Business units does meet the troops’ practical needs down the road and align with their future missions. What do you suggest? We need more flexible, more agile forms of collaboration so we can provide better support in putting innovations to work as fast as possible and exactly how they are needed. One point of departure could be to get the opportunity to quickly imple- ment precompetitive, ready-to-use prototypes. Especially when it comes to fast-paced technologies like those in the fields of AI and autonomous systems, there should also be an iterative process to rapidly develop solutions that are already usable while further or more complex features are still under develop- ment. When co-creation is put in place — and by that I mean close, continuous interlinkage between R&D, industry, and the entities that require solutions — and when new technological possibilities are made tangible and understandable to users quickly and user feedback is invited, that’s where you see suc- cess in developing demand-driven solutions and putting them to use right away. Of course, modular architectures, open interfaces, and standards are also important so that systems remain interoperable, expandable, and adaptable. Otherwise, you see proprietary solutions, which are another obstacle to future innovation, and ultimately also for military cooperation in alliances such as NATO. Are there success stories we can learn from? At Fraunhofer IOSB, we have realized various systems that are in use within the German armed forces and internationally as well. They include the ABUL video exploitation system, which supports processing and exploitation of drone images with a variety of assistance functions, including a range of newly introduced ones and some based on AI. Another example is the Digital Map Table (DigLT), a software system for shared situation visualization and analysis, which has also been in use for years even as it evolves. The third aspect I would mention is the Coalition Shared Data (CSD) technologies, which make it possible to store, retrieve, and distribute data in multinational and joint reconnaissance systems. This example shows how a more agile approach could be designed: International and interdisciplinary cooperation and an exercise-driven approach were the focus early on during the phase when the fundamental requirements, concepts, and specifications were being mapped out. Operational and tech- nical stakeholders (decision makers, soldiers, technicians, and software specialists) met regularly for interoperability exercises, which also used real sensors and platforms. In the process, the current status was put to the test in practice, so any dis- crepancies, pain points, misaligned developments, and areas with potential for improvement were identified early on and adjusted accordingly in the following iteration. This allowed for successive improvements in the solutions before they were transitioned into standards and then implemented in the form of operationally hardened systems. It would be desirable for this approach to be utilized in the further development of CSD technologies and conceptualization of these solutions for new scenarios in the future as well. But you also want to apply the same approach to many other areas? I’d put it in somewhat broader terms. One of the capabilities that we at Fraunhofer can contribute to the innovation process is an agile approach in which interim iterations like concepts, scenarios, and prototypes are put to the test by stakeholders at various stages to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Another potential contribution is rooted in our expertise on systems and system interoperability: We can help identify compatibility problems as early as possible. And that, in turn, helps to plan development and procurement activities to be more resilient and implement them with less friction. Do you have any additional suggestions? At Fraunhofer IOSB, we do a lot of work with simulations and digital twins, including of the battlefield. Or, to flip that around a bit, we can offer solutions to test things that have not yet been put into practice at all in the real world. This makes it possible to test potential uses, efficiency, performance, and even the interoperability of systems virtually, before they are actually built. In addition to this, such a digital twin has many other advantages across the entire life cycle once the system exists in the real world. I also think at the post-simulation stage, living labs are a help- ful approach. Our institute operates and collaborates on these kinds of labs in various thematic areas. A living lab, or regula- tory sandbox, is a structure for trying out new things in one location for a certain period, under conditions that are as real- istic as possible, in ways that would be limited by the general laws that are already in place. So, certain difficult aspects are factored out at first to advance innovations — and, of course, also to determine the best way to approach these tricky points to enable widespread, normal use of the new technologies in the end. 48