🌶️ Spicy take: The notion of dual-use technologies is idiosyncratic. Earlier this week at TechCrunch Disrupt, Even Rogers emphasized that companies should prioritize true operational requirements when developing defense tech. Trying to cater to both the United States Department of Defense and commercial markets can dilute focus and impact. “The tech is table stakes, the talent is table stakes. What you have to master is a go-to-market strategy that starts with operational advocacy and clarity about the operational requirements.” Do you agree? Should companies focus solely on defense, or is there a viable path for dual-use tech? 👇
I completely agree with regard to the mission comments. If a company doesn’t understand mission, you may be crippled until you do. And this is where I disagree that talent is table stakes.
The idea for dual use is design 100% for commercial and if the system meets 80% of what we need for DoD including critical functions, buy it. We would rather have two systems that cover what we need now than a perfect system in 5 years.
Dual use in my opinion insures that the business last…..more customers=payroll$$$
This is a really interesting one!
If you do one thing very well then so be it. However ask your friends at SpaceX It appears that was the plan all along dual use that is. The proof is in the pudding.