Anda di halaman 1dari 305

SALVE REGINA UNIVERSITY

NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND

VISIONARY TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP FROM


ADMIRAL HYMAN G. RICKOVER TO MASTERS OF THE
INFORMATION AGE

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES


IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
APRIL 2005
BY

WILLIAM F. BUNDY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

UMI Number: 3169880

Copyright 2005 by
Bundy, William F.

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3169880
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company


300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

SALVE REGINA UNIVERSITY


GRADUATE SCHOOL

The dissertation of William F. Bundy: VISIONARY TECHNOLOGY


LEADERSHIP FROM ADMIRAL HYMAN G. RICKOVER TO MASTERS OF
THE INFORMATION AGE, submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities from Salve Regina University, has
been read and approved by:

y(

READER
Daniel Cowdin, Ph.D.

Date

I C hr S

READER
Date

Carnes Lord, Ph.D.

L)

MENTOR
Myra Edelstein,\Ed.D.

Ph.D.
PROGRAM
DIRECTOR

Date

'< < '

c-<-c

Lance Carluccio, Ph.D.

VICE PRESIDENT
ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS
Theresa Madonna, Sc.D., J.D.

61

Date

y-Q -S'-osr
Date

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Dedication and Acknowledgements

This dissertation is dedicated to all of those sailors and officers of the U.S. Navy
past and present who have gone down to the sea in ships and submarines, flown over the
seas and stood in harms way. Their lives and deeds were and still are subject to
technologies that allow them to sail or fly in an unforgiving environment that holds peril
from nature as well as adversaries. This dissertation is especially dedicated to LTJG
William F. Bundy, Jr. and my fellow African-American submarine commanding officers,
known as the Centennial Seven - Rear Admirals Tony Watson, Mel Williams and Cecil
Haney, and Captains Pete Tzomes, Bruce Grooms and Joe Peterson.
I offer thanks to my wife Jeanne L. Bundy for her support and encouragement,
and to my son Raymond who offered his encouragement. My profound thanks are
extended to Myra Edelstein, Ed.D; Daniel Cowdin, Ph.D. and Carnes Lord, Ph.D. for
their guidance and critical reviews that helped to form the substance of this dissertation.
Brother Eugene Lappin, Ph.D. is beyond a doubt an inspiring mentor to all of us who
have pursued the Ph.D. at Salve Regina University.
My thanks are also extended to the naval officers, civilian engineers and scientists
who contributed their opinions and comments on the subject of technology leadership and
innovation in the U.S. Navy.

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Abstract

This doctoral dissertation examines the evolution of technology leadership in the


U.S. Navy beginning with Admiral Hyman G. Rickover to the current era and extends to
private sector practices. It ponders the question o f how visionary leadership is exercised
to deliver transformational change through technology. The thesis presented argues that
visionary leaders must exercise the capability to advance their vision, exercise
professional experience in advancing that vision, and that they must demonstrate the
leadership capacity to gather talented people and sponsors to their cause. These leaders
must also accept ultimate accountability for their creations and recognize the intended
and unintended consequences of their technologies. That research question also extends
to exploring the consequences of accepting or rejecting disruptive technology in the
information age.
This dissertation has relevance beyond the Navy and explores current technology
innovation methods and insights. A technology focus on information technology (IT) is
maintained to enhance the value of the research in an age where IT is a dominant driver
of change that directly impacts everyone. The emerging technology leadership and
governance discipline inspired the need for this research.

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Dissertation research and observations are offered on visionary leadership within


the context of the humanities. The fundamental question of the Salve Regina University
doctoral program is: What does it mean to be human in an age o f advanced technology?
The more specific question answered in this dissertation is: What does it mean to be
human in an age o f advanced technology while serving in positions o f decision-making
leadership? Being a person responsible for introducing, sustaining, and delivering
technology and its governance has special meaning. The Salve Regina University
doctoral program is grounded in this context which is a fairly unique approach to the
study of technology and its impact on humans.

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Preface

Inspiration for this doctoral research into visionary leadership began during my
tenure as a technology strategic planner for FleetBoston Financial. My experiences at
FleetBoston lead me to investigate how leaders in technology-driven organizations
should be prepared for their roles in leading and governing the delivery of socially
transforming technology. My initial work was centered on technology leadership and
governance during my course work. That research lead to a decision to further explore
leadership development, innovation program management, and what it meant to be a
visionary leader.
This research was combined with my observations at FleetBoston and experience
gained later as a senior research analyst at the Naval War College. My work at the war
colleges Center for Naval Warfare Studies involved assessing emerging technologies
within an operations context. Again, the question of visionary leadership surfaced as a
theme. Based on more than 8 years as a technology strategic planner, working as a
technology to operational capability analyst, and research into technology leadership and
governance, I have come to the conclusion that visionary leadership is based on a rather
fundamental thesis.
With due respect to a growing number of authors on leadership theory and
practices, this dissertation will document the uncomplicated thesis that visionary leaders
must have the passion to promote their ideas, exercise the professional experience to
advance their vision, and finally gather the talent and sponsorship to advance their vision
through mazes characteristic of complex organizations.
As a basis for exploring this thesis, I selected Admiral Hyman G. Rickover as the
exemplar of visionary leadership. He expertly championed his vision of nuclear
propulsion in submarines and ships, and maintained support for the nuclear power
program for more that 30 years. He gathered a cadre of the brightest people in the Navy
to support and expand his vision. And, he was ultimately recognized as the Father of the
Nuclear Navy. I soon found that Admiral Rickover was certainly a true visionary
leader, but that in the end he proved to be harmful in his position of absolute control.
Keeping the focus narrowed to the submarine community, I selected Vice Admiral

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

William F. Rabom as the other exemplar of visionary leadership. Then a Rear Admiral,
Raborn led the technological miracle of putting nuclear missiles in nuclear submarines;
thereby, creating the strategic deterrence capability that ultimately contributed to ending
the Cold War. He clearly demonstrated the thesis visionary leadership traits. Vice
Admiral Rabom was a gifted leader who led formation of the project management
discipline, program management processes, and quality assurance that form the basis for
pursuing capability maturity today in the information technology industry. This
connection with the present day again led me back to a focus on information technology
to maintain a narrow focus for dissertation thesis research.
It became evident through continuing research and observation that information
technology has become a culture transforming technology. As Rickover and Raborn
were masters of visionary leadership in their era, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page and
Sergey Brin have been identified as masters of the information age. Their
accomplishments and basis for success are founded in the same leadership traits
demonstrated by Rickover and Rabom so many years ago. There is a fundamental
similarity between all of these masters of transforming innovation.
The thesis of this study is simple. Visionary leaders must have the passion and
skill to articulate and promote their vision. They must sell their ideas to others and push
their programs along. Visionary leaders must have the professional experience to see the
vision as a useful and socially acceptable technology solution. They must acquire and
maintain the skills to govern development resources and navigate complex organizations
to advance technological initiatives toward true innovation. And, visionary leaders must
have the leadership capacity to gather others to support their cause. This includes
recruiting, retaining and stimulating talented people to create and operate the technology.
And, it includes capturing devoted sponsors and the trust of superiors who will advance
and protect the vision. The Innovators Circle below illustrates the traits of visionary
leadership in complex organizations. Each trait is seen as equally pertinent to advancing
visions within a circle of innovation.

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Visionary Technology
Leadership Traits
Vision - the passion and skill to
articulate and promote a vision.
Professional Experience - the skill
to govern development and
navigate complex organizations to
advance socially acceptable
initiatives toward true innovation.
Leadership - the capacity to
gather others to create and
support a vision

This dissertation represents a journey of learning and discovery that began within
the context of the Salve Regina University doctoral program. The context of visionary
leadership in advancing technological change is seen as a primary example of what it
means to be human in an age o f advanced technology as defined by the Salve Regina
University doctoral Program. A discussion of technology and human work is offered to
establish the basis for this dissertation in the humanities. It is not merely a business
management study, but one that relates to man as a co-creator with God in advancing
humankind on earth. An explanation of research methods follows the introduction.
Thesis exploration begins with a review of literature that forms the basis for
further research and observations. This section of the dissertation offers the reader with
initial coverage of Rickover, Raborn and leadership topics. This literature review
includes an explanation of how the thesis argument is seen as the basis for most of the
management frameworks reviewed for this work. The literature review is followed by the
Navy case. The Navy section of the dissertation establishes the visionary leadership traits
demonstrated by admirals Rickover and Raborn, and goes on to discuss technology
innovation in the Navy. Two current day leaders are identified along with a review of
acquisition processes that have grown from the Rickover and Rabom era experiences.

V ll

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This section concludes with a short discussion on American ingenuity that continues to
focus on the concept that vision creates persistent innovation.
The private sector section of the dissertation follows with identification of current
visionary masters in this the information age. Details of their accomplishments and
comparative traits are offered to demonstrate that the thesis traits persist as fundamentals
needed to create true innovation. The private sector section continues with research and
observations on development of technology leaders and technology innovation practices.
This discussion is important in understanding the complexities involved in grooming
technology leaders and the basis for processes that allow leaders to govern innovation.
As a conclusion to the private sector section of the dissertation a case study is shared that
represents findings from close observation of a new technology that will impact society.
This study also establishes the proposition that visionary leadership can be a shared
experience among industry collaborators. In industry there are innovations that impact
the entire product or service sector of the economy. One company can not go it alone
especially in those cases where government regulation controls business practices.
In the concluding sections of the dissertation, a qualitative analysis is presented
that links visionary leadership traits and actions to examples in the dissertation. Those
conclusions are then interpreted as worthwhile through a non-scientific survey of
opinions shared by Navy acquisition professionals, private industry contractors, a
research laboratory executive and an entrepreneur. This survey was conducted during a
three day meeting of individuals involved in a Navy technology innovation program.
Survey participants were in one way or another responsible for technology innovation
that supported the vision of the Chief of Naval Operations in pursuing a warfare
capability. And finally, the conclusion offers a theory to practice example of how a Navy
technology development leader exercised the thesis traits to bring about a significant
breakthrough in capability. This example actually demonstrates the integration of Navy
innovation in the current day with private sector ingenuity in the information technology
industry.
The summary of findings is presented along with limits and constraints on this
study, and recommendations for further study. This dissertation represents a journey of
observation, learning, and discovery that offers a view of what it means to be a leader in

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

an age of astonishing technological change. Having experienced the business of


technological innovation and now having conducted this dissertation research, I have now
walked the walk and can talk the talk on what it takes to be a true visionary leader. The
fundamental thesis is uncomplicated. All one needs to become a visionary leader is the
passion of vision, the will to exercise professional experience, and above all the capacity
to gather others about you who believe in the possible.

William F. Bundy
Bristol, Rhode Island

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table of Contents

Dedication and Acknowledgements................................................................................ ii


Abstract........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Preface................................................................................................................................v
I. In tr o d u c t io n .................................................................................................................................... 1
What it Means to Be Human in an Age o f Advanced Technology................................. 2

Technology and Human Endeavors - An Emerging Discipline.................................... 3


Defining Technology and a Basis fo r Creation.............................................................11
Technology and Social Change...................................................................................... 18
Researching Visionary Leadership - Methods and Perspectives...............................23
II. L iterature R eview - N a v a l

and

P rivate S ector T echnology L eadersh ip .. 29

RICKOVER - Underway on Nuclear Power!................................................................31


Rabom to Eisenhower - POLARIS, from out o f the deep to target - perfect
37
Guidance, Requirements, Vision and Technology-enabled Capabilities................... 40
Leadership, Politics and Power.....................................................................................42
Evolving with Technology - First Movers and Slow Followers................................. 44
Trinity and Davids Mind - Unintended Outcomes..................................................... 53
Vision, Overcoming Barriers and Gathering Support.................................................54
III. F rom R ickover

to

Joint Integration C o n c e p t s .........................................................56

Rickover, NAUTILUS, and the Nuclear Navy...............................................................59


Duty and Honor................................................................................................................75
Vice Admiral William F. Rabom and Polaris Development........................................76
The Lasting Legacy - Rickover and Raborn.................................................................86
Post-Rickover Era to Transformation........................................................................... 88
Current Day Transformation....................................................................................... 103
Navy to Civilian Business Leadership......................................................................... 114
IV. P rivate S ector T echnology In no va tio n - L e a d e r s , P rocesses a n d
In d u st r y C o l l a b o r a t io n ...........................................................................................................116

Masters o f the Information Age - Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.................................... 118
Leadership in Technology Organizations the New Economy and Leadership
Development...................................................................................................................134
Knowledge, Dreams and Vision...................................................................................141
Leadership Values and Accountability........................................................................ 151
Technology Governance - Creating Business Solutions............................................156
Power and Accountability What Is Profit?..............................................................170
Governance and Leadership........................................................................................ 177
Disruptive Technologies, Electronic Alternatives and Visionary Success............... 192
Financial Services Industry Strategy and Business Evolution..................................204
An Industry Leaders Approach...................................................................................210
Check 21.........................................................................................................................212
V. N a v y

and

P rivate S ector P arallels

in the Inform ation

A g e ......................... 221

Navy Visionary Leadership.......................................................................................... 222


Business Technology Visionary Leadership................................................................224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

A Qualitative Analysis o f Leadership Traits and Actions ............................................... 2 2 7


Visionary Leadership Traits and Actions Survey....................................................... 235
Common Ground fo r Vision and Innovation.............................................................. 237
Theory to Practice: Collaboration between the Navy and the Private Sector
240
VI. S u m m ar y a n d C o n c lu sio n ..................................................................................................243
A ppendix A - S tatem ent of A dm iral F r a n k L. B o w m a n .............................................252
A ppendix B - A n Interview with A dm iral F r a n k B ow m an on the S S G N ............ 256
A ppendix C - V A R B u sin e ss M a g a zin e s D ecem ber 2004 T op T echnology
In n o v a t o r s ....................................................................................................................................... 259
A ppendix D - V isionary L eader T raits a n d A ctions S u r v e y ..................................265
A ppendix E - V isionary L eadership T raits a n d A ction S u r v ey G raphic R esults
................................................................................................................................................................ 272
B iblio g ra ph y ................................................................................................................................... 280

Figures

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

1 - Dissertation Research Pyramid........................................................................................ 26


2 - N uclear Pow er Organization Chart 1 9 6 0 's.................................................................. 69
3 - Top D ow n Capability N eeds Identification M eth od ology......................................99
4 - High Performance Work F o r c e ..................................................................................... 139
5 - IT / B usiness Career T rajectories................................................................................. 146
6 - Freedom and Pow er - M anagement and Leadership C h o ic e s..............................154
7 - E volving consum er perceptions o f v a lu e ...................................................................159
8 - Elem ents o f Enterprise E x cellen ce...............................................................................168
9 - Governance and Strategy R elation sh ip ...................................................................... 179
10 - Enterprise Governance M o d el................................................................................... 180
11 - IT Governance M od el................................................................................................... 181
12 - Integrated e-B usiness Leadership M o d e l............................................................... 183
13 - Kanter's Innovation Pyram id......................................................................................198
14 - Market Master Graphic................................................................................................ 202
15 - A M odel o f Balanced O u tco m es.............................................................................. 215
16 - The Innovators Circle --V isionary Leadership Traits and A c tio n s.............. 239

Tables
Table 1 - Visionary Leadership Trait and Actions - Vision............................................ 229
Table 2 - Visionary Leadership Trait and Actions - Professional Experience..............231
Table 3 - Visionary Leadership Trait Factors - Leadership............................................ 233

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

I. Introduction
Technology represents the most powerful force for change in human evolution.
From simple technologies that assure human survival against the elements to complex
systems that make space and undersea travel possible, technology is the catalyst that
changes how humans live and respond to the challenges of existence.
This study answers questions on the concept of visionary leadership in technology
driven organizations and more specifically technology visionary leadership in the U.S.
Navy and its evolution from the Admiral Hyman G. Rickover era to the present day.
Correlations will be drawn in this study to leadership after the Rickover era in the Navy
and to the concepts of visionary leadership in the private sector. These correlations are
important to confirming the value of three human characteristics that form a thesis for
understanding successful visionary leadership. These characteristics are vision,
professional experience or knowledge, and the capacity to influence others to accept and
support a vision. This last characteristic can be called leadership. The results and the
trail markers along this journey will better define that definition of human skill and
faculty. Development of technologists into business leaders and technology executives is
best achieved by enabling a learning and growth experience for individuals who want to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

assume leadership roles. It is important to note that there are two types of technology
leaders to consider in developing individuals for leadership positions. There are
innovator-business management technology leaders. And, there are holistic technology
innovators who facilitate human evolution through technology. This dissertation will
focus on innovator-business management technology leaders with references to the
human perspective of technology-innovators.
This dissertation represents a journey of learning and discovery that spans a
period of 8 years and two significant work experiences. But, more importantly, this
research and the period of observation was conducted within a study of the humanities
and how humanities offers an explanation of life in these times of extraordinary
technological change. It is, therefore, important to begin this dissertation with a
discussion on what it means to be human in this age and to explore ideas on technology
and human work. These concepts overarch this dissertation and while there may not be
specific reference to these ideas in every section of this work, the basis for this journey is
founded in the meaning of human life and technological innovation.

What it Means to Be Human in an Age of Advanced Technology

The fundamental question of the Salve Regina University doctoral program is:
What does it mean to be human in an age o f advanced technology? This key question
will be explored from a humanities perspective with a focus on business leadership.
The more specific question that will be answered in this dissertation is: What does it
mean to be human in an age o f advanced technology while serving in positions o f
decision-making leadership? Being a person responsible for introducing, sustaining, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

delivering technology and its governance has special meaning. This topic is of personal
interest because, prior to undertaking the Ph.D. program and this dissertation, I served as
a career senior naval officer, a senior official in state government, and as a technology
and operations executive within a corporate organization. These roles inspired
considerable thought about the influence of technology on how leaders make decisions
that impact humankind.

Technology and Human Endeavors - An Emerging Discipline


Advances in technology have shaped the meaning of human existence. Beginning
with answering the challenges of basic survival with simple applications of physics to
complex applications of quantum physics, biomedical sciences, information access and
knowledge accumulation human beings have met the challenges of life with technology.
Arnold J. Toynbee in A Study o f History (1946) provides the basis for understanding how
human history reflects human response to challenges often with the introduction of
transforming technological events. Technology and its influence on individuals and
society can be understood through a study of the humanities. The study of humanities
includes art, literature, ethics and religion.

Art offers the opportunity to correlate through Zeitgeist the relationship


between technology, art and political and philosophical ideas.

Literature provides a view of the human experience that can only be read
or viewed through an authors eye.

Ethics offers the perspective of what it means to embrace human


responses to changing norms and responsibilities.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

And finally, religion forms a framework and the basis for answering the
unanswered questions of existence in a world in which technology seems
to provide answers to everything.

The study of humanities offers detailed perspectives on art as a medium for


correlating technology, art and thinking. Literature makes real the learning experiences of
others in an environment and setting that can only be imagined. Ethics presents the case
for justice, rights and reason in a changing world. And religion, offers hope and the
knowledge that there are unknowns yet to be discovered and that these discoveries can
provide a better life on earth. Viewed in relationship to current events, the study of
humanities in relationship to advancing technology is an emerging discipline that has
relevance and purpose. Beyond the academic and educational pursuits, there is a need to
form an area of study that scientists and engineers can participate in that will build a
responsible foundation for their work and innovation. The result must be a balance
between trusted scientific discovery, responsible technology development, and a truly
accountable society.
This study will focus on leadership through the lens of philosophy and ethics with
special attention given to duty ethics. Literature will be used to witness visionary
leadership through the mask of fiction. Finally, management will form the other lens
used in this study. In addition to the humanities, preparation was directed to the
management discipline - a human endeavor that forms an extension of human learning.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Philosophy
Philosophy provides background and deeper understanding of practical problems
and solutions. Descartes, DaVinci and in modern times, innovators like Hyman G.
Rickover, are the subjects of this study.

Ethics
Ethics offers the perspective of right or wrong regarding human actions and
decisions. The ethical discussion reflects on the meaning of human responsibilities and
rights. Human existence in an age of advancing technology is strongly influenced by
ownership of and access to technology and its products. Those who have the power to
govern technology hold an unprecedented position to change the lives of others. In the
ease of introducing, sustaining and developing business technology decision-makers have
the power to influence how humans interact, generate and share wealth, and manage their
lives. For these reasons, ethics must form the basis for technology leadership and
governance.
An extended definition of ethics is appropriate for this study given the importance
of duty as it pertains to naval officers and individuals who take the oath of office within
government. And, there are certain individual dilemmas that are faced by individuals
who have responsibility for introducing social and cultural changes through technology.
A review of deontological ethics with a focus on duty to a higher-collective
authority should be defined to form context for this study. The following discussion on
deontological ethics forms the basis for understanding the roles of leaders in discharging
duty ethics.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Deontological theories, from the Greek word deon, or duty, emphasize


foundational duties or obligations and form the basis for defining individual
responsibility to act. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) explains duty
ethics theory in his Fundamental Principles o f the Metaphysics o f Morals (1785) as
translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Kant defines duties to oneself and duties to
others, and he sees the traditional duties to God as a matter of natural religion and less of
a matter ethics. Kant refines the notion of duty by arguing that moral actions are based on
a single, "supreme principle of morality" which is objective, rational, and freely chosen
as a categorical imperative. Although the categorical imperative is a single principle,
Kant gives the following formulations of it. Here are the direct quotes from Kant:

The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Since the universality of the law
according to which effects are produced constitutes what is properly called
nature in the most general sense (as to form), that is the existence of things
so far as it is determined by general laws, the imperative of duty may be
expressed thus: Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy
will a universal law of nature (Kant 1785, 27)."

The Formula of the End Itself: If then there is a supreme practical


principle or, in respect of human will, a categorical imperative, it must be
one which, being drawn from the conception of that which is necessarily
an end of everyone because it is an end in itself, constitutes an objective
principle of will... So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own
person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as
means only (Ibid, 32)."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "A rational being must always
regard himself as giving laws either as a member or as sovereign in a
kingdom of ends which is rendered possible by the freedom of will (Ibid,
36).

Kant states that duty is the responsibility of all humans. He states: ...duty, does
not rest at all on feelings, impulses, or inclinations, but solely on the relationship of
rational beings to one another, a relationship in which the will of a rational being must
always be regarded as legislative, since otherwise it could not be conceived as an end in
itself. Reason then refers every maxim of the will, regarding it as legislating universally,
to every other will and also to every action towards oneself, and this not on account of
any other practical motive or any future advantage, but from the idea of the dignity of a
rational being, obeying no law but that which he himself also gives (Ibid, 36).

In the

context of this dissertation, leaders must discharge their duty to organizations, their
visions and more importantly to the oaths taken or implied that establish their offices and
authority. Deontological ethics, duty, ethics must drive their decisions and form the
motives for action. The naval officers discussed take an oath to protect and defend the
constitution and are bound by services traditions of honor, integrity and commitment.
Private sector leaders may not have a documented charge, but are nonetheless bound by
ethics and duty to their stakeholders, stockholders and colleagues.
Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question: What
ought a man to do? Its answer is that he ought to act so as to produce the best
consequences possible. In the notion of consequences the utilitarian includes all of the
good and bad produced by the act, whether arising after the act has been performed or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

during its performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not
great, some utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue.
According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the
consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent
compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.
(Utilitarianism - The Ethical Theory for All Times, 2004)
In assessing the consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of
intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences,
and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic
good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed
happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of
intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the
intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have
better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible.
A moralist, he maintained, could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for
everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance
as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement
as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the
utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects of
alternative courses of action. Mill used happiness not simple pleasure as his standard.
(Ibid)
Individual ethics and duty to company or government programs cause individuals
to make choices in their employment, in their performance and more importantly in their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

behavior with respect to others. Individual dilemmas persist in the world of emerging
and exponential advances in technology solutions. It is not a matter of if we can build it,
but a matter of how do we build and operate it.
Systems are built that replace humans, execute decisions, and change social
activity. Two cases can be used to illustrate the basis for individual dilemmas in ones
duty in the face of advancing technology.
Commercial Case: Introduction of Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) resulted
in forced technology adoption and changes in social activity. This advance highlighted
impacts on early-adopters, late-adopters and non-adopters of emerging or disruptive
technology. The accompanying social changes impacted the elderly and others who were
unfamiliar or uncomfortable with automation, created a loss of jobs, and a loss of access
to human bankers. Bank leaders who put this technology in place knew or should have
known the problems they were causing. They should have balanced cost efficiencies
created for the banking industry and the convenience offered to some customers with the
negative consequences of their new technology.
Military Case: Introduction of autonomous combat vehicles resulted in machine
derived combat decisions thus removing the human element in warfare. Autonomous
combat vehicles operate without a human operator and are controlled by on-board sensors
and computers that direct movement, identify friends or foes, and attack the enemy with
deadly force. Autonomous combat vehicles, programmed by humans, enable combat
action while virtually eliminating possible harm to soldiers, Marines and sailors.
This innovation highlights the dilemma on machine-decisions in deciding combat
situations including decisions to attack humans. These advances create a tension in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

defining the line between human decisions to engage, and the need for automated
response to time sensitive combat threats. Autonomous combat vehicles are capable of
making combat decisions faster than humans in time sensitive situations and can create a
distinct advantage for friendly forces. Individuals engaged in advancing technologies
must deal with personal ethical reservations explained within the deontological - duty
ethics discipline and the utilitarian ethics value choices.
Technology will yield solutions to human labor and decision making processes
that have both positive and negative impacts on social activity. Technologist and
visionary leaders must decide how to deploy these systems with contained levels of
disruption and retention of decision-making accountability. This may represent a
personal dilemma for individuals torn between personal ethics and their duty to an
employer or the government.

Management
Leaders not managers are needed today in the development of disruptive
technologies that alter social, cultural, and organizational structures. While there is
general consensus around the need to manage technology with respect to the
environment, human cloning, and decision-making, not enough attention has been paid to
the effects of advancing technology on human work. The workforce needs to be
employed in meaningful work not only from an economic perspective, but also from a
more fundamental need to engage people in human work. Human work is defined by
Pope John Paul II in his On Human Work Laborem Exercens: The Third Encyclical
Letter (1981) cited and explained in greater detail later in this study. Technological
change is progressing at an exponential rate with faster, better, and more complex results.

10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Management of both technology and human resources is critical to our future and the
ultimate result of technology on being human.

Leadership
Leadership is an evolving discipline that has both a business basis and a
humanities basis. While there are a number of perspectives to be considered, this study
will focus on the visionary aspects of leadership. Beyond the business case, there is a
human element to the creation and evolution of technology. There is the perspective of
embracing a concept for its value and becoming the champion for that concept in
completing research, development and introduction of an exciting and worthwhile
technology. This leadership must also extend to other people who will support the
champion, i.e. human resources that will work in concert with the visionary leader to
achieve the goal.
This study will also serve to extend knowledge on technology within the Salve
Regina University Humanities Doctoral Program. The following definition of technology
was developed during course study and research in the core doctoral program.

Defining Technology and a Basis for Creation


To begin to understand the role of technology leaders, it is important to
understand what is meant by technology. There are a number of ways to define
technology from popular definitions to very broad definitions that capture relevant
meanings. Defining technology from sociological and epistemological perspectives is
appropriate for understanding the role of technology leaders impact on transformation of
the world. Social definitions relate to the effects technology has on humans while

11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

epistemology relates to understanding the underlying knowledge of technology - science


- in transforming the world.
Stephen Monsma defines technology from a sociological perspective in which
human behaviors are expressed in thought, speech, action and artifacts evolved across
generations. Monsma wrote that technology is .. .a distinct human cultural activity in
which human beings exercise freedom and responsibility in response to God by forming
and transforming the natural creation, with the aid of tools and procedures, for practical
purposes (Monsma 1986, 19).
Mario Bunge offers the epistemological definition expressing the idea that
technology is a body of knowledge if it (1) is controlled by scientific method and (2) can
be used to create, direct or transform things or processes (natural or social) for some
practical, valued end or purpose(Bunge 1977, 154).
And finally, Jacques Elluls definition seems appropriate in terms of technology
having a total effect on society when he wrote that technology is the totality of methods
rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency in every field of human activity (Ellul
1964, xxv).
These definitions point to the affects technology will have on transforming the
world in all areas of human endeavor. In our age, Information Technology represents the
dominant technology that is transforming society. From the introduction of simple
pocket electronic calculators to high-speed transmission of digital images and voice to
cyberspace markets trading stocks, commodities and industrial products information
technology has transformed our world. Our focus in this dissertation is on those who lead
the introduction and innovation of information technology that is directly affecting or

12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

transforming things or processes in every field o f human activity. Technology leaders


today have the capacity to transform methods of social interaction, understanding and
transactions through the introduction and adaptation of information technology to
everyday business and social activities. Their work is Gods work for man and has its
basis in the universal relationship between work, religion, science and technology.

A Context for Understanding Technology


Technology represents Gods work for man in the continued creation of life. One
can argue that this statement is provocative and has little bearing on the development of
technology leaders, but there is a link between human work and the evolution of
humankind. There are connections between religion - a basis for understanding life, and
science and technology - disciplines that transform life. Technology leaders play a role
in this relationship in that they introduce and lead innovations that create change in
peoples lives. Ian Barbour on religion, science and technology:
A religious tradition is not just a set of intellectual beliefs or abstract ideas.
It is a way of life for its members. Every religious community has its
distinctive forms of individual experiences, communal ritual and ethical
concerns. Above all, religion aims at the transformation of personal life,
particularly by liberation from self-centeredness through commitment to a
more inclusive center of devotion.
Much of humanity has turned to science-based technology as a source of
fulfillment and hope. Technology has offered power, control and the
prospect of overcoming our helplessness and dependency. However, for
all its benefits, technology has not brought the personal fulfillment or
social well-being it promised. In deed, it often seems to be a power
beyond our control, endangering social patterns and the environment on a
scale previously unimaginable. (Barbour 1997, xiii)
Religious beliefs form the basis for human understanding and a credible central
story, ritual and experience that relates to what humans are supposed to be and how life
will lead to ultimate goods for society and for individual believers. The Holy Spirit is

13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

called upon in Christian prayer to renew creation. Barbour argues convincingly that
human beings are the source of co-creation with God and that renewal will be realized
through man and science acting indirectly for God (Ibid, 277 -280). Science put to
useful purposes becomes technology and impacts the transformation of the world. It can
be said that technology is mans work within Gods creation.
The biblical image of God as Spirit seems to Barbour a particularly helpful image
in understanding the co-creation belief. Barbour believes there is an analogy with Gods
Spirit and the distinctive vitality, creativity, and mystery of the human spirit. The human
spirit is the active person as a rational, feeling, willing self - responding to other persons
and to God. The idea of the Spirit allows humankind to bring together an understanding
of God as Creator and Redeemer (Ibid, 241).
Creation is the religious belief that God, acting indirectly or through human
beings and at various levels of organization and structure, created the earth and all that
inhabits the universe. Scientists would argue that evolution is the appropriate perspective
for explaining the universe. This conflict is central to resolving the relationship between
religion and science and the evolution of society through technology.
In a dialogue about creation and evolution, Barbour suggests that evolution and
creation should be viewed with a distinction between primary and secondary causality.
God acts as the primary cause working through science [and technology] as the
secondary cause. This position assumes the classical doctrines of divine omnipotence
and predestination. God controls the indeterminacies. (Ibid, 245)
This approach demonstrates a respect for God and science. There are clear
indeterminates that science can not explain and that require faith in God for

14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

understanding. Humanity has the capacity only to understand what it knows or can relate
to; and needs language and symbols that have a basis in social, cultural and faith
traditions. Barbour offers this conclusion:
In short, humanity is part of nature, but a unique part. We are the product
of a long evolutionary history and retain a powerful legacy from the past.
But we also have creative abilities and potentialities without parallel
among the species of the earth. We are biological organisms, but we are
also responsible selves (Ibid, 255).
Barbour relates the idea of process thought, the concept that Gods power over
nature is a limited power and that humanity - human beings acting for God, actually
continue creation as co-creators with God. The creative abilities and potentialities of
human beings represent Gods greatest influence on the evolution of life and in particular
human life (Ibid, 327). Evolutionary history seems to point to God who acts not by
controlling but by evoking the response of the creatures - including humans (Ibid, 327).
Ian G. Barbours views on the role of man in the transformation of the world are
consistent with the views of Fritjof Capra in the Web o f Life (1996) and with Lester R.
Brown in his Worldwatch Institute articles. Barbour, Capra and Brown assert that Homo
sapiens are co-creators with God. Humans are ultimately accountable for continuing
creation and preserving life on Earth and within the expanding universe.
This ultimate accountability is a religious obligation and a socio-scientific
imperative. Barbour wrote quoting Palms 104, Come, Holy Spirit, renew thy whole
creation (Ibid, 332). And give us the wisdom to create with just care and accountability.
Technology leaders have been willingly or unwillingly entrusted with the role of co
creators of human evolution through the technology they introduce.

15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

On Human Work
Pope John Paul II reinforces the idea that man is the co-creator with God in the
continued evolution of life. He makes the assessment that from a religious perspective,
mans life is built from work. Work in its broadest context affecting all of mankind in
every aspect of life is addressed in his encyclical On Human Work - Laborem Exercens
(1981). Pope John Paul wrote that man must exercise dominion over nature, capital is a
creation of labor, and that man is a co-creator through his God-given physical ability and
intellect. In this context, work can be viewed in an objective (technology) or subjective
(man as the subject of work) sense. Pope John Paul established a religious relationship
between mans dominance over nature through technology and mans destiny to work.
Pope John Paul II opens his letter with the following:
I wish to devote this document to human work and, even more, to man in
the vast context of the reality of work. As I said in the encyclical,
Redemptor Hominis, published at the beginning of my service in the See
of St. Peter in Rome, man is the primary and fundamental way for the
church, precisely because of the inscrutable mystery of redemption in
Christ; and so it is necessary to return constantly to this way and to follow
it ever anew in the various aspects in which it shows us all the wealth and
at the same time all the toil of human existence on earth. (Paul 1981, 3)
Pope John Paul relates that human work is perennial and fundamental and always
relevant. Man derives his dignity from work, but that mans injustice to other men and
the total measure of toil is measured in work and suffering. Work is a fact of life for man
and it is work that translates directly into the implications and impacts of technology on
life. The church, according to Pope John Paul, considers it her task always to call
attention to the dignity and rights of those who work, to condemn situations in which that
dignity and those rights are violated, and to help to guide ... changes so as to ensure
authentic progress by man and society (Ibid, 4). The church is thus engaged in the

16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

cultural aspect of social evolution as it relates to work. The religious commitment to be


involved in the application of technology is claimed as a task, a duty, of the church.
The church developed its reasons to be involved in social issues relating to work
and by extension technology as it applies to society and man. The church based its
commitment on the aforementioned views on mans dignity as well as on Holy Scripture
The church is convinced that work is a fundamental dimension of mans
existence on earth. She is confirmed in this conviction by considering the
whole heritage of many sciences devoted to man: anthropology,
paleontology, history, sociology, psychology, and so on; they all seem to
bear witness to this reality in an irrefutable way. But the source of the
churchs conviction is above all the revealed word of God, and therefore
what is a conviction of the intellect is also a conviction of faith.
The church finds in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis the source
of her conviction that work is a fundamental dimension of human
existence on earth. ...When man, who has been created in the image of
God...male and female, hears the words: Be fruitful and multiply, and
fill the earth and subdue it, even though these words do not refer directly
and explicitly to work, beyond any doubt they indirectly indicate it as an
activity for man to carry out in the world [and more specifically, in the
transformation of the world]. Man is the image of God partly through the
mandate received from his creator to subdue, to dominate, the earth.
...Subdue the earth has an immense range. It means all the resources the
earth contains and which, through the conscious activity of man, can be
discovered and used for his ends. (Ibid, 9 - 1 0 )
Clearly, the church has laid claim as a stakeholder in the evolution of
society and technology as an interested partner in transforming the world. Every human
under the churchs eyes takes a part in the subduing the earth in their works and
intellectual activities of discovery and application of technology. This certainly applies
to those who introduce, produce and create change through technology.

17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Technology Leaders are Co-Creators


Religion, spirituality and theology form the basis for a deeper understanding of
human existence. Beyond the observables of science, there are indeterminates that persist
in answering questions relevant to the continued transformation of the world. From Ian
Barbour it is learned that there is a clear and compelling connection between religion and
science. And, from Pope John Paul II comes the message that the Church will take an
active role in guiding the objective and subjective work of man. Ian Barbour and Pope
John Paul II make the assessment that outcomes for mankind and the transformation of
the world will be influenced by faith, beliefs and values that are grounded in religion,
spirituality and theology.
Given this perspective on human work and the linkage of religion and science as a
basis for better understanding the very nature of technology and work, this dissertation
will deal with the technology-innovator role of technology leaders. Again, the premise is
that technology leaders have a dual role as technology-innovators and as humans who are
actively contributing to the evolution of mankind and society as co-creators with God.
Visionary leaders must have the foresight to think about the possible in creating
solutions from emerging technologies, understand the business climate and structures in
which they must operate, and finally gather the support of others in making their visions a
reality. Their work usually causes social change.

Technology and Social Change

Visionary technology leaders create social change through their creations. This
section of the dissertation opens further discussion on how technology causes mankind to

18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

evolve and ideas on how that evolution should be managed. Visions of technological
change must account for responsible change and truly useful evolution.
Because technology is so prominent and potent in the modem world, there is a
tendency to take extreme positions, positions that lead into an intellectual cul-de-sac.
The result is a blockage of further thought regarding the complexities of change. (Lauer
1973, 100) For some, technology is a danger and for others technology represents the
answer to perplexing questions and capabilities that had been thought impossible. Robert
H. Lauer offers thinking on the effects of technology on society in his book Perspectives
on Social Change (1973).
In the first case or the intellectual cul-de-sac described by Lauer, technology is
viewed as the prepotent factor on change (Ibid, 101). This represents the idea that
technological events create change in society and drive social change with new methods
and processes for living, working and interaction. However, this prepotency of
technology can be disputed when economic, political and social factors contribute and
drive change independent of technology. There are historical references to change being
caused by economic events or political power in the absence of technology influences.
The position that technology is the prime mechanism of change seems refuted by
considerable historical evidence (Ibid, 101).
The second supposition explored by Lauer is the idea that technology is an
unstoppable or inexorable force of change that will create a new human environment
(Ibid, 101). Lauer offers the example of a new generation of glass workers who take over
a shop and introduce change. The technology did not cause new methods of glass
making and organization; it was a change in the glass workers that mattered. The

19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

workers were of a different ethnic background. He also offers a comparison between two
villages where the same technology was introduced that changed the fabric of one village
and left unaltered the fabric of the second village. Technology is not all consuming and
will not have the same effect in all cases. The environment has a lot to do with the
response to technology.
The third view of technology is that technology is the Savior (Ibid, 102). Lauer
offers the observation that Americans are prone to be awed in the face of technology.
Americans are viewed as believers in technology and this is not a mythical fancy, but a
truth. Americans have used technology to change the world, win wars and create an
economy that is the most powerful on earth. Americans believe that technology saves
lives, extends capabilities and makes things work.
Lauer argues that there is an abundance of evidence to prove technology is not the
best answer to American problems. Lauer points to the two-sided results of technology
(Ibid, 102). In one case it provides more efficiency in a production process and in that
same case causes unemployment in displaced workers. In another case, the automobile
brought prosperity to small towns along the routes between popular destinations. The
same invention created a demand for better roads that subsequently bypassed the newly
established motels and roadside restaurants that created economic boom in the first place.
In the fourth intellectual cul-de-sac, technology is seen as the Antichrist. This
view carries the previous one to an extreme in that technology is seen as the source of
mans evil and illness. In this case technology is misused or put to evil use and there
appears to be no appeal to a higher scientific authority beyond the one that created the
technology. An important point in this fourth case is that technology or technocracy

20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

dominates man to the extent that man allows the dominant nature of the technology to
prevail. Investors should never invest in technology for the sake of the technology and
leave the technology and its ramifications to rage out of control.
In reviewing the four Lauer cul-de-sacs there is no reason to become intellectually
bound given the understanding of how technology can be controlled. Technology is
neither Savior nor Antichrist. Technology, its influence on society and its impact are
controllable by mankind. Lauer writes in his conclusion: We do well to recognize the
potential disjunctive consequences of technology; we would also do well not to forget
that modern science and technology have given us new freedom by delivering us from
the bondage of material poverty and opening up a great area of choice where vision and
will can operate. (Ibid, 104)
Interestingly, Lauer goes on with the statement that we may now look at the
impressive evidence that shows technology to be a mechanism of social change and,
specifically, at the way in which technology impels that change. (Ibid, 104) Lauer
presents two cases in his argument for the influences of technology on change. He
suggests that the ramifications of technology be traced to its roots or that the technology
is traced to its ramifications in society. He makes the suggestion that even minor
technology changes may have manifold consequences [in giving choices and
alternatives]. (Ibid, 106)
More specific to this study Lauer contends that certain technologies are prepotent,
including cybernation or applications of automation and computers (Ibid, 109).
Cybernation renders entire blocks of activity unnecessary and introduces new activities
that are more efficient and have a greater reach and richness in business. These

21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

cybernation technologies create situations in which decisions must be made that extend
beyond engineering and business decisions to moral issues and considerations that effect
human life and social order.
This is the important conclusion from Lauer. First recognize that technology can
be difficult to understand in that it has inexorable powers and the capacity to produce
good and evil. Technology is what is made of it and what it is allowed to become.
Second, technology is a persistent force. Someone will invent a better way and use a
technology, particularly a cybernation technology, to change business. And finally,
technology will be an increasingly important factor in change and will require numerous
agonizing decisions (Ibid, 112). The governance of technology is particularly important
and is taking on progressively higher levels of importance, as information technology, a
form of cybernation, becomes more pervasive in business and commerce.
Visionary leaders function within a context of technological change and evolution
that result in the continued creation of human existence. These leaders have a
responsibility to deliver their visions within a context that mandates the need for ethical
and socially responsible behavior while functioning within the environment of complex
organizations. This dissertation will examine what it is to be a successful visionary
leader within the context presented above. The thesis arguments will be specifically
addressed. The reader should keep in mind the overarching context of being human in
this time to fully understanding the importance of technology leadership.

22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Researching Visionary Leadership - Methods and Perspectives


Research methods followed to develop this dissertation are outlined in the
following section. Research methods were derived from three references in addition to
Salve Regina University Doctoral Program guidance. Surviving Your Dissertation by
Kjell Erick Rudestam and Rae R. Newton (1993), Qualitative Data Analysis by Matthew
B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman (1984), and Designing Qualitative Research by
Catherine Marshall and Gretchen E. Rossman (1989) were used as references. This
dissertation represents qualitative research. It employs primarily descriptive analysis
using documents, unbiased observations, case studies, and a focused survey. All of the
work is based on ethnography strategies. Ethnography refers to a study of people, in this
case leaders and leadership practices, in their natural settings (Marshall 1989, 78). The
use of descriptive accounts of life within complex technology-based cultures is provided
to confirm the thesis. The foundation for research resides in three pillars of experience
and learning. First, and as addressed in the preceding chapter section, there is a
humanities perspective to this dissertation. The Salve Regina University Doctoral
Program core courses have established a fundamental view of the research question in
human evolution. That question in this dissertation has evolved to: What does it mean to
be a visionary leader in an age o f technological change? The second basis for
conducting this research is to extend personal learning in a private sector position that
was focused on technological innovation and strategy. The question generated from that
experience is: What does it mean to be a technology visionary and leader in the private
sector? And, finally the third pillar of personal commitment and inquiry for this
dissertation emerged from the Navy experience and observations made over thirty years

23

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

of service. That period of service and a new relationship with the Navy as a technologyto-operational capabilities researcher drove the need to learn more about visionary
leadership.

This final inspiration for research into visionary leadership raises the

question: What is does it mean to be a visionary leader in the Navy based on past
leadership and now in the current age? Information technology emerged as the pressing
issue of current times and a focus for describing visionary leadership.
Concerted dissertation research began almost 8 years ago while the ideas of Ian
Barbour, Fritjof Capra, and others formed the calling to further understand the human
response to technology, technological interdependence, and the implications on human
evolution. More focused research was conducted on the possible discipline of technology
leadership and governance during the elective series.

As a thesis emerged through a

spiraling repetitive cycle of questions, research and analysis, all of the inquiries lead to a
natural exploration of leadership knowledge. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and Bill
Gates came to mind as individuals who should be described and understood. Leadership
development would form another knowledge area along with leadership training and
management frameworks. And, then there was an exploration of actual projects that
demonstrate the character of visionary leadership. Finally, an analysis of the thesis
would be attempted and then evaluated for soundness through an airing of opinions with
technology innovation peers. Along the way description and interpretation of leadership
principles and ideas help to develop general patterns that substantiate the thesis or
uncover areas that would require further study.
Is visionary leadership in technology-driven organizations a unique individual
capacity or a competency that can be developed from a model that is applicable to the

24

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

defense establishment and business? This question gathers in the initial questions that
inspired this dissertation research. It is a unique question given the emergence of a
transformation philosophy within the defense establishment and similar transformation
efforts in the private sector. Dissertation research is presented first through the Navy and
defense case. In this case, there is greater emphasis directed toward the Rickover and
post-Rickover eras with attention given to the evolution of single dominant leaders as
opposed to a consensus gathering approach. The comparison between Navy and private
sector leaders and business practices is then described to offer a broad argument for
advancing leadership and technology governance and visionary leadership as a discipline.
The setting for this study was the Naval War College and Salve Regina University
in Newport, Rhode Island. FleetBoston Financial provided the private sector business
base and access with permission granted from my superiors. And, the Navys research
and acquisition establishment along with the financial service industry were the work
environments for this research. FleetBoston Financial was acquired in 2004 by Bank of
America and no longer exist as a business entity.
The research wheel process was employed as a framework process map to narrow
the research project and questions. The research wheel is described in Surviving Your
Dissertation by Kjell Erick Rudestam and Rae R. Newton (1993, 5). The process
references a wheel metaphor that promotes a recursive cycle of research steps that are
repeated over time. Beginning with an empirical observation, researchers progress
through propositions, conceptual frameworks of theory and literature to research
questions, data collection and data analysis followed by a spirally repetitive cycle. This
spiral approach enabled achieving a focus on the question of what it means to be a

25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

visionary leader and encouraged gathering literature, consultant ideas, observations and
gathering information on a private sector case study. As mentioned earlier, confirmation
on the soundness of the thesis was achieved through a non-scientific survey. This survey
was conducted with peers involved in an ongoing visionary program to develop emerging
technologies into operational capabilities. As a concluding affirmation on the thesis, a
theory-to-practice example is documented that specifically addresses the use of thesis
visionary traits and actions in a real world project. The theory-to-practice process
combined Navy and private sector contributors. The following diagram illustrates the
dissertation research process. Again, this dissertation uses qualitative natural
environment inquiry based on research and recorded observations. The focus is on
capturing descriptions and interpretations of visionary leadership traits and supporting
elements and behaviors to examine the tenets of the thesis. The following figure was
developed by the author to illustrate research activities.
Figure 1 - Dissertation Research Pyramid

Dissertation Conclusion

Qualitative assessm ent


of findings, peer review sutyey,
tneersKO-practieg examplfe
Individual Leader
Research - Navy and
Private Sector Leaders &
Navy program evolution
Literature Review,

Technology Leadership and


Governance Research, end
Leadership Development Research
including Private Sector Case study
Salve Regina University
Ooctorial Pro^am
Humanities Cor* Courses

26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Literature and current papers were obtained from the Naval War College library
the Salve Regina McKillop Library, and the Internet. Leadership management papers
and papers on technology governance and management were obtained from corporate
technology consultant groups who present ideas and reports on the state of the practice.
And, other papers, books and briefs were gathered from subject matter expert resources.
Direct access to technology-to-capabilities strategy and research activity enhanced
opportunities to collect concepts and ideas.
This dissertation will contribute to a technology leadership and governance body
of knowledge. It will reinforce the need for technology leadership and governance in the
government and private sector environments. Leadership and governance are seen as the
basis for maintaining adequate control and perspectives on technology innovation while
respecting human evolution and social accountability.
In the Navy case, there are complex issues surrounding visionary leadership in an
organization structure that has responsibility for national defense, security policy,
industry management and fiduciary responsibilities to taxpayers. In the private sector
case, the very nature of business drives what leaders can accomplish within financial
constraints and overall business risk and outcomes, while overtly or inadvertently causing
social change.
The naval dimension of this study will be limited to areas that were influenced by
Admiral Rickover in the Navy with an intention to limit discussion to submarine
innovations. The intention here is to answer the research question and to develop a
concept to assist others in becoming effective visionary leaders. The business case will
be limited to information technology and the financial services industry for illustration

27

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

purposes. Within this approach it is felt that an in depth study will emerge that offers
knowledge for people in all areas of technology development.
As a point of further clarification, the survey conducted to gain peer perspectives
on research conclusions, must only be viewed as a single point response to specific
questions. It is a non-scientific survey. Survey questions were linked directly to research
conclusions and the ranking of traits and actions that are considered pertinent to visionary
leadership. There is no attempt to expand that collection of opinions to a broader
audience or extend results to a broad group of practitioners. The survey group not only
represents senior technology innovation leaders, but is composed of Navy, government,
and private sector partners drawn together to deliver an information technology-based
solution. Research ethics were observed in this case as human subjects were used to
further this dissertation. Formal permission was obtained from the Salve Regina
University Institutional Review Committee (IRC) to conduct human research.

28

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

II. Literature Review - Naval and Private Sector Technology Leadership

This review of literature will form the knowledge base for research and exploring
those human traits and skills necessary to advancing a vision for technological change.
Literature will be identified, discussed as to relevance and importance, and summarized
relative to the thesis. Beyond this base of knowledge, research results in Chapters III and
IV will examine propositions and conclusions on how the leadership framework has
evolved from the Rickover-era to the information technology age.
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover is seen as not only the father of nuclear power, but
the consummate technology visionary leader of his generation and most likely modern
times. From his development of the nuclear power program, the reader will develop an
understanding of Rickovers human traits and how his contemporary, Vice Admiral Will
F. Rabom used those same traits to champion a vision with a different approach to
success.
This section of the dissertation is a literature review and evaluation. This review
will first address literature on the professional life and times of Admiral Rickover and
Vice Admiral Rabom, then offer a basis for understanding the evolution of defense

29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

acquisition and technology innovation in the Navy. The Navy case will be limited to
innovation within the U.S. Naval Submarine Force. There are certainly parallels in other
warfare areas; however, Admiral Rickover is recognized as the consummate technology
visionary and the single most influential figure that caused change in technology
innovation processes and recognized traits. The Navy case will form the basis for
personal traits that exemplify the vision, professional experience and leadership traits that
are prerequisite to exercising visionary leadership in a technology-driven complex
organization.
Following definition of the Navy case, the business technology-driven case will
be explored beginning with literature on business philosophy and frameworks, concepts
on development of technology innovation, and management processes. This review will
focus on information technology (IT) and electronic business process. Information
technology is the most disruptive technology of the present day with social impacts in all
forms of business. It is within the IT discipline that visionaries are most evident and
comparable to the Navy case in identifying those traits that identify current visionary
leadership. In this discussion the focus will be on defining disruptive technology and
defining the business framework for technology implementation. Individuals will not be
identified, but a review of fictional literature will provide a view of how visionary
leadership can evolve and highlight possible pitfalls and dangers that may emerge in the
business environment.
Business technology-driven innovation is often developed through industry
collaboration to achieve visions that result in change at the industry level. This
explanation is relevant because the vision, professional experience and leadership traits

30

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

can extend to companies and corporations as they interact within specific industry
collaboration.

RICKOVER - Underway on Nuclear Power!


Research into existing knowledge on Navy leaders in technology innovation
began with a theory that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was the consummate visionary
leader who embodied all three traits that established the visionary leadership thesis. He
was believed to have a passionate vision for building nuclear powered ships, he was said
to be a master at managing the bureaucracy of Navy engineering and acquisition
programs, and he was seen as a driven leader who gathered the brightest and best for his
program.
RICKOVER written in 1982 by Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen offers the most
comprehensive account of the rise to power and legendary stories surrounding Admiral
Hyman G. Rickovers life. This was of course an unsolicited account of Rickovers life
and one that he refused to contribute to. In fact, he had his secretary respond to the letter
asking for his assistance with the book. The letter simply said:
Admiral Rickover has asked me to reply to your letter... Please be
advised that he does not desire to have a book written about him.
Therefore, he will not grant the interview you requested.
Barbara J. Whitlark
Secretary to Admiral Rickover
(Polmar and Allen 1982, 10)
Polmar and Allen offer an account of Rickovers professional life that confirms
his much talked about attitudes, passion and drive for the best in his nuclear power
program. They confirm theories about Rickovers capacity to persuade Members of
Congress to overrule his Navy superiors and have his way in demanding quality at a

31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

reasonable price from defense contractors. Rickover demonstrated the power to convince
Congress that indeed the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Holloway was wrong and
President Jimmy Carter was wrong in eliminating nuclear aircraft carriers from the
budget. In consecutive years 1978 and 1979, Congress followed Rickovers advice and
authorized the purchase of nuclear carriers. In the first year President Carter vetoed the
defense procurement bill and in the second year he authorized a NIMITZ-class nuclear
carrier in the face of presidential campaign pressures and two crises. (Ibid 1982, 346-347)
Polmar and Allen clearly portrayed Rickover as an individual who had a passionate
vision, business insight into the workings of Navy and Federal program management, and
as a program manager who gathered the talent he needed to make his vision a reality.
Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt begins Chapter 5 of his book ON WATCH (1976) with
the following statement:
The fact that from the start of my watch [as Chief of Naval Operations] to
the end of it Vice Admiral, and then Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was a
persistent and formidable obstacle to my plans for modernizing the Navy
did not surprise me (Zumwalt 1976, 85).
Admiral Zumwalt had good cause to expect trouble from Admiral Rickover
during his tenure as chief of the navy. Rickover had managed to become a major
influence in a wide range of affairs in the Navy and had long ago begun to direct the
selection and career direction of many officers in the Navy. Zumwalt offers one of the
more compelling accounts of a Rickover interview process. Rickover interviewed and
personally selected all officers for his nuclear power program. Zumwalts account goes

on for several pages ending with the remark that so my failure to get the job I wanted
badly [selection as a nuclear officer] turned out to be one of the lucky breaks in my career
(Ibid, 96). Zumwalt actually went on to be promoted and serve with distinction in the

32

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Vietnam War. His failure to become a nuclear trained officer did not prevent him from
becoming the Chief of Naval Operations.
Zumwalts written accounts of Rickovers interference and power are later
recounted in former-Navy Secretary John Lehmans book Command o f the Seas (1988).
Both Navy leaders, one in uniform and the other a civilian, portray Rickover as both a
brilliant-visionary and as a negative influence on improving the Navy. Rickover had
flaws that were as dramatically portrayed as his extraordinary accomplishments.
In a very recent publication Underway on Nuclear Power (Gresham and Friedman
2004) commemorating the 50th anniversary of the USS NAUTILUS, John G. Gresham
writes:
It has been more than two decades since the retirement of Admiral Hyman
G. Rickover, USN, and time has done nothing to quell the variety and
force of their opinions about him. That he was a brilliant and driven naval
officer is without question, though he could also be obsessive and
controlling in the extreme. Rickover had an amazing sense of the power
and worth of interpersonal relationships while being one of the most
eccentric and demanding personalities of his time. He was one of the
greatest engineering and training innovators in the history of naval warfare
who eventually became an impediment to new ideas on warship design
and personnel development. Love him or hate him, and some people did
both at the same time, Rickover was someone you could not ignore. (Ibid
2004,41)
Other accounts of Rickover in this well-written publication point to Rickovers
accomplishments in marketing the idea of nuclear propulsion, creating support for
NAUTILUS, the first nuclear powered naval vessel, and his drive in gathering talent for
his program from among the best possible candidates (Ibid, 32-45). Other articles in the
document point to people who commanded nuclear ships under Rickovers direction and
the legacy Rickover left behind in modem ships that won the Cold War and sail under the
seas on nuclear power today.

33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Two personal accounts and a novel by Captain Edward L. Beach, a nuclear


trained officer and Captain of the USS TRITON, recount his and others experiences in
Rickovers nuclear Navy. In Around the World Submerged; The Voyage o f the Triton
(1962) and in Salt and Steel: Reflections o f a Submariner (1999) Beach offers insights
into the selection, training and lives of those who were subordinates of Admiral
Rickover.
In Salt and Steel, Beach shares his moments with Rickover and the basis for his
relationship with him. As it was, Beach became the submariner on the Chief of Naval
Operations staff who would be responsible for moving the idea of a nuclear submarine
forward. He was the person who briefed Admiral Chester Nimitz, then CNO, on the
advantages of having a nuclear submarine. Beach was a partisan with Rickover in the
quest for a nuclear submarine in the Navy (Beach 1999, 184)
In Cold is the Sea (1978) Beach offers a fictional account of two World War II
submarine officers who have experienced combat and find their Navy being transformed
into one that is ruled by a Rickover figure and a growing number of nukes. This novel
takes the reader along on the journey that senior officers experienced in gaining entry into
the nuclear power program, pledging loyalty to the program through a crucible of
academic studies, practical experience, and demanding test. The two main characters in
the novel finally gain the designation to supervise, maintain and operate naval nuclear
propulsion systems and find themselves again in perilous circumstances at sea except
with the added demands of marinating nuclear propulsion plants under a stringent code of
conduct to maintain the safety and integrity of Rickovers program.

34

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Within fictional literature the reader is able to experience the thinking and
feelings of characters that experience good and hard times. Cold is the Sea offers a
detailed understanding of the nuclear training experience and what it took to become a
nuke submarine officer in Admiral Rickovers nuclear program.
Cold War Submarines (2004) by Norman Polmar and Kenneth Moore offers a
history of the naval nuclear submarine program in Chapter 4 - U.S. Nuclear-Powered
Submarines. Rickovers traits are documented in detail as the program develops with
Rickover fighting to gain control, producing papers on the feasibility of nuclear
propulsion and gaining the support of Dr. Edward Teller, a leading nuclear physicist
(Polmar and Moore 2004, 54).
The link between Rickover and Members of Congress is well documented in a
passage that presents the example of Rickover making friends with Senator Henry M.
Jackson (Ibid, 57). Senator Jacksons support was later rewarded when a TRIDENTclass ballistic missile submarine was named after him instead of the initial naming of the
ship for the State of Rhode Island (USS HENRY M. JACKSON 2004). Also included
are reference to Rickovers ability to thwart the desires of Chiefs of Naval Operations and
the civilian Secretaries of the Navy in having his way in directing the nuclear program
(Ibid, 62). By numerous accounts, it has been documented that Hyman G. Rickover had
total control of the Navy nuclear Propulsion Program, was moving his vision forward and
had assembled supporter, subordinates and Congressional cover to overcome the
bureaucracies that stood in his way.
Former Navy Secretary John F. Lehman, Jr. was responsible for forcing Admiral
Hyman G. Rickover into retirement and passing control of the Navy Nuclear Power

35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Program to Admiral Kinnaird McKee in 1982 (Lehman 1988, 32). McKee took over the
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and became Director of Naval Reactors on February
1, 1982 and was confirmed by the Senate for promotion to Admiral on March 2, 1982
(Mckee November 2004, 1)
Lehmans experience with Rickover, his dismissal, cause for forced retirement,
and the rancor surrounding the retirement process is documented in Command o f the Seas
that was published in 1988. In this book, which is written with candor and directness
Rickover is seen as a brilliant man who became a liability and impediment to the Navy.
He is also seen as an individual who pushed his relationships with Members of Congress
to the limit and developed a standing from which he believed he could demand and in
fact received a personal audience with the President of the United States (Lehman 1988,
1-5).
Lehman further confirms Rickovers extraordinary ability to create and further a
vision within the Navy and offers personal insight into Rickovers actual fall from power
(Ibid, 34-36). Admiral Hyman G. Rickover died on July 9, 1986. He was 86 years old
and was eulogized as a paradoxical visionary (Ibid, 8).
There are many more references and documents that confirm research on the
abilities of Admiral Rickover to advance a passionate vision, overcome business and
bureaucratic barriers, and assemble a cadre of supporters and loyal followers. However,
the base of knowledge offered here is sufficient to establish the case for this study. From
this point, it is important to compare Admiral Rickover to a contemporary. Vice Admiral
William F. Red Raborn was chosen as a comparable visionary leader who was
successful in implementing a major technology-driven change in naval warfare. VADM

36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Raborn, a Naval Aviator, directed the Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile


program. Raborn accomplished his mission in five years, rather than the expected ten
years (Submarine Pioneers 2004).

Raborn to Eisenhower - POLARIS, from out of the deep to target - perfect


Admiral Arleigh Burke was Chief of Naval Operations in 1955 when he decided
to sponsor the development of intermediate range ballistic missiles for the Navy. The
man he selected to lead this visionary effort was then Rear Admiral William F. Red
Rabom. Rabom was a naval aviator, former commanding officer of an aircraft carrier
and destined for higher rank (Polmar and Moore 2004, 116). Burke gave Raborn a
mandate to gather the talent he needed and to form a special project office that would
combine the engineering and scientific disciplines needed to get the job done. Cold War
Submarines begins with these revelations that establish Burke as the leader who
empowered Rabom and it was then Raborn who exercised vision, bureaucratic
knowledge, and the good sense to pick great people to create and deploy a missile system
for the Navy (Ibid, 116-117).
GlobalSecurity.org, a web resource on defense topics, offers a summary of Navy
development of a ballistic missile system in SLBM - Early Developments (November
2004). This article provides a history of the Navys development process that highlights
the James R. Killian Report that recommended a 1500 nautical mile (nm) missile and a
separate discussion on creation of the Special Projects Office (SPO) that was led by

Raborn. This article documents the importance of a mandate and the need to separate
special projects from competing routine efforts within the Defense Department.

37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

From Polaris to Trident: The Development o f US Fleet Ballistic Missile


Technology written by Graham Spinardi (1994) provides a complete history of the U.S.
Fleet Ballistic Missile program from its beginnings in 1955 to deployment of the
TRIDENT II missile in 1990. It is a scholarly documentation of the program and
particularly Rear Admiral Raboms role as its initial leader.
Combined with technical and process descriptions, Spinardi includes quotes
attributed to Raborn that help to establish the character of this successful visionary who
operated under the pressure of Presidential expectations. These expectations to offer a
credible response to the emerging Soviet nuclear threat caused Raborn to recognize the
urgency of his task and press for results. (Spinardi 1994, 21-34)
Two earlier books present the basis for understanding Raborns singular
contribution as the visionary leader of the quest to put POLARIS to sea.
POLARIS written by James Barr and William E. Howard in 1960 provides a
detailed chapter titled Red Builds a House that provides the history on how Raborn put
life into the Special Projects Office, overcame bureaucratic resistance, and gathered the
talent to build POLARIS missiles and put those nuclear missiles in nuclear submarines
built under the aegis of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. This was an incredibly difficult
feat that required a clear vision and demonstrated technical capability, astute navigation
within the bureaus of the Navy, and the charisma to lead engineers and scientists along a
path to create Polaris.
Barr and Howard collected interviews and made conclusions on a program that
had just launched its first missiles from USS GEORGE WASHINGTON. Barr and
Howard provide details of those initial launches from the submerged submarine and give

38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the reader an insight into the drive that Raborn put into the program. It was after the
famous message to President Eisenhower, who was in Newport, Rhode Island, that
proclaimed the successful launch of Polaris from a submarine, that Raborn sent a second
message to the Lockheed Company. Raborn sent the message to Lockheed, We know
how to fire them. Send us more missiles. (Barr and Howard 1960, 237-240) Raborn
was clearly depicted as the visionary and driving force behind Polaris in this book.
In 1972, Harvey M. Sapolsky wrote The Polaris System Development Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in Government. This book documents again the
capabilities of Rear Admiral William L. Rabom as the visionary leader of the Polaris
program.
The chapter on The Structure of Organizational Relationships documents
Raboms Navy bureaucracy acumen and capacity to leverage power that was shared with
him by Admiral Arleigh Burke, Chief of Naval Operations and President Eisenhower.
Sapolsky writes in department, bureau, and office terms leaving, the names of individuals
in the footnotes on memoranda and letters. However, it is clear that Rear Admiral
Rabom and Admiral Burke are the central characters in their roles as the Director of the
Special Project Office and as Chief of Naval Operations.
There are other articles and journals that relate the story of Vice Admiral William
L. Raborn and his leadership of the Polaris program. There is a Submarine Pioneers
biography in the Chief of Navy Information website (November 2004), an article that
attests to Raborns subsequent success as the Director of Central Intelligence (CIA
November 2004), and a Congressional Record of Senator John Warners eulogy of Vice
Admiral Raborn on June 14, 1990 (Warner November 2004).

39

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Guidance, Requirements, Vision and Technology-enabled Capabilities


Research offered a view of how visionary leadership has evolved in the Navy
during the post-Rickover era beginning in 1982. The following literature has been
reviewed to form a current view on technology innovation processes in the Navy.
Technology fo r the United States Navy and Marine Corps 2000-2035 - Becoming
a 21st Century Force is a nine volume series of reports published by the Naval Research
Council and National Academy Press (1997) on findings by futures, science, and warfare
area panels. The Technology Volume 2 and Undersea Warfare Volume 1 are of interest in
this dissertation. Both volumes represent the work of panels and not individual
visionaries in plotting the course for the 21st Century Navy. This approach will be
repeated in a number of documents that reflect current thinking and processes on
technology innovation. Individual visionaries still exist, but have become part of the
system unlike the Rickover model.
Providing high level direction the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is
reviewed in QDR 2001 Strategy-Driven Choices fo r Americas Defense (Flournoy 2001).
The QDR forms the baseline review of defense needs over a four year period in order to
provide civilian leadership with a direction for the Presidential administration. This
review demonstrates the need for oversight of defense needs rather than having individual
Members of Congress or members of the administration champion programs that do not
enhance capabilities.
QDR 2001 was prepared for the Bush Administration and was used to set initial
direction for defense budgets. It should be stated that actual civilian control of the
military is exercised through budget and authorizations passed through congress and

40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

administered by service secretaries and the President of the United States. The QDR then
forms the initial basis for accepting visionary solutions to defense requirements.
At the Department of Defense Acquisition level it is important to understand that
the acquisition process includes deriving technology-enabled capabilities as solutions to
operational requirements. Beginning with Presidential decisions, defense guidance and
interpretation, QDR, review panels, war games, and acquisition professionals are left to
answer requirements with real solutions and deliverables. The Defense Acquisition
Guidebook published by the Defense Acquisition University (November 2004) represents
a single and up-to-date resource for understanding the requirements to service and
material delivery process.
Important in understanding the evolution of visionary leadership in delivering
technology to the Navy is gaining an understanding of how complex the process has
become. The guide includes eleven chapters ranging from the Department of Defense
(DoD) Decision Support System that is used to make decisions on strategic planning and
resource allocation, the determination of capability needs and the acquisition system.
Other chapters guide professionals on program goals and strategy, affordability, systems
engineering, lifecycle matters, human integration, assessment and reporting. These
documented and audited reports are far more demanding than the visionaries of the past
could tolerate. An entire organizational structure requiring formal training is required to
manage and operate this system. (Defense Acquisition University November 2004)
Defense acquisition professionals certainly include a number of civilian and naval
officer visionaries who operate within this system to create technology-enabled
capabilities with the same traits as their predecessors. It is just that individual top level

41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

visionaries must operate within this system - a system certainly created in part by ideas
offered by Admiral Rickover from his nuclear power organization.

Leadership, Politics and Power


Rear Admiral Henry E. Eccles wrote his book Military Power in a Free Society in
1979 to document the culmination of 29 years experience at the Naval War College in
Newport, Rhode Island. His work offers definitions for a number of terms that have
significance in understanding naval strategy and political interaction. For instance he
defines personal interest, public interest, national interest, and human interest (Eccles
1979, iii).
Personal interest is defined as a sense of personal fulfillment. Public Interest is
defined as effective justice as well as freedom of speech and information. National
interest is defined as security from external domination and a guarantee of sovereignty.
And, human interest is defined as preservation, conservation and production of things for
human life and existence (Ibid, iii).
Of significance is his discussion on civilian control of the military which is
central to understanding the limits of visionary latitude by uniformed members of the
armed forces (Ibid, 125). Eccles finally offers advice to military professionals
including naval officers on the limits of power and political boundaries that must be
observed while maintaining a focus on warfighting art and command (Ibid, 136).
Military and naval officers do not have unlimited authority and are bounded by the
civilian control of the military, a fundamental premise of American society.
While the focus is on naval officers who exercise visionary leadership, there
should be understanding of the political leadership. Mention is made of President Dwight

42

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

D. Eisenhower in the Vice Admiral William F. Rabom model. The Modern Prince by
Carnes Lord (2003) describes the tenor, position and image of presidents in relationship
to influencing outcomes. The hidden-hand of President Eisenhower is discussed,
giving a basis to understanding the aggressive pressure he placed on development of
Polaris without high visibility. As recalled from the Raborn case, Raborn sent his
Polaris from the deep to target, perfect! message to President Eisenhower who certainly
made it clear that he was personally interested in the success of the program. Lord
reveals that President Eisenhower was an aggressive leader when it came to the Cold War
and facing possible war with the Soviet Union (Lord 2003, 218).
Political figures; therefore, play a closely linked role with naval leaders in
furthering procurement of ships and systems required for national defense.
The comparative case to naval visionaries who must provide technology solutions
for national defense are private sector technologists and executives who champion
innovation and disruptive technologies that cause business processes to evolve. While
the basic traits of vision, professional experience and leadership are more evident in the
Navy case the same traits hold true for private sector leaders. The next section of
literature review addresses core knowledge in understanding technology innovation in the
business world. Core competencies in the private sector actually incorporate many of the
skills and behaviors necessary for visionary leadership. In fact, the dissertation thesis
argument is based on recognizing visionary leadership traits in the more complex
explanation of private sector management frameworks and tenets of business leadership.

43

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Evolving with Technology - First Movers and Slow Followers

Private sector use of technology and particularly information technology (IT)


must be aligned with and advance business models and processes to be accepted as
technology. In many cases, IT becomes disruptive to existing delivery channels, value
chain processes and other business models. This idea of technology disrupting the status
quo has become a major point of contention and has formed the paradigm for continuous
improvement of business capabilities and efficiency. Visionary leaders in the technology
business must have in their visions the intent to create change and the professional
experience to navigate and advance their ideas in a change environment. This study
includes an understanding of the basis for leading change in a technology-driven and
evolving business world. Champions of change have risen in this environment. Not well
know by name, but rather through the industry changes, champions have used vision,
professional experience, and teams to make the internet an alternate business delivery
channel and have moved technology processes into areas that will change the way people
live, work and play.
Phillip Evans and Thomas S. Wurster in their book Blown to Bits - How the New
Economics o f Information Transforms Strategy, opened the argument that information
technology would transform business through the internet. They offer a compelling story
about the demise of the Encyclopedia Britannica sales forces caused by the introduction
of CD-ROM encyclopedias. The encyclopedia business value chain was literally blown
to bits by the advent of desktop digital computers and silver disks that contain multi
volume sets of encyclopedias. The need for a stand up sales force in department stores
and sales staff knocking on doors was gone. (Evans and Wurster 2000, 5-7)

44

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This concept of business value chain disintermediation, carried out by insurgent


businesses, was identified by Evans and Wurster as the catalyst for changing the
encyclopedia industry and other industries. Evans and Wursters identification of
possible disintermediation tactics fueled the drive to establish on-line banks and retail
operations as well as other computer delivered services. Their perspectives showed how
digital computers and information technology generated new ways to communicate with
customers, complete sales, deliver products, and offer services outside of traditional
business channels. In the visionary leadership context, Evans and Wurster presented the
case for seeing the possibilities, the vision, to apply new technologies in existing value
chains. Visionary leaders must naturally acquire the drive to set aside complacency in
the status quo and see opportunities in emerging capabilities.
Subir Chowdhury, Peter Senge, C.K. Prahalad and others gathered their ideas in
their book Management 21C - Management 21st Century (2000). With captions like
Waiting for permission to begin is not characteristic of leaders - acting with a sense of
urgency is, the authors built a case for progressive leadership using grass-roots
education, direct interaction, effective globalization and a constant search for new ideas
(Chowdhury 2000, 5-23). Chowdhury personally characterized new leadership as
Janusian leadership with the capacity to look forward and to look back in order to
preside over endings and beginnings, and sunsets and daybreaks in evolving business
technology.
The philosophy put forth in Management 21C calls for aggressive leaders who
will take risk, break with tradition and exercise new thinking to take advantage of the
information age while sounding a note of caution in understanding the value of

45

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

technology. Visionary leaders can apply this philosophy given their experience in the
professional environment. They must have the experience to apply this philosophy in
their organizations and the technical knowledge and experience to recognize the value of
emerging technology.
Paul Dainty and Moreen Anderson offer insight on the intelligent use of
technology and warn leaders that technology does not replace the need for human
interaction and we believe that many companies in the future will miss this point to their
detriment (Ibid, 107-111). In fact this advice was validated when banks had to rebuild
their human teller workforce in the face of complaints about the lack of human contact
offered by automated teller machines. People wanted people to assist them with their
banking business. Management 21C establishes the need for innovation champions of
new technology and business processes to remember that people matter and that
collaboration among people is necessary to make meaningful change. In this area,
visionary leaders must exercise the leadership to gather champions to their cause and
become champions in their own right. Again, the fundamental traits of a visionary leader
surface in a detailed discussion and paradigm.
Balanced business development and performance monitoring was first advanced
by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton in The Balanced Scorecard - Translating
Strategy into Action (1996). They put forth the idea that bottomline financial business
management was insufficient for creating and maintaining success in evolving markets
driven by technology. They established the idea that financial targets were important, but
that customer satisfaction, process development, and employee growth were just as
important to success. This premise is important in furthering business capabilities

46

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

through technology, because financial perspectives on investment often fail to give value
to other aspects of business evolution.
In 2001, Kaplan and Norton collaborated on The Strategy-Focused Organization
- How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment. This
study based theory-to-practice review of the balanced scorecard in action stressed the
value of key value management systems in business. The value of improving business
processes and developing human assets highlights the requirement to use technology as a
continuous improvement vehicle. In the visionary leadership thesis the idea of exercising
the leadership capacity to gather talented people is established in the third trait. The use
of the balanced scorecard in putting that trait into action will assist in retaining people,
motivating them to advance and enable them to make progress toward attaining the
vision. Visionary leadership requires more than making the bottomline. It requires
creating opportunities for people to excel and assist in reaching goals that contribute to
attaining a vision.
As a base for research departure in the financial service industry John B. McCoy,
Larry A. Frieder, and Robert B. Hedges, Jr. discuss the importance of technological
innovation to banking in their 1994 book Bottomline Banking. Hedges was instrumental
in promoting the use of the internet as an alternate delivery chain for a major financial
institution in the Northeast United States. They observe that technology has a remarkable
impact on the ways financial service firms do business (McCoy, Frieder and Hedges
1994, 258-259). Bankers in 1994 were just beginning to understand the impact of
information technology on their business processes.

47

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Much reference is made today about asset valued businesses. Cracking the Value
Code - How Successful Businesses are Creating Wealth in the New Economy provides
the basics on this topic in a concise and easy to understand approach. Richard E. S.
Boulton, Barry D. Libert and Steve M. Samek of Arthur Andersen Consulting offer a
view of asset based value that places a premium on the proposition that businesses are
their tangible and intangible assets whether those assets are owned or belong to some
other stakeholder in the business (Boulton, Libert and Samek 2000, xvii).
Asset value is based on the availability of information in the present case.
Technology itself becomes a pressure as well as an enabler for wider reporting according
to Cracking the Value Code (Ibid). This points to the need to collect and distribute
information to internal parties and stakeholders without delay. Information technology is
the vehicle for this information flow and is also the technology used to assess the value of
assets that may be available now and delivered just in time to the business organization.
Champions and visionaries who depend on asset value must depend on information
technology to track and report on those assets.
So far the case has been made for the use of information technology in business as
an enabler and a tool for advancing business in the information age when used in
balanced manner. As Rickover and Rabom advanced new component technologies to
achieve their visions, business leaders must incorporate information technology
components to create new value chain processes, and gather and distribute information.
An invention such as the bar code reader that feeds computer databases is an example of
technological innovation that creates advantages in process development, valueassessment and speed in business transactions.

48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Some companies have begun to benefit from Management 21C ideas that improve
technology, processes and people. These companies are able to generate intellectual and
financial capital in the new economy. Other ideas for improvement can be found in the
perspectives of three more authors. Clayton Christensen, Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Jim
Collins offer important ideas that establish the knowledge base for research on the
business side of defining visionary technology leadership.
Christensen poses the current question of managing technology in 2004-2005.
What technology advances will make a difference to the business? Will a certain
technology breakthrough create chaos or revolutionize business, evolving capabilities
beyond the safety of tried and true practices? This is the innovators dilemma. Why do
apparently sound decisions made by great managers fail?
Disruptive technologies have the power to change business processes that have
been valuable for years. Innovations have the capacity to overturn concepts of delivery,
customer demands and the very basis of a business or traditional service industry. The
Innovators Dilemma written by Clayton Christensen is still causing a change in business
strategy by late adopters of the idea (1997). Visionaries have somehow known that the
tried and true is often passe and that new innovation such as the internet and wireless
communications represent a quantum leap in business processes. This is the basis for
understanding the positive impact of fast adapters and the possible disaster of operating
as a slow follower in the information age.
Captain Terry Pierce, U.S. Navy, a Harvard Ph.D., wrote Warfighting and
Disruptive Technologies - Disguising Innovation (2004) in which he argues that
disruptive technology should comprise about 10 percent of the Navys innovation effort

49

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

and that this innovation is a matter of linking existing capabilities and technologies in
new ways of deploying forces. During a presentation at the Naval War College, Pierce
made the analogy of Rickover completing the nuclear submarine project in a manner that
sustained naval warfighting capabilities. He argued that the nuclear submarine by itself
was not a disruptive innovation. But, when Raborns POLARIS was loaded onto the
nuclear submarine - USS GEORGE WASHINGTON, a truly disruptive technology
emerged - nuclear deterrence from the sea. (Pierce 2004, Slide 20)
Pierces arguments are based on Rebecca M. Henderson and Kim B. Clarks
article Architectural Innovation - The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies
and the Failure of Established Firms (1990) in which they based they are that
The essence of an architectural innovation is the reconfiguration of an
established system to link together existing components in a new way.
The important point is that the core design concepts behind each
component - and the associated scientific and engineering knowledge remain the same (Henderson and Clark 2004, 3).
Pierce, Henderson and Clark point to the idea that disruption of traditional
capabilities delivered by existing technologies can become more radical than completely
new innovations. The other point is that disruption of traditional capabilities and
processes can be achieved by linking existing technologies in a new way or actually
deploying new technologies that replace existing capabilities.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter wrote Evolve! - Succeeding in the Digital Culture o f
Tomorrow in 2001. Her discussion of putting Lipstick on a Bulldog is relevant and
important to understanding why cosmetic changes will not work in an evolving business
environment. There are cases in the book that illustrate the need for makeovers rather

50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

than simple adjustments to business practices when technology has been used by the
competition to make cultural changes.
Kanter also addresses the idea of partnerships and collaboration with her ideas for
becoming a star partner in business. As mentioned, collaboration in the business world
is akin to collaboration across the bureaus of the Navy or industry colleagues in banking
when it comes to advancing major changes that affect the social order. Kanter writes:
There are many stars in the sky. Collabronauts connect the dots that turn
those twinkles of possibility into recognizable constellations. Networks of
partners are essential to success in the Internet Age. So leaders must
spread awareness of collaborative advantages, and they must heed its
lessons. (Kanter 2001, 166)
Those Collabronauts are people who collaborate within a company, with
contributing partners supporting companies with their core competencies and partners in
an industry collaborating within a government sponsored association or simply sharing
ideas to make the business better for all. Kanter offers a solid foundation from which to
discuss both innovation and collaboration in the information age. Her ideas and advice
are again based on the fundamental traits of visionary leaders with emphasis on vision
and gathering people to create and sponsor the vision.
Jim Collins brings focus to pursuing the big hairy idea that visionaries often
dream about. This represents the idea of becoming the best in the world at some aspect
of a business or industry. Collins offers his advice in Good to Great - Why Some
Companies Make the Leap and Others D ont (2001). Collins makes the point that a
visionary leader must have a vision, understand the business, and gather the resources to
achieve success. This means building core competencies and overcoming barriers with

51

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the right people. In Collins language the visionary leader must gather the right people
to ride the bus to success (Collins 2001, 1-50).
Collins level 5 leader forms another idea that establishes a point of departure for
research. His level 5 leader must have professional will and personal humility. These
include accepting responsibility while sharing recognition for success and acting with
quiet calm while setting the standards for an enduring company (Ibid, 36).
Finally, there is one more point to consider in establishing the basis for
understanding visionary leadership in the technology-driven environment of the United
States. That final point is the attitude and culture of Americans.
James W. Cortada and Edward Wakin wrote Betting on America - Why the U.S.
Can Be Stronger After September 11 - A tribute to the American Spirit (2002). Cortada
and Wakin expressed what has been widely known in describing technology as a great
facilitator in America when they wrote:
Among modern nations today, the United States stands out in leading the
way with advanced technologies as never before in its history. In fact, if
someone wanted to find a silver bullet in our society, it would be the total
collection of technologies already available and in use, as well as the
knowledge Americans have and are using to develop even more effective
tools. (Cortada and Wakin 2002, 7)
Beyond the facts and opinions expressed in business books and the philosophy
offered through the Harvard Business School Press there are fictional examples of leaders
who have well-intended visions for the exploitation of science and technology. These
fictional accounts help to enlighten the research base with accounts of what can go wrong
when the outcomes fall short of expected intentions or through unintentional
consequences bring disastrous results.

52

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Trinity and Davids Mind - Unintended Outcomes

Greg lies novel The Footprints o f God (2003) presents the story of man seeking
to become his own and lasting master. Peter Godin, a 70-year-old billionaire and
computer genius, builds a supercomputer capable of accepting the brain and memories of
a man and then operate in a mode that creates artificial intelligence. This quantum leap
in computer science is certainly conceivable, yet unconceivable in its consequences and
unintended results. It is a work of fiction that places the reader in a story of human
genius, unintended consequences and danger to human kind. Project Trinity is a TOP
SECRET government project and the brainchild of the National Security Agency. Its
purpose was to provide communications intercepts and control to Internet at super human
speeds with human thinking to safeguard the interest of the United States. The hero
David Tennant, an ethicist hired to watch over the project, saves humanity in the end.
lies offers the case of the inspired visionary who at some points loses perspective
and becomes consumed by his own mortality. The idea that his creation will live on with
him as the center of the Trinity universe becomes the only reality for him at the expense
of others. Visionaries can succumb to the belief of gaining immortality in their creations
and can become consumed by that vision without understanding the impact and
consequences for others. Rickover became too consumed with his program and
philosophy, and then lost sight of his actual role relative to the Navy and the nation. He
became larger than life and felt that his will could be exacted on others without resistance

based on his sincere belief in his being right.


In Timeline by Michael Crichton (1999), the reader experiences the intended
behaviors of a secretive multinational corporation that has developed an astounding

53

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

technology. The project director believes the technology to transport objects and people
over space and time will result in a significant breakthrough and fortune for the
corporation. He becomes irrational when his experiments go wrong. Rather than deal
with the technology development issues, he seeks to cover up his problems to save the
business and in the end caused death and disaster. There are no parallels to this story in
our case studies, but the idea of a visionary leader attempting to cover up failure is not
inconceivable. Crichton has played on this theme in other works such as Jurassic Park.
There are other works of literature that offer glimpses of human nature that hopefully
remain fiction.

Vision, Overcoming Barriers and Gathering Support


Visionary leaders are individuals who through training and experience have come
to a career point that allows them to champion ideas that have the potential to create
significant change in their professions. They are people who have glanced over the next
hill or who have taken care to move some forgotten idea along in making a change that
can often be disruptive to the status quo yet offer a quantum leap ahead in technologydriven capabilities and processes.
In the Navy case, Admiral Rickover and Vice Admiral Raborns work was
accessible and well documented given the national importance of their work. In the
business world, individuals are not usually identified with the successes of major
corporations or industry advances. The case in the business world seems to be that of
collaboration and team efforts that do not generally single out a leader as in the Navy
case. In fact, it appears that it is better to think of the business case as an organizational
trait for a division, team or company within an industry collaborative. This dissertation

54

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

will take that departure. In the Navy case, individual senior and flag officers will emerge
while in the financial industry case, the industry associations will emerge as the visionary
organizations.
In both cases, research will show that vision, professional experience, and
leadership in gathering talent and support matters in furthering a vision within a complex
technology-driven society. Results of research and a case study in the Navy study will be
followed by the business technology case including a study on an industry vision that has
come to into being as Check 21. Qualitative analysis will show that vision, professional
experience and leadership have parallels in the Navy and in the private sector, and that
there is a general development model that applies to all technology leaders.

55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

III. From Rickover to Joint Integration Concepts

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, USN (RET) is considered the consummate


technology visionary leader. This chapter will offer a description of Rickovers influence
on technology innovation and how his visionary leadership shadow is cast over the
information age through processes and philosophy that have their genius in his nuclear
power program.
Research was conducted by extending initial literature research on the life and
times of Admiral Rickover and Vice Admiral William F. Raborn. Interviews with people
who worked with Admiral Rickover and Vice Admiral Raborn were not attempted
because the literature on both subjects offered a cogent and balanced view of their
visionary leadership attributes. The researcher served in the nuclear submarine Navy and
has attempted to share findings without professional bias, Navy jargon or sea stories
recalled from years past. But, it is important to know that the researcher has a personal
interest in submariners and limits the perspective here to submarine officers. It was felt
that a broad search would have resulted in less focus and depth.
Admiral Rickover demonstrated all three visionary leadership traits in his
legendary spearheading of the Naval Nuclear Power Program. From his initial

56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

introduction to nuclear power in 1946, Admiral Rickover, then a seasoned Captain in


engineering duty, drove the vision of nuclear power in ships, overcame political and
organizational barriers, and recruited and congealed a cadre of engineers and scientists,
political supporters, and submarine officers to his cause.
Rickovers leadership of the nuclear power program has been recognized by the
President of the United States and Congress. His control of the program has been both
praised and maligned with many of his processes remaining in place affecting the defense
industry and Navy quality assurance to the present day. It was Rickover who brought
about the construction of the first U.S. nuclear powered warship USS NAUTILUS, and
his reach can still be felt in the construction of USS VIRGINIA, a fourth generation fully
automated true submersible. Rickovers leadership will be reflected in the initial sections
of this chapter followed by a comparative description of a contemporary visionary, Vice
Admiral William F. Raborn. Vice Admiral Raborn led the development of the Fleet
Ballistic Missile Program and was successful in putting POLARIS intermediate range
nuclear missiles to sea in a nuclear submarine. Raborns accomplishment is considered a
truly revolutionary change in naval warfare that gave momentous meaning to Rickovers
extension of submarine capabilities.
Raborn and Rickover combined efforts to deliver the sea-based POLARIS
strategic deterrence capability that ultimately contributed to winning the Cold War.
While not true collaborators primarily based on Rickovers tendency to dominate, Rabom
put his missiles to sea in Rickovers nuclear submarines with a vision that captured the
support of the President of the United States (Polmar and Moore 2004, 119).

57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Collaboration between disciplines and organizations enabled both leaders to


produce programs that were founded in evolutionary innovations in technology. Both
programs captured the support of senior Navy leaders and civilians responsible for
defense programs (Barr and Howard 1960, 96). And, both leaders gathered the best and
brightest in their fields to create system integration from straightforward definitions of
future capabilities. Some would consider Rickovers innovation a matter of sustaining
submarine innovation to an improved capability while Raboms introduction of nuclear
missiles into a stealth submarine would be considered an architectural innovation that
disrupted traditional nuclear warfare strategy (Henderson and Clark 1999, 3).
There were clear differences between Rickover and Raborn. Rickover was driven
by personal dominance of his program by controlling advances in system design,
securing Congressional cover, and staffing his program with people who were personally
responsible to him (Lehman 1988, 20). And in contrast, Raborn worked within the Navy
hierarchy to complete his significant success with POLARIS. Raborn began his journey
with a Presidential mandate, senior Navy cover, Congressional buy-in, a vision that
evolved, and with people who were openly recruited and committed to securing the peace
with a nuclear deterrent weapon (Barr and Howard 1960, 36). Rickover was ultimately
forced to retired from his position after 37 years on the job, while Rabom moved on to
his next assignment and promotion after delivering POLARIS (Lehman 1988, 35 and
Submarine Pioneers November 2004, 5). Both created organizations that were models
for future discipline collaboration yielding management frameworks and engineering
practices that are in place today.

58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and Vice Admiral William F. Raborn were selected
as individual visionary leaders because they lived the visionary traits that form the thesis
of this dissertation. Vision, business - Navy bureaucracy acumen, and the capacity to
influence others to rally around their cause are traits required of visionary leaders in
complex technology-driven organizations.

Rickover, NAUTILUS, and the Nuclear Navy


It has been more than two decades since the retirement of Admiral
Hyman G. Rickover, USN, and time has done nothing to quell the variety
and force of the opinions about him. That he was a brilliant and driven
naval officer is without question, though he could also be obsessive and
controlling in the extreme. Rickover had an amazing sense of the power
and worth of interpersonal relationships while being one of the most
eccentric and demanding personalities of his time. He was one of the
greatest engineering and training innovators in the history of naval warfare
who eventually became an impediment to new ideas on warship design
and personnel development. Love him or hate him, and some people did
both at the same time, Rickover was someone you could not ignore. His
was the Father of the Nuclear Navy and is singularly responsible for
having the vision and implementing a naval nuclear propulsion program
that enabled winning of the Cold War. (Gresham and Friedman 2004, 41)

Hyman G. Rickover was born in Markow, Poland on January 28, 1900. His
family immigrated to the United States in 1905. Rickover was educated in public schools
and was accepted into and graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1922.
These were not happy years for Rickover who was subjected isolation and the usual
difficult times meted out by upper classmen. He graduated well down in the rankings of
the Class of 1922 and by comparison would not have passed the interviews and screening
process he would later demand of officers seeking entry into his nuclear poser program.
(Ibid, 41) He earned a post-graduate degree in Electrical Engineering at Columbia
University. As a naval line officer he served in a battleship, a destroyer, a submarine and

59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

served as the captain of a minesweeper. During the Second World War, Rickover served
as an engineering duty officer in the Bureau of Ships. He was responsible for electrical
systems. (Ibid, 42)
In 1946, then Captain Rickover was assigned by his former boss Rear Admiral
Earle Mills to the Navy team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory established to investigate
possibilities for the application of nuclear energy in ship propulsion systems. Rickover
had originally been assigned to investigate nuclear field prospects at the General Electric
Facility at Schenectady, New York. These possibilities had been identified in the Killian
report that was delivered to the Chief of Naval Operations. (Polmar and Moore 2004, 54)
Reports on possible capabilities formed the basis for pursuing advances in technology
and capabilities in the Navy. This aspect of government communication of ideas would
be formalized in reviews and other processes required by Congress and the Defense
Department leadership over the years.
Possibilities for building nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels were clearly
evident as the investigation progressed over several months. During that period Rickover
began to build his vision of naval nuclear propulsion and sold his ideas to individuals in
high places. He began to build support for his vision within the Navy and more
importantly with members of Congress. It was during a trip to witness a nuclear test that
Captain Rickover earned the friendship of U.S. Representative Henry M. Jackson.
Jackson became a close ally and Congressional top cover advocate for Rickover and
his nuclear power program (Ibid, 57-58). Rickovers ability to gather Congressional
support became his strongest skill and established a level of support for his vision that
overrode Secretaries of the Navy and allowed him to by-pass the normal Navy chain of

60

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

command. In fact this ability to understand the true nature of civilian control over the
military enabled Rickover to leverage Congressional support in the face of adversaries
and assured his longevity as the head of the entire naval reactors and propulsion program
(Lehman 1988, 28-29).
In the biography RICKOVER by Norman Palmer and Thomas Allen (1982) the
following passage describes the power Rickover gathered within Congress:
In 1962, during one of the early biennial melodrama about Rickovers
continuity, [Senators] Anderson, Holifield and Price were among the
members of the Joint Committee taken aboard the nuclear-powered carrier
ENTERPRISE by Rickover. As the worlds largest ship steamed off
Guantanamo, Cuba, Holifield interrupted the floating hearing to ask
Rickover: How many years do you have ahead of you before mandatory
retirement?
Until January 1964, Rickover answered.
There was a discussion - off the record. Then Holifield, once more on
the record, told of his concern about the future of nuclear propulsion. He
added, I would not want anything to destroy what you have built up.
As long as I am able and both I and others feel I can do a useful job, I
would like to stay on.
I dont think Congress is going to stand idly by and watch you put on the
shelf, Price interrupted to say. Congress has expressed itself before on
this matter, and if further action is required, we are not reluctant to act. We
will have to get into this thing.
Congress indeed did get into it, until, as Rickovers two-year
reappointments became automatic, the Secretary of Defense was expected
to send a letter to the leading members of Congress to advise them in
advance of Rickovers continued tenure. And in 1973, Congress
recommended, by resolution, that the Navy name an engineering building
at the Naval Academy Rickover Hall, the Navy meekly accepted the
resolution. (Polmar and Allen 1982, 220 - 221)
That hall is in place today. There is a bronze bust statue of Rickover in front of
the hall. Midshipmen rub the statues nose to wish for good luck on engineering exams.
Rickover was promoted to four-star admiral in the same year that the hall was named for

61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

him by a vote of Congress. Democrats Senator Henry Jackson and Representative


Samuel S. Stratton introduced the promotion bill. Rickover later commented that he
would have voted against the promotion and that he could have done his job as a seaman
second-class - Nature knows no rank and rank is like jewelry - the old women are the
ones who get the jewelry, and it really is the young ones who should get it (Ibid, 221).
All of this is to point out that Hyman G. Rickover was a master at wooing
Congressional support and that his accomplishments in putting nuclear powered warships
to sea only gathered more support for his vision so much so that he was retained well
beyond mandatory retirement that should have occurred in 1964 when he reached 64
years-of-age.

Rickover and Contractors


Navy business activity in the acquisition of ships and systems represents a
relationship with contractors and shipyards that at times has been contentious and in other
cases completely cooperative. Rickover had an unambiguous perspective on contractors
and especially shipbuilders. Over his dominion within the nuclear Navy, Rickover
became a champion of quality and standards, worked to hold down contract cost and
continued to pursue his vision for building the best nuclear submarines in the face of
sometimes hostile engagements with the industry.
Admiral Rickover has been acknowledged as a force in developing standards for
contractors doing business with the Navy. He was considered a protagonist in
establishing technical standards and quality assurance requirements beyond those in place
prior to the evolution of the Naval Nuclear Power Program. During an interview with
Admiral Rickover conducted by Dianne Sawyer, Rickover shared his views on General

62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Dynamics, a leading builder of nuclear submarines. Former-President Jimmy Carter


participated in this dialogue.
SAWYER: Were you surprised when the Reagan Administration told him
[Rickover] goodbye?
PRESIDENT CARTER: No, because the defense contractors were out to
get Rickover for a long time. He was an embarrassment to them and he
was part of a one-man watchdog.
AD RICKOVER: There was over a billion dollars worth of claims by
shipbuilders which I thought were false and I fought it. Now, it's quite a
complete coincidence, but within a month or two months after I left - left,
most of that money was given to the shipbuilders. Of course, thats a
coincidence.
SAWYER: The shipbuilders did hate him because he refused to pay them
and because he demanded perfection. He said they didn't know ships from
horse droppings. And now, Rickover has been charged with taking
presents from the shipbuilders. A former executive from one contractor,
General Dynamics, was the first to reveal that Rickover had been given
gifts, a lot of them, some of them expensive.
ADMIRAL RICKOVER: Oh, they gave me little plaques; they gave me
all kinds - one time I think I even got a small diamond, in the time I was
married. But the question that ought - 1 did. I took - so did others. I don't
deny it. But the question that ought to be asked is - did I favor General
Dynamics or any other contractor? The question is whether it influenced
you.
SAWYER: But how can an - an American citizen know whether it
influenced you or not?
ADMIRAL RICKOVER: I didn't - 1 didn't think about the views of the
American citizen. I was - 1 was governed by my own thoughts.
SAWYER: .. .Why do you think this has come out now?
AD RICKOVER: On account of claims

SAWYER: General Dynamics?


AD RICKOVER: I accused them of false claims.
SAWYER: General Dynamics?

63

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ADMIRAL RICKOVER: General Dynamics. And I always stuck to it.


ADMIRAL RICKOVER: .. .Well I don't - it doesn't bother me, it doesn't
bother me. I think God knows what I did and I don't care what the
contractors or you think.
(Sawyer November 2004)
This interview was held with Rickover at age 84. He had retired from the Navy in
1982 and was still very adamant that he had been correct in making demands of
contractors and not allowing the buying-in process that he felt was operative in the
business. The buying-in process allowed contractors to win low cost contracts and then
make a profit on changes and amendments to the contracts. In fact, Rickover believed
there were law practices that flourished to take advantage of the claims process
associated with capturing these profits from Navy shipbuilding contracts. (Lehman 1988,
14-15)
Rickover was able to fight against contracting policies given his Congressional
cover while ignoring the negotiations attempted by Navy Secretaries and inquiries by
Chiefs of Naval Operations. Rickover in fact turned to government shipyards to build
nuclear submarines and was well on his way to having government shipyards undertake
all nuclear work to eliminate concerns with contractors. (Ibid, 14-17)
Rickovers treatment of contractors was described by A. Stanley Thompson in the
following excerpt from his Comments on Nuclear Power (November 2004).
Rickovers treatment of contractors working on his project became
legendary. A company's representative would be called to Rickover's
office in the old barracks-like Navy buildings in Washington to be
chastised for lack of performance. Part of the standard treatment was
reported to be a light, behind Rickover's desk, so bright that the visitors
eyes pained him when he looked at Rickover. When Rickover made a
business trip across the United States, he purportedly pressed one of his
contractors into flying with him, abused him across the country for his

64

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

lapses, [and] then left him to fly back alone. Thus Rickover avoided
spending his own flying time uselessly. The story circulated that someone
asked Rickover whether he wasn't concerned about working himself into a
heart attack. The response was, "I don't get heart attacks; I give them."
Hatred of Rickover by some people was strong, while others thought him
the only honest man in the nuclear business who also knew what he was
doing. (Thompson 2004)
A. Stanley Thompson worked in the nuclear engineering field from 1946 to 1963
when he quit because of safety and economic concerns. His observations on Rickover
seem quite honest coming from a professed anti-nuclear engineer. (Ibid)
Rickover, the nuclear power visionary, did not begin to disagree with contractors
and shipbuilders during the evolution of nuclear submarines. He was noted for being
hard on contractors earlier in his career. He had cultivated anti-contractor opinions and
beliefs as far back as the Second World War when he was working as an engineer at the
Bureau of Ships. Ever since then, for many a manufacturer, dealing with Rickover was a
surrealistic conflict that whirled in a seemingly endless spiral. The process began with
examination of one topic, and then its sources, and then the sources of those sources, and
so on, regardless of cost, regardless of manpower, or regardless of that inexhaustible
Rickover commodity, time. He would spend hundreds of hours convincing a vendor of
his guilt (Polmar and Allen 1982, 490).
This approach to contractor, vendor and shipyard oversight continued until
Rickover pressed for revision of codes and specifications that suited him for nuclear
propulsion systems. He simply pushed to rewrite the codes that allowed defects that were
usually accepted to ones that suited his vision of perfection for nuclear systems. (Ibid,
490)

65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In 1968, Rickover raised questions concerning the fundamental tenets of the


military-industrial complex. He said, No person or group can be depended on to police
itself. No man can serve two masters: his own interest and the interest of the public. Man
should not be placed in a position where they have to reconcile the two. It is the function
of government to do so (Ibid, 490). Rickover was questioning the patriotism of industry
leaders and argued that the Federal Government should intervene in the free-enterprise
system.
As was well known, Rickover was a man who did not covet wealth and abhorred
greed, and this abhorrence frequently became the inspiration for a tirade against
capitalism (Ibid, 491). Rickover stuck to his principles that had more to do with
perfection of his vision than a political agenda.
He had a way of ending arguments with contractors who wanted him to ease up
on his demands. Rickover would simply say, If you knew that your son had to serve on
that submarine, would you design it my way or your way (Ibid, 492)?
Based on his domineering relationship with contractors and in particular
Westinghouse, General Electric, and the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics,
Rickover was able to leverage considerable power in reaching his vision. He was able to
force General Electric to accept a bid using a law that forced companies to do work that
was vital to national defense. And, he was able to convince Electric Boat to transfer
workers from Groton, Connecticut to Idaho to work on a prototype nuclear propulsion
system. (Ibid, 492)
During all of this effort in pursuit of his vision, moving contractual barriers,
invoking the law and leveraging Congressional contacts, Rickover remained critical and

66

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

suspicious of all vendors, but especially Electric Boat. This topic - the dispute between
Rickover and Electric Boat is worthy of a dissertation, given the triumphs achieved and
the tension that surrounded that relationship in producing the submarine force that won
the Cold War.
Rickover was able to sell the nuclear propulsion vision to the Navy, Congress and
industry. He was able to demand support for his program by overturning the chain of
command and assuming a civilian directorship of nuclear matters while still in uniform
and retain himself on active duty. He dominated contractors, vendors and shipbuilders,
while getting standards changed to suit his standards of safety and engineering
requirements. And, as seen in the following section of this dissertation, Rickover created
his own Navy within the Navy. They were called the NUCs. Nuc is an accepted short
term for nuclear trained personnel in the Navy.

Rickovers Navy within the Navy


Rickover formed around him a cadre of hand picked officers and staff to support
his vision. There are legendary stories surrounding his selection process that included
formal examinations and the dreaded interview with Admiral Rickover.
Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. offers an eight page account of his interview with
Rickover in 1959 when he was a Commander applying for admission into the nuclear
power program. This account details the questions and answers exchanged between the
future Chief of Naval Operations and Admiral Rickover. In the end, Zumwalt made a

record four trips to then Vice Admiral Rickovers office, was chastised for a failure to
prepare for nuclear power training, and was berated for other failings. (Zumwalt 1976,
85-94)

67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Admiral Zumwalt declined the offer to go nuclear power and instead took
command of USS DEWEY which was almost a sister ship to the nuclear-powered USS
BAINBRIDGE that was taken by a fellow officer who accepted the nuclear power
training offer. The other officer who took command of BAINBRIDGE was promoted
two years early as were two other Zumwalt nuclear trained classmates. If one endured
the interview process, the rewards were significant.
Rickover, now in a civilian capacity with the Atomic Energy Commission,
established a process for selecting and training nuclear crews and more importantly
officers that he controlled, thus eliminating Navy control of his nuclear training pipeline.
With close ties to the Atomic Energy Committee Rickover was able to obtain an
amendment that gave him control of nuclear safety. Based on that control Rickover
opened a separate nuclear power school in California in 1959 and set it up across the
country from the established submariner training base in Groton, Connecticut. In 1962
he established a second school in Bainbridge, Maryland, again well away from Groton.
In these schools, nucs spent six months learning the basics of nuclear power plant
theory and maintenance from fundamental theories of physics to complex operating
theories. This schoolhouse education was followed by six months at a shore-based
nuclear plant where candidates were expected to qualify on the maintenance,
operation and supervision of a nuclear power plant. Only then were they sent to
submarine training in Groton. Signs in the passageway halls of the school reminded
everyone that: In this school the smartest work as hard as those who struggle to pass.
H.G. Rickover. (Polmar and Allen 1982, 300)

68

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 2 - Nuclear Power Organization Chart 1960's

Atomic Energy
Com m issioner

Secretary of the
Navy

General
Manager

Chief of Naval
O perations
Chief of Bureau
of Ships

Chief of Naval
R eactors

Chief o f Naval
Nuclear Piopulsion

Rickover

Rickover

Nuclear
R epresentatives at

Nuclear
Laboratories &
Prototypes

The figure above was developed to illustrate the position of power Rickover
crafted for himself in the early I960s. He had assumed control of the Atomic Energy
Commission position responsible for naval reactors and he had assumed acquisition
responsibility for naval nuclear propulsion plants. Rickover held this control for the
remainder of his tenure with slight changes in subordinate or partnering organizations
that he filled with Nucs. Some writers use Nukes to identify nuclear trained personnel.
(Ibid, 326-327)
Rickover and his Nucs ruled the nuclear Navy and over time, given their
individual abilities ruled the Navy. It was Rickovers ultimate goal to have an all nuclear
Navy. (Ibid, 327)
Rickovers absolute control of his people was not a complete success to say the
least. While the numbers fluctuated over the years, normally six of ten trained nuclear
officers left the Navy after their initial service obligation (Lehman 1988, 23). There were

69

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a number of reasons for these departures, but the main reason was dislike for the nuclear
power program and the direction of Admiral Rickover extending to minor details on
individual ships and submarines. The admiral employed Naval Reactors monitors to
watch over operation of nuclear plants. These NR monitors visited engineering spaces
of submarines import and conducted monitor watches on the crew. This forced an
allegiance to NR that was initiated in nuclear power school, reinforced during prototype
training, and then practiced onboard ship. (Ibid, 22-23) For some this was simply too
much. John Lehman shares an edited report on a submarine Commander who left the
Navy:
Commander felt his request for relief of command was the only realistic
way of persuading you and CNO that the nuclear submarine service is on a
disastrous course because of the aging anachronistic leadership of Admiral
Rickover. In his view the situation in the fleet is deteriorating to a very
low level...
Commander believes that Admiral Rickovers mistreatment of nuclear
submarine officers has led to the alarming attrition rate in the submarine
service. In the words of the Commander, Faced with the constant
scrutiny, and threat, on the nuclear propulsion side [from NR monitor] the
[commanding officer] must sacrifice the possibility of a reasonable home
life and 90 percent of all non-engineering aspects of submarining to
devote the necessary hours in the day to confront this continuous
challenge to his command. (Ibid, 23)
Rickovers absolute control of nuclear powered ships and submarines reached into
personnel assignment policies and promotions. Rickover demanded and received the
policy requirement that all officers in command of nuclear ships and submarines must be
Nucs. Specifically, the commanding officer and the number two officer, the executive
officer, must have nuclear engineering training and experience. This is contrary to the
Royal Navy view on this matter in that seaman officers in the Royal Navy command
ships and submarines while engineering officers assume responsibility for propulsion

70

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

plants. In effect, Rickover ensured that his Nucs would have a path to command beyond
engineering assignments. This is very important in any Navy because it is necessary to
have officers who have been in command at sea to rise to staff and Flag officer
command levels. (Ibid, 23) This is not unlike the civilian counter part discussion on
creating Chief Information Officers (CIOs). Good CIOs have both technical and business
knowledge and experience. It is possible for a technologist to report to a business leader
to create success. However, the reverse is a bit more trying unless the technologist
acquires the business sense and acumen to operate the business.
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was a legend, a brilliant engineer and a visionary
who in all probability stayed beyond his time in a position heading the Navy Nuclear
Power Program. However, his accomplishments can not be disputed or diminished in
naval historic and evolution significance.

Recollections of Captain Edward Beach, USN


In his novel Cold is the Sea (1978) Edward L. Beach, Captain, U.S. Navy Retired
and former Commanding Officer of USS TRITON offers a fictional account of
Rickovers visionary leadership traits. Beach also provides a personal real world account
of Rickover in his book on being a submariner - Salt and Steel - Reflections o f a
Submariner (1999).
Beach describes Rickover through the Admiral Brighting character and recounts
the difficulties experienced by senior officers entering the nuclear power program and
then later having to respond to Brightings controlling power as the Director of Naval
Nuclear Propulsion.

71

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Beachs fictional Admiral Brighting is seen as an absolutely controlling director


of the Navys nuclear propulsion program, having dominion over officers entering the
program, and the visionary responsible for development of future submarines. Captain
Edward G. Richardson, a war time submarine skipper tells the story of his difficulties in
gaining access to nukey pooh program and then dealing with Brighting as a submarine
squadron commander. Rich Richardson is assigned to Submarine Squadron Ten in
New London, Connecticut with two of his former wardroom subordinates receiving
command of submarines in his squadron.
The story begins with the legendary Brighting rejecting Richardson from nuclear
training and a Vice Admiral attempting to have him placed on the nukey pooh list. This
was representative of the fights that actually occurred in the 1950s when wartime
commanders were rejected from Rickovers emerging program. The story goes on to
recount how Rich Richardson leverages friendships to gain another interview with
Brighting and the struggles encountered during nuclear power school and prototype
training. In Navy command structures it would have been unheard of that the squadron
commander would not have had the same training as his subordinates, but it was
Brighting and his nukey program that upset all of that protocol.
The Cold is the Sea story goes on to tell how Rich made decisions during nuclear
power prototype to supply electrical power to a near by town when he could not reach
Brighting to gain his approval. Rich was legally bound by Navy regulations to act, but at
the same time prohibited from acting in the best interest of that town and the service due
to Brightings total control of the program and its resources.

72

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In the end, Richardson completed Brightings training program and assumed his
rightful place as the commander for two nuclear submarines commanded by two of his
officers from his war time command. (Beach 1978, 1 - 65)
In Beachs Salt and Steel - Reflections o f a Submariner, he recounts his initial
meetings with Admiral Rickover and his representation of the nuclear power program
within the staff offices of the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Nimitz staff at the
time. In his chapter on Helping Rickover, Beach confirms the attitudes and traits
already shared on Rickover, except he relates his observations as a fellow submariner and
as a submariner who later commanded USS TRITON. TRITON earned fame as the
largest nuclear submarine built by Rickover and the submarine that circumnavigated the
world submerged.
Beach shares his impression of Admiral Rickover and found that he was a
proponent of Rickover within the Navy Staff. Beach wrote:
In my early dealings with Rickover, I soon began to feel that his nuclearpowered submarine, if it could be built, would revolutionize navies and
sea power. Although as a character he was an unusual one, it was clear
that if anyone could build such a power plant, it would be Rickover and
his people.
For myself, I realized that to get the [nuclear] submarine I thought we
should have, I would have to throw my lot 100 percent in with Rickover,
and this, little by little, I found myself doing.
Rickover could go the high road, through his bureaucratic superior, the
chief of the Bureau of Ships - and did so whenever this suited his purpose.
More often [Rickovers] way of working was to go the low road: get
Beach and probably others too - to haul chestnuts around Main Navy and
then, depending on what happen, and on what level, he would deal with
the results.
Thus it was that one day I found myself deputized by Rickover to help
get the right message to Admiral Nimitz, then Chief of Naval Operations,
I was after all, the submarine representative for nuclear power in Main

73

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Navy. .. .The result of all this [my representing a 20 knot submerged


submarine idea to Admiral Nimitz] is well known today, and like all of us
I am pleased to recall the small part I was able to play in causing it [the
nuclear submarine program] to come to pass.
(Ibid, 182-185)

Beachs lasting regard for the competence of Admiral Rickover to fulfill visions is
conveyed in a passage from Salt and Steel referring to the capabilities of the TRITON,
the fifth nuclear submarine built by Rickover. Beach wrote:
TRITON ran beautifully all the time, and it crossed my mind that it was
not at all above the Rickover I had come to know to have also thought, in
a small part of his mind along with everything else, to demonstrate that he,
at least, knew how to build a ship. Theres no doubt in the world that if
Eisenhower had directed Rickover to build the Savannah, instead of our
maritime commission, which produced a failure...that nuclear-powered
merchant ship, the Peace Ship, as Eisenhower wanted to call her, would
have been the outstanding success the nation deserved instead of the
embarrassing klutz she turned out to be. (Ibid, 270)

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover certainly was the consummate visionary leader of


his time. He clearly exercises the traits in this thesis - the vision to believe in a
technological revolution, the understanding of his business and political environment, and
the capacity to gather the best talent and resources available to make his vision a reality.
Further it is clear that Rickover had the top cover to be successful. One of the elements
of visionary leadership so well documented in the Rickover case is the need for superiors
and colleagues who can influence outcomes to believe in the vision. Moreover, in
Rickovers case, there were leaders in Congress who ensured his longevity, paved the
way for his promotions and funded his ideas over the objection and prejudice put upon
Rickover from within the Navy and the defense industry. Regrettably, Rickover may have

74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

rejected and alienated some very talented people who could have made individual and
significant contributions to the program.
On January 17, 1955 at 11:00 AM, USS NAUTILUS (SSN 571) moved away
from the pier at Electric Boat and moved down the Thames River toward New London
Ledge Light. Her commanding Officer Commander Eugene P. Wilkinson had a signal
light flash the historic message: UNDERWAY ON NUCLEAR POWER (Gresham and
Friedman 2004, 37-39).

Duty and Honor


Admiral Rickover and Vice Admiral William F. Raborn who will be discussed in
the following section of this chapter were both driven by the duty ethic. They were
driven by deontological ethics that made them sacrifice personal gain and comfort to
achieve their visions of technological revolution. They were both given mandates that
would change the national strategy and enhance naval capabilities. As naval officers they
were duty bound to perform and they personally accepted the accountability for
monumental programs.
It can be argued that Rickovers accomplishment in building NAUTILUS was a
sustaining extension o f submarine warfare capability - an extension of warfare as was
known and practiced. Some others will likewise contend that Raborns deployment of
Polaris missiles in nuclear submarines was truly a disruptive evolution o f capabilities that
changed national strategy and security policy. Whichever the case, Rickover and Raborn

were charged with implementing mandates directed by higher authority.


They were given a charge, ultimate accountability and the power to gather
resources to deliver. They both swore an oath and promised to carry out the orders of the

75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

President of the United States and to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign
and domestic. They were naval officers with a sworn duty to exercisc fidelity to their
promises, the first principle in W.D. Ross' The Right and the Good (1930). Rickover and
Raborn may have also been driven by beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of
others. They were certainly responsible for creating systems and capabilities that
improved the security of U.S. citizens during the early stages of the Cold War.

Vice Admiral William F. Raborn and Polaris Development


Vice Admiral William F. Raborn, Jr. is a submarine pioneer credited with
introducing submarine-launched nuclear ballistic missiles into the strategic forces of the
United States. He accomplished this technological evolution in naval warfare with a
mandate from the President of the United States and a vision that gathered cross
discipline experts in a team that set the mark for innovation during his time. Raborn
implemented the vision first attempted by German submariners and engineers during the
Second World War by leveraging their concept and emerging technologies in the post
war era. (Polmar and Moore 2004, 86, 116-117)
Raborn was born in Bromlow, Texas in 1905 and graduated from the United
States Naval Academy in 1928, six years after Admiral Rickover. A naval aviator,
Raborn commanded two aircraft carriers and served in the Bureau of Aeronautics during
the war. Vice Admiral Raborn received the Distinguished Service Medal and was
appointed a Vice Admiral when he completed delivery of the Polaris program. He
serviced a follow-on tour in a Flag Officer assignment, retired from the Navy in 1963 and
then served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Raborn died on March
14, 1990. (Submarine Pioneers November 2004)

76

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Raborn was a Rear Admiral when he was called upon by Admiral Arleigh Burke,
Chief of Naval Operations, to take on the task of developing a submarine-launched
ballistic missile. Raborn is considered a contemporary of Rickover who was charged
with bringing a vision to life under politically charged circumstances. Raborn exercised
the thesis traits of vision, professional experience within the Navy, and the capacity to
gather talent to reach his goal. He did this without the personal controversy that
surrounded Rickover. He completed his monumental task and then moved to other career
choices leaving the submarine launched ballistic missile program to subsequent directors
of the Special Projects Office (Ibid).
Raborn pursued the vision of deploying a missile firing submarine to a completion
5 years ahead of schedule. Raborn had been tasked with achieving an interim capability
in 1963 and a full capability in 1965. USS GEORGE WASHINGTON (SSBN 598) was
commissioned as the first ballistic missile submarine on December 30, 1959, launched its
first test missile on July 20, 1960 and departed on the Navys first deterrent patrol on
November 15, 1960. Polaris missiles were carried on patrol in a nuclear submarine
setting in motion a new strategic policy dynamic for the Cold War. (Ibid)

The FBM Program - POLARIS


The Fleet Ballistic Missile Program, and particularly its Polaris component, is
generally considered to be one of the nations most successful weapon development
projects (Sapolsky 1972, vii). The FBM Program involved the development,
procurement and deployment of the Polaris missile, attendant subsystems and a force of
forty-one nuclear powered FBM submarines (Ibid, 1). Rear Admiral Raborn was
responsible for initiating the FBM program, selecting and naming the Polaris missile

77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

solution alternative, and establishing the office that would bridge gaps between the
Bureaus of Aeronautics and Ordnance. The Polaris FBM program evolved from initial
attempts to build missiles that would serve the Army and the Navy in fielding nuclear
capable systems. German technology advanced after the Second World War gave the
United States an advantage in developing nuclear weapons delivery systems. The
political atmosphere of the day fueled the need for a formidable nuclear capability in the
face of emerging Soviet threats during the 1950s. In 1957, the Navy was given
permission to start an independent program to deploy Polaris. (Ibid, 1-9)
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover is often mistakenly credited with directing the
Polaris program. Admiral Rickover was responsible for building nuclear submarines, but
it was Vice Admiral Raborn who led the development of Polaris through a collaborative
effort between two Navy bureaus, a host of technical problems and the pressures of
adding to a credible nuclear force for the United States. Raborn unlike Rickover was
followed by Admiral I.J. Galantin in 1962 and by Rear Admiral Levering Smith in 1965
in leading the FBM program as head of the Special Projects Office. (Ibid, 11)
Working under the top cover of the Secretary of the Navy and Admiral Burke,
Raborn assumed his responsibilities with authority and support delegated by the Navy
chain of command. In setting him on his task, Burke resolved the question of
bureaucratic jurisdiction by establishing the Special Projects Office (SPO) as previously
mentioned. This new organization placed Raborn, an aviator, in charge of a ship,
ordnance and aeronautical program. In bridging another hurdle, the Secretary of Defense
agreed to fund the SPO as a joint commitment outside of the usual Navy allocation. (Ibid,
23)

78

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In the beginning, there was extreme secrecy surrounding the Special Projects
Office. The name was chosen to cover-up the real business of the office. Few outside of
the Navy knew what Raborn was doing and there were people in very high places that
knew nothing of the project to build submarine launched ballistic missiles (Barr and
Howard 1060, 39). With the vision clearly in mind, with the support of his bosses,
Raborn was a man with a vision and a mandate to produce results. Raborn proved
himself to be a wizard in the treacherous area of bureaucratic wrangling and avoiding the
noose of strangled efforts (Ibid, 39).

Raborns Strategy Overcomes Barriers and Politics


Rear Admiral Raborn had been given the mandate and the authority to make the
vision of a ballistic missile launched from ships a reality. He exercised astute Navy
professional experience to leverage the support he was able to gather to maximize his
opportunity.
Official priority designations alone would not be sufficient to gain
necessary organizational autonomy. Proponents of the [FBM] program
recognized that the power of priorities lay in reputation rather than use.
Nor would the marshalling of widespread support for the Polaris FBM
alone have been sufficient to gain the necessary organizational autonomy.
The uncertainty surrounding FBM development was so great that many of
those converted to Polaris would have been tempted to monitor and direct
its progress. (Sapolsky 1972,42)

Instead, Raborn devised a four point strategy described by Harvey M. Sapolsky in


his The Polaris System Development - Bureaucratic and Programmatic Success in
Government (1972) and referenced in Graham Spinardis From Polaris to Trident: The
Development o f US Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology (1994).

79

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

These strategies were:


1. Differentiation - This strategy would create a unique and favorable
identity for the FBM program [which turned out to be relatively easy]
because of the magnitude of the strategic threat and the unusual features
embodied in the FBM system. America faced possible nuclear blackmail,
but the FBM submarines could eliminate that threat by being ready to fire
missiles from under the sea to targets 1,200 to 2,500 nautical miles distant.
No one was allowed to think of the program in conventional terms. [And,]
by nature and by necessity Admiral Raborn was optimistic. Information
on the technical progress of the program was released only through his
office. (Ibid, 44 - 45)
2. Co-optation - This strategy refers to the attempts of an organization to
absorb [possibly opposing or threatening elements into its leadership or
policy-determining structure as a means of averting threats]. (Ibid, 47)

Raborn and his successors were successful in exercising Co-optation by making


others believe that the FBM program had one recognized enemy the Soviet Union
and that competition for resources was not to degenerate into bitter fights or degenerate
into personal matters (Ibid, 58). Nearly everyone wanted to support the program and
was given recognition for their part and authority to make important decisions within the
program (Ibid, 47-58).
3. Moderation - This strategy refers to the attempts of an organization to
build log-term support of their programs by sacrificing short-term gains.
(Ibid, 54)

Raborn and key members of his leadership team refrained from overextending
their political clout, sought to only make demands when necessary and avoided building
animosity that would hurt the program later. There was a saying about the FBM program

and its power. That saying was, Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. However, the FBM
Special Projects Office was careful in selecting the objects of Lolas desire. (Ibid, 55)

80

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4. Management Innovation - This strategy was essentially an independent


invention of the Special Projects Office. It can be defined as the attempt
of an organization to achieve autonomy in the direction of a complex and
risky program through the introduction of managerial techniques that
appear to indicate unique management competence. (Ibid, 58)
Early in the program Raborn and the Special Projects Office invented and used
the widely accepted Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), the concept of
project management as a discipline, weekly program review meetings, management
graphics, and the Reliability Management Index (Ibid, 59).
These strategic initiatives allowed Raborn to lead an organization that was
recognized as important to national security, cooperative, unassuming in their command
of political power and highly competent in managing their program. As opposed to
Admiral Rickovers efforts to dominate others and associated programs, Raborn used
processes to gather support. It should be noted here that Raborn had the support of his
Navy seniors, had not attempted to build an empire of his own and was not subjected to
the prejudices that Rickover carried because of being Jewish and a rather difficult
individual to tolerate.
With extraordinary authority granted to Raborn by Admiral Burke that became
known as Raborns hunting license, Raborn devised a strategy that allowed him to
breakdown bureaucratic barriers, gather external support and hold the Polaris program up
as a national priority worthy of support. Rear Admiral William F Red Raborn also
exercised the thesis trait to gather staff and talent to achieve his vision and in the process
built Reds House with a succession plan and professional career paths that were
recognized by the Navy. (Barr and Howard, 1960, 36-40)
Scattered around the earth the Navy had a great wealth of technical talent.
This was what naval officers proudly refer to as in-house capability.

81

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Raborn systematically ransacked the Navys house for the most capable
people he could find (Ibid, 41).
Raborn formed a nucleus leadership team with three key hires. He began with
retaining Commander Hasler from the Bureau of Ordinance to manage sea-borne missile
development, and then recruited a civilian financial expert and civil servant Edward J,
Merone as the Director of Administration (Ibid, 40-41). Merone was adept at unwinding
red tape and had worked for W.A Jump who was called the father of the Federal
Budget. Raborn then selected Captain John B. Colwell as his deputy. (Ibid, 41-42)
Rear Admiral Raborn went on to gather a Navy-Industry team that spread across
the United States and committed to embracing and achieving his vision. He instilled in
that team the urgency of their task. The Soviets were able to produce results in less time
than their American enemy because they had autocratic control of their industry. Raborn
increased the Special Projects Office work week from five days to five and a half days.
(Ibid, 43)
Raborn inspired his program team: Put your hand on the back of your neck, he
began telling skeptics, All right, you feel it? Thats your neck. Well, thats what were
trying to save. Thats what this program is all about (Ibid, 43).
Others came from around the world to join the team. Raborn would pick names
and Colwell would make the individual appear on the team. From the very start, the
Special Projects Office became an engulfing vocation, a force, a labor of patriotism and
love into which each addition to the staff hurled himself, caring for little else (Ibid, 43).

Raborn said, Our religion was to build Polaris (Sapolsky 1972, 158).

82

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Raborn and Contractors


Raborns relationship with contractors was not contentious in the same vein as
Rickover. Instead, Raborn employed his patriotic and critical program needs on
contractors to gain their support. Most notable among these contractors was the
Lockheed Company that built the Polaris missile. After test failures, Raborn would send
encouragement for repairs and modifications to move missile development along. He
was inspiring rather than hostile, yet very demanding given the program time constraints
and the critical national need for Polaris. Remember, the need for Polaris was immediate
given the normal track record for American development of new weapon systems.
Raborn certainly demonstrated the will to embrace and pursue the mandate to
send ballistic missiles to sea as a nuclear strategic deterrent. He devised a strategy to
eliminate Navy business barriers. And, through patriotic spirit and almost religious
fervor, Raborn gathered the talent to make his mission a reality.
Unlike Rickover, Raborn worked within the Navy chain of command without
undue Congressional or Presidential Administration influence. By virtue of this
approach, the Special Projects Office transferred hands at the end of Raborns tenure,
there was an orderly succession of command and the FBM program endured through a
number of progressive advances to finally emerge as one of the instruments of victory in
the Cold War.

Civilian Control o f the M ilitary

In a previous section the discussion of deontological or duty ethics was discussed


to highlight Rickover and Raborns commitment to duty as naval officers. Beyond those
duty ethics to perform their daunting task, there was the subject of civilian control of the

83

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

military to consider. Neither Raborn nor Rickover was in complete control of their
programs. There were Congressional and Presidential Administration oversight and
control of their efforts. In fact, we have seen the extent of Congressional support
Rickover received in protecting his longevity and providing funding for his nuclear
submarines and warships.
Rear Admiral Henry E. Eccles provides definitions of civilian control of the
military in his book Military Power in a Free Society (1979) written during the post-Viet
Nam era. Eccles describes the relationship between military and naval leaders, and their
civilian executives in several ways. He addresses the reciprocal understanding between
civilian government leaders and the admirals and generals of the armed forces, the
political objective interaction, professional integrity on both sides, and the procurement
and production of military equipment relationship.
In terms of reciprocal understanding, civilian leaders - politicians and presidential
administration executives must understand military command control and the limits of
military power. On the other hand, military leaders must understand the structure and
dynamics of the political environment and administration objectives established by
civilian authorities. In a free society this relationship is very complex and requires
professional competencies on both sides of the relationship. (Eccles 1979, 2)
Civil-military relations can be seen as the interaction of a group of related
systems and subsystems - social, economic, political, military, and
information. Each has its functional structure and organization. Each has
its own formal and informal mode of operation with the informal
frequently being as important as the formal.
Most of the issues revolve around the central question: What is the
meaning, the nature, and the importance of the phrase civilian control of
the military? (Ibid, 125)

84

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In the context of this discussion, civilian control of the military and the Navy
includes those relationships that enable procurement of technology, systems and ships as
well as and top cover or executive sponsorship of visionary leaders.
Rickover and Raborn understood these complex relationships. Rickover, more
than any other naval officer during his time, leveraged the civil-military relationship to
his personal and program advantage. The mix of sponsorship, negotiations, tension
developed with industry and special interest all play a role in how visionaries in the Navy
and military must operate. This Navy professional experience is essential for survival
generally and is of specific value in advancing technological and conceptual ideas about
capabilities.
Personal relationships with legislators, government officials,
representatives of industry, and other military professionals including
those of competing services are important factors in this political give and
take, for they are the lubricant that reduces the friction and the heat in the
clash of opposing interests (Ibid, 137).
For Raborn, there was a clear mandated authority to act that was handed down
from President Eisenhower. His authority and power was raised on a platform of national
security and the very survival of the free world in the face of the nuclear threat emerging
out of the Soviet Union. This urgency was a basis for Raborns relationship with other
agencies in government and his ability to press industry into accepting higher levels of
risk while producing previously unimaginable results. If he had not had this civilmilitary relationship edge, Raborn would not have completed his challenge five years
earlier than planned.

85

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Lasting Legacy - Rickover and Raborn


Carnes Lord, a professor of strategy at the Naval War College and a former
director of international communications and information policy for the National Security
Council under Ronald Reagan and a national security affairs assistant in the George H.W.
Bush administration writes on leadership. In his book, The Modem Prince - What
Leaders Need to Know (2003), Lord describes Presidents Ronald Reagan, Dwight David
Eisenhower, and Franklin D. Roosevelt as transformational presidents who sought to
effect revolutionary change in policies and institutions. Eisenhower was effective in a
less public way than Reagan and Roosevelt and it is Eisenhower who is most important to
this discussion on visionary leadership. Eisenhower exemplified managing significant
innovation without the appearance of directing the effort. Lord describes Eisenhower as
a misunderstood leader who actually was engaged as an activist and sponsor for major
efforts. Eisenhower cultivated the art of the hidden hand approach to leadership while
being a fierce hawk in the unfolding Cold War. He was prepared to use nuclear weapons
against the Soviets and Chinese and as we have learned was eager to deploy the Polaris
strategic deterrent system in submarines. (Lord 2003, 218-219) Eisenhower was the top
cover executive for the Polaris program and was content to employ Admiral Burke and
Vice Admiral Raborn to bring the vision to reality.
It was Eisenhower, away from the White House in Newport, Rhode Island, who
received the often quoted success message from then Rear Admiral Raborn - Polaris from out of the deep to target. Perfect (Barr and Howard 1960, 240). Top cover is
mentioned here and in earlier references in this dissertation. Top cover refers to the
sponsorship of a program or activity provided by officials and executives in high office.

86

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This protection from a sponsor allows the program to progress without interference from
lesser officials or officers. Raborn enjoyed top cover from within the chain of command,
while Rickover gathered top cover from presidents and Congress.
Naval officers and military leaders tend to be pragmatic and therefore realistic in
their assessment of situations. Both Rickover and Raborn are seen as pragmatic and
intent on executing strategies that mitigated risks and leveraged advantages in promoting
the visions they were charged with fulfilling.
Nitin Nohria and James D. Berkley open the discussion on pragmatic leadership
in their article titled What Happened to the Take-Charge Manager (1998). They argue
the case for avoiding management frameworks of the day such as total quality
management (TQM) and other proposed management solutions. Nohria and Berkley
point to Four Faces of Pragmatism to exercise the philosophy expressed by William
James - Theories are instruments, not answers to enigmas in which we rest (1998,
206). They contend that every managerial solution demands a pragmatic attitude.
Rickover was certainly pragmatic and Raborn, while ever the optimist, exercised
pragmatic management through his management innovations. The Four Faces of
Pragmatism are repeated here to highlight important concepts that Rickover and Raborn
seemed to practice:
Sensitivity to Context successful management innovations have to be
adapted and not merely adopted in an organization.
W illingness to m ake do managers and leaders must have the capacity to
judge the adequacy of resources and add more when required to complete
the task at hand. They use all their resources to find workable solutions.

Focus on Outcomes - pragmatists are concerned with getting results. At


least this was true of Raborn. In some cases, Rickover was strict in the
need to follow procedures rather than allow subordinates to improvise.

87

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Openness to uncertainty - This is where Rickover and Raborn departed


company. Rickover demanded engineering practices that reduced
uncertainty to a minimum. Raborn demanded assurances from an
engineering standpoint, but was open to the uncertainties of planning and
management of projects. His management practices included calculations
on risks and project constraints. (Nohria and Berkley 1998, 206-217)
A final point is worth adding to the four points offered by Nohria and Berkley.
They touched on urgency, but did not make it one of their key points. Urgency creates
the environment and conditions to overcome bureaucratic and personal inertia barriers.
Pragmatic and certainly visionary leaders have the capacity to know how to create
urgency and the acumen to capitalize on the motivation to progress that urgency creates.
This discussion is crucial for visionary leaders in the information age and during
the continuing pressure to adopt management strategies including Six Sigma, Capability
Maturity Models and other concepts for continuous improvement of processes. It is not
the concept and framework that is so important, but the application of a process to
circumstances within the organization that matters.

Post-Rickover Era to Transformation


In the years following the first submarine strategic deterrent patrol the Fleet
Ballistic Missile Program has been sustained with a series of new submarines and
missiles. From USS GEORGE WASHINGTON came the ETHAN ALLEN class boats
followed by LAFAYETTE and Then BENJAMIN FRANKLIN class boats to complete
the 41 for Freedom series of Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines. The OHIO-Class

Trident missile boats followed as replacements for the original fleet that carried Polaris
A-3, Poseidon and the first Trident missiles. Each new class of submarine was built with
improved capabilities and each missile was capable of flying longer ranges and delivering

88

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

more accurate war heads. This is clearly the sustaining advance of technology described
by Captain Terry Pierce in his book Warfighting and Disruptive Technologies Disguising Innovations (2004).
Pierce contends that there are two forms of technology progression in the Navy.
These are sustaining technologies that continue the development of a warfare capability
and disruptive technologies that revolutionize warfighting capabilities. Disruptive
technologies represent either linking existing sensors and platforms in new ways or
adopting radically new sensors, weapons or platforms to fight differently. (Pierce 2004)
The combination of the nuclear powered submarine with strategic missiles represents
technology that disrupted strategic warfare concepts. Before the first FBM submarine
went on patrol, strategic nuclear attacks would have been launched from land based
missile sites or carried in manned bombers.
Since 1960, the Navy has evolved with disruptive capabilities derived from
information technology, enabling shared awareness between platforms and capabilitycentric sensors and weapons rather than sensors or weapons linked to a specific platform
type. In a series of descriptive chapters, Pierce defines sustaining innovations including:
continuous aim gunfire and aircraft carrier battle groups. He identifies combined arms
warfare, defensive sea control, and tactical collaborative capabilities as evolutions in
technology that disrupted warfighting concepts. (Ibid)
Pierce used Clayton Christensens, The Innovators Dilemma (2000) and a paper
by Rebecca M. Henderson and Kim B. Clark titled Architectural Innovation - the
Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms
(1990) to build his thesis. However, he did not address the impact of information

89

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

technology and the attendant integrated engineering technologies to form the basis of his
case for disintermediation of existing warfighting techniques, tactics and procedures.
This point is important because it is information technology and networked
systems that now enable paradigm shifts in warfighting capabilities. And, capabilities is
the entering argument for technology innovation in this post Rickover-era, because
defense research, development and acquisition are all based on finding capabilities that
enable tasks that support missions and ultimately defense strategies.
In the following discussion, the concept of a single visionary charged with
providing a revolutionary warfighting solution is redefined within a formal structure that
allocates resources to visions that deliver Joint and Navy capabilities that have been
determined as supporting defense guidance.
Instead of the President of the United States summoning the Secretary of the
Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to find a solution to a threat, the threat and
strategic analysis have taken on a formal process beginning with a review for the
incoming Presidential administration to the processes for buying - acquiring solutions.
Where Rickover and Raborn were solely accountable for delivery of critical
capabilities, the defense establishment employs a process that links visions to national
security strategy. This approach to defense systems development is closing the gap
between defense technology exploitation and business technology use in delivering
innovative and value chain altering business solutions.
Beginning with a discussion of policy maker - Congressional perspectives, the
following research discussion offers insights into the Quadrennial Defense Review, Joint
Capabilities Development and Navy acquisition processes.

90

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ORourke on Transformation
Ronald ORourke has been a naval analyst for the Congressional Research
Service of the Library of Congress since 1984. In 1996, he received a Distinguished
Service Award for his service to Congress on naval issues. Mr. ORourkes personal
views on transformation for the Navy are important and offer insight for this discussion
and dissertation.
Mr. ORourke made the case in 2001 for Congressional policy makers to assess
options for future naval forces based on where the Navy stands from a budget and
programs-verses-resources perspective (ORourke 2001, 90). This advice is consistent
with business theory in any large enterprise and is not new to the Navy. ORourke points
out that the tension between budget limitations and development needs is a persistent
tension that is complicated by a desire to grow the size of the Navy and to limit future
defense spending. A third complication pertains to the perspectives of naval officers
involved in managing Navy programs. ORourke writes:
As a result of the tension between program goals and available resources,
Navy programs have undergone a succession of cutbacks and reductions in
recent years. The cumulative effects of these reductions are difficult to
discern unless one stands back and assesses them in their entirety - which
sometimes can be hard for military officers to do, since their career paths
often move them from one job to the next every two or three years. (Ibid,
94)
ORourke has been effective in providing the oversight he recommends for
Congress. His papers offer the broad perspective he recommends from a naval expert
viewpoint. Unlike during the Rickover and Raborn mandates with Congressional and
Presidential blessings, the current development of multiple systems and the desire for
asymmetric capabilities makes it difficult to properly assess programs without a detached

91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

and broad view of affairs. The tension between programs and budget limitations requires
a view of development that will satisfy national defense requirements that fully support
national security policy and strategy, as well as and capabilities that either sustain or
evolve naval warfare.
Four general options are proposed to relieve the tension in Navy procurement
matters. These options recommended by ORourke include:
1. Maintain the current collection of programs and the level of
resources that would represent a baseline option.
2. Maintain the current program slate, but seek additional resources
that would fully fund those programs - in 2001 dollars that
amounts to over $10 billions per year.
3. Expand the force structure to about 360 ships. This approach
would provide more of the planned program platforms and
capabilities, or
4. Embrace Transformation which would involve changing the
current program mix with reallocation of resources to programs
that offer more for less.
(Ibid, 94)
ORourke favors the fourth option that would implement transformation as a path
toward a more effective Navy. In this context transformation is meant to implement
measures that would change U.S. military forces more rapidly or extensively than now
planned by the Department of Defense. For naval forces, these measures include
current plans for implementing network-centric warfare in the fleet. (Ibid, 98) Networkcentric warfare is envisioned as an evolving capability that will exploit internet protocols
and other forms of communications to create shared situational awareness and decision
making environments. Networks will become centric to all warfare operations, tactics,
techniques and procedures.

92

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Advocates of the ORourke concept of transformation believe their approach will


produce long-term investments rather than short then enhancements built from existing
platforms. The following strategies were expressed as enablers of the long-tern
transformation envisioned by ORourke and other proponents of his brand of
transformation:
Signaling - Signal to insiders and people outside of the naval community
that transformation is a high priority. This is important to creating interest
and support from Congress.
RDT&E - Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation - Emphasize a
clean sheet research and development approach to promote new and
visionary ideas with added funding in this area.
Experimentation - Experimentation is crucial to proving new and
visionary applications, sensors, weapons and concepts. This may require
forces that are specifically assigned experimental duties.
Reassurance - reassuring surface ship, submarine and aviation warfare
communities that transformation does not represent a mortal threat to their
existence, but an opportunity to participate in development of capabilitycentric systems that can be deployed in several platforms. [Capabilitycentric refers to developing systems that are not designed for a ship,
submarine or aircraft, but are designed based to perform a task and then
configured to be delivered from an available vehicle].
Keeping NCW in perspective - Network-centric warfare - establish
information technology-based warfare capabilities as ubiquitous and at the
core of innovation.
Force Architecture - This is a radical change in thinking that includes
analysis to determine new force composition rather than simply sustaining
current warfighting capabilities with better versions of existing platforms,
sensors and weapons. This represents a significant shift in thinking about
naval warfare.
Operational Concepts - This requires devising new concepts that match
fresh ideas about deploying forces and visionary platforms that actually
achieve mission accomplishment in new ways. The current thinking is
limited by actual experience and the lack of motivation to change transformation must mean significant change in how the mission is
accomplished.

93

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Rapid Acquisition and Agile Manufacturing - The dot.com era introduced


the idea of spiral development and changes in how things are delivered.
Long and serial research, production and manufacturing gave way to 80%
solutions and revisions that introduced better utility of products. This
approach can be employed in the transformation process for the Navy and
Joint forces.
(Ibid, 98-106)
Transformation can become the catalyst for revolutionizing naval warfare and
Joint warfare for the future based on the strategies outlined above. In the business
technology discussion, similar ideas are expressed in relationship to business solution
development. Ronald ORourke offers a general vision implementation approach that
replaces the brute force approach exercised in that past by Rickover and Raborn.
Furthermore, it would seem to be more sophisticated in gathering current day
Congressional support.
In the next part of this discussion, the initiative of congressionally mandated
strategy-to-capability-to-technology solution is explored. It is important to understand
that in formalizing naval warfare progress through technology there is a need to define a
repeatable path of activity. This path flows from national security strategy to defense
guidance on that strategy to mission definitions that are supported by capabilities that are
in turn enabled by technology.
New presidential administrations are offered an opportunity to gain an
understanding of defense capabilities and limitations from a process called a Quadrennial
Defense Review. From this review, administrations can formulate their national security
strategy and defense policies that are executed by those civilian authorities that control
the military. None of this formalized process was in place during the Rickover-era.
Presidents and secretaries were presented with reports and studies that caused them to

94

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

react with programs that were handed to extraordinary people to deliver. Now the
process begins with formal reviews and processes that represent a system of systems
within which visionaries work.

The QDR Quadrennial Defense Review


New Presidential administrations must establish their understanding of defense
needs, a national security strategy and a direction for exercising control of the military
through the Secretary of Defense and service secretaries. The administration must also
understand what is in place and what must be acquired to support their strategy. They
must become Janusian leaders as described by Subir Chowdhury in Management 21C:
Someday Well All Manage This Way (2000). The President and the national security
team must look ahead and behind in advancing defense capabilities to support national
defense. The last QDR was completed for the incoming Bush administration in 2001.
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of 2001 offered the Bush
administration an important opportunity, as well as a great responsibility,
to reexamine Americas defense priorities in a comprehensive, top-tobottom, strategy-to-program approach and provide early guidance for
change. This is a gargantuan task.
Current legislation requires the final report of QDR 2001 to be provided to
Congress in September 2001.
One of the lessons learned during QDR 1997 was that advanced efforts to
identify key issues for the review process can be critical to success.
(Flournoy ed. 2001, xi)
The QDR has the effect of setting the course for the coming years of the
administration with respect to national defense strategy and more importantly budget
decisions. Michele A. Flournoy describes the QDR this way:
The QDR offers the opportunity to articulate compelling defense strategy
for protecting and advancing U.S. national interests and to develop a

95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

sound programmatic and budgetary blueprint to realize that strategy. At


the same time, the QDR brings with it the responsibility to address a
mismatch between defense strategy and resources [exceeding $50 billion a
year].
Since 1990 no fewer than five major defense reviews have occurred: Base
Force Review (1991), The Bottom-up Review (1993), The Commission on
Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces (1993), the Quadrennial Defense
Review (1997), and the National Defense Panel (1997). Yet the strategyresources gap has persisted and, in recent years, widened. This persistence
suggests that the new administration will have to take a somewhat
different approach than its predecessors if the 2001 QDR is to be
successful. (Ibid, 3)
QDR 2001 set the direction for the Bush administration to consider national
defense matters. Of course, the events of September 11, 2001 changed the security
strategy of the United States, but the QDR process had the effect of providing a point of
departure giving the administration the forward and past view of defense planning and
capability development.
Joint capabilities have become the key driver in translating national security into
defense guidance and mission accomplishment. Joint capabilities matter today because
the Navy does not operate alone in the defense of the nation and because Congress and
the administration have mandated Jointness in military and naval capabilities, officer
education and force response. Formalized Joint capabilities development and acquisition
processes provide translation of QDR results, national security decisions, and the
guidance of the Secretary of Defense. The JCIDS has been published to provide
procedures and processes to manage this translation. These processes preclude the
approach that Admiral Rickover used to further his vision up the chain of command, but
would fit into the top down direction given to Vice Admiral Raborn.

96

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Joint Capabilities Development - Governing Resources to Match Strategy


With Congressional mandates to operate on a joint basis between the armed
forces, a number of processes have been put in place to direct efforts toward efficiencies
in the procurement of capabilities for the armed forces. Included in this effort are Navy
systems envisioned to provide improved capabilities. Rather than have the Navy alone
establish requirements, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has provided guidance
and processes to implement a capabilities-based approach that better leverages the
expertise of all government agencies, industry and academia to identify improvements of
existing capabilities and to develop new warfighting capabilities. This approach
requires vetting ideas across the services through a Joint Requirements Oversight
Committee (JROC) and process concepts and ideas through the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System (JCIDS). (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff March
2004, A-l)
The image of a single individual as the visionary behind a disruptive or
evolutionary technology is difficult to imagine. There are individuals who work the
capabilities issues and others who invent or link existing technologies to offer solutions
to capability requirements. There are however champions within the armed forces who
put their reputations and positional power behind concepts. These concepts must filter
through the acquisition process and Joint reviews, while these champions embrace and
voice the vision, manage the bureaucratic processes and protect the incubators or
service codes who take responsibility for presenting the ideas and gathering funding.
These champions are usually very senior admirals and generals who have become
believers in a particular platform or technology.

97

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) produces


capability requirements that form the basis for science and technology community
focused development efforts. These efforts are collected and documented in the Joint
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan (JWSTP) (Ibid, A-2). Further, the JCIDS
process enables cross government agency collaboration between the Central Intelligence
Mission Requirements Board, the Department of Homeland Security, the State
Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These collaborative
processes at the capability definition and vetting level preclude single-minded individuals
from ruling the roost with Congress at the expense of diverting resources that should be
shared within the government (Ibid, A-2).
In Rickovers day, top down direction to produce a capability solution was passed
to an individual within a service to produce results. Today, there are individual
visionaries who operate within the capabilities and acquisition process. Joint concepts
and integrated architecture of capabilities are all part of the JCIDS process that are
described in a directive from the Chairman and in manuals with associated changes and
training sessions.

98

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 3 - Top Down Capability Needs Identification Methodology


National
Heeurifv

Strategy

DO!) Strategic
Guidance

Joint Operations

Concepts

In te g ra te d
\ re h it ee h ire s

Join!
O perating

Joint
E'uiutionnl
C o n ce p ts

Concepts

OPLANS
and

CONPLAJNS

Assessment
and
Analysis

Defense
Planning

Scenarios

Overlay
vshat we have wuh
what w e need to do
COCOM1PU

Task
Analyses

Capabtlrty
Assessments

Gap A nah
Risk Assessm ent

JCIDS ANALYSIS
(F A A , FN A , F$A >

J C ID S
K ecom m enda t ions

K econcisB on

& Recommendations

Capabilities--based iderttmcatkm
of needs combines Joint concepts
and integrated architectures with analysis

C a p a b ility N eed s

i.X )T M IJ,l; C hanges

Decision
and
Action

Science
Technology

Planning
Programming,
Budgeting and
Execution

vrqtmition

Expentn en ta two

Source: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff March 2004, A2

The Top Down Capabilities Needs Identification Methodology illustration (Figure


3) is provided to reflect the complexity of the process and methods now employed to
define capabilities that require technology-driven solutions. It can not be over
emphasized that the JCIDS process and other acquisition, and science and technology
processes are now in place to manage the process that represents the investment of
billions of taxpayer dollars and the very defense of the nation. In 1955, the defense
establishment was far less complex, technology solutions were not as abundant and the
options were not developed through vetting and Joint collaboration processes as they are
today.

99

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The capabilities development process now includes functional area analysis


(FAA) used to identify operational tasks, functional needs analysis (FNA) used to assess
current and programmed capabilities to perform a task, and functional solution analysis
(FSA) used to assess the overall value of alternative solutions. This analysis then leads to
experimentation, science and technology work under the leadership of an assigned
sponsor. The sponsor is an agency or organization that has overall responsibility for
capability development including documentation of the processes involved (Ibid, A-5 7).
The sponsor organization is usually and most likely the organization responsible
for the traditional warfighting effort - the Navy at Sea and the Army - on the ground, etc.
But, within that organization there will be that champion mentioned above.
The last item in describing the JCIDS process is to offer the definition of a
capability. A capability is defined in this process as a capability that has the potential to
fill a gap in warfighting capabilities. In describing capabilities to resolve identified gaps
the following applies:
Capability definitions must contain the following elements: key attributes
with appropriate measures of effectiveness, supportability, time, distance,
effect (including scale) and obstacles to be overcome.
Capability definitions should be general enough so as not to prejudice
decisions in favor of a particular means of implementation, but specific
enough to evaluate alternative approaches to implement the capability.
(Ibid, A-5)
If all of this sounds very complicated, it is, and is meant to encompass many of
the problems that Rickover identified with the acquisition and contracting processes with
the defense industry and parochial interest between the services. Lessons learned from
Rickovers era relating to implementing visionary ideas, managing the bureaucratic

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

process and gathering service and Congressional support are addressed in the Joint
processes mandated by Congress and interpreted by the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretaries and the individual service
chiefs.

Navy Acquisition - Professionals Delivering on the Vision


In the Navy, Joint acquisition professional training has been established for
members of the Naval Sea, Air and Surface Systems Commands including their warfare
laboratories. Individuals who are involved with capabilities development and technology
solutions are now required to operate within a complex and legally binding acquisition
system. This acquisition system is communicated in directives and a guide that form the
basis for education programs and certification of professionals. (Defense Acquisition
University 2004, 1-5) This training and adherence to Joint acquisition policies supports
JCIDS and the pathway through to systems procurement. The overall process of
managing technology acquisition through a Defense Acquisition University publication
points to the depth of the commitment on the part of the Department of Defense to
formally manage the acquisition process through education and required compliance.
These lessons learned, metrics, procedures and definition of contractual, legal and
authority boundaries place professionals in a framework of conformance and
performance management that reduces possible wrong doing, waste and abuses. Well
before these requirements were made directive in nature, Rickover drew attention to the
need for compliance with some form of adherence to law and rules in the acquisition
business.

101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Rickovers disputes with industry were well-known. He made demands on


companies large and small to improve performance, quality assurance and on-time
delivery that were needed to produce nuclear ships. These same requirements were
adopted for general shipbuilding and later incorporated into general procurement and
acquisition practices within the Navy. Late in his tenure, Rickover was seen as
unreasonable, but his baseline requirements were sound and live on today.
Vice Admiral William F. Raborn had a different experience with contractors. His
vision was just as demanding as Rickovers, requiring a tremendous effort from
government and industry collaborators to put Polaris missiles in nuclear submarines.
Vice Admiral Raborn and his industry partners developed a relationship that was tested
and driven by the common motivation to secure the defense of the nation through a
formidable nuclear deterrence.
Vice Admiral Raborn saw his role as the manager of the outside world from the
Special Projects Office. His role included leading efforts to keep other people off of
our program managers backs, to handle politics both government and Navy, and to get
the money (Spinardi 1994, 35). This leadership role extended to managing the
contractor environment that would support the Raborn - Polaris vision. His approach
offered other considerations that were adopted by defense acquisition professionals
including his management innovations in the project management discipline and progress
management techniques.
Department of Defense acquisition processes have evolved since NAUTILUS and
POLARIS were delivered to the complex requirements and capability-based processes
that are in place today. There are new parallels in place in the business world including

102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the Capability Maturity Model and Six Sigma continuous improvement structures that
drive software and information technology development and employment. There are
professional associations of acquisition professionals both in and out of the Defense
Department who assist in making visions reality.

Current Day Transformation


Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and Vice Admiral William Red Raborn were the
visionaries of their day who transformed nuclear propulsion technology and missile
technology into a revolutionary and disruptive technology solution to a national security
crisis. Their work was that of individual visionaries working to further their visions,
overcome bureaucratic and resources constraints, while gathering the talent to create and
deliver on a promise of innovation. In the shadow of Rickovers initial efforts in the
submarine community and the Navy, there are two other leaders - visionaries in their
own right, who are about transforming the Navy and Joint Force.
Admiral Frank L. Skip Bowman, a submariner and the current Director of Naval
Nuclear Propulsion and Naval Reactors is the driving force behind the transformation of
Ohio-class Nuclear Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN) to OHIO-class Nuclear
Guided Missile Submarines (SSGN). His vision is no less the key note transformation
program of the armed forces and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld who is the
champion of transformation for the services. Transformation is seen as the armed forces
version of architectural innovation - a linkage and transformation of existing platforms to
answer capability requirements in the 21st century political-military environment. The
initial SSGNs are stealthy submarine platforms capable of launching conventional cruise
missiles - 154 of them, and delivering and retrieving Navy Special Warfare troops.

103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

These SSGN submarines have a role in the Global War on Terrorism and
represent the transformation of a Cold War platform to current strategy purposes.
Admiral Bowman sold his idea for transformation to Secretary Rumsfeld and secured
funding to convert four SSBNs to SSGNs.
Admiral Bowmans thoughts on Admiral Rickover and the Nuclear Power
Program are presented in Appendix A and his thoughts on the SSGN are presented in
Appendix B. These direct references will assist in establishing the line of visionary
leadership continuity that Admiral Rickover created and the current visionary focus
brought by Admiral Bowman to that position.
Admiral Bowmans contemporary is Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, also a
submariner, who now heads the U.S. Joint Forces Command, an invention of Secretary
Rumsfeld. Admiral Giambastiani is responsible for creating integrating concepts and
initiatives that combine technology innovations with concepts for operating the Joint
Force - integration of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps against common
missions. He is the head of the organization that will move Joint capabilities initiatives
and development forward while allowing the services - Army, Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Corps to contribute solutions and capabilities within their core capabilities and
competencies.
Using the Quadrennial Defense Reviews, Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System, and Navy Acquisition processes, Admirals Bowman and
Giambastiani represent the Rickover and Raborn of the present day - the Titans of
Transformation (Keeter September 2004, 36). They embrace a vision of the future for
submarines and the Joint Force, exercise authority and accountability for overcoming

104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Navy business barriers, and gather about them people who can contribute to achieving the
vision.
Admiral Bowman was chosen as the current day Rickover image because he lives
in the very shadow of Rickover and his successors, Admirals Kinnaird McKee and Bruce
Demars. Unlike Rickover, Bowman retained his position within established rotation
plans and retirement for Navy officers. Admiral Giambastiani, completed his interviews
with Admiral Rickover, was selected as a nuclear submariner and then became a
champion of the transformation concept while serving on Secretary Rumsfelds staff. It
is no coincidence that Bowman and Giambastiani are submariners and champions of
innovation in the Navy. Giambastianis vision for transformation deals with concepts
and the development of collaborative and information exchange technologies that create
shared awareness of the battlefield or space and cooperation across the component
services - the Joint Force.
Admiral Giambastianis visions are less physically tangible. His is the work of
concepts and initiatives including the introduction of networked forces. Admiral
Giambastiani described his ideas for transformation in a Seapower magazine article
written by Hunter C. Keeter (September 2004). The concept of employing information
technology to create advances in communication forms the new concept of Force
Network (ForceNet) to share common operational pictures, information and intelligence.
ForceNet makes the idea of Joint Force coordination and allied forces coalition possible
by communicating the Commanders intent, sharing intelligence and information
anyplace on an around the clock basis. Networks enable coordination of warfighting
efforts, logistics and assessment of the battlefield. More importantly it enables

105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

coordinating efforts that will save lives and offer greater efficiency in decision
management. (Ibid, 36-40)
Admiral Giambastiani is a graduate of the Naval Academy who commanded the
NR-1 a nuclear research submarine; USS RICHARD B. RUSSELL a nuclear attack
submarine, the Atlantic Submarine Force and was Rumsfelds military assistant. He
assumed command of the U.S. Forces Command in 2003. (Ibid, 36)
When asked to describe his current role in transformation, Giambastiani notes that
the interdependent Joint Force must be capabilities-based, collaborative and network
centric. This description is further defined as having enabling information technology
that will allow effects-based assessments in real-time and close the gap between rapid
force maneuvers and battle-damage assessment. He pointed to unclassified testimony
before Congress in which he said that the ability to do battle damage assessment is far
outpaced by the ability to move on the battlefield. The Joint and coalition forces in
Operation Iraqi Freedom were way behind in understanding the situation while
maneuvering in that war. (Ibid, 38)
Giambastiani went on explain that intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR) capabilities must be Joint, ubiquitous and real-time. This capability is enabled by
information technology and communication technology that must be developed in the
near-term. (Ibid, 38)
Giambastiani described the need to remove barriers to innovation by meeting the
vision of Department of Defense leaders who want to integrate air, land and sea forces.
He described the need to develop concepts that translate those civilian leadership

106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

demands into Joint concepts of operations and then into acquisition programs consistent
with Joint capability development doctrine and acquisition processes. (Ibid, 40)
During testimony before Congressional Panels, Admiral Bowman revealed his
vision for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and the continued succession and
success of his office. His testimony represents a public record of his position on
continuing Admiral Rickovers vision. In contrast to Admiral Rickovers background,
the current Director of Naval Reactors and Naval Sea System Command leader of Navy
Nuclear Propulsion has a long history of operational and administrative assignments.
Admiral Frank L. "Skip" Bowman is a native of Chattanooga, Tenn. He
was commissioned following graduation in 1966 from Duke University. In
1973 he completed a dual master's program in nuclear engineering and
naval architecture/marine engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and was elected to the Society of Sigma Xi. Admiral Bowman
has been awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Humane Letters from
Duke University. His early assignments included tours in USS SIMON
BOLIVAR (SSBN 641), USS POGY (SSN 647), USS DANIEL BOONE
(SSBN 629), and USS BREMERTON (SSN 698). In 1983, Admiral
Bowman took command of USS CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI (SSN
705), which completed a seven-month circumnavigation of the globe and
two special classified missions during his command tour. He later
commanded USS HOLLAND (AS 32) from August 1988 to April 1990.
Admiral Bowman has served on the staff of Commander, Submarine
Squadron Fifteen, in Guam; twice in the Bureau of Naval Personnel in the
Submarine Policy and Assignment Division; as the SSN 21 Attack
Submarine Program Coordinator on the staff of the Chief of Naval
Operations; on the Chief of Naval Operations' Strategic Studies Group;
and as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
(Naval Warfare). Admiral Bowman served as Chief of Naval Personnel
from July 1994 to September 1996.
Admiral Bowman assumed duties as Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion,
on 27 September 1996, and was promoted to his present rank on 1 October
1996. In this position, he is also Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors
in the National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy
(Naval Academy Research November 2004).

107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Admiral Bowman is a highly respected visionary in the Navy who is clearly


identified with transformation and accountable for progress in submarine innovation. He
is the senior submariner in the Navy with a congressionally directed rank of four-star
admiral. His selected successor, Vice Admiral Donald Kirkland, a submariner, will
undoubtedly assume the role of submarine force visionary and champion when he
assumes the role created by Admiral Rickover.
Admiral Bowman testified before Congress on establishing the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) in 2000 which includes the Office of Naval Reactors as
one of the three Programs of the NNSA. This excerpt of his testimony confirms the
visionary path that Admiral Rickover created is still intact. Admiral Bowman stated the
following in testimony before Congress:
Naval Reactors is a centrally managed, single-purpose organization with
clear lines of authority and total responsibility and accountability for all
aspects of Naval Nuclear Propulsion. As the Director of Naval Reactors, I
have direct access to the Secretary of the Navy and to the Secretary of
Energy. Naval Reactors principal mission is to provide militarily
effective nuclear propulsion plants to the U.S. Navy and to ensure their
safe, reliable, and long-lived operation.
Under the visionary leadership of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, Naval
Reactors was organized in the late 1940s with the concept of cradle-tograve responsibility. Upon Admiral Rickovers retirement in 1982,
President Reagan signed Executive Order 12344 with the express purpose
of ... preserving the basic structure, policies, and practices developed for
this program in the past.... The FY 2000 National Defense Authorization
Act specified the Executive Order as the charter for the Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors and, similar to the FY 1985 National
Defense Authorization Act, mandated that ...the provisions of the Naval
Nuclear Propulsion Executive Order remain in full force and effect until
changed by law. The charter, as incorporated within Title XXXII,
maintains my responsibility for all aspects of the Program, including the
following:
- Research, development, design, and construction;
- Operation, operator selection and training, maintenance, and
disposal; and

108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Administration (e.g., security, nuclear safeguards,


transportation, public information, procurement, and fiscal
management).

Operating within the tenets of the Executive Order, the Naval Reactors
Program has a flat organization with clear, simplified lines of authority
and a culture of technical, managerial, and fiscal excellence. The
longevity of its senior managers and staff ensures continuity of expertise
through the extremely long lives of the nuclear propulsion plants it builds
and supports. The Program has compiled an unparalleled record of
success, including the following:
-

Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 119 million


milesequivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.
Naval Reactors is responsible today for 103 operating nuclear reactors.
For perspective, this is equal to the number of licensed commercial
power reactors in the United States. In addition, over the years, we
have accumulated over twice the operating experience of the U.S.
commercial power industry. Naval reactor plants have accumulated
over 5,100 reactor-years of operation, compared to about 2,400 for the
U.S. commercial industry. In addition, our operating experience is
about half that of the entire commercial power industry worldwide
(our 5,100 reactor-years compared to about 9,200 worldwide
including the United States).
Naval Reactors outstanding (and fully public) environmental record
enables our ships to visit over 150 ports around the worldcritical to
our Nations forward-presence strategy and ability to project power.
(Admiral Frank L. Bowman November 2004)

Bowmans testimony followed testimony by a senator and another senior


submarine admiral. This was in 2000. The integrity of Rickovers vision remains the
same today standing as a testimony in itself to the traits and the organizational values
expected of a truly visionary leader. It is clear that the Congressional support Rickover
gathered in the 1950s remains in place today. Reinforcing the thesis of leadership traits
that made Rickover a consummate visionary and created an organization that is
unsurpassed in its accomplishments, Admiral Bowman was called to testify with regards
to his safety record relating to Congressional hearings on the COLUMBIA Space Shuttle
tragedy.

109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

During that testimony in October 2003, Bowman again invoked the historical
perspective of Rickovers philosophy and demonstration of traits expected of a visionary
leader and his legacy organization. Admiral Bowman described the establishment and
safety record of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and its innovative success as
follows:
Admiral Hyman G. Rickover set up [the Naval Reactors Program] in 1948
to develop nuclear propulsion for naval warships. Nuclear propulsion is
vital to the Navy today for the reasons Admiral Rickover envisioned 55
years ago: it gives our warships high speed, virtually unlimited endurance,
worldwide mobility, and unmatched operational flexibility. When applied
to our submarines, nuclear propulsion also enables the persistent stealth
that allows these warships to operate undetected for long periods in hostile
waters, exercising their full range of capabilities.
In 1982, after almost 34 years as the Director of Naval Reactors, Admiral
Rickover retired. Recognizing the importance of preserving the authority
and responsibilities Admiral Rickover had established, President Reagan
signed Executive Order 12344. The provisions of the executive order
were later set forth in Public Laws 98-525 [1984] and 106-65 [1999]. The
executive order and laws require that the Director, Naval Reactors, hold
positions of decision making authority within both the Navy and the
Department of Energy (DOE). Because continuity and stature are vital,
the director has the rank of four-star admiral within the Navy and Deputy
Administrator within the Department of Energys National Nuclear
Security Administration and a tenure of 8 years.
Through the executive order and these laws, the director has responsibility
for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion...
For more than 7 years, I have been the director, the third successor to
Admiral Rickover. I am responsible for the safe operation of 103 nuclear
reactors [in warships and shore stations]...those in warships [and
submarines] have steamed over 128 million miles since 1953 and are
welcomed in over 150 ports of call in over 50 countries around the world.
[And, the Programs safety record speaks for itself...] (Ibid)
Testimony by Admiral Bowman and others all points to and reinforces the notion
that understanding the business and maintaining a dedicated leadership and staff matters
in living and extending a vision. As mentioned in the introduction to this section of the

110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

dissertation, Admiral Bowman is the visionary behind the Ohio-class Nuclear Guided
Missile Submarine which represents disruptive - transformational technology that is
being developed through architectural innovation and emerging technologies. These
submarines will revolutionize submarine warfare and adapt naval warfare to the 21st
century and its political-military realities.

Ohio-Class SSGN - A Revolutionary Technology Platform


Admiral Frank Skip Bowman is widely recognized as the visionary behind
introducing the idea of transforming Ohio-class Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines into
guided missile submarines. He obtained Secretary Donald Rumsfelds support in funding
the idea. The Ohio-call conversion program represents a platform reuse approach to
transformation instead of the introduction of a new warfighting concept based on new
operational concepts. (Barrow November 2004) In fact, the SSGN as these converted
submarines are called, include provisions for RDT&E and experimentation. They will
also include technologies that are delivered through spiral development techniques and
evolve over a number of years after initial deployment. (Aronson November 2004)
Admiral Bowman introduced the USS OHIO conversion and the SSGN
transformation program in an interview from during December 2002.
When the Ohio leaves the shipyard in 2005, the 560-foot sub will have
been transformed from a nuclear war deterrent to a platform capable of
confronting todays threats with cruise missiles and Special Forces.
The Ohio will be the first of Naval Submarine Base Bangor's four oldest
Tridents to be converted in a $3.3 billion program. The last of the
conversions is to be completed in 2007. It's a hugely important project,
ADM Skip Bowman, director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion, said recently
during an interview at his Washington Navy Yard office. "When you
combine the stealthy attributes of a submarine with the large volume of
payload of a Trident submarine, you've got quite a capability for the joint

111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

force. Bowman emphasized that the new sub classified as SSGN for
nuclear-powered guided missile submarine will not only be a powerful
Navy weapon but a boon for the entire military. He's seeking ideas from
all branches of the service to help improve its war-fighting capability.
This is an evolution, and we're all thinking now, Bowman said, adding
that the subs can be used for much more than launching cruise missiles.
"Even in 2007,1 don't think the thinking will end just because we fielded
the last four of these.
The thinking will move forward in January after former Bangor submarine
USS Florida participates in Giant Shadow. The exercise off the Florida
coast will be the first test of a Trident launching Tomahawks, Special
Forces and UUVs. Unmanned aerial vehicles won't be tested from a
Trident until 2004.
Ohio-class SSGN represents transformation and advances in submarine warfare
capabilities with unmanned vehicles and other technologies including network-centric
warfare capabilities. This represents Admiral Bowmans role as the Navys top
submariner and visionary within a structure that supports Joint capability development
and professional acquisition processes.

The Limits of Naval Transformation


Thomas G. Mahnken and James R. FitzSimonds completed a survey of military
officers on the subject of transformation. Their paper The Limits of Transformation Officer Attitudes toward the Revolution in Military Affairs and published by the Naval
War College (2003) concludes with the argument that military officers have accepted the
benefits of using network-centric warfare and advanced technologies. But, these officers
profess a sincere belief that, ...todays dominant systems - tanks, manned aircraft, and
aircraft carriers - would be as important in twenty years as they are today (Mahnken and
FitzSimonds 2003, 106).

112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Officers surveyed by Mahnken and FitzSimonds expressed great confidence in


the ability of the U.S. armed forces to deal effectively with [threats identified in the 2001
Quadrennial Defense Review] These threats included protecting critical bases;
maintaining information systems in the face of information attacks; assuring access
throughout the world against opposition; maintaining surveillance of the enemy and
bringing strikes against targets; supporting space systems; and leveraging information
technology and interoperability. However, these same officers said they may be
unaware of current and projected threats or may believe that current programs are
sufficient to deal with these challenges.
Mahnken and FitzSimonds concluded that:
The lack of broad knowledge about future threats and the capabilities and
limitations of emerging weapons systems and doctrine may not present a
problem so long as officers are not required to make operational or
programmatic decisions beyond their own tactical-technical expertise.
However, as officers become more senior, they tend to be assigned to both
service and Joint positions with responsibilities that extend well across
many tactical specialties. This raises the question of what specifically
senior officers, and especially flag officers [admirals and generals], need
to know about warfare to be fully effective in such assignments - and how
they are to gain this knowledge (Ibid, 111-112).
This conclusion is consistent with the development of business leaders who must
make decisions on implementing technologies that support business development and
changes in business models. There appears to be little difference in the growth and
development of individuals who ultimately are called on to champion and sponsor
technology-driven innovation. The path for personal development begins with roots in a
discipline and grows with broad exposure and the cultivation of a broader vision.

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The career paths and success models for Admirals Giambastiani and Bowman are
consistent with these findings. There is common ground to be explored when developing
models for visionary leadership in complex military and business organizations.

Navy to Civilian Business Leadership


In the foregoing sections Admiral Hyman G. Rickover is portrayed as the
consummate visionary leader of his time and possibly the last true innovator who was
able to capture complete control of his program across the Navy. Vice Admiral William
F. Rabom is seen as a visionary leading from within the chain of command. He was able
to achieve one of the greatest engineering and technology feats of the 20th century.
Rabom carried a national mandate and ultimately demonstrated true deontological ethical
behavior. Rickover and Raborn initiated technology program management procedures,
techniques and strategies that are in use today. The basis for project management
professionalism was established by Raborns Special Projects Office. And, the
development of engineering procedural compliance grew out of the Naval Nuclear Power
Program. Continuous improvement, the use of lessons learned and program charting
were all developed to continue the success of Navy submarine and Fleet Ballistic Missile
programs. Present day Department of Defense Acquisition programs grew from
Rickover and Raborn program lessons and other Navy programs that have successfully
used advancing technologies. The Joint Acquisition processes grew out of the program
and project management procedures used to build nuclear submarines, Navy missile
systems and aircraft.
At the end of the Cold War, Navy technologies and processes were made
available for dual use and shared with commercial interests.

114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Finally, two current day visionaries were identified, Admirals Frank L. Skip
Bowman and Ed Giambastiani, who carry on in the shadow o f Rickover. These officers
represent highly visible and accountable individuals who further the vision of
transformation in the Navy and Joint Forces environment.
There is clear justification to bet on America to remain strong in the area of
technological solutions for all facets of life. Social and epistemological applications of
technology will continue to be created in the United States in answer to the most basic
and the most perplexing issues that face humankind. This was clearly evident in the
response to the Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
James W. Cortada and Edward Wakin offered an excellent summary of American
capability in their book Betting on America - Why the U.S. Can Be Stronger After
September 11 (2002), they wrote:
Among modem nations today, the United States stands out in leading the
way with advanced technologies as never before in history. In fact, if
someone wanted to find a silver bullet in our society, it would be the total
collection of technologies already available and in use, as well as the
knowledge Americans have and are using to develop even more effective
tools (Cortada and Wakin 2002, 7-8).
American ingenuity continues to produce astonishing results within the defense
establishment and the private sector. In the next chapter of this dissertation results of
research and observation of the private sector are offered to provide a comparison to the
Navy visionary leadership case.

115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

IV. Private Sector Technology Innovation - Leaders, Processes and


Industry Collaboration
Private sector technology visionaries are driven by business principles and market
pressures. As individuals, these entrepreneurs and corporate executives act in response to
customer demands and the prospect of capturing competitive advantage. Research and
observations in this area will include a survey of recognized information technology
innovators, a discussion on developing technology leaders, an examination of technology
development processes, and presentation of a case study on the e-evolution of check
processing within the financial service industry. This case study will demonstrate the
evolution of a disruptive technology that will transform social and business practices, and
also introduce the concept of group visionary leadership that highlights the need for
industry collaborative leadership. Research presented in the private sector section of this
dissertation is offered to demonstrate that visionary leadership tenets practiced by
Admirals Rickover and Rabom have been adopted and transferred to private sector
practice.
Technology is the catalyst for fundamental change in business processes and
models. These changes cause both helpful and harmful impacts on social, cultural and
business activities. The Information Age has resulted in almost daily change in one

116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

major business or another that affects large segments of the population. Most of the
affected population lives in the socio-economic group where computers and the internet
serve to make life more efficient and in some cases more complex. There is no escaping
the affects of information technology on the work and lives of people in the advanced
parts of the world.
Visionary leadership traits were observed in the private sector in individual
innovators and within corporate and industry groups. The need to dream of the possible,
embrace a vision, enjoy professional experience, and to gather talent and support were
seen as necessary traits comparable to those observed in the Navy case.
It is important to understand that the private sector differs from the Navy in that
individual leaders do not hold rank or public office. But, they are accountable to
stockholders, stakeholders and to themselves in the case of entrepreneurs who have
invested in a creative idea. And, with respect to regulated businesses, the federal
government has significant power to either accept or reject new technology that affects
industry segments. In those cases, industry associations and leading edge companies
work in collaboration with the government to deliver new technology.
If asked to name private sector technology visionaries most people would
certainly name Bill Gates of Microsoft fame and Steve Jobs who co-founded Apple
Computers in 1976 and is Chief Executive Officer of Pixar, the animated motion picture
company that produced Finding Nemo. However, there are numerous technology
innovators who are well known in their circles of influence and are named in this
dissertation. Technology visionaries have created the most impact on society through
the business world with electronic processes and communications using information

117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

technology, computers and the Internet. What was once a face-to-face transaction
between two people handling sums of money and possible life savings is now conducted
by the click of a computer mouse or by pressing a button on an automatic teller machine.
Unlike the complex machines and rockets that occupied the vision of admirals Rickover
and Rabom, this chapter explores visions that create business technology that enters
homes and creates virtual stores.
In summary, visionary technology leadership in the private sector remains the
same as it is in the Navy. Individuals and groups are driven by visions of better ways and
means to deliver services to a demanding public, while at the same time gathering value
for shareholders and industry stakeholders.

Masters of the Information Age - Bill Gates and Steve Jobs


The most visible technology innovators of the information age are Bill Gates and
Steve Jobs. Bill Gates is famous for his role in making Microsoft the world leader in
computer software. He represents the private sector equal to Admiral Rickover with his
total domination of the software industry and the revolutionary changes he has created in
society. Gates Microsoft biography offers a perspective on how he remains the most
noted technology creator of the Information Age.
William (Bill) H. Gates is chairman and chief software architect of
Microsoft Corporation, the worldwide leader in software, services and
solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
Microsoft had revenues of US$36.84 billion for the fiscal year ending June
2004, and employs more than 55,000 people in 85 countries and regions.
Under Gates' leadership, Microsoft's mission has been to continually
advance and improve software technology, and to make it easier, more
cost-effective and more enjoyable for people to use computers. The
company is committed to a long-term view, reflected in its investment of

118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

approximately $6.2 billion on research and development in the 2005 fiscal


year.
In addition to his love of computers and software, Gates is interested in
biotechnology. He sits on the board of ICOS, a company that specializes
in protein-based and small-molecule therapeutics, and he is an investor in
a number of other biotechnology companies. Gates also founded Corbis,
which is developing one of the worlds largest resources of visual
information - a comprehensive digital archive of art and photography from
public and private collections around the globe. He is also a member of the
board of directors of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which invests in companies
engaged in diverse business activities.
(Microsoft 2004)
Microsoft Corporation is well recognized as an organization that attracts talented
people, promotes ideas through its mission and vision, and has the market recognition to
offer readily accepted technology solutions. Visionary leadership traits within the
dissertation thesis are certainly recognized within Microsoft and easily attributed to Bill
Gates.

In 1999, Bill Gates shared his technology predictions with German bankers who
had endured a day of technology briefs at Microsoft. The bankers, who were all
experienced business men, wanted to hear Gates overall plan. They wanted to
understand Gates vision of the future and his plan to deliver all of the technology they
had seen during the day. Gates said that his predictions were actually inflection points
that described sudden and massive changes in the use of technology. It was actually Intel
chairman Andrew Grove who initially used the term inflection points. Gates asked the
bankers if they believed the following inflection points would come true and suddenly
change the use of technology, business, and social norms. Gates asked:

Do you believe that in the future people at work will use computers
everyday for most of their jobs? The bankers answered yes.

119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Do you believe that todays paperwork will be replaced by more


efficient digital administration? They answered yes again.
Do you believe that one day most households will have computers?
They did.
Do you believe that one day most businesses and most households will
have high-speed connections to the World-wide Web? They nodded
agreement.
Do you believe e-mail will become as common a method of
communication among people in business and homes as the telephone
or paper mail is today? They agreed it would be.
Do you think consumer bills will arrive electronically and that travel
will be booked over the Internet? They agreed these changes were on
the way.
Do you think digital appliances will become common and ubiquitous?
They said it is only a matter of time, and
Do you foresee a time when notebook computers will be computer
notebooks? They nodded in the affirmative again.
(Gates 1999, 63-66)

Gates broke the tension with the remark that, The great thing about a computer
notebook is that no matter how much you stuff in it, it doesnt get bigger or heavier.
They all laughed. But the realization drove the bankers to plan for change instead of
being forced to change overtime. Gates shared this vision in 1999 and had shared his
vision of the future in 1995 in his book The Road Ahead. This time he shared his vision
for business and culture transformation in Business @ The Speed o f Sound (1999). Gates
certainly had vision and contrary to popular stories he did prepare for the sudden changes
caused by the Internet after the initial sales of Windows 95 (Gates 1999, 163).
In fact, it was during the 1994-1995 Internet crises for Microsoft that Gates
reliance on professional experience in continuing his vision and enabling talented people
to be creative paid off. Gates had actually hired J. Allard in 1991 to explore the Internet
business and later relied on Allard and Steven Sinofsky, his technical assistant, to
instigate the Microsoft response to the rising popularity of the Internet (Ibid, 163-167).

120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

This use of his own professional experience and that of staff demonstrates the
comparison between Gates and Raborn, who was more prone to engage others in
addressing crises than Rickover. Gates rewarded his employees and co-developers of
Microsofts vision with wealth and motivation to stay in the organization. Gates also
understood how to leverage employee talent across Microsoft.
In his chapter on Defining Knowledge Management, Gates spells out the need to
share knowledge and how technology can make the entire organization smarter and
more effective. He wrote:
Knowledge management is a means, not an end.
The end is to increase institutional intelligence, or corporate IQ. In
todays dynamic markets a company needs a high corporate IQ to succeed.
By corporate IQ I dont men simply having a lot of smart people [there
will be more on stars and star organizations later]. Corporate IQ involves
sharing both history and current knowledge. Corporate IQ comes from
individual learning and from cross-pollination of different people's ideas
(Ibid, 238-239).

Bill Gates understood the Rickover and Rabom methods of gathering trouble and
failure reports, then distributing lessons learned to the submarine fleet. Except in Gates
world the lessons could be collected electronically from everyone who was willing to
contribute via their desktop or laptop web connected computer. The concept was the
same. Gather talented people, give them the room to work and continue to teach them
and motivate them. Gates did not rely on sponsors for new ideas as Microsoft continued
to capture and maintain the market. He was in a position to be the champion and gather
support from Microsofts large account partners. But the trait still applies. Gates offered
support for bright ideas, created knowledge management communities to build on those

121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ideas and empowered his subordinates to become champions and sponsors of bright
ideas. Gates addresses empowerment of subordinates near his conclusion:
A belief in empowerment is the key to getting the most out of a digital
nervous system which is Gates mechanism to build business reflexes,
basic operations, strategic thinking and customer interaction (Ibid, 14-17).
Knowledge workers and business managers benefit from more and better
information, not just senior management.
Leaders need to provide strategy and direction [like Rabom so often did]
and to give employees tools that enable them to gather information and
insight from around the world. (Ibid, 409)
Gates believes that information technology is the catalyst that drives his digital
nervous system and that everything else flows from that system. Gates concludes his
discussion on his information technology vision, professional development advice, and
leadership of a learning organization with this advice. He wrote:
We survive and prospered because of our brains. We evolve to fill the
cognitive niche. We learned how to use tools, to build shelters, to invent
agriculture, to domesticate livestock, to develop civilization and culture, to
cure and prevent disease. Our tools and technologies have helped us to
shape the environment around us. I am an optimist. I believe in progress.
Id much rather be alive today than at any time in history. The tools of the
digital age extend the capabilities of our minds. (Ibid, 413 - 414)
Bill Gates is certainly a master of the information age and extends the spirit and
empowerment that the thesis visionary leadership traits project. He demonstrates that no
matter the management framework, it is vision, professional experience gained, and
leading or empowering people that fuels success.
Steve Jobs is a lesser known figure who has recently introduced significant
evolutionary change in the entertainment industry. Last year, his Apple Company sold
significant numbers of its iPod, a handheld music and audio storage device that can hold
and playback thousands of recorded files. The top-of-the-line iPod holds 10,000 songs

122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

and the lower-capacity model has room for 5,000 songs (Levy 2004). iPods were created
from a vision to advance personal entertainment technology by miniaturizing high
volume digital memory and packaging high quality music and audio books in a handy
device. Added to this innovation, Jobs has produced a cigar box sized personal computer
that is priced to offer personal computers to virtually everyone. Jobs vision, professional
experience in delivering revolutionary technology and gathering talent within his
company is certainly apparent. Jobs technology is making the information age a reality
to a larger segment of society in keeping with his original vision for the first Apple
computers. Like Gates, Jobs corporate biography reflects that of a current day
technology visionary.
Steve Jobs is the CEO of Apple, which he co-founded in 1976, and Pixar,
the Academy-Award-winning animation studios which he co-founded in
1986.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the
Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the
Macintosh. Today, Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with
its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating
system, and iLife and professional applications. Apple is also leading the
digital music revolution with its iPod portable music players and iTunes
online music store.
Pixar has created six of the most successful and beloved animated films of
all time: Academy Award-winning Toy Story (1995); A Bugs Life
(1998); Toy Story 2 (1999); Monsters. Inc. (2001); Academy Awardwinning Finding Nemo (2003); and The Incredibles (2004). Pixar's six
films have grossed more than $3 billion at the worldwide box office to
date. (Apple December 2004)

Jobs has matured in recent years, putting to use the professional experience he has
gained in the Apple Company and in his intervening years with another venture. He was
forced out of Apple during the period when sales of Microsoft Windows-based personal

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

computers pushed ahead of Apples Macintosh units in the mid-1980s. Jobs was forced
out of his job by 1985, because of his unwillingness to compete with Microsoft (Reuters
April 14. 2003). Like Rickover, Jobs had his detractors who stood against him at Apple.
Steve Jobs innovative idea of a personal computer led him into revolutionizing
the computer hardware and software industry when he was twenty one. He and a friend,
Steve Wozniak, built a personal computer called the Apple that changed people's idea of
a computer from a gigantic and inscrutable mass of vacuum tubes only used by big
business and the government to a small box used by ordinary people (Angelelli 1994).
But, Jobs was also considered a perfectionist like Admiral Rickover in his drive to create
the best that could be created. It was Jobs drive for perfection that caused Apples
failure to continue to dominate the computer market. Rather than share his ideas with
others in the emerging industry, Jobs maintained an Apple exclusive approach that stifled
sales, development and widespread acceptance of his products (Hawn 2004). In a Fast
Company article, Carleen Hawn wrote:

"There was a lot of elitism at the company," says engineer and Apple alum
Daniel Kottke. Kottke was a Reed College classmate of Jobs who later
traveled with him to India. Kottke became Apple's first paid employee in
1976. "Steve definitely cultivated this idea that everyone else in the
industry were bozos. But the goal of keeping the system closed had to do
with ending the chaos that had existed on the earlier machines." Kottke
left Apple in 1984, a year before Jobs himself was forced out.
Apple's purist approach may well have made certain early innovations
possiblenetworking, for example, which it introduced on the first Mac
machines in 1984. Windows PCs didn't have printer networking until the
mid-1990s. But time and again, Apple's obsession with controlling the
entire process of innovation has also demonstrated the truth of Voltaire's
dictum that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Today, the company
has just 300,000 independent and in-house developers writing programs
and making products for its operating systems, including the latest, OS X.

124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

More than 7 million developers build applications for the Windows


platform worldwide. (Ibid)
This obsession with perfection has worked against Jobs on a personal level and
drove him to violate the third trait of successful visionary leaders. He failed to properly
motivate his talented staff and lost management support. It appears that the most able
computer visionary in the business failed on that fundamental trait. He was not a people
person. In terms of vision, he is a genius. Perfection was his Achilles heal.
In 1995 remarks to the Smithsonian Institution, for example, Jobs
compared innovation to "fashioning collective works of art" and said it
afforded "the opportunity to amplify your values" over the rest of society.
The ambition to build the "perfect machine" drove Jobs and his
cofounders, A.C. "Mike" Markkula and Steve Wozniak, to strive to build
everything, from hardware to software, in-house regardless of cost. Even
in those early days, peers like Microsoft were moving to specialize in one
dimension of computing or another. (Apple now farms out much of its
manufacturing, but wont say how much.) (Ibid)
Carleen Hawn reminds us that all three visionary leadership traits matter. She
wrote:
If Apple and Steve Jobs teaches us anything, it's that effective innovation
is about more than building beautiful cool things. A few thoughts for
innovating well in your own shop:
1.
Not All Innovation Is Equal - Technical innovation will earn you
lots of adoring fans (think Apple). Business-model innovation will earn
you lots of money (think Dell).
2.
Innovate for Cash, Not Cachet - If your cool new thing doesn't
generate enough money to cover costs and make a profit, it isn't
innovation. It's art, and
3.
Don't Hoard Your Goodies - Getting to market on time and at the
right price is vital. If that means licensing your idea to an outside
manufacturer or marketer, do it.
(Ibid)

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In a Business Week article, Jobs seems to have gathered a better sense of the
professional experience he has gained over the years. But, he is still after the best he can
produce. He responded to an interview question with a response saying:
I used to be the youngest guy in every meeting I was in, and now I'm
usually the oldest. And the older I get, the more I'm convinced that
motives make so much difference. HP's primary goal was to make great
products. And our primary goal here is to make the world's best PCs not
to be the biggest or the richest.
We have a second goal, which is to always make a profit both to make
some money but also so we can keep making those great products. For a
time, those goals got flipped at Apple, and that subtle change made all the
difference. When I got back, we had to make it a product company again.
We hire people who want to make the best things in the world. You'd be
surprised how hard people work around here. They work nights and
weekends, sometimes not seeing their families for a while. Sometimes
people work through Christmas to make sure the tooling is just right at
some factory in some corner of the world so our product comes out the
best it can be. People care so much, and it shows.
(Burrows October 2004)
It seems even the best innovators are sometimes inadequate visionary leaders
when business solutions and market capture metrics are applied to overall leadership of a
venture. Then too maybe it is gaining the professional experience identified in the thesis
traits with the passage of time that matters.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are the most visible technology innovators of the day.
However, there are two rising stars that have made information more accessible to
anyone with a computer connected to the internet. Their Google search engine has made
it possible for people to find information and images, books and articles, and connect
with interest groups from the comfort of their homes. This technology has the potential
to make libraries obsolete.

126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In 1996, Larry Page and Sergey Brin began collaboration on a search


engine called BackRub, named for its ability to analyze the back links
pointing to a Web page. During this time, Page also explored ways of
building a serving environment using low-end PCs instead of large
expensive machines, which would become another important component
of Google search technology.
Google first emerged when Page and Brin bought a terabyte worth of disks
and built Google's first datacenter in Page's dorm room. With a proof of
concept in hand, the two began pursuing potential buyers in the Web
portal arena.
In 1998 Page and Brin co-founded Internet search pioneer Google.
Google "began with research," says Brin. "Larry and I were working on
our Ph.D.s at Stanford when we starting looking at relationships between
links on the Web. It turns out our research was complementary and
ultimately led to a much more effective way to find information on the
Internet."
"Google answers more than 150 million queries a day. If our technology
saves each person even just a few seconds on each search, think how much
time and money that saves the world in aggregate," Page says.
Googles collection of Web documents, including Usenet discussion posts,
images, catalogs, PDF files, and Word documents, recently grew to more
than 3 billion, which, according to Page, is the largest of its kind in the
world.
"Google is expanding the reach of its services to include more and more
information," Page says. "[Our] [vision] is to organize the world's
information and make it accessible and useful." (Moore February 2002)
Page and Brin continue to pursue their vision of ubiquitous knowledge searches
and have plans to scan and make available volumes of text and documents. They already
have sold specialized Google applications that search defense department internet sites,
corporate intranet sites, and make it possible for users to explore ideas to further
knowledge management. Their innovation has initiated a Knowledge Age where access
to the total body of recorded knowledge is within reach.

127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

It is difficult to imagine Page and Brin as visionary leaders in the image of


Rickover, Rabom or Gates, but their accomplishments with Google require an attempt at
a comparison. Both of these research scholars seem to want to continue in an academic
environment with a guarded entry into the business world of initial public offerings and
Google sales. They believe ideas can be pursued for the Internet without a large staff
through almost singular vision. In an interview with Douglas Harbrecht of Business
Week, Larry Page shared his view of Internet-based innovation:
You don't need a huge company to pursue an Internet idea, just a computer
and a part-time person. So you don't need to have a 100-person company
to develop your idea. You can do it in your spare time, you can really
work on ideas and see if they take off rather than trying to raise tons of
money, millions of dollars for an idea that may or may not work. And
once you have the product and people are using it, it's very easy to raise
investment. (Harbrecht March 2001)
This method of pursuing a vision does not require promotion with anyone until
the idea is accepted as a useful technology by users. This is good news for people who
have ideas and few resources. It is interesting to understand how Google got started and
the philosophy embraced by Page and Brin. In the following interview segment with
reporter Lizette Wilson of the San Francisco Business Journal, Page shares Google
history and the virtuous mission of the company.
Wilson: Any thoughts on how the search industry has changed since
Google launched in 1998?
Page: The change in the quantity on the web. When we started, we were at
30 million pages and we're at 1.3 billion now. That means you can find a
lot more stuff. The web has really permeated other countries, too. Now,
we get half our traffic from other countries.
Wilson: What are some of the challenges you face as a result of that
growth?
Page: I don't think there are any.

128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Wilson: Don't you have to upgrade anything?


Page: Oh, yeah. We buy thousands of computers. We've grown
tremendously. It requires a lot to keep up with 1,800 searches per second.
It's pretty challenging.
Wilson: Google came out of a Stanford University project. How much of
that culture carried over to the company?
Page: We have a very academic culture. We're famous for having chefs
and masseuses, although I suppose that's not very academic. We have over
40 PhDs that work here. And we have a TGIF.
Wilson: TGIF?
Page: A 'Thank Goodness It's Friday celebration. And we have very open
communication. At our board meetings, there are packets of information
we communicate to the whole company. We also have a research
department that has 10 people who focus on stuff maybe one year out
stuff that may or may not work out.
Wilson: If you could make more money by doing paid placement in
Google results, would you?
Page: No. We'd make money in the short term, but not the long term.
Wilson: How does advertising or "sponsored links" differ from paid
placement in the eyes of the average user?
Page: It doesn't and that's the problem. We believe that advertising and
editorial should be split. We do the best job we can with computers and
such to give you best search result content. We don't do pay for placement.
Wilson: Is that a moral stance or a business one?
Page: Both. We believe that the company that's successful will be trusted.
When people trust us, then we'll make more money.
Wilson: What about advertising? Are you going after more of that revenue
now?
Page: The sales part is fairly easy for us. We get a lot of incoming requests
and generate a lot of incoming leads.
Wilson: Okay, what's the hard part then?

129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Page: It's delivering amazing products for people and reading their minds
and providing exactly what they want when they do a search.
Wilson: Where would you like to see Google in 10 years?
Page: Our mission is to organize the world's information and make it
useful and available to everyone. We're getting there. We're available all
over the world in different countries and over mobile and wireless devices.
(Wilson 2001)
From the interview it seems Page and Brin exercise professional experience that is
going as Google matures and that their values are central to their business philosophy and
direction. They are practicing research driven vision with a research group and they are
taking care to attract and retain PhDs who adapt to their academic culture. Page and Brin
certainly practice vision, professional experience and the leadership to attract scholars,
result sponsors, and celebrate their successes.
While Gates is clearly a master of the thesis visionary leadership traits and Jobs
continues to mature in leveraging his experience, Page and Brin exemplify an emerging
practice of innovation that is enabled by the open access to the Internet. They are all
operating within the thesis framework and achieving success. Their success is equal to
the accomplishments of Rickover and Raborn in the reach and richness of their
technology. They are visionary masters of the information age who have changed the
lives of humans on a worldwide scale.
There are other less known visionaries who further technological evolution
through their numerous innovations. The December 2004 issue of VARBusiness
Magazine listed its Top 50 Technology Innovators of the Year. These technology
executives and entrepreneurs were recognized for accomplishments ranging from
directing team efforts to individual technology creation. They all have established a

130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

vision, completed efforts that demonstrate their professional capabilities, and certainly
owe their success to supporting staffs and sponsors. A partial list of these extraordinary
individuals is provided in Appendix C.
Visionaries and innovators listed in Appendix C represent individuals who have
delivered technology solutions that will spawn information technology progress in the
coming months. Months are mentioned as the time element because information
technology is advancing at an extraordinary rate linked to advances in memory
miniaturization and new application development. Take note of the innovators in
Appendix C that add security to the Internet, expand network reach, and move
communications to a wireless environment. Vision demonstrated in these cases
represents the same type of vision that Rickover used to advance the concept of truly
submersible submarines propelled by nuclear power. It is the vision of the possible that
has led these innovators to creating new ways of using digital computers and information
technology systems. They work in companies or own enterprises that embrace
innovation and capture talented people who are capable of delivering new solutions to
everyday problems.
There are recognized technology innovators within specific industries. The Wall
Street & Technology Information Week (November 2003) online journal identified the
top technology-driven securities and investment firms and their chief executives.
Wall Street & Technology presents its ranking of the most innovative
securities and investment firms. This ranking is based on an
Information Week survey of the nations' largest and most innovative users
of information technology. The Information Week 500 ranks institutions
with over $1 billion in revenue and Wall Street & Technology has pulled
from that survey the top-ranked securities and investment firms. Excerpts
from interviews with the top ranking IT executives of those firms reveal
how they consistently push the envelope and why their firms are

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

considered among the most innovative. (The Wall Street & Technology
September 2003)
Joseph Antonellis, Executive Vice President and Chief Information
Officer at State Street Corporation
Nov 18,2003
[State Street, like most financial institutions is conservative when it comes
to new projects and technologies. They process amounts to adopting a
business strategy that has a business case, return on investment and
ultimately forms a vision of business value add - this represents vision
creation in a financial firm,.]
We do a business case for all the major investments, a demandmanagement process. It starts from the ground up as well as the top down.
From the top down, we're looking at major strategic initiatives and the
major funding for the businesses. From the ground up, we'll do business
cases project by project. Those are evaluated against each other - What is a
higher or quicker payback? Which sets into strategic initiative at the top
level better? Then we rank those against each other.
Allan Woods, Vice Chairman and Chief Information Officer at Mellon
Financial
Nov 18, 2003
[Mellon makes a substantial investment in the Capability Maturity Model
that builds on collective professional experience.]
Weve been investing over the past four years in Capability Maturity
Model (CMM). Its a model for developing application technology and
software that was built in Carnegie Mellon University Software
Engineering Institute. Its a process the most renowned developers in
the world subscribe to this. Its kind of like the martial-arts system. You
get basic ratings zero to five. We convinced ourselves that, given the fact
that we really sell our technology, weve got to have this as a competency.
So our objective was to get all of our application-development units up to
level three. By end of this year they will all be at level three. The large
ones are already there.
John Schmidlin, Managing Director & Technology Executive, J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co.
Nov 18, 2003
[J.P Morgan makes investments in recruiting, training and developing
talent. J.P Morgan also used CMM to develop professional experience in
its staff and managers.]
Schmidlin says the firm uses the nomenclature of talent management, to
refer to various elements of staff development. These include: specific job

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

descriptions, standardized requirements to move up levels, clarity and


transparency around the types of roles offered in technology, how roles
can evolve into a career, and where people are on their career paths.
It also helps with mobility and helps us identify in evaluation process of
individual in a team where theyre doing well, where theyre not and
where we need training in place, he says.
It also has the ability to develop leadership. We started implementing
Leadership at Morgan Chase on a firm-wide basis about two years ago
and it has been a highly successful program. Its a component for
leadership development on the technology side. Its not just about
business, but about developing technology leaders as well.
(Pallay November 2003)
These technology leader interview comments, collected by Jessica Pallay of the
Wall Street & Technology, illustrate active examples of vision, professional experience
in action, and development of talented technology staff. Each of the interviewed leaders
shared activities that demonstrate vision creation in adopting new technology,
development of technology professional capabilities, and expanding staff talent and
leadership. This illustrates that all three visionary leadership traits and activities are
practiced in leading security and investment firms.
It is important to mention the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) used by the
Wall Street financial institution CIOs mentioned above. CCM, as it is called, is a
framework designed to create maturity in technical organizations. When combined with
project management, CMM is a tool that formalizes process and planning. CMM was
formalized in the private sector by the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering
Institute for use in information technology and computer engineering firms. CMM and
the accompanying emergence of a formal project management discipline are all linked
back to processes and methods used in the submarine world created by Rickover and
Raborn. Their shadows are clearly cast over the disciplines and frameworks that enable

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the current explosion of technological creativity and disciplined delivery of evolving


capabilities.
Further research on individual technology visionaries resulted in reviewing other
lists of top ranked technologists and executives with similar outcomes. Technology firms
and companies exploit vision and creativity based on business strategies and expected
returns on investment. Individuals leading those organizations rely on their professional
capabilities and experience to assess business risk and make decisions on project
viability. And, finally most use some framework to capture processes, develop talent and
promote mobility within their staffs.
Given that there are a number of considerably successful technology leaders in the
private sector, there remains the question of how they were recruited and prepared for
their roles as innovators. It is assumed that they are all formally educated, have learned
business or technology disciplines, and have been selected by some process to lead. The
following section of this chapter will examine development of private sector technology
leaders.

Leadership in Technology Organizations -- the New Economy and Leadership


Development
This section of the dissertation offers results of research into what it takes to be a
technology leader today. The journey of discovery in this case includes perspectives on
private sector and business leadership. It addresses frameworks for managing technology
innovation and sustainment. And, this section addresses a number of topics that were
discovered during research on technology leadership and governance. Leadership and
governance of technology should be a discipline akin to project management on a

134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

managing director or visionary level. Research in this area develops a collection of


professional competencies and concepts needed to act as an effective visionary.
Therefore, this section represents discovery of detailed professional and management
knowledge that visionary leaders should possess.
Mere satisfactory performance as a technology expert is not a basis for selection
and development as a leader. Leaders must have a desire to lead and a strong motivation
to learn and develop in a truly dynamic environment. And, there is a need to expand
leadership development into a discipline that forms a basis for managing the impact of
technology on society and culture. Technology leaders have a responsibility to lead
change that is fundamentally driven by human needs and not mere evolution of
technological capabilities. Applications of science and techniques must have purpose to
be accepted as technology and must ultimately serve mankind in useful applications.
These applications of technology represent the work of mankind in the continued creation
of life on earth and the universe as defined in the introduction to this dissertation.
As stated in the introduction and worth repeating here, there are two aspects to the
study of developing technology leaders. There is the innovator-business management
development of technology leaders. And, there is the holistic development of technology
leaders as facilitators of human evolution through technology. This dissertation will
focus on the innovator-business management development of technology leaders with
references to the human perspective of technology-innovators.
Business and commerce are now conducted in a global environment linked
together by evolving technologies. Mankind is in an Information Age that has as its basis
the continuing innovation of processes devised and implemented by knowledge workers.

135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

These knowledge workers represent intellectual capital and must be led by individuals
who can embrace and inspire visions of the future.
This section of the dissertation will define and address:

The Information Age and the New Economy,


Knowledge workers and intellectual capital management,
21st Century leadership perspectives,
Technology leadership learning and development including the emerging
diverse candidate pool,
Principles, values and guidance on leadership,
Accountability and value-based leadership perspectives, and
A conclusion that offers a model for technology leadership development.

The Information Age and the New Economy


Technologists and technology leaders are destined to transform our lives through
the application of science and techniques for practical purposes. Technology leaders who
introduce and lead the adoption of information technology are forming a society that is
based on the use of information as a form of wealth and power. Technology leaders use
the products of their workers to transform society with new ways of doing things and
interacting within society.
We are in the midst of a radical, sudden and complete change in society. This
change has created a reorientation of business and commerce, social interaction and
transactions all driven by the emergence of information technology. Modern society is
experiencing globalization, access to new markets and people through the rapid exchange
of information and images, computer communications between individuals and
companies, and companies communicating with other companies, governments and
entities at the speed of thought (Stewart 1997, 6 - 9).

136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

It is the human work of creating the vision to communicate using this new
technology of information exchange that is transforming the world. Unlike the Industrial
Revolution that relied on physical labor and sweat, thinking and innovative people drive
this new Information Age and its New Economy that relies on technology solutions to
social and business needs. These innovative people are knowledge workers as are the
majority of people who use information technology to create and extend the use of
information to build wealth and power.
The notions of a knowledge economy and a knowledge company have a bit
of the abstract about them, but theres nothing abstract about knowledge
work. Its what you do - and, if youre old enough, you know how
different it is from what you did. Information is, probably, the most
important raw material you need to do your job. That used to be true for
only a few people; now it is true for most, and those who are not
knowledge workers are not as well rewarded as they were. (Ibid, 39)
Knowledge has become the primary ingredient of what we make, do, buy and sell.
As a result, managing it - finding and growing intellectual capital, storing it, selling it,
sharing it - has become the most important economic task of individuals, businesses and
nations (Ibid, 12).
The Information Age is based on the unlimited and rapid exchange of information
through technology solutions, the New Economy is based on the exchange of information
virtually anyplace and at anytime, and the knowledge of workers in this new environment
is enabling further advances in society. Intellectual capital gathered from knowledge
workers fuels the New Economy of globalization and instance access.
Technology leaders are experiencing the rise of the knowledge worker as the
force that has altered the nature of work and the agenda of management. Managers are
custodians; they protect and care for the assets of a corporation; when the assets are

137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

intellectual, the managers job changes. Knowledge work doesnt happen the way
mechanical labor did. The work of the hands and clerks was mostly and rightly set up
according to the division of labor in the factory (Ibid, 47). This approach is not
appropriate for knowledge workers who create with their minds.
This change in the nature of work requires a new contractual understanding
between technology leaders and the people who create the technology and use it.

The New Social Contract


Technology leaders are faced with a new social contract with their workers, who
for the most part are knowledge workers, and thus form the intellectual capital upon
which their businesses are built. This is true of the private sector case and has become
true in the Navy as it is a reflection of the society at large and mimics the technology
sector.
These workers are co-creators of human evolution and social interaction, who are
clearly aware of their impact on change. They have been involved in the Information
Age as the people who have designed and built the information highway and applications
that form new ways of communicating and interacting in modern society. Their labor is
carried out in cubicles instead of assembly lines. They sometimes work at home. And in
many cases are their own bosses acting as individual contributors to large complex
organizations.
According to Anthony DiRomualdo of the Concours Group, knowledge workers
who form the technology workforce of today can be understood in the following matrix
that plots behaviors in relationship to commitment and self-reliance. The ideal
organization is one that enjoys high performance. According to DiRomualdo, a

138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

committed / self-reliant worker is the preferred choice in creating high performance and
successful technology organizations (Concours Group 2001, Creating a Committed and
High Performance Workforce, 4).

Figure 4 - High Performance Work Force

D ep en d en t
Children

C om m itted /
S e lf-R e lia n t
W orker

D rones

F ree A g e n ts

CZ3

Commitment
( H e a r t s an d M in d s )
Low t o H igh

S e lf-R e lia n t
( P r o c e s s e s . S k ills a n d
T o o ls )

n n f ---------------------------U U I --------------------

Low t o H ig h

Source: Concours Group 2001, Creating a Committed and High Performance


Workforce, 4).
In the matrix, Drones are of course of little value in a knowledge worker
organization where creativity and intellectual support are needed. Dependent Children
tend to require far too much support and free agents are rogue stars that may or may not
contribute to high performance (Ibid, 4). Committed and self-reliant workers make it
possible for technology leaders to concentrate on applying vision and excitement in
creating a Star Organization or leading Organizations o f Stars.
There are two types of knowledge worker organizations - Organizations o f Stars
and Star Organizations.

139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

An Organization o f Stars is individual-centered. It focuses on recruiting


and motivating the best and brightest talent in the technology domain or
discipline of the business. The main goal is to get the best performance
out of the brightest people.
A Star Organization is a group-centered, recruiting and retention focused
organization with a cross-section of ordinary people focused on producing
extraordinary results. (Concours Group 2001, Talent Management in the
New Economy, 15)
In comparing these organization types to the Rickover era, it would appear that
Rickover and Raborn started with organizations of stars. However, while Raborn
accepted a range of talented people and people who were willing to learn, Rickover held
to the organization of stars. In fact, this approach caused significant problems in the
Navy personnel or human resources area with recruiting and retaining nuclear personnel
when the civilian job markets were good.
Concours research has uncovered several highly successful implementations of
each type of organization with well-defined and clearly articulated organizational
preferences embedded into leadership, strategy and management systems of the
organizations (Ibid, 15). The Organization o f Stars performs best when individual
performance is rewarded, devolution and best practices are encouraged and healthy
contention is fostered. All of these traits encourage competition, initiative and individual
brilliance. The Star Organization of ordinary people rejects the traits of the Star
Organization in favor of group activities, concentration of effort, strict adherence to
process and consensus building.
The Organization o f Stars, if well managed, has the advantage over the Star
Organization, because the weakest or least talented members of the Star Organization are
usually long term - senior managers who limit innovation in favor of consensus building.
Stars are not allowed to shine in Star Organizations because they tend to out shine the

140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

management structure and are usually ahead of the ordinary people who resist change or
new vision. Large complex organizations perform best in the Star Organization role
because of their size and organizational need for consistent and repeatable process. The
inertia of a large complex organization precludes the brilliant accomplishments of an
Organization of Stars. However, the size and sustaining power of the large complex
organization favors adaptability of new business and technology solutions to their larger
base of customers. It is possible for large complex organizations to create cells of stars
that create and innovate for the larger Star Organization. The organization can then
leverage new ideas that are presented as tasks for accomplishment by the well-established
core organization.
Further complicating organizational perspectives, management in the 21st century
requires new perspectives for technology leaders. Innovation, evolution and creation
within a diverse global perspective are the imperatives.

Knowledge, Dreams and Vision


According to Subir Chowdhury, Peter Senge, C. K. Parhalad, Rosabeth Moss
Kan ter and others in Management 21C (2000), management in the 21st century will
depend on leadership, process and organization. And, the 21st century leader must search
for dreams, act on dreams and make dreams real. The most valuable asset for 21st
century leaders will be the ability to dream like an entrepreneur (Chowdhury, Senge,
Parhalad and Kanter 2000, 1). There are twelve traits expected of the 21st century leader

provided in Management 21C.


The first of these traits is the leadership trait Peoplelistic Communications.
Peoplelistic Communications is the key to effective communications from the top down

141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

to the bottom. Peoplelistic communicators provide a friendly atmosphere in which


everyone communicates quickly. Peoplelistic communications helps to breakdown the
hierarchy of complex organizations that inhibit those organizations from retaining star
performers and brilliant people (Ibid, 2-4).
Understanding emotions and beliefs is the next important leadership trait.
Leaders must touch the hearts, minds and emotions of the work force to be successful in
the New Economy where innovation begins the process of change. We often hear that
the only constant is change. Imposing change on employees, and specifically knowledge
workers, is a sign of management arrogance; people may accept it through fear, but will
not believe in the demanded or imposed change. Twenty-first century leaders and in
particular technology leaders must create an atmosphere in which people believe in
strategy, believe in management decisions and believe in their work (Ibid, 3).
The third trait for leaders is the ability to perform many skills. Leaders in the 21st
century must have multiple skills including knowledge of languages, culture and a wide
range of subjects. Concentration on becoming a subject matter expert and then exercising
overall leadership is ineffective (Ibid, 4). The often-heard retort that an individual must
grow-up in an organization to assume leadership is often a method to exclude rather than
recruit and include a diverse staff. Valuing diversity creates an environment that thrives
on excitement and it encourages everyone to reach his or her full potential. The true
challenge facing the organizational world is not geographic distance but cultural distance.
Diversity has always been the greatest challenge for the United States, but it is also its
greatest strength (Ibid, 4). Companies that continue to practice prejudice do so at their

142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

own risk and simply ignore the possibilities that have propelled other companies to global
prominence.
The last of the four leadership traits is having a next mentality. Leaders must
hunger for the next goal and strive for anything that increases success. According to
Subir Chowdhury, good leaders celebrate a success but immediately set about achieving
the next one. Whats next? will be the wide spread attitude among leaders in the 21st
century.
Tomorrows leaders must be:
hardworking
never satisfied,
idea-centric
curious, and
persistent. (Ibid, 4)
Tomorrows leaders must always pursue the hunt for the next idea and then
remain persistent in implementing the best of those ideas to gain market leadership.
Process and organization form the basis for the other important traits of 21st
century leaders. In leading effective process, 21st century leaders must pursue grass roots
education, prevent fires or business failures to satisfy customers, direct interaction and
make globalization a reality. Organizational skills are also required. Twenty-first
century leaders must manage people capital - intellectual capital as their most valuable
commodity. That means they must achieve returns on talent, generate knowledge,
invest in and manage talent, and search fo r innovations (Ibid, 5-14).
Chowdhury and his co-authors provide an abundant source of important traits and
skills required of 21st century leaders. There are two quotes that are relevant to this
dissertation thesis. In a reminder on the need for credibility in leaders this quote stands

143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

out, If people dont believe in the messenger, they wont believe the message (Ibid,
19).
And, in the Collective Genius chapter there is a reminder on the importance of
people - the co-creators who will work with the 21st century leader. That quote
reinforces the need again for finding and retaining the workers needed to be successful,
The biggest obstacle to launching a successful company is no longer attracting capital
but attracting intellectual capital (Ibid, 63).
Finally, the paradox of leadership is explored in terms of contradictions and
challenges for 21st century leaders. The ultimate paradox is described as follows:
Leadership involves harnessing the tension of opposites at three levels - within oneself,
through teamwork, and in the organizational structure (Ibid, 81).
Again, it appears that not much has changed from the days of Rickover and
Raborn. There are clear parallels between the guidance in Management 21C and the
leadership methods employed in the nuclear submarine and Fleet Ballistic Missile
programs. However, it appears that in some respects Raborn was better at managing
intellectual capital then Rickover.
Tensions in the 21st century will involve technical work as well as the work of
maintaining humanity while introducing technologies that will transform society.
Leaders must maintain a dual focus in managing change through innovation while
maintaining perspectives on the impact of their work on society. Members of their
organizations must be lead from this dualistic perspective so that there is a tension
between the vision of things to come and what must be maintained from a human

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

perspective. Human evolution must be managed along with the technology that will
continue to transform the world.
Emerging technology leaders must acquire multiple skill sets to be successful.
Building Information Technology (IT) leaders requires development of multiple
disciplines in individuals.
It is important to note that naval officers, more than their civilian engineering
staffs, do gather education and experience in a broad range of management and executive
disciplines. They first learn a technical or engineering discipline, then gain experience in
a warfare discipline, and ultimately acquire skills necessary to direct ships or stations.
Those latter skills include the ability to run a human resource office, oversee an eating
establishment and understand the needs of a medical practice. Naval officers learn to
wear many hats before they are assigned to senior program management positions.

Building Technology Leader Bench Strength


Large complex technology organizations are training grounds for development of
technology leaders. Small companies (companies with less than $15 million in annual
service and sales activity) rely on single owners or individual contributors and do not
build management bench strength on a formal basis. Large companies are faced with a
core dilemma in building technology leaders. According to Nick Vitalari and Vaughan
Merlyn of the Concours Group, building technology leaders represents a challenge in
terms of balancing technology knowledge and experience with professional experience
(Concours Group March 2001, 2-3).
Information Technology (IT) professionals are trained in narrow technical
specialties and are often divorced from the business aspects of the enterprise. Not all IT

145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

professionals want exposure to business training. And, many IT professionals see their
futures tied to the next technology innovations as opposed to the overall management of
technology solutions (Ibid, 4 -5). Business professionals tend to see themselves as
consumers of technology solutions who know what they want when they see it. Their
focus is on relationship management with customers, promoting functional value chain
operations and generating strategies that promote the business. Technology is a tool to
achieve a business strategy, goal or process (Ibid, 4 -5). The following graphic illustrates
the convergence of business leadership development and technology development
trajectories.

Figure 5 - IT / Business Career Trajectories

Business
T ra je c to ry

Chief Technology
Officer
Business
Technology
Leadership

Business Professional
Business Development
Business Services
Relationship
Management

New Hires
College Interns
High Potential
Employees

Technology Professional
Technical
Development
Technical Services
Project &
Infrastructure

Technology
T ra je c to ry

Source: Concours Group March 2001, 4 -5

146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

High-potential technology leaders must be developed as executives that can wear


many hats and balance five roles. They must become business strategist and IT strategist,
service providers and change masters, and IT functional leaders capable of pursuing
visions of leveraging technology solutions. They must be seen as technology advocates
and general managers (Ibid, 6-7). According to Vitalari and Merlyn, successful
technology leaders have more than 20 years of experience in business and IT with more
IT experience than business experience. They have spent time abroad with long term
employment in several companies. And, their formal education is a combination of
technical and business subjects (Ibid, 8).
Vitalari and Merlyn draw the conclusion that potential technology leaders should
be identified and groomed for leadership through succession strategies and
developmental job assignments. They recommend formal coaching and mentoring,
growth assignments that address development needs in technology and business, and
assessment of candidates to weed out poor performers (Ibid, 9 - 10). Their advice is
reasonable, but often impractical because large complex organizations fail at succession
strategies. The companies that need succession planning tend to be focused on mergers
and acquisitions that result in the loss of key individuals that have been on development
tracks and unfortunately belonged to the acquired company. In other cases succession
strategies fail due to the turnover in employment. Really good prospects tend to leave for
other opportunities. Long-term people development tends to be problematic in the
current job market that does not enjoy employer loyalty or long term obligations. Other
programs offer the multi-discipline training needed to transition technologists into
business executives.

147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Executive Program

Jill Vitiello conducted research on the University of Virginia IT executive


development program entitled The Executive Program. Her article Training IT s Top
Leaders in Computerworld magazine (October 8, 2001) provides insight into an
alternative to succession strategies recommended for building IT bench strength.
Nick Vitalari and Vaughan Merlyn of the Concours Group are correct in their
assessment that technology leaders must have technology experience and business
experience. The question is how a technologist can be educated in business to expand the
pool of high-potential technology leaders. One answer is UVa's The Executive Program.
The Executive Program (TEP) is a six-week intensive executive summer
camp at the Darden Graduate School at the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville. Dardens goal is to make TEP a transforming experience
for those who attend... We touch all dimensions of the individual:
Intellectual by building functional skills and helping them to become
effective leaders; physical, by learning to value their health; interpersonal,
by working in teams; emotional, by dealing with ambiguity and realizing
that it is good to be passionate about your purpose; and spiritual, by
examining core values and beliefs as they apply to the workplace.
(Vitiello October 8, 2001, 38-39)
TEP offers much of the multi-discipline building education required to develop IT
leaders. It is designed to transform specialist into executives that return to their
companies with perspectives on leadership that have touched their minds and bodies.
The premise for TEP is that Future CIOs [Chief Information Officers - IT leaders] dont
need more training in technology, and they dont need more courses in project
management. They need leadership training, according to Brandt Allen, associate dean

148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

of Dardens executive education program (Ibid, 40). Most CIOs fail on leadership and
not on technology knowledge, experience or decision-making. They fail because they
have not been exposed to leadership development and strategic business thinking.
TEP seeks to change all of that by bombarding TEP participants with course work
in finance, accounting, marketing, sales, forecasting, logistics, supply chain, human
resources, ethics and more in addition to the aforementioned individual building TEP
activities (Ibid, 40). The course is completed with the Wise Exercise in which TEP
participants assume the role of general management team members for a hypothetical
multinational corporation. TEP participant teams complete a series of tasks and make
operating decisions to experience general management and compete to see which team
makes the most profit (Ibid, 40). The profit motive is a real world measurement of
success, but it is certainly a result of understanding the diverse cultural difference
involved in managing the hypothetical multinational corporation. This is an important
aspect of the program and is relevant to the two-part focus of this study - technical
competency and understanding the social implications of technological progress.
While TEP is available to a chosen few, about 33 participants a year, it points to a
framework for developing technology leaders. The framework represented with TEP is
the concept of providing capstone or transitional executive development programs that
provide business education and practical exercises, prepare individuals for leadership
roles and take care to develop the body and spirit for the task ahead. Leadership requires
knowledge, vision and the personal mental and physical strength to lead.

149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Other Programs

A sampling of business school and continuing education web sites will reveal a
number of excellent executive development programs. There are CIO Boot Camps, Chief
Information Officer basic skill schools, offered by the leading industry research and
advisory firms. The requisite framework for these programs must include strategic
thinking, core business courses, a review of the current global environment and learning
experiences in teams and on an individual basis. Multi-national decision-making
exposure and corporate war gaming are critical learning opportunities that will exercise
ethical and human value dimensions of leadership. These exercises offer the opportunity
to introduce the technology and social implications discipline that is missing from the
usual technical and business training curricula. Military and naval officers have enjoyed
this education and development framework in the various Department of Defense war
college programs. The DoD has used war college programs and Federal Executive
Fellowship (FEF) programs to offer executive learning and development experiences as
high-potential participants transition from specialized careers to general executive
positions.
It is practical to transition high-potential technology leadership candidates from
specialized career segments to the executive level via six or eight-week programs rather
than rely on succession plans. Used in combination with completion of successful
assignments within a technical or business early career segment, executive transition
programs like TEP can be highly effective in building a cadre of technology leaders in a
complex or small business. The variation supported so far in this study would be the
inclusion of technology and social implication education.

150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Leadership Values and Accountability


In the introduction to this dissertation there were definitions and discussion points
shared on the humanities topics surrounding technology leadership. There were points
made on duty or deontological ethics, values linked to management, and topics on human
behaviors. In the following section of this chapter leadership values are examined
through the lens of noted speakers on the topic of leadership. A survey of leadership
ideas expressed by Tom Peters, Ken Blanchard, David Oliver and Stephen R. Covey is
appropriate for placing emphasis on the importance of values and accountability in
developing technology leaders. Admirals Rickover and Raborn learned their values and
sense of accountability the Navy way with imperatives centered on fidelity and
obedience, duty and honor.
Tom Peters in Re-Inventing Work - The Death Knell for Ordinary: Pursuing
Difference presented during the 2000 Worldwide Lessons in Leadership Series
(September 2000) says:

The Web is the UET... Ultimate Empowerment Tool [technology - the New
Economy and the e-culture are real], and

Women and Diversity rules! - Women have buying power as never before and
are entering the workforce as a major source of talent and potential power
California, Texas and Florida have significant minority populations [corporate
culture must recognize that the marketplace is diverse and Diversity is good
for business], and

Leadership is all about passion and ordinary is dead.

151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Ken Blanchard in his talk on Necessary Dimensions in Leadership at the


Worldwide Lessons in Leadership Series (September 2000) said, Leadership begins with
a clear vision with two aspects:
A visionary role - doing the right thing, and
An implementation role - doing things right.
Rear Admiral David Oliver, Jr., USN (RET) in his book Lead On! - A Practical
Approach to Leadership (1992) offers perspectives on leadership in the nuclear navy. He
writes: The old school of motivation by coercion never accomplished much with
submarine sailors, who are among the navys elite.... Admiral Oliver offers a series of
Bronze rules that are appropriate for developing technology leaders.
Patience - A good leader has patience. He [or she] takes every opportunity to
train subordinates and permit them to experience challenges.
Fear - Fear is common to many professions. It also is integral to leadership.
Without danger, who needs a leader?
Winning - Winning, whether it is sports or in an organization, results in the
expectation of continued success.
Nope - Most people and organizations are uncomfortable with decisions that are
not reached by consensus, however forced or false. Preventing the achievement of
consensus is thus a powerful tool to use in organizational situations when the naysayer
does not have a position of authority.
Change - People who can recognize the need for change and identify the specific
change necessary are of extraordinary value to the organization.

152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Assignments - The most important policies in any large organization concern


how and where people are assigned. In [large complex organizations] the jobs change
faster than the job descriptions are altered. Moving people between units in the
organization makes it easier to generate and spread new ideas.
One - Two - As long as a leader can reduce what the organization must achieve
to a number of goals no higher than the number of wishes Aladdin had, the leader will
also have the opportunity to truly achieve magical results.
Walking - Management by walking around prevents the leader from being
captured by the staff or inefficient subordinates. Getting out and about provides the leader
with raw inputs for evaluation and gets his experience into the field.
Integrity - Truth sells itself. Looking dumb is oodles better than lying.
Opportunities - Life is short. Challenges ignored or sidestepped are
opportunities that never occur again.
Silver - Treat everyone with respect. Think about the effect of your words and
actions on others and the image you create of yourself.
(Oliver 1992, 199-207)
Finally, Stephen R. Covey in his The 7 Habits o f Highly Effective People (1989)
and Principle-Centered Leadership (1990) presents principles and values that establish a
core of leadership. In the 2000 Lessons in Leadership series, Dr. Covey presented the
following illustration of management and leadership traits. There is often debate over
where management ends and leadership begins. This illustration blends principles with
management and leadership choices.

153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 6 - Freedom and Power - Management and Leadership Choices

LOVE

Creative Excitement

Leadership

Heart-felt

Commitment

DUTY

Cheerful Cooperation
Willing Compliance

FEAR

Malicious Obedience

Management
ANGER

Rebellion

CHOICES

Source: Covey 1999


Choices for leaders and managers are linked to the levels of trustworthiness, trust,
empowerment and organizational effectiveness engendered in an organization. People
respond to these levels of principle-centered leadership with emotions that progress from
anger directed at authority to love of the organization and its mission. Love of the
organization creates the excitement that inspires self-reliant and committed people.
Recall the quote shared in Management 21C, If people dont believe in the messenger,
they wont believe the message (Chowdhury, Senge, Parhalad and Kanter 2000, 19).
In summary, leaders have the choice to manage through authority and fear or to
create an organization of people who believe in what they are doing and embrace their
work in the continued creation of human spirit and evolution. Everyone has a role in an
organization and shares in success or failure, responsible implementation of social change
or forcing unwanted change. Leadership is vision and dream driven and founded in
values shared by the leadership.

154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Accountability
Regardless of the organizational strength built by a leader, results ultimately
matter in the business world. Rosabeth Moss Kanter in her recent book e-Volvel Succeeding in the Digital Age o f Tomorrow argues that the most important traits a leader
can bring to any kind of change effort are imagination, conviction, passion and
confidence in others (Kanter 2001, 283). These traits enable leaders to be change masters
and marshal extraordinary efforts. But, those efforts must yield results. Dave Ulrich,
Jack Zenger and Norm Smallwood in their book Results-based Leadership contend that
leaders must produce results that are business and process-centric within the internal and
external spheres of their organizations (Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood 1999, 27-34).
This is accountability on the business-technical side of affairs for a technology leader.
Accountability to humanity has to be measured in a different way and from a
more thoughtful and qualitative perspective. This is new ground and will form the basis
for extended study in the discipline of technology and society. But for now, the results of
technology implementation and adoption can be measured in adoption rates for Internet
applications and business delivery channel success for information technology solutions.
Accountability, values, principles and vision are all character traits that
distinguish one leader from another and begin to identify truly visionary leaders.
Accountability is ultimate responsibility that will always reside with a leader.
It seems leaders are built one brick at a time through education, experience and
development. This leader building process, particularly with respect to developing
vision, accountability and professional experience, supports the tenets of the dissertation

155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

thesis argument. True visionary leaders must accept accountability for their visions,
demonstrate commitment and passion, and create honest excitement.

Technology Governance - Creating Business Solutions


Technology is a driving force for cultural change and represents human response
to challenges imposed by nature, culture and society. Technology in the form of digital
and information technology almost overshadows advances and dilemmas posed by other
technology. From a business management perspective, information technology and
electronic processes and transactions have created a digital marketplace that has replaced
the Industrial Age with a New Economy.
This section of the dissertation offers results of a study of technology governance
and more specifically Information Technology (IT) governance as it applies to complex
business organizations. This topic is important to understanding the depth of details
required of a visionary leader in the public and private sectors. In Chapter III, a process
for Joint system acquisition was discussed. This discussion will offer the private sector
perspective on governing technology acquisition and evolution. Many of the concepts
used in the Joint defense world are similar to those discussed in the following results of
research and observation on the private sector. These results are divided into four parts
that attempt to answer the following questions:

What are the processes in place to manage technology innovation and


deployment?

Who makes the decisions on technology development and business solution


implementation?

What are the components of the decision-making process and the driving
criteria for those decisions?

And, what is the role of the bottom line and fiduciary responsibility in the
process of implementing technology in the business environment?

156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The answers begin with forming a context for understanding technology as a force
for change. Robert H. Lauers Perspectives on Social Change (1973) will serve as the
reference in establishing the context for technology-driven change in society.
Douglas F. Aldrichs, Mastering the Digital Market Place (1999) and Rosabeth
Moss Kanters e-Volve! (2001) will serve to frame the New Economy and the digital
marketplace. Society has been in and is moving through an era of technological change
that is based on high speed computer-driven communications, control and integration of
human and machine interaction.
A view of the basis of IT management and investment is provided with a review
of IT justification, financial analysis, business strategy requirements and the role of
technology architecture in framing the management processes.
That review is followed with a discussion on corporate and governmental
accountability. Power and Accountability (1991) written by Robert A. G. Monks and
Nell Minow will provide a view of corporate accountability from a legal and ethical
basis. Government accountability will be viewed with respect to the Federal Reserve
Board and its responsibilities for the monetary system and banking.

On Time, On Speed
Information technology (IT) creates value propositions and shifting paradigms in
business. A long way from simple automation, IT forms the enabler of business
strategies and solutions that change levels of power and influence in business. Chief

157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Information Officers (CIOs) and technology innovators are no longer routine service
providers, but are now seen as vital members of the office of chief executive. The
principle finding from the A.T. Kearney 1998 survey of 230 CEOs is that information
technology (IT) decisions are now an integral part of the corporate strategy and
technology decisions are now routinely made at the boardroom level, not by functional IT
managers (Aldrich 1999, 18). Nine out of ten global companies report that their
technology investment is as important as their capital investments in reaching strategic
business goals (Ibid, 19).
Visionary technology leaders in the private sector hold significant positions as a
result of this elevation in status and influence within major companies. All of those top
ranked investment firm technology chiefs interviewed by Jessica Pallay confirmed that
they managed significant budgets that had the effect of improving their corporations. On
average, technology budgets have increased with the escalating role of information
technology and Internet channels in delivering services and products.
Technology, cybernation of information, and a new level of consumer demand
have changed the economy from an industrialized economy based on things to an
economy based on information and business solutions that refer to time and content. In
the New Economy, consumers are aware of high value technology and want offerings
that take advantage of computers, the Internet and advanced cybernation. A new
generation of informed consumers have entered the market place and will do so in everincreasing numbers over the next decade (a projected 88 million by the year 2000) (Ibid,
11). The newest entrants will lap their parents in computer literacy and expectations of
IT business solutions. The youngest part of the consumer population can not conceive of

158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a world without computers. This translates to impatience for better, faster and cheaper
digital solutions. The following graphic illustrates the customer value proposition against
time from 1950 to the present day. Note that time and content prevail in this case.

Figure 7 - Evolving consumer perceptions of value

Consumer
Value
Proposition
(Customer
Demands)

Time
Content
Brand
Quality
Price
1950

TIME

Today

Source: Aldrich 1999

The empowerment of consumers has widespread repercussions. To be


competitive, companies must offer products and services that are specifically customized
to meet the needs of individual consumers or customer segments that have purchasing
power and high adoption rates (Ibid, 11). This drives companies to meet customer
demands although those demands may produce turmoil with existing systems,
applications and cost benefit factors associated with introduction of predecessor
technology. The management of technology introduction and retirement of systems is
complicated by compelling customer demands.
Technology architects must decide on when to use existing systems to meet new
demands through capability and functionality upgrades or find completely new solutions.
159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The new solution case is often wanted by the business line managers to meet the response
to customer demands. The technology managers find that opposing new applications and
systems in favor of existing systems puts their value as business partners in jeopardy. A
collaborative effort between business managers and technology managers is required to
arrive at solutions that meet consumer and customer demands while at the same time
retaining and gaining value from IT spending.
The world is a much wealthier place than it was in the early days of the industrial
economy. With this wealth have come increased material expectations, as well as a shift
from viewing work as an end in itself to seeing it as a stepping-stone to a better quality of
life and leisure time. Time is more important than content and has overcome ties to
brand names, rising quality and price (Ibid, 13). There is a higher expectation of quality
in more expensive purchases, but the time to market for new customer demands remains
the pressing value for consumers. The vision to anticipate and understand customer
demands, react to emerging technology and capture competitive advantage in the New
Economy is based on what can be termed evolution or e-volution in the digital market
place.
This concept is vitally important to technology visionaries who seek to make
leaps in growing capabilities or simply take advantage of emerging trends in systems and
capabilities. There are leaders who react quickly and those who simply follow along.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter divides companies into Laggards and Pacesetters in the
evolution of business in the New Economy (Kanter 2001, 73). In keeping with the name,
Laggards are slower to move and more limited in their use of the Internet and cybernation
in a broader sense. Laggards fall behind the competition and are actually dissatisfied

160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

with their progress. Pacesetters are faster than their competitors to move core business
processes to the Internet and to respond to early technology adopter consumer demands
(Ibid, 13).
This concept of Laggards and Pacesetters is not new. There have always been
companies that will explore new frontiers while others deny the value-added benefits of
new technologies and processes. Except in the New Economy denial and rejection of
new and especially Internet delivery channels have proven fatal to some traditional
businesses.
In some cases, Laggards have tried to make cosmetic changes that look like
adoption of new technology. These incremental steps fail to capture true change and the
investment is usually shallow and just enough to make an appearance of change to
customers and internal business partners (Ibid, 74). Fundamental change is required and
a sound strategy for adoption of evolving technology is required to survive in the New
Economy. The strategic governance of a company must be linked to this understanding
of evolution. The vision to respond to customer demands and the capacity to manage the
risk of introducing new technology must become part of the governance of companies
and their IT strategies.
In addition to understanding the need to match consumer demands and become a
pacesetter there are the realities of business results - return on investment and value
creation that increase shareholder value. In other words, supporting the bottomline and
increasing IT value are required for business survival.

Return on Investment and IT Value

161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Technology must be governed in large part by the same principles as all other
business elements. Return on investment and the net present value of projects is standard
business and takes a place in balancing competing business demands. In this section of
the dissertation a variety of models will be reviewed that have a direct bearing on
understanding technology governance in the business environment. These same models
are beginning to emerge within the Navy and the defense establishment. There is little
difference between a Navy visionary and a private sector visionary attempting to get
more value for less.
Since Rickovers era, the Navy and the defense establishment have begun to
adopted business concepts in the acquisition and maintenance of systems and especially
information systems. While the defense establishment drives to create ForceNet, it has
adopted an approach that looks to leverage return on the investment of limited defense
resources and funding. The idea of maximizing value is the same in the private sector as
it is in the defense establishment.

IT Justification Hierarchy
The following research is just as important in the private sector as it is in the Joint
acquisition arena with the exception of attempting to make choice on following
regulations or not making those expenditures. Research and analysis conducted by the
Gartner Group establishes the following four categories of IT justification (Gabler and
Adams 2000, 1-2). IT business initiatives can be described in one of the following
categories listed in descending order of importance:
Business necessity - These initiatives are must do projects and are usually
judged and prioritized based on cost. There is very little need to offer cost-benefit

162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

analysis on business necessity projects. These projects usually support security, privacy,
regulatory requirements, competitive responses and business survival projects.
Financial initiatives - Financial initiatives should be presented with cost
requirements and clear benefits. Benefits must exceed project cost presented by internal
rates of return, net present value and other cost benefit analysis. These projects are
usually associated with process cost reduction and improvements.
Vision, strategy and objectives (V/S/O) - These projects and initiatives need
champions, visionaries and executives that have a respected gut-feel for innovation.
These initiatives have some hard benefits that can be calculated into return on investment,
internal return rates and possibly net present value. But the best arguments for approving
these projects are in the soft benefits that are envisioned by the project sponsors. These
projects usually are in response to consumer and customer demand, meet strategic needs
and represent introduction of ideas that are anticipated to improve business.
Discretionary and research (D/R) - Emerging technologies - either unproven
sustaining business technologies or technology that is new to the organization - fall into
this exploratory category. It is last on the list because exploratory projects have a fuzzy
business case and lack clear value propositions. There is usually no direct financial
return or clear business benefit. But there is potential for high value or a reduction in
losses by eliminating an ineffective technology or manual process. Examples of
discretionary and research projects include the pilot of a hand-held device for improving
data collection or initiatives that test automation of a process.
Gartners bottom line on this hierarchy for defining IT projects is that there
should be different approaches for presenting initiatives in an orderly fashion that identify

163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the basis for the proposal, its importance and the expected results to justify technology
spending.

Return on Investment Analysis


Again, the Gartner Group analysis is the source of this discussion on ROI Return on investment. According to Gartner analyst there are three models for
understanding ROI (Guptill and Strovink 1999 1-2). These models were referenced in
the preceding discussion on justification.
Net Present Value - NPV answers the question: Is it wise to invest in one project
verses another technology project? NPV compares annual rates of return to project cost
or investment estimates. NPV is easy to calculate, but assumes equal risk for project
completion between competing projects and the rate of return is usually arguable between
managers, sponsors and corporate finance. NPV is useful for eliminating projects that
have a negative return potential, especially if those projects are proposed as cost saving
projects.
Internal Rate of Return - IRR compares the interest rate against the riskadjusted rate of return. If the calculated return exceeds the risk-adjusted return the
investment is justified. IRR is a simple ratio of the cost of the initiative and the return
multiplied by the interest factor. The interest factor is taken from well-established tables.
IRR can sometimes result in negative values and unsolvable conditions that are
computational nuisances. NPV and IRR should be used together to better evaluate
projects.

164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Payback - Payback represents the amount of time required to pay back the initial
investment. This method is popular with technology projects because it offers an
understanding of how long it will take to recover the cost of the new technology. The
calculation for the payback method is uncomplicated - divide the investment by the
annual return. If the target is 36 months for a standard payback given the rapid
obsolescence of technology, then the calculation for a $100,000 project is as follows:
Payback = $100,000 divided by $40,000 (annual return). The answer is 2.5 years or 30
months. The project is justified based on a 36-month minimum payback.
As a final note, financial calculations are but one method for justifying
technology innovation. As described in the hierarchy of justification there are other
considerations, including vision, that have a bearing on justification of IT spending.
There are proposed steps in justifying technology projects that combine considerations.

Aligning IT with Business


Gartner Group guidance includes a ten-step method for aligning business with
technology and specifically IT investments (Ibid, 1-2). These are fundamental steps in
aligning technology innovation and initiatives with business strategy. These steps are:
1. Define benefit and cost strategy - What will the technology offer and how is it
funded?
2. Assess complexity of current operations - What will be the impact of the new
technology or technology change on the existing system and operation?
3. Benchmark current operations - What metrics define operations in the current
state?

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

4. Estimate total cost of ownership (TCP) of the proposed solution - Cost are
not simply the initial investment, but include maintenance, training and
implementation.
5. Categorize and determine the benefits - benefits include labor savings and
new processes that eliminate waste and support functions.
6. Formulate a budgeting strategy - How will the contracts and budget
obligations work in support of the new technology?
7. Evaluate risk and wavs to mitigate or eliminate risk - This is standard project
management and operating risk practice.
8. Calculate Return on Investment - This area was discussed in the previous
section of this discussion - compare initial cost against a return rate.
9. Prioritize Investments - Prioritization is the second step in comparing one
project or initiative to another. In this case consider the relative importance of
one project to the other and/or the logical or technical sequence of
implementing projects in what should become a program.
10. Validate investment decisions - Technology innovation and initiatives require
the clear approval of top management in order to proceed. Validation of the
preceding steps in a formal project life cycle or governance review process is
paramount to having full support of management.
The preceding Gartner Group analysis was reviewed and selected from a large
body of study on the subject of IT investment management methodology. It is offered in
this section of the study to establish the usual basis for technology selection and
investment decision-making.

166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Technology Architecture
Simple calculations of return on investment and payback periods do not provide
the comprehensive view necessary for information technology selection that creates
shareholder value, reduces risk of system inadequacy and more importantly integration of
new technology with existing systems and applications. Senior business and technology
executives are faced with failures in their strategies because those strategies lack broader
perspectives of total technology management for business gains.
IT investments in the United States between 1989 and 1999 exceeded
$265,000,000,000 and funded over 145,000 major projects. That number has increased
since then with the further introduction of Internet delivery channels. Fewer than 25% of
those projects achieved defined project goals and fewer than 12% advanced the businessstrategic goals of the enterprise funding the efforts (Buchanan 2000, 3). The reasons for
these failures are attributed to the collapsed cycle time of the New Economy, silo ed
business unit mentality within corporations, and a lack of project discipline. Strategic
planning horizons have shrunk from five years to 18 months and the time to market for
new technology solutions has been reduced from years to less than 90 days. Internet
solutions have been created in less than 90 days using a process that launches the initial
website and relies on revisions about every 60 days to install the most wanted customer
and business improvements. The initial website provides the functionality and content
customers want, time is saved and the website is about right on opening day.
Perfection comes later if at all. This approach is called spiral development and is now
used in the delivery of emerging technologies in the private sector as well as in the Joint
defense acquisition system.

167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The situation today requires a new look at building technology in complex


organizations. There is a need to recognize competing organizational needs while
introducing shared systems and applications that reduce overall expense given the rapid
evolution of technology. The current thinking for a solution to the issues described above
is enterprise technology architecture (Ibid, 14). Enterprise IT and for that matter
technology architecture in the New Economy is designed to enable rapid change in
business processes and in the applications and technical infrastructure that enables those
process changes (Ibid, 14). The basic model for enterprise strategy was developed by the
author and is shown in the following diagram.
Figure 8 - Elements of Enterprise Excellence

Enterprise
Planning and
Strategy

Enterprise
Program
Management

Enterprise
Architecture Review
and Certification

In this model adopted from the META Group model designed by Richard
Buchanan (Ibid, 16), enterprise strategy drives enterprise programs that drive enterprise
technology architecture. Each element of enterprise management is linked and
supportive of the overall strategy. The program office or management structure is

168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

responsible for managing projects and programs that deliver on strategic imperatives.
Enterprise architecture is then evolved to provide shared technology services where
possible and integrate new technologies when required to keep pace with business needs
and technology. A common vision of requirements is required to make this model work.
There must be agreement on the role of the existing infrastructure in accommodating
business requirements and what must be adopted from emerging technologies to remain
competitive. Governance of resources and priorities is managed within the enterprise
program office and architecture is managed in response to program direction all based on
a common vision of achieving enterprise strategy within an evolving infrastructure (Ibid,
21). These process mandates can be achieved through the following principles:
1. Maximize incremental revenue opportunities through leverage of digital
technology - buy and implement technology that creates business value.
2. Treat all information as corporate information - break down the line of
business mentality for managing information - share information across the
enterprise through shared or common information management systems, and
3. Buy for competitive parity, build or innovate for competitive advantage. Buy
the proven technology required to stay competitive and become a market
pioneer or master to capture the advantages of technology innovation. (Ibid,
26)
Looking again at the model for enterprise excellence, the Enterprise Architecture
Review and Certification process must become the point for institutionalizing the
discipline and decision-making on business driven technology evolution and shared
services. Shared service is an important concept that is crucial to managing IT across

169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

complex organizations. Technology choices in addressing a wanted business


improvement can be accomplished through a variety of applications. The best choice is
the system or application that is already shared or available within the enterprise. It is
sometimes better to make do with 80% of the desired technology at an incremental cost
than to buy at full cost a system or application that gives 100% functionality in a specific
area (Ibid, 30). This process of architecture evolution is by its very nature interactive and
reiterative. The concept of governance driven through a program management and
architecture process fully empowers senior managers to make decisions on technology
based on financial analysis and sound technology evolution analysis.
So far there has been a review of IT or technology justification within a priority
hierarchy, return on investment analysis, business alignment and IT architecture in
forming a basis for technology investment selection and sponsorship. These processes
and methods form the basis of technology management. Beyond these basic and
fundamental processes there is a need to understand the broader implications of
sponsoring the introduction of technology. There are social implications that must be
considered in balance with the business imperatives of strategy and competitive
advantage in the market place. There is a matter of power and accountability to consider
in managing sponsorship of technological changes in society no matter how insignificant
those changes may seem.

Power and Accountability What Is Profit?


First, the pursuit of profit in the private sector is not the pursuit of a single goal,
but involves decisions and actions in furtherance of numerous goals. Second, it is not

170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

objective. What costs and benefits, for example, are to be included in the calculation of
profits? If social costs are to be included, how are various social costs and benefits to be
valued? How are potential future economic benefits and costs to be quantified given the
uncertainty of future markets? Third, it is not an easily monitored goal. How can
decision-makers be held accountable on the basis of profit when their decisions involve
making predictions of future returns from uncertain markets? (Lynne Dallas, 1988, p. 104)

Corporate Accountability
Unlike the defense establishment, private and public companies are formed for
profit. But, it should be clear that whether the role is public or private, the core ethic
should be primum non nocere, not knowingly to do harm (Drucker 2004, 131). There is
no doubt that profit is a motivation in building business models that increase earnings per
share and annual revenues. Corporate boards are concerned with their responsibility for
creating profitable enterprises and for living up to their accountability to the corporate
entity. In Power and Accountability there is a discussion on corporate accountability that
is worth a review given its implications on corporate and therefore technology
governance.
Through the centuries, corporate power has been the focus of a great deal of
scholarship and debate; but each of the professions has described the phenomenon in its
own language. Lawyers, economists, financial analysts, political scientists, ethicists, and
managers are like the builders of the Tower of Babel, all working toward the same goal
but unable to communicate because they speak different languages (Monks and Minow
1991). For this review all of the disciplines would have a voice. However the ethicists
and possibly the political scientists speak best for those concerned with social outcomes.

171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

As will be seen, the legal profession relates its definitions to matters of relationship and
contract obligations.
All of the disciplines recognize that there must be some accountability from those
who exercise power to those who are affected by it. The language of economics calls this
accountability problem one of "agency costs." Economics has stressed that
managements, acting as agents, will be imperfectly linked to their owners principles.
(Ibid) These corporate managements are accountable only to their principle owners and
stockholders for acting and reacting to economic conditions in the market place.
Economists are focused on the market and its impacts.
The law calls the same problem "conflicts of interest," because each party wants
its own interests to come first. And, the law has developed its highest standard, the
fiduciary standard, to govern the relationship of managers to owners. But the language of
law is the language of contracts, and the law has also traditionally viewed corporate
governance within the framework of the duty of management to a number of
constituencies with contractual claims on the corporate entity (Monks and Minow 1991).
Legal and fiduciary responsibilities and accountability are linked by contracts and
obligation. There is no mention of relationships outside of the contract or obligation
basis for accountability.
The law is fixed on contract responsibility, but may have a different view if an
injured party would sue the corporation as a citizen based on implied contracts or
relationships based on product use. This approach is more germane to the discussion on
the impacts of technology on society. Legal precedence has been established in the

172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

courts that shareholders can sue management for injury. Citizens can sue too as
evidenced by the tobacco cases that make the news from time to time.
In legal cases, management studies show that companies, confronted with
conflicting pressures and opposing interests, actually make decisions in the interest of the
companies' continuing existence, without reference to the concerns of the traditional
constituencies.
Political power has tried to hold corporations accountable through legislation,
usually inspired by public outcry through the media. The ENRON case is evidence of
this type of regulation being exercised or more accurately punishment and consequences
being exacted on a corporation for its failures in trust and accountability. Since ENRON,
corporations have turned to business performance management systems and regulations
under the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act to inspire trust in their financial affairs. SOX
controls mandate that every company will satisfy an audit assessing the effectiveness of
the internal controls relating to how they record and report the financial condition.
Ethicists have described how corporate structure and corporate culture furthers, or
fails to further, "moral" conduct and decision making among managers (Ibid). This
points to an individual level of accountability that may have more power than legislation
or business rules. In the case of technology that has become hurtful to society it is
possible to fix blame on some chief executive or single person who has made a bad, or
worse, malicious decision.
This kind of reexamination can create a new framework for understanding the
concept of the corporation and the power it exercises, and for developing new theories
about how to ensure that it is exercised responsibly (Ibid). For the purposes of this

173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

discussion on governance, it is believed that corporate governance is the beginning point,


with those in top management having individual responsibility and accountability for
their decisions. They assume fiduciary responsibility and therefore can assume moral
and ethical responsibility for their decisions. They have the power to cause change and
therefore must assume accountability for the changes they make in society - both good
and bad. Below the corporate level of chief executives, the senior technology and
business managers have a responsibility to advise top management on the ramifications
of their planned actions relating to technology implementation.
Corporate accountability discussed above has comparisons in the Navy. Rickover
accepted extraordinary responsibilities and accountability for the safe operation of his
nuclear propulsion plants. He took particular pride in demanding the highest possible
standards of nuclear safety to protect the public and ensure the continuance of the
program. Raborn took the same approach with respect to the nuclear missiles that he had
responsibility for deploying. These responsibilities were not profit based, but were
directly related to protecting sailors and the public. Raborn and Rickover had fiduciary
responsibilities too. They were responsible for spending taxpayers money and actually
recognized that their programs needed to be accountable to the public trust.

Government Control
Government regulation and controls offer some level of social accountability for
the introduction of technology that private sector governing bodies must adhere to in
making decisions. For instance, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency are responsible for regulation of the financial service
industry. The Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(1) conducting the nation's monetary policy;


(2) supervising and regulating banking institutions and protecting the credit rights
of consumers;
(3) maintaining the stability of the financial system; and
(4) providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, the public,
financial institutions, and foreign official institutions.
Congress has assigned to the Board responsibility for implementing certain laws
pertaining to a wide range of banking and financial activities. The Board implements
laws in part through its regulations, which are codified in title 12, chapter II, of the Code
of Federal Regulations (12 CFR 201 et seq.). (Federal Reserve Board 2002)
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, regulates, and
supervises national banks to ensure a safe, sound, and competitive banking system that
supports the citizens, communities, and economy of the United States (Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency 2002). The OCC is directly involved with the introduction
and impacts of technology on the financial service industry and the public. A recent
statement by the OCC illustrates their level of concern about technology in reference to
new regulatory and compliance guidelines:
The new guidelines are the agency's most comprehensive statement on
technology issues to date, and they will guide national bank examiners as they evaluate
such key bank activities as Internet banking and the integration of services on the Internet
(Ibid).
There are other government agencies that regulate other industries. These
agencies respond to federal and state laws that regulate the introduction of new

175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

technologies that could impact public safety, commerce and health. However, all of these
regulatory and compliance requirements are based on law that usually follows events that
have demonstrated the negative impacts of technology in previous cases.
Governing corporate bodies and leaders can be forced to consider social
responsibility and accountability through government regulation; however, those
regulations in many cases come after adverse impacts have been evidenced and brought
before Congress and state governments in a reactionary response. There is a need to have
a corporate conscience in place that causes self-regulation and consideration of
technology impacts. In fact, the industry is better positioned to know when a technology
may have adverse effects. The government has a police and compliance function
executed by too few agents, examiners and executives.
In summary, it appears that ethical obligations of duty and justice should guide
corporate leaders in their decision-making relative to sponsoring technology that will or
could impact society. A review of social impact seems appropriate as part of a balanced
approach to corporate and technology governance.
Governance is defined as control and authority. With corporate and technology
governance comes the accountability inherent in controlling and authorizing actions,
spending and direction. Accountability is said to ultimately remain with the top manager
or leader in an organization. This applies to private sector technology visionaries and to
those in the Navy and defense establishment. Governance includes control, authority,
accountability and ultimately leadership.

176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Governance and Leadership

This section of the discussion contains the results of research and observations on
governance beginning with a perspective from the Concours Group to a view from the IT
Governance Institute, and then a discussion on the practical application of governance
within a large complex corporation. While this research is based on the private sector
environment it should be recognized that many of the ideas originated in the defense
establishment and particularly in the nuclear submarine and Fleet Ballistic Missile
programs. Raborns program, in particular, received public recognition for implementing
program and project tracking methodology. The Joint Capabilities Integration System
(JCIDS), mentioned in the Navy focused section, is aligned with business and IT
governance tenets used in the private sector. JCIDS guidance incorporates business
strategy, objectives and elements of control, especially executive committee control of IT
development. JCIDS assessment and analysis are tied to private sector IT infrastructure
and control considerations including potential outcomes. JCIDS reconciliation and
recommendations align with business process, IT process and competency
considerations. And, decisions and action correlate to go - no go and the way ahead
decisions made in the private sector. These decisions are driven by risk and benefits,
possible social impacts, and business financial governance in the private sector. Keep in
mind these correlations and the idea that defense business processes are becoming more
aligned with business concepts.

177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Components of IT Governance

The Concours Group study on Managing Global IT reports that IT governance


refers to the framework and methods used to manage relationships among the various IT
groups within a corporation, and to manage the overall relationship between the IT
organization and the rest of the business (The Concours Group Research Project MGI
2001, 23). The list below presents the Concours Group view of governance that includes
a comprehensive definition that moves beyond simple reporting lines and investment
approvals. In previous sections of this discussion it has been expressed that effective IT
or technology governance extends beyond the single project view of investment payback
and single perspective results.
Components of IT Governance

Balancing decision rights


IT management councils and committees
Business sponsorship requirements
Chargeback systems
Service level agreements
Evaluating and approving investments
Business case content
Steps and approval points
Aligning IT to business strategy
Strategy development and review process
Aligning to technical architecture and standards
Encouraging innovation
Encouraging learning and synergy
Recognition for cooperation and best practice sharing
Ensuring business value
Responsibilities, accountabilities, measurement of results
(Ibid, 23)

178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

These components of IT and more broadly technology governance have been


addressed in this section of the study or are self-explanatory. Beyond the components of
governance is the organization and assignment of roles in governing technology.
Most successfully governed organizations form committees of top leadership that
includes business sponsors and technology managers. There are usually levels of
spending authority assigned within the organization hierarchy linked to project or
program life cycle milestones. Standard project management methodology is usually
incorporated with checkpoints and milestones that provide governance control.
In addition to the components of governance and organizational alignment, the
Concours Group offers a graphic framework for understanding the relationship between
governance and strategy processes. There are four areas that must be linked in the
strategy - governance process. These areas are Business Strategy, IT Strategy,
Organizational Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy. The following figure illustrates the
Concours approach to linking key areas of technology governance and strategy.
Figure 9 - Governance and Strategy Relationship
B usiness S cope
D istinctive C om petencies
B u sin e ss G overnance

T echnology S cope
D istinctive C om petencies
IT G overnance

B u sin e ss
s tra te g y

IT Strategy
91

Strategy
Alignm ent

O rganizational

IT Infr.i'.tiucturo

A dm inistrative Infrastructure
B usiness P ro c e s se s
C om petencies

IT Infrastructure
IT P ro c e s s e s
>C om petencies

Source: Concours Group MGI 2001


179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Concours Group approach to governance represents a global view that is


widely supported within the industry. Their results are based on a report that represents
state of the art collaboration and management.

Corporate and IT Governance

The IT Governance Institute offers a holistic approach to organizational


governance with its top-down philosophy. Their discussion begins with the reminder
that:
Effective enterprise governance focuses individual and group expertise
and experience in specific areas in which they can be most
effective...monitors and measures performance...provides assurance to
critical issues. Information technology, long considered solely an enabler
of an enterprises strategy, is now regarded as an integral part of that
strategy. CEOs, CFOs and CIOs alike agree that strategic alignment
between IT and enterprise objectives is a critical success factor.
Simply put, information technology is so critical to the success of the
enterprise, it is an issue that cannot be relegated solely to management or
IT specialists, but must instead receive the focused attention of both. (IT
Governance Institute Overview 2002, 1)
The IT Governance Institute approach favors a strong link between enterprise
governance and IT governance. The following figure illustrates IT Governance Institute
guidance on Enterprise Governance and IT Governance.
Figure 10 - Enterprise Governance Model
Enterprise Governance

Enterprise
Activities

Source: IT Governance Institute Overview 2002, 2

180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 11 - IT Governance Model

XT Governance
Objectives
I l f I* illgiml wlm m

IT Activities

PteV'OiSsniie
Aetjiilfe/lmplemsni
DelJver/Suppoit

Vkr'tAiirce* ere used

mme

^i<ipisnlbiy
fitk *

Risks

ere

Security

imawiftfctl s p p to p d i

R eliability
C om pliance

Steattee Benefits
Increae

Occrcsv: costs

automation *EfTidsft<y
^divifliR

Source: IT Governance Institute Overview 2002, 1


In above models, the enterprise governance control sets objectives and
organizational direction that dictates certain enterprise activities, levels of resource
allocation and priorities. In turn, the IT governance control directs planning and
organization, acquisition and implementation, delivery and support, and monitoring of
activities (Ibid, 1). IT value propositions are based on meeting the direction of the IT
governance control body. IT management reporting would use metrics and benchmarks
that measure attainment of various best practice levels.
The IT Governance Institute offers its definition of IT governance as an inclusive
term that includes:

Information systems, technology and communications

Business, legal and other issues

All concerned stakeholders, directors, senior managers, process


owners, IT suppliers, users, auditors, etc.

181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

With the following impacts:

Addressing business issues, such as electronic commerce and


enterprise resource planning.

Assuring security, reliability and integrity of strategic


information.

Protecting the enterprise investment in information


technologies, systems, applications and infrastructure and

Ensuring the appropriate management of information assets


that are critical to the success of the enterprise.

Governing Business and Technology


In the preceding dissertation discussion reference is made to enterprise or
corporate governance and IT governance. It is reasonable to move from that discussion
to one that combines the values inherent in managing business strategy and technology to
one in which accountable leadership becomes an integral part of the decision making
process. The following graphic represents a model, developed by the author, to illustrate
integrating business strategy, technology governance and social accountability within a
New Economy framework. This framework is taken from accepted management
practices.

182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 12 - Integrated e-Business Leadership Model

B usiness Strategy

Custom er Focus
Emplovpp Satisfaction
Stuckholilei Value

Social Accountability

technology Governance

The Integrated e-Business Leadership Model illustrates how traditional business


imperatives such as Customer Focus, Employee Satisfaction, and Stockholder Value are
reached through decisions relating to Business Strategy, Technology Governance, and
Social Accountability. The traditional business imperatives are meant to include:

Customer Focus - the source of business success is a satisfied customer.

Employee Satisfaction - employees run the business and make the


products.

Stockholder Value - creating an environment that attracts and retains


investors.

Business and corporate activities must yield continuous improvement in these


three imperatives of business success measurement. Business models, projects and
technology solutions must work to improve these areas of any business or corporation.
Dave Ulrich, Jack Zenger and Norm Smallwood point to a results-based approach in their

183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

book Results-based leadership - How Leaders Build Business and Improve the Bottom
Line (1999). In essence they contend that everything undertaken by a company must
result in an outcome that has a positive impact on internal measures of success and
external measures of success to be considered a leadership success. Business leaders can
exercise extraordinary vision and commitment and still fail if they do not achieve
worthwhile business results.
In order to expand the discussion beyond theory, a hypothetical technology
solution will be used to give substance to ideas on technology leadership and governance.
The technology solution that will be used is the introduction of electronic payment device
technology. This technology will become part of personal digital assistants - Palm Pilots
and Blackberry Remote Information Managers (RIM) for instance, but will be offered by
a growing number of manufactures as the technology is broadly adopted by consumers.

Business Strategy
Business Strategy represents the sum total of strategies designed to capture
market share, improve value chains and grow the business. Technology solutions are
devised to either create new delivery channels for existing value chains or enhance
existing value chains and delivery channels. Everything ventured that uses business
resources should be aligned with the business strategy and specifically with business
outcomes that will add value to the traditional business imperatives. Internal projects and
activities should only be funded when clear returns on investment and measurable results,
consistent with corporate strategy, can be demonstrated. This is corporate governance
and will extend to technology governance.

184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

In the hypothetical case, Lauers second conclusion applies in validating the need
to support an electronic payment device technology strategy. Lauers second conclusion
states that technology is a persistent force. Someone will invent a better way and m e a
technology, particularly information technology, to change business (Lauer 1973, 112).
The electronic payment device technology represents just that type of eventuality.
Society is constantly changing through new technology and by its use. A corporate
strategy that ignores the evolution of technology does so at its own risk. Business
Strategy forms the basis for growing and retaining the business. Whether the business is
involved with payments or with sales, the introduction of electronic payment device
technology will introduce new processes and possible value chain activities that are new
to the business.
Technology leadership in this case must be exercised with the Rosabeth Moss
Kanter visionary approach. Kanter divides companies into Laggards and Pacesetters in
the evolution of business in the New Economy (Kanter 2001, 73). In keeping with the
name, Laggards are slower to move and more limited in their use of the Internet and
cybernation in a broader sense. Laggards fall behind the competition and are actually
dissatisfied with their progress. Pacesetters are faster than their competitors to move core
business processes to the Internet and to respond to new technology (Ibid, 13). Business
strategies that capture the evolution of technology or at least consider it as a fast follower
prospect are apt to prosper in the New Economy. Technology leadership demands a
visionary focus and a capacity to manage the risk associated with inspired ventures.
The advance of electronic payment device technology would seem to demand a
business strategy to either become an early adopter or at least a poised fast follower in

185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

this new e-payment solution. Customers will demand this capability because it will allow
them to make purchases using e-payments from their electronic devices and reduce the
need to carry cash or use a debit card. To play the role of a laggard would be a determent
to maintaining customer focus and detract from stockholder value. Business Strategy
represents the leadership component that captures the vision - vision is a compelling
basis of leadership.

Implementing Technology Governance


Technology Governance inserts reality into the vision of advancing with
technological evolution. The value of technology governance is in the managed
allocation of limited technology resources to projects that support business strategy and
the managed evolution of existing technology infrastructure to meet business or corporate
needs. Technology Governance and more specifically Information Technology (IT)
governance, places adult-supervision over ambitious energy generated in response to all
sorts of ideas in laying in the technologists research and development sandbox. These
R&D sandboxes are full of new technology toys and gadgets that have been created. But,
only those useful technology solutions that support business strategy should be gathered
from the sandboxes and funded as new corporate or business initiatives. Often, there are
technology tools and solutions already in production or in shared platform use that will
support emerging business needs. Lauers third and final conclusion applies here and it
states that technology will be an increasingly important factor in change and will require
numerous agonizing decisions (Lauer 1973, 112).
These agonizing decisions surround advancing and retarding technology
introduction. Some technology will support business needs and others will represent

186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

evolutionary change that will come for a company at a time consistent with its business
strategy. The introduction of technology because it is cool or exciting is inappropriate
and costly when compared to the need to manage human capital and infrastructure
resources. The tenets of technology governance apply with respect to the hierarchy of IT
project selection. That hierarchy ranks projects based on the expected results and value
of the projects.
Projects should be selected and advanced as business necessity initiatives,
financial initiatives, vision-strategy-objectives (V/S/O) initiatives, or as discretionary and
research (D/R) initiatives. Gartners bottom line on this hierarchy for defining IT
projects is that there should be different approaches for presenting initiatives in an
orderly fashion. These approaches must identify the basis for the proposal, its
importance and the expected results to justify technology spending.
The agony comes in making decisions driven by limited resources and strategic
planning that prevents fashionable initiatives from going forward. Later on the agony
and difficulty of technology decision making will involve decisions to introduce only
technology that supports business strategy and is consistent with technology architecture
planning.
In the case of the electronic payment device technology, the vision-strategyobjectives (V/S/O) initiative or the discretionary and research (D/R) initiative would be
used to advance a pilot technology. There could be the possibility of a corporate grant
for this initiative given its strategic business case for advancing electronic payment
device technology. METAs Richard Buchanans advice should be repeated here to
emphasize the point of the hierarchy and perspectives on managing new technology.

187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

There should be an enterprise project or program office (a Raborn invention) in major


corporations responsible for technology governance. Governance of technology
resources and priorities would be managed within the enterprise program office and
architecture would be managed in response to program direction. All of these actions
would be based on a common vision of achieving business strategy within an evolving
infrastructure (Buchanan 2000, 21). These process mandates can be achieved through the
following principles:

Maximize incremental revenue opportunities through leverage of digital


technology - buy and implement technology that creates business value.

Treat all information as corporate information - break down the line of business
mentality for managing information - share information across the enterprise
through shared or common information management systems, and

Buy for competitive parity, build or innovate for competitive advantage. Buy the
proven technology required to stay competitive and become a market pioneer or
master to capture the advantages of technology innovation. (Ibid, 26)
Finally, the reality of Technology Governance lays in the management of limited

resources, usually six to seven percent of revenues, and the managed evolution of shared
and common technologies and infrastructure.

Social Accountability
Social accountability was mentioned in the introduction and given general
attention. This section of the dissertation addresses findings on accountability practices.
Given the Business Strategy and Technology Governance perspectives discussed
above, Social Accountability adds a new and critical dimension to technology leadership

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

and governance. This discussion on Social Accountability is meant to be a thoughtprovoking for technology executives and visionaries. As a matter of good direction, there
should be collaboration between business sponsors and technologists to make better
decisions on technology solutions. There should be collaboration on understanding if the
new technology will have adverse affects on customers and society. Professionals in
behavior science and human systems integration should assess technologies to recognize
possible adverse consequences and implications of deploying certain capabilities.
Defining technology from sociological and epistemological perspectives is
appropriate for understanding how technologies can transformation business practices
and social activity. Social definitions relate to the effects technology has on humans
while epistemology definitions relate to understanding the underlying knowledge of
technology - science - in transforming how humans live.
Accountability at the corporate level begins and ends with the chief executive.
When the Office of the Controller of Currency (OCC) announces a regulatory review
requirement in the banking industry bank presidents and CEOs respond. When the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues a mandatory safety check, airline
executives engage and respond. But, all of these responses are reactionary. Governing
corporate bodies and leaders can be forced to consider social responsibility and
accountability through government regulation; however, those regulations in most cases
are enacted after adverse effects have occurred and brought before Congress or state
governments in a fervor of reaction.
There is a need to have a corporate sense of right and wrong that engenders self
regulation and consideration of technology impacts before those technologies are

189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

introduced to society. In fact, the industry is better positioned to know when a


technology may have adverse effects. The government is usually understaffed and in a
reactionary mode compared to corporations and industry collaborating organizations that
assume leadership roles in making decisions on new technology.
Lauers first conclusion comes to mind as the basis for establishing corporate
social accountability for technology. Again that conclusion states that technology can be
difficult to understand in that it has inexorable powers and the capacity to produce good
and undesirable effects. Technology is what is made o f it and what it is allowed to
become (Lauer 1973, 112). Social accountability should be considered an individual and
ultimate accountability for a chief executive or subordinate senior executive. The tenets
of leadership taught in the military and naval services place ultimate accountability with
commanding officers of units and vessels. This tenet of leadership is clearly transferable
to the corporate or business world and specifically to those CEOs and company
presidents who enjoy the success of their businesses and should expect to shoulder the
burden of failures. That in fact happens when CEOs are dismissed for poor business
performance. So it should follow that social accountability should reside at the top of an
organization.
Ultimate accountability should rest at the top, but through corporate and
technology governance, there should be appropriate levels of delegated responsibility and
associated acceptance of accountability that flows down to senior. These subordinate
executives often become champions of visions. With the champion and visionary role
comes an added responsibility and accountability to look beyond the return on investment
and cost benefit analysis to understand the inexorable powers and the capacity o f

190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

technology to produce good and undesirable effects. While marketing models and
analysis will predict adoption rates and validate focus group results, it is important for
initiative champions to recognize the impact of technology on the late adopters and non
adopters of technology.
In the hypothetical electronic payment device technology case, the focus groups
from the pilot customer segment would offer encouraging prospects of high adoption
rates. There would be great excitement for those early technology adopters who would
gladly move from using an ATM or debt card to simply beaming a laser light to pay for
goods and services at the point of sale. But, what about the folks who do not have an
ATM card let alone carry around a Palm Pilot or Blackberry. They may not even own a
computer to manage their Palms or RIMS. Would there be harm to those customers who
could not use the new technology? What about potential harm to the willing users if the
security of transactions and payments were compromised during use.
Clearly proactive and in-depth social impact studies are warranted to support the
introduction of new business technology. While a suggested formal technology impact
statement seems too bureaucratic, it does seem reasonable that the OCC, in the
hypothetical case, could require hearings or at least documentation of impact reviews and
mitigation of risk. As a matter of corporate risk management, a technology impact and
risk assessment policy should be instituted to fully assess corporate risk and establish
social accountability.
In summary, it appears that ethical obligations of duty and justice should guide
corporate leaders in their decision-making relative to sponsoring technology that will or

191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

could impact society. A review of social impact seems appropriate as part of a balanced
approach to corporate and technology governance.
The preceding discussion is focused on the private sector, but it has applicability
in the Navy too. Visions of new systems and naval capabilities sometimes cloud
perspectives on social impact, operability and possible hazards to operators. There has
emerged a practice called Human Systems Integration (HIS) that is now part of all Navy
development programs. HIS includes human engineering, safety, deployment, and
operability concerns. Again, there are clear parallels between the progression of Navy
and Joint acquisition processes from Rickovers era to the current Information Age
environment.
Technology, and especially new technology, has a capacity for disrupting the
status quo. New ways of doing business create a change crisis and certainly discomfort
with learning new or alternate ways of doing business. This next section of the
dissertation engages the topic of Disruptive Technology.

Disruptive Technologies, Electronic Alternatives and Visionary Success


In the Navy case, the idea of disruptive technologies was briefly discussed. This
private sector discussion on e-payments and ultimately the passing of Check 21 is more
extensive. This part of the dissertation represents research and observations on the
emergence of a technology that has changed payment processes for a significant portion
of the population. This case study is important because it demonstrates that visionary
leadership is not limited to individuals, but is applicable to industry groups that have a
common vision or collective purpose. The thesis arguments are the same. There must be

192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a clear vision, the group must possess professional experience in the industry, and the
group must have the talent and gather the support to be successful.
The introduction of the automatic teller machine and point of sale transactions,
using debit and credit cards, has impacted personal and business payment behaviors.
These changes affect banking operations and how ordinary consumers make purchases,
use cash, checks and carry out daily activities. Electronic processes made possible
through the Internet, image technology, and high-speed data communication have
transformed the traditionally paper intensive payments process.
The Financial Service Industry initially responded to the introduction of image
technologies and the transition from paper to electronic transactions with skepticism and
a very conservative view. It seemed that bank operations executives, who were process
engineers, took a critical view of eliminating major parts of their operations in favor of
handling digital files and images. Before the transition to e-payments technology, paper
checks were used for 72 percent of all non-cash transactions in the United States.
(ECCHO Background on ECCHO 2001, 1) That amounted to large numbers of checks
that had to be handled individually, gathered and shipped, processed in large quantities
and then transported between bank processing facilities. According to state law, some
checks then had to be mailed to the person who wrote the check for their records. An
electronic process that eliminated that process would mean savings for the banks and
more efficient processing of people financial accounts. This evolution in payments took
about five years to complete with the Federal Check 21 law taking effect on January 1
2005. Observations and research on this industry technology evolution began in the
Spring of 2000. What follows now is a discussion on how to accept innovation and

193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

change that begins with the dilemma faced by experienced managers and those who
must learn to change.

The Basis for Continuous Change - Technology and Innovation


Technology and innovation in the marketplace form the basis for continuous
change and new ways of doing business. But, that change is often difficulty to accept in
more conservative businesses like banking. The Financial Services Industry had a
dilemma with respect to adopting image technology, payment electronic alternatives and
the possibility of electronic check presentment. The industry as a whole and certain
market leaders were faced with the dilemma of innovation. These major financial
corporations were faced with what Clayton Christensen calls the Innovators Dilemma.
Christensens The Innovators Dilemma (1997) offers an explanation of why
major companies fail to adequately respond to disruptive technologies. Disruptive
technologies are new technologies or reconfigured processes that disrupt existing
business value chains and processes. Peter S. Cohan in The Dilemma o f the Innovators
Dilemma (2000) proposes a counterpoint to Christensens in writing that major
companies can adapt and transform in response to emerging and disrupting technologies.
The agility to respond to new emerging and disrupting technologies is an indicator
of the capacity of a business to adapt to change and remain competitive. Christensen
describes new technologies as being either sustaining technologies that improve existing
business performance or disruptive technologies that emerge as alternatives to existing
methods and products. For instance the transistor emerged as a disruptive technology to
the vacuum tube electronics industry (Christensen 2000, xv). The Internet offered the

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

means to disrupt or disintermediate existing business processes in which humans sold


goods and services from door-to-door and from stores.
The personal computer with the addition of CD-ROM encyclopedias eliminated
the need for Encyclopedia Britannica salesman (Evans and Wurster 2000, 2 -3). And,
on-line banking or e-banking, which enables banking transactions via the Internet,
eliminated or disintermediated the business value of human tellers, call center associates
and brick and mortar banks. This is disintermediation of payment and check
processing is at the very core of concerns facing the Financial Service Industry today.
This potential change had and continues to have far reaching implications relative to
image technology and financial payments (Ibid, 46 - 47).
Christensen believes that the best practice is to allow sustaining technologies to
improve existing business models. And, he believes that management practices,
embraced by experienced business managers, form a persistent barrier to adopting and
exploiting disruptive technologies (Christensen 2000, 225 - 228). Managers in existing
businesses are wed to their value chains of design, production, marketing, delivery and
service. Their culture is linked to their value chains, the competencies of their workers
and the existing technology employed in their businesses (Ibid, 226 - 227). It is the need
to manage resources for continued success in the existing business that prevents
allocation of resources to exploit disruptive technologies in the early stages of
introduction. This focus on maintaining existing operations clouds the vision of
experienced managers to see new ways of doing business.
Peter S. Cohan (2000) contends that well run - well managed - companies can
adopt technologies that revolutionize their business processes. Cohan believes it is a

195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

matter of dedicating adequate resources and investments in building new segments of an


existing business while maintaining existing channels that supports evolution.
Christensen proposed that major companies actually need competing subsidiaries
to develop disruptive technologies in order to not disrupt the main business, but Cohan
disagrees. Cohan points to Charles Schwab Investments. Schwab did not succumb to ETrade in the on-line investment business battle and Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft that
made comebacks in the inkjet printer and Internet browser markets. In these counterpoint
cases the lesson is learned that large companies with significant market-share in existing
delivery channels or with current state products can adopt innovations driven by
technology that evolve their business.
And, so it was with the financial services industry in 2000. There emerged the
idea that paper checks could be replaced with electronic image files generated at the point
of sale and that rather than transact payments with paper, companies and consumers
could transact payments electronically and in some cases avoid the handling of a paper
check all together.
Rosabeth Moss Kanters Innovation (1997) and Evolve! - Succeeding in the
Digital Age o f Tomorrow (2001) - offer her perspectives and in-depth discussion of
breakthrough innovation and the current e-evolution of business in the New Economy.
Kanter wrote, The universal characteristic of innovative companies is an open culture.
[This open culture] reaches out to relationships in all directions across [all] functions and
departments internally, and with every potentially beneficial external connection (Kanter,
Kao and Wiersema 1997, 4).

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Innovation requires an incredible amount of sheer brain power and intellectual


smarts. Innovation requires the ability to hold more than one idea in your head at the
same time, to understand contradictions, to listen to many voices. The leaders who get
into trouble are the ones who get lucky and then dont realize it was luck. They think they
know more than anyone else.
Ken Olsen at Digital is a prime example. He didnt listen when his people told
him personal computers were the next stage in computing. His failure to listen was a
mistake of historic proportions. Leaders have to let themselves be challenged [by
innovative ideas]. (Ibid, 5)
Kanter answers Christensens dilemma. She contents, it is leadership and an open
organization that promotes innovation. Cohan pointed to Charles Schwab and Bill Gates.
Both are leaders had an eye toward innovation and the competitive advantage of
technological business evolution. Technology can offer solutions, but actual innovation
comes from those who grasp the idea and are able to evolve while maintaining the
existing business for as long as it is viable. Kanter continues, Many companies have
what they consider an innovation system. The problem is that most of them dont work
very well. Often the systems consist primarily of screening ideas and denying resources
to the majority of them. Missing are encouragement, nurturing and involvement. (Ibid,
1 4 -1 5 )
Kanter created the innovation pyramid model that promotes the encouragement,
nurturing and involvement mentioned above. Her pyramid has three levels. The top level
represents a small number of big projects that are sure to make significant returns on
investment and are given serious focus. The middle of the pyramid holds a treasure of

197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

promising prototypes that are developed as venture capital projects. The return on
investment at this level is assumed to be less, because some of the prototypes will fail.
And, at the bottom of the pyramid is a host of incremental innovations that are taking
place throughout the enterprise. These innovation projects may be personal experiments,
the testing of outside ideas, or the brainchild of an employee. This pyramid model,
illustrated below, promotes positive influencing of innovation and experimentation,
thinking and action and encouragement from the top down and the bottom up. The big
expensive ideas get funding and attention, there is room for venture activity and everyone
is encouraged to try new ideas. (Ibid, 14 - 15)

Figure 13 - Kanter's Innovation Pyramid

V e n tu re
P r o to ty p e

Focused
encouragem ent
nurturing and
involvement

M a n y B rig h t I d e a s

Source: Kanter, Kao and Wiersema 1997, 14 - 15

Rosabeth Moss Kanters recent book e-Volve! extends her guidance on innovation
with an examination of the readiness of companies to embrace e-culture, the capability of
leaders to lead, and the willingness of people to commit themselves to it (2001, 8). The
198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

New Economy is built on the competitive advantages enabled through what she calls
electronicfication alternatives, the Internet and communications at high-speed. All of
these core technology advantages are based on innovations in the use of digital
technology, electronic miniaturization, automation, imaging, neural networks, and a
culture that has a rapid pace of development and an accelerated time to market approach.
The New Economy needs large complex companies to recognize the ability of small
dot.com companies to capture market-share particularly in the high income, technology
fast-adopter population.
Kanter divides the e-culture business world into dotcoms, dot.com enablers, and
wannadots. The dot.com companies are Internet delivery channel companies that live
and work in cyberspace. Some have died while others have become emblematic of the
new workplace style. Companies like eBay, Amazon.com and Yahoo are emblematic
of the workplace in the New Economy. Dot.com enablers are companies that provide
technology and services to the Internet. Sun Microsystems is a dot.com enabler as well
as Razorfish, iXL and Digitas that are consulting firms that develop web strategies. And,
wannadots are everyone else including most large complex companies that are primarily
brick and mortar (BAM) corporations or bricks and clicks organizations like most of
the large complex banking organizations that have captured an Internet presence. (Ibid, 2
- 3) The large complex banking organizations, wannadots, are the focus of this
discussion and specifically their dilemma with respect to electronicfication of traditional
transactions and payments.
Large complex organizations have a difficult time morphing or transforming
while attempting to retain a commitment to their traditional value chains and paper-

199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

based BAM businesses. This is at the center of the transition from a paper check world
to a check image-centric environment.
To morph is to undergo transformation. In cyberspace, on-screen morphing is
instantaneous. Off-line, behind the screen, change is not so simple. Skillful leaders in
receptive innovation rich environments can speed it up, but they cannot altogether avoid
the hard work of convincing others to join them in mastering change (Ibid, 285).
Strategies for changing large complex organizations must come from one of the primary
causes for change including new leadership, significant change events or external threats.
It is the external threat that usually gives the impetus for large complex banking
organizations to address electronicfication of transactions, payments and image
technology. They must grasp the need for change. Kanter ends e-Volve! with the
following admonishment, So which will it be: the lonely crowd or the connected
community? It is our choice (Ibid, 301). The large complex banking organizations have
chosen to become part of the connected community. The problem now is how to make
that change?

Market Master or Market Loser


The Gartner Group, a leading technology research and advice firm, makes the
suggestion that financial institutions must adopt a strategy for change in the New
Economy. Gartner advises financial service companies to become market masters in the
industry in order to survive (GartnerG2 2001, 1). Strategic planning is the key to

Gartner's advice in that companies need to continually plan strategies based on internal
and external capabilities, challenges and opportunities, new innovations, and the need to
adapt or morph. This need for continuous strategic planning involves sensing and

200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

scanning the environment, learning, understanding innovations and then having the
ability to execute change. The strategy development process must include analysis of the
economy, markets and the organization along with business drivers. The result must be
strategies that enable organizations to evolve business processes and infrastructure that
support continuous change (Ibid, 5 - 7).
It is worthwhile here to make a comparison to the Navy and Joint acquisition
case. Gartners advice is pertinent to the Navy as well as the private sector. In the New
Economy, driven by technology innovations, the Navy must continue its market scan too.
There are commercial computer applications that can enhance military capabilities.
These applications and computer systems are evolving on a continuing basis and can
assist acquisition professionals and visionary leaders close capability gaps and reach their
strategic objectives. Visionary leaders in the Navy and the Joint world have come to
appreciate the advantages of rapid insertion of evolving technology.
In continuing with the private sector discussion, successful financial organizations
must become market masters (Ibid, 7). Market masters are expert at scanning, learning,
innovating and morphing to align with market needs. Market masters adopt best
practices and occasionally innovate ahead of their peers. Market losers are poor at
innovation and adapting to change. The following illustration helps to make the concept
of market master behavior clear.

201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 14 - Market Master Graphic

High
Market
Masters

Market
Leaders

Innovation

Market
Followers

Market
Losers
Low
Low

Adaptation

High

Source: GartnerG2 2001, 7

The market master strategy and behavior is preferred. However, it may be


acceptable to assume a market leader or follower position. Market leaders rely primarily
on innovation. The duration of their market capture is short or may be prolonged by
subsequent sustaining innovations that stay ahead of their competitors. Market followers
watch and apply the innovation of others. This position is acceptable for very large and
wealthy organizations that have possession of huge market-share, multi-channel
dominance and the profits to make substantial investments in catching up with
innovations. They may simply acquire new subsidiaries or small companies that have
developed new delivery channels or business model capabilities. Of course as stated
earlier, the market losers fail to innovate or adapt. (Ibid, 8)

202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Another strategy that will be explored later is the concept of gathering industry
leaders together to shape the future and control the introduction of disruptive
technologies as a group of market masters or leaders. Clearly this is the case with
introducing electronic payments that affect a large segment of the marketplace in the face
of Federal regulatory restrictions. In the industry collaborative approach, the industry as
a consensus body recognizes the competitive advantage and the inevitability of
innovation. Individual decisions to cooperate, as a collective market master or leader,
will support morphing the industry. This approach also reduces or eliminates threats
from dotcoms and start-ups that would aggregate or disintermediate certain parts of the
industry value chain.
This need to collaborate is not isolated to the private sector. Joint acquisition
policies drive the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force to collaborate on
technologies that offer common capabilities. For instance, aircraft should be designed
and built to use the same radios so that pilots can communicate during Joint operations.

Driving Change in the Face of Business Inertia


Information technology is the driven force behind transformation in business
processes, communications between people and the ability to access information and
services from anyplace at anytime. Use of information technology as a basis for
transformation represents a continuing historic technological event. The financial
services industry has embraced this transformation in its business processes. This is

particularly the case with respect to technologies that provide electronicfication


alternatives to paper-based transactions and records.

203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The financial service industry is a complex world of diverse business lines that
provide money, money management, and a host of commercial and retail services to
everyday people and mega-corporations. The industry, as mentioned already, is regulated
by various government agencies and is obligated to shareholders for trustworthy
management and continued profitability. The financial service industry has traditionally
been conservative and as a whole reluctant to act as market masters or leaders. The
following section of this chapter will provide insights into financial service industry
governance, its capacity for innovation, and industry transformation of the payments
system.

Financial Services Industry Strategy and Business Evolution

As mentioned in the introduction, the author gained first hand knowledge and was
able to study the financial services industry as a bank technology strategic planner. First
hand observations of the culture and business are linked with research in completing this
part of the dissertation. During the close observation period, 1999-2001, the financial
service industry was faced with adopting electronic and Internet processes. This
correlates closely to major changes in the Navy and the military as the restrictions of the
Cold War had been lifted to make dual, military and commercial, use of previously
guarded science and technologies possible.
Financial service companies had transformed from a large number of independent
businesses to large complex organizations that will continue to consolidate and merge.
The Federal Reserve Board has governmental regulatory authority over banking
operations and is responsible for administering banking laws. The Federal Reserve

204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Board was in the process of responding to possible changes in the financial service
industry with risk-focused supervision of large complex banking organizations (LCBOs)
(Deferrari and Palmer 2001, 47). One of the changes being considered by the Federal
Reserve was check truncation methodology that would allow higher volumes of checks to
be managed through electronic check payment and a progression from paper to electronic
checks representing a major electronicfication alternative. Check truncation would allow
a receiving bank to electronically image incoming checks, save the image and eliminate
sending paper checks back to the check writers bank. Instead of transferring paper
checks back and forth, receiving banks would truncate the process by imaging checks and
providing electronic records for the receiving bank to document check payments. (Ibid,
52) The extension of the truncation process could conceivably extend to returning
checks to check writers at the point of purchase when electronicfication alternatives are
added to the credit card reader / check printer devices in use in many stores.
F-volution, morphing of the financial service industry to the e-culture was being
closely watched and new laws like the Check Truncation Act were being proposed to
control the evolution of paper to electronic check payment. Individual banks and
financial service industry companies had responded to electronicfication of check and
payment transactions in differing ways. The Operations Council, a corporate research
organization completed a study titled Check Imaging and Check Safekeeping in February
2001 .
According to the Operations Council efficiency gains in handling paper checks
would have limited productivity and the capacity for large complex banking
organizations to handle the increase in paper checks being written in the United States

205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

was in question. In fact, the number of checks written in the United States had increased
rather than decreased with the introduction of Internet banking and electronic bill
payment. The volume of paper checks written in the United States had grown by 2
percent a year (Operations Council February 2001, 4). The motivation for individual
financial service institutions to adopt check imaging and support a federal check
truncation law was not only an innovation imperative, but also a business capacity
requirement for large complex banking organizations. The large organizations could not
afford to process growing numbers of checks using existing machine technology (Ibid, 5).
Comerica and Chase Manhattan implemented imaging across a wide range of
applications. Chase Manhattan assumed a market master position in collaboration with
Bank of America to develop a company that created digital check images that can be
shared on-line among banks and with customers. Bank of America had always been a
leader in banking innovation and was large enough to influence the rest of the industry.
This check imaging process had the capacity to reduce check processing cost by 30
percent and would serve as the catalyst for a federal check truncation law being widely
accepted by the banking industry (Ibid, 5). A number of large banks moved forward with
image archives.
Other large complex banking organizations that instituted check imaging had
done so as market leaders using either proprietary systems or systems provided by
dot.com enablers (Ibid, 12). These market leaders were prepared to engage in check
truncation along with Chase Manhattan and Bank of America. However, in order for
check truncation, imaging and Internet delivery of images to take on its full effect, most

206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

if not all, large complex banking organizations had to enter the new e-culture of
electronic check presentment and payment.

Financial Service Organizations Must Cooperate


Electronic check presentment (ECP) and truncation technology supported by new
regulations forced an evolution in the financial service industry. This new technology is
moving the industry reluctantly from paper to electronic transactions and payments.
Small banks can adopt the new technology at one-fifth the cost required for a larger
financial institution (Ibid, 4). Some mega-banks have become market masters or leaders
in ECP innovation as mentioned above. These new market masters and leaders hope to
improve efficiencies in handling ever increasing volumes of checks and in some cases
have simply chosen to offer better service in a variety of commercial banking products
(Ibid, 5). However, being conservative and frugal in their business approach many wellestablished large complex banking organizations have chosen to follow the marketplace
and in fact have gathered their resources to make the innovation journey together. They
realize that innovation is inevitable and have come together to leverage their business
proposition and size against the e-culture. According to the Electronic Check Clearing
House Organization (ECCHO), a non-profit, mutual benefit, chartered national clearing
house for a cooperative venture to implement electronic check presentment (ECP):
The banking industrys dominant position in the payments system is under attack
by non-banks that are prepared to leverage technology, communications know-how and
capital investments to gain market share. ECCHO's vision counters this threat by using
the banks' position of strength the existing paper check relationship, which provides the
basis for 72 percent of all non-cash transactions.

207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ECCHO and its member banks developed a plan to use the existing paper-based
check payment system as a base from which the industry can energize the
electronicfication of the check payment system, and capture a multi-billion dollar
financial benefit. ECCHO focused on the value that can be achieved from the base of
existing check transactions while transitioning to electronic payments. (ECCHO
Background on ECCHO 2001, 1)
In addition to ECCHO, another organization emerged. The Banking Industry
Technology Secretariat (BITS) was formed by the Bankers Roundtable to address
implications of non-bank competition in the payments arena. BITS is charged with
redirecting the industrys efforts away from paper-based activities to emerging electronic
payment initiatives. The Federal Reserve is cooperating with BITS and ECCHO in a
leadership role to ensure a sound and fair payment system is maintained for the citizens
of the United States. (Ibid, 1)
Cooperation and the collaboration of the United States agency charged with
regulating the financial services industry have come together to control technologydriven innovation in check presentment and payment. This effectively reduces the
possible total competitive advantage for market masters within the industry and limits the
ability of non-banks to effectively disintermediate traditional banking value chains.
By cooperating, large complex banking organizations can control the pace of
innovation and create value in the industry. The ECCHO vision is to take four parallel
initiatives that will improve industry earnings by $ 2 - 3 billion per year. These
initiatives would enable:

Electronicfying the check collection process - valued at $850 million annually

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Electronicfying notices of check returns - valued at $450 million annually

Truncating paper checks at the bank of first deposit - valued at $600 million
annually, and

Creating new cash management product opportunities - valued at $700 million


annually (Ibid, 3)

Interestingly, the largest banks would benefit most from this creation of value in
deploying electronicfication alternatives to traditional business processes. A bank with
$10 billion in deposits can realize a $7 million benefit while a bank with $100 billion in
deposits would realize a $260 million benefit on an annual basis (Ibid, 4).
Not only can the large banks pool their research and development efforts, control
implementation of innovation, and block non-bank threats, they can create great value in
keeping with their traditional financial management models. The lesson here is that
cooperation among large organizations reduces opportunities for small companies or
start-up market leaders. The market leaders are unable to compete with the large
organizations that have control and support of the regulatory agencies.
Individual large complex banking organizations participate in ECCHO and BITS
to gain financial advantage and cooperate in protecting their industry. However, these
same individual organizations must form strategies that fit the cooperative model while
limiting development expenses. In the following section an individual bank strategy is
explored to highlight the management considerations and actions of technologist and
executive decision-makers. In this case, the vision of electronic check transformation is
being sponsored by the industry. The vision becomes an industry vision leaving
individual corporations with the need to articulate the vision within their organizations.

209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

They must also gather the technical talent required to install technological changes and
train operators to operate and administer the new way business process.

An Industry Leaders Approach


A large complex banking organization has maintained a market follower position
that supports its conservative financial management philosophy coupled with its merger
and acquisition growth strategy. For confidentiality purposes, the subject banking
organization will be referred to as American Financial. American Financial is pursuing a
document imaging strategy and has intentions of participating in check truncation,
electronic check presentment and electronic payment as those industry processes become
standard.
American Financial began its imaging project in August 2000 after it became
clear that e-documents and electronic check images would be required for complete
support of its emerging Internet banking strategy. The dotcoms presented a threat to
American Financial with e-banking and the offer of higher interest rates. The higher ebank interest rate paid on customer deposits was made possible because the e-banks did
not have costly bricks and mortar branches and operations facilities. Additionally,
everything the e-banks delivered to their customers could be delivered as computer
monitor images or computer printed copies. The e-banks offered paperless banking with
the exception of dollars - cash money - their customers retrieved from brick and mortar
bank automatic teller machines. Images and electronic transactions were clearly
emerging and disrupting the traditional banking process.

American Financial initially

pursued a major project that would present statements, provide check images to certain
customers and provide access for research and adjustments on accounts via the Internet.

210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The initial estimates of project expenses and capital to accomplish all of this exceeded
$100 million with a negative cost to benefit case over three years (American Financial
Check Image Strategy March 2001)
American Financials strategy and approach were initially estimated as too costly,
but required in order for American Financial to remain competitive within the high
wealth early technology adapter market. American Financial had to meet emerging
Check Truncation Act imperatives (Ibid). In January 2001, the strategy was separated
when the statement electronicfication alternative project shifted to a funded Internet
initiative. The Check Image Strategy emerged as a less ambitious undertaking, but still
with a $100 million expense against a $3 million benefit beginning in year three of the
project (American Financial Strategy July 2001). Further refinements reduced the total
project expense considerably by acquiring newer technology for imaging checks and
making decisions on how to best deploy the new technology to reduce expenses. This
innovation project is being conducted in what Rosabeth Kanter would call the top of the
innovation pyramid. A steering committee was formed and the project was given a very
high priority. The focus turned to meeting requirements for the emerging Truncation Act
and to taking a follower position behind Chase Manhattan (Ibid). American Financial
business line and technology executives favored a strategy that would capture check
images for truncation purposes, offer better customer services and products, and establish
a competitive advantage by using proven technology as a market follower. There was no
appetite to invest in a market leadership stake in the check image arena.
The current American Financial strategy calls for expenses and capital
investments of $4.9 million dollars with benefits of $8.3 million dollars annually

211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

(American Financial Strategy September 2001). This plan will employ an incremental
approach to the total electronicfication alternative opportunity with benefits accrued from
reductions in labor requirements and increased money management returns. The lesson
here was to allow market masters or leaders to absorb the cost of development and
establish the total cost of ownership relative to the business process and operations case.
The labor cost reductions, waiting for the introduction of better technology and
conforming to BITS and ECCHO controlled progress, proved to be an effective market
follower strategy. This was possible for American Financial because of its size, Internet
strategy to retain market share, and its ability to fund a catch-up approach.

Check 21
As predicted by ECCHO in 2001 the Federal government enacted a law to
advance electronic check presentment technologies. In 2004, the Check 21 law was
passed by Congress with the support of the financial service industry. Under the new law
banks can image checks and truncate the check handling process, offer substitute checks
to consumers and complete check clearing in a completely electronic environment.
The purpose of Check 21 is:
To facilitate check truncation;
To foster innovation in the check payment system without mandating
receipt of checks in electronic format; and
To improve the payment system overall.
The Act [Check 21] creates a new negotiable instrument, called a substitute
check. Parties cannot refuse to accept a substitute check that meets [Check 21]
requirement. The following highlights offer details of the new process

All checks, except foreign checks, are eligible to become substitute


checks.

212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The bank creating the substitute and all subsequent banks that process
the substitute check provide warranties and an indemnity to
subsequent parties in the collection and return process.
Banks are required to provide customer awareness notices explaining
substitute checks for consumers who are provided substitute checks.
The Federal Reserve is to write modem language for the notification
requirement, and
The consumer awareness document must explain how a substitute
check is the legal equivalent of an original check for all purposes and
the consumers recredit rights under the law. (ECCHO November
2004, 3 - 5)

This evolution in financial transaction processing was made possible through the
vision of bankers and Federal Reserve staff members, a business savvy cadre of banking
business technologist, and with the collaboration of industry leaders. These industry
leaders embraced the vision, removed barriers to implement check truncation, and made
available the talent and creative people needed to complete the task. The dissertation
thesis traits for visionary leadership were exercised by a collaborative of industry leaders
in this case with supporting actions within collaborating organizations.
In literature on the transition to Check 21 there are no references to individual
visionaries, but there are a number of organizations mentioned in the ECCHOs website
and the Federal Reserve documents announcing Check 21. This is important in that in a
collaborative environment individuals are seldom identified as visionaries. Rather credit
is given to the collaborators identified through their Contributing Organizations (Ibid,
20 ).
So far, this chapter has offered a listing of private sector masters of the
Information Age, described technology management and governance, introduced
disruptive technology, and discussed technology innovation in an industry. This section

213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

will offer a summation of technology leadership frameworks that extend the basis for
accepting the relevance of the dissertation thesis traits.
Research and observations completed for this dissertation point to the need for a
balance between visionary leadership risks, return on investment, and the strategic
direction of business evolution. Visionary leadership must achieve objectives that
maintain business advantage and execute business strategy in the private sector.

Balancing Innovative Leadership with Results


David Ulrich, Jack Zenger and Norm Smallwood make the observation that:
Leaders who arent getting results arent truly leading. Or, more specifically, leaders
who arent getting desired results arent truly leading (Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood
1999, 27). According to results-based leadership theory results must be balanced,
strategic in alignment, lasting, and selfless in that the end result must support the entire
enterprise (Ibid, 30). Balanced is defined as striking an acceptable benefit between the
organization, its investors, its employees, and its customers. This is much like the
balanced scorecard that has become popular as a management tool. No one businessdriver establishes the ongoing capabilities of a company no matter the size. The
following illustration depicts a model of balanced outcomes according to results-based
leadership theory. The framework provides easy visualization of the focus and centric
value of the processes. Innovation and process change results must support a balance
between business, process, internal focus and external constituent interests.

214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Figure 15 - A Model o f Balanced Outcomes

Process-centric

Organization
Results

Investor
Results

Internal
Focus

External
Focus
Employee
Results

Customer
Results

Business-centric

Source: Ulrich, Zenger and Smallwood 1999, 31


A leader can use numerical scoring to weigh the results of any project or
innovation before it is undertaken and surely after completion. Some projects will weigh
heavily in the internal focus and others will improve customer experience or boost profits
that weigh toward the external case. Weighing business and process results can
demonstrate results in the same way. In either case the results can be judged in a way
that is clear and focused on outcomes that matter. Results do matter even in an
environment of continuous and potentially disruptive evolution. This approach to
leadership is important for visionary leaders as they navigate their organizations and
bureaucracies. Visions must result in value added to the organization, its customers and
its growth. It is interesting to hear naval officer program managers talk about their
customers and adding value to capabilities. This represents business processes being
translated in the Navy work environment and the transition of Navy visionary leaders to
more collaborative organizations. Satisfying Joint and Navy requirements is akin to
providing business solutions in the private sector.
215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Value Chains Constantly Reorganize - Re-Intermediation Rules!


During the discussion on the financial services industry the concept of market
positions was shared. Market Masters, Leaders, Followers and Losers were defined.
There is a reasonable argument that the Market Follower strategy is the best approach if it
is the business strategy to sustain the core business and remain the intermediary of choice
for slow technology-adaptors. Market Follower strategies are based on a slower evolution
of technology in the general public. The underlying principle is that bricks, retail stores,
and a few clicks, Internet sales or business, will grow to more clicks and fewer bricks.
Market Followers take the conservative bet that the bricks and wired telephone
communications representing a people to people business model will always be the core
business channel. According to Market Followers, change will be incremental and based
on the continued use of sustaining technology rather than radical ventures into electronic
alternative channels.
The bias here is that gradual change is acceptable in the Market Follower
organization. Analysis and observation of the market are paramount. Nothing to close to
the bleeding edge of innovation should be pursued and the most important imperative is
protection of earnings per share. Market Followers are successful given the size and
wealth of the enterprise. There is also a measure of job safety and security in taking a
conservative approach to new ideas. Proof of concept and adoption rates are required in
this environment that promotes shareholder value.
The problem with the Market Follower approach is the changing demands of
customers. Customers see change and want more efficient and labor saving delivery
channels provided by electronic alternatives.

216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Re-intermediation rules! And, that is why pursuing a Market Master role is better
than waiting for somebody else to almost get it right. It is customer demand for change
that drives the need for innovation and the pursuit of new delivery channels. The
majority of the wealth is in the hands of people who want better service, have computers
and are seeking ways to get whatever it is better, faster and cheaper. Market Masters rule
the c-cvolution world of business. Market Masters make decisions when to morph the
industry to their new business models. Failure to morph will cause Market Followers to
lose business share or simply fade from the marketplace. Market Masters embrace
visions of what can be as opposed to holding onto the status quo. Being a visionary
Market Master has continuing rewards.

The Balancing Act


Market Masters actually balance the tenets of results-based leadership with the
advantages of frontier innovation. They gather value from being the first to offer ealternatives to a progressive customer base and they gain actual wealth from venture
partnerships who supply these new alternatives to Market Followers. Market Masters
also control industry collaboration efforts like ECCHO and BITS. The case study
supports these conclusions.
American Financial assumed the role of a Market Follower. Their check payment
and presentment program was behind the Market Masters programs and American
Financial ultimately paid for technology that the Market Masters introduced to the rest of
the industry. Frontier partnerships and Market Masters share in the risk and rewards
gained when alternative technology takes hold in the marketplace. There is also the pain
of forced change for Market Followers. Market losers disappear or are acquired while

217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Market Leaders fall to merger or acquisition fates of those too weak to survive on their
own.
American Financial was forced to change rather than exercise a visionary plan for
change. Market Masters tend to scan the environment looking for opportunities while
Market Followers scan the environment looking to mitigate or avoid risks. It is better to
cause re-intermediation of the industry value chain than to be disintermediated. Market
Masters drive vision, re-intermediate, morph the value chain, and capture the benefits of
technological evolution.
If the intellectual and financial capital resources are available, it is better to
become a Market Master collaborating with the visionary innovators than to follow along
as a Market Follower. American Financial paid for their role as a follower. First with a
$100 million Internet catch up strategy and then with a conservative introduction into
electronic check presentment that will ultimately cost more.
The forgoing analysis points to market leadership strategies having the capacity to
create business advantage in the private sector and a superior national defense capability
for the defense establishment. Visionary leadership translated from the 1950s to current
information technology practices seem to validate the relevance of embracing vision,
professional experience and gathering talent to achieve strategic goals.

L eadership Strategy

Leading a complex organization requires vision that balances technology-driven


innovation with sustaining traditional business competitiveness and capabilities.
Innovation is the basis for improving capabilities and adopting advanced business

218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

models. The current disruptive technology is wireless technology that has changed the
way people communicate and transact business. Ronald ORourke, in the Navy case
discussion, makes the argument that future defense capabilities must be linked to
ForceNet. ForceNet is a network of computers and communications systems that provide
shared awareness and remote command of forces. It is envisioned that troops in the field
will use wireless devices to network with fellow troops and command units. These
emerging devices will be wearable and almost autonomous in operation. Market Masters
who take advantage of this technology will master the new wireless explosion that will
emerge over the next five years. Strategic planning based on business and technology
trends, understanding technology architecture and making investments in sustaining and
enabling technology represent skills and disciplines required for success in a rapidly
changing environment.
Visionary leaders who adopt a planning process to achieve strategic results can
focus efforts in their organizations. Organizations must either plan for change or plan to
change in the absence of vision and strategic planning. Use of frontier innovation to
evolve business capabilities that bring focus to sustaining technologies continue to
provide value and processes that deliver crucial results. As a final note in building
visionary success frameworks it should be understood that disruptive technologies are
only disruptive to those managers who fail to have vision. These are times of enormous
change. It is the very nature of being human in an age of technology to innovate, to
change and to evolve.
Leaders in the private sector and the defense establishment can benefit from
adopting concepts discovered during this dissertation research and presented above. The

219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

idea of pursuing a vision and having a strategy for success are very important, as are,
processes for achieving that success that are gained by developing professional
experience. And finally, it is absolutely essential to gather talented people to deliver on
the vision and to champion the cause with their influence and sponsorship.

220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

V. Navy and Private Sector Parallels in the Information Age

Based on research and observations analyzed for this dissertation it is clearly


evident that the visionary leadership of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and that of Vice
Admiral William F. Raborn have been adopted by leaders in and out of the defense
establishment. Formal processes and methods instituted in the Rickover and Raborn era
are in play today. As noted in the discussion on investment technology organization
leaders the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is being used to improve technology
programs and project success. The basic tenets of CMM began with the quality
assurance, project management and procedural compliance processes created by Rickover
and Raboms organizations. The information technology community is now using
processes created in the 1950s to mature their organizations that are racing at full speed
to transform business, defense capabilities and technology for everyday use.
As this dissertation concludes, it is reasonable to summarize the Navy case and
the private sector business case to develop a definition of visionary leadership.

221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Navy Visionary Leadership

Navy visionary leaders are senior officers, usually holding the rank of captain to
rear admiral or above. They are in a position of ultimate accountability and significant
authority by virtue of their organizational rank. They are usually charged with
development of a system or capability that will have a significant positive impact on
naval warfare. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was the consummate technology
development leader during his era. He clearly established the benchmark for both
positive and negative attributes during his long tenure in developing nuclear propulsion in
submarines and surface ships. Vice Admiral William F. Rabom was Rickovers
contemporary. Raborn exceeded expectations in delivering the Fleet Ballistic Missile
capability to the nation. His leadership style and traits met all of the criteria expected of
visionary leaders, without the negative impacts created by Rickover. Rickover and
Raborn established the pertinent traits required of visionary leaders in the Navy during
the 1950s. These traits have been formalized through processes and procedures in place
today.
Naval leaders today operate within formalized processes and procedures that
translate strategy into requirements and capabilities that are enabled through new
technologies. These processes and procedures are subject to senior government and
presidential oversight along with legal regulations that establish relationships between the
Navy and the defense industry. However, the visionary leadership traits of vision,
understanding of Navy and defense bureaucracy through professional experience, and the
leadership to gather talent and support are still pertinent for leaders today.

222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Within the Navy, vision has evolved in a discipline that is driven by budgetary
constraints and strategy requirements. Unlike the unlimited resources provided for
Rickover and Rabom, naval visionaries today are limited by processes such as the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), political reality, and national defense strategy that
set budgetary limits on military spending. Technology no longer limits capability
development as it was in the past. Rather it is the civilian authority over the military that
sets budgetary direction and requires analysis of alternative technology solutions that are
vetted through a formalized Joint capability and acquisition process. This approach
represents limiting factors that are usually in place in private business and industry that
measure return on investment and technology relevance to business model and value
chain enhancements.
These formal requirements in Navy acquisition and budget management have
limited personal vision and power in favor of a more business-like measured outcome.
These outcomes are directly linked to strategy, capabilities, requirements and affordable
solutions for the Navy and Joint forces.
Gathering talented engineers and scientists, dedicated naval operators, and
committed political support are still vital for naval visionaries today. Human capital is as
important in the Navy as it is in the private sector. Simply put, visions are attained
through hard work and loyal commitment to the vision. That work must come from
people who have the formal training and experience to deliver technical solutions,
operate those solutions with skill, and capture the support necessary to overcome
opposition to change or to gather limited resources.

223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Based on research and observations completed during this study it is evident that
those traits that enabled Admiral Rickover and Raborn to achieve success are
fundamental to continued success today. While the current day visionaries are
constrained by formalized strategy documents and limited resources, they must still have
the vision to see possible solutions that are enabled by information technology and
network capabilities. They must gain the understanding needed to navigate bureaucratic
mandates, and gather staff and supporters who believe in their way ahead. Sponsors and
supporters are now more convinced by studies and model results. The future of the Navy
is set by delivering capabilities and technology that enable military-political strategy.
The new visionaries in the Navy are certainly the Admirals Bowman, Giambastiani, and
Donalds, but they are also the Navy scientist and engineers in collaboration with their
Navy captain program managers who find the solutions to capability needs. They are all
functioning closer to the business models used in the private sector than ever before.
They use business terms to describe their work and measure their success with the same
financial measures and productivity metrics used in the private sector.

Business Technology Visionary Leadership


Navy visionary leaders provided processes that are used by business technology
visionaries today. As mentioned earlier, the Capability Maturity Model and project
management are direct translations of defense management systems. On the other hand,
Navy leaders are now more conscious of return on investment and analysis of alternatives
than they had been in the past. These business imperatives are now being used to find
technology solutions within limited resource constraints.

224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Business leaders have generally been constrained by profit and loss in introducing
new technology to their business plans. However, the concept of disruptive technology
has caused business leaders to consider value chain impact and business model evolution.
The Information Age has caused a cultural change in business service and product
delivery.
Business technology visionaries have had to become champions of possible
solutions that change business processes and represent significant risks. These risks have
been generated in cases where the new technology is not adopted and when new
technology is adopted causing a change in business as usual.
Business technology champions have had to abandon conservative philosophy in
favor of embracing emerging concepts. This change in conservative business direction
first evolved when the dot.coms invaded major businesses from the Internet. They
literally blew traditional businesses to bits with fast, better and cheaper services to
customers. They disrupted major industries with fairly simple solutions using
information technology, computers and the Internet. The idea of converting a disruptive
technology to broad use is now an accepted practice rather than a defense mechanism to
combat value chain disintermediation.
Business leaders who direct technology-driven companies must exercise vision
that will enable their business strategy. They must understand how to create change and
evolution in their business disciplines and gather human resources to drive their success.
The same traits that drove success in the Navy will drive success in the private sector.
While there is not the ultimate accountability that accompanies rank in the Navy, there is
stakeholder and shareholder accountability that rest with business leaders and teams.

225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Business information technology solutions and more importantly evolution have


become the norm with the advantages of improving business processes, customer services
and overall efficiency. These advances in technology have not only impacted the
financial service industry, but also manufacturing and other industries. Vision has
become an imperative in transforming business and industry today. New technology
solutions to traditional design, manufacturing, delivery, marketing and maintenance
capabilities have become common place. Those who fail to evolve do so at their own
peril.
Market presence is now driven by technology evolution that generates consensus
for change within corporations, companies, and industry sectors. The evolution of
electronic payments is the case study example in this dissertation. There are other social
impact changes that have become industry standards such as navigation systems in cars
and delivery of education via the Internet. Industry return on investment generated from
technological change must be considered with respect to possible industry change as
opposed to individual company risk. This concept drives the idea that support from
above may come from the collective industry consensus and changes in government
regulation. The trait of understanding the business must extend beyond the walls of a
company or corporation to understanding the industry as a collaborative association of
people who deliver services to a public. In many cases industry change brings social
change that supports the common good. It is the role of government to partner with
industry in these cases. This is especially true in the financial and investment industry.
The consumer and the public in general have become far more sophisticated and
demand evolution. Consumers want services and products delivered on an as needed

226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

basis. They want to order from home, review accounts from home, and go to school at
home using information technology solutions. Business leaders today must have the
professional experience to understand this evolution and the capacity to gather the talent
to enable solutions customers want.
Business leaders must move beyond living as conservative managers of
stockholders trust to become strategists who use their vision to create an ever changing
world. It is their human work in making human existence an improving proposition.
According to the thesis, they must continually gain business and industry knowledge, and
gather talented people to evolve their companies and corporations. They must assume a
Janusian mask to use their past experience to create and pursue visions of the future that
deliver goods and services through new technology solutions.
But, in becoming these leopards of change, business leaders must understand the
ethical and social impact they bring with evolution. Their quest to become market
masters and leaders must be tempered with the understanding that there are slow adopters
of technology and people who must have choices. Their business vision and strategy
must also assume the basic definitions of technology in providing wanted and accepted
applications o f science and not change for the sake of change.
Qualitative analysis of research results are presented in the next section of the
dissertation. Analysis was used to describe pertinent traits and actions that define
visionary technology leadership as revealed by the study.

A Qualitative Analysis of Leadership Traits and Actions


The following qualitative analysis charts present traits and actions that
demonstrate visionary leadership. This analysis summarizes support for the dissertation

227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

thesis that states vision, professional experience, and leadership in gathering talented
people and supporters are core capabilities in achieving a vision. The analysis provides a
list of traits and actions identified during dissertation research and observations, ranks
those inputs in terms of pertinence to successful visionary leadership, and cites exemplars
of thesis traits and actions. This analysis identifies key factors in achieving technological
visions and forms the basis for a leadership development model. This analysis process
was obtained from Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Hubermans Qualitative Data
Analysis - A source Book o f New Methods (1984).
The following tables present qualitative analysis that supports the dissertation
thesis. Tables offer trait definitions, thesis predictions, pertinent traits and actions, and
examples identified from the dissertation. Survey results follow the researchers analysis.

228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 1 - Visionary Leadership Trait and Actions - Vision

I. Vision - Observations that point to a leader or group having a vision of applying


science and methods to create a significant technological change.

P ertinence Table:
1. Directly correlates to creating and sponsoring the vision for
technological change.
2. Supports the vision through processes and procedures.
3. Defines the vision within the bureaucracy.

Thesis Prediction
Leaders promote their vision through direct action. Others work to either champion those ideas or act on those ideas within their area of
responsibility. Admiral Rickover took ownership of the Nuclear Power Program, personally promoted the concept, and furthered the
vision. ECCHOs championed e-payments and check truncation until it was adopted by law.

Vision

Pertinence

The ability to express technological change as a


worthwhile pursuit to achieve a strategy.

Establish the visionary as the individual who is


accountable for delivering a technological
breakthrough or significant capability.

Example and Exemplars

Both Rickover and Rabom were original exemplars. In the epayments case ECCHOs was the association voice for change. Jobs
and Gates were well versed in expressing the way ahead for their
technological changes. Jobs talked about computers in every house
and Gates talked about knowledge communities and access to
information.
Raborn was given authority by the Chief of Naval Operations, the
Secretary of the Navy and President Eisenhower to act. Rickover
gathered support from Congress and was publicly seen as the Father of
the Nuclear Navy. In the commercial case, individual leadership was
not well established. Rather, committees and a government agency
seemed to gather the credit for implementing e-payments and Check
21. Jobs accepted almost total accountability for Apples progress
from hardware to software.

229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Create a basis for others to support the visionary,


the team or the entity pursuing the vision.

Communicate the vision on a broad basis in


communications that are easy to understand and
believe.

Promote the vision as a significant advantage,


assure its acceptance, and establish rewards for
associating with the concept across the
organization.

In the Navy cases there was a senior to junior rank obligation to


support the visionary, but more than that, both Rickover and Rabom
were seen as responsible for implementing change on an accountable
basis. Individual accountability in commercial business is more
difficult to assign and is usually established by recognizing business
model value and rewards for gaining a return on investments. Support
for the visionary is distributed and assumed within the team. Gates
wrote books describing his vision, while Page and Brin established a
value based venture that others believed in as a way ahead for
information access.
Navy programs are more widely communicated now than in the past,
but news does travel fast in the Navy as evidenced by those who
sought to join the nuclear power program and missile program. On the
commercial side of the study, marketing new delivery channels and
ideas is important to gathering internal technical support and gaining
customer acceptance. Again, Gates books are well known.
Rickover was more assertive in his concept and expectations than
Raborn. However, both Navy exemplars used positive expectations
and rewards for success to further acceptance and demonstrate
assurance that their programs would work. Commercial ventures rely
on assertions of acceptance and assurances of reliability and utility.
The idea of applying focus groups and gaining adopters of new
technology is crucial and rewarding users is equally important to broad
acceptance. Page and Brin have announced how important Google is
and will become in providing access to all information.

230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 2 - Visionary Leadership Trait and Actions - Professional Experience


II. Professional Experience - Observations that point to a leader or group
understanding and devising techniques, tactics and procedures to manage and/or
deal with business barriers or bureaucratic in implementing significant
technological change.

P ertin en ce Table:
1. Directly correlates to understanding business processes,
bureaucracy, and barriers that must be considered to effect
technological change.
2. Supports the vision through processes and procedures.
3. Defines the vision within the bureaucracy.

Thesis Prediction
Leaders use their formal education and experience to navigate business channels and the halls of bureaucracy to champion and further
their visions. Admiral Rickover was an experienced naval systems engineer who used the Navy and government bureaucracy to his
advantage in overcoming barriers. ECCHOs committed were staffed with experienced FSI executives and technologist who understood
business processes.

Professional Experience

Pertinence

Gain and maintain formal education in the core


discipline of the organization.

Gain practical experience through leader and


follower roles in the organization including project
and program management responsibilities.

Examples and Exemplars


Rickover and Raborn were certainly well educated in their core
disciplines and had the requisite knowledge to learn advances in
technology that were being created in their programs. Private sector
technologist and executives seem to be more specialized in technical
training. In fact, it is important to expand technologist education in
business matters. Page and Brin are well educated in their field and
have gained considerable experience. Jobs is considered a genius in
his field.
Rickover and Rabom both had long experience in leader and
follower roles including command positions earned through
progressive promotions. Private sector technologist and business
executives service internships, journey level assignments and
progressive advancement in their organizations. Success models
may vary, but program and project management are certainly part of
the learning process. Gates emerged from a position that required
project management to one where he fosters project development in
others.

231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Participate in developing people, processes and


sustaining technology to support technological
change.

Create techniques, tactics and procedures that


overcome bureaucratic barriers to introducing
technological change.

Recognize existing efforts and companion


technologies that will create greater acceptance of
technological change.

Establish return on investment and value metrics


that will promote visionary technological change as
worthy of pursuit within the organization.

There are a number of examples that illustrate these developmental


processes in both the Navy and the private sector. In the private
sector, the idea of technology architecture and introduction of new
technology based on business need is certainly well understood and
reflected in the study. Disruptive technology is the key area of
discussion on this topic. Gates organization is well known for its
processes and knowledge sharing.
Everyone that progresses through a Navy or corporate environment
is exposed to the need to create methods to survive and progress.
However, it appears that Rickover and Rabom exemplified the
ability to overcome bureaucratic barriers. Gates and Page& Brin
have innovation processes with Gates having a far more elaborate
process for innovation. The investment firm leaders relied on the
Capability Maturity Model to improve processes and quality
assurance.
Raborn recognized the value of Rickovers nuclear submarines in
deploying his strategic deterrent missiles. The collaborators who
moved e-payments along recognized that their efforts must become
an industry standard. The case study on Check 21 illustrated this
across an entire industry.
Rabom was the first exemplar in this area with his PERT Charts and
project management systems. Rickover had similar processes, but
the Polaris program set the direction for many metric and
management processes in place today. Return on investment was
and is a crucial argument for technological advances in the private
sector. In the discussion on prioritizing projects, ROI is paramount
next to the government regulation requirements that mandate
technological change. The private sector processes documented
processes for formalizing return on investment and value
recognition.

232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Table 3 - Visionary Leadership Trait Factors - Leadership

III. L e a d e rsh ip - Observations that point to a leader or group having the leadership
skills and/or human capital to gather the talent and support required to implement
significant technological change.
mi

* ^

Thesis Prediction

P ertinence Table:
,
Directl correiates to gathering talent and support for
technological change
2 , Supports the vision through processes and procedures.
3.

Defines the vision within the bureaucracy.

Leaders find ways to gather talented people and sponsors who will further their vision. Admiral Rickover gathered powerful allies in the
Executive and legislatives branches o f government to support his vision. He recruited the brightest and the best officers and engineers to
design, build and operate his nuclear power plants. ECCHO gathered industry and government professionals to collaborate on their
committees.

Leadership

Examples and Exemplars

Pertinence

Build relationships with superiors, lawmakers or


others who can fund and direct action to pursue
technological change.

Gather talented administrators who share the vision


and have the talent to guide development,
maximize funding and pursue processes.

Rickover was the most effective at this craft of gathering support


from those who would fund and protect a program. Rosabeth Kanter
addresses the need for champions in the private sector. Regardless
of the operating environment, it seems top cover from superiors
and senior decision-makers is paramount to advancing a vision.
Private sector processes were discussed that set governance
frameworks for gaining business strategy and IT strategy alignment.
Without gathering executive from the most powerful banks, ECCHO
would have been ineffective. In the Navy case, gathering the
brightest and the best was certainly required to administer the
Rabom effort and back-up Rickovers mandates to both industry and
the Navy. Rickovers line locker officers, engineers and field
monitors carried out the Admirals wishes. Gates organization
grew and ultimately has relied on expert administrators to overcome
crisis such as the Internet crisis. Procedures were discussed for
private sector management of development and technology
architecture.

233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Recruit scientists, technologists, and operators who


can design, build and operate the technological
instruments and applications that give the vision
life.

Establish an organization that promotes learning,


nurturing, and a professionally rewarding
environment.

Reward participation in the project with


identification as a contributor, sponsor or co
visionary.

Market the vision to the public, stakeholders and


influential people to gain and maintain momentum
toward ultimate goals and visionary success.

Recruiting again the brightest engineers, builders and operators


seems to be a cliche, but it is crucial in both the Navy and
commercial cases. In Management 21 C, there is a long discussion
on learning and developing smart people to continue the
advancement of technology. The Page & Brin case is interesting in
that they have recruited a staff of PhDs.
Rosabeth Kanter addresses learning and risk taking and certainly
Rabom exemplified rewarding those who created the breakthroughs,
learned by experimentation and finally gathered professional
recognition for a job well done. Rickovers most successful captains
rose to important positions as reflected in both fictional (Captain
Beachs) and factual (Admiral Zumwalts) accounts. Gates
knowledge management processes and Page & Brins R&D office
are examples. All of the private sector organizations point to career
progression as a reward for success.
Rickover recognized his sponsors with submarines named after them
and by allowing their wives to christen ships. He was a master at
gathering and recognizing his contributors and supporters. They in
turn kept him in office. In the private sector rewards come in the
form of financial gains, promotions and the opportunity to stay
employed. Sponsors actually reap significant gains when business
increases due to technological advantages. Costs are reduced and
profits increase. In some private sector cases entire teams are
rewarded with deck trophies and cash awards. Gates organization
description points to others who have been rewarded for success.
Private sector projects receive far more public exposure than Navy
programs. E-payment, ATM and other financial service advances
were marketed to the public to gain support and demand. Some
disruptive technologies actually gain from exposure to initially small
markets that create increased demand for acceptance of the new
technology. In the ATM case, there was a too aggressive approach
that required readjustment of services offered to people by people.

234

Visionary Leadership Traits and Actions Survey

Visionary leadership opinion surveys were distributed to participants in a Navy


technology development program. Appendix D contains the survey. Appendix E
contains complete survey results. The survey was distributed and completed over a three
day period in mid-January 2005.
The purpose of the survey was to obtain an assessment on the soundness of
visionary leadership traits and actions presented in the preceding tables. The survey
focus group was assembled to review emerging technology that held the potential of
fulfilling the vision of the Chief of Naval Operations. The group was comprised of senior
naval officers, Navy scientists and engineers, defense industry executives, a technology
company owner, a university laboratory executive, and a Department of Defense
executive. They are all responsible parties in technology development, several were
program managers who were champions of certain technologies under consideration, and
all of the survey participants were senior members of their organizations. This group
represented a reliable resource of peers who were eager to offer their opinions and
comments on visionary leadership. Results of the survey confirm the importance of traits
and actions summarized from dissertation research and observations.
Assessment of the summarized traits and actions by technology innovation
practitioners representing both government and private sector inputs seemed to be a
meaningful way to assess research findings. The survey method was used to take
advantage of the unique opportunity presented by having expert and experienced leaders
available in one location. Surveys also eliminated variations and inaccuracies inherit in
collecting opinions and comments from separate interviews.

235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Individuals who took the survey executed a Salve Regina University Institutional
Review Committee (IRC) approved informed consent waiver. Survey participants were
offered the opportunity to grant permission to have their names associated with their
opinions and comments or to remain anonymous. Eighteen individuals participated in the
survey. Priscilla Salant and Don A. Dillmans How to Conduct Your Own Survey was
used as a reference in constructing and conducting the survey. This was not a broad
based survey designed for quantitative analysis. The survey was distributed by hand
directly to the participants. No one declined to take the survey.
The Navy technology innovators surveyed overwhelmingly supported the three
thesis visionary leadership traits - vision, professional experience and leadership.
According to survey results agreement was reached on the following vision, professional
experience and leadership traits and actions:
1. It is absolutely essential that visionary leaders communicate the vision on a
broad basis in communications that are easy to understand and believe.
2. It is absolutely essential that visionary leaders build relationships with
superiors, lawmakers or others who can fund and direct action to pursue
technological change, and
3. It is very important that visionary leaders create techniques, tactics and
procedures that overcome bureaucratic barriers to introducing technological
change.
General agreement, with 9 or more responses, was reached on the following
vision, professional experience and leadership traits and actions:

236

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

1. It is very important that visionary leaders establish return on investment and


value metrics that will promote technological change.
2. It is very important that visionary leaders gather talented administrators who
share the vision and have the talent to guide development, maximize funding
and pursue processes, and
3. It is very important that visionary leaders reward participation in the project
with identification as a contributor, sponsor or co-visionary.
There were only 5 individual responses in the not required category. In those cases, the
majority of the other Navy technology innovators thought those traits or actions were still
important to visionary leadership success.
Based on this survey confirmation and the total body of dissertation research and
observations, the vision, professional experience, and leadership model traits have
emerged as a practical and straightforward approach to guide development of visionary
leaders.

Common Ground for Vision and Innovation


There is common ground between private sector visionaries responsible for
advancing technology-driven business models and visionaries responsible for delivering
Navy and Joint military technology-enabled capabilities. As shown in this dissertation
both arenas require individuals who have the human capacity to see future capabilities
and the leadership to gather other people to support their ideas. In both cases, individuals
who have had formal education and experience represent the most successful candidates
for assignment to positions responsible for advancing ideas and concepts.

237

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Development of visionary leaders should not happen by accident. It is important


to groom potential leaders for success by extending formal education with continuous
learning and by assignment to projects and programs that build experience. It appears
from this research and observation over a five year period that leaders are grown through
experience and exposure. They are most successful when they demonstrate technical
competence and are able to gain the support of sponsors. And, they must become leaders
whose message is believed by talented and capable supporters.
The model for developing visionary leaders begins with a solid foundation in a
technical or business discipline with assignments that require translating theory gained in
the classroom to practices in the field. That foundation is then reinforced with
continuous learning in both formal and informal settings. The subjects of this ongoing
education must include technical matters as well as exposure to business theory and
practice. Included in this education is exposure to ethics and social accountability. As
mentioned in the technology leadership development discussion, business people must
acquire a background in technology and technologists must leam business to truly
become effective in leading technology-driven organizations. A business executive
without an appreciation for technical innovation will not likely embrace visions of future
capabilities. And, a technologist who does not understand business imperatives will tend
to offer gadgets and applications that are not suitable or acceptable technology.
Admiral Rickover began an era with his vision of nuclear powered ships. Steve
Jobs offered everyday people the power of computers and continues to offer technology
that people use to enrich their lives and increase their productivity. Both of these
visionaries were driven by the passion of their dreams. They were competent in their

238

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

fields and demonstrated the professional experience and proficiency to build and use their
organizations. And, they gathered the support of highly competent and influential people
who believed in their vision of the future. The Innovators Circle, shown in the figure
below, illustrates visionary leadership traits required for success in complex
organizations. Each trait is seen as equally pertinent to advancing visions within a circle
of innovation. These traits can be cultivated through education and experience gained
during a progressive rise to decision-making positions or through early career
development in organizations that value vision and innovation.

Figure 16 - The Innovators Circle Visionary Leadership Traits and Actions

Visionary Technology
Leadership Traits
Vision - the passion and skill to
articulate and promote a vision.

Professional Experience - the skill to


govern development and navigate
complex organi/ations to advance
socially acceptable initiatives toward
true innovation.
Leadership - the capacity to gather
others to create and support a vision.

239

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Theory to Practice: Collaboration between the Navy and the Private Sector
An example of visionary leadership moving from theory to practice in the
Information Age is provided in William M. Johnsons article, The A-RCI Process Leadership and Management Principles, published in the Naval Engineers Journal
(2004). Johnsons article begins by explaining the traditional Navy acquisition process
mentioned earlier in this dissertation. That process is constrained by a closed business
environment that is dominated by a few well established defense contractors. Admiral
Rickover had an antagonistic relationship with these same contractors while Vice
Admiral Raborn was able to overcome similar problems with his co-optation strategy.
The traditional closed-circuit and protracted acquisition process was seen as
unsuitable for taking advantage of the rapid pace of innovation available in the private
sector information technology industry. As already noted, the private sector IT industry
operates on production cycles measured in months that yield faster and more capable
computers and software applications (Johnson 2004, 99-100).
The purpose of the A-RCI Process was to deliver Acoustic-Rapid CommercialOff-the-Shelf Insertion capabilities to the U.S. Navy. By way of explanation, Acoustic
capabilities are used in Navy sonar systems. Commercial-Off-the-Shelf refers to
computer software applications that can be purchased off of the shelf from a software
contractor. And, Rapid Insertion means quickly installing that software in fleet sonar
computers. A-RCI was conceived by Mr. Johnson and his colleagues stymied by the
traditional acquisition system and the need to address an imperative to deliver important
capabilities to the fleet. A-RCI was initiated to create an open business environment with

240

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the goal of forcing industry collaboration and creating incentives for individuals and
entrepreneurs to deliver evolving IT solutions. (Ibid, 100-101)
Johnson describes details of the A-RCI process and finally directs his attention to
transitioning from leadership theory to practice for other program managers. Johnson
establishes his agreement with the vision, professional experience, and leadership tenets
of the dissertation thesis with his advice to Navy program managers. This advice is based
on A-CRI Process principles. Johnson writes:
Program managers must:

Set and maintain the vision,


Develop a strategy to implement the vision,
Develop and cultivate allies at all levels,
Instill within the team a sense of empowerment and
entrepreneurial spirit, and
Set expectations for excellence and supporting the operational
pace.
(Ibid, 102-103)
Johnson elaborates on these points by offering the following guidance:

Keep the vision message simple and concise, and jargon free.
Strategy must be characterized by flexibility, rapid movement,
and leverage, in order to implement and institutionalize the
vision across the enterprise.
Continuously develop and nurture allies in a range of
communities.
Assume the responsibility to maintain motivation, enthusiasm
and entrepreneurial spirit in the team.
And, set clearly defined specific, quantified, and challenging
goals demand data-driven analysis and assessment.

These are guidelines that translate the thesis theory into practice and create a
collaborative effort between Navy acquisition teams, fleet users, and private sector
technology innovators. The A-CRI Process reflects the spirit of vision and accountability
that began with Admiral Rickover and was expanded by Vice Admiral Rabom in his

241

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Special Projects Office. Mr. Johnson was awarded the Superior Civilian Service Award
for his leadership and management of the A-CRI Process. He certainly exercised the
spirit of visionary leadership that is the basis for this dissertation. Mr. Johnson and his
extended team were successful in capturing the advantages of the Information Age for the
Navy. They are certainly masters of the Information Age era by demonstrating vision,
the professional experience to create a new path for acquisition, and the leadership ability
to inspire competitive innovation and active buy-in from their fleet customers.
This example of visionary leadership theory to actual practice is offered as a real
world explanation of what it means to be human and accountable for technological
innovation. The basis for this dissertation is a practical one with research and
observations in the Navy and in the private sector to document concepts on leading
innovation within complex organizations. The model for developing visionary leaders is
consistently presented in this dissertation. This leadership model promotes the simple
premise that humans must continue to have vision, learn from experience, and gather
others to support worthwhile ideas for improving meaningful existence.

242

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

VI. Summary and Conclusion


Throughout this dissertation it has been shown through reasonable examples and
induction from descriptive and interpretative research results that vision, professional
experience, and leadership ability are essential in delivering significant technological
change. It has been shown that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and Vice Admiral William
F. Rabom were exemplars of the thesis visionary leadership traits and that their influence
is present today in management processes used to advance programs and projects.
Visionary leadership in the current day is exemplified by Bill Gates of Microsoft, Steve
Jobs of Apple, Bill Johnson of Naval Sea Systems Command, and Larry Page and Sergey
Brin of Google. Additionally, it has been shown that industry collaboration, as
demonstrated in the financial service industry case study, can advance a vision,
collectively exercise professional experience to move common visions along, and by
sheer presence deliver the talent and sponsorship needed to create significant change.
The premise that vision, professional experience and leadership are fundamental to any
management structure is clear and evident in ethnographical settings.

243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Research and observations completed for this dissertation were conducted over an
8 year period. Observations were conducted from an internal perspective as a technology
and operations executive and as a Navy senior operations research analyst with reflection
back upon 30 years as a naval officer. During this period, the influence of the Salve
Regina University Doctoral program guided thinking within the question: What it means
to be human in an age o f technological change. This humanities perspective on
understanding a technology leadership and governance discipline has been enlightening.
The definition of technology within a social and human evolution context has established
the need for leaders to consider more than simply meeting business goals. The effects on
people and social accountability must be considered as an overarching imperative. There
must be an understanding of social accountability as expressed by Robert Lauer in his
description of the intellectual cul-de-sac and the view of Americans on the importance of
technology as solution for continuing change. Visionary leaders must understand these
impact perspectives that include management and ethics behaviors. And, there is the
higher calling for technology innovators in their role as co-creators in the evolution of
human existence. There is a religious and spiritual basis in this facet of leadership that is
not always consciously understood or considered as a foundation for decision-making.
In the Navy case, the issue of duty ethics and a national security purpose were
addressed along with identifying thesis traits in individuals and congressionally mandated
processes. Admirals Rickover and Raborn, and now Bowman, Donald, and Giambastiani
along with other naval officers and Navy professionals are bound by the duty, honor and
commitment values of their offices. Their visions for the future had and continue to have
significant consequences. The image of a single individual as the visionary leader behind

244

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

a nationally important disruptive or evolutionary technology is some times difficult to


imagine. But, this is the case in the Navy and the defense establishment. There are
individuals who work the capabilities issues and others who invent or link existing
technologies to offer solutions to capability requirements. But, senior champions within
the armed forces are required to put their reputations and positional power behind these
concepts. They promote the vision, manage the bureaucratic processes and protect the
incubators or service codes who take responsibility for building the operational business
case and systems. This is called flag officer support in the Navy and it means the same
as senior management support in the private sector. Visionary leadership exercised by
Navy and other defense executives replicates the efforts of Rickover and Raborn so many
years ago.
The private sector case began with identification of masters of the information
age. These technology visionaries were identified along with a comparison of their traits
with those that characterize the thesis visionary leader. In the Gates, Jobs, Page and Brin
descriptions, it was evident that the fundamental traits form the basis for their success and
continuing efforts. Gates and Jobs represent the current day exemplars of the Rickover
and Raborn images in the information technology world. But, there are many others who
have embraced the ideas of vision and creativity. The list of technologists provided from
VARBusiness magazine and the Wall Street & Technology magazine confirm the
exceptional work and accomplishments of other technology leaders who have achieved
success. The Wall Street & Technology list of investment firm technology leaders
mentioned the use of the Capability Maturity Model. That model has its genesis in the
work of Admirals Rickover and Raborn. The CMM represents a private sector

245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

documentation of procedural guidance, project management and organizational


management originated within the naval nuclear power and POLARIS programs.
Private sector leadership development and management practices confirmed the
need for vision, professional experience and the need to gather talented people and
champions to be successful. It was pointed out that technology leaders must understand
technology and business to be successful. They must develop professional experience
and perspectives on how to govern technology programs, apply architecture concepts,
and recognize processes that effectively use resources. High-potential technology leaders
must be developed as executives that can wear many hats and balance multiple roles.
They must become business strategist and IT strategist, service providers and change
masters, and IT functional leaders capable of pursuing visions of leveraging technology
solutions. They must assume all of those roles and implement corporate accountability.
Private sector accountability tends to address business ethics and accountability to
stockholders and the public. But, there is more to it than legal and financial
accountability. There should be personal integrity and accountability to society. This
part of the dissertation was completed with an insiders view of the financial service
industry and with specific attention paid to the development of technology leaders and
technology development processes. Visionary leadership traits were observed in the
private sector in individual innovators and within corporate and industry groups. The
need to dream of the possible, embrace a vision, exercise professional experience, and to
gather talent and support were seen as necessary traits comparable to those observed in
the Navy case.

246

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Education and professional experience matter in the development of successful


visionary leaders. Executive transition programs like The Executive Program (TEP) can
be highly effective in building a cadre of technology leaders in complex organizations.
Additionally, a combination of assignments to important projects, the use of knowledge
management across organizations, and true empowerment will nurture visionaries. Subir
Chowdhury and Rosabeth Moss Kanter along with their collaborators documented what
was observed and postulated as necessary for advancing visionary leadership.
Management practices and frameworks all point to creating a vision, establishing
organizational processes and leveraging resources. Chowdhury personally characterized
new leadership as Janusian leadership with the capacity to look forward and to look
back in order to preside over endings and beginnings, and sunsets and daybreaks in
evolving business technology and visions. Chowdhury calls for aggressive leaders who
will take risks, break with tradition and exercise new thinking to take advantage of the
information age while sounding a note of caution in understanding the value of
technology. Visionary leaders must have the experience to apply this philosophy in their
organizations and the technical knowledge and experience to recognize the value of
emerging technology.
Kanter evokes images of leaders who have the strength to support visions and
capture opportunities generated by the information age. Like Gates, Kanter believes in
collaboration. Kanters Collabronauts are people who collaborate within a company,
with contributing partners supporting companies with their core competencies, and
partners in an industry collaborating within a government sponsored association to make
business better for all. Kanter offers a solid foundation from which to embrace both

247

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

innovation and collaboration in the information age. Her ideas and advice are
substantially based on the fundamental traits of visionary leaders with emphasis on vision
and gathering people to create and sponsor the vision.
It was during the period of observation within the large complex banking
organization that it became clear that visionary leadership was required to breakout of the
conservative barriers that stood in the way of adopting new technologies. The case study
on check imaging and Check 21 described the need for persistence and collaboration in
advancing a vision in a company and across an industry. The disruptive technology
concept was actually briefed to a number of bank executives in 2000 along with the
results from a joint application development session on image capture and presentment of
imaged checks. The response to those presentations was lukewarm and confirmed the
need to awaken visionary leadership in that group. As it turned out, the bank was forced
into a major strategy to enter the Internet business environment at a cost of $100 million
dollars. The Check 21 case finally demonstrated the need for industry collaboration on
delivering technology that will have broad implications. That collaborative effort
requires continued promotion of the vision, the collective professional experience to
overcome competitive advantage concerns, and gathering support in industry and
government circles.
A qualitative analysis process was used to gather pertinent points and examples
from the dissertation to confirm the thesis. Tables were generated to identify vision,
professional experience, and leadership traits and actions that focus on the overall
argument (see Tables 1 through 3). The analysis confirmed the thesis for the researcher.
A survey was conducted with 18 Navy and private sector technology innovators to assess

248

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

the soundness of the research qualitative analysis. Survey results supported research
conclusions and served to gather comments that further substantiated the importance of
vision, professional experience, and leadership in gathering others to support a vision (see
Appendix E). The survey was targeted to a gathering of naval officers, Navy scientist,
Navy engineers, a research laboratory executive, a DoD executive, a private sector
corporate technology director, and an entrepreneur who were involved in advancing the
vision of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). This was not a science-based broad
audience survey, but a survey completed by individuals who have the responsibility and
accountability for delivering emerging technology to the Navy.
As evidenced by the gathering of the CNO vision group used in the survey, the
Navy has adopted private sector business concepts in the acquisition and maintenance of
information technology systems. The idea of maximizing value in the Navy is the same
as in the private sector. To further substantiate the dissertation thesis a theory-topractice example was presented that demonstrates the use of vision, professional
experience, and leadership in gathering Navy and private sector industry support. Bill
Johnsons A-CRI Process reflects the spirit of vision and accountability that began with
Admirals Rickover and Rabom, and exercised by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Johnson
made specific points that a vision must be simple and concise, strategies must
institutionalize the vision and nurture its progress, responsibilities must be maintained,
and goals must be clearly defined and measurable to maintain drive and enthusiasm in the
people associated with the vision. A-RCI was initiated to create an open business
environment with the goal of forcing industry collaboration and creating incentives for
individuals and entrepreneurs to deliver evolving IT solutions.

249

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The dissertation thesis of vision, professional experience and leadership has been
observed in the Navy and the private sector. Examples have been shared to confirm that
visionary leadership initiated by Admiral Rickover remains alive today. It remains in
practice with Bill Gates of Microsoft, Bill Johnson at Naval Sea Systems Command, and
others like Allan Woods of Mellon Financial. It is believed that the results of this work
represents a comprehensive report on research and observations that will motivate others
to adopt visionary leadership traits and capabilities. It is entirely possible to become a
visionary leader by acting on ones dreams and ideas, using a position of professional
influence to advance those ideas, and exercise the leadership to gather support from
others.
This dissertation adds to the font of knowledge in the humanities and business
management by extending understanding of how humans can create evolution and evolve
through technology. This dissertation was limited in its scope to Navy visionaries within
the submarine community and private sector visionaries involved with information
technology. There are certainly many others who have adopted these traits either directly
from the Rickover and Rabom examples or from the management processes that have
been published since the 1950s. The dissertation did not extend to research on visionary
leadership in other areas; however, it would seem that the basic tenets of the thesis are
applicable to other disciplines. The thesis surely supports the notion of a technology
leadership and governance discipline that can be taught and embraced to produce
successful and accountable innovation leaders.
In closing, technology-based vision is a combination of technical knowledge and
the foresight to apply that knowledge to generate an acceptable technology. Individuals

250

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

are presented with opportunities to advance these kinds of ideas on a daily basis. If a
person is in a position to deliver a solution, they should speak up. If a person is the
leader of an organization they should remain open to those bright ideas. And, everyone
should remember Tom Peters advice that: "If a window of opportunity appears, don't
pull down the shade."

251

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Appendix A - Statement o f Admiral Frank L. Bowman

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL FRANK L. BOWMAN


DIRECTOR
NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM
Thank you for inviting me to testify on the implementation of the provisions of Title
XXXII of the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, which establishes the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and includes the Office of Naval
Reactors as one of the three Programs of the NNSA.
Naval Reactors is a centrally managed, single-purpose organization with clear lines of
authority and total responsibility and accountability for all aspects of Naval Nuclear
Propulsion. As the Director of Naval Reactors, I have direct access to the Secretary of
the Navy and to the Secretary of Energy. Naval Reactors principal mission is to provide
militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants to the U.S. Navy and to ensure their safe,
reliable, and long-lived operation.
Under the visionary leadership of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, Naval Reactors was
organized in the late 1940s with the concept of cradle-to-grave responsibility. Upon
Admiral Rickovers retirement in 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12344
with the express purpose of
... preserving the basic structure, policies, and
practices developed for this program in the past.... The FY 2000 National Defense
Authorization Act specified the Executive Order as the charter for the Deputy
Administrator for Naval Reactors and, similar to the FY 1985 National Defense
Authorization Act, mandated that ...the provisions of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Executive Order remain in full force and effect until changed by law. The charter, as
incorporated within Title XXXII, maintains my responsibility for all aspects of the
Program, including the following:
-

Research, development, design, and construction;

Operation, operator selection and training, maintenance, and disposal; and

Administration (e.g., security, nuclear safeguards, transportation, public


information, procurement, and fiscal management).

Operating within the tenets of the Executive Order, the Naval Reactors Program has a flat
organization with clear, simplified lines of authority and a culture of technical,
managerial, and fiscal excellence. The longevity of its senior managers and staff ensures
continuity of expertise through the extremely long lives of the nuclear propulsion plants it
builds and supports. The Program has compiled an unparalleled record of success,
including the following:
-

Nuclear-powered warships have safely steamed over 119 million miles


equivalent to nearly 5,000 trips around the Earth.

252

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Naval Reactors is responsible today for 103 operating nuclear reactors. For
perspective, this is equal to the number of licensed commercial power reactors in
the United States. In addition, over the years, we have accumulated over twice
the operating experience of the U.S. commercial power industry. Naval reactor
plants have accumulated over 5,100 reactor-years of operation, compared to about
2,400 for the U.S. commercial industry. In addition, our operating experience is
about half that of the entire commercial power industry worldwide (our 5,100
reactor-years compared to about 9,200 worldwideincluding the United States).
-

Naval Reactors outstanding (and fully public) environmental record enables


our ships to visit over 150 ports around the worldcritical to our Nations
forward-presence strategy and ability to project power.

Both former Senator Warren Rudman and Admiral Henry G. Chiles recognized the
importance of Naval Reactors organizational structure to its success and to national
security in testimony before the full Senate Armed Services Committee last June.
Senator Rudman stated:
We called for the integration of the DOE Office of Naval Reactors into the new
agency for nuclear stewardship. We recommend this because we believe the ANS
[now NNSA] should be the repository for all defense-related activities at DOE.
However, we believe the Office of Naval Reactors must retain its current structure
and legal authority, under which its director is a dual-hatted official, both a fourstar admiral and a part of DOE.
Admiral Chiles also advised the Committee:
...I want to state emphatically that Naval Reactors, the DOE arm of the Naval
Reactors Program, is carrying out its mission in an exemplary manner. Therefore,
I strongly recommend you retain Naval Reactors authorities, responsibilities, and
structure. A most important point is [that it is] crucial to ensure Naval Reactors
remains outside the Department of Defense so the program can continue to
successfully carry out its regulatory responsibility. I can personally attest, based
upon my long and direct experience, to the success of the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program. This program is a model of how a defense activity should be
carried out within the Government.
Todays Navy operates 83 nuclear-powered warships and 1 nuclear-powered research
submarine. Nuclear power enhances a warships capability and flexibility to sprint where
needed, and arrive ready for sustained power projection. The Navy has repeatedly
employed the unique capabilities inherent in nuclear propulsion. Sustained high speed
(without dependence on a slow logistics train) enables rapid response to changing world
circumstances, allowing operational commanders to surge these ships from the U.S. to
trouble spots or to shift them from one crisis area to another. Nuclear propulsion helps
the Navy to stretch available assets to meet todays worldwide commitments.

253

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Nine of twelve aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered growing to eleven of


twelve when CVN 76 and CYN 77 enter the Fleet. Nuclear-powered carriers
can transit to a crisis area unsupported at sustained high speed and arrive fully
ready to launch the awesome firepower of the airwing. Then, they can sustain
that presence and response without immediate replenishment of combat
consumables, and with tactical mobility and flexibility, free from the need for
propulsion fuel replenishment. The future carrier, CVNX, will continue to
provide these benefits.
The 56 U.S. nuclear attack submarines possess inherent characteristics such as
stealth, endurance, mobility, firepower, and multimission flexibility. These
characteristics afford unfettered access to contested battlespace 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, for as long as required. Once there, submarines can
surveil new or emerging adversaries undetected and provide timely insight on
their intentions and capabilities to policymakers without risk of political
escalationparticularly valuable because many potential adversaries
understand their vulnerability to satellite reconnaissance, and often employ
deceptive methods to defeat it. The usefulness of these traits has resulted in
the near doubling of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
tasking requirements over the last 10 years while submarine force levels have
been reduced by nearly 40 percent. Should tensions escalate, submarines can
also execute Tomahawk strikes from undisclosed locations without warning,
often from inside an adversary's defensive umbrella.

Additionally, within its Research and Development (R&D) programs, the Navy is
investing the R&D dollars necessary to equip submarines with new and dominant
technologies. The Navy is developing offboard sensors (such as unmanned undersea
vehicles) to facilitate a clearer picture of the battlespace, and is leveraging the
explosion in information systems technology to more readily share this insight with
other naval and joint forces in a timely and useful manner. The Navy is working to
increase payload capacity and enhance multimission flexibility. These technologies
will be integrated into VIRGINIA Class submarines as they are built, and backfitted
into earlier submarines, where appropriate. The Navy is also pursuing electric drive
technology, which will dramatically improve our acoustic stealth and provide the
power density required for revolutionary advances in sensors and weapons.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Joint Staff, in conjunction with our unified
warfighting CINCs, recently completed an exhaustive study of attack submarine
missions and force structure. The study reconfirmed that submarines are far from
being Cold War relics. They provide unprecedented multimission capability and will
continue to be of significant value as we execute the national security strategy in the
challenging decades of the 21st century.
-

The 18 nuclear-powered OHIO Class ballistic missile submarines are the most
survivable and cost-effective leg of the Nations strategic deterrence triad.
These reliable, stealthy ships also carry more strategic warheads than the other
two legs of the triad combined. These ships use only 34 percent of our
strategic budget and are manned by less than 1.5 percent of our naval
personnel.

254

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

NNSA IMPLEMENTATION
The Office of Naval Reactors within the Department of Energy transferred into the
NNSA on
1 March 2000. The efforts expended for this transition ensured that there have been no
interruptions in Program operations or support for the Navy. Naval Reactors smooth
transition can be primarily attributed to:
- The hard work of the Congress and their staffs in invoking and preserving
the Naval Reactors Program charter, Executive Order 12344, in Title XXXII; and
- The unique nature of the Program, which has a single-mission focus with
laboratories and field offices solely dedicated to naval nuclear propulsion.
Naval Reactors Executive Order provides the Program with the tools necessary to ensure
the continuation of its historical technical and managerial excellence. For example,
because the Program maintains total responsibility for administration and because the
Director has a mandated long term (8 years), I can ensure that areas essential to our
Programs success (such as radiological controls, nuclear safety, environmental safety
and health, and security) remain mainstreamed into all aspects of our daily work.
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program has a strong security program. Nevertheless,
because of current concerns over security, the Program is conducting a detailed review of
our protection methodology. We are looking beyond the written security policies. We
are evaluating all potential methods of loss of technology to ensure that our security
program is able to provide the right level of protection for our critical information
CONCLUSION
The Naval Reactors Program recently moved into its second half century of successfully
supporting the Nation's national security with safe and effective nuclear propulsion plants
for the Navy's most formidable forward-deployed ships. At no time in the history of our
Program has the value of nuclear propulsion been more clear. As the Navy diligently
works to more efficiently meet increasing worldwide demands with decreasing assets,
naval nuclear propulsion eases the strain.
Nuclear-powered warships long lives, ability to surge to meet emergent requirements,
and fast transits allow our Nation to ensure that American forces are in place when
needed. No other nation has this capability. To a large extent, the credit for this
capability belongs to the wisdom of the Congress, which has consistently supported our
Program, our ideas, and the way we conduct business.
Naval Reactors, working with the Navy and the DOE, is committed to maintaining this
record of excellence and ensuring that our technology meets the rigorous demands of the
21st century. Your support will continue to be needed and appreciated.

255

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Appendix B - An Interview with Admiral Frank Bowman on the SSGN


By NAVSEA Office of Public Affairs
Admiral Skip Bowman says this project will bring unheard-of war-fighting capability to
the military.
Navy Times 02 DEC 02-Bremerton Sun 24 NOV 02
By Chris Barron - Sun Staff, WASHINGTON, D.C.
While talk of war grew louder, the Navy quietly began one of its most important projects
recently. Puget Sound Naval Shipyard started work on the three-year refueling and
conversion of the Trident submarine USS Ohio.
When the Ohio leaves the shipyard in 2005, the 560-foot sub will have been transformed
from a nuclear war deterrent to a platform capable of confronting today's threats with
cruise missiles and Special Forces.
The Ohio will be the first of Naval Submarine Base Bangor's four oldest Tridents to be
converted in a $3.3 billion program. The last of the conversions is to be completed in
2007. "It's a hugely important project," ADM Skip Bowman, director of Naval Nuclear
Propulsion, said recently during an interview at his Washington Navy Yard office.
"When you combine the stealthy attributes of a submarine with the large volume of
payload of a Trident submarine, you've got quite a capability for the joint force.
Bowman emphasized that the new sub classified as SSGN for nuclear-powered guided
missile submarine will not only be a powerful Navy weapon but a boon for the entire
military. He's seeking ideas from all branches of the service to help improve its warfighting capability.
The SSGNs will take on the role of smaller fast-attack subs, but will remain as stealthy as
ever. Like a shark coming out of the murky darkness, the SSGN might not be seen or
heard, but it carries a big bite.
The subs will carry as many as 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles seven Tomahawks will
fit into a tube that used to hold one nuclear missile and 66 Special Forces personnel
who can be deployed via minisubs.
That's just the beginning of what Bowman sees as a limitless capability. A secondary plan
is to use the 8-foot-wide missile silos to launch unmanned underwater and aerial vehicles
(UUVs and d UAVs). Special Forces commandoes will be able to control the UAVs with
offboard sensors.

256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

"This is an evolution, and we're all thinking now," Bowman said, adding that the subs can
be used for much more than launching cruise missiles. "Even in 2007,1 dont think the
thinking will end just because we fielded the last four of these.
The thinking will move forward in January after former Bangor submarine USS Florida
participates in Giant Shadow. The exercise off the Florida coast will be the first test of a
Trident launching Tomahawks, Special Forces and UUVs. Unmanned aerial vehicles
wont be tested from a Trident until 2004.
During Giant Shadow, Special Forces will leave USS Florida after a UUV launched from
the sub scopes out a training mine field and maps the safest route.
Special Forces personnel aboard large mini-subs and advanced delivery vehicles
then will go ashore on a Caribbean island, take it over and blow up objects. In addition, a
P-3 Orion patrol plane, specifically fitted for intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance, will conduct air watch for the Florida.
The exercise will simulate a scenario in which sea and air access to an enemy country has
been blocked by neighboring countries, similar to countries surrounding Iraq denying
access to the United States. "If someone decides to deny access, even with our traditional
carrier battle group, the submarine might be the first and only capability to get in close,"
Bowman said.
"This is going to demonstrate the ability to conduct an entire Special Forces campaign
from the SSGN. It's pretty exciting stuff." The SSGNs' payload will increase its value
compared to the cramped 360-foot Los Angeles class attack subs, which have little
storage room.
"We've never had this payload volume at sea in a stealthy-type form in the history of the
world," Bowman said. "No one ever has." Because of the SSGNs attack capability, each
sub will be forward-deployed for 14 of its remaining 20 years. Like the Tridents, the
SSGNs will have two crews. A crew typically will be deployed for 70 days. The
replacement crew will be flown to meet the sub wherever it may be.
"Periodically, every three or four missions, the submarine would come back to Bremerton
for upkeep and care and feeding," Bowman said.
The SSGN program passed through Congress with the help of Rep. Norm Dicks, D
Belfair, and the Bush administration is a bargain compared to new Virginia-class fast
attack submarines currently under construction.
A new Virginia-class sub costs $1.6 billion. The estimated cost for each Trident
conversion is $800 million to $900 million. The design for all four will cost $600 million.
Actual conversion of the Ohio, currently undergoing refueling at Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, won't begin until late next year. At that time, USS Michigan will enter PSNS to

257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

begin its three-year overhaul and USS Florida will enter Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The
final refueling and conversion will commence in late 2004 on USS Georgia.
"We're looking ahead to the delivery of these ships and the Navy taking to the joint force
commander a capability we just haven't fielded before," Bowman said.

258

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Appendix C - VARBusiness M agazines December 2004 Top Technology


Innovators
By VARBusiness
VARBusiness, Dec. 09, 2004
Accenture
James Hall managing partner of the Accenture Technology, Alliance & Solutions service
line.
Hall has responsibility for Accenture's technology vision and strategy, investments and
capabilities in IT architectures and platforms, and research and development activities.
He also oversees Accenture's alliances program.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Put in place effective systems for measuring,
managing and reporting IT performance, offered comprehensive identity and access
management architecture, and created a highly utilized and flexible infrastructure.
Actuate
Nico Nierenberg
Chairman and Chief Architect
Nierenberg has been a software entrepreneur and innovator for more than 20 years. He
founded Actuate in 1993 and served as CEO until August 2000. In his current role,
Nierenberg guides Actuate's technology direction. Prior to Actuate, he co-founded Unify
and was systems software chief for Rogers, Kirkham and Associates.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Initiated the open-source Business Intelligence and
Reporting Tools (BIRT) project with the Eclipse Foundation. BIRT will result in the
industry's first open-source BI and reporting platform by early 2005.
Altiris
Dwain Kinghorn
Chief Technology Officer
Kinghorn founded Computing Edge in 1994. He merged the company with Altiris in
October 2000 and became CTO. Previously, Kinghorn served on the original threeperson development team that created Microsoft's Systems Management Server.
Computing Edge has been the leading provider of SMS add-on tools.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Natively integrating client, server and IT assetmanagement capabilities to enable true IT life-cycle management. The integrated
functionality has resulted in attractive ROI for customers.

AMD
Dirk Meyer
Executive Vice President of Computational Products Group
Meyer is responsible for all product development, manufacturing, operations and
marketing for the Computational Products Group. He joined AMD in 1996 as director of
engineering for the AMD-K7 microprocessor development program. Meyer came to
AMD from Digital, where he was co-architect of the Alpha 21064 and 21264

259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

microprocessors.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Extended AMD's architectural leadership by
demonstrating the industry's first x86 dual-core processor for 32- and 64-bit computing.
Dual-core AMD Opteron processors for servers and workstations are expected to launch
in mid-2005, followed by versions for the client market in late 2005.

Apple
Avadis "Avie" Tevanian, Jr.
Chief Software Technology Officer
Tevanian joined Apple in 1997 and focuses on setting companywide software technology
directions for Apple. He is a recognized pioneer in creating cross-platform development
environments used worldwide. Before joining Apple, Tevanian was vice president of
engineering at NeXT, responsible for managing NeXT's engineering department. He
started his professional career at Carnegie Mellon University, where he was a principal
designer and engineer of the Mach operating system.
Borland
Patrick Kerpan
Chief Technology Officer
Kerpan directs the company's technology strategy and oversees Borland's team of chief
scientists. He has more than 20 years of software development experience, joining
Borland in 2000 through the acquisition of Bedouin, a company he founded. Before that,
he was managing director of derivatives technology for Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Developed significant advances in the domain of
integrated application life-cycle management, including a petabyte-scalable file vault,
asset distribution for decentralized development teams and a search engine for structured
and unstructured data.

Check Point Software


Gil Shwed
Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Shwed is a well-known figure in the Internet security industry, having co-founded Check
Point and developed a number of evolutionary technologies, including the original
FireWall-1. He also invented Stateful Inspection, now de facto standard technology.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Introduction of the company's internal and Web
security product lines, including InterSpect internal security gateway appliance,
Connectra, SSL Network Extender and Web Intelligence systems, and the Network
Extender technology.

Cisco Systems
Charles Giancarlo
Chief Technology Officer

260

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Giancarlo plays a key role in developing and implementing Cisco's technology strategy
and vision. In addition, he holds the senior leadership role for two groups, voice
technology and global government solutions, and is president of Cisco-Linksys, an
independent division of Cisco that provides wired and wireless products for the consumer
and SOHO networking market. Giancarlo joined Cisco in 1994 and holds multiple
patents in the areas of ATM and voice technologies.
Top technology innovation in 2004: The launch of the self-defending network (Cisco's
vision for security systems) and the development of the Cisco-sponsored industry
initiative Network Admission Control, along with the delivery of Video Telephony
Advantage, the first completely intuitive video telephony capability.

Computer Associates
Mark Barrenechea
Executive vice president of product development
Barrenechea is responsible for the majority of CA's worldwide R&D activities, including
all technology, worldwide support, product marketing and IT within the company. Prior
to joining CA, he held a number of posts at Oracle, including senior vice president of
applications development, and was a member of the executive management committee.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Designing a common architecture that enables
integration between all of CA's management software solutions, including Unicenter
operations management and service management, BrightStor storage management, eTrust
security management and AllFusion application life-cycle management.

EMC
David A. Donatelli
Executive Vice President of Storage Platforms Operations
Donatelli joined EMC in 1987 and currently oversees development of the EMC
Symmetrix and CLARiiON families of networked-storage systems and EMC Celerra
network-attached storage systems. He is credited with driving EMC into the openstandards systems market in 1995, and evolving the company from a single-product
mainframe vendor to one that sells systems ranging from $5,000 to $300,000 today.
Top technology innovation in 2004: In February, EMC updated every storage platform in
its portfolio, broadening the range and functionality of everything from the high-end
Symmetrix DMX family to the Celerra NAS.

Hewlett-Packard
Shane V. Robison
Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy and Technology Officer
Robison is responsible for shaping the company's overall technology agenda and for
leading the company's strategy and corporate development efforts. He leads the
technology and strategy councils as well as the development of future technology road
maps, working closely with HP's business units and HP Labs. Robison's background
includes high-level stints at Compaq, AT&T Labs and Apple.

261

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Top technology innovation in 2004: Building out HP's management software capabilities
through a series of software company acquisitions. Creating a dashboard for OpenView
that lets CIOs manage and control their own data centers.

IBM
Nicholas M. Donofrio
Senior vice president of technology and manufacturing
Donofrio, a 30-plus year IBM veteran, leads the company's technology strategy. His
responsibilities range from IBM Research to the Personal Systems Group to IBM's
enterprise on-demand transformation team. He also heads the IBM Technology Team and
is chairman of the board of governors for the IBM Academy of Technology. He has led
many of IBM's major development and manufacturing teams, from semiconductor and
storage technologies to microprocessors and PCs.
Top technology innovation in 2004: IBM initiated the Global Innovation Outlook project
to glean new insights about the forces that will shape and change business and society in
the coming decade. Donofrio also led the new National Innovation Initiative to formulate
a strategy to advance innovation across a broad range of industries.

Intel
Pat Gelsinger
Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
Gelsinger has been with Intel since 1979. He leads Intel's Corporate Technology Group,
which encompasses many Intel research activities, driving industry alignment with these
technologies and initiatives. As CTO, he coordinates Intel's long-term research efforts
and helps ensure consistency from Intels emerging computing, networking and
communications products and technologies.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Intel began delivering power-optimized technology
products into the marketplace, which include power technologies at the process, logic,
architecture, software and platform levels.

Microsoft
Craig Mundie
Chief Technology Officer
Mundie works with chief software architect Bill Gates to develop a comprehensive set of
technical, business and policy strategies for Microsoft. Mundie is charged with
coordinating strategic technology implementations that span multiple Microsoft product
groups. He focuses on Internet-scale platform architectures, and technical and policy
issues around critical infrastructure protection. He joined Microsoft in 1992 after co
founding Alliant Computer Systems, a company that developed massively parallel
supercomputers.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Microsoft is building more secure products as part of
its Trustworthy Computing initiative. The company has identified patterns in terms of

262

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

attacks, things like network attacks, e-mail attacks and buffer overruns, and has been
seeking ways to vaccinate against them en masse. The 2004 release of Windows XP SP2
brings many of these features to bear, including a firewall enabled by default to mitigate
network attacks, and safer handling of e-mail attachments and Web downloads.

Palm One
Jeff Hawkins
Chief Technology Officer
Hawkins brings nearly 20 years of technical expertise to his role as Palm One's chief
technology officer. He co-founded Handspring with Donna Dubinsky in July 1998. Five
years prior, he had founded Palm Computing, where, in 1994, he invented the original
PalmPilot products. Hawkins, who holds nine patents for handheld devices and features,
is often credited as the designer who reinvented that market.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Palm One introduced several important technologies
in 2004, not the least of which was changing the way data was stored in the Treo 650
smartphone by switching to a nonvolatile memory model. For the first time, it is nearly
impossible to lose data, even if the battery is permanently removed from the device.

Symantec
Robert A. Clyde
Chief Technology Officer
Clyde sets technology vision and strategy for Symantec. Under his direction, he founded
specialized teams at the company, including Symantec Research Labs and Symantec
Security Response. With 25 years of experience, he is considered a pioneer in the
development of intrusion-detection and policy-compliance products. Prior to Symantec,
he co-founded Axent Technologies.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Helped create generic exploit blocking, a new
technology designed to stop threats before they emerge and to protect vulnerable software
against future attack. It has been integrated into Symantec products and will enable
security experts to examine software vulnerabilities and identify the specific stream of
data that must be sent over the network to exploit vulnerability. They can then produce a
signature that detects and blocks any attack that meets the exploit criteria.
VeriSign
Judy Lin
Executive Vice President
Lin manages the worldwide development activities for several major lines of business,
including authentication services, Web trust and payment services, and managed security
services. She joined VeriSign in 1996 and was instrumental in building the company's
market-leading Internet- and enterprise-managed PKI services. Prior to joining VeriSign,
Lin held posts at Taligent, Apple and HP.
Top technology innovation in 2004: Introduction of the VeriSign Unified Authentication
solution. This new security solution comprises comprehensive software and services
platform coupled with VeriSign's new family of multipurpose authentication tokens,

263

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

including One Time Password, PKI and smart-card functionality.

264

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Appendix D - Visionary Leader Traits and Actions Survey

The following survey was used to gather opinions on visionary leadership from
technologist and executives involved with advancing technological solutions.

Visionary Leadership Traits and Action Survey


Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey on visionary leader traits and actions.
Your answers will be used to assess Ph.D. dissertation research on leadership traits
required of individuals who are responsible for advancing technological change in
complex organizations. The research thesis holds that visionary leaders must have vision,
professional experience and leadership to achieve success. Research has been completed
on two U.S. Navy pioneers and practices prevalent in the corporate sector.
Please share your perspectives on visionary leader traits and actions in the following
survey.
Salve Regina University requires that you are informed of your rights relating to this
survey. Please complete the required Informed Consent Waiver below prior to
completing the survey.
Thank you for your time and personal support for this dissertation.

Salve Regina University


Informed Consent for Research Involving Human Subjects
You are being invited to participate in a Ph.D. Dissertation Research Study. This form is designed to provide you with information about this
research. The Principal Investigator or a representative will describe this research to you and answer any o f your questions (William F. Bundy,
CAGS, 401-439-0708). If you have any questions or complaints about the informed consent process o f this research study, please contact the
Office o f Graduate Studies - Lance Carluccio, Ph.D. 401-341-2153 | FAX 401-341-2973.
This research study is attempting to measure your attitudes and perspectives on visionary leadership based on a hypothetical model. All
information gathered is confidential and anonymous unless you give specific permission to use your name and perspectives in the resultant
dissertation. If you decide not to complete the survey or interview, there will be no reference to your actions in the research. Your survey,
questionnaire, or interview will be assigned a tracking code to maintain anonymity and track data collection. Your tracking code is the first three
characters o f your e-mail address.
Your personal perspectives on visionary leadership are important to this research and may help in creating a leadership theory and practice that
can be shared with others in leadership positions.

The survey, questionnaire or interviewer will ask you to share how you feel and what you think about certain aspects o f a humanities-based
model that takes a view on human response to challenges, duty ethics, management skills and leadership. We ask you to be honest and
straightforward. Your perspectives matter in attempting to validate the model and define impacts on human aspects o f leadership development
and actual success in a complex organization.
Data and personal perspectives will be used to either validate or refine the visionary leadership model with respect to leadership of major U.S.
Navy and corporate programs. If you would like to be informed o f the conclusions drawn from this study, stay in contact with Mr. Bundy by

265

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

email wfbri@aol.coin and he will share results with you as they become available.
Results o f this research will be presented in a Ph.D. dissertation and public defense of that dissertation at Salve Regina University. The
dissertation will be published as part o f Ph.D. in Humanities degree requirements. Your identity will not be revealed in the dissertation or
presentation unless you have granted specific permission. The Principal Investigator will determine the extent o f personal references in the
dissertation and presentation.
If at any time you wish to withdraw from the study, and remove all previously completed inputs from the data bank, simply notify Mr. Bundy of
that desire and reveal your tracking code. All data relating to that tracking code will be removed.
Thank you for your assistance and for sharing your valuable experience and perspectives.
If you give your consent to have your responses included in the research study please check the appropriate block below. Please answer the
questions on granting permission to use your name or for maintaining anonymity.
If this is an electronic process using e-mail. Your actual e-mail and this informed consent for will be retained for record purposes. Simply type
in your name in the places provided below and indicate electronic signature in the signature line with your e-mail address.

Electronic Response - Please insert an X after the arrow to indicate your choices

I give my consent to use my responses in the study.

I give my permission to use my name and perspectives in the published dissertation

DO NOT use my name in the published dissertation - I want to remain anonymous.

Signed
___________________________________________________ e-mail address first three characters
Date

Prepared by William F. Bundy, CAGS


Ph.D. Candidate, Salve Regina University
Approved November 2003

266

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Vision - Visionary leaders must have the following traits and/or take
the following actions.
1. The ability to express technological change as a worthwhile pursuit to achieve a
strategy.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

2. Establish the visionary as the individual who is accountable for delivering a


technological breakthrough or significant capability.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

3. Create a basis for others to support the visionary leader, the team or the entity
pursuing the vision.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

4. Communicate the vision on a broad basis in communications that are easy to


understand and believe.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

5. Promote the vision as a significant advantage, assure its acceptance, and establish
rewards for associating with the concept across the organization.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

267

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Comments or observations:

Professional Experience - Visionary leaders must have the following


traits and/or take the following actions.
1. Gain and maintain formal education in the core discipline of the organization.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

2. Gain practical experience through leader and follower roles in the


organization including project and program management responsibilities.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

3. Participate in developing people, processes and sustaining technology to


support technological change.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

4. Create techniques, tactics and procedures that overcome bureaucratic barriers


to introducing technological change.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

268

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

5. Recognize existing efforts and companion technologies that will create


greater acceptance of technological change.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

6. Establish return on investment and value metrics that will promote


technological change.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

Comments or observations:

Leadership - Visionary leaders must have the following traits and/or


take the following actions.
1. Build relationships with superiors, lawmakers or others who can fund and
direct action to pursue technological change.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

2. Gather talented administrators who share the vision and have the talent to
guide development, maximize funding and pursue processes.

Absolutely
Essential

Very

Important

Important

Least

Not

Important

Required

269

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

3. Recruit scientists, technologists, and operators who can design, build and
operate the technological instruments and applications that give the vision
life.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

4. Establish an organization that promotes learning, nurturing, and a


professionally rewarding environment.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

5. Reward participation in the project with identification as a contributor,


sponsor or co-visionary.

o
Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important
Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

6. Market the vision to the public, stakeholders and influential people to gain and
maintain momentum toward ultimate goals and visionary success.

Absolutely
Essential

Very
Important

Important

Least
Important

Not
Required

Comments or observations:

MORE on next page

270

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Demographic Information
1. Naval Officer (Active or Retired)?
O

Yes

No

2. Navy scientist or engineer?


O

Yes

No

3. Private sector technology executive?

Yes

No

4. Private sector business executive?


O

Yes

No

5. Other occupation or position?


O

Yes

No

Other_______

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!


Mailing Address:
Will Bundy
1 Tina Court
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809

271

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Appendix E - Visionary Leadership Traits and Action Survey Graphic Results


The following response summaries and comments present the results of the non-scientific survey conducted to gather focused opinions
on visionary leadership traits and actions found in the dissertation. Survey participants were all technology innovation practitioners
actively involved with creating a technology-enabled capability for the Navy. Their opinions are used to gauge the soundness and
importance of the researchers perceptions. Survey participants represent scientists and engineers who have responsibility for
developing information technology integrated systems, their private sector contractor partners, university laboratory researchers and a
Department of Defense executive sponsor.
Survey questions address traits and actions derived from dissertation research and observations. Participants were asked to rank the
importance of each trait or action. The results of this survey confirm the findings of the researcher in support the need for vision,
professional experience and leadership as fundamental for visionary leaders. Results are provided on the following pages followed by
selected comments. Pertinence tables are provided on results pages.

272

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Vision - Visionary leaders must have the following traits and/or take the following actions.

Trait Area

The ability to express technological


change as a worthwhile pursuit to
achieve a strategy.
Establish the visionary as the
individual who is accountable for
delivering a technological
breakthrough or significant capability
Create a basis for others to support
the visionary leader, the team or the
entity pursuing the vision.

Communicate the vision on a broad


basis in communications that are easy
to understand and believe.
Promote the vision as a significant
advantage, assure its acceptance, and
establish rewards for associating with
the concept across the organization.

Survey Results

Research
Pertinence
l

The ability to express technological change as a worthwhile pursuit to achieve a


strategy was judged to be absolutely essential to very important by the majority of
responses.
To establish the visionary as the individual who is accountable for delivering a
technological breakthrough or significant capability was judged to be very important
to important by the majority o f responses
To create a basis for others to support the visionary leader, the team or the entity
pursuing the vision was judged to be very important to absolutely essential by the
majority of responses.

To communicate the vision on a broad basis in communications that are easy to


understand and believe was judged to be absolutely essential by the m ajority of
responses.

To promote the vision as a significant advantage, assure its acceptance, and establish
rewards for associating with the concept across the organization was judge by most
to be absolutely essential and important.

P ertinence Table:
1. Directly correlates to creating and sponsoring the vision for
technological change.
2. Supports the vision through processes and procedures.
3. Defines the vision within the bureaucracy.

273

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Professional Experience - Visionary leaders must have the following traits and/or take the following actions.

Trait Area
Gain and maintain formal education
in the core discipline of the
organization
Gain practical experience through
leader and follower roles in the
organization including project and
program management responsibilities.
Participate in developing people,
processes and sustaining technology
to support technological change.
Create techniques, tactics and
procedures that overcome
bureaucratic barriers to introducing
technological change.
Recognize existing efforts and
companion technologies that will
create greater acceptance.
Establish return on investment and
value metrics that will promote
technological change

Pertinence

Survey Results

To gain and maintain formal education in the core discipline o f the organization was
judged to be important to very important by the majority of responses.

To gain practical experience through leader and follower roles in the organization
including project and program management responsibilities was judged to be very
important to fairly essential by the majority of responses.

To participate in developing people, processes and sustaining technology to support


technological change was judged to be very important or important by the majority
of responses.

To create techniques, tactics and procedures that overcome bureaucratic barriers to


introducing technological change was judged to be very important by the majority of
responses.

To recognize existing efforts and companion technologies that will create greater
acceptance of technological change was judged to be very important to important by
the majority of responses.

To establish return on investment and value metrics that will promote technological
change was judged to be very important to important by the majority o f responses.

P ertin en ce Table:
1. Directly correlates to understanding business processes,
bureaucracy, and barriers that must be considered to effect
technological change.
2. Supports the vision through processes and procedures.
3. Defines the vision within the bureaucracy.
274

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Leadership - Visionary leaders must have the following traits and/or take the following actions.

Trait Area
Build relationships with superiors,
lawmakers or others who can fund
and direct action to pursue
technological change.
Gather talented administrators who
share the vision and have the talent to
guide development, maximize
funding and pursue processes.
Recruit scientists, technologists, and
operators who can design, build and
operate the technological instruments
and applications that give the vision
life.
Establish an organization that
promotes learning, nurturing, and a
professionally rewarding
environment.
Reward participation in the project
with identification as a contributor,
sponsor or co-visionary.
Market the vision to the public,
stakeholders and influential people to
gain and maintain momentum toward
ultimate goals and visionary success.

Survey Results

Pertinence

To build relationships with superiors, lawmakers or others who can fund and direct
action to pursue technological change was judged to be absolutely essential by the
majority of responses.

To gather talented administrators who share the vision and have the talent to guide
development, maximize funding and pursue processes was judged to be very
important by the majority of responses.

To recruit scientists, technologists, and operators who can design, build and operate
the technological instruments and applications that give the vision life was judged to
be very important by the majority of responses.

To establish an organization that promotes learning, nurturing, and a professionally


rewarding environment was judged to be absolutely essential to important by the
majority of responses.

To reward participation in the project with identification as a contributor, sponsor or


co-visionary was judged to be very important by the majority of responses.

To market the vision to the public, stakeholders and influential people to gain and
maintain momentum toward ultimate goals and visionary success was judged to be
very important to essential by the majority of responses.

P ertinence Table:
1. Directly correlates to gathering talent and support for
technological change.
2. Supports the vision through processes and procedures.
3. Defines the vision within the bureaucracy.
275

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Selected Visionary Leadership Traits and Actions Survey Comments and Observations

Vision

Observer
Navy scientist or engineer

Comment or Observation
Having a clear and defendable articulation of the vision is essential.

Navy scientist or engineer

Communicating a vision in a way that others can understand and relate to their
situation is essential.

Navy scientist or engineer

It is absolutely essential that the visionary clearly and definitively


communicate the vision to the team.

DoD Executive

Having a clear, concise vision and plan is critical to ensure folks know what is
intended, their roles and responsibilities, and to gain their buy-in.

Navy scientist or engineer

Visionary leaders know what to do in a strategic direction, but they are usually
poor managers. Good managers get things done, but they are usually poor
leaders. [Research note: The private sector relies on technical experts and
business experts within their fields, a solution should include educating
technical leaders who want to advance in business matters and the converse for
business experts who want to become executives responsible for innovation in
technology-driven organizations.]

Research laboratory
executive

The notion of developing a vision, communicating it, and effectively executing


it is crucial for leadership. Leaders must be willing and prepared to make
decisions at all levels of the organization in a timely manner. [Research note:
Rickover was a master at making decisions that affected all levels of the
organization. In some cases, this was seen as an impediment.

276

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Vision (continued)

Professional Experience

Observer
Naval officer

Comment or Observation
I believe that between selling and producing a product, a visionary set himself
above the others by his ability to sell. A visionary should also be one who
recognizes the status quo is not good enough. [Research note: It is interesting
to note the terms sell and produce in this observation by a naval officer. The
current Navy leadership has become more in tune with formal business
education and practices. The Chief of Naval Operations holds a Master of
Business Administration from the University of Arkansas and is pushing for
more understanding of Navy programs on a business basis (Chief of Navy
Information January 2005).]

Observer
Navy scientist or engineer

Comment or Observation
Return on Investment for Science and Technology can be very dangerous.
It is important to maintain the long term view and not be caught up in short
term metrics. [Research note: This is analogous to the Research and
Development category in private sector project categories.]

Navy scientist or engineer

Establishing quantified objectives is essential in technology development.

Navy scientist or engineer

Visionaries are usually adept at developing their personnel.

Navy scientist or engineer

Formal education and professional expertise are crucial in establishing and


maintaining the visionarys credibility.

277

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Professional Experience
(continued)

Leadership

Naval Officer

Technical competency is required for leading a technical organization.


This does not imply the leader must be all knowing, but rather have
sufficient background to ask the right questions and provide proper
oversight. [Research note: This was seen in Raborns leadership style.
Rickover wanted to be involved in significant detail. In the private sector,
technology leaders are often technical experts and thus lack the broader
perspectives needed to exercise good business decisions.]

Naval officer

It is interesting to note how many times organizations go outside to find


senior leadership. By my definition, a visionary is one who effects change.
With that in mind it goes against common sense that a party-liners can
become a visionary. [Research note: The central issue with accepting
disruptive technologies as emerging solutions is the inertia imposed by
party-liners and internal executives who are fixated on the status quo and
business as usual mentality.]

Observer
Navy scientist or engineer

Comment or Observation
If the quality [and utility] of the new technology or its value is significant
marketing will not be required.

Navy scientist or engineer

People are the most important component in accomplishing any vision.


Technical expertise is most important in developing technology.

Navy scientist or engineer

Visionary leaders must forge a positive relationship with decision makers


through professional competency and not charismatic well [intended]
leadership.

278

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Leadership (continued)

Naval officer

Effectively communicating the vision both inside and outside an


organization is important, but it can not become all consuming such that it
distracts the leader from carrying out the responsibilities of running the
organization. [Research note: Raborn was effective at separating powers in
the organization that allowed him to focus outward while strong
administrators focused inside the organization. Rickover accomplished this
with his monitor program. In the private sector, executives tend to rely on
members of the staff and at corporate specialty levels to distribute tasks.]

Research laboratory
executive

It is important for the leader to take the time to match people with the
correct jobs.

279

Bibliography

Aldrich, Douglas F. Mastering the Digital Market Place. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1999.
American Financial. Check Image Strategy. Washington, DC: March 2001.
________ . Check Image Strategy. Washington, DC: July 2001.
________ . 2002 Image Strategy. Washington, DC: September 2001.
Angelelli, Lee and J.A.N. Lee. Professionalism in Computing. Virginia Technical
University, Fall 1994.
Apple Computer, INC. Steve Job Biography Revised 12/04. http://www.apple.com
/pr/bios/jobs.html. Accessed: January 2005.
Aronson, Robert, Commander U.S. Navy. SSGN: A Second Career fo r the Boomer
Force, www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/n87/usw/issue_6/ssgn.html. Accessed:
November 2004.
Barr, James and William E. Howard. POLARIS! New York: Harcourt, Brace &
Company, 1960.
Blair, Clay. The Atomic Submarine and Admiral Rickover. H. Holt, 1954.
Beach, Edward L. Around the World Submerged; The Voyage o f the Triton. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1962.
________ . Cold Is the Sea. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
________ . Salt and Steel: Reflections o f a Submariner. Naval Institute Press, 1999.
Banking Industry Technology Secretariat. BITS, Financial Services Roundtable.
www.bitsinfo.org. Washington, DC: Banking Industry Technology Secretariat,
Accessed: September 2001.
________ . Current Initiatives, www.bitsinfo.org. Washington, DC: Banking Industry
Technology Secretariat. Accessed: September 2001.
________ . Electronicfication Alternatives (EA) / Electronic Check Presentment (ECP).
www.bitsinfo.org. Washington, DC: Banking Industry Technology Secretariat.
Accessed: September 2001.

280

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Barbour, Ian. G. Religion and Science - Historical and Contemporary Issues: A Revised
and Expanded Edition o f Religion in an Age o f Science. San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1997.
________ . Ethics in an Age o f Technology. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
Barnett, Thomas P.M. The Pentagons New Map - War and Peace in the Twenty-First
Century. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 2004.
Barron, Chris. An Interview with Admiral Frank Skip Bowman. Sun Staff,
Washington, D.C. www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/02/mil030210-navsea03.htm. Accessed: November 2004.
Barua, Anitesh, Prabhudev Konana, Andrew B. Whinston and Fang Yin. Driving EBusiness Excellence. M IT Sloan Management Review (Fall 2001): 36-44.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, www.federalreserve.gov. Accessed: March
2002.
Bowman, Frank L. Admiral. Statement on Title XXXII of the FY2000 National Defense
Authorization Act. www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/ 106thcongress/00-0316bowman.htm. Access: November 2004.
________ . Statement before the House Committee on Science.
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/oct29/bowman.pdf. Accessed:
November 2004
Brown, Dan. The DaVinci Code. New York: Doubleday Press, 2003.
Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin, Hilary French and Michael Renner, eds. State o f
the Word 2000, Creating Jobs, Preserving the Environment by Michael Renner.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000.
Buchanan, Richard D. Enterprise Architecture: From Mission to Technology
Implementation. Stamford, CT: META Group, 2000.
Bunge, Mario. Philosophy o f Science and Technology. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1985.
Burrows, Peter. The Seed of Apple's Innovation. Business Week Online. October 12,
2004 www.businessweek.com. Accessed: February 2005.
Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. New York:
Bantam Books, 1982.
________ . The Web o f Life: A New Scientific Understanding o f Living Systems. New
York: Random Books, 1996.

281

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Central Intelligence Agency. Our First Line o f Defense - Presidential Reflections on US


Intelligence. Center for the Study of Intelligence, www.cia.gov/csi/monograph
/firstln/johnson.html. Accessed: October 2004.
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
CJCS Instruction 3170.01D. Washington DC: Department of Defense, 12 March
2004.
Chief of Naval Information. Admiral Vern Clark, USN, Chief o f Naval Operations.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/cno/clarkbio.html. Accessed: January 2005.
Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovators Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 1997 or New York: Harpers Business, 2000.
Chowdhury, Subir, Peter Senge, C. K. Parhalad, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Eds.
Management 21C: Someday We 11 All Mange This Way. London: Prentice Hall,
2000 .
Clark, Christine and Paul Gorski. Multicultural Education and the Digital Divide: Focus
on Race, Language, Socioeconomic Class, Sex and Disability. Multicultural
Perspectives 3(3) (2001): 39-44.
Cohan, Peter S. The Dilemma o f the Innovators Dilemma. The Industry Standard,
January 10, 2000.
Collins, Jim. Good to Great - Why Some Companies Make the Leap...and Others D ont.
New York: HarpersBusiness Books, 2001.
Concours Group. Talent Management in the New Economy. Kingwood, Texas: The
Concours Group, 2001.
________ . Building IT Bench Strength by Nick Vitalari and Vaughan Merlyn.
Kingwood, Texas: The Concours Group, March 2001.
________ . Creating a Committed and High Performance Workforce by Anthony
DiRomualdo. Kingwood, Texas: The Concours Group, 2001.
________ . HR Imperatives fo r the Internet Age. Kingwood, Texas: The Concours Group,
2001 .
________ . IT Governance - presentation 2001 by Vaughan Merlyn. Kingwood, Texas:
The Concours Group, October 2001.
________ . Managing Global IT (MGI). Kingwood, Texas: The Concours Group, 2001.

282

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Cooper, Thomas W. New Technology Effects Inventory: Forty Leading Ethical Issues.
Journal o f Mass Media Ethics 13, no. 2 (1998): 71-92.
Cortada, James W. and Edward Wakin. Betting on America - Why the U.S. Can Be
Stronger After September 11. New York: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Cote, Owen R., Jr. The Third Battle - Innovations in the U.S. Navys Silent Cold War
Struggle with Soviet Submarines. Newport: Naval War College Newport Papers
16,2003
Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits o f Highly Effective People. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1989.
Crichton, Michael. Timeline. New York: Random House Books, 1999.
________ . Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
Dallas, Lynne. Two Models of Corporate Governance: Beyond Berle and Means,
University o f Michigan Journal o f Law Reform, 22(1), 1988
Defense Acquisition University. Defense Acquisition Guidebook. Ask.dau.mil/
dag/Guidebook. Accessed: November 2004.
________ . Joint Program Management Handbook. Fort Bel voir, V A: Defense
Acquisition University Press, 2004.
Deferrari, Lisa M. and David E. Palmer. Supervision of Large Complex Banking
Organizations. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Bulletin (February 2001).
Delotto, R. Competitive Intelligence: Loose Lips Still Sink Ships. GartnerGroup
Research Note (8 October 2001).
Drobik, A. Dot-Coms: Is the Phoenix Rising? GartnerGroup Research Note (1 October
2001).
Drucker, Peter F. The Drucker Daily from Management: Tasks, Responsibilities,
Practices. New York: HarpersBusiness, 2004.
________ . The Executive in Action: Managing fo r Results Innovation and
Entrepreneurship The Effective Executive. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.
________ . Management Challenges fo r the 21st Century. New York: HarperBusiness,
1999.
ECCHO. Background on the Electronic Check Clearing House Organization.
www.eccho.com. Accessed: September 2001.

283

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

. ECP: Process Overview, www.eccho.com. Access: September 2001.


. Federal Reserve Default Truncation Proposal Memorandum to Roger
Ferguson, www.eccho.com. Accessed: December 15, 2000.
. Managing Value in Transition to Electronic Payments, www.eccho.com
Accessed: September 2001.
. Check 21 Resource Document, www.eccho.com Accessed: November 2004.

Eccles, Henry E. Rear Admiral USN (RET). Military Power in a Free Society. Newport:
Naval War College Press, 1979.
Evans, Philip and Thomas S. Wurster. Blown-to-Bits: How the New Economics o f
Information Transforms Strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
Federal Reserve Board. Check Truncation Act - Draft. On-line at
www.federalreserve.gov Accessed: July 2001.
Financial Services Roundtable. Aggregation Services Policy Statement.
www.bankersround.org. Accessed: June 2001.
________ . Business Methods Patents Policy Statement, www.bankersround.org.
Accessed: June 2001.
________ . Technology, www.bankersround.org. Accessed: June 2001.
________ . Electronic Commerce Policy Statement, www.bankersround.org.
Accessed: June 2001.
Fenn, J. and N. Deighton. Emerging Technologies for Human-Computer Interaction.
GartnerGroup Research Note (1 October 2001).
Flournoy, Michele A. and NDU QDR 2001 Working Group. QDR 2001 Strategy-Driven
Choices fo r Americas Security. Washington D.C.: National Defense University
Press, 2001.
Gabler, J. and J. Adams. The Business Value of IT: Justification Hierarchy.
GartnerGroup Research Notes (7 August 2000).
Gall, Nicholas. Creating an Adaptive Infrastructure Strategy. Stamford, CT: META
Group 2001.

284

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Gates, Bill. Business @ The Speed o f Thought: Using A Digital Nervous System. New
York: Warner Books, 1999.
GartnerG2. Financial Services: Plan for Change, Change for Profit ROT-0501-0046
GartnerG2.com (May 2001)
Global Security.org. SLBM Early Developments, www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/
systems/slbm_early.htm. Accessed: November 2004.
Green Sheet, Inc. Check Conversion Heating-Up on Yet Another Front.
www.multiplex.com/GreenSheet. Accessed: September 2001.
Greider, William. The Soul o f Capitalism - Opening Paths to a Moral Economy. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.
Gresham, John D. and Norman Friedman. Underway on Nuclear Power - 50th
Anniversary of USS Nautilus. Tampa: Faircount Publication, 2004
Gorshkov, Sergei G. The Sea Power of the State. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger
Publishing, 1983.
Gossage, Bobbie. Sergey Brin & Larry Page Google for their Integrity.
www.inc.com/magazine. Accessed: February 2005.
Guillory, William A. Spirituality in the Workplace: A Guide fo r Adapting to the
Chaotically Changing Workplace. Salt Lake City: Innovations International,
2000 .
Guptill, B. and R. Paquet. Three Models for IT ROI. GartnerGroup Research Notes
(19 February 1999).
Hagel, III, John and John Seely Brown. Your Next IT Strategy. Harvard Business
Review (October 2001): 105-113.
Hattendorf, John B., B. Mitchell Simpson, III and John R. Wadleigh. Sailors and
Scholars - The Centennial History o f the U.S. Naval War College. Newport:
Naval War College Press, 1941.
Hawn, Carleen. If He's So SmartSteve Jobs, Apple, and the Limits of Innovation.
www.fastcompany.com. Accessed February 2005.
Henderson, Rebecca M. and Kim B. Clark. The Reconfiguration of Existing Product
Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Cornell University Graduate School o f Management 1990.
www.sp.uconn.edu/~langlois/Architectural.htm. Accessed November 2004.

285

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Herkert, Joseph R. Engineering ethics education in the USA: content, pedagogy and
curriculum. European Journal o f Engineering Education 25, no. 4 (2000): 303313.
Harbrecht, Douglas. Google's Larry Page: Good Ideas Still Get Funded. Business Week
Online. March 13, 2001. www.businessweek.com. Accessed: February 2005.
Hirschhelm, Rudy and Rajiv Sabherwal. Detours in the Path toward Strategic
Information Systems Alignment. California Management Review 44, no. 1 (Fall
2001): 87-108.
Hsieh, Chang-tseh. E-Commerce payment systems: critical issues and management
strategies. Human Systems Management 20 (2001): 131-138.
Hughes, Wayne P., Jr. Fleet Tactics - Theory and Practice. Annapolis: Naval Institute
Press, 1986.
Hunter, Larry W., Annette Bernhardt, Katherine L. Hughes and Eva Skuratowicz. Its
Not Just the ATMs: Technology, Firm Strategies, Jobs and Earnings in Retail
Banking. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54, no. 2A (2001): 402-424.
lies, Greg. The Footprints o f God. New York: Pocket Star Books, 2004.
IT Governance Institute. IT Portal Definitions and Overview, itgovernance.org
/overview.htm Accessed: November 2003.
Johnson, William M. The A-RCI Process - Leadership and Management Principles.
Naval Engineers Journal, Fall 2004.
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles o f the Metaphysics o f Morals, 1785.
Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Database on-line. Available from
Salve Regina University e-Content Collection - NetLibrary.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. e-Volve! Succeeding in the Digital Culture o f Tomorrow.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001.
Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. The Balanced Scorecard - Translating Strategy
into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
________ . The Strategy-Focused Organization - How Balanced Scorecard Companies
Thrive in the New Business Environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,
2001 .
Keeter, Hunter C. Interview - Giambastiani: Change in Culture Key to Joint
Transformation. Seapower, Volume 47, Number 9, September 2004.

286

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Lane, Alan. The Age o f Knowledge: Frontier or Fad? www.eknowledgecenter.com


Accessed: September 2001.
Lauer, Robert H. Perspectives on Social Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1973.

Lehman, John F., Jr. Command of the Sea. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1988.
Lehman, John. On Seas o f Glory - Heroic Men, Great Ships and Epic Battles o f the
American Navy. New York: Touchstone Book, 2001.
Levy, Steven. The New iPod. Newsweek July 26, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
5457434/site/newsweek. Accessed: January 2005.
Logan, D. and K. Chin. Integrated Document Management Vendor Selection Criteria.
Gartner Group Research Notes (April 2001)
Lord, Carnes. The Modern Prince - What Leaders Need to Know Now. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2003
Mahnken, Thomas G. and James R. FitzSimonds. The Limits o f Transformation.
Newport Papers. Newport: Naval War College Press, 2003.
Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman. Designing Qualitative Research. New
York: Sage Publications, 1989.
McCoy, John B., Larry A. Frieder and Robert B. Hedges, Jr. Bottomline Banking Meeting the Challenges fo r Survival & Success. Chicago: Irwin Professional
Publishing, 1994.
McGee, Ken. 50% of IT Companies Will Not Be the Same in Three Years.
GartnerGroup. FirstTake (8 October 2001)
McKee, Kinnaird R. Speakers Biography - Commander, Submarine Development
Squadron 12 50' Anniversary, http://www.applmath.com/csds50
/pdfs/KeynoteSpeech.pdf. Accessed: November 2004
Mesthene, Emmanuel. Technological Change: Its Impact on Man and Society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.
Melzer, Arthur M., Jerry Weinberger and M. Richard Zinman. Technology in the
Western Political Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.
Microsoft. Bill Gates, http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.asp. Access January
2005.

287

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Miller, Matthew. The 2% Solution - Fixing Americas Problems in Ways Liberals and
Conservatives Can Love. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.
Monks, Robert A.G. and Nell Minow. Power and Accountability. On-Line Version with
no page numbers. New York Harper Business, 1991 www.lens-library.com
Accessed: September 2001.
Monsma, Stephen V., ed. Responsible Technology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.
Montor, Karel, Thomas M. McNicholas, Jr., Anthony J. Ciotti, Jr.,Thomas H.
Hutchinson, III and Jackie Eckhart Wehmueller. Naval Leadership - Voices o f
Experience. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1987.
Moore, Cathleen. Top Ten Technology Innovators: Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
InfoWorld.com February 27, 2002. www.infoworld.com. Accessed: January
2005.
Muirhead, Brian K. and William L. Simon. High Velocity Leadership: The Mars
Pathfinder Approach to Faster, Better, Cheaper. New York: HarperBusiness,
1999.
Mumford, Lewis. The Transformation o f Man. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1978.
________ . The Pentagon o f Power: The Myth o f the Machine, Volume Two. San Diego:
A Harvest/HBJ Book Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, 1964.
Naval Research Council. Technology fo r the United States Navy and Marine Corps
2000-2035 - Becoming a 21st Century Force, Volume 2 Technology. Washington
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997.
________ . Technology fo r the United States Navy and Marine Corps 2000-2035 Becoming a 2F' Century Force, Volume 7 Undersea Warfare. Washington D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1997.
Negroponte, Nicholas. Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Newhouse, John. War and Peace in the Nuclear Age. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1988.
Nohria, Nitin and James D. Berkley. Whatever Happened to the Take-Charge Manager?
Harvard Business Review on Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Paperback, 1998
Office of the Controller of the Currency. Website Information www.occ.treas.gov (March
2002).

288

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Oliver, David, Jr. Rear Admiral, USN (RET). Lead On! A Practical Approach to
Leadership. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1992.
Olazabal, Nedda Gabriela. Banking: The IT Paradox. The McKinsey Quarterly.
(November 2002): 47-51.
Operations Council. Check Imaging and Check Safekeeping - Issue B rief.
Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board (February 2001)
________ . The Future of Statements from Information to Communications,
Performance Enhancement Series Volume #7. Washington, DC: Corporate
Executive Board (2000)
________ . Mapping the Future State o f Financial Services Operations - Best Practices
fo r Strategic Planning in an Era o f Upheaval. Washington, DC: Corporate
Executive Board, (July 26, 2001).
ORourke, Ronald. Transformation and the Navys Tough Choices Ahead - What Are
the Options for Policy Makers? Naval War College Review, Winter 2001, Volume
LIV, Number 1. Newport: Naval War College Press, 2001.
Pallay, Jessica. Innovative Institutions. Wall Street & Technology, November 2003.
www.wallstreetandtech.com/innovators. Accessed: January 2005.
Paul II, John. On Human Work: Encyclical Laborem Exercens. Washington, DC:
United States Catholic Conference, 1981.
Peters, Tom. Re-Inventing Work - The Death Knell fo r Ordinary: Pursuing Difference Worldwide Lessons in Leadership Series, www.tompeters.com. Accessed:
September 2000.
Pierce, Terry C. Warfighting and Disruptive Technologies - Disguising Innovation.
London: Frank Cass, 2004.
_______ _. Sunk Costs Sink Innovation. Naval Institute Proceedings May 2002.
Polmar, Norman and Thomas B. Allen. Rickover. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Polmar, Norman and Kenneth J. Moore. Cold War Submarines - The Design and
Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines. Washington DC: Brassey, Inc.,
2004
Powell, Thomas D. E-Transactions: The Impact of the Internet on the Financial Sector.
The Information Management Journal (October 2001): 26-29.

289

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Rees, Ed. The Seas and the Subs: The Nuclear Subs and the Polaris Revolutionize the
U.S. Navy. Duell, Soan and Pierce, 1961.
Reuters. Steve Jobs eyes another maverick move, reuters@ciol.com April 14,2003.
www.ciol.com/content/news. Accessed: February 2005.
Rockwell, Theodore. The Rickover Effect: The Inside Story o f How Adm. Hyman
Rickover Built the Nuclear Navy. John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
Rosen, Robert. Global Literacies: Lessons on Business Leadership and National
Cultures. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. Surviving Your Dissertation - A
Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process. Newbury Park: Sage Publications,
1992.
Salant, Priscilla and Don A. Dillman. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
Sambamurthy, V and Robert W. Zmud. Arrangements for Information Technology
Governance: A Theory of Multiple Contingencies. MIS Quarterly 23, no. 2
(June 1999): 261-290. Sawyer, Diane. Interview by Diane Sawyer with Admiral
Rickover. www.analytictech. com/mb021/rickover.htm Accessed: November
2004
Sawyer, Diane. Interview by Diane Sawyer with Admiral Rickover. www.analytictech.
com/mb021/ rickover.htm Accessed: November 2004
Sapolsky, Harvey M. The Polaris System Development - Bureaucratic and
Programmatic Success in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1972.
Soman, Dilip. Effects of Payment Mechanism on Spending Behavior: The Role of
Rehearsal and Immediacy of Payments. Journal o f Consumer Research 27
(March 2001): 460-474.
Stewart, Thomas A. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth o f Organizations. New York:
Bantam Books, 1999.
Submarine Pioneers, www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/
centennial/pioneers2.html. Accessed November 2004.
Thomas, David A. and John J. Gabarro. Breaking Through - The Making o f Minority
Executives in Corporate America. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
Thompson, A. Stanley. Comments on Nuclear Power. http.V/westbynorthwest
.org/summerlateOO/stan/index.shtml. Accessed: November 2004
290

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Toynbee, Arnold J. A Study o f History. Vol. I - VI. New York: Oxford University Press,
1946.
Ulrich, Dave, Jack Zenger and Norm Smallwood. Results-based leadership: How
Leaders Build Business and Improve the Bottom Line. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 1999.
USS HENRY M. JACKSON, navysite.de/ssbn/ssbn730.htm. Accessed: November 2004.
Utilitarianism - The Ethical Theory for All Times, www.jeromekahnl23.tripod.com/
utilitarianismtheethicaltheoryforalltimes/id 15.html. Accessed May 2004
Van Der Vorst, Rita. Engineering, Ethics and Professionalism. European Journal o f
Engineering Education 23, no. 2 (1998): 171-179.
Vanhoose, David D. Central Bank Policy Making in Competing Payment Systems.
American Economics Journal - AEJ 28 (June 2000): 117-139.
VARBusiness. Top 50 Technology Innovators. VARBusiness, December 13, 2004.
http://www.varbusiness.com. Accessed: January 2005.
Vitiello, Jill. Training IT s Top Leaders. Computerworld (October 8, 2001): 38.
Warner, John. Congressional Record - Remarks on Vice Admiral William F. Rabom, JR.
- Senate, June 14. 1990. Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/query/z?rl01:S14JNo-1155 Accessed: November 2004
Weinberger, Casper W. In the Arena - A Memoit of the 20th Century. Washington D.C.:
Regnery Publishing, 2001.
Weinberger, Casper and Peter Schweizer. The Next War. Washington D.C.: Regnery
Publishing, 1996.
Wilson, Lizette. One on One with Larry Page, CEO of Google, www.sanfrancisco.
bizjournals.com. Accessed: February 2005
Wright, April. Technology as an Enabler of the Global Branding of Retail Financial
Services. Journal o f International Marketing 10, no. 3 (2002): 83-98.
Yates, Mick. Leader Values, http://www.leader-values.com/support/quotes.asp.
Accessed: January 2005.
Zandvoort, H, Van De Poel and M. Brumsen. Ethics in the engineering curricula:
topics, trends and challenges for the future. European Journal o f Engineering
Education 25, no. 4 (2000): 291-302.

291

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Zumwalt, Elmo R. Jr. Admiral USN (RET). On W a tch -A Memoir. New York
Quadrangle, 1976.

292

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.