Preventing Technology Surprise
The Army’s Leading-Edge Research Programs and the Subject-Matter Expertise That Fuels Them
_______
Committee on Preventing Technology Surprise: The Army’s Leading Edge Research Programs and the Subject Matter Expertise that Fuels Them
Board on Army Research and Development
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology and the Army Research Office under Contract No. W911NF-23-F-0032 P00003. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72535-4
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/28836
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://nap.nationalacademies.org.
The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.
Copyright 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. Preventing Technology Surprise: The Army’s Leading-Edge Research Programs and the Subject-Matter Expertise That Fuels Them. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28836.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON PREVENTING TECHNOLOGY SURPRISE: THE ARMY’S LEADING EDGE RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE THAT FUELS THEM
JOAN M. BIENVENUE (Co-Chair), University of Texas System
PETER W. CHUNG (Co-Chair), University of Maryland, College Park
GRACE M. BOCHENEK, University of Central Florida
COL KATHERINE GRAEF, U.S. Army (retired)
MARIA-KRISTINA HAYDEN, OUTFOXM, Inc.
MARGARET E. KOSAL, Georgia Institute of Technology
JOHN J. KOSZEWNIK (NAE), Achates Power (retired)
SCOTT C. LENAGHAN, University of Tennessee
VIKRAM MITTAL, United States Military Academy West Point
KAREN O’BRIEN, Modern Technology Solutions Inc. (retired)
GREGORY J. QUARLES, Applied Energetics, Inc.
ALEXANDER H. SLOCUM, SR. (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Study Staff
WILLIAM (BRUNO) MILLONIG, Director, Board on Army Research and Development, and Scholar
STEVEN DARBES, Program Officer
MICAELA (MICA) PACHECO, Associate Program Officer
SUDHIR SHENOY, Associate Program Officer (until December 2024)
DEBRAH ADEDEJI, Research Associate
TINA LATIMER, Program Coordinator
CHRIS JONES, Senior Finance Business Partner
BOARD ON ARMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JOHN J. KOSZEWNIK (NAE) (Vice Chair), Achates Power (retired)
JULIE ADAMS, Oregon State University
JOSEPH ANDERSON, U.S. Army (retired)
OSCAR BARTON, JR., Morgan State University
MORGAN BAZILIAN, Colorado School of Mines
GRACE M. BOCHENEK, University of Central Florida
LTG EDWARD CARDON, U.S. Army (retired)
LTGEN MICHAEL S. GROEN, U.S. Marine Corps
BARTON HALPERN, Halpern Strategic Services, LLC
COL GREGORY JOHNSON, Lockheed Martin Corporation
DUNCAN MCGILL, Ace-Queen HQ
LAURA MCNAMARA, Sandia National Laboratories
SEAN PEISERT, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
ALISSA ROATH, National Advanced Mobility Consortium, Inc.
JOHNNY SAWYER, The Sawyer Group, LLC
KELLY STEPHANI, University of Illinois
ELIAS TOWE, Carnegie Mellon University
DEBRAH WADA, Senshi Ame Advisors, LLC
BRIAN THOMPSON HOLMES (ex-officio), National Intelligence Council and Director of National Intelligence
TERESA WARFEL (ex-officio), U.S. Army/INSCOM
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
ANDREW G. ALLEYNE (NAE), University of Minnesota
DAVID W. AUCSMITH, Aucsmith Consulting, LLC
MICHAEL BEAR, Booz Allen Hamilton
NADYA T. BLISS, Arizona State University
JOHN V. FARR, United States Military Academy West Point
JAMES S. HUMBERT, University of Colorado Boulder
AKBAR KHAN, Defense Threat Reduction Agency
C. KUMAR N. PATEL (NAS/NAE), QCL Systems, LLC
ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA, CNS Technologies, Inc.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by MICHAEL A. MARLETTA (NAS/NAM), University of California, Berkeley, and ERIC H. DUCHARME (NAE), General Electric Aviation. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Study Background and Statement of Task
Understanding Technology Surprise
Effects of Technology Surprise
The Triad of Engineering, Science, and Innovation
Can Technology Surprise Be Prevented?
3 FUTURES THINKING AND FORECASTING TECHNOLOGY SURPRISE
Current Army Futures Practices for the Science and Technology Enterprise
Other Army Organizations and Processes Involved in Future Forecasting
Integrating Talent, Technology, and Leadership
4 THE ARMY’S ESSENTIAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Definition: The Army Science and Technology Enterprise
History and Evolution of the Essential Research Programs
Essential Research Program Alignment with Strategic Policy
Technology Strengths and Capability Gaps
Technology Adoption: An Updated Model
5 SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTISE OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE
The People of the Science and Technology Enterprise
B ESSENTIAL RESEARCH PROGRAM MARKET ANALYSIS (REDACTED)
C VIGNETTES (REDACTED)
D DATA-GATHERING MEETING AGENDAS
Preface
As the Army focuses its research on science and technology (S&T) enterprise on 2035 and beyond, it must ensure that its soldiers have the right equipment, tactical insights, and battlefield preparedness for decisive advantage in any future engagement. In order to provide the best chance of achieving this level of readiness, the research enterprise must continuously germinate, translate, and foster innovation not only to handle a combat engagement we imagine is imminent, but to outpace the innovations pursued by peer competitors to fight a future war no one has yet conceived.
To meet these challenges, the Army’s Essential Research Programs (ERPs) were codified to prioritize an expansive list of research needs and competencies. The ERPs simultaneously balance two often contrasting goals—(1) to discover and innovate the scientific foundations of select present and future Army capabilities and (2) to ensure the preparedness and readiness of a technical workforce that could pivot to support related national security needs when called upon. The Committee on Preventing Technology Surprise: The Army’s Leading Edge Research Programs and the Subject Matter Expertise that Fuels Them was charged with reviewing and evaluating how well the current Army’s ERPs are developing the next generation of capabilities to avoid technological surprise, and with reviewing, evaluating, and if necessary, recommending and augmenting framework to develop additional subject-matter expertise in its S&T enterprise through 2035. Furthermore, the committee was asked to provide recommendations on additional research and development competencies so the collective enterprise has awareness of the broader range of potential developments, and to outline its methodology so that the Army enterprise could continually monitor related activities both within and outside of government efforts.
With this charge, the committee set out to understand the programs, leadership, hierarchy, technological expertise, processes, and culture that underpin the Army’s research S&T enterprise. As with most studies of this type, the all-volunteer committee was tasked with a large amount of work with not much time. The resultant report is not a deep dive on the technical merits of ERP technologies, an exploration of hiring and the budgeting process for its mostly civilian workforce, or an analysis of program allocation. Rather, the study is an objective look at how the Army understands the innovation horizon, focuses its research effort, develops capabilities, and maintains a prepared and resilient workforce. In the current operational environment, it is critical that the Army not only understand where it can lead in research and development S&T but also where it should monitor and collaborate with industry and academia to be fully enabled and rapidly responsive to technological surprise. It is also a requirement that the Army have the processes, agreed-upon decision-making principles, cohesive terminology, measurable metrics, and comprehensive frameworks to ensure that its investments and effort are being directed effectively. The Army is necessarily responsible for research and innovation along the entire continuum from basic to applied to fully transitioned, commercialized technological solutions, but it does so with the support and expertise of a connected, engaged external partner network.
For these reasons, the Army’s ERPs and its subject-matter experts in fundamental and applied research are but small parts of a sprawling system. The ERPs, both in their principles as well as their execution, must garner interest from varied efforts of intellect and industry and direct them in a manner that supports a plurality of mandates. As with all things that experience the passage of time, the goal posts are expected to move constantly, requiring agility to adapt to new lessons, new discoveries, and new threats.
This is a daunting perpetual task. Through the ERPs, the Army must simultaneously demonstrate prescience in imagining the innovations of the future, perform the rigorous research that culminates in such innovations, interact with the Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDTE) entities, and scale the research into products while maintaining, and continually training, a grounded S&T workforce resilient to ever-evolving Army needs. This report hopes to recognize the complexity of doing this effectively and highlight the successful programs, efforts, and processes that enable the Army to do so, while also providing recommendations that can promote comprehensive connections and integration across the extended research enterprise, validate and enhance the decision-making frameworks used by the Army, and ensure a culture that is committed to maximizing readiness and resilience. It is inevitable that the Army of the future will be faced with technological surprise. When that time comes, how the Army has prepared and responds may very well determine the future of our nation.
This study and the accompanying report would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment of many people. We would like to express our appreciation to the members of the committee for their contributions to the preparation of this report. The committee also greatly appreciates the support and assistance of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff members, especially William (Bruno) Millonig, Micaela (Mica) Pacheco, Debrah Adedeji, Steven Darbes, and Tina Latimer for the coordination of the study and production of this report.
Joan M. Bienvenue and Peter W. Chung, Co-Chairs
Committee on Preventing Technology Surprise: The Army’s Leading Edge Research
Programs and the Subject Matter Expertise that Fuels Them
