The Acquisition Innovation Research Center (AIRC)’s Post

I am looking forward to participating in a thought-provoking webinar hosted by The Acquisition Innovation Research Center (AIRC) and Greg and Camille Baroni Center for Government Contracting this week, focusing on “Strengthening the Capability of the Resourcing Workforce.” As one of the five critical areas for #PPBE #Reform identified by the PPBE Reform Commission in their final report, this topic is central to ensuring our defense resourcing system remain agile, effective, and prepared to meet the evolving challenges of national security. Investing in people - through #upskilling, #education, #training, and #certification - is a subject close to my heart as we work to build a resilient and forward-thinking financial management workforce! #PPBEReform #DefenseResourcing #FinancialManagement #Accounting #FederalBudget #Military #Defense #DoD #DHS #SDFM #CDFM #DefenseContracting #GOVCON #FinancialTransformation #DigitalTransformation

Azad Madni of University of Southern California led an #AIRC research team comprising Dan Erwin, Michael Sievers and Ayesha M. to publish a new incubator report on "Setting Reliability Requirements for Subsystems." From their executive summary: "A key finding is that although systems can be significantly different, the means employed and availability concerns are strikingly similar: • Systems fail more often than expected. • Systems take longer to restore service than expected. • Parts needed for repair may not be available and are sometimes borrowed from other systems. • Some systems get deployed with degraded capability. • Some systems have internal spares that enable continued use until repairs are possible, but most systems tend to be “single-string.” • Systems occasionally tend to undergo additional repairs found during preventive maintenance cycles. • Predictive maintenance remains a desired but elusive goal." Read the full report at https://lnkd.in/eaAN5MGj Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment United States Department of Defense #DoD #defense #acquisition

Heidi Shyu, the Pentagon's Chief Technology Officer, continues to emphasize the importance of the Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve (RDER) program. Unlike traditional service-focused initiatives, RDER is designed to address the pressing needs of combatant commands through rigorous experimentation. By involving joint staff and combatant commands, RDER is strategically positioned to close capability gaps and prioritize joint warfighting needs. The program has already made significant strides, including the successful transition of projects like the Family of Integrated Targeting Cells, which notably reduced the U.S. Marine Corps' acquisition timeline. While lawmakers express concerns over RDER's progress, Shyu's commitment to developing and fielding critical military capabilities remains steadfast. At Samuel Group D.C., we recognize the critical role of such initiatives in enhancing national security. As trusted advisers to business and government, we are uniquely positioned to support our clients in navigating the complex landscape of defense and technology. Through the SamuelAdvantage™, we offer an unparalleled network and expertise to help C-suite executives, business organizations, and government leaders succeed in this evolving environment. Let’s work together to unlock new opportunities and drive progress. #Defense #NationalSecurity #Innovation #RDER #SamuelAdvantage https://lnkd.in/e64FpcPD

Heidi Shyu, the Pentagon's Chief Technology Officer, continues to emphasize the importance of the Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve (RDER) program. Unlike traditional service-focused initiatives, RDER is designed to address the pressing needs of combatant commands through rigorous experimentation. By involving joint staff and combatant commands, RDER is strategically positioned to close capability gaps and prioritize joint warfighting needs. The program has already made significant strides, including the successful transition of projects like the Family of Integrated Targeting Cells, which notably reduced the U.S. Marine Corps' acquisition timeline. While lawmakers express concerns over RDER's progress, Shyu's commitment to developing and fielding critical military capabilities remains steadfast. At Samuel Group D.C., we recognize the critical role of such initiatives in enhancing national security. As trusted advisers to business and government, we are uniquely positioned to support our clients in navigating the complex landscape of defense and technology. Through the SamuelAdvantage™, we offer an unparalleled network and expertise to help C-suite executives, business organizations, and government leaders succeed in this evolving environment. Let’s work together to unlock new opportunities and drive progress. #Defense #NationalSecurity #Innovation #RDER #SamuelAdvantage https://lnkd.in/eHCjNzMG

https://lnkd.in/gPre7ZQq The pursuit of #innovation within the United States Department of Defense is challenging. DoD today embraces the term “innovation” but has a tough time achieving innovative results. It is not merely about incubating novel ideas; the real challenge lies in effectively adopting and implementing these innovations to enhance military capabilities. Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google and the first chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board, says that the DoD doesn’t suffer from an innovation problem; rather, it grapples with an innovation adoption problem. It is undeniable that, unlike foundational technologies behind nuclear-powered submarines or stealth aircraft, many cutting-edge breakthroughs now come from commercial firms outside the traditional defense industrial base. These innovations provide a tangible combat edge for U.S. warfighters, but bridging the gap between laboratories and the field remains daunting. Several factors are critical to be successful in this area. First, the problem that needs solving needs to be clearly defined. Innovations must directly address military challenges, and a well-defined problem ensures alignment. Second, empowered program teams are necessary to drive innovation forward. These teams need the authority and resources to execute their vision. Third, identifying transition partners—entities that can facilitate the move from prototype to operational use—is vital. Fourth, having appropriate contracting vehicles streamlines the process. Steady funding and senior-leader support complete the picture. These factors, when integrated into routine practices, can scale innovation adoption across the DoD. The article highlights examples of the DoD’s commitment to speed and scale in adopting innovations, such as the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) Replicator program, and DIU's Defense Innovation Unit 3.0 strategy. However, the challenge persists: how do we institutionalize these practices and make them business-as-usual rather than isolated miracles of defense acquisition? #technology #tech #emergingtech

https://lnkd.in/dVkiQtmw Re: Building Defense | Next Steps for the Pentagon in 2025 Dec 18, 2024 Hudson Institute The list of to-dos facing Congress and the Pentagon to rebuild America’s defense industrial base is comprehensive but imperative for American security in this great power competition. The next step is to implement and scale these ideas. Below are three top items for the Department of Defense’s 2025 checklist to achieve this. The To-Do List 1. Rebuild comprehensively. 2. Adopt a mass production mindset. 3. Focus on joint experimentation to develop real-world solutions. Sketching Out the Details 1. Take a comprehensive approach. 2. Behave like a titan of industry, not an art connoisseur.  3. Pursue joint experimentation to solve real-world problems at scale.

Yesterday, Erica Barhorst-Cates, PhD presented "Analyzing Variability in Decision Making in Complex Systems" to the DoD HFE TAG. With one more day to go at the Huntsville event, she and Benjamin Schwartz would be excited to sit down with you to discuss the research and how Monterey Technologies, Inc. can help defense programs achieve #decisionadvantage!

In an interview with Marty Kauchak, Sean S. Buck, President, National Training and Simulation Association shares insights on #simulation advancements and U.S. defense training priorities. Click below to read the full interview.

Historically speaking this is an old debate, going back to the early days World War II (prior to that, what’s now Air Force Research Laboratory didn’t engage in much basic “science”): should S&T/R&D be directly tied to operational needs to make the work more relevant and improve technology transition, or should it be kept independent to encourage more innovative thinking and promote more “breakthrough” technologies? In simpler terms: requirements pull or technology push? This has been reflected in the Air Force in part by its organizational structure, particularly how closely its labs been aligned to its product/systems centers. Obviously it’s always been on a spectrum and not entirely one or the other, but which should be the focus? What are the trends? Science (or a more independent S&T enterprise) has always suffered in wartime when more immediate needs surpass long-term investments that won’t pay off until after the conflict is over (e.g., WWII, Vietnam, & post-9/11). Conversely, moments of “technological surprise” (e.g., Nazi wonder weapons and Sputnik) flip the script and criticize too much short-term investment. Whichever is the case, the reaction is to swing the pendulum the other way to “correct” the balance. However, a significant factor to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of either approach is the quantity of opportunity for technology transition. Have there been enough new platforms, or ones being modernized, or does the budget process incentivize the introduction of the novel products of breakthrough science, to facilitate such transition? One final note: what is the “product” of the Air Force, or the military in general? It’s not the systems; it’s winning (or preventing) wars. That’s not precisely analogous to private enterprise, which means there are limits to the comparisons.

This is a lasting and very historic debate. Innovation comes in many forms some from the user and some from the sciences and R&D. We all agree that R&D needs to be mission focused and understand requirements. However, if it is pulled directly into acquisition then the R&D funding runs the risk of being absorbed into existing programs that are far over running in cost and schedule yet failing to deliver over hyped capabilities. This could lead to a state where our defense department is in a propetual race to integrate and adapt commercial capabilities faster than our adversaries with little long lasting advantage. If we fully tie R&D to known needs and fixing broken links in the chain we may never invent a new chain. No cell phone user would have agreed to spend $1,000 on a phone in the early 1990’s but today most people can’t think of a world without a smart phone. Corning continued to pursue fiber optics even when the telecom industry said they would never use it and today we have global interconnectivity because of fiber optics. Therefore, we must consider how to keep R&D calibrated to the mission and manage innovation and R&D with transition pathways in mind and plan for and fund those transition initiatives.