H4MoD Problem Sponsor Interview: Lt Col James Ashworth
Last week we caught up with one of our Problem Sponsors, Lt Col James Ashworth, Commanding Officer of 2 YORKS, currently the Army’s only Enhanced Light Force Battalion and, as announced under the Integrated Review, the Army’s future Prototype Warfighting and Experimentation Battalion. Lt Col Ashworth recently sponsored a Hacking for Ministry of Defence (H4MoD) problem at the Defence Studies Department, King’s College London looking at how to measure the “capability” of an Army Battalion. His team developed a solution, now being implemented, that will allow him to measure the extent to which a £160 million capability investment has yielded a more capable fighting force.
H4MoD is a postgraduate programme in which teams of four to five students learn and apply the lean start-up methodology to understand and solve national security and defence problems in 10 weeks. Each team is given a different problem, each with its own government Problem Sponsor. The Sponsor is someone who understands and has experience of the problem.
H4MoD is a module on KCL’s MSc Defence Innovation at the Defence Academy which piloted in 2020/21. Students on the course are all drawn from the Armed Forces or MoD Civil Service.
Could you talk us through the problem that you submitted to H4MoD?
The core thrust of the problem comes down to how you measure the “capability” of an Army Battalion. 2 YORKS recently received £160 million in capability investment for kit and equipment, such as rifles, robotic vehicles, and drones. We are the first battalion to receive this sort of investment and we’ve been asked to integrate the new kit and equipment and “make ourselves more capable”. Obviously, this is a huge opportunity. But, how do we measure what makes us a more capable battalion?
Recognising that attempts to measure capability could come with a wide range of interpretations, we decided to boil this down to the core of what a combat unit is for - namely, our capability comes down to our lethality. However, perhaps surprisingly, there is no common definition of “lethality” for the UK military nor are there standard metrics or frameworks to measure it. Finding a way for me to measure “lethality” and thereby evidence enhanced capability was in essence the problem that I put to the team.
Can you talk through the solution that the team came to?
The team quickly realised that a single, neat definition and relevant metrics for “lethality” that would be applicable across Defence was not going to emerge. They also quickly discovered that the larger the grouping, the more difficult it was to find any common metric. So, their solution entailed narrowing their gaze to the section level, namely, an eight-person team or smaller. They put together some key metrics and activities that built on things that we already do. Ultimately, what they came up with allows us to ‘score’ the section level team “before” and “after,” thereby giving us evidence to say whether the kit and equipment has enhanced our “lethality” at this level. Likewise, it enables us to determine whether specific equipment has degraded our lethality - perhaps it is heavier or takes a larger cognitive load to operate, for example. This is just as important to understand.
The team recognised that this sort of detailed evaluation would not work as well with larger groupings - such as platoon or company levels. So, the second part of their solution was to conceptualise different mission sets and activities, and to translate these across to an existing NATO framework. NATO remains a cornerstone of British Defence and therefore our ability to communicate enhancements in capability, in a NATO language, is hugely important.
What is the potential impact of this solution if implemented?
We intend to implement both parts of their solution. Starting from the bottom up, we are currently focussing on the section level. Implementing the team’s proposal has forced a change in how we collect data and present it. In addition to anecdotal evidence from our soldiers, we now have a framework that allows us to objectively test and evidence the impact of the new kit and equipment on our lethality, and thereby our overall capability. Furthermore, the fact that this framework was developed by a team of individuals outside of the Battalion - two of whom were not in the Army - provides this process with greater validity.
In sum, what the team delivered has provided us with the means to better measure and evidence the impact of the £160 million capability investment.
Wow, that is impressive. Can you share some of the highlights of the course that resulted in that outcome?
There are a number of strands to this. Being forced to sit down and write a problem statement was helpful in itself. It crystallised in my and my team’s mind exactly what it is that we are seeking to get after. That exercise was useful in cutting through some of the ambiguity and helped us to think about what was important.
Second, as an infantry battalion based in Cyprus there is a danger we could become very parochial about our problem set. The student team were able to connect us and our problem into spaces that we would have really struggled to reach and that growth of network and perspectives has been especially powerful and helpful. Ultimately, the growth of the network of stakeholders has long-term benefits that reach well beyond the duration of the H4MoD course.
Third, the team really did challenge us in some areas. Some of their deductions and some of the directions they took our problem did not align with our initial view. But that really helped us to think differently about the problem.
Finally, on a personal note, given that the student team was made up of my peers - this was something that I found particularly helpful and enjoyable. I really appreciated the opportunity to take off my Commanding Officer “mask” and to chat frankly with my peers about the problem. This was a real highlight for me.
That peer-to-peer exchange is really interesting. Are there any key lessons that you would impart to future problem sponsors, either as a sponsor to a peer group team or to a more traditional postgraduate student team?
I would highlight three key points here:
Don’t think that you have to deliver a perfectly crafted problem to the team. You will, of course, put work into defining the problem and understanding the parameters of it. But don’t get too wedded to that. In many ways your student team will add real value by combing through your problem and refining it. In fact, if you think you have a perfect problem and you don’t want it to change, then you’ve invalidated yourself to the process.
The time that you invest as a sponsor is not a burden and you will get a huge amount from this. I think the military is particularly bad for solutioneering early and for thinking “give me a couple of hours and I can crack this.” However, for a genuine long-term problem, I would suggest that you need a broader perspective and a network of stakeholders to better shape a more viable solution. As such, your commitment of time will pay dividends and you should see it as an investment for a better long-term solution.
Finally, I was clear in my mind that what the student team could provide was enhanced thinking, new perspectives, a growth of the network of stakeholders and some proposals that we could build on. I wasn’t expecting to throw them a problem and three months later to be given a gold-plated solution. To think differently would be to miss the reality that the problem is mine, it isn’t the team’s problem. Ultimately, the onus is on me to take the team’s excellent work forward.
Thank you James for your support and insight into your experience as a H4MoD sponsor.
Lt Col James Ashworth is a career-long infanteer specialising in the light role. With a mix of operational experience in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Ukraine, he has also served in the Ministry of Defence in both the Executive and Operational departments.
Prior to taking command of 2 YORKS, James worked as part of the Army’s Integrated Review team developing the vision and blueprint for the Army’s Future Soldier proposition.