CMH 40-6-1. Edited by Jon T. Hoffman. Contains stories of soldiers and Army civilians who have demonstrated repeatedly that determination and a good idea often carry the day in peace and war. Despite the perception of bureaucratic inertia, the institution's long history of benefiting from the inventiveness of its people indicates that it is an incubator of innovation after all.
I really loved many of the examples included in this collection, particularly aerial artillery observers, the development of the bazooka, the Rhino tank attachment for busting the bocage in Normany France and several others. However, I think there are technology strategy principles and concepts on innovation that explain some of the successes and failures better than the theories available to some of the authors, such as lead-user innovation (Eric Von Hippel, MIT) or disruptive innovation theory (Clayton Christensen, Harvard). That said, the authors did a great job exploring the concepts and events that influenced the success or failure of each of the studies. Ultimately, however, the editor denied any cohesive theories that tied them all together in the conclusion. I disagree, but find many of his other conclusions satisfying and interesting. I'd love to write a follow-up to this with technology and innovation theories to tie these together, and see a followup study on more recent innovations and an honest assessment of their development process (MRAPs, the Rhino counter-IED device, the M-9 ACE, the M1 tank, robots, Future Combat System, etc.) including the organizational innovations embodied in Army Sustainment Command and the Rapid Equipping Force.