People use "military grade" to describe what they think is really advanced, expensive equipment (usually hardware). Implicit is the idea that it is designed for ruggedness or highly precise. But the more we learn about DoD data infrastructure, the more I think "military grade" just means "built for a past era." Lots of opportunity here to fix this - get in touch if you'd like to learn what I've been uncovering re: data infrastructure in the DoD, especially if you're technical and interested in working in defense.
Ben Jacobson
9mo
I’d rather have my “civilian grade” iPhone then my “military grade” PRC-152
Bill Cameron
9mo
The generic term "military grade" is sort of like saying "contractor grade" when buying something at Home Depot. You think it means something more durable, but it may or may not actually be. Used as that term I would agree, it is pretty ridiculous. However, there is a similarly used term which does have a lot of respect called "mil spec" (or military specification). I helped a client not too long ago meet a mil spec which was last issued in 1957. While that mils pec is old enough to collect social security, it was still relevant. There are thousands of them. The ones I was dealing with were more about quality manufacturing (like six sigma) - trying to meet a consistent standard with x number of defective products over a manufacturing run of say 100,000 or a million items. Those standards are actually pretty good and thats why they are still used.
Adam Chitwood
9mo
This is an interesting point to ponder. To me, military grade means it's structurally sound because someone is going to try and break it in the field. It is standardized across the entire force. And it is built for a niche of uses based on specific requirements from a niche program office with a few 'on paper' experts. That used to be a fantastic set of qualities. As the speed of tech continues to accelerate, some of those benefits look a little more questionable these days.
The thing to remember is most if not all dod legacy systems that capture data are "systems of record" i.e. systems built to record things and not much else. Things like analytics, integration and infrastructure where never part of the original intent when these systems were built. That's why we have dod data scattered to the four winds, systems that don't play nice with each other and so on. Don't even get me started on pulling data to inform risk assessments 🙄
Scott Jones
9mo
It's funny how the milspec $2-3K Panasonic Toughbooks ALWAYS broke...
Building Wallabi 🦘 | Writing x Ranting x Riffing about AI, GTM Strategy, and Startups | Ex-Salesforce and Tableau | Army Vet
9moAny veteran knows that "military-grade" really means, "built as cheaply as possible and probably won't make it out of the motor pool."