Eriksen LiveSim Consult
Leadership & Programme Experience
Structural leadership at national level across simulation policy, training governance, and institutional capability architecture — not advisory participation.
In my previous role as Head of the Norwegian Army Training & Simulation Centre, I carried subject-matter responsibility for the Army’s simulation policy, training governance frameworks, and institutional capability architecture across Live, Virtual and Constructive domains.
The responsibilities outlined below reflect structural leadership at national level — including portfolio coherence, higher-echelon constructive capability, governance reform, and multinational integration dialogue.
Core principle: Technology enables. Governance sustains. Capability emerges when ownership, architecture, and evaluation are institutionally anchored.
Capability Areas
National level
National Capability Ownership
Portfolio & lifecycle accountability
Army-wide responsibility for the simulation and technology-based training portfolio across institutional and operational domains.
- Portfolio coherence and lifecycle accountability
- Institutional ownership structuring
- Alignment between investment and readiness outcomes
Leadership impact: Reframed simulation from a collection of technical systems into a governed capability architecture. Clarified accountability between system ownership and capability ownership, linking procurement decisions, training doctrine, and readiness evaluation into a coherent national structure. Reduced fragmentation risk and strengthened long-term operational effect.
Operational level
Brigade & Division-Level Architecture
Higher-echelon constructive capability
Development and institutional anchoring of higher-echelon constructive training capability embedded within planning, execution, and evaluation cycles.
- Higher-echelon constructive frameworks
- Execution realism emphasis
- Integrated evaluation structures
Leadership impact: Transitioned constructive simulation from event-support activity to an operationally embedded capability. Anchored training realism and evaluation within command structures, strengthening headquarters decision-making under complexity and aligning simulation use with real-world operational planning processes.
Institutional level
Governance Transformation
Accountability & ownership reform
Structural clarification of accountability models to sustain capability effect beyond initial acquisition.
- Capability ownership vs system ownership definition
- Institutional anchoring of responsibility
- Readiness measurement logic
Leadership impact: Introduced governance reforms that distinguished between managing systems and owning outcomes. Established accountability structures linking training execution, evaluation data, and long-term capability development. Reduced dependency on individual initiative and increased institutional resilience — a critical factor in large-scale defence investments.
Alliance level
Alliance & Multinational Engagement
Interoperability & governance compatibility
Active participation in NATO-level working groups and multinational integration dialogue on training, interoperability, and synthetic architecture.
- Interoperability maturity development
- Cross-national governance compatibility
- Shared evaluation perspectives
Leadership impact: Contributed to interoperability dialogue beyond technical federation, emphasising governance compatibility and shared evaluation frameworks as prerequisites for credible multinational training. Supported alignment between national capability development and alliance-level integration requirements.
Capability emerges when ownership, architecture, and evaluation are institutionally anchored — not when systems are procured.
Executive Dialogue
For strategic growth discussions, Nordic positioning, and governance-driven transformation dialogue.
Connect
