Dcode spoke with Rear Adm. Okano, the Navy’s program executive officer for Integrated Warfare Systems, about the Valley of Death and her cultural approach to fixing the transition problem. Okano defines the Valley of Death as when we “don’t get the technology into the warfighter’s hands at scale.” She explains that multi-level culture shifts to a more innovative mindset would help transition technologies into the hands of the warfighter, the ultimate mission for procurement. Okano argues that we can cross the Valley of Death through increased collaboration, ownership, and connection to the mission.

Collaboration is a transition hack

Historically, culture in government has led to maintaining the status quo. However, to successfully bring new tech into government, Okano emphasizes the need for collaboration across different departments. “The organizations that do well that we’ve seen at transitioning technology have really solid relationships with the organizations that do a lot of the S&T work,” Okano explained.

For example, Okano noted, “at IWS, we do a fairly good job of it. If you look at our numbers in IWS, I think we’ve transitioned 83% of our FNCs (Future Naval Capabilities) from ONR (Office of Naval Research). Our future Naval capabilities and I think on the SBIR side, roughly 42% of our SBIRs get transitioned.” A testament to collaboration and transitioning tech, Okano identified close cooperation between the program office and the scientists and engineers. “They’re friends. They trust each other. They collaborate. We have seen that by itself is a transition hack.”

Emphasize curiosity vs. compliance

In addition to increasing collaboration across organizations and departments, Okano identified “a culture of curiosity and ownership” as being central to transforming the organization’s ability to transition technology. She further explained that individuals are successful when they think: “Am I curious enough to get myself out of what I’m doing and really understand what somebody else is doing? Can I use that in a cool, different way?”

This mentality encounters resistance, however, since the “systems are set up to almost disincentivize curiosity” and emphasize compliance. When asked to use an alternative contracting method, contracting officers often respond, “We can’t do that,” or “We’ve never done that before,” emphasizing the need for a change in mindset at the procurement level.

Okano explains that this is an empowerment issue in addition to building a curious mindset. Leadership needs to say: “Hey, I’m empowering you to go forth and do great things,” but “instead of compliance culture, we actually need you to go off and take some ownership.”

Connecting to the mission

Finally, Okano urges individuals to connect to the mission and understand cutting-edge technology’s impact on the mission. Between the innovation talk and discussions about overhauling culture, Okano reminds individuals that they’re “responsible for putting capability into the hands of the warfighters” and connecting to that mission.

The goal is to get the best tech for the warfighter. “I’ve seen it as a systemic problem across a lot of R&D organizations or even some of these innovation groups that lose sight of that user focus… It’s one thing to align to the stakeholders at the top, but another to align to the person that has to push the button.”

Taking responsibility

Currently, the culture across government — from the congressional level all the way down to the individual level — disincentivizes innovation. To be more innovative requires a culture shift at every level, not just in procurement offices. Individuals need to be rewarded for curiosity and collaboration with other teams, bringing together the best of procurement and research without the risk of losing funding.

Meagan Metzger is the CEO and co-founder of Dcode.

The post Greater ownership is the key to bridging the Valley of Death appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Dcode spoke with Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology William “Willie” Nelson, about his definition of the infamous “Valley of Death” and his thoughts on resolution.

Nelson argues there are three paths to transition science and technology across the Valley of Death: 1) the traditional approach of integrating new tech into new or existing programs, 2) transitioning tech out to commercial industry or other government programs, and 3) informing and updating Technical Specifications, Requirements, Concepts of Operations, Procedures, etc. Through all three paths being utilized today, our conversation with Nelson outlines multiple ways to improve these methods.

Changing the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mindset

Department of Defense programs focus on balancing cost, schedule, and performance risks across the acquisition life cycle to deliver programs to the warfighter.  These programs are assessed on their ability to deliver based on well-defined requirements; unfortunately, this does not require innovation and the proposition of new technical solutions outside those requirements. Quantifying success based on delivery may unintentionally incentivize “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality, leading to stagnation in government technical capabilities. Instead, we should work to incentivize Program Managers to accept more risk and experiment with new tech solutions to bring the best to our warfighters. 

To improve the current process, we should empower acquisition professionals to take a chance on technology by working with requirement writers to help define, collaborate, and update requirements rapidly to integrate the latest technical solutions developed by industry and service laboratories. The requirements process should be agile and pace advances in technology.
Nelson suggests that many steps taken by Army Futures Command and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) in this area have a positive impact and will help ensure we field the latest and greatest tech through the acquisition lifecycle. “Think about what that could do for the warfighter,” Nelson comments.

Current acquisition policies ensuring fairness can sometimes cause barriers to entry for emerging tech companies. At Dcode, we suggest leveraging innovative procurement methods like CSOs and OTAs or using creative modular contracting under the FAR. These examples are significant steps in the government’s willingness to modify processes to bring in more innovative tech.

Adopting the “Understand Sooner” mentality

Nelson says that although there are plenty of creative solutions, in many cases, we may not know exactly how this new technology will perform or if it meets the mission’s demands and requirements. So we spend S&T dollars to rapidly build prototypes and experiment, fix, and experiment again with the idea of “Understanding Sooner” if the tech is going to perform and deliver as expected.

Some science and technologies just don’t pan out, and that’s okay, Nelson says. However, the sooner we understand, the sooner we can quickly pivot resources to a different capability or technical solution.

The advantage of experimenting and understanding sooner (also known as ‘failing fast’) is to inform requirements sooner and learn what capabilities can be delivered, rather than spending extra time and dollars on tech that may not deliver as advertised. This method also helps open the trade space for industry to be more creative and innovative in meeting desired outcomes without being overly prescriptive and informing the process along the way.  

Nelson is not alone in this movement to make the government less risk-averse. In a 2021 address, Admiral Michael Gilday, 32nd Chief of Naval Operations, said, “every Navy leader must be ruthlessly honest about how they self-assess and understand their unit’s performance. They have to act boldly and accept professional risk.”

Incentivize creativity at the PM level

Service laboratories and industry are developing cutting-edge technologies that will undoubtedly deliver decisive advantages on the future battlefield. However, integrating these new technologies into new or existing programs can be challenging, especially if the technology is still maturing. Difficulty and sometimes failure in onboarding these new technologies is known as “the Valley of Death.”

As described earlier, Program Managers deliver capability to the warfighter based on well-defined cost, schedule, and technical performance requirements. S&T scientists and engineers have more latitude because it can be difficult to predict exactly when a new technology will meet the performance needs of the program, how it will be manufactured, and what it will cost.
According to Nelson, schedule delivery and technical performance variance in a brand-new technical area can span several years. Therefore, integrating a new S&T technology into a well-structured PM program can add risk and sometimes put the entire program at risk if the S&T tech fails to deliver.

Nelson understands that new tech can be a “radical disruption” to a PM’s program. But we shouldn’t not press forward, Nelson stresses. When an S&T effort integrates into an existing program or establishes a new program, the acquisition process should acknowledge the risks and support the PM. Tightly coupled Program Managers and Lab Directors are essential in managing this risk.

Accepting risk assumes people are engaged, risk factors are well understood, and people make informed decisions. There must be close coordination between PMs, S&T developers, and requirements professionals to begin solving the transition problem. Dcode has helped reframe government offices working on this problem to evaluate innovation barriers and creatively access the best emerging tech. Embracing an innovative mindset will open the door for more flexibility to introduce new technologies to deliver functionalities.

Transition has never been an easy hurdle to overcome. However, Nelson truly believes that the key to our success lies in our ability to understand each program’s problem and risk(s) and then select the best transition path. As mentioned, all these paths (traditional, transfer technology to an external party, and inform/update administrative requirements) are in use today; the difference will be in our ability to deliberately codify our approach and hold stakeholders accountable for seeing the transition plan through.  

Stay tuned for the next article in our series with Rear Adm. Seiko Okano, who is leading the charge to tackle the Valley of Death. She is taking a unique approach that challenges the current status quo.

Meagan Metzger is the CEO and co-founder of Dcode.

The post There isn’t just one Valley of Death: Tackling the DOD transition problem appeared first on DefenseScoop.