What Can We Learn From the Government

There are times in life, whether at work or home, we have ideas, sometimes crazy ideas. At work we may want to build some over-the-top QSP model to understand the pharmacodynamics of a drug. Or at home we decide we want to tear down and remodel a bathroom. But to implement those ideas we often need someone else’s approval, maybe our boss, maybe our spouse. How do you convince them? How do you show them this is a great idea and one that should be implemented. To answer this, let’s take a look at an agency of the U.S. military – DARPA.

Why would we care what some military group has to say about innovation? Let me give you an example. The other day, my car broke down and I needed to have it towed to the nearest dealer. I spoke to Siri on my iPhone, “Siri – what is the address of the nearest Toyota dealer?” Siri then gave me the address. This simple act, which is done over and over by thousands around the world, involves many pieces of technology: voice recognition that converts my commands to computer instructions, GPS to triangulate my location, and the internet to find all the locations of dealers near me. None of these technologies were developed by private industry or in Silicon Valley. They were all initially funded by DARPA.

Founded in 1958 in response to Russia’s launch of Sputnik, DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency of the US Department of Defense, that is responsible for the development of new technologies for use by the military. DARPA invests in pivotal breakthrough technologies for national security. Through DARPA’s funding, they influenced everything from the internet to drones, from GPS satellites to computer networks. Today we know DARPA has funded research in robot insect spies, smart bullets, and human brain-computer interfaces. Whether or not you agree with their mission or what they’ve done, as scientists we can learn from DARPA’s innovation process.

DARPA’s guiding principle is that to reap big rewards requires big risks. But when is a risk too big? When do the risks outweight the rewards? George Heilmeier (shown below in the photo), spent much of the 1970s at DARPA and was its director from 1975 to 1977. He proposed a set of questions, called the Heilmeier Catechism, to ask of every research proposal:

1. What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives with absolutely no jargon.

2. How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?

3. What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?

4. Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?

5. What are the risks?

6. How much will it cost?

7. How long will it take?

8. What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success?

None of these questions are original or are magic bullets designed to determine whether a project will succeed. Mostly they address the who, what, where, when, and how of a project. A well thought out business proposal would address all these questions. Some of these questions should look familiar and are business-aligned, like the cost and timeline questions, and some are aligned with the sales side of the job, like the why should I care and what are you trying to do questions. What they are designed to do is cut through the baloney and in plain-speak terms get to the heart of the proposal.

The first four questions I find particularly relevant as a communicator because when you think about it, these questions should be addressed during any presentation of results of the project. How is it done today is like the background of a presentation. What are you trying to do is your methods section. What is new in your approach and who cares are the main discussion points of any presentation. The one question every member in the audience asks, whether they realize it or not, is “What’s in it for me? Why should I care about this presentation?” Your presentation needs to answer that question and it should be done early in your presentation, not at the end, which by then you may have already lost their attention.

As a manager I find the last question particularly useful and one that is not often asked. What does success look like? How will you know when to cut your losses and move on by either terminating a project or maybe out-source it to another group?

There are two other questions I think might be worth considering. One is whether in 3 years, or 5 years, will the project still be worthwhile? For example, if you decide to build some immunology platform model and next year the company moves out of the immunology space then you have wasted resources that could have gone elsewhere. The other question has to do with how would the resources have been spent if you don’t go forward with a project? For instance, if you do go forward with the immunology platform, maybe then you can’t develop a metabolic and cardiovascular platform that might be needed in another therapeutic area. However, maybe that immunology platform could be applied to immuno-oncology, vaccines, and autoimmune diseases making its worth increase if it succeeds. The Heilmeier Catechism doesn’t operate in a vacuum, the totality of potential projects must be considered.

It’s hard to argue with the success of DARPA. Over the years its investments have had a huge impact on society. When looking at what are the keys to its success, time and again the Heilmeier Catechism is mentioned. It’s time we started using the Catechism as well.