Innovation in Government Business

The new (2023) Other Transactions Guide was waylaid by the DoD acquisition bureaucracy for a few years.  Now out, the new guide, as expected, reflects business-as-usual thinking and a desire to limit the potential of these flexible authorities before folks even bother to understand them.  The new guide contains misinformation, eradicates emphasis on smart interdisciplinary teaming and upfront problem-solving, and will serve to further narrow thinking... the Empire Strikes Back!    Creating workforce guidance (acting as policy), such as this, should be a rigorous intellectual and scholarly activity.  However, in this case, it appears, the bureaucrats sought to bring these flexible acquisition authorities to heel.  This guide, in a very real sense, represents a retreat from innovation, just at the time DoD needs to be charging toward it.   For those hoping for a 'virtuous insurgency', it is a kick in the teeth.  Now cliche, Other Transactions continue to be met with the same mindset that created the problems in the first place, therefore they cannot see the forest for the trees.   The paradigm has not shifted or even budged.  The federal acquisition bureaucracy is very predictable,  it's always the same, preserve business-as-usual and "innovate" at the fringes, equaling, one step forward, two steps back. Government Contractor article:  New Other Transactions Guide: Retreating from Innovation

A June 2023 Government Accountability Office report shows that DoD has a plethora of flexible authorities to use for more effectively pursuing and advancing knowledge and capability that are going unused or little used.   Why?  In this episode try to answer that. What these authorities have in common, when it comes to R&D, is they give the government a lot of flexibility and the workforce license to think.   However, this is antithetical to how things are currently done and this seems to be a problem.  For DoD, process has become the mission, and process is out of control.   When it comes to research and development and delivering new capability, it turns out that flexibility, collaboration, and creativity are extremely valuable.   DoD has a conundrum.  How do you introduce problem-solving, critical thinking, and creativity into a workforce, and indeed, an entire system mired deeply in process?  Flexible authorities for R&D ask the bureaucracy to give up some control to allow for greater creativity and good business judgement... and to cultivate these qualities within teams and the workforce.    Whatever is prioritized gets done... few statements are truer.  For advancing knowledge and delivering new capability, does prioritizing process over accomplishing mission goals make sense?    The time is ripe to be a virtuous insurgent, or to be disruptive and innovative; current acquisition authorities permit incredible opportunities for teams to apply creativity and be inventive in pursuit of accomplishing mission goals.   That is no joke.  There are authorities sitting on shelf that allow just that.  Pioneers needed.

Given the pitiful state of defense acquisition for R&D and delivering new capability defers risk to the warfighter, wastes taxpayer funding, shrinks the industrial base, steals from the future, and is an obvious threat to national security, one would think that there would be serious and concerted efforts to change it. You would be wrong! In order for something like that to happen, someone in charge would have to be responsible or held accountable. As witnessed, only subordinates are ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶ held accountable. The status quo unquestionably benefits government and industry insiders, even the tiniest perceived threat to the gravy train, careerism, and comfort afforded by the system is vehemently rebuffed by bureaucrats and influential special interests. This is done, in part, by constricting and restricting thinking along with a host of perverse incentives, making it difficult for individuals to conceptualize change and unpalatable.DoD leadership's longtime failing to lead when it comes to this issue is confounding and frustrating. They have ignored Congressional mandates, directives, and policies. They defend business-as-usual, by casting doubt and shade over innovative acquisition authorities created specifically to remediate the obvious and long known problems. Instead they undermine them while talking out of both sides of their mouth, publicly stating support, but behind the scenes it is different story and substantive action is always absent. They fashion the status quo as the "gold standard" and cast doubt over anything different or new. Then there are the government lawyers, who consistently have been acknowledged as a barrier to consequential positive change in federal acquisition. Practically every group or team who musters the energy and gathers the courage to be innovative in their business processes for R&D finds legal staff obstructing their way. It is like they are Storm Troopers protecting the "Soviet-style" institutionally corrupt acquisition system from would be rebel insurgents. It is rare to find a government lawyer who is an enabler of innovative business and teaming strategies who is following the Congressional mandates (law). These actions regularly hinder and demoralize their colleagues, who are trying to explore better ways to accomplish goals and objectives.Today the DoD is still indoctrinating the acquisition workforce in the old ways, business-as-usual. The calls for more ̶f̶a̶i̶l̶u̶r̶e̶ barriers and bureaucracy to fix the problems of the existing bureaucracy and barriers is once again in vogue. The only thing different this time is, it's the Millennials enforcing their updated branding of the exact same status quo. They are the latest generation who believe they can just kick-the-can.The failing of defense acquisition to appropriately accommodate the age and times in which we live, in favor of furthering an institutionally corrupt system is a tragedy. The government created this problem and is responsible for solving it. Plenty of remedies and solutions have been provided. BUT it requires the will, some know how, new education, and leadership articulating actionable strategies and goals, and clearing the way. The longer one looks at the problems that ail federal acquisition, the more one realizes they are straight-forward, identifiable, and totally solvable if desired. That this has been allowed to continue for so long is truly a national disgrace.

OUSD R/E recently published "National Defense Science and Technology Strategy 2023"  that contains ZERO consequential strategy and parrots what others have said ad nauseam.   The document correctly identifies that there is a very serious problem with the government system for delivering the fruits of taxpayer funded R&D efforts.  It identifies point A and points to B, but offers absolutely no practical guidance or ideas of how to get there.  In the case of contracting and the business of taxpayer funded, government R&D activities, it's always  groundhog day.  Each workforce generation does what the last one did, but pretends this time it is innovative... always 1 step forward, 2 steps back.      The problems are known, remedies have been provided, even mandated, in policy and law.  Solutions and potential solutions are known or are waiting to be explored.  Yet, the DoD remains entrenched in business-as-usual, as insiders are extremely invested and well furnished in the status-quo.   Leadership, lawyers, and academia generally admonish innovative contracting and business practices, instead they actively instill fear, road block, and narrow thinking within the workforce...  obey and comply, do not think!  They say the current system is the gold-standard, and everything else weird, evil, or must illegal.  They prefer what they know, the "Soviet-style" acquisition system, a perfect example of institutional corruption, for R&D.  It is a system of controls contrived by bureaucrats lacking in practical and applied business experience, or an appreciation for the gestalt.   The worsening trajectory, the extraordinary waste of the system will continue unabated until leaders are held accountable and take responsibility.   It shouldn't be too much to ask that government leaders follow the law.  For if they did, many problems and issues would already be solved.It's time for action!  The talk, incessant rhetoric, and never ending analysis is a doom loop.  Who will take up the mantle for positive change, returning value, and providing timely and appropriate solutions to benefit something greater than self?  It could be you.  "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Krishnamurti“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than creation of a new system.  For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”  – Niccolo Machiavelli  National Defense Science and Technology Strategy 2023 

In this episode Rick Dunn, former DARPA General Counsel, talks with TC Hoot, a long time DoD Acquisition Program Manager, currently Senior Program Manager at MISI, a Partnership Intermediary serving U.S. Cyber Command, about how to move out on acquisition and business process innovation to more efficiently and effectively deliver knowledge and solutions resulting from defense R&D efforts and spent resources.This is an intelligent discussion offering solutions to common and well known problems in federal acquisition.  It's time to start taking this seriously, it's time to take action.  Decades have been wasted stuck in "analysis paralysis", there is no more time.  The can has been kicked, the potato passed.  It is no longer just a matter of waste or poor value, the failings of DoD's acquisition system is a serious national security threat,  a clear and present danger, and it is getting worse.  What is going to take for the old guard and insiders to loosen their grip on business process innovation?   The solutions are there, but where is the will?  

Most people have a good idea of what fraud, waste, and abuse looks like, but few recognize institutional corruption, because it's "normal".  From Harvard's, Safra Center of Ethics:  "Institutional corruption is manifest when there is a systemic and strategic influence which is legal, or even currently ethical, that undermines the institution's effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose, including, to the extent relevant to its purpose, weakening either the public's trust in that institution or the institution's inherent trustworthiness." - from "Institutional Corruption, Defined" by Lawrence Lessig.    Does the DoD have processes, policies, systems, or add-ons that negatively effect its existential purpose?  Are bureaucratic and industry insider's cognizant of the purpose of Defense acquisition for R&D?  Bureaucrats, seeking control, created a "Soviet-style" system, which is at odds with the business ingenuity and adeptness that the Nation is/was known for.  We discuss this and more in this podcast...Sobering quote for the defense industry:“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children…” ~ Dwight Eisenhower, 1953

In this episode Rick Dunn with the Strategic Institute, talks with Maj. Ben Leaf currently assigned to USSOCOM about his experiences utilizing Other Transactions Agreements to deliver excellent results.  Ben discusses his experience that highlights the importance of the team, open mindedness, and lawyers who enable business process innovation.   This is story of how goal oriented action produces positive outcomes.      

In this episode, Strategic Institute's Founder, Rick Dunn hosts Professional WWII Historian, Justin Taylan,  to discuss how major events are effected by numerous small events and decisions behind the scenes, as is the a case for acquisition and R&D. For those who like to nerd-out to the WWII Pacific Air War and present day defense acquisition, this is your podcast.  

In this episode Rick Dunn, former DARPA General Counsel and pioneer of DoD's Other Transactions (OTs) authority, talks with Bill Greenwalt, a long time Senate Staffer and former Deputy Undersecretary, who was instrumental in the creation of Middle Tier Acquisition, and bolstering the power and potential of OTs, about the intent to create an alternative acquisition system to better deliver the fruits of DoD's R&D activities.  "The leadership, the military services are suffering from an incredible amount of delusional thinking." - Bill GreenwaltThis is a terrific discussion between two long time mission-driven professionals who delivered solutions to the Department.  However, leadership remains committed to an inept "Soviet-style" acquisition system, while restricting the workforce's ability to learn and apply the numerous solutions and Congressionally directed to use.   The business-as-usual crowd vehemently resists the creation of an alternative to the "costs too much, takes to long" system, characterized by waste and poor performance, thus stifling the DoD's ability to deliver thoughtful, intelligent solutions in a timely and appropriate manner.  Among the points touched upon, is that the current system is a relic from the middle of the last century and an outmoded mindset,  insider thinking has become delusional, using speed as metric, looking to what has worked and much more...If you care about supporting the warfighter, delivering solutions for national security, and the intersection of federal R&D and it's effects our nation's future and fate, this podcast should not be missed.  

In the episode Strategic Institute cuts through DoD's myth and lore to highlight the reason why Other Transactions were created and what problems they are intended to solve.  Other Transactions authorities (OTs) have realized increased use, but so too has misunderstanding.  A dearth of education and misinformation from the top-down are obvious culprits, as is leadership's lack of vision.  DoD acquisition for R&D is stuck in a bad place.  It is dreadfully slow, wasteful, irrational, and lacks common business  sense.  DoD desperately needs the flexibility that allows for radically different ways of doing business to creatively engage, perform, and execute to better deliver the fruits of federal R&D, but there is little will and know-how.   If we are being honest, leadership's answer has been tantamount to shrugging, as changing the system is said to be too difficult.   Plus, insider's are comfortable and are doing well.  They have concocted many stories of their heroism while wallowing in self defeat.  Other Transactions present an entire suite of acquisition authorities to create alternative acquisition pathways more appropriate for federal R&D activities and delivering new capability.  From the beginning, OTs are intended to provide a total alternative to the FAR-based acquisition system that is evidently inappropriate for R&D. DoD leadership continues to try to fix what ails the acquisition system by applying the same thinking that created the problems in the first place, and doing so repeatedly.  Is it insane?  Yes!  Is it absurd?  Even more so.   Remedies and solutions exist, policy is light-years ahead of practice, yet self imposed blinders prevent many from seeing them.   Aim to solve problems, not excuse them. 

Folly:  1) Lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight 2) a costly and foolish undertaking; unwise investment or expenditure.Few subjects have been the focus of more study than DoD acquisition for R&D and the delivery of new capability.  The resultant body of insight is comprehensive, expert, unanimous, and spans decades.  The findings?  The traditional acquisition system sucks!  It fails the warfighter, taxpayer, industrial base, puts national security at risk, and is stealing prosperity from future generations through massive debt spending.  This, for a system that is foremost characterized by wastefulness.  It wastes talent, time, and resources which could be applied elsewhere.  Despite the self-serving rhetoric and modest attempts to reform the system, it continues to get worse with each passing year.   “The DoD violates pretty much every rule in modern product [capability] development… we have terrific people stuck in a very bad system.”  - Eric Schmidt, fmr. CEO, Google; Chair, Defense Innovation Board In response, the people via Congress, have provided highly flexible and potentially powerful acquisition authorities to the DoD so that they can better deliver the fruits of R&D.  DoD leadership has been less than visionary, remaining wedded to business-as-usual.  Congress directed and recently reemphasized that DoD leadership take this seriously, get educated, and support the workforce.  Policy is light-years ahead of practice.  Instead of exploring business process innovation, bureaucrats and insiders poo-poo the potential benefits.  Instead they use and bend the authorities to appease the status quo, even if that means using them illegally.  Evident is leadership's near total lack of support for education, experiential learning, building expertise and networks, and clearing the way for creativity.  Leadership's failure has become a feature.  Remedies and solutions have been provided, however they require doing the next right thing, then the next and the next.  Remaining fixated on an institutionally corrupt system, despite all, is simply folly and foolish.   The purpose of Other Transactions and Middle Tier of Acquisition is to remediate the problems of the current system.  They are about innovating, and yes, disrupting how business gets done.  They can be nothing short of revolutionary.  However, it takes motivation and understanding the purpose, what can be done, and then rolling up sleeves and doing it.  It is not difficult to orient the workforce toward the achievement of goals.  The fact that the system is not oriented toward that is the problem.  The most notable hurdle is getting over previous learning and how things have always been done.   Special Acquisition Forces - Assemble smart program teams to operate in different, more sophisticated, and expansive business environments to best exploit the acquisition capabilities the DoD already has to accomplish mission goals.  

In this podcast episode Strategic Institute discusses the five principles for using Other Transactions (OTs) authorities for federal R&D.  5 Principles of OTs 1.  OTs = Flexibility2.  If it's R&D, use an OT3.  OTs are FAR out4.  OTs want you to Think5.  Team for Success After 30 years in use, government and industry insiders struggle to conceptually understand what Other Transactions authorities are for, why they are different, and what they permit.  This is, in part, due to a dearth of "real world" business experience within the government and a relentless push by bureaucrats for compliance and control; this crowds-out creativity, business acumen, and actually accomplishing goals.   The status quo, the current mindset and skillsets, within in the federal government are frequently incompatible with the flexibility OTs offer.   OTs allow for (radically) different business approaches and arrangements focused on achieving mission goals in federal R&D.   Leadership, the job title, not the action which is rare, appear confounded as they too, bureaucrats and insiders, lack the experience necessary for transformation.  Too many don't know, what they don't know, and are unable to provide vision or meaningful support.  Instead, leadership appears frustrated and angry by the limited improvement when attempting to use any of the array of innovative acquisition authorities.  It is as if it never occurred to them, that just introducing innovative contracting authorities into the same business-as-usual work environment, with the same incentives and metrics, will produce predictable results. If DoD and the federal government are serious about improving federal R&D activities for the warfighter and common good, they will need to experiment with different business processes.  Learning by doing and experimenting is necessary -  skills can be developed, information shared, and knowledge gained.  

In this episode Rick Dunn talks with LTC Dean Korsak from the Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate about the critical role government lawyers can take to enable business process innovation, using flexible contracts, to better deliver the fruits from R&D activities.  This positive episode discusses issues that teams using non-FAR based acquisition strategies face.   While there are a number of challenges, it is evident that with a little DIY spirit and ingenuity the obstacles are surmountable.  Lawyers are uniquely in a position to reduce fear and help clear the way for teams experimenting with different business approaches and arrangements for R&D, as directed by Congress.  When it comes to bucking business-as-usual and attempting something new or innovative it is comforting and helpful to have the lawyers on your side :)     

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the forces pushing back against innovation in business processes for federal R&D.    Other Transactions authorities are flexible contracts that permit the government to experiment with different business approaches and arrangements in effort to improve the delivery of the fruits of federal R&D activities.  They are intended to be used by smart interdisciplinary teams, equipped with high levels of business acumen, creativity, and critical thinking skills to deliver solutions to challenges and normative problems facing the DoD and more broadly. They are best matched with intellectual prowess and awareness.  When it comes to federal acquisition the government created the game, makes the rules, controls the board, and most of the players.  It represents a system by and for insiders.  It has partitioned itself off.  There are “kept” contractors who cannot compete commercially due to all the additional regulatory overhead, and highly innovative commercial companies that are functionally locked out.  The divide, think wall, that favors the few while excluding the many, is known as Federal Acquisition Regulations.  The “kept contractors” welcome every new rule and regulation, it is at the core of their business model.  They'll just hire more people to deal with the new regulation and charge it to the taxpayer. The government eliminates their competition and increases timelines - cha-ching!  Another feature of the system is that it is so irrational, arcane, and esoteric that legions of high-priced go-betweens and consultants, often former federal officials, familiar with the inner workings, are employed to decipher and translate to those outside the system.  There are powerful interests and forces maintaining the status quo, while there is ostensibly no incentives or support to do anything else.  

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in regard to acquisition for R&D, and specifically the report language, "strongly encouraging" DoD to educate the workforce in flexible acquisition authorities - other transactions.     Other Transactions are the authorities that can enable and permit the #disruption and #innovation that is commensurate with the frequently heard rhetoric.  There is nothing that is potentially more game-changing than Other Transactions and related authorities for innovating federal business processes to deliver the fruits of R&D efforts; which has been in dire straights for generations and is characterized by slowness and waste.   Dysfunction is normalized and has been inculcated in the minds of many.  The status-quo is protected institutionally, nonetheless it is dysfunctional and corrupted.  It is a shame since just about everyone knows significant change and real improvement is needed.   Instead of staying stuck in the past, the mindset must be allowed to progress and professionals need to innovate at least at "the speed of relevance."   We can do even better, if leadership gets on board and supports.   Why is the thinking around this subject so limited and lackluster?  Shouldn't we aim higher than the unclear messaging of sucking less?  The federal government has highly flexible, broad, remedial acquisition authorities to experiment with and prototype a variety of business approaches and arrangements to see what works.  Instead of supporting with education, leaders are content misunderstanding and using the authorities to suit business-as-usual.   Unfortunately, the status quo, myth, lore, and ignorance drive the conversations surrounding federal acquisition for R&D.  The business of R&D is an intellectual activity, it is drastically different from the delivery of goods and services.  The knowledge, value, and advancement gained is quantifiably different.  For R&D, make contracting a verb again!  Explore the flexibility and conceive and  learn new approaches to business.  That is what they are there for, not to be put in a box.  It has been FIVE years since Congress mandated that DoD get "management, technical, and contracting personnel" educated and supported by continuous and experiential learning opportunities.   This has been ignored from the top-down.  Congress, in 2023 committee report, emphasized this again, but added attorney's to the list. With absolutely nothing to lose and so much potentially to be gained, while complying with the law, one has to ask, "why is top defense acquisition leadership against OT education?"   or "are they even serious when they mouth the rhetoric of acquisition innovation?" and "why are they protecting the status quo, who benefits?"  A journey of thousand miles starts with the first step.  That step is education.  

In this year end episode Strategic Institute discusses what improvements have been made to educate and support the federal workforce to make positive changes (innovation) for better outcomes from investments in federal R&D.  Business-as-usual influences kicked the butt of federal business process innovation this year.  The bright spots in federal acquisition did not draw much attention.  It appears that acquisition reform has fallen out of trend, even though Congress continues to broaden innovative acquisition and flexible contracting authorities for R&D.  Those who gain by preserving the status quo appear to be ignoring mandates while making excuses as to why education, training, and various (needed) support is unnecessary.   Stakeholders like the warfighter, taxpayer, industrial base, and national security are forsaken for the interests of government and industry insiders.   Even the normally lofty rhetoric was noticeably weak this year.  Is this what shrugging looks like?   Regressive thinking appears fashionable again, "we are the government and have the purse, therefore you must comply no matter how dysfunctional it is."   There has been a lack of clear and decisive leadership.  As for 2023, there are reasons to be optimistic.  The Millennials are moving into and filling leadership ranks.  This generation has been vocal about being disruptive, innovative, and has indicated a willingness to deviate in order to solve normative problems and make good on federal R&D investments.   Let's pray that they do and those in senior positions will be supportive and clear the way.  Removing blinders and relinquishing the shackles of abysmally performing systems would be more than enough reason for cheer and optimism next year and for years to come.  Make the decision to learn, explore, and create the alternatives using highly flexible acquisition authorities for federal R&D ;)   "[other transactions] they are a gift!" - LTG OstrowskiMerry Christmas and Happy New Year!   

 In this episode Strategic Institute's Rick Dunn and special guests Col. Mark "Puck" Mykleby and Sam Moyer discuss opportunities and potential challenges that wait ahead for the newly announced Department of Defense, Office of Strategic Capital; which seeks to leverage private sector funding to improve federal R&D efforts, reduce taxpayer risk and burden, and deliver more capabilities into the hands of warfighter faster... at least that is the idea.The host and guests have years of experience interfacing with the government as both advocates for utilizing private sector funding and as educators, having cooperatively developed a training program on the subject. It was clear from the start that flexible federal R&D contracting authorities, that already encourage cost and resource sharing, and that are intended to enable collaborative arrangements specifically for federal R&D, Other Transactions authorities, are an essential component in making these arrangements work. Obviously!This episode is filled nuggets of experience, lessons learned, thoughtful ideas, and hopeful well wishes for those charged with creating the model(s) and leading the way.  

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses how tapping outside funding, non taxpayer sources, can benefit federal R&D and innovation programs.We applaud the idea behind the recently announced Department of Defense, Office  of Strategic Capital.   Strategic Institute with partners, Innovation Finance Group and 50lb Brain, spent years spreading the gospel of using outside capital to better the pace of innovation, encourage dual-use and collaboration, improve affordability, and ultimately lead to better delivered solutions and outcomes for stakeholders broadly.  Given that this is entirely different approach to business and thinking, Other Transactions authorities, highly flexible contracts, are the obvious and appropriate contractual instruments to be applied if this program is earnest and wants to succeed. Once you see beyond business-as-usual and become flexible in your thinking - horizons begin to open.   

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses factors in federal acquisition that prevent learning new approaches for delivering the fruits of research and development (R&D).Does previous indoctrination affect the ability to learn new things? Do Federal Acquisition Regulations limit thinking? Does focus and incentives benefiting government and industry insiders (shareholders) fail the warfighter, taxpayer, industrial base, national security and more (stakeholders)? What is the effect of frequently parroted government myth, rhetoric without results, and misinformation? What explains the lack of positive leadership and action on critical issues? Do Other Transactions consortia inhibit understanding of the actual Other Transactions authorities?We answer these questions and more…

In this episode Strategic Institute goes strong on the message of positive transformation in federal acquisition for effectively delivering the fruits of R&D and new capabilities.  The days of "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" approach, responsible for so much systemic navel gazing and institutional corruption, has reached its bounds.  It is killing the host and sacrificing those whom it is charged to serve; it is a hindrance and a burden.  Many have taken advantage of the system and actively resist change, but the times demand transformation.   Sticking fingers in ears and covering eyes, speaking the latest rhetoric and making excuses no longer will do... not if we are to remain innovative and vital.  The stakes are high!It is beyond time to learn new ways to problem solve, collaborate and team, conduct business,  strategize, and incorporate modern principles.  It is time for doing.  The tools, policy, and mandates are already there.  The only thing holding back federal acquisition from performing at a much higher level is leadership and education. BUT   leadership and academia zealously support the status quo; a disjointed and incongruent system imposed by bureaucrats, walled off in functionary silos without a gestalt.  The result has been decades of wasted intelligence, innovation, and resources. Current leaders and insiders, the system has treated you well, the next generations deserve to be set up for future success.  Don't leave the place in shambles and say, "good luck."   Knowledge and skills can be learned.  This is an actionable item, let's get busy!We cover these issues and more.... 

In this podcast episode Strategic Institute discusses assembling interdisciplinary teams that are empowered and protected by leadership for the purposes of exploring and exploiting the flexibility inherent in Other Transactions authorities, and the wide variety of business relationship and approaches they allow for the purposes of delivering the fruits of federal R&D.  This contrasted with the rigidity of the current system, functionary silos, and the single minded approach that forces a buyer/seller relationship; inappropriate in most cases for R&D.We continue to note the consequences of ignoring Other Transactions education as mandated by Congress in 2018.      

In this episode Strategic Institute questions the government's use of so-called Other Transactions consortia.  Are these arrangements the best use of the authorities?  Do they meet the definition of consortia?  Do they actually award OTs?  Are they even legal? -or- Are they an "easy button" to quickly get money on contract?  Are they more akin to support services than consortium?  consortium : an agreement, combination, or group (as of companies) formed to undertake an enterprise beyond the resources of any one member - M&WFor many in and out of the government Other Transactions authorities have become synonymous with so-called OT consortia?   A result of a lack of education, confusion abounds.  The Government Accountability Office, DoD Inspector General, and top government contracted lawyers have demonstrated this.  What is known is that these "consortia" lack transparency.  Other Transactions authorities, flexible contracts for federal R&D and delivering new capability, risk being obscured and overlooked out of ignorance.   The lack of education is a well known problem.  In 2018, Congress mandated that "management, technical, and contracting" personnel get educated.  That has not happened in any meaningful way.  Instead of investing in the workforce,  consortia have been proffered and promoted by the government, and even academia, as the preferred solution.  There is little to no internal expertise, yet $10's of billions in taxpayer financed funding is sent through these outside entities.  What is the logic here?   Is this responsible and who is accountable?  Why is the government so reluctant to educate the workforce?  To make the best use of Other Transactions authorities education is the key.

In this special and highly educational episode Rick Dunn, the OG of DoD Other Transactions authorities, discusses Middle Tier of Acquisition with three of today's brightest minds in federal acquisition for R&D and advancing new capability.   This is a "stop what you are doing and gather 'round" episode.  It is difficult to imagine a more informative discussion on topic that needs elucidation. Guests:  Dan Ward, Pete Modigliani, Matt  MacGregor Related article:  Get to Know the Middle Tier of Awesome... Er, Acquisition

Other Transactions (OTs) are flexible contracts that are intended to foster the business relationships needed to facilitate and deliver new and advanced technologies, innovative solutions, and to maximize investment in research and development (R&D).  As flexible contracts, specifically for the purposes of R&D and delivering the fruits for the benefit of the warfighter, society, and national dynamism,  OTs can do more than simply acquisition.   OTs can and have been used to tackle specific human resource issues and improve technology transfer among other things.In this episode, we also discuss if federal acquisition bureaucracy should catch up with modern business philosophy that views large organizations like organisms versus a machine.   It is surmised that the mechanistic approach, epitomized by federal acquisition, is too rigid to keep pace with rapid change.  Conversely,  flexible organic-like networks and collaborative associations focused on common goals that are capable of quickly responding and adapting to selective pressures, are the ones who front run change.   Additionally, it has been 30 years since OTs were first introduced and five years since congressional mandates telling the DoD to "develop a preference" and get educated.   The DoD has made virtually no investment in developing any expertise in these flexible contracting authorities.  There are no experts, only those who think they are, to conceptualize or understand their potential.  This is an opportunity for a leader who chooses tho accept the challenge and the solutions waiting to be implemented.

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the forthcoming DoD Other Transactions Guide that has been in the works for some time.   The most recent 2018 OT Guide was developed by the Office for the Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisition and Sustainment.   While it did not become a "living document" as intended, it is still very good.   Use of OTs has seen a significant uptick since.  For a while a new guide has been cooking at Defense Pricing and Contracting, who assembled previous OT guides in the 2000's and 2010's.  During those periods OTs fell into disuse and saw the creation of today's popular, but not particularly thoughtful, consortia model.  The 2018 OT Guide was meant to evolve from learned experience, getting better with time and provide a go-to resource for a growing community.  However, lack of adequate training and learning opportunities has severely limited experience, and there has been no rallying call.  So, while possible contractual relationships, thus business approaches, has increased exponentially it is subjected to the same conceptual thinking.   Applying a stodgy bureaucratic mindset to flexible and freeing acquisition authorities meant remedy the dysfunction of a constipated system is and will be disastrous.    On the other hand, the new OT Guide could level up and enable the innovation and improved business processes many are seeking.  It could help readers understand and explore possibilities.   As of now, who knows?  Champions can be in unexpected places.  

In this podcast Strategic institute discusses the advantages of using appropriate contracts for federal R&D.  Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) contracts are inappropriate, per Part 35, which states FAR is procurement for acquiring goods and services.   R&D and advancing new capabilities requires a totally different business model and strategy.  If the federal government is serious about its work in R&D, why use contractual instruments that are inappropriate and chronically produce less than desirable results?Having, using, and being skilled at applying the right tools for the job nearly always results in a better end-product with far less consternation.  Anyone who has done mechanical or laborious work with the wrong tool knows how much better, faster, and easier the task becomes when the right tool is in hand and you know how to use it.  The exact same principle is true for federal contracting for R&D.  If you have witnessed someone performing a task with the obviously wrong tool, you know how ridiculous it looks.  However, if you have ever seen someone skilled using just the right tool for the job, it looks incredible.  Think about the absurdity of sticking with an inappropriate tool, but expecting little adjustments to make significant improvement.  The federal acquisition bureaucracy has been shaped using a single tool.  You know the saying, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."   Bashing away, government and industry insiders appear truly confounded as to why the FAR-hammer works so poorly to facilitate and invigorate 21st century R&D.      At some level everyone involved knows that federal acquisition for R&D and delivering capabilities  needs to be re-tooled and re-skilled.  Other Transactions (OTs) authorities provide the appropriate contractual tools for federal R&D now, but there are no craftsmen and very few teachers to provide apprenticeship and knowledge.  The skill level is novice at best.  The federal government has picked up OTs, is using them similar to a hammer, and has outsourced skill development to 3rd parties who have little interest or incentive in doing so.  In reality, the sequence of events is simple: pick up the tool, learn how to use it, apply it, and pass knowledge along. A simple razor, to help you remember -  If it's R&D use an OT!      Related Articles:Using SBIR Funding to Award Other Transactions AgreementsAppropriate Contractual Instruments For R&DThe Defense Production Act and Other Transactions

In this episode Rick Dunn, Strategic Institute, sits down with Raj Shah a former Managing Partner at the Defense Innovation Unit, an F-16 pilot, and entrepreneur to discuss gearing defense acquisition to keep pace and innovative to meet current and future challenges.  

In this podcast episode Strategic Institute recaps controversial topics from a previous episode (protest & consortia), and points out and illustrates the natural symbiosis between flexible federal contracting authorities, other transactions, and the greater flexibility offered to the government by using a partnership intermediary.     Related:The Other Transactions & Partnership Intermediary Connection Partnership Intermediary - 15 USC 3715

 Chalking it up to the 'you can't make this stuff up' category, the latest Other Transactions (OT) protest highlights the continued need for education and training for all involved in awarding these agreements.  In this case, it appears that no party involved understood the Other Transactions for prototypes statute.Also in this podcast episode we poke at the much venerated consortia model.  The so-called consortia model does fulfill the DoD's two favorite, but ultimately meaningless, metrics.  They provide an easy way to obligate funding and improve time to contract, but this completely misses the purpose of the statutes.  Using these arrangements as an 'easy button' is understandable and even improvement, but given the purpose and potential of OTs, it is pretty lame.  By the end of this episode we question if the current consortia model, created out of ignorance and replicated dozens of times, is even a legal structure, or is the whole model vulnerable?It is time to get serious about Other Transactions education and training and dare to comprehend beyond the FAR.Related articles:Opening the Floodgates? COFC Hints at Broad Jurisdiction Over Prototype OTA ProtestsOT Consortia: Vulnerable to Protest?  

More than 30 years since Other Transactions authorities were first introduced in the DoD, the early pioneers, adopters, and educators still have faith that one day leaders in federal acquisition will have an 'ah-ah' moment of clarity, realizing the potential of these flexible contracting authorities for leveling-up R&D activities and delivering new capabilities.   With policies and Congressional mandates already in place, telling them to do exactly that, all that is needed is action.  The dearth of education and support resulting in a poorly equipped workforce is an easily identifiable and known weakness.  Leading educators and pioneers with fully developed educational curricula are standing-by and are immediately available.  This is a ripe and immediately actionable item!  It has been nearly 5 years since Congress mandated that DoD leadership provide support, education and training for 'management, technical, and contracting' personnel involved in R&D and prototype projects.  This continues to be ignored, or worse.  To realize success it takes just one senior leader, a champion in the right position, who wants to do things for the common good, because they care, and values the workforce, national security, and the nation.   The fight and hard work has already been done.  Faith remains that a thoughtful, selfless leader will recognize the need and do the right thing as laid bare by the representatives of the people (democracy and law).   If acquisition leaders want a simple action to be a real hero; here is your sign.  This is low hanging fruit hitting you in the face.  With so much unexplored up-side potential, it curious and remarkable to see such unanimous rejection of education and workforce support for innovative, flexible acquisition authorities.  This is an easy part of the solution.  Go for it and take the WIN!    

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the lack of "infrastructure" to support federal acquisition that is dynamic and promotes synergy for the best results in R&D and delivering new capability.  Instead,  the government chooses to miss opportunities and potential for improvement to stick with what knows.   The status quo acquisition system is heavy on indoctrination and has the culture behind it.  Shortsightedness perceives it to be the path of least resistance, it's what everybody knows.  Though significant change is and has been needed for decades, the system further degrades, there has been a lack of desire and support for exploring alternatives, even though policies and mandates to do exactly that are already in place and have been for years.   The continual attempts to be "innovative" within the current system fails repeatedly, one workforce generation after another.   When do we begin to invest in the "infrastructure" to support the change to match the rhetoric?   Folks need education, leadership support,  networks, and community etc.   The current system continues to receive the majority of education and resource investments  - you must assimilate.   Little support is given to anything else.   This leaves ambitious, creative people who want to focus on achieving goals and the common good out in the cold, frustrated.   Will federal leadership ever create and lay down the foundations to support real positive change in acquisition?  To this day,  it remains to be seen.   The most important federal innovation is its business processes.   

In this episode Strategic Institute talks with Dr. Dolores Kuchina-Musina of REXOTA Solutions to discuss the focus of her PhD dissertation -  Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) and innovation policy.  Dolores approaches her work and study of an often difficult and frustrating topic with cheer and optimism, while keeping in mind the common good.  She shares some findings and what she has learned since embarking on her journey to understand how acquisition authorities and policies effect innovation and ultimately the delivery of new capability.  We did not totally nerd out on OTAs.  We talked about a number of trends effecting the workforce and general mindset within the federal acquisition space for R&D.  She believes that folks are beginning to earnestly question the status-quo, and that new ideas and concepts are slowly becoming accepted.  However, she does share SI's view that a lack of meaningful education and training opportunities remains a hindrance.  Dolores's dissertation:   Other Transaction Authorities: Evaluating Innovation PolicyImpact of Alternative Contract Vehicles in the Department of Defense  

The DoD is notorious for slacking at the front end of R&D programs, preferring to punt and hope that it all comes together at the back-end.  From a business perspective this is sheer insanity!  The more thoroughly an organization identifies problems and solutions sets early, typically the more time and resources are saved with better solutions delivered.   The DoD, committed to the traditional one size fits all highly regulated purchasing system, has perverted prototyping, seeing it as an early stage purchase of a larger buy.   By the time a prototype is delivered, it is already captured by the traditional procurement system.   Since anything to do with the traditional system is a hassle, DoD is sparing in its prototyping endeavors.   A number of acquisition authorities mandated by Congress, meant to support the DoD in doing smart business for R&D, including better prototyping and early stage efforts, are being irresponsibly  handled by leadership.  Current and recent leadership, purveyors of 'old think' currently bankrupting the Nation, refuses to educate themselves and the workforce on contracting innovations.  This lack of business ingenuity obviously benefits the 'entrenched interests', the  status quo and business-as-usual.  Don't believe hype!  Much of the recent  PR, rhetoric, innovation theater has usurped real efforts to improve the system.In this episode Strategic Institute makes a case for the DoD to get serious about prototyping and  front-end work.   We advocate for prototyping prototyping, not just early stage buying.  We want DoD leadership to be bothered to understand the potential of Other Transactions and related acquisition authorities.  Why not!?  Assemble knowledgeable teams, empower them with education and leadership support, and compare the results with traditional DoD acquisition system.  If the traditional federal acquisition system is superior and cannot benefit from flexibility or by approaching business differently, then the government can say earnestly they are doing their best.  Maybe failing the warfighter, burdening taxpayers, shriveling the industrial base, inhibiting innovation, putting national security at risk, and unfathomable waste is the best result.   That is likely not the case, but those invested in the current system (leadership, prime defense contractors, contracting offices, lawyers etc.) will have to loosen their grip and be open to something other - Other Transactions.    

The secret to federal business ingenuity and greater acquisition success for R&D and delivering new capability lies in educating people, whereas the secret for maintaining the status quo is in keeping them ignorant. The federal government has been "gifted" with highly flexible contracting instruments, meant to encourage desperately needed business ingenuity for the acquisition of knowledge and delivering new capabilities efficiently and effectively.  Despite 30+ years of information to draw from and a 2018 Congressional mandate, leadership has not supported meaningful education and training for innovative acquisition authorities.  There is much talk of acquisition innovation, but actions continually prove to the contrary.  In this episode Strategic Institute explores the known, and maybe not so known consequences of shunning education and the development of new ideas and concepts, for business-as-usual and old think.  Decades of unsuccessful acquisition reform teach us that dressing something up and calling it innovative does not make it so.  However, by supporting learning, new opportunities arise.  Supporting education for the use of mandated flexible contracting authorities should not be viewed as controversial, not doing so should be.   

Strategic Institute is one of the few advocates for education, training, and supporting the workforce to best utilize highly flexible contracting authorities, other transactions and related for R&D and delivering new capability, available to the federal government.   DoD leadership has ignored the 2018 Congressional mandate telling them to do exactly that!  So as to not be swept under the rug, we got louder and created more content.  In this podcast episode Strategic Institute makes a case for education and training for leadership and the workforce; a common sense action that will positively effect federal acquisition for R&D and delivering new capabilities and help break the shackles of indoctrinated old think.  If you would like to take education and training into your own hands, check out our recently updated: Guide to Other Transactions Authorities Related Links:Appropriate Contractual Instruments for R&DHelping the "Old Think" Bureaucrats and Their Lawyers get to "Yes"

Do we need a better acquisition system to exploit the fruits of R&D and deliver new capabilities?   While the often mouthed rhetoric says "yes" actions by leadership send the opposite message "NO!"   The piece parts of what can easily be understood to be an alternative acquisition system for R&D exists!    These authorities, that provide contract flexibility and much more,  permit the DoD to approach the business of R&D in different ways, even radically different ways.   Though Congress pinned the responsibility on DoD leadership to ensure the workforce receives adequate training and education to make the best use of these authorities, years later that remains largely unsupported, perhaps even opposed.  DoD:   The system is terrible.   We need an alternative to do all these things we need to do.  Congress:  Okay.  You got it.  Make sure you support the workforce.DoD:  Maybe the current system isn't so bad after all.  Congress, Warfighter, Taxpayer:   Seriously?!Defenders of the status quo, old think are a domineering force.   But maybe, just maybe, those of us who advocate for doing things differently and supporting the workforce to do so are not the crazy ones.

 The United States Air Force was once a leader in technological developments.  Before WW2 Assistant Chief of Staff for Procurement Maj. Gen. H.H. "Hap" Arnold took advantage of commercial developments that increased the octane-rating of aviation gasoline to ensure that the U.S. led the world in fuel for high performance aero engines.  Those commercial developments were spurred by Army Air Force reservist Jimmy Doolittle. The 100-octane story (Richard Dunn).  After the war Arnold created the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board headed by Theodore von Karman with Jimmy Doolittle as a member.  Support staff included Col. Bernard A. Schriever.  Bennie Schriever later headed the organization that developed and fielded an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) in just five years.   In retirement, Gen. Schriever was a key ally in helping me get Other Transaction authority enacted for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).  That authority was later expanded to all of DOD. Maj. Gen. Claude Bolton, USAF, was an advocate in getting the Air Force to recognize the utility of OTs.  The first major system developed using OT authority was a joint project of DARPA and the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office.  Developed in record time Global Hawk was used operationally during its demonstration phase and later transitioned to the Air Force where it is still in operational use.  Current Air Force and Space Force leadership needs to overcome the inertia of "costs too much, takes too long" business as usual.  Leadership needs to execute the mandates of Congress to adopt a preference for using OTs, exploit dual-use as its default approach to R&D, and get serious about educating management, technical, and the contracting workforce in the use of OTs and related authorities.  Cut out the "just another tool" rhetoric and create the alternative acquisition system to benefit the warfighter and tax payer!  

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the toxic DoD acquisition workforce culture where fear and lore is enabled and perpetuated by entrenched interests.  The DoD acquisition system for R&D and delivering new capabilities failed sometime ago by any metric that really matters.  However, the DoD uses metrics that do not really matter.  The continued use of a system  that fails its own stated purpose and in real outcomes must be addressed.  That this has gone on for decades indicates deeper problems.   The question is who should be held accountable?  Like the disgraceful exit of the Afghanistan war, nobody in DoD leadership has ever been held accountable for the chronic and continued failure of the DoD acquisition system to deliver new capabilities efficiently and effectively in support of the warfighter and national security.   This is important work, but is treated less so.  The DoD Acquisition System is a place where the common good and public interests are being trounced by self interests of insiders who benefit from perpetuating fear and lore.    Related article - The Agreements Officer Conundrum:  https://strategicinstitute.org/other-transactions/agreements-officer/

In this podcast episode, Rick Dunn, former DARPA General Counsel, addresses the 2022 Breakthrough Energetics Conference highlighting the most critical innovation the DoD can focus its energies on is business process reform already supported by policies and mandates.  This is the innovation in which delivering all other innovations efficiently, effectively, and affordably rely.     

“Rules for thee but not for me.” – DoD  The Department of Defense acquisition system can be defined by its separateness.  It is a whole universe unto itself, walled off and apart from the rest of industry and the ways other organizations work.  In a similar vein, when Congress passes a law on citizens and corporations they are expected to comply, with threat of punishment.  However, DoD acquisition leaders seemingly simply ignore laws that they don't like without any worry of being held accountable.  Are they above the law?  It looks that way.  Congress continues to boost the power and potential for using flexible “commercial-like” contracts, Other Transactions (OT) and related authorities, that are superior for engaging and doing the business of R&D, which the DoD desperately needs.  Yet, DoD remains committed to thinking and a system that failed some time ago - a highly regulated purchasing system completely ill-suited for the mission of R&D.  According to former USD R/E, Mike Griffin, the system survives on tremendous “waste.”  To keep pace with its near-peers and now peers, DoD needs a big change.  Congress has directed the DoD to ensure ‘management, technical and contracting' personnel get educated to make the best use of the authorities,  that leads to the virtuous cycle of student turning into teacher, growing a community, and learning and expanding ideas by doing.  The only way.   Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, meaningful OT education, therefore the workforce, is not being supported.  DoD acquisition leaders say they want more effective, streamlined, and outsider friendly approaches to doing business for delivering new capability faster, but their actions do not match.  They resist, even undermine, the generous hard fought for authorities created to do what they all say they want and more.  Why?  Who knows, it could be egos or wanting notoriety for the new thing, over doing the next right thing, as the recently resigned Air Force Chief Architect suggested.  Maybe it is “entrenched interests” like Professor Steve Blank said.  Maybe it's all the ridiculous amount of fear, myth, lore, and superstition that runs amuck in the DoD in lieu of empowerment, education and training.For 30 years Other Transactions authorities have been misunderstood, they have been resisted, and subverted by business-as-usual.  Congress directed DoD leadership 4.5 years ago to support the workforce and new ways of getting capabilities to the warfighter, by ensuring they have the tools, structure, and education they need to thrive in a completely different environment, so that we all may realize the benefits.  Education should not be seen as a threat; it should only be viewed as an opportunity.     For the article this episode was based off of:  https://strategicinstitute.org/other-transactions/appropriate-contractual-instruments-for-rd/

The defense acquisition system prioritizes cost in its business transactions to the point of making the entire system unaffordable.  In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the difference between 'cost' and 'value', and the real cost of all this focus on price tags.  The DoD by-and-large engages in the rudimentary business of procurement, establishing a buyer/seller relationship and pricing, and when that won't do it incentivizes incurring cost through reimbursement contracting.  These otherwise basic business arrangements are made overly-complicated by a burdensome bureaucratic, compliance framework, that at least when it  comes to R&D and delivering new capability, adds little or no value and hinders much. Affordability and value are sacrificed for one of the worst four letter words in business - COST!   It is time to take the training wheels off!  The federal workforce, with leadership support, can engage successfully in sophisticated business that factors in value and long term affordability.   

In this podcast episode Strategic Institute's Founder, Rick Dunn talks with  Amanda Bresler and Alex Bresler with PW Communications about their latest research - Analyzing the Composition of the Defense Small Business Industrial Base.   The findings are eye-opening as the stated goals of many small business policies and programs are not being served.  Small business programs attempt to make up for an inherent lack of fairness of an overly-bureaucratic, highly-regulated system that grew into a monster over time.  Now it so arcane that nobody can really make sense of it it all.   Yet, having a fuller awareness will result in better solutions.  The defense acquisition (innovation) community  needs to face its problems head on, and use the tools and resources provided to create positive change - real innovation.   For more informationguests: PW Communications:  https://www.pwcommunications.com/host:Strategic Institute:  https://strategicinstitute.org/  

In this episode Strategic Institute talks about DoD's continued reliance on a procurement system for R&D and advancing new capability.  "When the only tool you use is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."   The DoD habitually uses the wrong contractual instrument to achieve its stated  goals for the important work of advancing knowledge and delivering new capability to the field.  The Federal Acquisition Regulations-based procurement system forces a buyer/seller relationship.  However, the business and desired outcomes of R&D are very different from purchasing stuff and services.   For at least three decades, some of our Nation's brightest minds and experts have indicated the need for the use of flexible "commercial-like" contracts and business arrangements by empowered and protected teams to better support objectives and improve outcomes for R&D, prototyping, and most importantly getting new capability into the war-fighters hands.  Performance has gotten so bad for the ancient and beleaguered procurement system, that several years ago Congress mandated that DoD develop a 'preference' for using flexible contracts and business arrangements, and went on to mandate that 'management, technical and contracting' personnel get spun up.  While DoD has expanded its use of flexible contracting authorities, they remain limited by the  framework and understanding of the existing system, and education is virtually non-existent.   Unfortunately the mandated flexible contracting authorities are viewed through the lenses of the current procurement system.   By and large, minus a few bright spots,  no significant change in acquisition for R&D has occurred, though the need becomes more dire with every passing day.  Our near peers are catching up, have caught up, or are passing us by.  This seems like a red alert, all hands on deck situation, yet the response has been confusion and inaction.  This is a straightforward fix: use the correct contractual instruments for the mission.  The use of Other Transactions Agreements for R&D have been mandated by Congress, have been specifically created for R&D, and ARE the correct contractual instruments.  Related article:  Appropriate Contractual Instruments for R&D: https://strategicinstitute.org/other-transactions/appropriate-contractual-instruments-for-rd/  

In this episode the Strategic Institute team talks about "innovation," a buzz term that has become ubiquitous in the federal government.  Using an article as a basis of discussion, the team relates and connects it to Other Transactions authorities and federal government acquisition. Article: Stop Saying Innovation - Here's Why - by author Scott Berkun  "People with good ideas and who do good work solve problems. They let their ideas be defined by the importance of the problems their ideas solve. It's the solving of the problem that gives ideas power, not an adjective slapped onto PowerPoint slides or into job titles.Great teams know this and drop pretense in favor of simple words like prototype, experiment, problem, solution, user, customer, lesson and design. Simpler language accelerates progress. Inflated language slows it down and confuses people. Calling yourself tall doesn't make you tall. A word is just a word. It's your actions that matter, not the labels you use."For the full article: https://scottberkun.com/2008/stop-saying-innovation-heres-why/For more on Other Transactions and other federal government flexible contracting authorities purposefully created to support and facilitate true innovation, visit:  https://strategicinstitute.org/ 

Join Strategic Institute in discussing why the defense acquisition system for R&D and delivering new capabilities is persistently stuck in first gear and getting passed by on the rapid 21st century highway.  The DoD once had a functional acquisition system capable of expediency and creativity, i.e. going to the Moon in less than a decade, producing a nuclear bomb just six years after splitting the atom (totally new technologies).  Today the system requires tremendous resources and legions of industry specialists and insiders who spend years learning the ins-and-outs of a system that defines - arcane.  Now it takes nearly a quarter century just to deliver the next-gen of something.  This, despite many advances in efficiency enhancing technologies in the intervening years (i.e. computing, communications, simulations etc.).  The bureaucracy and special interests have had their way with the defense acquisition system; it just grew to become the albatross it is today.   Hard fought for flexible acquisition authorities allowing the government to operate at a much high caliber have been expanded, codified, and even mandated, but they are being ignored or worse.  DoD's inefficiencies and problems are an inside job, the change many say they wish to see needs to be embodied and emboldened by good leadership.     Related Podcast:  Is the Traditional DoD Acquisition System Institutionally Corrupt? https://strategicinstitute.org/other-transactions/dod-acquisition-institutionally-corrupt/

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses the most common question we hear from federal contracting personnel... How do I do an OT?  Unlike the traditional system based on the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Other Transactions have no plug-n-play option, there is no cut-n-paste and that's the point.  OTs are FAR out, and OTs make you think.  OTs are flexible contracts that allow for a variety of (different and exciting) acquisition approaches.  This is based on business excellence; approach programs and projects on an individual basis and develop the best strategy to accomplish mission goals.   Therefore cutting and pasting, and mindlessly throwing unnecessary clauses into contracts should be shunned by program teams.   This is a major sticking point, as most contracting personnel schooled in the traditional system, where their main priority is to ensure compliance, can find it impossible at times to operate in a 'freedom of contract' environment.  So difficult is this task for some, that OTs purposefully do not require a warranted Contracting Officer, instead, at least in some cases, they favor (encourage) program managers (program teams) with the assistance of legal personnel to obligate the government, instead of relying and waiting on contracting office. "It is difficult to get a person to understand something which their salary depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair While there are no fill-in-the-blank options for OTs, there are many lessons learned, templates, education, and even a small, but growing, community of practice in which to share information.  For more information visit the #1 resource for OT education and thought: strategicinstitute.org 

In effort to fix the critically serious and empirically known problems that has plagued DoD acquisition for R&D and delivering new capability for decades, the DoD unveiled The Adaptive Acquisition Framework as a remedy.  However, the graphic representation of the framework clearly  shows that all acquisition pathways lead back to the same place, the traditional acquisition system, while obfuscating the alternatives.   What it shows more than anything else, is that a problem cannot be solved with the same thinking that created it.  The  'framework' IS the traditional system.  It seeks to overlay alternative and innovative ways of contracting and doing business with the dysfunctional system.  The (mal)Adaptive Acquisition Framework does more to constrict thinking than it does to expand.One glaring example is no mention of Other Transactions for Middle -Tier Acquisition birthed the same year in the same statute where Congress mandated 'preferential' use and education of these authorities.  This is an example of the inability to conceptually make connections and understand what the whole looks like, or perhaps it is further evidence of institutional corruption.  Whether it be ignorance, apathy, or antipathy, DoD is going out of the way to ignore the generous solutions and expert recommendations in order to stay the course and continue with business as usual.      “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than creation of a new system.  For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”  – Niccolo Machiavelli (1513)   For more information on Other Transactions and to join the revolution in Federal acquisition for R&D and new capability, visit:  https://strategicinstitute.org/

In this episode Strategic Institute discusses why private sector funding of government R&D and in the development of new capability is not only permissible using Other Transactions but also why it makes a lot of sense.   With so many dollars (debt) being created out of thin air, funneling their way into asset classes across the board, does it really makes sense for taxpayers to take on all the risk and be on the hook to fully fund programs that could be funded by other parties with greater interest? Private sector money is desperately searching for investment and yield more than ever.   Government dual-use and other programs can be highly attractive for investment, if the government can be a good business partner.  Given how accepting outside funding and resources can jump start early innovation and help bridge "the valley of death", why has DoD and other agencies failed to figure out how to accomplish, what is otherwise common sense (and common place) business practices?    At some point, affordability will become an issue.  The exploration of business practices that encourage affordability, along with greater speed and better solutions seem like a no-brainer.         

In this episode the Strategic Institute team talks about Other Transactions (OT) education.  More specifically the lack thereof and how this tantamount to shooting oneself in the foot.   It has been almost FIVE YEARS since Congress mandated that the DoD develop a 'preference' for using OTs for R&D and prototype projects.  At the same time in 2018 they mandated that program, technical, and contracting personnel also receive training and  education.  Though OTs are counter-cultural and antithetical (a different world) to business as usual, not much more than a two hour webinar or lunch-and-learn can be found, hardly opportunities to develop robust understanding.  Some OT knowledge has been gained by some but conceptual and practical understanding remains poor.  The responsibility is squarely on leadership, but they have a limited appreciation or understanding of the power and potential of OTs.  Simply put, OT education is not being supported in a meaningful way, but folks seem to expect a lot from these contracting authorities that practically nobody has been trained to use and far fewer understand.  Let's call it what it is, irresponsible. There is a lot of putting the 'cart before the horse' in the DOD and this is shining example of the DoD making things more difficult than need be.  Education precedes innovation, and the most needed innovation of all is how the DoD approaches and conducts business to better serve the warfighter, taxpayer, national security, and enhance the industrial-base, and deliver better solutions.  

Extensive study of the defense acquisition system has produced numerous recommendations for its improvement.  A recommendation found throughout is the need for empowered and protected teams.  When it comes to R&D, innovation, and delivering new capabilities, teaming strategies as well as skill-sets are vital to doing it well.  Equipped with flexible contracting authorities, the government can rethink how it approaches the business of tackling critical problems and accomplishing mission goals.  Advancing hi-tech R&D with same procurement system geared for purchasing routine supplies and services results in a lot of losses and missed opportunities, where win/win and winning scenarios is clearly more beneficial.  Win/win scenarios and greater program success exist when combining smart teaming strategies with innovation friendly, flexible contracting authorities, like other transactions. Alternative acquisition approaches not only exist but their use along with education was Congressionally mandated FOUR years ago!!! There is no waiting on policy, these acquisition authorities for R&D are light-years ahead of practice.The war-fighter, taxpayer, industrial base, and our collective national security and competitiveness need smart teams and leaders who are willing to go to bat for them.For more on innovative acquisition teaming strategies:   https://strategicinstitute.org/other-transactions/getting-team-right/For a more robust understanding of innovative federal acquisition authorities for R&D: https://strategicinstitute.org/

 YES!  This episode begins with a snippet of President Eisenhower's farewell address warning the public of the corrupting influence of the Military Industrial Complex, and ends with his warning about squandering future generation's resources for present day comforts.  Strategic Institute refers to the mission statement of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR 1.1) to illustrate how the acquisition system, at least for R&D, prototyping, and delivering new capability, utterly fails at its original purposes and is thus institutionally corrupt.  The Federal Acquisition Regulations, what Coopers and Lybrand called "a mass and maze of regulations", benefits government and industry insiders at the expense of the warfighter, taxpayer, a healthy industrial base, and innovation; decades of expert study and findings confirm this.   Due to the overly complex nature of the system which is inherently unfair, lacks transparency, and is largely closed off to outsiders, the results are chronically poor performance, ridiculous costs, lack luster solutions, destruction of creativity, and tremendous waste.  The arcane mass and maze of the rules has given rise to the preeminence of the contracting regime, which subordinates program managers, technical experts, developers, performers, creatives, producers, and doers.  In all other industries and business, contracting personnel support mission and goals.  Unfortunately, too often in the Federal Government, expertise and accomplishing goals is secondary to fulfilling the diktats of the acquisition system rules.  These rules grew in a willy-nilly fashion with the aid of undue influence of special interests. This has corrupted otherwise straight-forward common sense business processes, etiquette, and culture.      DoD and other federal agencies have been given authorities and a Congressional mandate to develop a 'preference' for using these to explore and conduct business in new and different ways.  Minus a few bright spots, business-as-usual thinking has been applied with the expected results - we are STILL having the exact same conversations today as we were 40 years ago and according to the 809 Panel has only gotten worse.     If you want resources and information on how this can be situation can be improved, visit: https://strategicinstitute.org/