The Natick Soldier Center Matthew Hill | Bret Richmond Polina Segalova | David Yoshida

1. The Natick Soldier Center Matthew Hill | Bret Richmond Polina Segalova | David Yoshida Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering 3 November 2003

2. Department of Defense Army Other Services (Navy, Air Force, etc.) USSOCOM Army Material Command RDECOM Special Operations Forces Warrior Protection Natick Soldier Center

3. Purpose of NSC • To maximize the warrior's survivability, sustainability, mobility, combat effectiveness and quality of life by treating the warrior as a system. • Technology generation • Soldier system generation • Solving field problems • Do not mass produce products

4. Directorates • Individual protection • Combat feeding • Collective Protection • Airdrop/ Aerial Delivery • Supporting Science and Technology (biotechnology, nanotechnology) • Warrior Systems Technology & Program Integration • Objective Force Warrior

5. Individual Protection Directorate • Directs Research and Development in: • Chemical/ Biological Protection • Ballistic Protection • Directed Energy Protection • Environmental Protection • Camouflage • Multi-functional Materials

6. Special Operations Forces (SOF) • 1942 – Army Rangers established • 1952 – Army Green Berets formed • 1962 – Navy SEALs created • USSOCOM established in 1987 • USSOCOM’s role validated in 2001 with operations in Afghanistan

7. SOF Personnel and Office • SOF office does not report directly to NSC • New and highly flexible organization • SOF Program Manager (PM) is the only civilian PM at NSC • Much financial flexibility due to small volume of products

8. Strategy • Primary strategy is to “deliver good stuff” to their customers • Take risks – ask for forgiveness, not permission • Value of their reputation is increased by: • Designing high quality products • “Making it right” when they make mistakes

9. “What do we produce? Results.”–Fred Chan • Unlike other directorates, all ideas come from the field, not the lab • All manufacturing is out-sourced • Turn-around time of 2-8 months vs. 4-6 years for rest of military • Full process management

10. Production Process • Field & Evaluate request • Find or Design a Solution. Off-the-shelf is preferred. • Source vendors for cost and speed • Guide vendors in transition to production • Follow-up with field users

11. Marketing • Differentiation • Emphasis on speed and results • Higher individual autonomy • Closer link to the customers • Competitors • Other government agencies • Private sector companies • Marketing Strategy • Minimal advertisement, mostly word or mouth and reputation • “If you build it, they will come.”

12. Finances • Funded by DOD (~$2 million). • Additional funding from special program budget allocations and directorates (~$38 million). • Competes with private sector defense contractors and other DOD research facilities for 95% of its budget

13. Finances - Distribution • $2 million Operations and Maintenance budget supports 9 staff members and capital improvements • $.5 million RDTE budget enables development of commercial and off the shelf products • $37.5 Million procurement budget funds the actual purchasing of all developed equipment

14. Finances - Budgeting • Requests are planned out for five years into the future • Every two years the budget is reviewed and finalized • Budget approval comes from up the chain of command, ultimately receiving congressional approval • Budgeting received only covers Operation and Maintenance expenses

15. Conclusion • SOF Group represents a new wave in military organization to respond to the need for a dynamic, lean, and productive military. • Though entrepreneurial internally, application of its methodology to other parts of the military and to SOF’s own role in the military is needed.

16. Thank you • Dianne St. Jean • Fred Chan • Michelle Poirier • Dick Brown • Natick Soldier Center Staff