The defense sector increasingly recognizes that operational success in human-machine teaming for autonomous operations of ground robots, uncrewed aircraft, and naval drones depends upon reducing cognitive load for warfighters.
To better understand the complexities of defense innovation and the role design plays in mission success, Breaking Defense spoke with David Smith, Principal UX Designer at Teague. The US-based firm, with nearly a century of experience in human-centered design, brings cross-industry expertise to some of today’s most pressing defense challenges.
What are current focus areas for the DoD when it comes to incorporating autonomous and human-machine teaming capabilities?
Smith: The big tension here is between adding new capabilities and not overloading the people who have to use them. Our warfighters are already at their limit — they’re carrying a huge load of responsibilities, training, and knowledge, and the expectations are only going up. Every new capability we add comes with complexity, and that can be a burden.
Our role is to make sure these capabilities are deployed in ways that actually reduce, not increase, cognitive load. As we start talking about major human-machine teaming, we’re leaning more on assistive tools — what we loosely call AI — and that’s where the tension is. The warfighters we speak to are often already overwhelmed by the number of tools they’re expected to use in a near-peer fight. The challenge is making sure new systems help them focus on the mission, not fight the interface.
When we say ‘design,’ what are we talking about and what should it mean to the military?
When I say ‘design,’ I mean it in the broadest sense. It can be public policy, city infrastructure, a retail software application—or even where you put your couch in your living room. Technically, it’s all design.
What sets design practitioners apart is the intentionality. We’re trained to be mindful about every decision: why it’s made, where it comes from, what the objective is, and how it all works together in context.
In defense projects, we often come into programs where requirements have been defined before design even begins, often based on earlier products. There’s value in that continuity, but we also see an opportunity: to start earlier with user research. What’s the human need? We understand the capability and keep it in mind, but let’s start by hearing directly from soldiers—what will make their jobs better, easier, more efficient? From there, we can shape requirements that not only meet capability goals but also directly support the end user.
From a design perspective, the current process in defense can feel inverted—capability decisions first, design second. We’ve seen this before in big tech 10–15 years ago, and over time those companies shifted toward design-led approaches because it delivered better experiences. Defense can take a similar path, blending its deep engineering strengths with early, intentional design input to create solutions that are more functional for warfighters.
How are the non-traditional defense contractors upsetting traditional ways of system development, and what can be learned from that?
The defense industry is at a turning point. There’s a wave of new entrants — especially innovative startups — that are competing for contracts. If they can prove they can scale effectively, they will become serious contenders. That’s a healthy pressure for the incumbents; it’s going to drive faster, more agile approaches to development.
Historically, the pace of innovation in defense is slow. There’s now a growing expectation that defense product development should feel more like the commercial sector — more iterative, more responsive. Companies that can’t adapt to that shift will face real challenges.
Government policy plays a critical role here, too. Streamlining processes — so changes don’t require the sign-off of a four-star general, for example — would enable faster integration of emerging commercial technologies. That agility is essential not only for keeping up with technological advances but also for meeting the evolving needs of our warfighters.
Teague brings a unique perspective to this space. Because we work across multiple industries — not solely in defense — we’re able to bring proven strategies and methodologies from automotive, robotics, AI/LLM, IoT connectivity, and complex systems into defense projects. This cross-industry experience allows us to bring fresh thinking, transferable lessons, and an adaptive approach that delivers value no matter how fast the landscape shifts.
What lessons are you learning from real-world scenarios that could inform future defense design and innovation?
Politics and ideology aside, the war in Ukraine has been a masterclass in real-time adaptation. It’s shown us the speed, the ‘MacGyvering,’ and the kind of ingenuity that comes from working with extremely limited resources — Operation Spiderweb being a prime example.
Design often thrives in those constrained environments. Ukrainian warfighters have had to make the most of a very small set of options, and that’s forged a level of creativity that’s catching the attention of everyone building capabilities for warfighters.
One of the nuttiest dynamics we’ve seen is the impact of low-cost tools against high-value targets. A couple thousand dollars’ worth of tech is taking out multimillion-dollar assets. That kind of asymmetry changes the game entirely, and we need to be ready for it — both in how we defend and how we think offensively.
The projects I’m working on now are focused on systems and capabilities designed to counter exactly those kinds of threats. It’s about building solutions that are as adaptable, fast-moving, and inventive as the challenges we’re preparing to face.
Final thoughts?
The defense industry is changing fast, and I see two big drivers of disruption. On the business side, you’ve got smaller, sharper companies like Shield AI, Anduril, and Palantir going toe-to-toe with the primes. On the user side, you’ve got younger warfighters openly saying they don’t like the tools they’ve been given — many of which are more than 20 years old.
There’s pressure coming from every direction, and the DoD and government are starting to react. But if incumbents — and defense companies in general — aren’t willing to ride that momentum, they’re going to get left behind. It’s not enough to have a capable product; you need users who are actually willing, or even excited, to use it.
That’s why design matters so much. The companies that start bringing in real design expertise — whether it’s from a partner like Teague or built internally — are going to stand out. They’ll not only compete more effectively in this shifting market, they’ll win over the people who matter most: the end users.
At the end of the day, that’s what we care about at Teague — being part of teams that make products warfighters rely on daily, not ones they have to be reminded to use.
Download Teague’s paper on designing for the future force.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Breaking Defense
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://breakingdefense.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
