The Department of Defense (DoD) faces challenges in acquisition speed and innovation, with some pathways lacking the iterative processes needed to accelerate weapons system development, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
In a report released on Dec. 12, the Federal watchdog said that while the DoD military departments follow the department’s adaptive acquisition framework, they don’t fully incorporate its leading practices of iterative development for urgent capability (UCA), middle tier (MTA), and major capability (MCA) acquisition pathways.
The new report follows the results of the DoD’s annual weapon systems assessment from this summer which found that the department remains “alarmingly slow in delivering new and innovation weapon system capabilities.”
Iterative processes involve continuous cycles of design, testing, feedback, and refinement to enable rapid adjustments based on user input and real-world performance, ensuring that product meet essential needs.
“Without revised policies and guidance on and examples of how programs can use an iterative development approach, programs across pathways are missing opportunities to deliver capabilities with speed and innovation,” said GAO. “A pilot program, resulting in practical examples of cyber-physical products that have used an iterative development structure, could provide future programs with lessons learned and opportunities to acquire weapon systems faster.”
While software acquisition pathways were found to have a full and consistent iterative structure, UCA, MTA, and MCA policies lacked details on incorporating user feedback for design optimization.
The U.S. Air Force and Navy UCA policies mention refining requirements, but don’t include guidance on applying user feedback to refine those requirements. Only the Air Force MCA policy includes elements of iterative development but lacks guidance on using digital engineering as part of a comprehensive iterative development framework. The Air Force and U.S. Army’s MTA policies include some elements of iterative development but aren’t incorporated into overall iterative structures, the report detailed.
“We found some elements of iterative development in military department policies for the UCA, MCA, and MTA pathways,” said the report. “However, these policies did not discuss the full structure of iterative development that includes continuous cycles of design, validation, and production resulting in a minimum viable product. Without the full structure, programs will likely not achieve the full benefits of using an iterative approach to design and development.”
The watchdog also revealed that program officials don’t always have a clear understanding of iterative development and its applicability, finding that some officials mistakenly believed that iterative development isn’t suitable for project involving mature technologies or rapid fielding efforts. Other challenges officials shared with GAO included long lead-time needed for development, costly modernized tools, and other specific challenges related to hardware.
Recommendations provided to the DoD include that the secretaries of the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy should revise their acquisition policies and guidelines to increase speed and innovation by using continuous iterative cycles. Additional recommendations say that the secretaries should designate at least one new cyber-physical capability – products that combine software and hardware – as a pilot program.
The DoD concurred with recommendations made to the Navy and Air Force, but only partially concurred with those to the Army. The DoD stated that “the Army did not consider them fully applicable to a specific pathway,” according to GAO which said that it “maintains their applicability.”
