A global imperative for national security & innovation ecosystems
As countries look to guarantee their national security and build local defense and innovation ecosystems, dual-use technology programs are becoming vital to deliver new capabilities, provide access to cutting-edge R&D, and increase efficiency. However, creating technologies that can serve both civilian and military uses is not straightforward. To address the challenges, this Viewpoint explores current trends, models to adopt, and best practices for success.
In a world shaped by geopolitical rivalry, technological disruption, and budgetary pressures, it is vital to harness every potential approach to strengthen national security. This underscores the growing interest and importance of dual-use technologies — innovations such as drones and AI that serve both civilian and military applications. These technologies may originate in either domain, but their true value is realized when they are adapted and scaled across both sectors. Dual-use capabilities blend the scale and agility of commercial innovation with the strategic importance of defense technology.
The concept is not new and has evolved (see Figure 1), but its importance has reached an inflection point. The modern battlefield — physical and digital — is now shaped as much by commercial communications, sensors, data platforms, and AI as it is by traditional weaponry systems.
Essentially, while the early phases of dual-use technologies saw defense innovations reaching (eventually) the commercial world, the flow is now predominantly from civilian to defense applications.
For example, in the war in Ukraine, SpaceX’s Starlink satellite constellation was rapidly deployed to support Ukrainian military communications, while commercial drones — originally designed for agriculture, logistics, or aerial mapping — were modified and deployed for ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and combat missions.
There are four compelling reasons for countries to focus now on dual-use technologies:
Economic power — The case of Türkiye
Türkiye’s rise as a defense exporter is rooted in its investments in dual-use platforms. The Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), developed by the private firm Baykar, is a striking example. Initially developed using domestic innovation and modest budgets, it is now a combat-proven system used in multiple conflicts and exported to more than 25 countries. According to Anadolu Agency, citing data from the Turkish Defense Industries Secretariat, Türkiye’s defense exports exceeded US $7.2 billion in 2023, accounting for over 2.7% of total exports. The ecosystem that supports this — from semiconductors to control systems — is heavily dual-use. These platforms have created jobs, attracted investment, and elevated Türkiye’s geopolitical influence.
A new global equilibrium is emerging as governments increasingly reassert control over the direction of technological development. National security institutions are becoming more deeply integrated into the innovation economy, aiming to accelerate off-the-shelf solutions (technologies that can be quickly adopted for defense and intelligence purposes) in areas such as AI, quantum sensing and computing, autonomous systems, renewable energy, and space-based ISR platforms.
As part of this shift, many countries now treat dual-use technologies as strategic assets. These technologies are being brought under tighter oversight through export controls, security reviews, and sovereign investment strategies. For instance, the UK’s National Security and Investment Act 2021 requires foreign investors to notify the government when acquiring interests in 17 designated sensitive sectors.
Across the world, three distinct models for organizing dual-use technology development are emerging, each shaped by a country’s political structure, industrial maturity, and national priorities: market-guided ecosystems, state-coordinated models, and state-directed integration (see Figure 2).
These models should be viewed as illustrative rather than rigid classifications, with countries tending to lean toward one model while incorporating elements from others, depending on sectoral needs, institutional capacity, and evolving national priorities. For example, two countries aligned with a state-coordinated approach may still differ substantially in how they engage private industry, fund innovation, or structure procurement. This continuum perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of how nations shape their dual-use ecosystems in practice.
In countries like the US and Israel, dual-use technology development is driven primarily by the civilian innovation ecosystem. The private sector — from start-ups to Big Tech — leads in R&D investment, pace of innovation, and commercialization. In this model, governments typically adopt a reactive and enabling posture, creating pathways to translate market-led breakthroughs into defense applications. For example, in the US, programs like Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) tap into civilian innovation pipelines, helping commercial start-ups tailor their solutions to defense objectives — often after initial market validation. In Israel, elite military units like Talpiot and Unit 8200 produce talent that naturally migrates into the tech sector. The result is a dual-use ecosystem where many companies begin with civil applications and later shift toward defense use based on opportunity and demand.
It is important to understand that while the private sector sets the pace, governments in these systems still play a critical role. They function as anchor customers, define strategic defense needs, fund adaptation programs, and facilitate procurement reform. Even in market-led environments, success depends on government co-leadership — ensuring that the innovation agenda aligns with national security objectives and that operational feedback loops are firmly in place.
Countries such as Germany, South Korea, and Singapore adopt a more state-coordinated approach to dual-use technology development, with the government actively fostering partnerships between industry, academia, and defense institutions. In Germany, the Cyber Innovation Hub connects civilian cloud software firms with the Bundeswehr (German armed forces) in as little as six months. Meanwhile, South Korea’s Defense Innovation 4.0 initiative embeds civilian R&D experts directly into defense programs, creating a national pool of dual-use talent. This model ensures that national priorities are reflected across sectors, without stifling private innovation.
Countries like China, and to a lesser extent Russia, tend to follow this model, in which the state defines priorities, controls investment flows, and mandates civil-military integration through national strategies such as China’s Military–Civil Fusion (MCF). For example, the Chinese government maintains databases of AI and robotics companies, directly assigning them to defense missions (e.g., iFlytek’s role in the Chinese army’s language-processing systems). State labs, state-owned enterprises, and academic institutions are also closely integrated with military modernization plans under China’s Five-Year Plans. While this model ensures alignment and speed, it may come at the cost of the creativity and competitiveness typically fostered by a more open innovation ecosystem.
Whichever model archetype is broadly adopted, Arthur D. Little’s (ADL’s) global benchmarking analysis demonstrates that building and scaling dual-use capabilities requires a clear, structured, five-stage process that aligns with both innovation dynamics and defense-readiness goals (see Figure 3).
The process begins with visibility. Governments need to identify which civilian technologies — across academia, start-ups, and corporations — are relevant for defense and exist within the country. This can be achieved through formal capability mapping programs (e.g., Japan’s ATLA [Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency] program), which compile databases of organizations developing technologies with potential defense applications. Innovation challenges can also be used to solicit solutions to specific defense problems, or open-topic solicitations can allow commercial vendors to submit solutions in diverse sectors such as clean energy, logistics, and cybersecurity. For success, mapping must be continuous, structured, and supported by scenario-based analysis of future threats, ensuring that the right areas are prioritized.
Civilian technologies often lack the resilience, form factor, or standards compliance required for military use. Bridging this gap calls for investment — not only from private capital but also from governments willing to de-risk the transition. For example, In-Q-Tel, the US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) venture capital (VC) arm, has coinvested in over 200 companies, including Palantir, Keyhole (now Google Earth), and Anduril. Alternatively, targeted grant programs can support the adaptation of commercial technologies to meet military requirements, or co-development partnerships can foster collaboration between governments and companies in R&D. The aim is not to fully fund the development of technologies from scratch, but to guide innovations so they meet dual-use needs.
Civil technologies must be stress-tested in operationally realistic environments, with military input and feedback from day one. For example, the UK’s Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) program conducts live demonstrations with end users from the UK Armed Forces, while Israel’s Innofense Hub embeds military officers inside civilian start-up teams for immersive piloting. These environments enable adaptation, reduce integration friction, provide real-world proof points for defense adoption, and enhance the commercial competitiveness of participating companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Once validated, technology needs to be deployed quickly. However, most defense procurement systems were designed for large programs, not small-batch agile innovations, which can lead to delays and necessitate reform for scaling dual-use adoption. To address this challenge, programs need to im
cloud technology axon
Football clubs trade at absurd multiples, private equity funds keep pa...
