Interview with Brett Harrison, TERN
“The system has to be accurate and hyper-continuously available”
A former Navy SEAL officer with operational navigation experience: Brett Harrison.
TERN
As vehicles become increasingly software-defined and automated functions demand continuous reliability, localisation systems face new expectations for resilience and continuity. In this interview, Brett Harrison, Co-Founder and President of Tern, explains why legacy positioning concepts are no longer sufficient.
Positioning has long been treated as a functional layer
within the vehicle stack — important, but largely assumed to work. Yet as vehicles transform into high-performance computing platforms and automated systems move closer to real-world
deployment, that assumption is being re-examined.
Brett Harrison brings experience from both operational and
large-scale technology environments. As Co-Founder and President of TERN, he focuses on positioning systems designed to
operate independently of satellite signals and to strengthen infrastructure
resilience. At Automotive Computing Conference US 2026,
Harrison will address how positioning must evolve beyond GPS. In this
interview, he explains why legacy localisation concepts are reaching structural
limits.
ADT: Why are current localization concepts no
longer sufficient for future vehicle functions?
Harrison: Society has become ever increasingly
reliant upon turn by turn navigation, for everything from simple runs to the
grocery store to Amazon deliveries, Uber pickups, and Ambulance dispatch. The
skillset of map reading for directions has been effectively lost. If GPS
were to have prolonged disruption 20 years ago, the impact would be
manageable. With society’s addiction and widespread reliance upon turn by
turn directions, the impact of a disruption today would be completely
devastating. Everything from food supply transport, medicine delivery,
Uber/Amazon/police dispatch would all be grinding to a halt. Simply stated, as
time progresses it becomes ever more important to make sure we are not
operating as a society upon a single point of failure (GPS).
For years, positioning was mostly used for simple driver
turn-by-turn navigation. If it drifted or dropped for a moment, it was
frustrating, but it did not impact core vehicle function. Now vehicles are
software platforms. Location is used continuously by multiple systems and
workflows, not just turn by turn guidance. That changes the requirement. It is
not enough to be accurate when conditions are ideal. The system has to be
accurate and hyper-continuously available throughout all the environments
people actually drive in. Accuracy matters. But you cannot have accuracy if the
solution is absent, so resiliency matters even more. The real gap is that many
legacy approaches can deliver strong accuracy at times, but at many times
throughout the journey the solution drops coverage entirely or experiences the
erratic nature of multi-path error. As vehicle
functions become more software driven, that inconsistency becomes a
platform limitation, not a user experience issue. Now we are able to
deliver an intelligent solution that is far more advanced and resilient than a
tri-lateration solution.
How does removing hardware dependencies change robustness
and scalability in automotive positioning systems?
Hardware dependencies create rigidity. They tie positioning
performance to specific components, supply chains, and vehicle configurations,
which makes global deployment slower and uneven. They also limit how systems
can evolve over time, because improving performance often requires redesign
rather than iteration. When positioning is delivered as software using sensors
and compute that already exist in the vehicle, scalability changes
fundamentally. The same capability can be deployed across model years and
regions without reengineering. Performance can improve through updates rather
than hardware cycles. And the system can remain operational even when external
infrastructure is unavailable or inconsistent. That architectural shift is why
software-only positioning has become a serious area of evaluation at the
government and industry level. TERN’s Independently Derived Positioning System
(IDPS) has been tested by the U.S. Department of Transportation as part of its
work on complementary positioning approaches, reflecting a broader recognition
that resilience and scalability increasingly come from software, not added
hardware. At a platform level, removing hardware dependencies eliminates many
of the constraints that have historically limited where positioning systems can
be trusted and how widely they can be deployed.
What impact does this shift have on redundancy and safety
concepts in automated driving?
It changes the conversation from backup to continuity.
Redundancy is often discussed as adding another component in case the first one
fails. But if all redundant systems share the same external dependency, that
redundancy is fragile. And not truly a redundancy. A positioning system that
can operate independently – turning vehicles from consumers of positioning data
into producers of it – creates a fundamentally different safety posture. It
provides continuity when other inputs are degraded or unavailable. That
continuity allows automated systems to behave predictably, maintain situational
awareness, and avoid abrupt disengagements. From a safety perspective, the goal
is to finally have consistency under real-world conditions.
What implications does this have for software-defined
vehicle architectures?
Software-defined vehicles
depend on reliable foundational layers. Positioning is one of those layers. If
it is inconsistent, everything above it becomes more complex, more constrained,
and harder to validate. As architectures evolve, we are seeing positioning
treated less like an application and more like a core infrastructural
foundation – a foundation that can no longer be assumed. When delivered as
software, it can be integrated deeply into the vehicle stack, shared across
systems, and improved over time. That aligns naturally with how
software-defined platforms are built and maintained.
Which architectural principles are shaping
next-generation vehicle platforms today?
Three principles stand out. First, independence from fragile
external dependencies. Second, leveraging existing vehicle components rather
than adding manufacturing and design complexity. Third, systems that improve,
learn, and evolve over time rather than age out. Intelligence is what makes the
third principle possible. Not as a feature layer, but as the mechanism that
allows software systems to adapt to real-world conditions, interpret imperfect
inputs, and maintain continuity over time. In practice, Intelligence enables
platforms to improve through use rather than requiring redesign, and to remain
reliable across environments that were never predictable or controlled. These
principles are showing up across compute, perception, and now positioning.
Platforms that use Intelligence to strengthen software-first infrastructure are
easier to scale globally, easier to update, and better suited for long-term
evolution. The competitive advantage increasingly comes from systems that get
smarter with use while remaining dependable in the environments vehicles
actually operate in.
Where do legacy concepts still slow down scalability and
long-term upgradability?
Legacy concepts tend to rely upon fixed infrastructure,
fixed hardware, and fixed performance envelopes. That works until conditions
change, and conditions always change. When systems require new sensors,
specialized maps, or constant external signals to function, scaling becomes
expensive and uneven. Upgrades become episodic rather than continuous. The
result is fragmentation across fleets and markets. Modern platforms are moving
away from that model in favor of software-first approaches that can adapt as
requirements evolve.
Partnerships are becoming essential across the automotive
computing stack. Which type of partnerships will matter most in the next three
years, and what should OEMs prioritize first?
The partnerships that will matter most are
technological partnerships, rooted in shared architectural thinking rather than
short-term integration wins. As vehicles become software platforms, the real
challenge is not adding more capabilities, but ensuring that foundational
systems work reliably together over time. OEMs should prioritize partners who
think in terms of infrastructure, not features. That means partners who design
software to be broadly deployable, resilient across environments, and capable
of improving through updates rather than requiring constant rework. These
relationships tend to be longer-term and more strategic by nature, but they are
driven first by technical alignment. Regulatory and commercial partnerships
will continue to play an important role, but they tend to follow technical
reality. When the underlying architecture is sound, scalable, and resilient,
those conversations become easier. In the near term, OEMs that focus on
building a coherent, software-first foundation with the right technical
partners will be better positioned to adapt as requirements evolve and
expectations continue to rise.