No images? Click here [link removed]

A member of the US Army aircrew sits in the rear of a US Army Chinook helicopter during pre-exercise integration training ahead of the NATO-led Exercise Trident Juncture 18 on October 27, 2018 in Norway. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

In 1950, the United States government needed just one year to launch the development of new military capabilities—but today, the Pentagon requires an average of seven years for the same result. Innovation time cycles, often considered an afterthought by military planners, are now a crucial measure of whether the U.S. can out-innovate adversarial nations that accelerate their efforts with intellectual property theft and unlimited defense spending.

A new Hudson report examines why the Pentagon's 60-year-old resource allocation system can no longer keep up with the rapid pace of emerging weapons technology and operational concepts. In Competing in Time: Ensuring Capability Advantage and Mission Success through Adaptable Resource Allocation [[link removed]], Hudson's Dan Patt [[link removed]] and AEI's Bill Greenwalt [[link removed]] argue that the U.S. must embrace an agile budgeting process to maintain our competitive edge. The authors draw from their respective experiences as DARPA's former Deputy Director of Strategic Technology and the former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Industrial Policy.

Download a copy of the report below, and join us next week [[link removed]] as the authors discuss their new research with key officials leading the Pentagon's innovation efforts.

Read the Report [[link removed]]

Key Takeaways

Key takeaways from Dan Patt and Bill Greenwalt's new report, Competing in Time: Ensuring Capability Advantage and Mission Success through Adaptable Resource Allocation [[link removed]].

1. The Pentagon does not have the luxury of time:

Since the 1960s, time has been deemphasized as an incentive for defense invention while values such as cost, technology maturity, fairness, and perceived efficiency have been overemphasized. As a result, system development time increased and time-based constraints to innovation were lost, and the U.S. ability to adapt has been damaged. Time became a "schedule issue" that could be measured as an engineering and cost estimation problem, not as the ultimate driver of adaptable innovation.

2. China's rapid technology development warrants closer examination:

China’s resource allocation process merits further investigation, given evidence suggesting their ability to develop and field twenty-five new unmanned aircraft systems from 2010 to 2020, including stealthy carrier-based unmanned systems. The policy and research community should conduct comparative analyses of the bureaucratic research allocation processes between the U.S. and China, especially focusing on the early decision-making processes associated with starting investments in new military capability and strategic priority setting.

3. DoD reform has been too focused on the acquisitions process:

While there have been dozens of acquisition reform efforts, the DoD's budgeting process has been nearly untouched since 1961. The budgeting process, not acquisition, is the keystone of the DoD’s institutional architecture. It governs the DoD’s ability to allocate funding to achieve national security objectives, links together requirements and purchasing, sets the calendar of the department, controls changes to investment priority, and serves as the mechanism for Congress to exercise its constitutionally granted appropriations powers.

4. A pilot program expanding the Pentagon's resource allocation adaptability should be the next step:

Congress and the DoD should cooperate to promptly launch a limited-scope pilot project on an alternative resource allocation process, designed to foster adaptability in capability delivery and aligned around a high-priority national security operational challenge. It will be difficult to create a competitive, adaptable resource allocation scheme without revisiting the PPBE and key decision processes that govern the Pentagon’s ability to make rapid, early investments in new operational capability or concepts.

5. A commission to study changes to the Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution (PPBE) system is needed:

To ensure the U.S. has a competitive advantage in long-term competition, Congress or the DoD should sponsor a commission to study changes to the PPBE and appropriations process. This commission should include expert members with an understanding of current equities and limitations, and explore emerging concepts potentially including portfolio, organization, mission, and trusted-agent budgeting. This commission may extend its scope to cover critical capability timeline drivers including contracting and early investment decisions that also touch upon adaptability.

Quotes have been edited for length and clarity.

Read the Report [[link removed]]

Go Deeper: Competing in Time

Listen [[link removed]]

The Critical Element of Time [[link removed]]

Dan Patt [[link removed]]and Bill Greenwalt [[link removed]] join the Defense & Aerospace Daily Podcast to discuss the role of time as a critical element of defense innovation, and why the Pentagon cannot afford 25-year innovation cycles when commercial markets and adversaries are fielding new technology in one-fifth of that timeframe.

Read [[link removed]]

The Pentagon Needs Budget Agility to Compete with China [[link removed]]

The inability of U.S. defense officials to promptly divert funds from unproductive efforts and toward new opportunities is more than a management problem, writes Bryan Clark [[link removed]] and Dan Patt [[link removed]] in Defense One. The military’s lack of adaptability also puts DoD at a disadvantage against its primary competitor, China’s People’s Liberation Army. Unlike the Pentagon’s attempt to predict specific needs years in advance, the Chinese budget process rolls continuously from one year into the next and allocates money in blocks that can pay for multiple functions or programs.

Watch [[link removed]]

Winning the Innovation Race in the Intelligence Community [[link removed]]

Just as nuclear technology changed the world 75 years ago, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and other new technologies promise to radically alter the geopolitical landscape. Will the United States lead in the development of these technologies or will we follow?

Bryan Clark [[link removed]] and Dan Patt [[link removed]] were joined by U.S. Representative and Chairman Jim Hines for a discussion of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's new report, Rightly Scaled, Carefully Open, Infinitely Agile: Reconfiguring to Win the Innovation Race in the Intelligence Community.

[[link removed]] Hudson Institute

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Fourth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20004 Share [link removed] Tweet [link removed] Forward [link removed] Preferences [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed]