A Community Guide to working with Aquisitions

From Irregularpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction

The traditional U.S. military acquisition system can be slow, bureaucratic, and overly complex. This has led to significant inefficiencies in fielding necessary capabilities promptly. In contrast, conflict zones like Ukraine have demonstrated the effectiveness of an agile approach—rapidly deploying and refining technology based on real-time needs.

This guide is designed to help service members understand how they can influence the acquisition process, write better requirements, and push for necessary changes to streamline procurement and fielding efforts.

For training in this lane see Learning#Defense_Acquisition_University_(DAU)

Capability Gap, Risk Assessment, and Command Endorsement

The current acquisition process leaves a critical gap between what our mission demands and the capabilities we currently field. This delta reduces operational effectiveness and poses significant risks to mission success and the safety of our personnel. Robust command endorsement at every echelon is essential to address this gap and drive rapid modernization.

The Delta Between Mission and Current Capabilities

  • Mission Requirements vs. Current Assets: Modern operations demand rapid decision-making, agile responses, and seamless technology integration. However, legacy systems and outdated processes fail to meet these evolving demands.
  • Capability Gap: Delayed technology updates, inefficient integration, and reliance on outdated paradigms have created a significant gap between what the mission requires and what we currently field.

Key Deficiencies

  • Inadequate Agility: The traditional, waterfall acquisition model is too slow to respond to rapidly changing operational environments.
  • Outdated Technologies: Legacy systems and outdated tools fail to address modern warfare challenges effectively.
  • Fragmented Integration: Siloed efforts and non-interoperable systems hinder timely communication and coordinated responses.

Specific Problem Statement

  • Operational Lag: The slow pace of modernizing legacy systems undermines our ability to respond swiftly in dynamic combat scenarios.
  • Inefficient Integration: Fragmented systems and siloed efforts cause delays in sharing critical information and coordinating actions.
  • Resource Misallocation: Continued investments in outdated technologies divert essential resources from developing and deploying next-generation capabilities.

Impact on Mission

Failing to bridge this capability gap jeopardizes our operational objectives by:

  • Reducing Tactical Flexibility: Delays in acquiring and fielding new technologies limit our ability to adapt quickly on the battlefield.
  • Compromising Situational Awareness: Inadequate or outdated systems can lead to poor decision-making and slower reaction times.
  • Creating Strategic Vulnerabilities: Adversaries may exploit our technological lag, undermining overall mission success and national security.

Risk to the Force

The current capability gap also places our service members at greater risk:

  • Increased Exposure to Threats: Outmoded equipment may not provide sufficient protection against modern, evolving threats.
  • Lowered Morale: Persistent reliance on inadequate tools can erode confidence and reduce combat effectiveness.
  • Misallocated Resources: Investing in outdated systems limits funding for innovative, life-saving technologies that could better protect our personnel.

Command Endorsement at Each Echelon

  • Unified Direction: Command endorsement at every level—strategic, operational, and tactical—is crucial to prioritize closing the capability gap.
  • Empowerment and Accountability: Active backing from commanders empowers units to pursue rapid acquisition, testing, and deployment of innovative technologies, while establishing clear accountability.
  • Accelerated Decision-Making: Strong command support streamlines approval processes, enabling faster resource mobilization and reducing bureaucratic delays.
  • Feedback Integration: Command endorsement creates a structured feedback loop, ensuring that lessons learned from the field directly inform capability development and iterative improvements.

Addressing this combined gap through targeted modernization and unified command support is essential to ensure our forces remain agile, well-equipped, and capable of meeting both current and future operational challenges.


Understanding the Problem

The current acquisition process is dominated by:

  • Waterfall Planning – Long, inflexible cycles prioritizing predictability over adaptability.
  • Unrealistic Requirements – Complex, contradictory requirements delay progress.
  • Bureaucratic Bottlenecks – Lengthy approvals, redundant oversight, and outdated policies.
  • Siloed Efforts – Lack of interoperability between systems and service branches.
  • Institutional Resistance – A culture of risk aversion that discourages rapid iteration and innovation.

If you are frustrated with these issues, the good news is that you can do something about it.

What You Can Do

1. Write Better Requirements

  • Keep requirements simple, clear, and focused on solving a specific problem.
  • Avoid creating "do-it-all" systems that try to fulfill every need but end up being ineffective.
  • Use objective-based requirements instead of hard specifications.
  • Look at the USMC model—reducing a 200-requirement system to a two-page Statement of Need reduced development costs by 40% and unit costs by 25-30%.

2. Push for Rapid Prototyping and Field Testing

  • Utilize Tactical Innovation and Combat Initiatives (TiC) to test solutions in the field.
  • Work with program offices to bypass bureaucratic delays.
  • Challenge outdated testing and evaluation requirements under DOT&E oversight.

3. Demand Interoperability Standards

  • Advocate for plug-and-play architectures that prevent vendor lock-in.
  • Push for standardized software, cabling, and networking frameworks.
  • Reference standards such as:
    • MIL-STD-2525 (military symbology and data structures)
    • Joint sUAS CDD (requirements for joint UAS interoperability)

4. Use Existing Rapid Acquisition Pathways

  • Joint Urgent Operational Need Statements (JUONS) & Joint Emergent Operational Need Statements (JEONS) – Accelerate fielding for urgent requirements.
  • SOCOM DIR 71-4 – Provides a streamlined process for rapid prototyping.
  • APFIT (Accelerated Procurement Funding for Innovative Technologies) – A funding stream for cutting-edge solutions.
  • SORRD (Special Operations Rapid Requirements Development) – An alternative pathway for rapid fielding.

5. Engage Your Acquisition Personnel

  • Find your TRADOC Capability Developer, Program Office POC, or G8/S8 representative.
  • Write and submit an Unfunded Requirement Justification for critical needs.
  • Use existing mechanisms such as SOF RAPTOR IV (SR-IV) IDIQ to fund innovative technologies.

6. Break Down Cultural Resistance

  • Educate leadership on successful rapid acquisition models.
  • Push for an iterative development approach rather than waiting for "perfect" solutions.
  • Highlight past failures of rigid acquisitions (e.g., IVAS receiving $20B but still facing major usability issues).

Questions That Need Answers

The following are key acquisition issues that remain unresolved:

  • How can we consolidate Joint COP tools to eliminate redundant, non-communicating systems?
  • What is the best approach to accelerate DOT&E oversight for rapid fielding?
  • How do we enforce interoperability across service branches to prevent silos?
  • What are specific examples of bad requirements, and how should they be fixed?

Actionable Steps for Every Service Member

| Step | Action | |---------|----------| | 1. Find Your Acquisition POC | Identify who in your command is responsible for requirements and procurement. | | 2. Write a Simple, Focused Requirement | Use the USMC model or SORRD format—avoid overcomplicated specifications. | | 3. Push for Field Testing | Advocate for TiC initiatives and rapid prototyping under SOCOM DIR 71-4. | | 4. Use Rapid Acquisition Pathways | Submit JUONS/JEONS, APFIT proposals, or utilize SORRD for rapid fielding. | | 5. Enforce Interoperability Standards | Ensure all new tech aligns with Joint sUAS CDD, MIL-STD-2525, and government-owned architectures. | | 6. Educate Your Leadership | Present successful case studies (e.g., Marine Corps rapid acquisition model). |

Conclusion

The acquisition process can be slow and frustrating, but real change is possible when capability developers, warfighters, and leadership work together. By writing clear, focused requirements, pushing for rapid prototyping, and leveraging existing rapid acquisition channels, service members can cut through bureaucracy and ensure our forces get the capabilities they need—when they need them.

If every service member reading this guide takes just one step on Monday—whether it’s finding their acquisition contact, submitting an unfunded requirement, or challenging outdated processes—we will move the needle toward a more agile, responsive, and effective military acquisition system.

Retrieved from "https://irregularpedia.org/index.php?title=A_Community_Guide_to_working_with_Aquisitions&oldid=3901"