The enemy of good enough: a different way to look at emerging technology.

• Author: Smith, Kirk W.
• Position: COMMENTARY

Exactly when is technology ready for operational use? It depends on whom, and when, you ask. People will come up with an answer based on their perspective, a viewpoint informed by their environment.

Some say an advanced technology is ready when it meets the threshold requirements, or key performance parameters, specified in a validated requirement document. That assumes the requirements are known. In the case of KPPs, it assumes select requirements are absolute minimal necessities --without which a technology should not be fielded. Additionally, it should meet all the other key attributes. That's a good starting point, but it shouldn't necessarily be the final determination.

As far as documented requirements are concerned, one might ask, why is the minimum, or threshold, capability the minimum? Likewise, what does the objective capability mean? Is that the capability we would rather have if it were feasible? Is that the best we can expect to achieve from a technology? Is it all we're willing to pay for? Or is it the limit of our vision?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

We generate requirements based on our experience. Generally, requirements are written to describe what we can't presently do, and what we would like to be able to do--essentially, where we see a capability gap. Right or wrong, requirements are also influenced by what we think technology can and can't achieve. In reality, the upper and lower limits of what a technology is operationally capable of can only be determined during operations.

Others may say an advanced technology is ready for use even when it has only limited value--perhaps just an incremental increase in a capability we don't currently possess, a cost improvement, reliability or ease of use--that replaces what we use now. What if it provides a capability that is totally different than what we have now--an additional capability? We are routinely asked if the added capability is worth the investment. To some, this leads to the notion of a need for cost-benefit analysis.

The pursuit of an undeniable positive cost benefit can often result in continuous investment in research and development, driven by the desire to make the solution perfect, which ultimately results in deferring operational use. Then, after long, drawn out investments in technology development, we think of other creative things the technology should be able to do before we field it, further delaying fielding.

Sometimes we find that after we have invested so...