Why We're Here

Why We're Here

Chair Opening Remarks at the 19th Annual NDIA

Science and Engineering Technology Division Conference

20 Mar 18

James S.B. Chew

My experience as a working professional for over thirty years, and as the Chair of what I think is the best Division in NDIA for over eight, has given me insight. I'll never be so arrogant to call it "wisdom" - that's for others to assess.

The changing of Administration creates a unique atmosphere within the Pentagon. Uncertainty is in the air, but so is opportunity. That opportunity can best be realized when one takes time to ponder. So, please indulge these next few minutes of pondering.

We in the DoD S&T world should be celebrating. Coming out of an era where the DoD leadership was at best indifferent and at worse, condescending, our DoD S&T enterprise has not only survived, but proactively took action to position itself for the inevitable change.

Our community has been successful at promoting the importance and relevance of DoD S&T by highlighting our country's R&D investments versus the rest of the world. Our success is evident by the teeth gnashing from the Acquisition community, led by their "Guardians of the Status Quos" when the annual Defense Planning Guidance is issued, protecting the S&T investment.

Our S&T community came together and wisely formed "Communities of Interest". Suddenly, the DoD S&T community, from the leadership to the bench level Scientist and Engineers were talking to one another on a regular basis, working to develop cohesive S&T programs that leveraged each other's investment.

The success of these CoIs have been demonstrated in many ways:

- Congress no longer asks why our S&T efforts aren't coordinated

- The COCOM S&T advisors look forward to attending our annual conference to gain visibility in to these CoIs

- Some CoIs have "graduated" - they achieved their goals so that investment can now be used to fund other areas

Despite not having 6.4 funds, our DoD S&T community developed a robust emerging capabilities and prototyping office, with the goal of demonstrating the potential new warfighting capabilities that could be realized with the DoD S&T funded technologies. In short, the ASD(R&E) had a "Shark Tank" before there was a "Shark Tank" TV show.

But why aren't we celebrating? It's simple. We aren't celebrating because annually, during Congressional testimony, Flag Officers have that "deer in the headlight" look when asked, "Why can't we have Firm Fixed Price Acquisition programs?"

I once defended our Acquisition program practices because our operating mantra was to invent the manufacturing and maintenance process while we were inventing (e.g., acquiring) the system. Being a graduate of the Defense Systems Management College Advanced Program Management Course, I was a true believer in our PPBE process.

Then I went to work in the commercial world.

The harsh, unforgiving world of the commercial market eats people alive. If you're in a growth market, "produce or you're gone" is the operating mantra. You are only as good as your last accomplishment - and your next one better be around the corner.

The previous SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, and USD(AT&L) enjoyed touting the "commercial" model. And one can see why. The COMMON success of Space-X and commercial satellite companies highlights the "Can't do, Been doing this for 50 years; why would you want to do anything different?" mentality that dominates our DoD Space Community.

We have an auto industry and a technology industry racing to have the first fully autonomous vehicle to market in a little over 15 years after the first DARPA Grand Challenge. Tesla and Cadillac already sell vehicles with near fully autonomous driving features. And these products are affordable, have a multi-year, multi-mile bumper to bumper warranty, free software upgrades, and, during certain times of the year, rebates and/or cut-rate financing.

But history have proven that they missed the point. Rather, the former SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, and USD(AT&L) unwittingly (I'm being generous here) insulted every career DoD S&T person by crowing about commercial accomplishments, while never acknowledged that these commercial market and companies were created and thrived BECAUSE of DoD S&T investment. For whatever reason, the previous SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, and USD(AT&L) failed to notice that the thriving commercial companies and markets took DoD S&T technologies and capabilities that were deemed worthless by the "Guardians of the Status Quo" and created successful global companies with eye watering market caps. creating new "innovation" transition offices. Instead, the previous leadership forced the DoD S&T program to undergo yet ANOTHER critical review, and inserted the word "innovate" in all their public statements.

While these are no doubt smart people, the previous SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, and USD(AT&L) GLARINGLY missed the core reasons why commercial companies develop "first pass success, future proofed" products at WARP speed while DoD programs develop at "Pony Express" speed:

- First successful commercial companies don't use a PPBE type process to seek the "next big thing". Instead, the leadership is always operating in a crisis mode; making use of their many contacts and resources to find the "next big thing.", working to get there before their competition. Some will say that it's because the DoD has to deal with Congress. Well, companies have to deal with Boards and shareholders. Think about asking those two group for permission to spend BILLIONS on developing the unproven "next big thing" with the promise of a high return.

- They act decisively. With the "second coming" of Steve Jobs came the firing of the entire Apple CAD department. He immediately recognized that these folks were not capable of designing the "gotta have" products Jobs envisioned were needed to transform Apple from a "one trick pony" to a "lifestyle" company. To make Chrysler the "hottest" car company in the world, Bob Lutz and Francios Castaing re-invented Chrysler Product development to operate and develop products like a Formula 1 racing team. The designers, engineers and managers that wouldn't conform were shown the door. The banking and gaming industries not only embraced on-line banking and gambling, but (as the late Dr. Charles Herzfeld reminded me) achieved a leadership role in cyber security. We take it for granted that all these commercial products and capabilities are SAFE and RELIABLE. Whether it's the 150 million lines of software used to operate a Ford F-150 pickup, your smart washer and dryer, or an implantable inline heart pacemaker, the threat from the liability lawyers is real.

- Commercial companies in growth markets are successful because of their "go big or go home" mantra and their "fish or cut bait" mentality. Companies in growth markets invest at least 40% of their annual revenue in R&D (IR&D to you in the Defense Industrial Base). That funding, combined with massive amounts of supplemental venture capital allow these industries to quickly prototype and determine if there is "a there, there" with a new technology or capability, and if there is, work quickly to mature it to prove out the capability, then be first to market. If there isn't a "there, there", it's abandoned. Fast.

The end result is astounding. American companies developed a new generation of passenger vehicle rear view mirrors that are more sophisticated than most DoD electronic systems. American companies developed affordable and reliable communication, tracking, and life support monitoring systems, surpassing the science fiction capabilities shown in "Star Trek" (and are forbidden within the Pentagon). "Affordable technology refresh" from American companies occurs every day at home, the office, and the marketplace. Profitable, reliable, and affordable sophisticated systems are constantly introduced by American companies in to market. The American developers of these systems "emulate before they fabricate", eliminating expensive hardware mistakes and always meeting their product launch dates.

American grade school children are learning how to develop apps, UAVs, and fighting robots. When the goals of the DARPA ERI program are acheived, I predict the first users will be American schoolchildren (NOT the DoD Industrial Base) using an app to design ASICs on a Friday and having them FedExed to their homes the following Monday, forever eliminating the antiquated, power hungry, bulky and heavy FPGAs that, thanks the "Guardians of the Status Quo", dominate our Defense electronic systems.

After earning their high school diplomas or undergraduate degrees, the "yestertech" foundation of our DoD operational systems and acquisition programs will be the BIGGEST dis-incentive for graduates to join the Defense workforce.

But the most IMPORTANT point that the previous SECDEF, DEPSECDEF, and USD(AT&L) missed was that the Commercial companies prove out advanced capabilities and new technologies through prototyping BEFORE they transition to new product development. If the DoD S&T program were provided 6.4 prototyping funding to demonstrate, perfect, and mature these technologies to prove out their capabilities BEFORE they are used in an acquisition program, I predict the payoffs to DoD acquisition programs would be close to the same. 

The solution, is simple. Give the 6.4 program BACK to S&T to allow this community to properly invent and create. THAT will allow the product development community to properly INNOVATE.

It would behoove the USD(R&E) to learn from the commercial markets and apply these lessons to transform the DoD S&T program to an R&D program that meets the realities of today's technology revolution.

If I may be so bold to suggest the following:

- Secure the 6.4 funding into the DoD S&T program to ensure that critical technologies and capabilities are ready to transition to acquisition programs; and that no technology or capability is used in these programs until you deem them ready.

- To be reimbursed for their IR&D investment, require the Defense Industrial Base really put their money where their mouth is. Use THIS Annual Conference as your annual "Consumer Electronics Show" and requiring all companies, universities, and garage inventors who have DoD S&T, STTR, SBIR contracts and want their IR&D reimbursed to showcase what they have invented/developed, on their own nickel, to meet warfighting needs. 

- Work with the USD(A&E) to replace the "low priced, technically acceptable" evaluation criteria with "best value"

- Get the DoD S&T personnel in to the "real world". As an example, NOT ONCE during the formation of a new electronics government/industry group did these people visit or meet in the Silicon Valley - where the "real work" is done. This group will do the DoD a HUGE disservice if that becomes a safe haven for those "Guardians of the Status Quo". Now, I know the leadership of that new Division - I am confident they won't let that happen.

- Hold basic research accountable by asking (and demand the answers) as to how their work helps solve the DoD "Big Problems"

- Quickly divest from the "buggy whip" technologies and make big investments in new ones. I have yet to understand what a $150K in-house machine learning project accomplishes. To put things in perspective, $150K is ONE THIRD the starting salary of a machine learning Ph.D. candidate.

- REINVEST IN YOUR WORKFORCE. Having DoD and the Defense Industrial Base S&Es who were trained by the professional great grandparents of the FIRST generation of S&Es who were trained by the people who INVENTED the processes and technologies used in TODAY's DoD systems should be a concern to all. Rather than executing sub-critically funded Company IR&D and lab in-house projects, send your S&Es back to school or for targeting training. Make working for a DoD lab/engineering center and Defense Industrial Base company great again.

- And most important, develop realistic metrics, goals, and schedules for these new investments and cut bait if they don't meet them. And don't hesitate to call in help to develop them.

We in the DoD S&T community need to lead in the implementable of a new, modern for the times culture and operating process. We owe it to our Warfighter, our Country, our tax payers, and our posterity to create the foundation for "on schedule, on budget" weapon acquisition programs that produce first pass success, affordable, agilely modernizable and sustainable systems that give us the unfair advantage of awesome and frightening warfighting capabilities that we all pray never have to be used. We need to support the next series of speakers, who, as career civil service folks, had to endure this past world within the Pentagon that I described.

As a community, we have different, more direct paths to communicate with the USD(R&E) and other DoD and Congressional leadership. If you agree, entirely or partially, with my assessment and suggestions, please communicate it, in the strongest of terms to these folks.

Make no mistake - blood will be shed along this way. The financial rewards reaped by the Defense Industrial Base from today's broken acquisition system are eye watering. The "Guardians of the Status Quo" won't give up without a fight. And even after implementation, many of the hardworking DoD S&T personnel will have the jaded view of "this too, shall pass".

But, this starts with us now.

Because if not us, who? 

And it not now, when?