It’s been a crazy few weeks, packed with events and discussions centered around data, artificial intelligence, and its critical role in our work. So far, I’ve attended the inaugural Army Data Summit at Fort Liberty, North Carolina, our second annual Data Literacy Train-the-Educator Workshop at West Point, and the AI Fedlab hosted by GovCIO, and that has turned into a lot of thoughts and takeaways that I believe are crucial for moving forward!
Dr. Amanda Bullock and I show off our ELMOs for facilitating our AI FedLab roundtables – ELMO stands for Enough, Let’s Move On! So if you get an ELMO on the discussion, you get the idea.
Our discussion at AI FedLab was covered in more detail here.
So let’s talk a little about what we learned.
Lack of Feedback Mechanisms and User Experience Insights
One of the most glaring issues I’ve seen is the apparent gap between our Army leaders—and leaders in general—and the user experience of those using their initiatives and tools.
At each event, as we delved into the user experience with those working with data, processes, and platforms across various echelons, it became evident that many folks were not fully prepared for the questions and discussions that arose. I think they came prepared to provide a presentation that would be greeted with applause about the capabilities they were bringing to the force, only to be told that the force either wasn’t impressed, wasn’t able to access the tool, or had questions about how they, as customers, could better provide feedback and interact with the tool – only to find that they were not the intended customer, but that senior leaders were.
This is typical in the Department of Defense. People are trained early on that leaders need the information to make decisions, but somehow forget in the process that we have to push information out from those decisions, back to the force. But in the case where user experience plays such a critical role, we have a significant need for expanded two-way communication, not just top-down messaging.
We need to create more opportunities for discussion and gathering feedback from all levels, so that we can make sure initiatives are not only understood but effectively received and implemented.
The Fundamental Role of Data Literacy
Data literacy shows up as a fundamental theme again and again, and not just because our Data Literacy Train-the-Educator course happened at West Point. And our course is important not just because it teaches data fundamentals, but because it represents a broader cultural shift.
Jordan Morrow, author of Be Data Literate, delivers an overview of assessing an organization’s data and AI maturity at the DL-TTE event.
See coverage of the Data Literacy Train-the-Educator event here!
Army Data Literacy 101 (DL101) emphasizes the power of asking a good data question, continuous learning, curiosity, and the importance of engaging in dialogue and discussions with experts from various technical fields in an intelligent way.
Why is this a departure and a cultural change? Because our organization likes to silo areas of expertise in different branches and military occupational specialties (MOS), especially in a technical space. Functionally, that works. You don’t necessarily want a combat commander in the armor branch focused on troubleshooting his network when his signal team can do that. However, strategically and conceptually, to underwrite the risk inherent in a decision, legally and ethically, the commander must have an understanding of that risk context. If the commander doesn’t understand the risk context, can he or she make a good decision, one that he or she can’t legally outsource?
It’s not good enough for a commander to say, “I’ve got a data guy/data gal who can figure this out.” We’re past the days of going with our guts. In order to lead in this day and age, no matter what discipline they come from, we need leaders who read, work with, and communicate with data.
Personally, I’m not inclined to send gut instinct and stubby pencil math up against adversaries who are fully AI enabled.
One of the things we found we need to get integrated in our training is risk and using data to create a balanced portfolio of risk decisions. We’ve been encouraging leaders in innovation to think about risk management like an investment portfolio – balancing short and long-term, high and low risk ventures, and accurately calculating return on these risks. It’s just time to formalize the training.
The Broader Impact: Beyond DoD
The need for improved data feedback, education, and fostering curiosity is not confined to the Department of Defense; it’s a universal issue.
We face a significant talent gap in tackling technology challenges, and it’s unrealistic to rely solely on hiring or contracting external experts. Even commercial entities with greater resources than us can’t buy enough talent. Developing this talent internally demands a comprehensive strategy for providing skills and training across our workforce.
As someone who straddles the line between domain and data expertise, I’ve consistently argued—and the Chief Data Officer has quoted me on this—that it’s easier to teach data concepts to a curious domain expert than to impart domain expertise to a data expert. Having spent eight years in the people space, I’ve found it far more feasible to learn a new technology with its structured rules and systems than to navigate the intricate environment of my domain. We need to think about emphasizing this change so that we can get a more technologically savvy, more adaptive, and more creative Army.
We also need more events and discussions like those I’ve recently participated in across the federal space, and we need to involve a broader range of people in these conversations. The recurrence of familiar topics suggests that we’re either perpetuating the problem by failing to take decisive action after discussing them, or we’re constantly introducing new participants to ongoing issues without resolving them. It’s time to prioritize support to our change agents, sustained efforts, and actionable outcomes.