technical

Bridging the Gap: Connecting Ground-Level Operators with Acquisition Process Writers

by S.A.C 4 min read 2 views
[object Object][object Object][object Object][object Object]discourse-import

Introduction

The U.S. military’s acquisition system is often described as rigid and slow-moving, whereas modern conflicts—such as the war in Ukraine—demand rapid adaptation and innovation. A significant disconnect exists between those on the ground experiencing operational challenges and those writing the processes defining solutions that can be acquired and deployed. This forum post explores how warfighters and capability developers can better collaborate to streamline the acquisition process.

See the guide on the wiki here

Key Discussion Points

1. Agility in Acquisition: Waterfall vs. Iterative Fielding

  • The U.S. follows a structured, long-term acquisition model, while conflict zones like Ukraine showcase the necessity of rapid fielding and iteration.
  • Industry should be engaged in ongoing development cycles rather than static, requirement-heavy contracts that delay innovation.

2. Fixing Requirement Writing to Align with Operational Needs

  • Common Issues:
    • Overly complex, contradictory, or unrealistic requirements.
    • “Kitchen sink” requirements that try to do everything and end up doing nothing well.
  • Solutions:
    • Shift to objective-based requirements that clearly define the operational problem.
    • Adopt leaner, mission-focused requirements, as demonstrated by the USMC reducing a 200-line requirement document to a two-page Statement of Need.

3. Integrating Rapid Prototyping & Field Testing

  • Tactical field testing (e.g., Tactical Innovation and Combat (TiC) initiatives) is in motion but lacks clear pathways within DOT&E oversight.
  • Establish defined yet flexible evaluation processes for real-world validation before full-scale procurement.

4. Interoperability & Standards: The Weak Link

  • Current acquisitions often result in stovepiped systems that cannot communicate.
  • Government agencies must enforce modular, plug-and-play standards across systems (e.g., the Joint sUAS Capability Development Document mandates adherence to Joint Reference Architectures, but enforcement remains weak).

5. Government Bureaucracy & Bottlenecks: Overcoming the Slow Lane

  • While legal avenues exist for rapid acquisition, internal resistance to change hinders execution.
  • Funding mechanisms often require complete solutions before validation, blocking iterative development.

6. Avoiding Duplication & Fragmentation

  • Commands fund separate, incompatible Common Operational Picture (COP) tools instead of integrating existing solutions.
  • A concerted effort is needed to unify joint capability initiatives rather than reinvent the wheel in every branch.

7. Cultural & Structural Resistance to Change

  • Leadership is often risk-averse, rejecting disruptive innovations (e.g., resistance to FPV drone acquisition despite securing $68M in funding).
  • Institutional inertia prevents rapid adoption of emerging technology unless a champion pushes it through the system.

Steps to Bridge the Gap

For Ground-Level Warfighters:

  1. Learn How to Write Requirements:

    • If you don’t define what you need, someone else will—often poorly.
    • Educate yourself on writing clear, operationally grounded capability statements.

  2. Utilize Existing Rapid Acquisition Processes:

    • JUONS/JEONS: Joint Urgent Operational Need Statements for critical, fast-tracked capabilities.
    • SOCOM DIR 71-4: Special Operations’ rapid prototyping directive.
    • TiC (Tactical Innovation and Combat) Initiatives: Real-world field testing.

  3. Build Relationships with Capability Developers:

    • Find out who writes the requirements at your unit or higher command.
    • Engage them early and often; explain your needs in operational terms.

For Requirements Writers & Capability Developers:

  1. Engage Directly with End Users:

    • Walk the flight line, visit field units, and see the problem firsthand.
    • Create direct channels for feedback from deployed units.

  2. Simplify and Focus Requirements:

    • Don’t let bureaucratic bloat kill good ideas.
    • Cut unnecessary specs—focus on solving one problem well.

  3. Push for Institutional Change:

    • Advocate for enforcing interoperability and modular standards.
    • Work within existing rapid acquisition programs to bypass bureaucratic slowdowns.

Open Questions for the Community

  • What are examples of bad requirements, and how do we fix them?
  • How can we consolidate redundant Joint COP tools into a unified system?
  • What’s the best approach for accelerating DOT&E oversight?
  • How do we institutionalize faster procurement while maintaining accountability?

Conclusion

The frustration with slow acquisition is real, but solutions exist. By fostering direct engagement between those in the trenches and those writing the processes, we can push for more agile, effective, and mission-driven acquisition strategies.

For those in the fight: Seek out your capability developers. For those writing the requirements: Listen to the end users. Only through collaboration can we ensure our forces have what they need when needed.

Additional Resources

:busts_in_silhouette: Join the Discussion: What has your experience been with acquisitions? Have you seen success in cutting through bureaucracy? Let’s share lessons and ideas below!

← Back to all posts