Michael Fischetti is the executive director of the National Contract Management Association.
As I’ve mentioned in several articles now, innovation doesn’t always involve a new policy, regulation, or program, and the solution is not always something new.
Innovation is primarily a people issue; it requires risk-taking professionals to do some analysis, try different things, and document their efforts.
See past blog posts:
How to achieve real acquisition innovation
What does innovation really mean?
As reported recently, Navy IT leaders don’t accept a problem as regulatory—they look at how technology applies to the problem. Thus, their enterprise information systems office launched an “innovation cell” to rapidly insert commercial technology into networks without needing theFederal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)changes that are often cited as a barrier to trying new things.
The Navy accomplished this by managing processes concurrently rather than sequentially. The Navy identified three enterprise challenges it’s working on with industry as the initial technologies set to go through their innovation cell. Challenges to be addressed focus on data analytics, enhanced virtual desktops, and unifying communications. The leadership interact with Navy users to develop requirements that technology enhancements must meet, followed by further industry interaction that scales down those requirements to what’s available, affordable, and therefore practical.
From C4ISR&Networks: Navy’s Innovation Cell fast-tracks new technologies
This acquisition approach isn’t only allowable, but encouraged within the current regulatory and policy framework. But why limit it to IT? Most supplies and services today are constantly evolving. The cases where the requirements, selection process, and indeed performance and price outcome remain the same year to year are rare in the private sector. It stands to reason that such lack of stability should be the case within government as well.
So what stands in the way of widening this approach and integrating it as simply the way things are done, rather than as a new and innovative special initiative? It’s about leadership. However, before fingers are pointed at responsible agency executives, it must be stated that leadership in government today is complicated. Their hands are often tied, their authority is limited, and backseat drivers are numerous. Rules, oversight, and limitations include budget and funding, human capital, outside special interests, legislative committees, etc. The impediments that leaders face (even when the vision is clear, developed, articulated, and achievable) can quickly overwhelm them. Kudos to those Navy leaders for pushing their innovation cell.
A recent Foreign Affairs article by Francis Fukuyama, titled “America in Decay,” offers a premise of institutional decay; that government management has moved from an energetic and efficient organization staffed by people of ability and technical knowledge to becoming increasingly controlled by political institutions and outside interests, which has slowed everything down.
It’s no revelation that today’s political system is extremely challenged. Approval ratings are at historical lows. Past government leadership ensured technological and program superiority, while working in a far more cooperative and supportive atmosphere than exists today. Leader and staff morale, respect, motivation, pride, and productivity reflect the environment within the system they work in.
Today’s acquisition system (as other elements of agency effectiveness and success) is a highly visible symptom of the political institutions of which it is embedded. If we work at optimizing the functionality of those institutions, all the underlying elements (particularly acquisition) will quickly fall into place. Simply put, “it takes a village” for government programs to succeed or fail in government. Continued focus on the contracting officer, program manager, and specific acquisition policies or regulations is merely change at the margins. It may help, but won’t result in discernable change. Significant change in acquisition starts at the very top. Thank you to those who find ways to navigate this politically difficult environment.
Acquisition Innovation Part 2: Leadership
