Ten Questions Defense Leaders Must Ask About Knowledge Graphs

Modern military operations generate staggering amounts of data from intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) feeds to logistics systems, battlefield reports, and joint-service data streams shared across commands. Without the right technologies, this flood overwhelms analysts and decision makers.

Knowledge graphs, particularly when paired with generative AI (genAI) technologies, offer a path to transform fragmented inputs into coherent, trusted insight. They can shorten analysis cycles, power AI agents, and make natural-language querying of complex datasets possible.

But choosing the right solution is not just an IT decision, it is a mission-critical one. Before deploying a knowledge graph platform, defense executives and program managers should press vendors with the following ten questions.

1. How do knowledge graphs deliver operational insight without duplicating or exposing sensitive defense data?

Defense data lakes and cloud repositories are effective at cleaning and storing information, but they rarely interconnect sources in ways that allow rapid operational insight. Knowledge graphs provide connective tissue, linking and labeling structured records with unstructured content such as field reports, ISR imagery, or secure communications.

Ask whether the vendor's technology requires duplicating sensitive data into a separate store or if it can securely leverage existing repositories and caches without introducing new vulnerabilities.

2. Can the platform operate at defense-scale data volumes?

Joint operations and ISR assets generate petabytes of data daily. Any proposed system must sustain billions of entities and relationships, deliver sub-second query responses, and maintain speed even during peak operational tempo.

Insist on proof of scalability under high operational workloads. You need confidence that the system won't buckle under mission-scale demand.

3. How much of the graph construction process is automated?

Manually building knowledge graphs is impractical for defense programs. Platforms should draw from existing metadata, schemas, and governance rules to automate ingestion and graph assembly.

Ask the solution provider to detail the workflow needed to generate a knowledge graph and show you how the automation frameworks handle real datasets rather than canned demonstrations.

4. Who can actually use the system?

If the solution is only navigable by data scientists, adoption will stall. Commanders, analysts, logisticians, and planners all need to ask questions and receive clear answers without constant IT intervention.

Evaluate whether the platform has co-pilot technologies and automations that can aggregate new data on the fly to ensure that responses are made based on the most up-to-date information. Equally important, ask if non-data experts can access and explore knowledge graphs as easily as they query other defense applications.

5. What safeguards protect classified and sensitive data?

Integrating ISR, operational, and logistics information introduces real risks if the technology cannot enforce clearance levels and mission boundaries. A viable solution should work inside zero-trust environments, apply encryption in transit and at rest, and deliver auditable access trails aligned to Department of Defense (DoD) cyber directives.

Push vendors to show exactly how their platform defends information across domains without weakening existing security frameworks.

6. Will the system be accessible to users outside of a data science team?

Ontologies provide the semantic building blocks that make ISR, logistics, and operational datasets interoperable. Without them, data remains siloed, and responses are based on an incomplete picture of available data.

Confirm that the system supports defense-relevant and open standards for complete interoperability and the ability to extend for emerging mission requirements.

7. Does the platform support natural language queries with verifiable accuracy?

Commanders don't need dashboards-they need answers to mission-level questions such as "Which assets are forward-deployed, and how has readiness shifted in the last 90 days?"

Graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (graph RAG) grounds AI outputs in verified enterprise data, reducing hallucinations (confidently stated but false information). Demand that vendors demonstrate this capability against your operational information, not sample sets.

8. Can the system explain its outputs? Can users verify outputs?

Trust depends on transparency. Every AI-driven response must be traceable-users should be able to see the reasoning path and source material.

Ask your vendor: "Does the solution reveal its AI processes, or does it hide them?" Responses must be traceable for users to rely on them to guide mission decisions.

9. What is the time to operational impact?

Programs cannot afford multiyear timelines. Determine whether the vendor can deliver measurable results in months, not just promises of long-term benefit. Request proof points from deployments of similar scale and complexity.

10. How does this solution become self-sustainable?

Defense projects demand more than generic help desks. Providers should demonstrate proven experience implementing secure, large-scale knowledge graphs in sensitive environments.

Look for dedicated implementation teams, responsive support channels, and training programs that enable your personnel to sustain and expand the platform without reliance on the vendor for continuous support, which can balloon future costs.

The decisive factor before deployment

For defense agencies, a knowledge graph solution cannot stop at data management alone-it must fuel explainable, accurate, and mission-ready intelligence. By pressing vendors with these ten questions, leaders can ensure every deployment strengthens operational trust, accelerates mission tempo, and secures decision advantage.

Contact us to learn more.