In an era dominated by advanced technology, the defense sector faces an increasingly complex reality: operational success in human-machine teaming for autonomous operations of ground robots, uncrewed aircraft, and naval drones crucially depends on reducing the cognitive load on warfighters. This essential challenge was recently explored in a key dialogue with an expert in the field.
The Challenge of Cognitive Overload on the Front Lines
To delve into the intricacies of defense innovation and understand the fundamental role design plays in mission success, Breaking Defense interviewed David Smith, Principal UX Designer at Teague. This 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.
David Smith identifies a major tension in the Department of Defense (DoD)’s efforts to integrate autonomous capabilities and human-machine teams: „The big tension here is between adding new capabilities and not overloading the people who have to use them.” Modern warfighters are already pushed to their limits, carrying a huge load of responsibilities, training, and knowledge, and expectations are only going up. Any new capability, no matter how innovative, brings with it complexity, often becoming a burden.
The role of the design specialist, according to Smith, is to ensure these capabilities are deployed in ways that „actually reduce, not increase, cognitive load.” As discussions about major human-machine teaming intensify, there’s a growing reliance on assistive tools, often loosely called „Artificial Intelligence.” This is where the tension lies, as Smith points out, because warfighters 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.
Design: More Than Aesthetics, a Strategic Necessity
When we talk about „design,” David Smith gives it an unexpected breadth: „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 their intentionality. They are 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, requirements are often defined before design even begins, often based on earlier products. This approach offers continuity but misses a crucial opportunity: early 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?” Smith proposes. From this information, requirements can be shaped to 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. A similar situation was encountered in the „big tech” sector 10-15 years ago, where companies later shifted towards design-led approaches, achieving superior experiences. Defense can take a similar path, blending its deep engineering strengths with early, intentional design input to create solutions that are truly functional for warfighters.
Innovation Meets Tradition: Lessons from Startups and the Civilian Sector
The defense industry is at a turning point. A wave of new entrants—especially innovative startups—are actively competing for contracts. If these companies can prove they can scale effectively, they will become serious contenders, creating healthy pressure on traditional players and spurring faster, more agile development approaches.
Historically, the pace of innovation in defense has been slow. However, there is now a growing expectation that defense product development should feel more like the commercial sector—more iterative, more responsive. Companies unable to adapt to this shift will face significant challenges. Government policy also plays a crucial role. Streamlining processes—avoiding, for example, high-level approvals for minor changes—would enable faster integration of emerging commercial technologies. This agility is vital not only for keeping pace with technological advancements but also for meeting the evolving needs of warfighters.
Teague brings a unique perspective, working across multiple industries—not exclusively in defense. This approach allows the company to transfer validated strategies and methodologies from sectors such as automotive, robotics, AI/LLM, IoT connectivity, and complex systems into defense projects. This cross-industry experience fosters fresh thinking, offers transferable lessons, and provides an adaptive approach, delivering value regardless of the speed of landscape changes.
Ukraine: A Laboratory of Adaptation and Ingenuity
Aside from political and ideological considerations, the war in Ukraine has provided a masterclass in real-time adaptation. It has shown the speed, the „MacGyvering” (ingenious improvisation), and the ingenuity that emerges when working with extremely limited resources—Operation Spiderweb being a prime example.
Design often thrives in such constrained environments. Ukrainian warfighters have had to make the most of a very small set of options, forging a level of creativity that has caught the attention of everyone building capabilities for warfighters. One of the wildest dynamics observed is the impact of low-cost tools against high-value targets. A couple of thousand dollars’ worth of tech can neutralize multi-million-dollar assets. This asymmetry entirely changes the game, and preparedness—both in defense and offense—becomes imperative. According to Smith, his current projects focus on systems and capabilities designed to counter precisely these kinds of threats. It’s about building solutions that are as adaptable, fast-moving, and inventive as the challenges we are preparing to face.
The Future of Defense: A Battle Won Through Design
The defense industry is changing at an astounding speed, and David Smith identifies two major drivers of disruption. On the business side, smaller, sharper companies like Shield AI, Anduril, and Palantir are going toe-to-toe with the primes. On the user side, younger warfighters are openly expressing their dissatisfaction with the tools they’ve been given—many of which are more than 20 years old.
Pressure is coming from every direction, and the Department of Defense and the government are starting to react. However, Smith warns, if incumbents—and defense companies in general—are not willing to ride that momentum, they risk being left behind. It’s not enough to have a capable product; you need users who are actually willing, or even excited, to use it.
This is why design matters so much. Companies that start bringing in real design expertise—whether from partners like Teague or built internally—are going to stand out. Not only will they compete more effectively in this shifting market, but they will also win over the people who matter most: the end-users.
