Army makes wise decision to come to Austin to look for some solutions
The Army has a training problem — one that impacts both troops stationed at Fort Hood, soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan and everywhere in between.
The problem relates to the lack of a training tool that allow soldiers to train together no matter where they are based. Put another way, today civilians can easily play a video game such as “Call of Duty” on an off-the-shelf PlayStation with other players from around the globe. The Pentagon, on the other hand, relies on 1980s and 1990s technology to try to attempt to conduct multibase training exercises, especially at the front lines.
To solve the problem, the Army is turning to the private sector.
Starting Tuesday, nearly 100 companies and many other individuals will be meeting in Austin to try to help the Army solve this problem. The organizations, with expertise in the fields of simulation, gaming, augmented reality and virtual reality, will spend the week helping the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center define the cross-base training problem and frame a potential solution.
The reward? A government contract to build a prototype solution worth up to $10 million that will be awarded this summer.
There are two things that make this effort stand out. The first is the speed in which the process is taking place.
Rather than using the armed forces’ traditional contracting authority, the Army is using a tool called Other Transactional Authority (OTA). Created in the late 1950s to help the United States win the space race with the Soviet Union, OTA addresses one of the biggest barriers to reaching out to innovative companies: the government contracting process.
Simply put, we can’t ask firms — especially small- and medium-sized ones — to become experts in a process that is not cheap, easy or fast. But a contract let through an OTA agreement sidesteps the traditionally lethargic government contracting process, enabling technology companies to rapidly develop prototypes for assessment by the military services.
In this case, using OTA means it will be only 60 days – not 12 to 18 months — between this week’s industry day in Austin to the award of the contract by the Army.
The second is the military’s increased willingness to reach out to entrepreneurial thirdparty experts rather than building its solution in house or turning solely to traditional government contractors. Expertise exists at universities, technology startups, small business and laboratories as well.
These entrepreneurial organizations are the ones creating the new technologies the Pentagon needs but have traditionally not wanted — or needed — to work with the military before. The best innovations will result from having all parties engaged in the solution.
In the case of the Army’s training problem, many Austin area organizations are joining companies around the country to either participate in the industry day, where the Army describes the requirements to solve its current training problem, or in the so-called requirement sprint where companies can provide feedback to the Army and tell them what’s possible.
In addition to local industry giants such as Dell, Accenture and the University of Texas, smaller, leading-edge Austin-based companies such as Offworld Industries and iTexico will be participating.
The latter two are just two examples of entrepreneurial organizations that could be working with the military. There are dozens more around the country. For these firms, working with the Pentagon has been a win-win situation. The company gets exposure and often needed money to keep operating and innovating. The soldier gets the cutting-edge technology he or she needs to fulfill our mission of protecting U.S. interests.
In the end, if we are going to make sure our armed forces have access to the technology they need to complete their missions, then the military will need to use tools like the OTA — and to continue to reach out to firms that traditionally have avoided it.
Re: May 6 commentaries, “What to do about black worshipers leaving white churches”
Seale’s commentary about solutions to black worshipers leaving churches was short on actual solutions and more focused on events 200 years in the past. Seale’s focus on the past belies the reality of today’s churches.
I wonder if he has visited churches in Austin to see if “white control” is still in effect. Also, it’s disappointing that he makes no mention of visiting historically black churches in Austin — such as Ebenezer Baptist — to report what their concerns are. What evidence is there that today there is a problem with black worshipers in white churches?
Seale’s argument might have been stronger if he could point to demographic problems at Shoreline or Great Hills Baptist versus listing general societal issues impacting black communities. Seale should spend time
Re: May 5 commentary, “Herman: Hey, NRA, what are we arming up for?”
I sometimes wonder if Ken Herman is a space alien. I am perplexed by his confusion that the National Rifle Association views the Second Amendment as a right to have arms to use against the government. I learned that in grammar school.
I also learned about the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Battle of the Alamo, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, all of which involved the use of firearms against legitimate governments. If Herman were to study the history of the Second Amendment, he would find the NRA’s view was not alien.
Ken, it’s time to phone home and say goodbye to Drew Barrymore.