Building upon a recently discussion with BENS executives, we wanted to frame three potential scenarios to compete and acquire capabilities. Each were examined from the DOD and industry perspective. Teeing up for broader discussion.
Scenario 3 is clearly the best approach because it fosters competition. Until we inject more competition into our defense acquisition system, we will continue to live with programs where there is little incentive to reduce cost or improve performance. Scenario 3 is the way a commercial company would structure its procurement to take advantage of what the market offers in the way of new solutions, incorporates new vendors and avoid lock-in. However, as pointed out, this is a LOT more work for the program office and the overburdened acquisition staff. What incentives would we put in place to make this attractive for them since Scenarios 1 would be easiest to implement and probably raise the fewest questions since this is “the way we’ve always done it”.
Agree we need to foster greater competition with many more entrants in the defense sectors. Would need to streamline the processes to reduce the burdens for the PMO and industry. Use simpler, faster vehicles like OTAs, FAR 12, 13 instead of traditional FAR 15. Clear, objective selection measures/grades.
All of these presume the challenge is 'commodity' purchasing of mature or nearly mature tech components. The REAL challenge that Defense faces is PROCESS transformation. This is much more intrusive and collaborative than the purchase of HW/SW components. How does the model support enterprise transformation through 'process' optimization and integration?
The scenarios are limited to show some tradeoff decisions to drive discussion and awareness across DoD/Industry. Process transformation is a broader challenge across DoD. While we've made some progress over the last few years, we must now play defense against those who seek to impose burdensome elements on rapid and agile pathways and processes. We need leaders to stop using "OTAs and MTAs" as empty talking points on how their org is being innovative. We need leaders to champion their use when appropriate and push back against those who seek to sabotage them to return to the comforting status quo. We need a mix of acquisition professionals to continue to be creative with novel strategies that balance speed with rigor and better align DoD and industry objectives.
We are on the same sheet. What you say below is very reasonable. The nuance... the processes I am talking about are not 'acquisition' processes; I am talking about the warfighting processes that create the demand signal for acquisition. If your product is a 'process', then your acquisition strategy and methods will be different than buying hardware.
Scenario 3 is clearly the best approach because it fosters competition. Until we inject more competition into our defense acquisition system, we will continue to live with programs where there is little incentive to reduce cost or improve performance. Scenario 3 is the way a commercial company would structure its procurement to take advantage of what the market offers in the way of new solutions, incorporates new vendors and avoid lock-in. However, as pointed out, this is a LOT more work for the program office and the overburdened acquisition staff. What incentives would we put in place to make this attractive for them since Scenarios 1 would be easiest to implement and probably raise the fewest questions since this is “the way we’ve always done it”.
Agree we need to foster greater competition with many more entrants in the defense sectors. Would need to streamline the processes to reduce the burdens for the PMO and industry. Use simpler, faster vehicles like OTAs, FAR 12, 13 instead of traditional FAR 15. Clear, objective selection measures/grades.
All of these presume the challenge is 'commodity' purchasing of mature or nearly mature tech components. The REAL challenge that Defense faces is PROCESS transformation. This is much more intrusive and collaborative than the purchase of HW/SW components. How does the model support enterprise transformation through 'process' optimization and integration?
The scenarios are limited to show some tradeoff decisions to drive discussion and awareness across DoD/Industry. Process transformation is a broader challenge across DoD. While we've made some progress over the last few years, we must now play defense against those who seek to impose burdensome elements on rapid and agile pathways and processes. We need leaders to stop using "OTAs and MTAs" as empty talking points on how their org is being innovative. We need leaders to champion their use when appropriate and push back against those who seek to sabotage them to return to the comforting status quo. We need a mix of acquisition professionals to continue to be creative with novel strategies that balance speed with rigor and better align DoD and industry objectives.
We are on the same sheet. What you say below is very reasonable. The nuance... the processes I am talking about are not 'acquisition' processes; I am talking about the warfighting processes that create the demand signal for acquisition. If your product is a 'process', then your acquisition strategy and methods will be different than buying hardware.