Abstract: Military effectiveness hinges on technological innovation and organisational fitness—the ability to adapt, integrate, and exploit new capabilities. While AI, cyber warfare, and autonomous systems are reshaping conflict, rigid hierarchies and cultural resistance hinder their adoption. Bridging the gap between technological potential and institutional readiness requires decentralised decision-making, strategic alignment, and adaptive structures. Public-private partnerships, phased adoption, and cultural transformation are essential to ensuring military innovation and sustained strategic superiority.
Problem statement: How can militaries effectively integrate civilian technologies and adapt organisational structures to sustain strategic superiority in modern warfare?
So what?: Failure to adapt risks military obsolescence, leaving institutions unprepared to counter emerging threats and adversaries leveraging cutting-edge technologies, organisational structures and tactics. By embracing innovations and modernising organisational structures, militaries can maintain strategic superiority, ensuring readiness and resilience in an era of rapidly evolving warfare.
“Intelligence is The Ability to Adapt to Change.” (Stephen Hawking)General Definition of Innovation
Innovation is broadly understood as the application of new ideas, methods, processes, or technologies to cope with problems, to assure competitive advantages to create value, and disrupt established norms in dynamic environments, thus achieving practical benefits.[1] The essence of innovation lies in its adaptability, as emphasised by North,[2] who highlights the role of flexible institutions in fostering change. His work on institutions highlights the role of adaptive mechanisms in fostering innovation, noting that the ability to innovate depends on an entity’s institutional flexibility and capacity to absorb change.
Innovation must be outcome-focused for the military, emphasising operational effectiveness and strategic advantage. This aligns with Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” model, where innovation introduces transformative solutions and change, often at the expense of legacy systems and outdated methods.[3]
Theoretical Foundations and Specific Categories
As a driver of progress, innovation operates across multiple levels and frameworks. The Oslo Manual[4] categorises innovation into product, process, marketing, and organisational types, providing a broad framework for understanding how advancements occur. The Doblin Ten Types of Innovation Framework complements this by identifying ten dimensions of innovation, grouped into configuration (e.g., organisational systems), offering (e.g., products and services), and experience (e.g., customer engagement).[5] These frameworks serve as a foundation for analysing innovation in specific domains, including the military, where innovation manifests in unique ways to address challenges in security, technology, and strategy.
In military contexts, innovation can be categorised into (1) product innovation, (2) process innovation, and (3) strategic innovation.[6] These categories provide a structured framework for understanding how advancements enhance operational capabilities, refine methodologies, and redefine paradigms.
In military contexts, innovation can be categorised into (1) product innovation, (2) process innovation, and (3) strategic innovation.
Product Innovation: Product innovation involves creating or significantly enhancing physical tools, systems, or technologies. This form of innovation is essential for addressing specific operational needs, enabling forces to adapt to evolving threats, and maintaining superiority. It focuses on developing deliverables that directly impact performance and functionality. An example is the advancement of drone technology in recent years. One of the most notable examples is stealth technology, which uses advanced materials and design principles to reduce radar, infrared, and acoustic signatures of military assets such as aircraft, ships, and submarines. Stealth technology revolutionised military operations by enabling undetected infiltration into hostile territories, fundamentally altering air and naval warfare.[7] Product innovation focuses on tangible outputs: Weapons systems, vehicles, equipment, and other physical products. Military applications often push technological boundaries, as defence R&D typically involves the highest levels of investment and cutting-edge technology.[8]
Process Innovation: Process innovation refers to developing or improving methods, workflows, and systems used to achieve objectives. In military contexts, it often encompasses operational and logistical advancements that enhance efficiency, coordination, or decision-making.Network-centric warfare (NCW) is a quintessential example of process innovation. NCW integrates information and communication technologies to create a highly interconnected and adaptive system. By enabling real-time data sharing and situational awareness, NCW allows for synchronised and efficient military operations, reducing the timing of the decision-action loop.[9] This has transformed modern militaries’ operations, emphasising speed, precision, and adaptability. Process innovation focuses on improvements in command and control, logistics and combat operations. This is achieved, albeit not exclusively, through the use and leverage of technology (e.g. cloud computing or AI).
Strategic Innovation involves the realisation of new doctrines, paradigms, or frameworks that redefine the approach to achieving objectives. This type of innovation often disrupts traditional norms, creating new competitive advantages. Hybrid warfare exemplifies strategic innovation by combining conventional military tactics with unconventional methods, such as cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, and economic coercion primarily (not exclusively, though!) below the threshold of armed conflict, so International Law hardly serves as a regulative norm due to plausible deniability. This approach reflects a paradigm shift in how modern conflicts are conducted, addressing the complexities of 21st-century warfare.[10] Hybrid warfare has become a cornerstone of modern military strategy, as evidenced by conflicts such as the Russo-Ukrainian War. Strategic innovation is about gaining an edge through innovation at the conceptual and perceptional levels. In the military, it aligns with Clausewitzian ideas of adapting to the nature of war, emphasising creativity and adaptability in response to evolving threats.[11]Theoretical Context and Framework Alignment: From General to Specific
A categorisation of innovation provides a nuanced understanding of how transformative advancements drive military adaptation, ensuring operational superiority in increasingly complex environments. The manifestation of advancements across various levels becomes clear by situating military innovation within established theoretical frameworks. The alignment of military innovation categories with broader innovation frameworks is as follows:
Product Innovation addresses the “what” (outputs) and corresponds to the “offering” dimension in the Doblin Framework and the product innovation category in the Oslo Manual. It focuses on tangible outputs, exemplified by technologies such as stealth systems;
Process Innovation focuses on the “how” (operations) and aligns with the operational dimensions of the Doblin Framework and the Oslo Manual’s emphasis on production and delivery methods. This category involves the refinement of operational processes, exemplified by network-centric warfare;
Strategic Innovation considers the “why” and the “overall approach” (doctrines or paradigms). It corresponds to the organisational and configurational elements of both frameworks, reflecting paradigm shifts and the reshaping of overarching doctrines, as seen in hybrid warfare.Technological Innovation in the Military Context
Technological innovation in the military refers to developing, modifying, or adapting technologies to enhance operational effectiveness across combat, strategy, and logistics. Horowitz and Pindyck define military technological innovation as “changes in the conduct of warfare designed to increase the ability of a military community to generate power.”[12] This definition encapsulates disruptive technologies’ transformative potential and incremental advancements’ operational utility.
Key Characteristics of Military Technological Innovation
Military technological innovation frequently emerges from civilian technological advancements, a phenomenon known as dual-use technology. Examples include the adaptation of the Global Positioning System (GPS), initially developed for military navigation and later expanded for civilian applications. This dual-use paradigm operates as a feedback loop, where civilian advancements (e.g., advancements in machine learning) often influence military applications and vice versa. GPS as a product innovation had an impact on both the strategic and procedural level. It enabled the further development of new technologies and their significant improvement (air force, cruise missiles, surveillance, etc.). This opened up new operational possibilities for the military by adapting existing processes.
Successful military technologies must be scalable and capable of integration across diverse platforms and units. This includes mass production and ensuring compatibility with legacy systems and interoperability within alliances (e.g., NATO). Barriers to scalability include financial constraints, resistance to organisational change, and technical limitations. Diffusion, or the spread of innovations, involves overcoming these barriers to ensure widespread adoption across the force.
Technological innovation in the military has profound implications for global power dynamics, shaping both strategic doctrines and geopolitical relationships. For example, the development of nuclear weapons drastically altered the balance of power in the mid-20th century. Strategic impacts are often discussed within frameworks like the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), which identifies periods where technological and organisational changes combine to redefine warfare paradigms.[13]
Technological innovation in the military has profound implications for global power dynamics, shaping both strategic doctrines and geopolitical relationships.Types of Military Technological Innovation
To summarise technological developments in the military accordingly, three categories can be distinguished based on their effect and impact.
Incremental innovations involve gradual improvements to existing technologies, focusing on optimisation rather than dramatic changes. An example is the application of AI for predictive maintenance in military aircraft, which enhances the efficiency and reliability of current systems. These innovations are cost-effective, carry lower risks, and are easier to implement within established frameworks;
Disruptive innovations, on the other hand, represent breakthroughs that fundamentally transform warfare dynamics and operational doctrines, often making existing systems obsolete. Autonomous drones, for instance, have revolutionised surveillance and strike operations, reducing the need for personnel.
Lastly, hybrid innovations emerge from the intersection of civilian and military research, combining advancements from both domains. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) serves as a prime example of hybrid innovation, originating from military applications and subsequently adapted for civilian use. Initially developed for military reconnaissance and surveillance, SAR technology enables high-resolution imaging regardless of weather conditions or time of day. This capability has been instrumental in various defence operations. Over time, SAR’s unique imaging capabilities have been harnessed for numerous civilian applications. These include environmental monitoring, such as tracking deforestation and glacier movements, disaster response through rapid assessment of affected areas, and infrastructure monitoring, such as detecting land subsidence. The transition of SAR from a solely military tool to a multifaceted civilian resource exemplifies the convergence of defence and civilian technological advancements.[14]Historical Development of the Military-Innovation Relationship
The historical development of military technological innovation goes hand in hand with three critical challenges (dual-use nature, scalability and diffusion, and strategic impact), the mastery of which will help determine the success of military innovation.
Pre-Industrial Era: Military innovations were primarily incremental and driven by practical needs, such as the organisational efficiency of the Roman legions. Advances focused on tactics and organisation rather than technological breakthroughs. Innovations such as the development of composite bows, steel weaponry, and fortified structures further illustrate how craftsmanship and adaptation shaped military effectiveness.[15]
Industrial Revolution: This era introduced systematic innovations and mass production of technologies such as rifled guns, steam-powered ships, and railroads. The focus was on utilising industrial efficiency and state-sponsored research, laying the groundwork for future developments. Rifled firearms, for example, significantly increased accuracy and range, altering infantry tactics and rendering traditional formations obsolete.[16] Steam-powered ships revolutionised naval warfare by improving mobility and endurance, facilitating global power projection.[17] Railroads emerged as critical logistical tools, allowing the rapid deployment of troops and supplies over vast distances.[18] This era institutionalised innovation within state systems, with research and development (R&D) becoming a core element of military strategy.[19]
World Wars: Both World Wars saw disruptive innovations. The First World War introduced mechanised warfare with tanks, chemical weapons, and early aviation technologies, fundamentally altering battlefield dynamics.[20] The Second World War built on these innovations, producing transformative technologies such as radar, jet propulsion, and nuclear weapons.[21]
Cold War: Geopolitical competition drove technological innovations, particularly in Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, stealth technologies, and space exploration. The Cold War also fostered the development of dual-use technologies with both military and civilian applications. Satellite communications and computing systems blurred the line between these applications. The space race exemplified this dynamic, pushing the boundaries of science while fostering innovations with far-reaching societal impacts.[22]
21st Century: Today, the focus is on connected, autonomous systems driven by AI, cyber capabilities, and unmanned systems. These developments are reshaping military hierarchies and presenting new ethical and strategic challenges.An example from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as reported by Franz-Stefan Gady, highlights the increasing convergence of electronic warfare and cyberattacks.[23] The Ukraine Armed Forces attempted to disable electronic jammers through cyberattacks by manipulating the software controlling their frequency-hopping mechanisms.[24] In general, software-driven systems—ranging from radios to radar systems such as Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESA)—are inherently vulnerable to cyberattacks.[25]
The Ukraine Armed Forces attempted to disable electronic jammers through cyberattacks by manipulating the software controlling their frequency-hopping mechanisms.The historical relationship between the military and innovation reflects a dynamic interplay between technological possibilities, organisational adaptation, and strategic imperatives. From incremental advancements in the pre-industrial era to the paradigm-shifting technologies of the 21st century, military innovation has continually transformed warfare and global power structures.
Challenges in Military Technological Innovation
Historically, military technological innovation follows a cyclical pattern of innovation, counter-innovation, and adaptation on the battlefield. The effective use of innovation to gain a relative advantage over the opponent requires a complex and challenging interplay of factors. These challenges arise from the necessity within a system, the military, which consists of numerous integral parts (political superstructure, bureaucratic structures, operational and logistical units). The effective implementation of innovations requires not only technological advancement but also corresponding changes in doctrine, training, and organisational structures. Resistance to change within hierarchical military organisations can slow down adoption, particularly when innovations challenge established operational paradigms. This friction is evident in integrating AI-based decision-making tools, which require a shift in command structures and human-machine collaboration.
The U.S. military intends to leverage AI as a decision-support tool in planning and operational processes.[26] The U.S. Defence Innovation Unit, in collaboration with Scale AI, alongside partners Anduril and Microsoft, is developing this initiative, known as the Thunderforge Project.[27] Bryce Goodman, head of the Thunderforge Project, stated: “Today’s military planning processes rely on decades-old technologies and methodologies, resulting in a fundamental mismatch between the speed of modern warfare and our ability to respond.”[28]
It seems that AI will serve as a comprehensive support system across the entire cycle—from assessing required and adaptable capabilities to analysing solutions for emerging challenges and acquiring, developing, and implementing these capabilities, including continuous evaluation.
Those who can optimise their processes more rapidly and adapt their organisations more effectively and efficiently to the complexities of their environment will have an advantage in pursuing strategic interests.
The high costs of military R&D necessitate close cooperation between governments, private industry, and academia. However, economic feasibility alone does not determine the success of an innovation—ethical concerns play a crucial role. The debate on the existing use of autonomous weapon systems (e.g. ‘killer robots’) illustrates this dilemma: while such systems promise operational efficiency, they also raise fundamental questions about accountability, compliance with international law, and the risk of unintended escalation.
At their core, innovations carry the promise, usually perceived as promising, of providing a new solution to an existing problem, such as a military threat. One example is the use of self-made drones in various scenarios, which are used by different groups (Houthi rebels, irregulars) in various ways to undermine conventional, established approaches. For example, the organic, tactical, and technologically innovative use of naval drones has succeeded in restricting the mobility and operational capability of the conventional Russian Black Sea Fleet at comparatively lower costs (effectiveness and efficiency).[29]
Innovations carry the promise, usually perceived as promising, of providing a new solution to an existing problem, such as a military threat.Beyond battlefield effectiveness, military innovation perpetuates an ongoing cycle of adaption and counter-adaption, shaping global power dynamics.. The diffusion of new technologies, mainly through asymmetric actors, continuously disrupts established regional orders. The proliferation of cyber and drone warfare exemplifies how non-state actors and smaller nations can erode traditional military advantages, forcing conventionally superior forces into a perpetual strategic recalibration.
In contrast to the existentially charged environment of a major conventional war, as seen in Ukraine, the situation is different in a military geared towards peacekeeping operations and maintaining peacekeeping competence. Over time, bureaucratic logics of organisation and action increasingly come to the fore, making organisational change and, thus, implementing innovations more difficult. This can be seen, for example, in attempts to reform administrative organisations. One example is the implementation of the New Public Management concept in public administration. In essence, the aim is to make the logic of business management fruitful for a public organisation. Despite positive effects, these reforms must be regarded as having largely failed. The problem areas identified by the administrative sciences are also relevant for the implementation and promotion of innovation:[30]
Firstly, there is a lack of consideration of the (political) logic of public policy and the standard interests of the actors involved (such as power or the will to shape policy);
Secondly, it fails to take account of organisational dynamics, such as the fact that decentralised units “win” primarily through budget expansion (disregarding interest structures); and
Thirdly, inadequate information management as a prerequisite for measuring objectives and success against the background of actors’ self-interest in not forwarding data without value or interest.This raises the key question of how military administrative structures—especially in peacetime—can be motivated to integrate technological innovations before active conflicts, which impose their own “law of action” and innovation pressure. Ultimately, it comes down to identifying the core characteristics an organisation needs to ensure adaptability and innovation readiness.
Organisational Fitness
Organisational fitness refers to the capacity of an organisation to integrate and exploit innovations effectively.[31] This capacity encompasses structural, cultural, and strategic components that collectively determine how well the organisation can adapt to change and harness technological opportunities. In the military context, organisational fitness is made up of three main components:
Structural agility refers to the flexibility of organisational hierarchies and processes to enable rapid decision-making and adaptive responses. Agile structures minimise bureaucratic delays and allow decentralised decision-making where appropriate, facilitating timely adoption of innovations. Military organisations that balance centralised command with decentralised execution, such as mission-command frameworks, demonstrate this agility.[32]
Cultural adaptability, as the second main component, reflects an organisation’s willingness to embrace experimentation and tolerate failure. A culture that fosters learning from failure and encourages innovation is critical for creating an environment where disruptive ideas can be tested and refined. Historical examples, such as the U.S. Navy’s early investment in aircraft carriers despite initial scepticism, highlight the importance of cultural adaptability.[33]
Strategic alignment ensures that innovations are consistent with overarching defence objectives. This alignment requires a clear understanding of strategic priorities and the ability to identify and prioritise innovations that advance those goals. Misalignment can lead to resource inefficiencies and reduced operational effectiveness.[34]These three factors must interlock to sustain a successful innovation process. However, in practice, tensions arise when strategic goals clash with structurally conservative mindsets that favour established procedures. Innovation, by definition, introduces untested ideas that disrupt existing resource, power, and interest structures, making adoption inherently challenging.
In practice, tensions arise when strategic goals clash with structurally conservative mindsets that favour established procedures.This challenge is often described as the innovation readiness gap, which emerges when organisational structures, cultures, or strategies fail to align with technological opportunities. It manifests primarily through a lack of cultural adaptability or structural agility, leading to slow adoption due to bureaucratic inertia and resistance to change from entrenched norms.[35] Additionally, resource misallocation—where investments prioritise legacy systems over emerging technologies—can further hinder innovation. Addressing these barriers requires fostering structural agility, cultural adaptability, and strategic alignment to minimise bureaucratic inertia, reallocate resources toward innovation, and cultivate a culture that embraces change. In doing so, organisations can enhance their overall fitness and readiness for modern warfare.
Bridging the Innovation Readiness Gap
Closing the innovation readiness gap requires the application of structured approaches to align organisational structures, cultures, and strategies with technological opportunities.
McChrystal’s “Team of Teams” Model
The “Team of Teams” model developed by General Stanley McChrystal[36] is a framework designed to address the complexities of modern organisational challenges, particularly in dynamic and high-pressure environments like military operations. It is also applicable in various business settings.
The central idea of the “Team of Teams” model is to create a network of interconnected, agile teams that can respond quickly and effectively to changes in their environment. By breaking down rigid hierarchies and creating more flexible communication channels, organisations can adapt to unforeseen challenges and capitalise on the expertise of all members rather than relying solely on top-down directives. In this model, teams operate with shared goals and information, enabling them to make decisions at lower levels where immediate action is needed.
The model fosters three key principles that drive innovation. Agility enables organisations to respond rapidly to evolving situations requiring flexible structures and adaptive thinking. Decentralised decision-making empowers those closest to the issue, enhancing responsiveness and creativity. Finally, collaboration across teams breaks down silos, allowing diverse perspectives to contribute to problem-solving and more holistic solutions.This organisational approach is accompanied by some risks in implementation:
Reduction of control: In some settings, particularly in military or high-stakes environments, the lack of a clear, hierarchical command structure could lead to challenges in maintaining discipline and adherence to protocols. In situations where strict orders are necessary, decentralised decision-making might undermine effective leadership.[37] This approach to laying the foundations for an innovative organisation also places very high demands on the people involved. It can be assumed that the broader the organisation is set up, the more conventional methods will come to the fore;
Implementation Complexity: Transitioning to a “Team of Teams” approach is difficult. It involves dismantling established structures and might face resistance from those accustomed to traditional, hierarchical organisations. Significant retraining, cultural shifts, and a strong commitment to the new model are required for it to succeed.While the “Team of Teams” model offers flexibility, innovation, and collaboration, its effectiveness depends on the environment and the organisation’s ability to manage the challenges of implementation and discipline. It’s most successful in fast-paced, information-intensive contexts where adaptability is crucial.
For this reason, the authors believe that promoting an associated organisational structure and culture in selected subunits to strengthen their own adaptability and innovation culture is a feasible and goal-oriented way to increase innovation capability in the military. These could be, for example, units that test the implementation of drone technology at the unit level or work in the information space.
Decisive progress in technological and military innovations is closely linked to developments in the private sector. The following organisational system of public-private partnerships focuses on this critical interface.
Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)
A PPP involves collaboration between military organisations and private-sector companies. This partnership capitalises on the expertise, funding, and innovation capabilities of the private sector while allowing the public sector to tap into advanced technologies and solutions. DARPA is an exemplary model of this type of partnership, which has driven significant technological advancements, including the creation of the internet and GPS, by working with private companies.[38]
DARPA is an exemplary model of this type of partnership, which has driven significant technological advancements, including the creation of the internet and GPS, by working with private companies.The collaboration between civilian and military sectors offers several advantages. Firstly, it provides access to cutting-edge civilian technological expertise that may not be available within military research and development facilities.[39] This collaboration also promotes cost efficiency, as the financial burden is shared between public and private stakeholders, accelerating development without over-reliance on defence budgets. It also accelerates innovation by rapidly introducing breakthrough technologies through a broader innovation ecosystem that enables the dual use of innovation
However, there are also significant disadvantages. One key issue is the potential for intellectual property conflicts, as the differing priorities of military objectives and private-sector profit motives can lead to disputes over IP rights.[40] Additionally, strategic divergence may arise, with civilian entities prioritising commercial interests that may not align with long-term military goals.
Phased Adoption Framework
Michael Horowitz’s phased adoption framework offers a structured approach to integrating innovations. It breaks the process into distinct stages: exploration, piloting, scaling, and full integration. This progression helps minimise risks by allowing for incremental adoption and iterative learning.
One key advantage of this approach is risk mitigation, as the phased process allows for early identification and resolution of potential issues.[41] Additionally, it provides strategic clarity by aligning each phase with specific objectives, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently. The framework also promotes adaptability, allowing for adjustments at each stage based on lessons learned, reducing the likelihood of large-scale implementation failures.
However, this approach has some disadvantages. The gradual pace of adoption may delay the deployment of urgently needed technologies, which could affect operational readiness during critical periods.[42] Furthermore, the approach requires sustained investments and organisational commitment throughout all phases, potentially straining budgets and personnel.
Cultural Transformation Programs
Cultural transformation programs are designed to shift organisational mindsets by cultivating innovation-friendly cultures through comprehensive training, education, and leadership development. These programs focus on addressing resistance to change by aligning cultural norms with the imperatives of innovation.
Cultural transformation programs are designed to shift organisational mindsets by cultivating innovation-friendly cultures through comprehensive training, education, and leadership development.One key advantage of this approach is long-term alignment, as it embeds innovation into the organisational culture, creating a sustainable foundation for future technological adoption.[43] Additionally, it fosters holistic change by addressing deep-rooted cultural barriers to innovation, encouraging openness to experimentation and adaptability. The programs also promote leadership development by equipping leaders with the skills to champion innovation and effectively manage resistance.
Nevertheless, there are notable disadvantages: Cultural transformation is resource-intensive, requiring significant time, financial investment, and commitment from leadership to achieve meaningful results.[44] Moreover, cultural shifts are inherently complex and may encounter setbacks or incomplete adoption, particularly in large, tradition-bound organisations.
The established frameworks shown here each focus on specific aspects that promote innovation. The list is exemplary and does not claim to be comprehensive. Bridging the innovation readiness gap necessitates a combination of frameworks tailored to the organisation’s specific needs and constraints. While McChrystal’s “Team of Teams” model enhances agility and cross-functional collaboration, PPPs leverage external expertise and funding. The phased adoption framework provides a structured approach to implementation, and cultural transformation programs address the more profound cultural barriers to innovation.
A strategic, environment-sensitive selection of different elements to open an organisation to innovation creates the basic prerequisite for corresponding success. This can maximise its benefits while mitigating its respective drawbacks, ensuring a coherent and adaptive approach to innovation.
Conclusion
The interplay between technological innovation and the military is crucial yet complex. While history shows that innovation is key to superiority, 21st-century disruptions heighten the urgency of closing the innovation readiness gap. Organisational fitness—adaptive structures, innovation culture, and strategic alignment—remains essential. Military challenges can be addressed with the right frameworks, ensuring lasting operational and strategic advantages.
Nonetheless, recognition of the necessity for transformation is still lacking in many areas. Maintaining hierarchical structures can be sensible but often proves slow and cumbersome. Modern technology enables real-time monitoring, which risks micromanagement. Therefore, a flexible structure—self-learning networks—is needed, allowing parts to assemble for acute challenges and later return to their original form or adopt new ones. Leadership quality must be situational, task-, and employee-dependent, requiring constant adjustment.
Modern technology enables real-time monitoring, which risks micromanagement.Complex situations contradict simple, rapid decision-making. Complexity requires comprehensive information and background knowledge, which leaders alone often cannot fully grasp. This argues in favour of team-based decision-making and flat structures—essentially, self-learning networks.[45] Modern, successful, and flexible organisations should not be viewed as rigid structures like buildings but as living systems, similar to organisms in a forest that autonomously adapt to environmental conditions without a patriarchal leader.[46]
Modern armed forces must be capable of both approaches. Hierarchical structures are essential for executing a plan, while self-learning networks are crucial for creativity, innovation, and solutions’ rapid, effective, and efficient development. Resources and decision-making authority must reside where the highest level of expertise is found—often at the periphery.[47] In commerce, this means those who interact directly with customers; in the military, it means the troops on the ground.[48] Complex challenges require creative teams, temporary project groups operating outside traditional hierarchies, or permanent networks interwoven within the organisation. Modern armed forces must be able to accommodate both structures and seamlessly transition between them. This flexibility allows for the swift integration of new technologies and methods while simultaneously evaluating their own effectiveness and efficiency.
Bernhard Schulyok has research interests in Security Policy and Military Capability Development. He has written three handbooks and numerous individual articles in the journal “Truppendienst“ and in the online journal “The Defence Horizon Journal”. He was the National Director of the multinational platform: Military Capability Development Campaign (MCDC), for over seven years, until March 2025.
Lukas Grangl has research interests in Security Policy, International Politics, and Military Policy. He has published work on the application and implementation of modern control concepts (e.g. New Public Management). He is a member of the Reserve Forces of the Austrian Armed Forces. He works for a global tax consulting, auditing, and consulting company.
Markus Gruber has research interests in International Politics, Foreign Policy Analysis, Diplomacy, Systems Theory (in International Relations), and Conflict and Security analysis. He is a Member of the Reserve Forces of the Austrian Armed Forces. He advises as a consultant on growth strategies, including business model innovation, M&A, and organisational development across various industries.
The views contained in this article are the authors’ alone and do not represent the views of the Federal Ministry of Defence.