Worried that the technological edge that America has relied on for decades is eroding compared to near-peer nations, and at the same time eager to cut weapons cost through increased competition, the Pentagon leadership unveiled its latest iteration of the Better Buying Power initiative.
Through it, DoD aims to partner more closely with industry to develop new systems that are increasingly modular as well as to cut bureaucratic red tape in order to attract commercial companies and their innovative technologies for Pentagon use.
Potentially more controversial is the Pentagon's demand to become involved in internal research and developing investment decisions by defense contractors.
These changes make sense and are long overdue, and for the first time in a long time, the political stars are aligned for success. With an uncertain defense spending future, and the rapid introduction of game-changing and dual-use commercial technology, business as usual is on a road to ruin.
Cutting bureaucracy to yield a more agile system is paramount, as each unnecessary if well-intentioned stricture means delaying systems and increasing their cost. As Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall — and his predecessor, now Defense Secretary Ash Carter — has repeatedly said: Time is the department's irreplaceable commodity.
While the classic US defense industrial base is critical to the security of America and its allies, it is no longer the sole engine of innovation. Commercial technology development is surging, and getting the capabilities it needs means the Pentagon has to attract commercial high-tech giants. Yet despite decades of acquisition, these companies have been reluctant to do business with the US government and its onerous policies that cap profits and seek control over their cutting-edge technology. They believe the potential gain isn't worth the risk or hassle.
Working closely with the military services and industry to shape concise and achievable requirements is vital to avoid overly ambitious projects that require incessant changes, which in turn drive cost.
Kendall is using a wider definition of a defense industry that includes commercial firms, an expanded and welcome notion that encompasses a wider swath of companies.
A more open approach to new weapons is crucial for more rapid technology insertion and upgrade, and opens the door to replacing contractors that fail to perform or are too expensive. This will be resisted by firms that have developed proprietary architectures specifically to make it difficult if not impossible to replace them on programs.
Kendall also will face resistance on his proposal to become more involved in corporate internal research and development (IRAD) decisions. This too is a must, given companies often use IRAD for purposes other than developing new technologies. These accounts are regularly raided to boost profit projections, solve technology problems on existing contracts, or — as Kendall explained — insert proprietary elements into otherwise open-source products.
Fortunately, his proposed solution is sensible: Visibility into how industry is spending its money, and requiring that companies gain a military or Pentagon sponsor for tech projects.
Attracting top talent to the acquisition corps, however, will be a challenge that will take considerably more money and a culture change.
The most important change will be to vest in a reduced workforce greater individual authority and accountability to make decisions. Oversight is important, but not if it stifles innovation and progress.
