“To put innovations to work quickly, we need more agile forms of cooperation”

Dr. Sander, in the wake of the “Zeitwende” in Germany, there has recently been a lot of support for dual use research – is the Bundeswehr on the cusp of a golden age of technological innovation?

Jennifer Sander: At Fraunhofer IOSB, just like Fraunhofer as a whole, we have long stood for a holistic understanding of security that takes military, criminal, technological, and natural threats equally into account. Our research deliberately taps into synergies between the various areas, and we’re delighted if this approach, which we think is absolutely reasonable, has won more wide-spread support than previously. Many areas are currently giving rise to research findings and resulting technological innovations with a great deal of military relevance, so it’s important to harness those capabilities for the armed forces as well. They include artificial in-telligence, autonomous systems, and hypersonic and quantum technologies, to give just a few examples. 

But for the Bundeswehr to be able to derive increasing and timely benefits from these kinds of scientific advances and technological innovations, we think there is not so much a lack of targeted research as a lack of improved ways to transfer existing research findings into real-world practice.

Can you expand on that?

Sander: Over and over again, we see how hard it is to translate useful findings from the field of research and technology into actual use. There are a number of structural factors that make it more difficult. For example, we’ve had past experiences where a research and technology client will say, “Great, we’ve gotten where we wanted to with this subject, now let’s put it into action” –but then we hear from the procurement side that it will be a few years before the demand actually materializes or can be identified with sufficient specificity. And yet, swiftly putting the results to work could help gain greater clarity around concrete use scenarios and needs, and thus to specify and update the further requirement situation early on. 

If and when the procurement process does get under way, it remains lengthy and difficult. Formulating the exact requirements right at the start also requires excellent knowledge of the subject matter, including in technical terms, along with an understanding of the potential and the possible usage scenarios. There also seems to be a tendency to formulate things right from the start with all the bells and whistles, detailing every little aspect. However, it’s hugely difficult to specify a system on paper in such detail that it actually does meet the troops’ practical needs down the road and align with their future missions.

What do you suggest?

Sander: We need more flexible, more agile forms of collaboration so we can provide better support in putting innovations to work as fast as possible and exactly how they are needed. One point of departure could be to get the opportunity to quickly implement precompetitive, ready-to-use prototypes. Especially when it comes to fast-paced technologies like those in the fields of AI and autonomous systems, there should also be an iterative process to rapidly develop solutions that are already usable while further or more complex features are still under development. When co-creation is put in place – and by that I mean close, continuous interlinkage between R&D, industry, and the entities that require solutions – and when new technological possibilities are made tangible and understandable to users quickly and user feedback is invited, that’s where you see success in developing demand-driven solutions and putting them to use right away. Of course, modular architectures, open interfaces, and standards are also important so that systems remain interoperable, expandable, and adaptable. Otherwise, you see proprietary solutions, which are another obstacle to future innovation, and ultimately also for military cooperation in alliances such as NATO.

Are there success stories we can learn from?

Sander: At Fraunhofer IOSB, we have realized various systems that are in use within the German armed forces and internationally as well. They include the ABUL video exploitation system, which supports processing and exploitation of drone images with a variety of assistance functions, including a range of newly introduced ones and some based on AI. Another example is the Digital Map Table (DigLT), a software system for shared situation visualization and analysis, which has also been in use for years even as it evolves. The third aspect I would mention is the Coalition Shared Data (CSD) technologies, which make it possible to store, retrieve, and distribute data in multinational and joint reconnaissance systems.  

This example shows how a more agile approach could be designed: International and interdisciplinary cooperation and an exercise-driven approach were the focus early on during the phase when the fundamental requirements, concepts, and specifications were being mapped out. Operational and technical stakeholders (decision makers, soldiers, technicians, and software specialists) met regularly for interoperability exercises, which also used real sensors and platforms. In the process, the current status was put to the test in practice, so any discrepancies, pain points, misaligned developments, and areas with potential for improvement were identified early on and adjusted accordingly in the following iteration. This allowed for successive improvements in the solutions before they were transitioned into standards and then implemented in the form of operationally hardened systems. It would be desirable for this approach to be utilized in the further development of CSD technologies and conceptualization of these solutions for new scenarios in the future as well. 

But you also want to apply the same approach to many other areas?

Sander: I’d put it in somewhat broader terms. One of the capabilities that we at Fraunhofer can contribute to the innovation process is an agile approach in which interim iterations like concepts, scenarios, and prototypes are put to the test by stakeholders at various stages to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Another potential contribution is rooted in our expertise on systems and system interoperability: We can help identify compatibility problems as early as possible. And that, in turn, helps to plan development and procurement activities to be more resilient and implement them with less friction. 

Do you have any additional suggestions?

Sander: At Fraunhofer IOSB, we do a lot of work with simulations and digital twins, including of the battlefield. Or, to flip that around a bit, we can offer solutions to test things that have not yet been put into practice at all in the real world. This makes it possible to test potential uses, efficiency, performance, and even the interoperability of systems virtually, before they are actually built. In addition to this, such a digital twin has many other advantages across the entire life cycle once the system exists in the real world. 

I also think at the post-simulation stage, living labs are a helpful approach. Our institute operates and collaborates on these kinds of labs in various thematic areas. A living lab, or regulatory sandbox, is a structure for trying out new things in one location for a certain period, under conditions that are as realistic as possible, in ways that would be limited by the general laws that are already in place. So, certain difficult aspects are factored out at first to advance innovations – and, of course, also to determine the best way to approach these tricky points to enable widespread, normal use of the new technologies in the end. 

Dr. rer. nat. Jennifer Sander is deputy spokesperson for the Defense business unit and head of the Interoperability and Assistance Systems (IAS) department.