Tuesday, February 7, 2023
  • About us
    • Write for us
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms of use
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS Feeds
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us
DefenceTalk
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
DefenceTalk
No Result
View All Result

25 Years of Acquisition Reform with Little to Show for All the Effort

by Lexington institute
November 5, 2013
in Defense Geopolitics News
2 min read
0
Pentagon Papers finally published, 40 years on
14
VIEWS

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) held a hearing this week titled “Twenty Five Years of Acquisition Reform: Where Do We Go from Here?” If the past is prologue, the answer to the Committee’s question would have to be nowhere. The reason for this is that the system is fundamentally broken. Reform at the margins will do little or nothing to solve the problem.

There have been more than 100 studies over the years on how to reform the way the Department of Defense does business. There have been countless acquisition reform initiatives, the majority of which simply cycle back and forth between greater and lesser degrees of government oversight and management of acquisition decisions. If even a tenth of the savings promised from all these reform efforts had been realized, we could maintain today’s military for free.

Right now, the pendulum has swung pretty far in the direction of a heavy government hand on the acquisition process. However, as recent reports by the Government Accountability Office, Congressional Budget Office and private institutions have clearly demonstrated, the results have not matched expectations with respect to reduced costs, shorter procurement timelines or better products. If anything, this approach has increased costs department-wide, increased the entrenched position of companies familiar with the government’s arcane contracting and accounting systems and reduced incentives for new entrants in the defense marketplace.

Historically, many reform ideas have actually made the system worse. There were ill-fated attempts to import enterprise management systems designed for the commercial world into defense acquisition. Program milestones have been added, subtracted and changed willy-nilly which has only added to the confusion, delay and cost of major weapons systems.

Then there are the repeated efforts to deal with the dysfunctional behaviors of the acquisition corps. Virtually all the witnesses called to testify at the HASC hearing stressed the need for a better trained, more professional acquisition corps. This is about as useful as if the White Star Line had required every member of the Titanic’s crew be certified in water safety. Actually, it is worse; it is more like the captain of the Titanic ordering the crew to undergo water safety training after the ship hit the iceberg. Even if there were a common understanding of the characteristics desired in a highly-trained acquisition workforce — and there isn’t — there is not sufficient time to recruit, train and promote this corps of Myrmidons. Moreover, good people working in a dysfunctional system will produce what? That’s right, dysfunctional outcomes.

Reform efforts come and go but the number of laws, regulations, reports and inspections continues to mount. Calls to weed the 2,000 pages of federal acquisition regulations to eliminate outmoded, irrelevant and costly regulations is a Herculean labor likely to produce only limited benefits. As one senior member of the Defense Business Board recently observed, the best solution might be to set a match to the whole paper edifice and start over.

Short of lighting a bonfire, the best solution would be sidestepping the current system. I would propose expanding the use of commercial best practices and the acquisition of commercial items. This would mean not requiring commercial vendors to use the DoD accounting practices and procedures or to demand cost, pricing and technical information from commercial providers. The military would have to be satisfied with solutions that didn’t meet their every fantasy requirement. Congress would need to stop passing laws that demand greater government scrutiny, oversight and even control over the acquisition process and the private sector.

Tags: acquisitionbudgetDefenseDoDreform
Previous Post

Russia Boosting Arms Shipments to Syria – US Officials

Next Post

North Korea developing electromagnetic pulse weapons: South Korea

Related Posts

Air Defense Systems, Long-Range Fires Capability to be Sent to Ukraine

Air Defense Systems, Long-Range Fires Capability to be Sent to Ukraine

February 4, 2023

The Defense Department today announced a new package of security assistance for Ukraine. This includes the authorization of a presidential...

Beijing accuses NATO of exaggerating ‘China threat theory’

Majority of Finns want to join NATO before Sweden: poll

February 3, 2023

A majority of Finns want to go ahead and join NATO even if Sweden's membership is delayed, a poll suggested...

Next Post
NKorea says it has reactivated nuclear programme

North Korea developing electromagnetic pulse weapons: South Korea

Latest Defense News

Air Defense Systems, Long-Range Fires Capability to be Sent to Ukraine

Air Defense Systems, Long-Range Fires Capability to be Sent to Ukraine

February 4, 2023
Beijing accuses NATO of exaggerating ‘China threat theory’

Majority of Finns want to join NATO before Sweden: poll

February 3, 2023
China, US defence ministers to hold talks in Singapore

Pentagon tracking Chinese spy balloon over US

February 3, 2023
Eurofighter Touts Typhoon Capabilities to Poland At Air Show

UK court examines legality of resuming Saudi arms sales

February 1, 2023
If US DoD Wants #ArtificialIntelligence In Its Future, It Must Start Now

AI voice tool ‘misused’ as deepfakes flood web forum

February 1, 2023
Japan defence ministry seeks $50 billion budget

NATO chief hails Japan plans to expand defence spending

February 1, 2023

Defense Forum Discussions

  • Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
  • Australian Army Discussions and Updates
  • The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
  • Indonesian Aero News
  • Warships at Piraeus , Greece
  • Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
  • American US Army 12CAB Apaches at Gilze-Rijen Air Base [second film online]
  • Military Aviation News and Discussion
  • NZDF General discussion thread
  • USAF News and Discussion
DefenceTalk

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com

Navigate Site

  • Defence Forum
  • Military Photos
  • RSS Feeds
  • About us
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com