We were discussing change today and I though about this thread and something the former CSA said about change to the effect of its easier during war. Up to this point I really thought he meant that it was easier to rationalize increased spending, but now I wonder if that was really what he meant.

On a couple of other threads we've discussed adaptation and change and we scrutinized how we'd done. I thought for a organization as large as we are, as layered as we are by echelon and as conservative as we are by nature and charter (preserve/protect/defend the U.S. culture) we've done pretty good.

But today I wondered why. Some of the questions I though I'd pitch are:

Is there a correlation between ease (meaning mentally or culturally accepting ) of change and how long a war lasts?

Do we innovate and justify as we find out what works and does not? Maybe that is why the most effective change seems to be bottom up and more of a gradual evolution?

How long is does this continue to occur after the war ends and we become more resistant to change (where an organization becomes stable and change resistant?)

How does this impact our ability to inculcate the required changes to remain successful, while not abandoning the ability to recognize new requirements?

Best regards, Rob