combat

 

combat

Treating the Invisible Wounds of War

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017 - 10:01
Today, we are more likely to talk about PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and related mental health issues such as alcohol and substance use as they are recognized medical conditions with effective treatments available. Since September 11, 2001, more than 2.69 million troops have returned from deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Terry J. Pudas interview

Friday, June 1st, 2007 - 20:00
Phrase: 
"Transformation can allow you to do things more efficiently. And that's what the question is about; it's not about numbers, it's about capability."
Radio show date: 
Sat, 06/02/2007
Guest: 
Intro text: 
Innovation; Strategic Thinking ...
Innovation; Strategic Thinking
Complete transcript: 

Originally Broadcast Saturday, June 2, 2007

Washington, D.C.

Welcome to The Business of Government Hour, a conversation about management with a government executive who is changing the way government does business.

The Business of Government Hour is produced by the IBM Center for the Business of Government, which was created in 1998 to encourage discussion and research into new approaches to improving government effectiveness.

You can find out more about the Center by visiting us on the web at businessofgovernment.org.

And now, The Business of Government Hour.

Mr. Morales: Good morning. I'm Albert Morales, your host, and managing partner of the IBM Center for the Business of Government.

President George Bush's mandate for defense transformation was "to challenge the status quo and envision a new architecture of American defense for decades to come."

Over the past several years, it is becoming increasingly clear that defense transformation is not simply a response to global terrorism, but rather a way to leverage the core strength of the U.S. armed forces, which is its ability to adapt and change.

As the rate of change of technology continues to accelerate, it will be even more important that the U.S. military keep pace.

With us this morning to discuss this critical challenge is our special guest, Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources.

Good morning, Terry.

Mr. Pudas: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Mr. Morales: And joining us is in our conversation is Chuck Prow, IBM's Defense Industry leader.

Good morning, Chuck.

Mr. Prow: Good morning, Al, Terry.

Mr. Morales: Terry, to provide our listeners an overall context on the subject of military transformation, could you give us a sense of the history, mission, and evolution of the DoD's Office of Forces Transformation and Resources, as well as its predecessor organization, the Office of Force Transformation?

Mr. Pudas: Sure, I'd be glad to. Let me just sort of go back in time, so maybe 5-1/2 years ago, when we first embarked on this journey. The President had declared transformation as a key priority. Secretary Rumsfeld clearly was charged was transforming the military for the new world, the new global security challenges in the 21st Century. And so my former boss, the late retired Vice Admiral Art Cebrowski, was asked to take the challenge up. The way we did that initially, of course, was we created an office that was intended to be a catalyst and a focal point for transformational thinking, and tried to jump start that kind of activity within the Department.

And so we went from that idea to creating a fairly modest office of about 15 people or So began to develop concepts of transformation. What was it, first of all? Everybody was kind of confused by this word. What do you really mean by transformation? And why do we need to do it? And of course, change is always very frightening for a lot of people -- how is it really going to affect me? And so that was a lot of the work we did in the first several years.

And besides just sort of the developing the concept, we tried to look at what are some alternative views of the future, perhaps with some alternative logic for the decision-makers as we run through this transformational activity. And then we actually created some sort of what we called experimental articles along the way as sort of tangible examples of those things.

So we went from there to last year, when we realigned the office within the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to continue that kind of work within the Department. So essentially, we went from sort of this what is this and how is this going to affect me to the culture of the organization actually changing in a way where you can move this activity from outside and more closely align it with the formal processes within the building.

And so that's where we find ourselves today. We're a fairly young organization, obviously, but we're getting our portfolio together and developing the new relationships and making decisions about where you engage in certain processes and the things you can do to continue the work.

Mr. Morales: Now, certainly this area of transformation is very broad, so I'm curious, what is the size of the budget that you manage, and have you moved up from the 15 employees in your organization today than you were 3-1/2 years ago?

Mr. Pudas: Well, actually, the budget's remained fairly constant over the last several years, and it's fairly modest. I mean, we have probably around $5 or $6 million dollars that we use to catalyze projects with and research and studies and war-gaming kinds of events, and we always do that in collaboration with other partners, so we don't embark on these with ourselves. We try to develop a large community of interest in these things.

And the size of the office is about the same. We have about 15 to 20 folks comprised of sort of government employees and military officers as well as some outsourcing support, which we've done.

And so the question is, how do you do this with such a modest budget and few people? Well, you develop a lot of relationships with other folks. And so we have relationships with many of the think-tanks in town, and FFRDCs, or Federally Funded Research places, as well as academia, and quite frankly, with industry. We have -- all the large industries have groups of people that think about strategy and the future, and so we try to team with them as well. So you leverage a small amount of people and build a large virtual team.

Mr. Prow: Please describe your specific responsibilities and duties as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources.

Mr. Pudas: Well, I'll try to be as definitive as I can. The vision is really to align the transformational thinking, mainstream it within the Department, as I said, and be connected to some of those formal processes that look at the future strategic environment, think about what future capabilities might look like, and then participate in the processes along the way that lead to the fielding of those kinds of things. And so that's a major undertaking. As well as to continue to sort of push the envelope and look at alternative futures, look at alternative capabilities, look at what technology opportunities might be out there from a policy perspective.

And then part of my tasking is to be sort of the policy point of contact for all of those good transformation issues that are going on at the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, and of course, Allied Command Transformation down there as well.

So that takes up a significant amount of time, and then, of course, we want to look broadly across all the general purpose forces to look where those interdependencies might be, and highlight those kinds of things.

Mr. Prow: What are the top few challenges you face in your position, and how have you addressed those challenges?

Mr. Pudas: If you've ever worked in a large organization, which I'm sure both of you have, that catalyzing change is always very, very difficult. And so that's one of the specific challenges, obviously, to do that. A large organization has a tendency to be bureaucratic, and so you have to find ways to deal with that and still be effective.

For me personally, not having been within the mainstream here for some time, that's a challenge for me to understand how that works, and so we're doing that. And then of course, it's always a challenge because there's very many competing priorities. But we are not necessarily charged with worrying about the near term. Our job is to be somewhat custodians of the future. And so to have that mix and still be relevant to some of the current things that are going on is always somewhat of a challenge.

Mr. Morales: Terry, we had a few moments prior to our show to talk a little bit about your career, and some time that you spent with the German Navy. I'm curious, how did you get started in your career, and how did you start with Defense Transformation?

Mr. Pudas: Yes, it's very interesting. I had a career as a naval officer for 32 years. At one point there during Desert Storm, I was working for a fellow named Capt. Art Sebrowski, who I got acquainted with very well in a particular job that I had, and it was very interesting. And anybody that knows of him or has been around him knows he's a very unique individual. And so that was the beginning of my association. We then parted ways and went on our own careers, and we ended up working together again up at the Naval War College in his capacity as president, and he asked me to be somewhat of a special assistant.

At the time, his charge was to sort of catalyze transformation in the Navy, and so we worked very closely together for two or three years, and then of course, he was asked to come and take this post, and he asked me if I would be willing to help him do that. And it's pretty hard to pass up a chance like that, to really have a chance to contribute, and of course, it's very hard. He used to talk about what he had spent his professional career doing, and he used to describe it as working at the intersection of national security and large-scale change. And there isn't any more difficult task, but there also isn't one that's more rewarding than that.

That's sort of how I've evolved into this position, and then of course, he stepped down a few years ago, and then I became acting for a couple of years, and we continued the mantra, and then I ended up where I am today.

Mr. Morales: Well, that sounds like a very busy intersection you just described there.

Mr. Pudas: Yes, it is.

Mr. Morales: You used the term "catalyzing change," and so I'm curious, how has your previous experience, your 32 years as a Navy officer and as a pilot, how do you think that's prepared you for your current leadership role and informed your managed approach and leadership style?

Mr. Pudas: Well, first of all, to be a good leader and manager, you have to have some competence in a particular subject, which is always key. And I learned a lot from my former boss, obviously -- you've got to be able to craft a vision for people. And then you have to be able to inspire them towards that vision. And so those three big pieces right there are the areas you have to work very hard at.

I had been in leadership positions in the Naval service and large organizations, and so I had some experience with managing people and different things. I alSo of course, had a history of making my own changes. And so some of the things that I learned were that you have to make change a very inclusive activity; you can't expect people to sit at their desks and wait for permission to think. And so what you do is you invite people into the process, you try to inspire them towards this vision, and then you invite them in to help craft their own future or participate in the transformation. And so I think some of those things that I learned while I was in Naval service, some of those I learned with my former boss, but those have been things that have sort of served me quite well.

Mr. Morales: That's great.

What is the Defense Transformation?

We will ask Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources, to share with us when the conversation about management continues on The Business of Government Hour.

(Intermission)

Mr. Morales: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm your host, Albert Morales, and this morning's conversation is with Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources .

Also joining us in our conversation from IBM is Chuck Prow, Defense Industry leader.

Terry, could you define transformation and transformation rate within the military context? What are some of the keys to transformation, and how has transformation changed from when then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld first established the transformation office?

Mr. Pudas: Well, defining transformation is somewhat difficult. I think what I'd like to do is maybe try to describe it for you.

Our concept at Transformation is really about doing those things that allow you to continue to have a competitive advantage. And so the concept is really based on the fact that if you are in a competitive environment, whether it's in a national security context or whether you're in industry, and you're not doing this thing called transformation or constant creativity and improvement, you soon find yourself in a very big pickle here.

You are essentially a strategic fixed target. And if you think about it, there's lots of industry examples, and of course, in history in our nation-state examples. So the concept is to this continuum of constant innovation and creativity, seeking those things that are going to be the source of your competitive advantage. And it's really at the high level, it's really about strategy. It's really about choosing a competitive space and then going about the work of creating organizations, capabilities, policies, those sorts of things that influence that competition in the space.

So if you think from your side in industry, it's really the same thing, right? You're not interested in chasing the emerging market; you really want to create the next market. It's about creating the future. The future that you would like. So that's the competitive space. So essentially all the activities come under that sort of large, large strategic concept.

There's a number of things you do. You try to understand the future security environment. People like to look at it through the lens of technology. But it's really much broader than that. It's about new concepts, new organizations, doing things differently with different technologies. It's about trying to understand underlying principles, right? Which all strategists do; they look out there and they say that's really interesting that this is happening, but why is it happening? And is there a way that I could influence this particular trend in a useful way to my advantage?

So things like that. What's going to be the source of perhaps your next competitive advantage kind of thing, and there's some big examples in the past. There's the one from the Army that I always usually use is when the Army, several decades ago, said we want to own the night. Okay, well, we turned that vulnerability into an enormous competitive advantage for the U.S. today.

And it's looking for things that are game changers, changing the game and changing the rules. Changing the basis for competition. When we, for example, decided to compete on the basis of precise navigation and timing, that yielded GPS, Global Positioning Satellite, right? It not only changed the battlefield, but it changed the world. So are there things like that out there that we should be thinking about as well?

But really, and this gets to your question about rate, but it really is about people, it's about the culture of the organization. And all senior leaders know that that's where the real competitive advantage comes from. And so the ability to facilitate what you call a learning organization, one that has the ability to outlearn your competition, so this is about learning rate. And then of course, taking that learning and translating that into some kind of actionable kind of capability or organization or something. That's a real key to it as well, and if you listen to what very successful industry CEOs have done and other people, they really do focus on this learning rate piece.

Mr. Morales: That's interesting.

Now, recently, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has underscored that military transformation, and I quote, "is a major charge from the President that must continue."

I'm curious, how does the recent realignment of your office within the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy support this charge?

Mr. Pudas: Well, I think that we're there now to -- we're more closely along the line with the processes. We were more -- I guess I would characterize us as an influence organization, which would try to create some new logic and try to influence the larger processes, where now we are more closely aligned with the formal processes, and so it really has changed.

I mean, since I've been at this from the beginning, I remember trying to participate in certain forums to try to provide some alternatives, and that was met with mixed success sometimes. But now it's accepted. The views may not be accepted, but the views are always welcomed. And so I think that's a big change in the Department's culture, and so as I said, we're supposed to continue to do this. I mean, my job is to always be somewhat dissatisfied and impatient.

Mr. Morales: You just let out all your secrets.

Mr. Prow: Terry, the core of the U.S. defense strategy focuses on force security challenges outlined in the Department's national defense strategy.

Can you describe DoD's ongoing shift to enhance capabilities and forces needed to address irregular catastrophic and disruptive challenges?

Mr. Pudas: Yes. I mean, there's a tremendous amount of work going on here. Clearly, we had focused on what we called the traditional challenge. The Department of Defense is very, very comfortable in that particular quadrant and sort of took ownership of that, but when you step back and look at the larger competitive environment, you'll see that there's a dynamic that happens, and that is, as you create more and more capability to deal with what we call the traditional challenges, competition moves to the others. And that's part of what you're experiencing now. And so the question is, what kinds of capabilities and organizations and those sorts of things -- you need to deal with those, and so that's a great deal of the work right now. And of course, it's very complicated.

The traditional challenges were usually owned by the Department of Defense. The other three had a larger national security component to them where you now operate in interagency kinds of constructs, and so the team is much larger, so lots of work going on in developing those relationships and what do they look like, how do they contribute? And in many cases, you go from what people talk about as kinetic solutions to non-kinetic solutions, because it's really about behavior.

So what are those kinds of things that we need to be able to do to be more successful in that particular area? I mean, you hear lots of people talking about strategic communications, which is sort of the term of art today, but how much do we really know about that? How do we know about the cause and affect of those things. So that leads you to say, well, if we really want to understand that, then perhaps we need to bring in this group of cognitive sciences and cultural anthropologists to help us understand that particular dynamic.

The catastrophic things, those things are of course very troublesome because we are in a very globalized construct in the world today, where we are very interdependent, which brings with it an enormous amount of brittleness. What might trigger a shock through the system that we hadn't thought about? I sometimes refer to the SARS event in Singapore, right, which was in 2003. Our major focus was preparing for the Iraqi campaign. But the result of that had major disruptions in economics around the world. I think we had a couple of major airlines here in the U.S. that were on the brink of bankruptcy, and we all know what happened to the tourist industry in Canada. And so this catastrophic, cataclysmic kind of stuff is quite troublesome, so how to think through what might be the consequence management of those things.

Disruptive challenges are sort of another category. How do you think about those, and what kinds of things could you do deliberately to help mitigate those kinds of threats? And we have a construct, and if you're interested, we could share it with you. I know time is limited, but this is where rate of change comes in. If you're on a linear sort of path of modernization, a prospective opponent can get a bead on you at some point and disrupt whatever that is you're trying to create, and so being able to modulate rate of change becomes a very useful construct.

Mr. Prow: How can the U.S. military reduce its vulnerability to disruptive threats by increasing investments in programs that accelerate transformation?

Mr. Pudas: Yes, I just sort of touched on that a little bit, but clearly, there's lots of work going on in the Department to work on the processes. I mean, I don't think anybody would come in and say that we're really happy with our processes now and they're just fine, we don't need to change them. Because everybody acknowledges that the rate of change is causing us to re-look at how fast we can do things. So that's going on.

But how do we do other things that help influence our thinking about what are the kind of capabilities that we might want, and how would we use them and that sort of thing, and so this notion of experimentation really becomes a very powerful tool; creating sort of tangible capabilities or experimental articles, as I like to call them, putting them in the hands of operators, bringing the science and technology community together; and then on a very rapid cycle, the developing concepts and requirements and that sort of thing. And so I think that that's a very powerful activity which is very useful, this experimentation business.

Mr. Prow: Can you please elaborate on the concept of transformation chairs?

Mr. Pudas: Sure. I'd be glad to. That's something that sometimes is underappreciated and overlooked, but I talked about it briefly in the opening segment, which was this notion of culture. How do you fundamentally get at the culture of an organization? And of course, one of the key levers of that is education.

Several years ago, we said what could we do to effect that, and so what we decided to do was help facilitate the creation of transformation academic chairs at all of the departments, institutions, and as most people know, we have junior- and senior-level colleges. We have the academies; we have Naval post-graduate school; we have acquisition universities, a whole number of these.

So how can we catalyze transformational thinking in those institutions as sort of a focal point to insert certain things in the curriculum, help influencing how people think about things? And the chairs are interesting, but the real interesting piece is that they come together every quarter and they collaborate with one another, and they share experiences, and so it's sort of a large community, and it's been quite successful.

Mr. Prow: Very good. It sounds like you're creating new models in dealing with the academies and researchers.

Mr. Pudas: Yes. Yes, that's exactly the idea. This notion of collaboration is a different kind of construct in the Information Age. It means different things. And so to be able to facilitate that in this transformation chair network -- and we also have some affiliate chairs, both international and from other folks, too. So it's taking off.

Mr. Morales: Terry, you've used terms like "rate of change," modulating change, you talked about learning, you've talked about behaviors in culture. So I'm curious, to what degree has the DoD developed metrics for measuring the capabilities of transformed military forces and the effectiveness of transformational military services, and is DoD using these metrics in making decisions about programs and resources?

Mr. Pudas: Yes. Of course, that's really the hard question, isn't it; right?

If you're in industry, you can measure bottom line, but here, you're measuring behavior or outcomes that are very difficult to quantify, so they're normally qualitative, subjective kinds of things. And so there has been a significant amount of effort on doing that. It's difficult. We need to continue that effort.

We, of course, were great advocates, and continue to be, of this notion of networkcentric operations, or whatever term you want to use. Everybody seems to buy into that, and they like that, and it's no longer debated; it's how do you actually do it? But then of course, you always run into the question with the resource people, right, and everybody has this: so tell me about the return on investment. Okay, so you have to try to articulate that. And so we've done a number of case studies sort of things to look at different units and how their effectiveness was changed and different things, and so that's been a useful activity.

I actually have a personal metric that I use. And it's used to sort of judge the culture of the organization. Language conveys culture. So the words people use say a great deal about how they've changed, their attitudes about things. And so when I think back when we started, a great deal of talk always about coordination and deconfliction and those sorts of things, but you don't hear that anymore. You hear sharing and collaboration. People use those terms a lot. We used to talk about interoperability, and now we talk about interdependence of those systems. And so for me, that's a fundamental metric for judging how the culture is changing.

This is a tough subject. Metrics have always been the Holy Grail. But we continue to work at it.

Mr. Morales: Well, as you mentioned, it's really all about driving behaviors, and behaviors historically have always been difficult to measure and quantify.

Mr. Pudas: Absolutely.

Mr. Morales: What about efforts in military innovation?

We will ask Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources, to share with us when the conversation about management continues on The Business of Government Hour.

(Intermission)

Mr. Morales: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm your host, Albert Morales, and this morning's conversation is with Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources.

Also joining us in our conversation from IBM is Chuck Prow.

Terry, the Defense Science Board recently released its summer study on 21st Century strategic technology vectors.

Could you elaborate on this study, and what are your views on some of the key recommendations outlined in the study, specifically on the Board's new version of Observe, Orient, Decide, Act?

Mr. Pudas: Over the last decades or so, we had been very, very successful in sort of creating some sort of vectors in terms of precision, stealth, and a couple of others, which really, really served us well. But as we've been talking about, the world changes and the rate of change continues to grow. And so what are those things that we ought to really be looking at?

My personal view is that there are a whole number of exciting technologies out there which some people are calling revolutions in science, and in that category are things like robotics, nanotechnology, bioenergy information, and those are all really, really exciting. But historically, many times, the big advances have come when two or three or those collide in a very clever way or intersect, and you are able to do things that you didn't imagine before.

So I think we always want to be looking at these sorts of things, and I'm glad that they did this, and I'm sure that's going to be very useful to the Department to get their views. These are some very, very bright people who've got a lot of experience and are grounded in these sorts of things. But my view is that sometimes we also need to look at the intersections of these.

Mr. Morales: So do you have a perspective on what some of these new vectors should be, going back to precision stealth joint operations and so on?

Mr. Pudas: Well, these are personal views, but I think that there are things that are going to be very interesting in the future, and perhaps some small investment might be very, very useful.

For example, I already mentioned sort of this notion of the cognitive sciences. I mean, I believe there are many people that believe that is real science now. There were a lot of skeptics that wouldn't allow those into the scientific club, but I think that that's becoming less of a problem. I think that if we don't begin to look at things that affect logistics and sustainability, those sorts of technologies, that we're going to find ourselves out of balance. We have invested enormously in networking the force to allow the force to operate differently in sort of this large dispersed way, and so what are the things that are inhibiting us getting the maximum return on investment out of that?

And then I think that one of the things that of course is going to be extremely disruptive in the future are things in the category of directed energy. Anybody that follows that knows that it's a very interesting area, and lots of work going on there. You just have to look at the reports in the open press to know that there I think have been over 400 incidents of commercial laser kinds of things trying to dazzle airline pilots that are being used by criminals and things like that. And so I think that's an area that's going to be interesting to follow.

Mr. Morales: So again, it goes back to the novel ways of trying to drive behaviors, whether that's in a kinetic or a non-kinetic fashion.

Mr. Pudas: Right. Exactly.

Mr. Morales: Great.

Mr. Prow: Terry, have the fundamental rules of combat, meaning mass surprise, logistics in unity of command, given way to the rules based on information and knowledge?

Mr. Pudas: Yes. I mean, that's a very interesting question. I think that we're beginning to learn more about that. I mean, most people in uniform or that have been in uniform intuitively know that battles are won and lost in the minds of your opponent. It doesn't necessarily have to do with kinetic sort of stuff unless your strategy is attrition. And so what are those things then that affect the cognitive domain of your opponent?

Being surprised, being outmaneuvered, creating closely coupled events. Confronting someone with a situation for which they have no mental model, and so it is really about this notion of creating an information advantage and turning that into a competitive advantage. And so we have I think done a lot in that area.

There's still a lot to understand. It's really interesting to talk to commanders who have been in command of large network organizations and how they have admitted that they had to kind of think through their philosophy of command. All of a sudden, we have the ability for these chat rooms to pop up, and the horizontal sharing of information at lower levels, which isn't necessarily the old command paradigm, when things went up and down the chain. Now they can go across.

And so I look for sort of manifestations of different behavior kinds of things to give me clues to that. What do commanders want to command now? Commanders now want to command bandwidth, which is quite interesting, right? It used to be a back office function, moved to the front office because there's so much -- that's a source of power, and so I guess the rules or the goal hasn't necessarily changed, but I think the way we use information as a real source of advantage has become more appreciated, and people now are understanding how to use that.

Mr. Prow: Given your projection of future challenges to the nation's national security, what is the proper balance between conventional and special operations forces?

Mr. Pudas: Yes. I guess I couldn't give you an exact answer, but if I look at what happened most recently over the last several years and you see how those two conventional and unconventional forces have been operating in concert in many ways, we've always talked about being able to be more soft-like. I mean, that's been sort of the term.

What does that really mean? Well, I mean the ability to -- ease of employment and sustainment, having an appreciation for the local area that you're operating in. I mean, the Special Operations Forces have spent a lot of time doing that sort of thing. I mean, I don't know what the right balance is, quite frankly. I mean, we have to make sure that we have enough sort of capability to deal with any potential high-end kind of thing. And at the moment, of course, we're doing very labor-intensive kinds of operations, and I mean, there's been a lot of emphasis on language training and cultural awareness skills and those sorts, and those are all really, really good things.

I can tell you, though, that there are a lot of people engaged in this particular question. What exactly is the right balance? Are there synergies between the two, et cetera? And so I'm not trying to duck the question, but I don't have an exact answer for you.

Mr. Morales: Okay. Terry, I want to take us back to something that we talked about earlier around this notion of a return on investment. And certainly, calculating the potential cost of defense transformation is not a non-trivial matter. And skeptics have argued that the cost of transformation, both in the near-term and long-term, are uncertain, and that transformation therefore might not necessarily be less expensive than, say, routine modernization.

Could you elaborate on the efforts to really understand the costs associated with transformation within the military, and is it possible to reduce the defense budget and improve the Department's ability to carry out its current and future mission simultaneously?

Mr. Pudas: Let me answer it this way: I think that associating transformation to cost may not be the right metric, because it's really about making choices. Some of the choices that you make have enormous payoff to be able to operate differently than you could before, but are relatively cheap in terms of the overall system. And of course, there are some legacy things that very hard choices have been made over. I mean, you remember the big debate about Crusader and Comanche and all those sorts of things, so it's not necessarily tied to more money, it's tied to the choices that you make.

I'll give you a personal example here: so I'm trying to make the decision on my internet connectivity in my house, so the decision was do I buy this new computer, which was fairly expensive at the time, or do I invest in the high-speed internet? So I invested a modest amount in the high-speed internet, and the productivity in the household went up enormously. So it's not necessarily about buying some new high-end piece of stuff, it's how you use it that really makes a difference, and so making specific choices and understanding the return on investment I think is the real key here.

Mr. Morales: So it sounds like people are drawing an equation that transformation is equal to cost reduction, and that's not really what this is about.

Mr. Pudas: No, not necessarily. Transformation can allow you to do things more efficiently. And that's what the question is about; it's not about numbers, it's about capability. A brigade combat team today can do significantly more than one could a decade ago. And it's just like with airplanes. We used to have 200 sorties per target in World War II, and now we have targets per sortie. And so yes, you can create some efficiencies and effectiveness as you go down this transformational journey.

Mr. Morales: Terry, I only have another minute left, and we talked a little bit about this, so I'm curious, how are we using joint professional military education to transform the mindset and culture of the U.S. joint force community, including our allies and our industry partners?

Mr. Pudas: Well, of course, we talked a little bit about the transformation chairs, and that's a good thing, but one of the things that we also do is we sponsor what we call a transformation short course, which the National Defense University puts on for us. And of course, we invite everyone in the Department, as well as the other agencies, as well as members from industry, but it's pretty much opened up to just about anyone, and to sort of help catalyze this transformational thinking.

So that's been really successful, and most recently over the last -- I would say half year -- we also began a course on what we're calling stability and reconstruction. There's been a great deal of dialogue about that kind of capability and what it really is and how to think about that. And so education is a really powerful tool, I think, to get at this whole piece.

Mr. Morales: Great.

What does the future hold for the DoD transformation efforts?

We will ask Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources, to share with us when the conversation about management continues on The Business of Government Hour.

(Intermission)

Mr. Morales: Welcome back to The Business of Government Hour. I'm your host, Albert Morales, and this morning's conversation is with Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources.

Also joining us in our conversation from IBM is Chuck Prow, IBM's Defense Industry leader.

Terry, we talked a little bit about behaviors and habits, and so I'm curious, how do you make something like transformation a habit? And given your efforts over the years, could you elaborate on DoD's culture of innovation?

Mr. Pudas: You're right. I mean, people are creatures of habit. It's difficult to catalyze change, and you have to remember that the product of the Department of Defense is national security. And so you have to be careful. I mean, you have to do the appropriate due diligence and all those sorts of things, because it is a really big deal.

But I think the Department's leadership has done a lot over the 5-1/2 years when I look through my lens, in empowering people to propose alternative solutions and different -- my experience is that everybody probably at every desk has some ideas on how to improve things. And so having the ability to listen and empower those people to go ahead and make some change, and be able to do informed risk taking I think is very powerful, and so when you look on the industry side -- I don't like to use too many industry examples because I get criticized for that -- but other large organizations, they're successful, they have that sort of culture. That's what they try to instill, so I think that great strides have been made. It's something that you always have to pay attention to because it's very easy to retrench, and of course, that's not what you want to do.

Mr. Morales: Terry, the integration of the DoD policy directorate was just one of the many changes to take place within the DoD policy directorate. Can you tell us about some of the other changes, and how these changes illustrate the core transformation principle of creating a more adaptable organization?

Mr. Pudas: Well, I can try. I mean, I'm fairly recent to the organization, and this effort was started sometime before we actually arrived, but I know that the leadership of the organization felt that there hadn't been a major transformation within that organization for quite some time. There was sort of some evolutionary steps that were done, and so I believe that they felt that it was time to sort of realign the organization to reflect the global environment of today post-Cold War, and be able to be much more effective in the future, as well as looking at things that could be done to make the organization more effective from a business perspective and management perspective.

And then also, there's a human capital strategy component of this. And so the idea was then to create a different organization that would be much more effective and perhaps more efficient for the future, as well as to create an organization which we call somewhat adaptable. The ability to then change as things unfolded or as new requirements came up and to create an organization where the whole is greater some of the parts.

Mr. Prow: An emerging area of DoD's vision for defense transformation are actions to reduce DoD's energy requirements and to develop alternate energy sources.

What is your role in this effort?

Mr. Pudas: Well, this is something we took an interest in probably three years ago, perhaps even longer than that, because it was our sense that at some point we were going to have to start thinking seriously about this issue, and so we did a couple of modest efforts, a couple of studies, and we actually co-sponsored with Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics a seminar series that meets once a month. It's open to anyone that wants to attend, to look at the energy issues broadly, and it's a very complex thing.

Clearly, there are technology issues, there are policy issues, there are cultural issues. There's a whole number of things involved, but you can see that if you look just on the operational side of the house, how it's becoming a significant deal. It's part of the logistics burden I talked about earlier. And so what we'd like to be able to do is operate in this very dispersed sort of network environment that we've created, but we don't want to spend all of our time protecting convoys of petroleum, for example. So it's both a cost issue and an effectiveness issue.

And then of course, lots of people are talking about peak oil and when is peak oil really going to come, and how's that going to affect the world economy, and there's a competition for energy resources, so there's many dimensions of this, as well as environmental and all of those things. So we are still working on this. I have a couple of studies going on right now that they're trying to look at this through different lenses, trying to create some data for the decision-makers on how to think abut this big issue.

Mr. Prow: Transformation creates new competitive areas and competencies. What qualities will be needed in the warfighter of the future?

Mr. Pudas: We talked about the complexity of the potential future competitive space. Right now, we see our folks being put in very, very complex environments. They're very, very difficult. And so I think there are a couple of pieces of this.

One is clearly, there's a cultural dimension on all this stuff with language training and different things, and how do you think about these complex environments? And then also, of course, there's a capabilities piece of this, something which I call sort of how do you move from binary solutions to something that has a scale of effects? So we give our folks very, very good binary solutions, put them in very complex environments, and then perhaps they have to accept either enormous risk or they do something and there's unintended consequences. And so I think that things in that particular category that have a capability from sort of a non-lethal to a lethal capability would be somewhat useful.

Now, having said that, that is not a simple issue. There's incredible policy issues and cultural issues that go along with that when you start going down that trail, but I think that's an area that we have to start thinking about.

Mr. Prow: It sounds like there are significant human capital issues associated with this subject. What is the Department doing to attract and retain the highest quality workforce?

Mr. Pudas: I think they're doing a lot. I mean, I am not that familiar with the national security personnel system that was just put in place recently. But clearly, that was an attempt to be able to manage the human capital better, because everybody recognizes that that's really what we have to pay attention to. And so how can you unburden some of the previous burueaucratic things and large organizations have those, and so people don't necessarily want to be subject to those and in that kind of environment, so to make the environment much better, and I think that they're working very hard to attract people into government.

Mr. Morales: Terry, we're coming to the end of our time here, but I do have one more question I'd like to ask you.

You've had a very successful career in the Navy, and now supporting the DoD transformation efforts. I'm curious, what advice could you give to a person who perhaps is considering a career in public service today?

Mr. Pudas: I would tell them to do it, because I think there's no higher calling than to serve your country, whether in uniform or in the civil side. And it's very, very rewarding. It's difficult in some cases, but I believe it's a very worthwhile effort, and no matter what kind of day I've had at the office, at the end of the day, I always feel good about that I was contributing to something that was very worthwhile, so I'd like people to consider it very seriously.

Mr. Morales: That's fantastic. Thank you.

We have reached the end of our time, and I do want to thank you for fitting us into your busy schedule. But more importantly, Chuck and I would like to thank you for your dedicated service to our country both as a naval officer, and now leading the DoD's transformation agenda.

Mr. Pudas: At the end of every time I talk to someone or give a presentation, I always like to put a little plug in for our website. You can find us at www.oft.osd.mil, and we're always looking for your comments on our website. We try to keep it updated, and we do answer the mail that people send to us.

So thank you very much.

Mr. Morales: Great.

Thank you, Terry.

This has been The Business of Government Hour, featuring a conversation with Terry Pudas, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources.

As you enjoy the rest of your day, please take time to remember the men and women of our armed and civil services abroad who can't hear this morning's show on how we're improving their government, but who deserve our unconditional respect and support.

For the The Business of Government Hour, I'm Albert Morales. Thank you for listening.

This has been The Business of Government Hour. Be sure to join us every Saturday at 9:00 a.m., and visit us on the web at businessofgovernment.org. There, you can learn more about our programs and get a transcript of today's conversation.

Until next week, it's businessofgovernment.org