lab in Rochester, NY, where it was reloaded and returned to the customer while the first roll was being processed. But the real revolution happened in 1900 when Kodak introduced the Brownie camera with replaceable film spools. This made photography available to a mass market. You just sent the film to be developed, not the camera.

Up until 1936 consumer cameras captured images in black in white. That year Kodak introduced Kodachrome, the first color film for slides. In 1942, they introduced Kodacolor for prints.

While consumers now had easy-to-use cameras, the time between taking a picture and seeing the picture had a long delay. The film inside the camera needed to be developed and printed. After you clicked the shutter and took the picture, you sent the film to a drop-off point in a store. They sent your film to a large regional photo processing lab that developed the film (using a bath of chemicals), then printed the photos as physical pictures. You would get your pictures back in days or a week. (In the late 1970s, mini-photo processing labs dramatically shortened that process, offering 1-hour photo development.) Meanwhile…

Instant Photography
In 1937 Edwin Land co-founded Polaroid to make an optical filter called polarizers. They were used in photographic filters, glare-free sunglasses, and products that gave the illusion of 3-D. During WWII Polaroid made anti-glare goggles for soldiers and pilots, gun sights, viewfinders, cameras, and other optical devices with polarizing lenses.

In 1948 Polaroid pivoted. They launched what would become synonymous with an “Instant Camera.” In its first instant camera — the Model 95 – the film contained all the necessary chemicals to “instantly” develop a photo. The instant film was made of two parts – a negative sheet that lined up with a positive sheet with the chemicals in between squeezed through a set of rollers. The negative sheet was manufactured by Kodak. Instead of days or weeks, it now took less than 90 seconds to see your picture.

For the next 30 years Polaroid made evolutionary better Instant Cameras. In 1963 Polacolor Instant color film was introduced. In 1973 the Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera was introduced with a new type of instant film that no longer had to be peeled apart.

A Secret Grudge Match

To understand why Kodak tried to put Polaroid out of business you need to know some of most classified secrets of the Cold War.

Project GENETRIX and The U-2 – Balloon and Airplane Reconnaissance over the Soviet Union
During the Cold War with the Soviet Union the U.S. intelligence community was desperate for intelligence. In the early 1950s the U.S. sent unmanned reconnaissance balloons over the Soviet Union.

Next, from 1956-1960 the CIA flew the Lockheed U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union on 24 missions, taking photos of its military installations. (The U-2 program was kicked off by a 1954 memo from Edwin Land (Polaroid CEO) to the director of the CIA.)

The U-2 cameras used Kodak film, processed in a secret Kodak lab codenamed Bridgehead.  In May 1960 a U-2 was shot down inside Soviet territory and the U.S. stopped aircraft overflights of the Soviet Union. But luckily in 1956 the U.S. intelligence community had concluded that the future of gathering intelligence over the Soviet Union would be with spy satellites orbiting in space.

Air Force – SAMOS –  1st Generation Photo Reconnaissance Satellites
By the late 1950s the Department of Defense decided that the future of photo reconnaissance satellites would be via an Air Force program codenamed SAMOS.

The first SAMOS satellites would have a camera that would take pictures and develop them while orbiting earth using special Kodak Bimat film, then scan the negative and transmit the image to a ground station. After multiple rocket failures and realization that the resolution and number of images the satellite could downlink would be woefully inadequate for the type and number of targets (it would take 3 hours to downlink the photos from a single pass), the film read-out SAMOS satellites were canceled.

Sidebar– Kodak Goes to The Moon

While the Kodak Bimat film and scanner never made it as an intelligence reconnaissance system around the earth, it did make it to the moon. NASA’s Lunar Orbiter program to map the moon got their Kodak Bimat film and scanner cameras from the defunct SAMOS program. In 1966 and ‘67 NASA successfully launched 5 Lunar Orbiters around the moon developing the film onboard and transmitting a total of 3,062pictures to earth. (The resolution of the images and the fact that it took 40 minutes to send each photo back was fine for NASA’s needs.)

CIA’s CORONA – 2nd Generation Photo Reconnaissance Satellites
It was the CIA’s CORONA film-based photo reconnaissance satellites that first succeeded in returning intelligence photos from space. Designed as a rapid cheap hack, it was intended as a stopgap until more capable systems entered service. Fairchild built the first few CORONA cameras, but ultimately Itek became the camera system supplier. CORONA sent the exposed film back to earth in reentry vehicles that were recovered in mid-air. The film was developed by Kodak at their secret Bridgehead lab and sent to intelligence analysts in the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) who examined the film. (While orbiting 94 miles above the earth the cameras achieved 4 ½-foot resolution.) CORONA was kept in service from 1960 to 1972, completing 145 missions.

Film recovery via reentry vehicles would be the standard for the next 16 years.

SidebarThe CIA versus the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

With the CIA’s success with CORONA, and the failure of the Air Force original SAMOS program, the Department of Defense felt the CIA was usurping its role in Reconnaissance. In 1961 it was agreed that all satellite Reconnaissance would be coordinated by a single National Reconnaissance Office (the NRO). For 31 years satellite and spy plane reconnaissance was organized as four separate covert programs:

Program A – Air Force satellite programs: SAMOS, GAMBIT, DORIAN…
Program B – CIA satellite programs: CORONA, HEXAGON, KEENAN…
Program C – Navy satellite programs: GRAB, POPPY …
Program D – CIA/Air Force reconnaissance Aircraft: U-2, A-12/SR-71, ST/POLLY, D-21

While this setup was rational on paper, the CIA and NRO would have a decades -long political battle over who would specify, design, build and task reconnaissance satellites. The CIA’s outside expert on imaging reconnaissance satellites was… Edwin Land CEO of Polaroid.

The NRO’s existence wasn’t even acknowledged until 1992.

Air Force/NRO – GAMBIT3rd Generation Film Photo Reconnaissance Satellites
After the failure of the SAMOS on-orbit scanning system, the newly established National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) regrouped and adopted film recovery via reentry vehicles.

Prodded by the NRO and Air Force, Kodak put in an “unsolicited” proposal for a next-generation imaging satellite codenamed GAMBIT. Kodak cameras on GAMBIT had much better resolution than the Itek cameras on CORONA. In orbit 80 miles up, GAMBIT had high-resolution spotting capability – but in a narrow field of view. This complemented the CORONA broad area imaging.  GAMBIT-1 (KH-7) produced images of 2-4 feet in resolution. It flew for 38 missions from July 1963 to June 1967. The follow-on program,  GAMBIT-3 (KH-8), provided even sharper images with resolution measured in inches. GAMBiT-3 flew for 54 missions from July 1966 to August 1984. The resolution of GAMBITs photos wouldn’t be surpassed for decades.

CIA – HEXAGON4th Generation Film Photo Reconnaissance Satellites
Meanwhile the CIA decided it was going to build the next generation reconnaissance satellite after GAMBIT. Hexagon represented another technological leap forward. Unlike GAMBIT that had a narrow field of view, the CIA proposed a satellite that could photograph a 300-nautical-mile-wide by 16.8-nautical-mile-long area in a single frame. Unlike GAMBIT whose cameras were made by Kodak, HEXAGON’s cameras would be made by Perkin Elmer.

CIA Versus NRO – HEXAGON versus DORIAN
In 1969 the new Nixon administration was looking to cut spending and the intelligence budget was a big target. There were several new, very expensive programs being built: HEXAGON, the CIA’s school bus-sized film satellite; and a military space station: the NRO/Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) with its DORIAN KH-10 film-based camera (made by Kodak). There was also a proposed high-resolution GAMBIT-follow-on satellite called FROG (Film Read Out GAMBIT) – again with a Kodak Bimat camera and a laser scanner.

In March 1969, President Nixon canceled the CIA’s HEXAGON satellite program in favor of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), the Air Force space station with the Kodak DORIAN camera. It looked like Kodak had won and the CIA’s proposal lost.

However, the CIA fought back.

The next month, in April 1969, the Director of the CIA used the recommendation of CIA’s reconnaissance intelligence panel – headed by Edwin Land (Polaroid’s CEO) to get President Nixon to reverse his decision. Land’s panel argued that HEXAGON was essential to monitoring arms control treaties with the Soviet Union. Land said DORIAN would be useless because astronauts on the military space station could only photograph small amounts of territory, missing other things that could be a few miles away. In contrast, HEXAGON covered so much territory that there was simply no place for the Soviet Union to hide any forbidden bombers or missiles.

Land’s reconnaissance panel recommended: 1) canceling the manned part of the NRO/Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) and 2) using the DORIAN optics in a robotic system (which was ultimately never built) and 3) urging the President to instead start “highest priority” development of a “simple, long-life imaging satellite, using an array of photosensitive elements to convert the image to electrical signals for immediate transmission.” (This would become the KH-11 KEENAN, ending the need for film-based cameras in space.)

The result was:

Over the next two years, Land lobbied against the GAMBIT follow-on called FROG and after a contentious fight effectively killed it in 1971. But most importantly Nixon gave the go-ahead to build the CIA’s KH-11 KEENAN electronic imaging satellite – dooming film-based satellites – and all of Kodak’s satellite business.

Why Did Kodak Go to War With Polaroid?

Finally we can now understand why Kodak was furious at Polaroid. The CEO of Polaroid killed Kodak’s satellite reconnaissance business.

Kodak’s 1970 annual report said, “Government sales dropped precipitously from $248 million in 1969 to $160 million in 1970, a decline of nearly 36 percent.” (That’s ¾’s of a billion dollars in today’s dollars.)

The DORIAN camera on the Manned Orbiting Laboratory and the very high-resolution GAMBIT FROG follow-on were all Kodak camera systems built in Kodak’s K-Program, a highly classified segment of the company. In April 1969 when MOL/DORIAN KH-10 was canceled, Kodak laid off 1,500 people from that division.

Kodak also had 1,400 people in a special facility that developed the film codenamed Bridgehead. With film gone from reconnaissance satellites, only small amounts were needed for U-2 flights. Another 1,000+ people ultimately would be let go.

Louis Eilers had been Kodak president since 1967 and in 1969 became CEO. He had been concerned about Land’s advocacy of the CIA’s programs that shut out Kodak of HEXAGON. But he went ballistic when he learned of the role Edwin Land played in killing the Manned Orbiting Lab (MOL) and the Kodak DORIAN KH-10 camera.

Kodak’s Revenge and Ultimate Loss
In 1963 when Polaroid launched its first color instant film — Polacolor –  Kodak manufactured Polacolor’s film negative. By 1969 Polaroid was paying Kodak $50 million a year to manufacture that film. (~$400 million in today’s dollars.) Kodak tore up that manufacturing relationship in 1969 after the MOL/DORIAN cancelation.

Kodak then went further. In 1969 they started two projects: create their own instant cameras to compete with Polaroid and create instant film for Polaroid cameras – Polaroid made their profits on selling film.

In 1976 Kodak came out with two instant cameras — the EK-4 and EK-6 –and instant film that could be used in Polaroid cameras. Polaroid immediately sued, claiming Kodak had infringed on Polaroid patents. The lawsuit went on for 9 years. Finally, in 1985 a court ruled that Kodak infringed on Polaroid patents and Kodak was forced to pull their cameras off store shelves and stop making them. Six years later, in 1991, Polaroid was awarded $925 million in damages from Kodak.

Epilogue
1976 was a landmark year for both Kodak and Polaroid. It was the beginning of their 15-year patent battle, but it was also the beginning of the end of film photography from space. That December the first digital imaging satellite, KH-11 KEENAN, went into orbit.

After Land’s forced retirement in 1982, Polaroid never introduced a completely new product again. Everything was a refinement or repackaging of what it had figured out already. By the early ’90s, the alarms were clanging away; bankruptcy came in 2001.

Kodak could never leave its roots in film and missed being a leader in digital photography. It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012, exited legacy businesses and sold off its patents before re-emerging as a sharply smaller company in 2013.

Today, descendants of the KH-11 KENNEN continue to operate in orbit.


Read all the Secret History posts here

The Secret History of Polaroid CEO Edwin Land

The connections between the world of national security and commercial companies still has surprises.


December 1976 – Vandenberg Air Force Base, U.S. military space port on the coast of California

As a Titan IIID rocket blasted off, it carried a spacecraft on top that would change everything about how intelligence from space was gathered. Heading to space was the first digital photo reconnaissance satellite. A revolution in spying from space had just begun.

For the previous 16 years three generations of U.S. photo reconnaissance satellites (257 in total) took pictures of the Soviet Union on film, then sent the film back to earth on reentry vehicles that were recovered in mid-air. After the film was developed, intelligence analysts examined it trying to find and understand the Soviet Union’s latest missiles, aircraft, and ships. By the mid-1970s these photo reconnaissance satellites could see objects as small as a few inches from space. By then, the latest U.S. film-based reconnaissance satellite – Hexagon – was the size of a school bus and had six of these reentry vehicles that could send its film back to earth. Though state of the art for its time, the setup had a drawback: Pictures they returned might be days, weeks or even months old. That meant in a crisis – e.g. the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 or the Arab-Israeli war in 1973 – photo reconnaissance satellites could not provide timely warnings and indications, revealing what an adversary was up to right now. The holy grail for overhead imaging from space was to send the pictures to intelligence analysts on the ground in near real time.

And now, finally after a decade of work by the CIA’s Science and Technology Division, the first digital photo reconnaissance satellite – the KH-11, code-named KENNEN – which could do all that, was heading to orbit. For the first time pictures from space were going to head back to the ground via bits, showing images in near real time.

The KH-11/ KENNEN project was not a better version of existing film satellites, it was an example of disruptive innovation. Today, we take for granted that billions of cell phones have digital cameras, but in the 1970s getting a computer chip to “see” was science fiction. To do so required a series of technology innovations in digital imaging sensors, and the CIA funded years of sensor research at multiple research centers and companies. That allowed them to build the KH-11 sensor (first with a silicon diode array, and then the using first linear CCD arrays), which turned the images seen by the satellites’ powerful telescope into bits.

Getting those bits to the ground no longer required reentry vehicles carrying film, but it did require the launch of a network of relay satellites (code named QUASAR (aka SDS, Satellite Data System). While the KH-11 was taking pictures over the Soviet Union, the images were passed as bits from satellite to satellite at the speed of light, then downlinked to a ground station in the U.S. New ground stations were built to handle a large, fast stream of digital data. And the photo analysts required new equipment.

More importantly, like most projects that disrupt the status quo, it required a technical visionary who understood how the pieces would create a radically new system, and a champion with immense credibility in imaging and national security who could save the project each time the incumbents tried to kill it — even convincing the President of the United States to reverse its cancelation.

More detail in a bit. But let’s fast forward, four months later, to a seemingly unrelated story…

April 1977 – Needham, MA, Polaroid Annual Meeting
Edwin Land, the 67-year-old founder/CEO/chairman and director of research of Polaroid, the company that had been shipping instant cameras for 30 years, stood on stage and launched his own holy grail – and his last hurrah – an instant film-based home-movie camera called Polavision.  At the time, you sent your home movie film out to get developed and you’d be able to view it in days or a week. Land was demoing an instant movie. You filmed a movie and 90 seconds later you could see it. It was a technical tour de force – remember this was pre-digital, so the ability to instantly develop and show a movie seemed like magic. Much like the KH-11/KEENAN it also was a complete system –  camera, instant film, and player.  It truly was the pinnacle of analog engineering.

But Polavision was a commercial disaster. Potential customers found it uncompelling and its $3,500 price (in today’s dollars) daunting. You could only record up to 2½ minutes of film. And believe it or not, with Polavision you couldn’t record sound with the movies. The 8mm film couldn’t be played back on existing 8mm projectors and could only be viewed on a special player with a 12” projection screen. There was no way to edit the film. It was a closed system. Worse, two years earlier Sony had introduced the first Betamax VCR and JVC had just introduced VHS recorders that could hold hours of video that could be edited. The video recorders looked like a better bet on the future. Polaroid discontinued Polavision two years later in 1979.

For decades Land’s unerring instincts for instant products delighted customers. However, Polavision was the second misstep for Land. In 1972 at Land’s insistence, Polaroid had prematurely announced the SX-70 camera – another technical tour de force – before it could scale manufacturing. In 1975 the board helped Land “decide” to step down as president and chief operating officer to let other execs handle manufacturing and scale.

But the biggest threat to Polaroid came in 1976, a year before the Polavision announcement, when Kodak entered Polaroid’s instant camera and film business with competitive products.

After the Polavision debacle, Land was sidelined by the board, which no longer had faith in his technical and market vision. Land gave up the title of chairman in 1980. He resigned his board seat in 1982, and in 1985, bitter he had been forced out of the company he founded, he sold all his remaining stock, cutting all ties with the company.

Steve Jobs considered Land one of his first heroes, calling him “a national treasure.” (Take a look at part of a 1970 talk by Land eerily describing something that sounds like an iPhone.)

Meanwhile, inside Polaroid Labs, work had begun on two new technologies Land had sponsored: inkjet printing and something called “filmless electronic photography.” Neither project got out the door because the new management was concerned about cannibalizing Polaroid’s film business. Instead they doubled down on selling and refining instant film. Polaroid’s first digital camera wouldn’t hit the market till 1996, by which time the battle had been lost. 

What on earth do these two stories have to do with each other?
It turns out that the person who had consulted on every one of the film-based photo reconnaissance satellites – Corona, Gambit, and Hexagon – was also the U.S. government’s most esteemed expert on imaging and spy satellites. He was the same person who championed replacing the film-based photo satellites with digital imaging. And was the visionary who pushed the CIA forward on KH-11/KEENAN. By 1977, this person knew more about the application of digital imaging then anyone on the planet.

Who was that?

It was Edwin Land, the Founder/Chairman of Polaroid – the same guy that introduced the film-based Polavision.

More in the next installment here.

Read all the Secret History posts here


Read all the Secret History posts here

Founders Need to Be Ruthless When Chasing Deals

One of the most exciting things a startup CEO in a business-to-business market can hear from a potential customer is, “We’re excited. When can you come back and show us a prototype?”

This can be the beginning of a profitable customer relationship or a disappointing sinkhole of wasted time, money, resources, and a demoralized engineering team.

It all depends on one question every startup CEO needs to ask.


I was having coffee and pastries with Justin, an ex-student, listening to him to complain over the time he wasted with a potential customer. He was building a complex robotic system for factories. “We spent weeks integrating the sample data they gave us to build a functional prototype, and then after our demo they just ghosted us. I still don’t know what happened!”

After listening to how he got into that predicament, I realized it sounded exactly like the mistake I had made selling enterprise software.

Enthusiasm Versus Validation
Finding product/market fit is the holy grail for startups. For me, it was a real rush when potential users in a large company loved our slideware and our minimum viable product (MVP). They were ecstatic about the time the product could save them and started pulling others into our demos. A few critical internal recommenders and technical evaluators gave our concept the thumbs up. Now we were in discussions with the potential buyers who had the corporate checkbook, and they were ready to have a “next step” conversation.

This buyer wanted us to transform our slideware and MVP into a demonstration of utility with their actual data. This was going to require our small, overcommitted engineering team to turn the MVP into a serviceable prototype.

When I heard a potential customer offer us their own internal customer data I was already imagining popping Champagne corks once we showed them our prototype. (For context, our products sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and lifetime value to each customer was potentially measured in millions.) I rallied our engineering team to work for the next few months to get the demo of the prototype ready. As much as we could, we integrated the customers’ users and technical evaluators into our prototype development process. Then came the meeting with the potential customer. And it went great. The users were in the room, the buyer asked lots of questions, everyone made some suggestions and then we all went home. And the follow up from the potential customer? Crickets…

Even our user advocates stopped responding to emails.

What did I do wrong?
In my unbridled and very naive enthusiasm for impressing a potential customer, I made a rookie mistake – I never asked the user champion or the potential buyer what were the steps for turning the demo into a purchase order. I had made a ton of assumptions – all of them wrong. And most importantly I wasted the most precious things a startup has – engineering resources, time, and money.

In hindsight I had no idea whether my potential customer was asking other companies to demo their product. I had no idea whether the buyer had a budget or even purchase authority. If they did, I had no idea of their timeline for a decision. I had no idea who were the other decision-makers in the company to integrate, deploy and scale the product. I didn’t even know what the success criteria for getting an order looked like. I didn’t check for warning signs of a deal that would go nowhere: whether the person requesting the demo was in a business unit or a tech evaluation/innovation group, whether they’d pay for a functional prototype they could use, etc.  And for good measure, I never even considered asking the potential customer to pay for the demo and/or my costs.

(My only excuse was that this was my first foray into enterprise sales.)

Be Ruthless about the Opportunity Costs of Chasing Deals
After that demoralizing experience I realized that every low probability demo got us further from success rather than closer. While a big company could afford to chase lots of deals I just had a small set of engineering resources. I became ruthless about the opportunity costs of chasing deals whose outcome I couldn’t predict.

So we built rigor into our sales process.

We built a sales road map of finding first product/market fit with the users and recommenders. However, we realized that there was a second product/market fit with the organization(s) that controlled the budget and the path to deployment and scale.

For this second group of gatekeepers we came up with a cheap hack to validate that a demo wasn’t just a tire-kicking exercise on their part. First, we asked them basic questions about the process: the success criteria, the decision timeline, did a budget exist, who had the purchase authority, what were the roles and approval processes of other organizations (IT, Compliance and Security, etc.) and what was the expected rate of scaling the product across their enterprise. (All the rookie questions I should have asked the first time around.)

That was just the starting point to decide if we wanted to invest our resources. We followed up our questions by sending them a fully cancelable purchase order. We listed all the features we had demoed that had gotten the users excited and threw in the features the technical evaluators had suggested. And we listed our price. In big letters the purchase order said, “FULLY CANCELABLE.” And then we sent it to the head of the group that asked us for the prototype.

As you can imagine most of the time the response was – WTF?

Figure Out Who’s A Serious Prospect
That’s when the real learning started. It was more than OK with me if they said they weren’t ready to sign. Or they told me there were other groups who needed be involved. I was now learning things I never would have if I just showed up with a prototype. By asking the customer to sign a fully cancelable purchase order we excluded “least likely to close prospects”; those who weren’t ready to make a purchase decision, or those who already had a vendor selected but needed to go through “demo theater” to make the selection seem fair. But most importantly it started a conversation with serious prospects that informed us about the entire end-to-end approval process to get an order- who were the additional people who needed to say yes across the corporation – and what were their decision processes.

Our conversions of demos into orders went through the roof.

Finally, I was learning some of the basics of complex sales.

Justin stared at his uneaten pastry for a while and then looked up at me and said smiling, “I never knew you could do that. That’s given me a few ideas what we could do.”  And just like that he was gone.

Lessons Learned

  • In complex sales there are multiple product/market fits – Users, Buyers, etc. — each with different criteria
  • Don’t invest time and resources in building on-demand prototypes if you don’t know the path to a purchase order
  • Use polite forcing functions, e.g. cancelable purchase orders, to discover who else needs to say “yes”

Is a $100 Million Enough?

This article first appeared in Inc.

Capitalism has been good to me. After serving in the military during Vietnam, I came home and had a career in eight startups. I got to retire when I was 45. Over the last quarter century, in my third career, I helped create the methods entrepreneurs use to build new startups, while teaching 1,000’s of students how to start new ventures. It’s been rewarding to see tech entrepreneurship become an integral part of the economy and tech companies become some of the most valued companies in the world.

What has made this happen is the relentless cycle of innovation and creative destruction of old industries driven by new startups with new tech and new business models (network television replaced by streaming services, Nvidia GPUs versus Intel CPUs, electric cars versus the internal combustion engine, film cameras versus smartphones, programmers versus AI), all fueled by venture capital.


It makes me wonder – are startups still founded by people with a passion for creating something new? Or has the motivation changed to accruing the biggest pile of cash?

When I was an entrepreneur, what got me up in the morning was building something amazing that people wanted to grab out of my hands and use. The thought that I might make a $1 million or even $10 million on the way was always in the back of my head, but that wasn’t why I did it.

I wonder if it’s different for today’s entrepreneurs.

Here’s a thought experiment: What if we told every new entrepreneur that regardless of how successful they were, their total compensation would be capped at $100 million.

How many aspiring entrepreneurs would decide it wasn’t worth starting a company? Would Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, et al have quit earlier? Have picked other careers?

How many would decide it wasn’t worth sticking around after their company was large and successful? (Would that be a bad thing?)

Would entrepreneurship suffer? Would we get less innovation? If so, why?

Would the best and brightest move to other countries?

Then let’s run the same thought experiment with Venture Capitalists. Would they pick other careers? Invest less?

At $100 million would capitalism crumble?  Would we all be, heaven forbid, be “Socialists” or worse, to even have this conversation?

Questions
I’m curious what you think.

Should there be any limit?

If so, why?

Or why not.

What would be the consequences?

Apple Vision Pro – Tech in the Search of a Market

A version of this article previously appeared in Fortune.


If you haven’t been paying attention Apple has started shipping its Apple Vision Pro, its take on a headset that combines Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR). The product is an amazing technical tour de force.

But the product/market fit of this first iteration is a swing and a miss.


I’ve watched other world class consumer product companies make the same mistakes:

  1. Come up with amazing hardware that creates entirely new capabilities
  2. Forecast demand based on volumes of their previous consumer products
  3. Confuse consumers by defining a new category without a frame of reference
  4. Discover the hardware doesn’t match their existing consumer customer base needs
  5. Work hard (read spend a lot of money) on trying to “push” sales to their existing customers
  6. Revenue is woefully short of forecast. Marketing and capital expenses (new factory, high R&D expense) were predicated on consumer-scale sales. The new product is burning a ton of cash
  7. Ignore/not understand adjacent niche markets that would have “pulled” the product out of their hands, if they had developed niche-specific demos and outreach
  8. Eventually pivot to the niche markets that are excited about the product
  9. The niche markets make great beachhead markets, but are too small to match the inflated forecasts and the built-in burn rates of consumer scale sales
  10. Either…
    • After multiple market pivots and changes in leadership, abandon the product
    • Pivot and perserve

Déjà vu All Over Again
I lived the equivalent of this when Kodak (remember them?) launched a product in 1990 called PhotoCD. Kodak wanted consumers to put their film photos on their home CDROM drive and then display them on their televisions. You dropped off your film at a film processor and instead of just getting physical prints of your pictures they would scan the film, and burn them onto a Compact Disc. You’d go home with a Compact Disc with your pictures on it.

I got a preview of PhotoCD when I was the head of marketing at SuperMac, a supplier of hardware and software for graphics professionals. The moment I saw the product I knew every one of my professional graphics customers (ad agencies, freelancers, photo studios, etc.) would want to use it. In fact, they would have paid a premium for it. I was floored when Kodak told me they were launching PhotoCD as a consumer product.

The problem was that in 1990 consumers did not have CDROM drives to display the pictures. At the time even most personal computers lacked them. But every graphics professional did own a CDROM drive but most didn’t own a high-resolution film scanner – and PhotoCD would have been perfect for them – and the perfect launch customer. To this day I remember being lectured by a senior Kodak executive, “Steve you don’t get it, we’re experts at selling to consumers. We’ll sell them the CDROM drives as well.”  (The Kodak CDROM drives were the size of professional audio equipment and depending on the model, costing $600-$1000 in today’s dollars.)

(And when consumer CDROM drives became available they couldn’t play the PhotoCD disks as they were encoded in a proprietary Kodak standard to lock you into their drives!)  The result was that PhotoCD failed miserably as a consumer product. Subsequent pivots to professional graphics users (a segment another part of Kodak knew well) came too late, as low cost scanners and non-proprietary standards (JPEG) prevailed.

So what’s the lesson for Apple?

  1. Apple is trying to push Vision Pro into their existing consumer customers
  2. All the demos and existing applications are oriented to their consumer customers
  3. Apple did not create demos for how the Vision Pro could be used in new markets where users would jump on buying a Vision Pro. For example,
    1. There is proof of demand (here, here and here) of an adjacent mass market, helping millions of home owners repair things around the home
    2. There is proof of demand in industrial applications outside of the consumer space (here.) Every company that has complex machinery have been experimenting with AR for years. Imagine car repair with a Vision Pro AR tutorial. Or jet engine maintenance. Or the entire gamut of complex machinery.

All of these would have been great Vision Pro demos for training and repair. It’s hard to understand why Apple ignored these easy wins.

Getting it Right
Apple’s entry into new markets by creating new product categories –  iPods, iPads, iPhones – is unprecedented in the history of the modern corporation – $300 billion (75% of their revenue) is from non-computer hardware. In addition, they’ve created an entirely new $85+ billion subscription business model; the App Store, iTunes, Apple Care, Apple Pay, Apple Cash, Apple Arcade, Apple Music, Apple TV.

It’s hard to remember, but the first version of these products launched with serious limitations that follow-on versions remedied. The first version of the iPhone only ran Apple software, it was a closed system without an app store, had no copy and paste, couldn’t record video, etc. The original Apple Watch was positioned as a fashion accessory. It wasn’t until later that Apple realized that the killer apps for the Watch were fitness and health. Fixing the technical flaws while finding the right markets for all these products took time and commitment.

The same will likely be true for the Vision Pro. Apple marketers will realize that adjacent spaces they are less familiar with will provide the first “got to have it” beachhead markets. Newer versions will ride the technology wave of lighter, and cheaper versions.

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook has made a personal bet on the Vision Pro. More than any other company they have sufficient resources (cash on hand and engineering talent) to pivot their way to product/market fit in the real markets that need it.

Here’s hoping they find it.

Technology, Innovation, and Great Power Competition – 2023 Wrap Up

We just wrapped up the third year of our Technology, Innovation, and Great Power Competition class –part of Stanford’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation.

Joe Felter, Mike Brown and I teach the class to:

  • Give our students an appreciation of the challenges and opportunities for the United States in its enduring strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China, Russia and other rivals.
  • Offer insights on how commercial technology (AI, autonomy, cyber, quantum, semiconductors, access to space, biotech, hypersonics, and others) are radically changing how we will compete across all the elements of national power e.g. diplomatic, informational, military, economic, financial, intelligence and law enforcement (our influence and footprint on the world stage).
  • Expose students to experiential learning on policy questions. Students formed teams, got out of the classroom and talked to the stakeholders and developed policy recommendations.

Why This Class?
The recognition that the United States is engaged in long-term strategic competition with the Peoples Republic of China and Russia became a centerpiece of the 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy. The 2021 interim National Security Guidance and the administration’s recently released 2022 National Security Strategy make clear that China has rapidly become more assertive and is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open international system. And as we’ve seen in Ukraine, Russia remains determined to wage a brutal war to play a disruptive role on the world stage.

Prevailing in this competition will require more than merely acquiring the fruits of this technological revolution; it will require a paradigm shift in the thinking of how this technology can be rapidly integrated into new capabilities and platforms to drive new operational and organizational concepts and strategies that change and optimize the way we compete.

Class Organization
The readings, lectures, and guest speakers explored how emerging commercial technologies pose challenges and create opportunities for the United States in its strategic competition with great power rivals with an emphasis on the People’s Republic of China. We focused on the challenges created when U.S. government agencies, our federal research labs, and government contractors no longer have exclusive access to these advanced technologies.

This course included all that you would expect from a Stanford graduate-level class in the Masters in International Policy – comprehensive readings, guest lectures from current and former senior officials/experts, and written papers. What makes the class unique however, is that this is an experiential policy class. Students formed small teams and embarked on a quarter-long project that got them out of the classroom to:

  • identify a priority national security challenge, and then …
  • validate the problem and propose a detailed solution tested against actual stakeholders in the technology and national security ecosystem.

The class was split into three parts.

Part 1, weeks 1 through 4 covered the international relations theories that attempt to explain the dynamics of interstate competition between powerful states, U.S. national security and national defense strategies and policies guiding our approach to Great Power Competition specifically focused on the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

In between parts 1 and 2 of the class, the students had a midterm individual project. It required them to write a 2,000-word policy memo describing how a U.S. competitor is using a specific technology to counter U.S. interests and a proposal for how the U.S. should respond.

Part 2, weeks 5 through 8, dove into the commercial technologies: semiconductors, space, cyber, AI and Machine Learning, High Performance Computing, and Biotech. Each week the students had to read 5-10 articles (see class readings here.) And each week we had guest speakers on great power competition, and technology and its impact on national power and lectures/class discussion.

Guest Speakers
In addition to the teaching team, the course drew on the experience and expertise of guest lecturers from industry and from across U.S. Government agencies to provide context and perspective on commercial technologies and national security.

The students were privileged to hear from extraordinary  guest speakers with significant experience and credibility on a range of topics related to the course objectives. Highlights of this year’s speakers include:

On National Security and American exceptionalism: General Jim Mattis, US Marine Corps (Ret.), former Secretary of Defense.

On China’s activities and efforts to compete with the U.S.: Matt Pottinger – former Deputy National Security Advisor, Elizabeth Economy – leading China scholar and former Dept of Commerce Senior Advisor for China, Tai Ming Cheung, – Author of Innovate to Dominate: The Rise of the Chinese Techno-Security State.

On U.S. – China Policy: Congressman Mike Gallagher, Chair House Select Committe on China.

On Innovation and National Security: Chris Brose – Author of The Kill Chain, Doug Beck – Director of the Defense Innovation Unit, Anja Manuel – Executive Director of the Aspen Strategy and Security Forum.

For Biotech: Ben Kirukup – senior biologist US Navy, Ed You – FBI Special Agent Biological Countermeasures Unit, Deborah Rosenblum – Asst Sec of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, Joe DeSimone – Professor Chemical Engineering.

For AI: Jared Dunnmon – Technical Director for AI at the Defense Innovation Unit, Lt. Gen. (Ret) Jack Shanahan – Director, Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Anshu Roy-  CEO Rhombus AI

For Cyber: Anne Neuberger – deputy national security advisor for cyber

For Semiconductors: Larry Diamond – Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution

Significantly, the students were able to hear the Chinese perspective on U.S. – China competition from Dr. Jia Qingguo – Member of the Standing Committee of the Central Committee of China.

The class closed with a stirring talk and call to action by former National Security Advisor LTG ret H.R. McMaster.

In the weeks in-between we had teaching team lectures followed by speakers that led discussions on the critical commercial technologies.

Team-based Experiential Project
The third part of the class was unique – a quarter-long, team-based project. Students formed teams of 4-6 and selected a national security challenge facing an organization or agency within the U.S. Government. They developed hypotheses of how commercial technologies can be used in new and creative ways to help the U.S. wield its instruments of national power. And consistent with all our Gordian Knot Center classes, they got out of the classroom. and interviewed 20+ beneficiaries, policy makers, and other key stakeholders testing their hypotheses and proposed solutions.

Hacking For Policy – Final Presentations:
At the end of the quarter, each student teams’ policy recommendations were summarized in a 10-minute presentation. The presentation was the story of the team’s learning journey, describing where they started, where they ended, and the key inflection points in their understanding of the problem. (A written 3000 word report followed focusing on their recommendations for addressing their chosen security challenge and describing how their solutions can be implemented with speed and urgency.)

By the end of the class all the teams realized that the policy problem they had selected had morphed into something bigger, deeper, and much more interesting.

Their policy presentations are below.

The class is as exhausting to teach as it to take. We have an awesome set of teaching assistants.

Team 1: Precision Match (AI for DoD Operations)

Click here to see the presentation.

What makes teaching worthwhile is the feedback we get from our students:

TIGPC has been the best class I’ve taken at Stanford and has caused me to do some reflection in what I want to do after my time at Stanford. I’m only a sophomore but doing such a deep dive into energy and (as Steve says) getting out of the building, I’m starting to seriously consider a career in clean energy security post graduation.

Team 2: Outbound Investment to China

Click here to see the presentation.

Team 3: Open-Source AI

Click here to see a summary of the presentation.

Team 4: AlphaChem

Click here to see the presentation.

One of my takeaways from the class is that you can be the smartest person in the room, but you will never have as much knowledge as everyone else combined so go talk to people, it will make you far smarter

Team 5: South China Sea

Click here to see the presentation.

Awesome class! … incredible in bringing prestigious guest speakers into the class and having engaging discussions. My background was not in national security and this class really offered an important perspective on the opportunities for technology innovation to impact and help with national security.

Team 6: Chinese Real Estate Investment in the U.S.

Click here to see the presentation.

Team 7: Public Private Partnerships

Click here to see the presentation.

Just wanted to let you know that, as a Senior, this is one of the best classes I’ve taken across my 4 years at Stanford.

Team 8: Ukraine Aid

Click here to see the presentation.

Lessons Learned

  • We combined lecture and experiential learning so our students can act on problems not just admire them
    • The external input the students received was a force multiplier
    • It made the lecture material real, tangible and actionable
    • Lean problem solving methods can be effectively employed to address pressing national security and policy challenges
    • This course was akin to a “Hacking for Policy class” and can be tweaked and replicated going forward.
  • The class created opportunities for our best and brightest to engage and address challenges at the nexus of technology, innovation and national security
    • When students are provided such opportunities they aggressively seize them with impressive results
    • The final presentations and papers from the class are proof that will happen
  • Pushing students past what they think is reasonable results in extraordinary output. Most rise way above the occasion