If the Defense Department wants to work with Silicon Valley businesses, the department needs to communicate in in the technological hotspot’s language, experts told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
That means no government jargon, fewer regulations and more of an emphasis on speed and profitability—all of which will require a cultural shift, and in some cases a legal one as well, they said.
The Pentagon wants to increase its use of commercial technologies, which are oftentimes less expensive and more advanced, but unfortunately low profits and the enormous number of government regulations drive away many businesses, said Jacques Gansler, a former under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
The Code of Federal Regulations is about 180,000 pages long and grows by 2,000 pages a year, he noted.
The Pentagon should find common areas where both it and Silicon Valley can benefit, let companies rapidly develop products and then allow them to sell them commercially to both the department and a wider market, said Ben FitzGerald, senior fellow and director of the technology and national security program at Center for a New American Security. Congress can help spur that along by updating laws on intellectual property, export controls and contracting methods. Ultimately, the department may need separate acquisition pathways for large platforms like aircraft carriers and fighter jets, less expensive items and products that can be purchased commercially.
The export system is outmoded and in dire need of a second look, he added. Access to technology is becoming more widespread, and the United States’ closed export system could be locking it out of financial and strategic benefits. For instance, some Middle Eastern allies such as Jordan want to buy U.S. drones, but when it can’t buy them from the Defense Department, it will buy them from China.
Norman Augustine, formerly the president of Lockheed Martin [LMT], said the Defense Department could benefit from a model similar to In-Q-Tel, a not-for-profit venture capital firm he helped found in 1999. In-Q-Tel works with the CIA and other intelligence agencies to identify capability gaps and then invests in startup companies that are tasked with developing solution. Unlike the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental—the hub founded by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to help the department interface with Silicon Valley—In-Q-Tel can work with industry without having to abide by government regulations.
“We were given the authority to grant contracts, to give grants, to make decisions overnight without competition, whatever we thought was in the best interest of the government,” he said. “Maybe there is some prototype of In-Q-Tel that could be adopted by the DoD. I wouldn’t suggest you develop aircraft carriers with In-Q-Tel, but I think there are a lot of things you can.”
The Pentagon would develop innovative new technologies more reliably with small teams tasked with building a capability quickly on a small budget, said Dan Ward, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former acquisition official. Large programs with long timelines and huge budgets often underperform, while heavily constrained programs often pressure officials to produce results.
“We need to build droids, not Death Stars,” he said. “Droids work. Death Stars keep getting blown up.”
However, even large programs can benefit from constraints, Ward said. After the Navy announced the goal of building two Virginia-class submarines for $2 billion a piece in two years, contractors began delivering the ships before deadline and under budget.
The Pentagon must also fight a more cosmetic obstacle if it wants to attract bright young college graduates to help it solve technical challenges: its reputation of being less innovative than Google [GOOG] or Apple [AAPL]. The department often describes problems that require revolutionary solutions in boring, esoteric ways, FitzGerald said. One example is the need for advanced GPS systems, a challenge often talked about by Carter during trips to Silicon Valley.
“If I described the problem to you in military technical speak, I would say we face an ongoing challenge of how do we maintain persistent precision timing and navigation in A2/AD environment against near-peer threats,” FitzGerald said. “At which point, most people under the age of 30 are in microsleep.”
Allowing young scientists and engineers to interact directly with end users—the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines—would also help bring in new talent, he said.
“Most of the folks I speak to in Silicon Valley would love to work on a military problem if they get to hang out with Marines in a hut in the desert. That’s a good time,” he said. “What they don’t want to do is sit in an office box somewhere in Northern Virginia and do a capabilities-based assessment.”