Collaboration between defense and industry: ‘Innovate and scale up’

What exactly does the role of a Secretary General at Defense entail?
Schurink: ‘The SG is the civil servant at the head of the department. I am the first and last advisor to the minister and the state secretary. When the there is real trouble, they come to me. My second role is that of general manager. My responsibility is to ensure that the organization runs smoothly, that continuity and management are in order. The third role is to bring together society, politics and this organization, making that triangle work better.’

How do you bring that triangle together?
Schurink: ‘An example, Commander of the Armed Forces Onno Eichelsheim and I recently brought together 250 people from various types of companies to update them on what is going on and what it requires for the Netherlands to become more resilient. I try to connect the business community and Defense more closely. I also took part in the meeting of the chairmen of the security regions about what would be expected of them should a war break out.’

Have you always had something to do with defense?
Schurink: ‘No, I worked for municipalities for many years and also was at the Social Insurance Bank where I came into contact with the national security domain. I found it fascinating. When the Dutch cabinet determined that drastic changes are needed at this department, they thought I could be a good match.’

What is your motivation?
Schurink: ‘Broadly put, to ensure that the military is as well prepared as possible for engagement. That has been our guiding principle for a year and a half now. Military personnel choose to become military personnel, they sign up for something that is intense, namely defending the Netherlands. If you work at this ministry, but also as a civilian, it is our duty to ensure that these soldiers are as well prepared as possible for their task. This is a significant task for an organization that is emerging from austerity. Where control and caution were important and the urgency was much less. So even if we encounter a setback, or it could all be done a bit faster, that is where my motivation lies.’

Sjoerd van der Smissen has been working with the Dutch Ministry of Defense on transformation assignments for over 12 years. He was also involved in analyzing the business operations after an incident. ‘I was really struck by the loyalty of the people. There was a spirit of ‘we are in this together.’ Since then, my appreciation has only grown. Expanding on this, he tells an anecdote about his daughter. ’We once watched a documentary about gay rights in Russia, and my daughter said, ‘I am glad that we live in the Netherlands. I do not have any opinion on the military, but I am glad that we have soldiers who protect our right to be what we want to be.’’

To what extent do government, businesses and society work together on safety? And what obstacles do you see?
Van der Smissen: ‘The security situation is markedly different from five years ago. For too long, security has been outsourced to Defense, while this is a responsibility we all should take. The Netherlands will only be safeguarded when the dikes are protected, the ports are safe, and people at home can take care of themselves for three days without electricity. We have to do it together. I think that the business community plays an important role in this. This awareness is growing, and we see a clear shift. We notice this, for example, at our CEO dinners. Three years ago, there still was huge reluctance, now there is involvement. Although we also encounter some ‘safety fatigue.’

What do you mean by ‘safety fatigue’?
Schurink: ‘There is no point to keep shouting ‘danger’, if you do not provide a perspective for action.’
Van der Smissen: ‘And the business community too should contribute to that perspective, preferably in partnership with the government.’
Schurink: ‘Indeed. Simply put, companies must ensure that they can overcome shocks. For example, by making its IT redundant, or by having another energy supply in the event of a power failure. But a company cannot cover everything by itself. In the long run, you need the government. Which companies to give priority to in an emergency? The government should determine that. The safety regions, for example, are busy setting up the fire stations as a central hub, in collaboration with community centres and the like. We are working intensively with large distribution companies and transporters in the field of logistics. We have many trucks, but not enough if we have to transport goods en masse. In a war, the Ministry of Defense can requisition trucks if necessary. But you also need drivers and a logistics system. That is why we are working on secure agreements. And this is complicated. How do we work together during an exercise, and if there really were a war? What is the responsibility of a private company? If a Scania truck needs to be repaired, it has to go to a Scania workshop. Is that sensible during a conflict or war situation? Companies can also consider how they can contribute to the continued functioning of society.'

What does that require of the business community?
Van der Smissen: 'In Finland we recently did an exercise of three days without electricity, with twenty-two companies and government institutions. You then realize the extent to which we are dependent on each other. In vulnerable neighborhoods, for instance, most certainly not everyone has a supply of cash or food for three days. Supermarkets are not equipped to run on their own generators for three days. How do people get food then? Or how does the ambulance keep running? The business community, government, the church and the mosque need to work together on this, at national as well as neighborhood level. Companies have a responsibility. Not only to keep themselves afloat, but also to help society and the defense ministry. The collaboration with VDL, which will now also produce defense equipment, is a good example of how the Ministry of Defense is tackling this. There are more opportunities. For example, Deloitte has 150 cyber experts who can step in when needed. Our reservist policy has been in place now for a year and a half. We want to promote that more companies do this, to have one percent of employees who are reservists is a good goal. How else will Defense achieve the desired 200,000 men and women?’
Reservists in the general reserve have had military training. Schurink explains, ‘They protect public facilities and buildings in the Netherlands. They are an important part of the growth that we need. Another category of reservists consists of people with specific knowledge, such as engineers, administrators and cyber specialists. In the Netherlands we are already dealing with cyberattacks and sabotage on an almost daily basis. If the cyber experts are deployed as reservists, and therefore as soldiers, they are allowed to do much more than ‘just’ as civilians. As soldiers, they can be deployed offensively if necessary. The third category is part-time soldiers. They are active within their units two or three days a week. The Ministry of Defense still needs to adjust to this. Just as we also need to adjust to other flexible options, but these are models we can use to an increasing extent. After all, we want to go from 8,000 to 100,000 reservists.’
Van der Smissen: ‘Does everyone need military training or are you also looking at lighter variants, for example for cyber specialists?’
Schurink: ‘We have adjusted a number of job requirements, although there are minimum physical requirements. But a cyber expert must above all be very good at hacking. We are also considering civilian soldiers. Reservist policy is important, and Deloitte does it well. But the reservists must be able to practice with us.’

Does the government-business collaboration lead to duplication?
Schurink: ‘It depends on what you are looking at. The challenges include securing a reservist policy at an increasing number of companies. Together with the 'Stichting van de Arbeid’ we have been trying to draft a standard clause that can be used for a collective bargaining agreement. There is good cooperation in the logistics domain, but we need to develop in drafting agreements to ensure us of availability and the companies of coverage for their investment.’
Van der Smissen: ‘Innovating together is more difficult for Defense than for a regular company. You are bound by tendering rules and that certainly complicates short-cycle innovation. Suppose you develop a working prototype together, then Defense still has to tender that assignment. The collaboration with Lobster, a start-up that produces underwater robots, proofs that this can be done differently, more creatively.’
Schurink: ‘When I started here, someone said, ‘You have a problem with purchasing regulations, do you not?’ But we have a problem with our own purchasing regulations, not with the tendering legislation. For example, there is an exception that applies to Europe, which allows us extensive options. For matters that fall under the NATO Force Model, for instance, we can award contracts directly. But after thirty years of cutbacks, we have become very cautious in entering into partnerships. Instead of devising something ourselves, finding that it does not exist and that it will need to be built especially for us, we have to look at what already exists and negotiate adjustments with the supplier. That way of working must become the new standard. Similarly, we need to adjust to the increasing use of disposable weapons. One-way drones fly somewhere and that is its end. These are already being used on a massive scale. Ukraine is holding Russia back thanks to unmanned and autonomous systems.’
Van der Smissen: ‘It is unbelievable how that country built up the largest drone industry in Europe during wartime. Their innovative capacity and the speed with which they integrated things really are impressive. We in the Netherlands can learn from them. In fact, you already are.’

Is a large and hierarchical apparatus like the Ministry of Defense not intrinsically slow?
Schurink: ‘Every large organisation has a certain slowness, including Deloitte. In Defense, on top of that we also spend public money. That adds a responsibility, we cannot simply acquire whatever we want. In the past three years, our expenditure grew from twelve to twenty billion and that will continue to grow to twenty-four billion. I feel proud that we did this without any risks to legality. This organisation has the capacity to scale up hugely, and in a responsible way, yet in my opinion we can be a little less risk averse. We need to ensure that we create more places for innovation. We have set up hubs near colleges and universities where we, together with the business community, work on devising new products. But for large-scale operations, you cannot decentralise everything, it requires centralized control. And that causes a slight delay.’
Van der Smissen: ‘The business community should not complain too much either. Yes, there is a need for long-term commitment from the Ministry of Defense, but companies also need to explain better what they have to offer the ministry. We need to take up the challenge ourselves. What is needed is structural consultation between ministries, security services, NGOs, the private sector and specialists. Talking together, like in Finland, where, on a monthly basis, the highest civil servant of the Ministry of Defense meets with representatives from the business community, among others. We talk to Defense about flexible sourcing. But how do you absorb all those new people? Can a part of the entire onboarding process not, for example, be left to the market?’
Schurink: ‘I often think that progress should be much faster and sharper. At the same time, I look at the Ministry of Defense with a certain soft gaze, if you will, but also at the defense industry. They have been starved for almost thirty years. That is starting to change, and it is happening astoundingly fast. The biggest accelerator at the moment is, of course, Trump and the realisation that we as Europe have to stand on our own two feet when it comes to our security.’

How will Defense manage to find such a large number of new people?
Schurink: ‘We are an attractive employer and there is more interest than we can place people. We are not worried about that. The greater challenge is how to scale our organisation to this large group of new people, with sufficient instructors, training rooms, clothing, guns and ammunition, food, and so on. Our task is to give the new people a good place, put an arm around them and ensure that they belong somewhere. That is the ultimate, distinguishing strength of Defense, this camaraderie and loyalty.’

This interview was published in Management Scope 05 2025.