Playing to win: A Tale of two cities

In the world of modernization and technology adoption within the U.S. government, we've witnessed remarkable feats of execution — breakthroughs that motivate the country and impress the world. Yet, these successes often come from isolated, maverick units and are not sustained or scaled across an entire organization. Our challenge has been turning these isolated victories into widespread, lasting change.

For some time, the root of the problem has been our bureaucratic machinery and its excessive emphasis on perfection that often lands much closer to rigid conformity. With thousands of pages of regulations and an ingrained culture of risk aversion, we have too often been paralyzed by the fear of making mistakes. Meanwhile, our adversaries aren't constrained by these same rules, and this ‘playing not to lose’ mentality has cost us dearly, leading to a troubling erosion of competitive advantages.

Alas a sea change is upon us if we are willing to ride it. We now have the authority, tools, and frameworks to “play to win.” The landscape is shifting, and we are witnessing a clear divide: Some acquisition organizations are stuck in the old paradigm of localized risk avoidance, while others are embracing a more dynamic, win-oriented approach. This divide is starkly illustrated by recent data from two of our Program Executive Offices. Last year, one PEO conducted 21 pilots — 20 using the Innovation Adoption Kit and one following the traditional method. Another PEO was inundated with lengthy paper-only Analyses of Alternatives and only two pilots. The results were dramatic: The innovative pilots were completed 105 times faster and yielded 25 times the outcomes compared to the traditional approach. 

Pilots attempted ranged from overhauling network infrastructure three different ways to shifting to much more edge compute, where it sits, how it connects, how it is secured and the speed at which it fields, to scaling AI in some of the most understaffed areas, making overwhelming work manageable and improving the quality of the results. The two main takeaways from many more shots on goal were that high performing teams using proven frameworks can perform exponentially better than status quo — proven time and again; before this Task Force 59, the Disruptive Capabilities Office, and so many more — and we have everything we need to transition transformational solutions at a much higher clip starting now.

The Atlantic Council recently highlighted a crucial insight: “we don’t have an innovation problem, we have an innovation adoption problem.” This insight requires different action at scale. Just as we wouldn’t send warfighters into a theater without kitting them up, we shouldn’t send innovators into the Pentagon without doing the same.

To tackle this, we must focus on what is already working to overcome the vaunted “Valley of Death” — the chasm between technology development and its integration into weapon systems. We are confident that, by embracing just four of the top plays within the IAK, we can close this gap within the next five years.

1. Outcome-Driven Metrics: When PEOs shift from measuring risk and compliance to focusing on outcomes results improve. Traditional metrics are often not clearly mapped to their impact on mission success. Instead, we should use metrics that align directly with mission objectives, enabling us to make faster, clearer decisions.
2. Investment Horizons Roadmapping: By using clear delineations in technical maturity and sources of investments, we can better manage the transition of technologies from research and development to practical application more effectively. This involves approaching technology maturity and solution development as an investor with a focus on comparative value.
3. Top-Level Requirements: Moving towards top-level requirements — concise, flexible objectives rather than exhaustive prescriptive documents — can dramatically improve our agility and responsiveness. For instance, when OPNAV N2N6 provided requirements in four months rather than 30, we saw a significant improvement in the agile release trains. The current system of detailed, rigid requirements often leads to outdated solutions and increased sustainment costs. By adopting top-level requirements, we can foster creativity and responsiveness, ensuring that our solutions are more aligned with current needs and timelines. Additionally, from a manufacturing viewpoint, top-level requirements should encourage the design of solutions that are modular and scalable, reducing the time and complexity associated with transitioning from prototype to full production.
4. MOSA and Manufacturing Enablers: While these innovative software and hardware pilots have demonstrated the value of agility, material success at scale will depend on the integration of scalable manufacturing processes. Rapid prototyping is essential, but the ability to move from prototype to full production on repeat is where rubber meets the road. Modular Open System Approaches are vital for ensuring that systems and components can be easily upgraded, replaced or integrated with other platforms. By standardizing interfaces and ensuring interoperability across systems, MOSA enables greater flexibility in manufacturing and product evolution, when we choose to fully embrace it. Additionally, we must adopt advanced manufacturing techniques, such as additive manufacturing, which can produce complex parts faster and more affordably, thereby reducing lead times and production costs. Investments such as the Danville Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence support the development of scalable additive manufacturing capabilities, particularly for the submarine industrial base. It focuses not only on advancing 3D printing technologies but also on training the workforce required to support the defense industrial base. It is anticipated to train 800-1000 skilled workers annually to put these technologies to work in the industrial base. This combined approach is key to turning small-scale pilot programs into fully realized capabilities.

Committing to proven methods from both piloting and scaled acquisition perspectives will address the disparity in our innovation adoption rates. The Department of Defense invests over $150 billion in R&D, with private sector funding exceeding that more than threefold. The transition rate of these investments into actionable solutions is still inadequate. Our focus should be on reducing the time from concept to fielding, with clearer communication and coordination across organizations including manufacturing.

Recent initiatives like APFIT and DIU’s expanded role have shown promising results, with improved transitions from IRAD projects and new private capital-backed companies. The success of these programs underscores the importance of turning off outdated technologies and reinvesting in more promising solutions. For instance, the Department of Navy's initiative to sunset legacy systems has led to a 100-fold improvement in divestments and reinvestments.  

Despite these positive strides, we face challenges. Transitioning technology from concept to deployment remains a lengthy and costly process, often plagued by technical debt and inefficiencies. However, we are seeing improvements: the time for scouting to full fielding has decreased from 18 years to as little as 18 months in some cases. This acceleration highlights the potential for further disruption and improvement.

The stakes are high. As adversaries like China advance rapidly, with capabilities like shipbuilding 232 times faster than the U.S., we cannot afford to delay. The Davidson window is closing, and we must act swiftly to maintain our competitive edge.  A critical part of this action involves ensuring that we can not only develop cutting-edge technologies but also deliver them at the scale and speed required.

To succeed, we need a cultural shift towards an adopters' mindset — one that prioritizes action and results over comfort and control. This means embracing proven strategies, adapting rapidly, and focusing on outcomes rather than process.

Ultimately, it’s about deterrence and, if needed, warfighting overmatch, not being bogged down by bureaucracy. The key is to prioritize impact over process, adopt innovative solutions more rapidly, and continuously challenge ourselves to improve. Each of us plays a crucial role in this transformation. By adopting the Innovation Adoption Kit and focusing on disruptive improvements, we can make a tangible difference for our warfighters.

The next five years offer a critical opportunity to redefine our approach and achieve a decisive advantage. We must seize this moment to turn the tide and ensure that our actions today deliver the shields of tomorrow. If we all commit to this mindset and take action now, we will not only overcome the Valley of Death but also set a new standard for success in defense procurement and technology adoption.

In the end, it’s about more than just following procedures; it’s about achieving meaningful outcomes and ensuring that our warfighters have the best tools and technologies available. Let’s commit to this change and make a lasting impact on our national defense.

Justin Fanelli is the Acting CTO for the Department of the Navy and the Technical Director of PEO Digital. As CTO, his office is laser focused on measurably improving technology-driven mission outcomes within the Department of the Navy.

Since December 2023, Dan Sheridan has been on special assignment as a Defense Industrial Base Senior Program Analyst to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition).In this role, he directly supports Navy senior leadership to prepare for and execute industry engagements while providing leadership and expertise to strategic efforts to improve Navy leadership’s engagements with industry.