The DoD’s Innovation Challenge: How to Keep Up with the Rapid Pace of Technology

The U.S. has historically been a leader in developing and deploying breakthrough technologies, such as the internet, GPS, and stealth. However, in recent years, the U.S. has been losing its edge to the private sector and potential adversaries, especially in areas such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity, and space.

The main reason for this innovation gap is the outdated and bureaucratic acquisition system that governs how the Department of Defense (DoD) procures new technologies and equipment. The system, designed decades ago, is slow, rigid, and risk-averse. It prevents the DoD from adapting to changing market demands, integrating new technologies at scale, delivering products with speed, and competing to win.

This is a serious national security challenge that requires urgent action from both the DoD and Congress. Fortunately, there are some promising initiatives and proposals that aim to address this challenge.

One of them is the Defense Innovation Board (DIB). The DIB is an independent advisory board that provides recommendations on artificial intelligence, software, data, and digital modernization to the DoD. The board is chaired by Michael Bloomberg, an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and former mayor of New York City. He is also the majority owner, co-founder, and CEO of Bloomberg L.P., a financial information, software, and media firm.

In a recent article on Defense News - You can read the full article here: [To innovate, DoD must be allowed to move faster].

Bloomberg argues that the DoD needs more flexibility and agility to adopt innovative technologies from the private sector and nontraditional sources. He proposes three main actions to achieve this goal:

1. streamlining the acquisition process and reducing bureaucratic barriers
2. increasing the use of rapid prototyping and experimentation
3. fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking within the DoD.

He suggests that the DoD should emulate the practices of Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs, such as failing fast, iterating quickly, and embracing risk. While these principles may work well for startups and commercial products, they may not be suitable for defense applications that require high levels of reliability, security, interoperability, and scalability. The DoD also has to balance its innovation efforts with its operational requirements, budget constraints, ethical standards, and legal obligations.

But, Bloomberg’s article does not address some of the underlying causes of the innovation gap between the DoD and the private sector. One of these is the cultural mismatch between the two sectors, which affects their collaboration and communication. The DoD and the private sector have different missions, values, incentives, expectations, and languages. For example, the DoD values hierarchy, discipline, stability, and compliance, while the private sector values autonomy, creativity, agility, and disruption. These differences can create barriers to trust, understanding, and alignment between the two sectors.

Another cause of the innovation gap is the lack of talent and expertise within the DoD. The DoD faces a shortage of skilled personnel in emerging technologies such as AI and biotech. The DoD also struggles to attract and retain talent from the private sector due to its rigid hiring processes, lower salaries, limited career opportunities, and restrictive security policies, so it might need to invest more in developing its human capital and creating a more attractive work environment for innovators.

In conclusion, I think that Bloomberg’s article makes a valid case for why the DoD needs to move faster in adopting innovation. However, I also think that his article does not fully capture the complexity and nuance of the problem. The DoD needs to adopt a holistic approach that addresses not only its acquisition processes but also its culture, talent, and partnerships with the private sector!

One way to do that is to support the legislative proposal that the Pentagon sent to Congress earlier this year. The proposal called the “Rapid Response to Emergent Technology Advancements or Threats,” would allow the military to acquire new capabilities before a final budget is approved by Congress each year. That way, the service secretaries could fill gaps as they arise, without having to wait on the passage of annual appropriations.

The defense bill passed by the House includes a pilot program aimed at expanding the military’s acquisition authority, but the Senate has a chance to go further, by including a bipartisan amendment that would adopt the Pentagon’s original proposal. It’s a good example of how Congress can help the Pentagon move more quickly in adopting new technologies — and when the final bill goes to the floor for a vote, the bipartisan amendment should be part of it.

At the same time, we can do more to empower leaders down the chain of command. Delegating more spending authority to acquisition officials, in addition to the service secretaries, would give them greater flexibility in delivering the best possible technology and equipment to our service members.

Not every new technological tool proves beneficial, of course. There is always a risk — financial and operational — in adopting cutting-edge technologies, but keeping the U.S. military the world’s foremost power requires a greater appetite for risk.

And there is an important difference between risk-taking and recklessness. Business leaders support “failing fast” — developing new ideas, testing them, collecting feedback, and quickly determining whether to proceed or start anew.

There is no innovation without trial and error, with each failure serving as a learning experience.?

Speeding up the acquisition system would bring an added benefit: strengthening the defense workforce. Providing acquisition professionals with greater authority and agility can help retain and attract the top talent the Department needs. The government can’t compete with Silicon Valley on compensation, so it must do more to compete on mission and opportunity, by giving people the flexibility to use their skills and smarts in dynamic and exciting ways.

Meeting the challenges of the 21st century will take a more agile, adaptable defense acquisition process steered by a skilled workforce capable of keeping pace with their counterparts in private industry.

What do you think?Please share your thoughts and comments below.

If you enjoyed this post, please like it and share it with your network. Thank you for reading!