Part 2: Will Artificial Intelligence (AI) Help Maintain U.S. Naval Superiority over China’s Growing Naval Power?

As discussed in Part 1 of this AI discussion, China’s central government plans to achieve AI breakthroughs by 2025 and world AI dominance by 2030. If the DoD’s past acquisition track record doesn’t change, it could be twenty years before significant AI technology is actually deployed to military units. Continue reading

Posted in DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, National Security, Technology Evolution, U.S. Navy Capability | 13 Comments

Part-1: Will Artificial Intelligence Help Maintain U.S. Naval Superiority over China’s Growing Naval Power?

Background

It is hard to pick up a magazine or newspaper today without seeing something about the amazing things artificial intelligence and/or machine learning (AI/ML) are doing to change our lives for the better. Most people enjoy the benefits of talking to our computers, cars, and home specialty devices like Google Home and Amazon Alexa but don’t think about or care that these technologies are enabled by natural language processing (NLP), one of the today’s most advanced forms of AI/ML. It is even possible today to get real time language translation earbuds to help us more easily explore visits to foreign countries, bringing the Star Trek universal translator that much closer to reality (https://www.startrek.com/database_article/universal-translator). Continue reading

Posted in DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, National Security, Technology Evolution, U.S. Navy Capability | Tagged , , , | 28 Comments

Effective DoD Acquisition Needs Less Noise … Part 2

The well-known valley of death between the DARPA or Military Service Science & Technology (S&T) development and military Programs of Record (PORs) is the result of the high-entropy, high-noise channel, that sits between S&T and the bureaucratic DoD acquisition system. This noisy acquisition demise can be traced backward from today’s Planning Programming Budgeting System (PPBS), Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Instruction (DoD Instruction 5000.2), and Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS). Each are now large bureaucracies that help make up the majority of the 25,000-person army of centralized DoD oversight, operating from the Pentagon. Continue reading

Posted in DoD Acquisition, DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, Leadership, Technology Evolution | 17 Comments

Effective DoD Acquisition Needs Less Noise! …Part 1

Claude Shannon – Father of the Information Age

To fix DoD acquisition, one only has to leverage George Gilder‘s brilliant adoption of Claude Shannon‘s information theory as the economic growth engine. Shannon’s 1948 landmark information theory paper, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” defines information as surprise. For his mathematics and research he is credited as the father of the information age. He taught the world that information transmitted across a communication channel (a wire, a fiber, cell towers, or human networks) is information or surprise at the receiving end because it is unknown before it was sent. If we could predict new information communicated across a channel, it would have little or no value* Continue reading

Posted in DoD Acquisition, Global Perspectives, Leadership, Technology Evolution | 21 Comments

Blockchain – The Coming Global Paradigm Shift!

 

George Gilder, in his latest book, Life After Google: The Fall of the Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy, effectively argues that our current big data IT world (he uses Google as the metaphor and leading provider) is not here to stay because of inherent flaws, the most significant being cyber-insecurity and the associated loss of human privacy. George Gilder is an American writer, investor, 20-book author, and techno-utopian advocate. Despite it’s current hype, some may ask, what is blockchain? Continue reading

Posted in Cybersecurity, DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, Leadership, Technology Evolution | 11 Comments

Navy Acquisition Can Easily Be Fixed

Driven by peer naval competition from Russia and China, the U.S. Navy has embarked on a transformational Fleet Design vision to enhance U.S. naval warfare. Along with new weapon and sensor technologies, this vision is critically dependent upon out-pacing peer competitors with artificial intelligence and cyberspace control. Continue reading

Posted in Cybersecurity, DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, Leadership, Technology Evolution | 19 Comments

Time for Transformational Cybersecurity Part II

The last post, Transformational Cyber Security Part I, discussed exciting inventions that turn cybersecurity upside-down by preventing malware from freeloading CPU instructions in a properly configured software defined data center (SDDC), thereby rendering on-premise cyber attacks null and void.  It also discussed root-of-trust encrypted metavisor technology that protects applications and data operating in the cloud. Continue reading

Posted in Cybersecurity, DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, Technology Evolution | 2 Comments

Time for Transformational Cybersecurity! Part I

One of the hardest things to change in human society is a long-standing myth. The current well accepted myth about information technology (IT) systems is that they cannot be defended against well-funded, determined hackers.  Because such myths are rarely questioned, the cyber security workforce takes it as a given that even highly secured IT systems will be compromised at some point. The good news is that myth-busting cyber technologies are now available to transform cybersecurity from today’s major government, financial, and consumer challenge, into a future where all but deep insider cyber intrusion is impossible!  Continue reading

Posted in Cybersecurity, DoD IT Acquisition, Global Perspectives, Technology Evolution | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

My Mistake — Congress has Already Enabled DoD “Speed to Capability”

I am embarrassed to admit that, until now, I had fully believed the myth that Congressional Laws and Department of Defense (DoD) policies require 10-20 years to develop and field information intensive acquisition programs. Because of those beliefs, I have continuously ranted about Federal Law and DoD policy changes needed to enable Information Technology (IT) intensive programs to deliver “speed-to-capability” using leading-edge IT. I am passionate about this need because, in my opinion, our Nation’s warfighters will not prevail in future conflicts without leveraging the leading-edge IT products and services available to every other country through the $4 trillion dollar global IT market. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Why Can’t DoD Buy High-Tech IT While it is Still High-Tech?

How long does it take the U.S. Army to buy a new handgun? One would think a 90 day market review of the current plethora of commercial handguns could lead to a quick fixed-price contract. Not so; it took them 10 years to prepare a 350 page Request for Proposal (RFP) plus 23 attachments, all released in 2015. After seeing the onerous RFP specifications, American handgun manufacturer, Ruger, chose not to bid. The final $580M contract was awarded to Sig Sauer in January of 2017, 12 years after the program was started.

That is just one example of DoD acquisition processes gone haywire, as described in the May 2017 Interim Report of the Section 809 Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations. This panel was mandated in Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2016, and modified in the FY2017 NDAA. Per this statute:

“The panel shall—

(1) review the acquisition regulations applicable to the Department of Defense with a view toward streamlining and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the defense acquisition process and maintaining defense technology advantage; and

(2) make any recommendations for the amendment or repeal of such regulations that the panel considers necessary, as a result of such review, to—

(A) establish and administer appropriate buyer and seller relationships in the procurement system;

(B) improve the functioning of the acquisition system;

(C) ensure the continuing financial and ethical integrity of defense procurement programs;

(D) protect the best interests of the Department of Defense; and

(E) eliminate any regulations that are unnecessary for the purposes described in subparagraphs (A) through (D).”

As the Interim Panel Report points out, despite DoD spending over $300 billion per year on research, development, and acquisition, the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) is no longer a dominant component of the U.S. economy.

“In the 1960s, the Fortune 100 included 15 defense firms that represented 30 percent of the [Fortune 100] revenue for the group. In 2017, the Fortune 100 includes only four defense firms, representing barely 3 percent of the revenue for the group.”

Further, the panel cites that DoD dominance in the semiconductor market has dropped from a peak of 90% to only 0.5% today.

Thanks to this Section 809 Congressional statute, our Nation has an opportunity to radically improve DoD acquisition practices. Unfortunately, acquisition regulation and process changes alone, will not address the key obstacles plaguing current DoD acquisition. These obstacles are:

  1. Speed to capability – is not a primary requirement for acquisition programs because risk-averse, bureaucratic, contracting and decision oversight processes are the primary driver of cost, performance, and schedule breaches.
  2. Accountability – program managers (PM’s), contracting officers, and legal advisors are virtually never held accountable for program cost, schedule, or performance breaches because program timelines require several PM tours to field a capability.
  3. Time is Money – the longer it takes to acquire anything, the more taxpayer dollars are spent, and the less modern capability is delivered to the warfighters.

What is interesting is that these obstacles were not present in our Nation’s early acquisition cold-war successes.  Nuclear submarines, Atlas ICBMs, and Polaris submarine ballistic missiles, are some the significant programs that developed winning cold-war capabilities in less than 5 years, from program start to first delivery, under a single PM.

Not generally understood nor discussed is the unintended acquisition consequences triggered by the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act!

“In the more than two decades since that time of change… …some within the military services have grown increasingly concerned about some of the effects, perceiving a growing divide between a military-run requirements process and a civilian-run acquisition process—a divide they regard as inimical to the efficient and effective support of military forces.”

The Perfect Storm: The Goldwater-Nichols Act and Its Effect on Navy Acquisition, RAND Corporation, 2010.

So what is this inimical divide? Before Goldwater-Nichols, military Service Chiefs held dominant responsibility for acquisition programs. Because military officers have direct and personal concern about speed to capability, accountability, and effective military systems, they are personally driven toward successful results, not unlike early swordsmen and sword-makers had to be tightly connected.

Goldwater-Nichols, however, removed acquisition authority from the Service Chiefs and placed it under direct control of politically-appointed Assistant Service Secretaries. The senior DoD acquisition Secretary reports to the Secretary of Defense. Even though politically appointed DoD acquisition Secretaries work hard to deliver effective military capability, including those who are former military officers, subtle political pressures from Congress and the executive branch are often more interested in how and where defense acquisition dollars are allocated across their constituencies, and less concerned with delivered results.

With the Service Military Chiefs only able to set requirements, and approve and defend program budgets through Congress, they are unable to significantly influence what is built and delivered. The result has been:

  • Lengthy, high-cost, ineffective Joint programs;
  • Service programs second-guessed and stretched by OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) staffs;
  • Bureaucratic acquisition processes overly concerned with contract competition and contractor profits; and,
  • Diminishing attention to rapid delivery of effective capability to the warfighters!

While Goldwater-Nichols was being established in the mid 1980’s, U.S. technology and manufacturing capabilities were growing rapidly, particularly in the information technology (IT) sector. Congress responded with a series of statutes directing the Federal government to buy, not build, all products that would approximately satisfy Federal and DoD requirements.

This began with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 1984, mandating, “the use of commercial products whenever practicable,” and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), 1994, leading to the military use of commercial computers, and to the Commercial Item procurement change, Part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (FAR is the bible for Federal acquisition). For the first time, FAR Part 12:

  1. Prioritizes commercial item (CI) procurement and services, over other FAR Parts;
  2. Mandates that requirements should be aligned with commercial items where possible;
  3. Reduces the contracting burden for buying fixed price CI and CI services; and,
  4. Requires market research as part of acquisition planning.

Market research is specifically called out in Part 12 because standing DoD acquisition processes rely upon Requests for Information (RFIs) to inform PM’s of available technology and interested contractors. The reality is that the majority of CI companies have no interest in contracting with the DoD because of bureaucratic contract and oversight burdens imposed on them create unnecessary expenses in return for slow, low probability-of-win, contract awards.

Many seniors in DoD argue that their DIB contractors will conduct market research and bring forward the best CI to satisfy DoD requirements. This ignores the obvious DIB conflict-of-interest that bringing forward CI and CI services reduces program dollars available directly to DIB contractors because they rely on unique DoD systems development and maintenance to sustain company growth. In addition, military Service requirements are not generated with an eye toward state-of-art CI capability, and are not easily tweaked across the Service Chief/Secretariat divide despite the commercial IT penetration in all military systems.

Fast forward 23 years and we find several NDAA Defense Bills demanding that DoD make better use of CI, CI services, FAR Part 12, and other laws designed to reduce the onerous DoD bureaucracy for non DIB contractors. Other Transaction Authority (OTA)10 U.S. Code 2371, 2014, is one innovative example. This statute authorizes:

“The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military department may enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) under the [non FAR] authority of this subsection in carrying out basic, applied, and advanced research projects.”

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has made great use of OTA, and now military Services are building upon that success to extend this advantage through authorized OTA consortiums, such as C5. The C5 consortium brings together CI and new technology companies to rapidly deliver advanced C2ISR and Cyber technologies for military proof of concept prototypes.

In summary, if the Section 809 Acquisition Reform Panel does not address the key obstacles of (1) Speed to Capability; (2) Accountability; and, (3) Time is Money; modifying acquisition regulations and policies will have little to no effect, and certainly will not “maintain defense technology advantage!”

As long as acquisition programs are measured in decades and not PM tour timelines, the only bright light on the current horizon is taking full advantage of FAR Part 12 CI and CI services procurement along with OTA proof of concept prototyping. These statutes require no change to the current acquisition bureaucracy…

Posted in DoD Acquisition, Technology Evolution | 5 Comments