Bloomberg fails fast
Bloomberg fails fast
Makes proposals for a more innovative and secure defense
Last week, Michael Bloomberg asserted that the Department of Defense needs to adopt best practices for innovation from the private sector.
Yes, THAT Michael Bloomberg, the founder of the finance and media giant, the former New York City mayor, the former “potential” presidential candidate.
Bloomberg is now the chairman of the Defense Innovation Board, which provides senior defense officials with independent advice and recommendations on innovative means to address future challenges.
It’s in that role that Bloomberg has confirmed a significant shortfall in the DoD’s ability to innovate. As I’ve written before in “Private industry is eating the government,” following the Cold War, there has been a fundamental shift in research and development. While the government—and specifically the War and subsequent Defense Departments—historically advanced technology and then exported it out to the commercial sector, that is no longer the typical path of advancement. Now, it’s far more common for a tech startup to develop new technology and then struggle to give it to the government for defense and security use.
Bloomberg proposes two things: first, legislation that grants the military services certain procurement and acquisition authorities before programs go through the congressional appropriation process. Second, changes within the services to adopt a “fail fast” approach.
In his first proposal, Bloomberg echoes a request that the DoD made in March, when it proposed a bill—supported by the White House Office of Management and Budget—for consideration called “Rapid Response to Emergent Technology Advancements or Threats.” This legislation would grant DoD legal acquisition authority to:
initiate new start development activities, up to a preliminary design review level of maturity, in order to-
leverage an emergent technological advancement of value to the national defense; or
provide a rapid response to an emerging threat.
While quantifying the pace of innovation across technology is nearly impossible, several analogues (such as number of patents granted by year, number of IoT connections, sales of smart phones, new AI models, etc) confirm what many of us already intuit, that the pace is accelerating at a nearly exponential rate.
As that pace accelerates, the highly bureaucratic processes for defining military requirements, entering those requirements into a program of record in the Future Years Defense Program, and securing and allocating money to it will continue to slow the military’s ability to adopt critical technology and adapt to a rapidly changing world.
Congress, of course, is reluctant to give up control and oversight.
Hopefully, testimony such as last week’s by Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital, William Evanina formerly of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, and Lindsay Gorman of the Alliance for Securing Democracy—before the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party—will reaffirm to Congress that the stakes at risk are immense and reassure them on alignment of interests between the federal government, the military, and many within the tech industry.
If convincing Congress to loosen its grip on military spending is difficult, effecting cultural change within the military and DoD is near-impossible. Unfortunately, culture change is needed to go from a “no-fail” mindset that the mission must succeed at all costs to a “fail fast” mentality.
There are promising signs of a shifting mentality: the creation of innovation cells like the Air Force’s Spark Cells, the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps Dragon’s Den, and programs such as AFWERX-funded Shift-run Defense Ventures Fellowship. Despite these leading indicators, I think we have a long way to go to create a truly innovative culture that is adaptive to technological and social changes.
Until we’re there, we will see continued frustration from industry partners that are building for our defense. We will see continued attrition of servicemembers that feel constrained by the no-fail culture, stifling their attempts at innovation. We will see continued growing disparity and insecurity relative to other countries, whose intentions may not be as benign as they claim.
We must sort this out, and do so quickly. Our defense and the security of the global system that values freedom, democracy, and human rights is at stake.
Keep building,
Andrew