Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
"Building the Base" - an in-depth series of conversations with top entrepreneurs, innovators, and leaders from tech, financial, industrial, and public sectors.
Our special guests provide their unique perspectives on a broad selection of topics such as: shaping our future national security industrial base, the impact of disruptive technologies, how new startups can increasingly contribute to national security, and practical tips on leadership and personal development whether in government or the private sector.
Building the Base is hosted by Lauren Bedula, is Managing Director and National Security Technology Practice Lead at Beacon Global Strategies, and the Honorable Jim "Hondo" Geurts who retired from performing the duties of the Under Secretary of the Navy and was the former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development & Acquisition and Acquisition Executive at United States Special Operations Command.
Lauren Bedula 00:36
Welcome back to Building the Base. Lauren Bedula here with Hondo Geurts and Schuyler Moore, who is Chief Technology Officer at US Central Command. So excited to catch Schuyler while she's in DC to chat about what she's up to. And Schuyler has such an interesting background, having served on the Hill as a senior defense and foreign policy adviser, spent time at DOD on the Defense Innovation Board and made it to Forbes 30, Under 30 lists. So, lots to talk about today. Schuyler, thanks so much for joining.
Schuyler Moore 01:05
Thank you for having me excited to be here.
Hondo Geurts 01:07
So, Schuyler, we often say with the show, we've got these guests with just the most diverse background, and then I looked at yours, and I think you're the most diverse of all of them due to your time in Afghanistan, time on the Hill, time in DOD, now time at a combatant command. But I'm more interested in what got you interested at a young age of coming into the national security space and, what kind of got you on your way to this remarkable career already.
Schuyler Moore 01:39
It's been a winding path. Certainly. I was interested in foreign policy, generally from a pretty young age. So going into college, I knew that I was loosely interested in that type of topic but was trying to figure out the flavor of work that I wanted to do, and I had the chance to intern at a variety of different places. I took a year off in the middle of school to go and work for a year and got to see the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, and DOD. And it ended with an experience where I worked at a school in Kabul in Afghanistan. And that, honestly, was the place where I knew certainly that I wanted to work on national security, there were, again, a range of foreign policy issues that I was interested in. Women's education was a large one. That was why I went and worked at the school. But when I got there, I discovered that girls couldn't walk to school half the time, sometimes they'd have to be pulled out of school because their families were under threat from the Taliban, there were all of these underlying issues that stopped me from being able to get to this other range of social or economic or other topics that I wanted to get to. I discovered the national security was the core. And so that, to me, was the first problem to tackle.
Hondo Geurts 02:40
And my guess is you didn't have this all mapped out in, in great detail. 15-20 years. I mean, I we often I think some folks as we first get into careers, you know, think, “Oh, you need to have your career plan and have it all mapped out.” And many of us, I think, are more opportunistic and look for chances. Is that what your experience was?
Schuyler Moore 03:04
100%, it was about seeking out perspectives that I thought were important to understand the topic better. So, in the case of Afghanistan, I'd done research on it previously, and I had mentors that were focused on it. But I felt that I would be missing a critical piece until I physically went there. And I met people who lived there and worked there, and just understood that particular perspective. And so, I found a school and I volunteered, I got my visa, I booked my flight, and then I told my parents in that order. But again, that has been the progression of most of my career --seeking out the perspectives that I think I'm missing that will make me better at my job, rather than necessarily having like a 5,10, 20-year plan.
Lauren Bedula 03:46
I'm always amazed. Something that comes up on our show a lot is the importance of being able to translate between different communities. And I'm always amazed at how deep you can go. Technically, you talked about foreign policy as an interest in national security. When did tech come across your radar as an interest?
Schuyler Moore 04:03
In the same way that I found national security, I found Tech because it was at the core of so many of the issues of national security that I cared about. I was looking out into the commercial sector and learning about all of these capabilities that existed, and then turning back to DOD and seeing all these problem sets that clearly could be addressed by tech that existed today, not five years, not ten years from now, but today, and it drove me insane. It drove me absolutely insane. So, you start peeling back layers of “why can I not give this to the person who needs it so desperately right now?” And then you start digging into these issues of acquisition of legacy IT and the limitations that creates of all of these other pieces where it suddenly gives you this very holistic view of the Department of Defense and all of its interesting and complicated facets. But to me, Tech was so central to all the answers to what we were going to have to fight in a war next year, five years, ten years from now that it it's naturally become the core of my career.
Lauren Bedula 04:59
And you've championed it in all your positions, bringing commercial tech or scoping commercial tech to national security. And it is core to national security, as you said, can you talk a little bit about why that's so important, not just to problem solve, but given the national security landscape as well?
Schuyler Moore 05:21
Yeah, I want to preface it with the fact that there was no question that there is still a very important role for DOD internally developed capability. There are certain parts of our mission that are simply too unique, too exquisite, too sensitive to just push out to the commercial sector, that is the case and will be the case for the foreseeable future. However, it is also important to recognize that there has been a fundamental shift in where most of the exquisite technology comes out of these days. And the reality is that the bulk of it comes out of the private sector. Gone are the days where we are the folks that created GPS and all the other key hardware. So much of the technology that we all ride on now,there was such an incredible investment from the US government right after World War Two into the tech sector, that we are now reaping incredible rewards years later. And so, it is a good thing in my mind that so much of this technology is coming out of private sector, but it means that we must fundamentally shift the way that we think about it from the perspective of DOD, we are not the 800-pound gorilla in the room anymore for technology. We are just one of many customers, and we have to treat ourselves that way.
Hondo Geurts 06:23
Yeah, I mean, we often talk about DOD having a shift from industrial exporter to modern networked importer and rapid integrator, right. And doing that means crossing a lot of boundaries. And if you're going to be a great integrator, you've got to have knowledge of what's out there, you got to create the relationships, you've got to seek opportunities when they bring themselves, what are some of the skills that you've either had and relied on or have developed kind of over the years to be one of these, I'll call super connectors that's really good at connecting bunches of different things in new and exciting ways. And, and in some ways, being the master at this, you know, rapid import and integration of tech, as opposed to exporter.
Schuyler Moore 07:12
I think Lauren brought up what the core issue is at the beginning, which is translation, where in so many ways, it feels like there is a language barrier between so many of these communities. Inside of the Department, there was a language barrier between the folks that bring technical expertise, and the folks that bring operational expertise. And then there's a language barrier between commercial sector and DOD writ large. It's just, it truly is as though you speak completely different languages and cannot access the other person's needs or wants. And so, for me, a huge portion of this has just been making sure that I go to all of the relevant communities and listen, and then ask a lot of questions to understand when you say that word, what does that mean to you? Because you say it in one room and all this and everybody understands and is nodding, and you said and another one and everyone recoils and has this completely different reaction. And so being able to translate and help other people understand what is meant by other communities, who all have bits and pieces of the puzzle has been very important.
Hondo Geurts 08:04
Yeah, and I can imagine, you had to learn some new translation skills going to a combatant command, you know, is, is, you know, really impactful player, but not someone who grew up in that particular community. How has that gone for you? And what surprised you the most now, four months into the new position there.
Schuyler Moore 08:25
I mean, to me that’s the reason that this experience was so important and exciting for me to take on was because this particular language, the language of the operator, is, in my mind, the most critical in the Department, and is the one that has the most, the most room for growth, I would say, for the Department to take forward. As it relates to Tech, I think that we are just getting into that we hit there was the early stage of innovation for the Department where it was just about shaking everything loose and saying, “hey, the way that you've always done this for decades and decades might not be the right way.” And then there was “look at all these new technologies and the potential around them,and let’s talk about the concepts around it.” And we have finally evolved to the place where we were saying, "okay, we have the technology, we need to put it into the field.” And so that is the point suddenly, when there are operators saying, “hey, we weren't included in the conversation earlier, we really need to be integrated a little bit earlier so that we can understand and use these tools and adapt them at scale”. And so, for me this experience has been so critical because I am allowed to get that operational perspective, not have it myself, but be adjacent to it with the command in my previous experience with Task Force 59 as well, where finally I can understand what their true needs are. It's not about buying a shiny piece of kit. It's about buying something that helps somebody do their job better or safer. That is the bottom line. And sometimes we forget about that because you think of technology as the end state and not the enabler and being this close to the operational community is such a stark reminder of got it. You guys have real problems you face every single day. This is not about some shiny piece of kit. This is about helping you get your job done.
Hondo Geurts 09:59
And for those listeners out there, Schuyler is the first ever Chief Technical Officer at Central Command. And, a testament to the commanding general there for recognizing that, that's been an issue and an opportunity for him. Certainly, like in special operations where you get that closeness, which allows you to do some things at a much more of a parallel, I would say network approach.
Lauren Bedula 10:26
Since you are in the role, I know, just four months in now, but you've been moving so fast. And you mentioned Task Force 59, what you saw there, do you think the major challenges are issues that can be solved? Through policy, you spent time looking at these issues on the Hill? Or is it more cultural? Can you give our listeners a take on that issue?
Schuyler Moore 10:46
Sure. And I'll first maybe give a little bit of background about what the task forces are in the context of central command. So, we are a combatant command that is focused on the Middle East. And within each of the components for the services, we have task forces that are focused on innovation and technology. So, for Third Army, we have Task Force 39 for Fifth Fleet, we have Task Force 59, and for ninth Air Force, we have Task Force 99, and all of them are doing really exciting and incredible work right now. I think that we've really discovered that in many cases, the authorities exist, it's just about knowing that they're there. And for our role in particular, you know, as a combatant commander, it is not our responsibility to shape policy and to change policy. But we certainly could give our recommendations or our feedback on what is working what is not. And I think a lot of the time, we are simply learning about tools that nobody had known about previously. And then also having conversations about “is this that we cannot do this”? Or is it that it simply has not been done before. And having that conversation with policymakers, having that conversation with our lawyers to make sure that we are conducting this in an ethical and responsible way. Those types of conversations have been so useful and illuminating. And I think we're discovering that we actually can push capability much faster than we have previously. It was just that we weren't using the mechanisms available to us.
Hondo Geurts 11:59
Yeah, and again, so many people think of it or try and catch us as a technology adoption issue. It's much more than that technology, as you said, just one piece. And we often forget about the art of operational innovation, and the art of employing things in new and innovative ways or training, the force and unit that is not just about the kit, it's about the capability. What have you discovered that seeing, you know, being part of one of these Task Force from your position, that it's not just a technology? Is it how do you bring everybody together?
Schuyler Moore 12:35
Absolutely. I mean, what I love about the operational community and the experiences I've had with them is that they will make it work with what they have, you can give them this most exquisite piece of kit, you can give them duct tape and a hand grenade, and they will figure it out one way or another. And that type of attitude, in many ways, I think actually reflects what exists in the tech sector of just that quick moving solid problem: move through, find your next problem, solve it. Move through the culture, and the mindset is similar. Again, it's just making sure that they actually have the language to be able to speak to one another and explain what their needs are and what their challenges are. So absolutely. But then in addition to that, I think that there is a different way of thinking about it related to tech that exists that isn't necessarily being thought about in the defense context, where we talk a lot about defense technology, defense primes, and dual use technology. There are companies that are already working with the Department, I think we collectively could and should do a better job of reaching out to commercial sectors that haven't even thought about defense applications. And the reason that I say that is because we found so many industries that share so many of our problems sets and have spent decades maturing their technologies to the point where we don't even need to then put our own dollars into a lab and solving basic physics problems. They've created solutions that work right now.A perfect example of this is at Task Force 59, we were looking for long endurance UAS and maritime surveillance equipment in general. We found a tuna fishing company that had some really incredible technologies. And I kid you not I worked with tuna fishing companies more than I ever thought I would in this job, because they had incredible long endurance UAS, and they had buoys that were collecting data off the water. And they just had it, it hadn't occurred to them that there would be a different context. But they showed us what they had. And we collectively just gasped because it was so incredible. In the same way the agriculture industry shares so many of the challenges of having a large sparse geography that you have to cover. The mining industry has similar challenges in terms of difficult communications networks that you have to roll through. There are just opportunities to learn from other industries and leverage the technologies that I think we just haven't done as well before.
Lauren Bedula 14:39
It's great to hear you say that and so relevant to the BENS mission because we like to think about looking at best practices in the business communities and how they can be applicable to national security issues, not necessarily just selling in, but how can we learn from the private sector because they're often under the gun to innovate, just like the warfighter. And so, sharing some of those best practices I think is key to what we want to do and, and hearing those success stories too. So, I think it's helpful for our listeners to hear you talk about what works and what doesn't. But I wanted to ask where you sit now at CENTCOM, what are your top priorities for the year, you talked about the importance of making sure the commercial world knows that. So maybe give our listeners a sense of what you care about most today.
Schuyler Moore 15:22
At a very fundamental level, I care about getting the right technologies into the hands of the people who use it as quickly as possible. That is the easiest, simplest way of putting it. A layer down from that is I think, closing the gap between the technologists whether in DOD or outside and the operators themselves, by whatever means possible. That means getting them all into the room to have more general conversations. But even better is if we are putting them in a more operational context where we have exercises, where we have software engineers sitting side by side with folks in a targeting cell who are explaining how they usually go about something, and how manual and laborious that process would be. And a software developer can look at it and say, oh my gosh, I have a tool that will drop your time by 10% by 50%, by 75%. And then there have been cases like that, where you will have something like a computer vision algorithm, where an intel analyst was taking eight hours to review for motion video, and that gets dropped to 45 minutes, because you built the right tool, those types of gains are what you can have by having them sat next to one another. Because otherwise, you have a community like the technology community kind of guessing or what the operators might need. And maybe we'll get it right. But boy, why didn't you just get to that answer a little bit quicker if you just sat directly next to them and asked them about their problem.
Hondo Geurts 16:37
Yeah, it's back to this, you know, moving away from industrial point to point kind of transaction to this network thing. And as you see a lot of these folks that come in, maybe they have some experience with DOD, maybe they don't, first time or maybe there's somewhere in between, what do you have any kind of from your perspective, lessons learned of what works well, and maybe things that these industrial partners coming in, and whether commercial or not, could do better, that would help speed up that process and make it more effective.
Schuyler Moore 17:10
I think patience and humility are required on both sides. Let's put it that way. I think in both directions, it requires a realization of we don't speak the same language. We don't fully understand one another's problem. But we both bring incredible experience that must be recognized and appreciated by the other. I think sometimes in both directions, they underestimate the importance of the others experience or try to push too hard on their own. It doesn't open the space for them to have an open conversation where they're asking the hard questions which will get you to the solution faster. So, that's why I think it's helpful to have roles like mine, like my teams like Task Force, 59, 39, and 99., where their roles are really to dig into that and say, “This is our full-time job. We are going to have those hard conversations. We're going to ask these questions. We're going to bang our heads against this wall until we understand what is the actual value that you're saying your technology would bring.” On the flip side, that's when we can see these companies come to us and say, “Oh, I understand your problem. I finally get it. I thought I kind of understood when I heard PowerPoint, but no, I understand what you mean.” That's what you need to be able to see more maritime geography. Because you have insane amounts of smuggling moving through the region, you have you in one-way UAS attacks that are constantly going on, and you have cluttered radar screens where you need to be able to identify it. So they say, “Now I understand,” but it's about enabling those conversations.
Hondo Geurts 18:27
In a way, though, if we're going to network, it also can't be one person trying to solve all the problems as opposed to working together. So do you have any tips, for either industry or folks interested in this, of how you look at it? And things they could do better in terms of working together to solve problems, as opposed to each wanting to be the one to solve all the problems?
Schuyler Moore 18:51
Yeah, I think that AI is a really good case study on this. So frequently we are promised full stack capability by companies who say they are going to solve all our problems. That they are going to find every single piece of nefarious activity that happens in your region -- above and below the water and on the land. The reality is that they simply can't fit a model that does reflects the reality and precision in what contexts they work particularly well. It frankly makes us look at them with a little bit of skepticism because we know that that's not possible. What we are very interested in is when we see a collection of companies coming to us saying, “Look, we don't have everything, but we are good at this one piece. I can tell you every single time a commercial tanker is doing something that is off, and I will be able to point to you to that every single time.” And someone else will say, “I can tell you every single time somebody has AI spoofing or that their AIS turns off and something is going wrong.” And somebody else will have another piece that comes in that combination with that willingness. Frankly, showing us that you're willing to work with other companies is incredibly valuable to us in many ways. Given how long we have to work with folks and given the conditions we must work in, your ability to be a good partner is just as important as having some exquisite capability that you bring to the table. Again, the breadth of what we have to do is too large for you to have the perfect solution. You simply will not have the one thing that's going to solve all our problems. What we will need you to do is play ball with us and play ball with other companies. Your ability to do that is more important.
Lauren Bedula 20:25
So, income has been so forward leaning. You mentioned the task force working with experimentation and inviting the private sector to come and show off their capabilities and really stretch the legs of what they can do. I think it is helpful for them to have collaboration with the user communities. Can you talk a little bit about what you're learning from that experience? And a separate question, are you dealing with “Valley of Death” issues? Are these more prototypes and pilots that you're having trouble transitioning?
Schuyler Moore 21:00
It is fascinating to see it from this side. Because when at my previous positions, both on the Hill and at OSD, we talked about the “Valley of Death” so much and how to bridge it with what mechanisms. We just keep hitting this wall where you'd get to a prototype, then you'd get to demo, and then nothing happened afterwards. What are we missing. What I'm realizing is that it was that demand signal directly from the person who is going to pick it up. If you give it to them, and it works well for them, they will fight for it and go to bat for it back up to the requirements community, to the service, and to the acquisition community. So, it's about getting it into their hands earlier for them to make that determination. They can fight that battle. To be frank, a company is not going to be able to, unless it has significant resources behind it, make that fight to bridge that “Valley of Death.” It requires an amount of capital that will allow you to simply wait out some of the processes that DoD has in place. It requires capital to invest in individuals who will go forward and make your case for you -- not a lot of companies have that. But, if you have a user community who has picked it up and used and said, “Oh my God, this helps my job. This makes me better at my mission.” We will go to bat for you, and we will make sure that it's carried across the line. What has been interesting for us is the way that the user community thinks about these technologies is not in terms of, “I want to buy this one solution.” For next year, five years, it's saying, “I need to have this capability. I need to be able to have something up in the air for a certain number of hours. I need to be able to collect a certain type of data in the water.” That's the way that they think about it, and it allows for flexibility to say, “Whatever gets me there -- I don't care if it's the traditional type of technology that's always been offered to me.” For example, the tuna fishing company gives me whatever gets me there. So, I think that flexibility of mindset allows for some creative solutions.
Lauren Bedula 22:54
And are you seeing successful partnerships on the industry side? Are they coming together to deliver a full solution there? Is that coming out of these exercises?
Schuyler Moore 23:02
They're starting to get there because they're realizing that they can't really deliver everything. You look under the hood, and you see at the sheer breadth of challenges that we face in our AOR. We are uniquely active and diverse in the range of threats. You have everything from violent extremist organizations to low level smuggling and piracy to state-on-state activities and risk of ballistic missiles and everything else. You just cannot cover everything with a single solution. And, if anything, looking at the breadth of our problem set is inspiring companies to reach out to others and say, “Hey, we can handle this small piece of it.” If you were to tack on to this, I think we could do something very special.
Hondo Geurts 23:45
So, we talked about this diverse set of problems and some ways to get together, but, ultimately, it's also about talent. I'm sure you have seen this too from your experience, either on the hill or at OSD. For a while, there was this perception held by many of the tech companies that they would say, “You guys go handle that nasty national security stuff. We're going to just kind of do our own thing.” Maybe they weren't interested for a lot of different reasons, but my sense is that it's changing. I'm seeing it. What's your take or observation to other young professionals coming up who may not have ever served in uniform? And are there great places for them to help in the national security problem and still work on innovative technology? And what advice would you give them to pique that interest and get engaged?
Schuyler Moore 24:41
I think you're absolutely right. I think I have seen a shift. I personally know a lot of folks who are in the tech sector with no relation to national security at all. Frankly, over the period of COVID, I think it gave everybody a moment of pause to really think about the work that you're doing. You're sitting, in many cases, in an empty apartment and an empty room with just yourself and your work. I think it gave everybody a moment to say, “What is my purpose? What is the impact that I'm making with my day-to-day activities?” I think many in the tech sector have begun to look with curiosity at the national security community, and realize, “Wow, there are some substantive, meaty challenges to overcome over there.” I just spoke with someone this week who has such incredible experiences. She blew me away with a data science background from a range of different technical perspectives. And she was saying,
“I'm happy in the tech sector, but I want to contribute to a mission. I want to contribute to something bigger.” We spend such a large percentage of our lives working that my personal view is what a shame to spend that large percentage of your life working on something that you don’t care about, you don’t feel like fulfills you, doesn’t give you purpose. We have an abundance of that. I think that what we can do as a national security community is to be honest and open about the challenges that you will be stepping into. We are an extremely bureaucratic organization; the hiring process is a challenge. We can't match the pay that exists in most of the private sector, but we will give you incredibly meaty and substantive problems and that will be worthwhile. If we can give people the kind of tools and the skillsets to navigate the challenges of DoD, all the better in my view,
Lauren Bedula 26:21
Do you see avenues for people with that increasing interest to come in, support you, and work with DoD and in the national security community?
Schuyler Moore 26:30
It is similar to the beginning of our conversation. It's about knowing the mechanisms available to you because a lot of the groundwork has been done. For, in the years past, many folks were really banging their heads against this issue of talent and saying, “you need a cyber excepted service. You need all these different mechanisms to help get people in faster because there are skill sets that you cannot wait a year to get.” So, it's about learning what those mechanisms are and then opening the door through other avenues. There are exchange programs that get across programs to get folks out to the tech sector and have tech sector come in to better understand our own problem sets. Those are all fantastic exposure mechanisms. We will always take an expansion of mechanisms. I don't want to say that we solved this problem. I will happily we will take all mechanisms that will let us get that talent onboard faster.
Hondo Geurts 27:17
It's hard to get these networks working if there's just a complete lack of knowledge. Once you build knowledge up, then you can build respect up. Once you have respect, you can build trust. I hear many worried about coming in to support us, Schuyler, or somebody else. It's going to change me. In doing so, I can't be myself; I can't bring my talent to bear. I think the DoD is doing better in that regard of being able to bring in diverse sets of skills without feeling they have to change the people to be accepted. What's your sense? You're a great example of stepping into combat and coming in largely out of war. Do you think the DoD is getting better at leveraging talent as they come not as they want to shape them into?
Schuyler Moore 28:12
I think that the last 10 years really have been a humbling experience for the Department. Recognizing that we're not the center of the universe nor the first for technology. But also, there are other countries and competitors that are moving quickly. And it's shaken us in our previous faith that we were always miles and miles ahead. And while it is something that we must now focus on and address, I think, in many ways, it's opened the door for us. It allows for different types of folks to come in who may not have the traditional background and to have conversations where we say, “Hey, I don't know about that. I need you to explain that or this technology. I need you to explain this type of operation that I simply wasn't aware of previously. I need to acknowledge my own gap in knowledge. And I ask that you fill it as best you can.” Again, the last 10 years have been difficult. It's been fascinating to watch the progression of the innovation discussion inside the department -- particularly for the last five years. I think it's laid the groundwork for us to allow some of these people to come in more successfully,
Lauren Bedula 29:09
You remind me of something we talk a lot about on the show. Especially in the private sector right now, we are facing a complicated global environment where globalization is changing and shifting. They're trying to figure out where to operate and where to pull out. How is the command thinking about international partnerships during this complicated global time?
Schuyler Moore 29:31
It is the core of what we do. People, partnerships, and innovation are the three cornerstones of what we do at the command. General Kurilla has always made clear that partnerships are so key. Nothing we anywhere in the world is alone. We must be hand-in-hand. It's interesting and it creates an opportunity space, particularly for technology. So many of these technologies are new enough that we can learn about them, train on them, and integrate with them together with partners. And so, Task Force 59, Taskforce 39, and Taskforce 99 have liaisons from other countries who are sitting with them and learning about these technologies at the same time and at the same rate. That is such a wonderful opportunity for true interoperability. We talk about interoperability a lot, but so rarely do we have a case where you can do a genuine, genuine partnership. We can't always ask a country to buy a $3 billion dollar destroyer, but we can ask them about unmanned surface vessels, whether they can have one out, and or whether they can have an anomalous behavior detection algorithm that they have an account for. That is something that we're collectively watching together.
Lauren Bedula 30:38
Well, on the note of partnerships, I want to say thank you for coming on and talking about your priorities. As you said, the language of the operator is so important. We have a lot of listeners who are trying to learn that, so you're helping to amplify those priorities. It is helping us get that word out. So, Skye, thanks so much for joining us. We know how busy you are.
Schuyler Moore 30:59
Thank you for having me. Wonderful to be here.