Defense Acquisition magazine Rolling out Your Integrated Product Team Bimonthly magazine of Warfighting Acquisition University for senior military personnel, civilians, defense contractors, and defense industry professionals in program management and the acquisition, technology and logistics workforce. Defense Acquisition Magazine May-June 2026 Vol LV | No. 3 | Issue 310
WE’RE LOOKING for a Few Good Authors Got opinions to air? Want to help change the way the Department of War does business? Willing to share your expertise with the acquisition community? Interested in passing on lessons learned from your project or program?
Write an article (ideally, 1,500 to 2,500 words long), and Defense Acquisition magazine will consider it for publication. Our readers are interested in real-life, hands-on experiences that will help them expand their knowledge and do their jobs better. WHAT’S IN IT FOR YOU? First off, seeing your name in print is quite a kick. But more than that, publishing in Defense Acquisition can help advance your career. One of our authors has even been offered jobs on the basis of ar- ticles written for the magazine.
Now we can’t promise you a new job, but many of our authors: » Earn continuous learning points » Gain recognition as subject-matter experts » Are invited to speak at conferences or symposia » Get promoted or rewarded
For more information and advice on how to submit your manuscript, check the writer’s guidelines at https://www.WarU.edu/library/damag/writersguidelines or contact the managing editor at defacqmag@waru.edu .
If you’re interested in having longer, scholarly articles considered for publication in the Defense Acquisition Research Journal , or if you’re a subject-matter expert and would be willing to review articles, contact the managing editor at defensearj@waru.edu . Be sure to check the guidelines for authors at https://www.WarU.edu/library/damag/writersguidelines .
CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TRAINING Training that Mirrors Operational Reality Develop skills to foster collaboration and build networks across functional areas. These cross-functional courses help accelerate the delivery of warfighter capabilities.
• Problem Solving for Tomorrow’s Defense Leaders (EXE 4000V) • Leading Change to Drive Innovative Culture (EXE 4050)
• The Program Manager’s Cross-Functional Training (CFT 4010) • Advanced Acquisition
Strategies—Cross- Functional Teaming for Acquisition Success (CFT 4200)
Visit us at WarU.edu
05 Integrated Product Team Readiness Levels– Is Your IPT Ready to Roll? Brian Schultz Readiness levels, first used by NASA, help assess whether a particular factor in technology maturity rates as high or low. 10 Support the Mission— Grow the Force Matthew Cosgrove
The Navy focuses on effective work - force development and talent manage - ment of its Life Cycle Logistics acquisi - tion workforce.
14 Agile Principles as Framework for Warfighting
Acquisition Reform Miranda Lewis
Longstanding Agile principles need ex - plicit recognition to help deliver capa - bility faster and more effectively.
20 Publicizing
Contract Actions Jennifer Jones
The governmentwide point of entry web page at Sam.gov provides a centralized source of information on all upcoming federal solicitations over $25,000.
26 The Pathway Is Not the Problem David Kuroda
The Adaptive Acquisition Framework improvements do not end the need for planning that aligns strategy, execution, and stakeholder needs.
32 A National Guard-Industry Alliance for Accelerated Innovation Andre Slonopas, Ph.D., Joel Jean, Ph.D., and Paul Maloney
The annual Cyber Fortress resources and ca - pabilities exercise demonstrates how a com - bined initiative can accelerate development and strengthen infrastructure defense.
38 Evolving at the Speed
of Conflict—Logisticians and the Next Fight Kesha Johnson and Jason Hamilton, Ph.D. DoW training strategies meet future mission demands with a focus on recruitment, devel - opment, retention, and the integration of new technologies.
44 Foreign Military Sales Shape Strategy and Operations Capt. Cairo Larkins, US AF
Foreign military sales can build effective stra - tegic relationships that create advantages for the United States and its allies.
48 MDAP Program Manager Changes ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
VOL LV A Publication of the U.S. Department of War Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey WARFIGHTING ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY President Bilyana Anderson Chief of Staff Angela Carsten Director, Communications & Public Affairs Christen Goulding Defense Acquisition Editorial Staff Editor-in-Chief Norene L. Johnson DEFENSE ACQUISITION NO. 3, ISSUE 310
Managing Editor Benjamin Tyree Art Director Michael Bubar-Krukowski
Lead Graphic Design Nicole Brate Graphic Design Paul Kim Steffon Edmonds Production Manager Frances Battle Circulation Manager Michelle McDonald
Editorial Assistant Susan Muth Assistant Editor Collie J. Johnson Associate Editor Dr. Larrie Ferreiro Editorial Support Dr. Olena McLaughlin
To contact the Editorial Staff, email defacqmag@waru.edu or call 202-579-4628. Visit our website for additional articles and resources: www.WarU.edu/library/damag For information on how to submit an article, please consult our Writer’s Guidelines, which are available at the back of each issue or on our website. To subscribe to our digital publication or update your current subscription information, click on the “sub - scribe” button on our homepage or email the editors at the address above. Defense Acquisition (ISSN 2637-5052 [print] and ISSN 2637-5060 [online]), formerly Defense AT&L and earlier Program Manager , is an official publication of the Department of War. Defense Acquisition is published bimonthly and is free to all U.S. and foreign national subscribers. Periodical postage is paid at the U.S. Postal Facility, Fort Belvoir, Va., and additional U.S. postal fa - cilities. Postmaster, send address changes to: Editor, Defense Acquisition , Warfighting Acquisition University, 9820 Belvoir Road, Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060-5565. DISCLAIMER Defense Acquisition magazine promotes the free ex - change of ideas. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of Warfighting Acquisition University, the Department of War, or the United States Government. Articles are in the public domain and may be reprinted or posted on the Internet. When reprinting or posting, please credit the authors and Defense Acquisition . Photos in this publication may have been sourced from the Department of War website (www.war.gov/Multi - media/Photos/). The appearance of the U.S. Depart - ment of War (DoW) visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorsement. Some images may be digitally enhanced.
Conferences and Meetings Current conferences and meetings of interest to our magazine’s readers. Acquisition News and Highlights Acquisition-related news, press releases, announ- cements, and more on topics relevant to the ac - quisition professional. What’s New at Our University University news, deployment of new credentials, updated online training, available workshops, we - binars, and other learning opportunities.
COVER IMAGE: U.S. Air Force Capt. Christopher Mirarchi, pilot with the Florida Air National Guard’s 159th Fighter Squadron, prepares to train for night flying at Jacksonville Air National Guard Base, Florida, March 23, 2026. U.S. Air National Guard photo by Tech. Sgt. Marissa Welker. This image was cropped to show detail and was edited using multiple filters plus dodging and burning techniques.
Scan to Read our Digital Publication
Integrated Product Team Readiness Levels– Is Your IPT Ready to Roll?
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 5
by BRIAN SCHULTZ
Readiness levels provide a useful tool for acquisition professionals in many areas. The levels pro- vide both a visual and descriptive reference to help assess where a particular factor resides on a scale from low to high. The assessment tool can also help to identify subsequent actions to increase the readiness to an appropriate level based on the program’s situation.
The first use of readiness levels can be traced to NASA’s use of Technol - ogy Readiness Levels (TRLs) starting in the 1970s. The TRLs were used to measure the product maturity level of a particular technology, often at a component or subsystem level. The proposed technology would be eval - uated against the definition of each technology level and is then assigned a TRL rating based on the technolo - gy’s maturity. For example, some new technologies could be assessed at a low TRL due to the lack of testing in different environments. NASA uses a scale of nine TRLs (Figure 1). TRL 1 is the lowest (least mature) and TRL 9 is the highest (highest maturity). The color shad - ing of each level is significant as it highlights the readiness to use that technology in different test and op - erational scenarios. DoD adopted TRLs in the early 2000s and uses the TRLs in a similar manner. Over time, the use of this type of measurement scale evolved to other areas such as software, manufacturing, integration, and others across many domains. Readiness level assessments are pop - ular because the methodology is easy to use and provides a framework for further analysis and actions. In light of the current threat, ur - gency, and acquisition transforma - tion, one critical area that warrants such a readiness framework is the Integrated Product Team (IPT). War- fighting acquisition relies on the ex - pertise and performance of these cross-functional IPTs to plan and exe - cute programs. Acquisition is a people business, and building skilled acqui - sition teams is arguably the most im - portant factor in successful outcomes. The data are clear from various root cause analysis reports. Poor manage - ment performance during program inception is directly linked to poor
performing programs (e.g., critical Nunn-McCurdy baseline breaches). Program offices need a tool to as - sess the readiness of an IPT to plan and execute a program. While the
common focus of staffing up and fill - ing IPT vacancies is important, it is critical to conduct an assessment of factors that should be in place for an effective IPT. Using a methodology like TRLs can help acquisition lead - ers assess their IPTs and determine actions needed to equip their teams for success. Figure 2 provides a visual sum - mary of the proposed Integrated Product Team Readiness Levels (IP - TRLs). Color coding of the levels helps users to quickly visualize readiness at each level. The overall readiness level rollup (assessed as a color on the tool) identifies the IPT’s readiness to plan and execute a program. Unlike NASA TRLs, which evalu - ate technology as a single factor, IPT readiness must assess multiple fac - tors, each with criteria. In this model, an assessment of four IPTRL factors determines an overall rollup for each of the nine IPTRLs (Figure 3). These As in Figure 2, color coding of the levels helps users to quickly visualize readiness at each level. The overall readiness level rollup (assessed as a color on the tool) identifies the IPT’s readiness to plan and execute a pro - gram. Separation of planning and exe - cuting is important because the IPT workload and skill requirements can change as the program transitions from planning to executing a pro - gram. For our purposes, we will de - fine planning as development of the key regulatory and statutory planning and strategy documents. Execution involves developing the Request for Proposal, conducting source selec - tion, and managing the contract assessment factors are: • Charter/Team Norms • Expertise • Resources • Stakeholder Support
Figure 1. NASA Technology Readiness Levels
TRL 9
Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations
Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration (ground or space) TRL 8 System prototype demonstation in a space environment TRL 7 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) TRL 6 Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment TRL 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment TRL 4 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept TRL 3
Technology concept and/or application formulated TRL 2 Basic principles observed and reported TRL 1
Source: NASA
6 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026
Figure 2. Integrated Product Team Readiness Level (IPTRL)
period of performance. Thus, execut - ing includes some criteria involving the prime contractor and major sup - pliers. The following discussion presents the evaluation criteria for the four as - sessment factors at each level of read - iness. As discussed previously, these factors—Charter/Team Norms, Ex - pertise, Resources, and Stakeholder Support—are each rated against the subelement criteria that follows to determine an overall rollup (Figures 2–3). Multiple shortfalls that are unac - ceptable and significant suggest the IPT is not yet ready to plan or execute. Unless noted otherwise, a green Over - all Assessment (bottom right, Figures 2–3) requires that all subelements be in place. Evaluation Criteria For Readiness Charter/Team Norms Charter. The program office and supporting IPTs must have a clear organizational structure that defines each division and how responsibili - ties are assigned, including up, down, and across the organization. The IPT or combination of multiple IPTs must have a charter that is clear on the vi - sion, objectives, deliverables, mem - bers, roles and responsibilities (both for the members and the team), and authority. The charter is documented and signed by the appropriate leader who charters the IPT. In complex pro - gram execution, a joint IPT charter with the contractor should be devel - oped and implemented. Team norms. This subfactor re - fers to a set of rules that govern how the IPT will operate. Studies like Google’s Project Aristotle high - light the importance of these norms. Members should discuss and agree to these rules to foster buy-in and commitment. These norms, some of which may be unwritten, do not guarantee success but are impor - tant for high-performing teams. The norms, sometimes referred to as an operating agreement, can be simple and straightforward.
IPT Readiness Level
IPTRL Summary Description
Full Readiness. Can plan and execute, has met all required factors Initial Readiness. Can plan and execute but has some noncritical shortfalls in key factors Marginal Execution. Marginal readiness to plan and execute, should address shortfalls in factors as a priority Limited Execution. Very limited readiness to plan and execute, must resolve critical shortfalls in near-term Marginal Planning. Some readiness to perform planning, not ready to execute Limited Planning. Marginal readiness to perform some limited planning, not ready to execute Resolving Issues. Beginning to resolve some key shortfalls, not ready to plan and execute Addressing Shortfalls. Has a sound plan to resolve key shortfalls, not ready to plan and execute Forming. Not meeting factors with key shortfalls, not ready to plan and execute
IPTRL 9
IPTRL 8
IPTRL 7
IPTRL 6
IPTRL 5
IPTRL 4
IPTRL 3
IPTRL 2
IPTRL 1
Full readiness to plan and execute
Marginally ready to plan and execute
Some limited readiness to plan, not ready to execute
Not ready to plan or execute
Source: Author
Figure 3. IPTRL Notional Assessment Matrix
Charter/ Team Norms Expertise Resources
Stakeholder Support
Overall
IPTRL 9 IPTRL 8 IPTRL 7 IPTRL 6 IPTRL 5 IPTRL 4 IPTRL 3 IPTRL 2 IPTRL 1
Factor Assessment Key Meets criteria Some noncritical shortfalls Marginal Significant shortfall Unacceptable shortfall
Overall Assessment
Full readiness to plan and execute Marginally ready to plan and execute Some limited readiness to plan, not ready to execute Not ready to plan or execute
Source: Author
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 7
Common examples are: “Everyone contributes and we consider alter - nate views”; “We are open to new and innovative ideas”; “We strive to go faster to meet Warfighter needs”; “We share important information”; and “We ensure we meet our team commitments.” Governance. The program office must exercise governance and en - sure that various activities flow in a manner that provides adequate in - sight, oversight, and control without undue bureaucracy. This is typically addressed in operating instructions and process flows. Failure to clearly identify governance can create confu - sion in expectations, reducing speed and wasting money. Expertise: Skills, Experience, Qualifications Skills. The IPT members, com - prised of acquisition professionals who have acquired significant ac - quisition certification and expertise, must possess the right skill mix for the assigned program. All the functional areas should be staffed with the ap - propriate skill level for the position. Some programs may require special - ized expertise that must also be in place (e.g., nuclear physics). Beyond functional area skills, members also possess critical thinking and business acumen skills. Acquisition profes - sionals can develop critical thinking and business acumen skills through a combination of training and expe - rience. The Warfighting Acquisition University (WarU) and other academia may offer this type of training; for the federal civilian workforce, it should be part of individual development plans. Experience. We often hear “There is no real substitute for experience.” This is especially true in acquisition programs that are complex, multifac - eted, and of high value. While a mix of some junior and midlevel staff is good practice, the IPT should have senior acquisition professionals with several years’ experience serving as the program manager (PM) and key functional leads.
Failure to clearly identify governance can create confusion in expectations, reducing speed and wasting money.
Qualifications. Attaining/retain - ing acquisition professionals with the appropriate college degree and functional area certification is criti - cal. In some special cases, additional qualifications and credentials may be necessary. Key IPT staff must pos - sess these qualifications, like a doc - tor completing a college education, medical school, and then a residency program. Resources and Tools Needed This factor covers adequate fund - ing, manpower, and other resources/ tools needed for the team. To be as - sessed as green (Overall Assessment, bottom right, Figure 3), all the follow - ing should be in place. Some vacan - cies in personnel and funding short - falls are acceptable, but all functional leads and any critical subject matter experts should be in place. Adequate funding to keep the program execut - able is required. Funding. Key IPT staff should en - sure adequate funding for both the program office operations and the acquisition program is in place. This may include contractor support ser - vices, if necessary, as the program staff ramps up. Manpower. Program office and IPT staffing needs should be based on a validated manpower model. Staff needs should include a break - out of military, civilian, and support contractors. Recruitment should be underway and appropriate actions taken to fill key functional and sub - ject matter expertise positions as well as other needed vacancies. Other resources/tools. The pro - gram may require specialized re - sources such as software licenses, models, digital infrastructure, and
other unique items necessary to man - age the program. This element also includes adequate facilities and office space for program office staff. Finally, use of predictive analytics must be available and used by the team (sup - ports data-driven decisions). Stakeholder Support This factor includes both internal and external stakeholders and their support in managing the program. To reach the green level (Overall As - sessment, bottom right, Figures 2–3), stakeholder support must be strong among the following: The resource sponsor is the Ser - vice Headquarters office that moni - tors and justifies the program fund - ing to the Service, Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of War, and Congress. The program office must be respon - sive to this office and ensure the Re - source Sponsor staff is equipped with complete and current information in support of various Pentagon and con - gressional interactions. User representative input is criti - cal as it will assist in development of program plans and strategies. The user representative will be involved in cost-performance trade-offs and pro - viding input on human interface de - sign. A Concept of Operations/Opera - tional Mode Summary/Mission Profile that describes the operational tasks, events, durations, frequency, and en- vironment for the system is a key in - put that should be provided to the program office at Milestone A and updated at subsequent milestones. For the software pathway, user en - gagement is documented in the User Agreement. The acquisition system chain of command with oversight of the
8 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026
program empowers the PM and IPTs to make program decisions. Report - ing, oversight, and communication mechanisms are in place. The IPT establishes relationships with exter - nal stakeholders that enable timely exchanges of critical information. Working Integrated Product Teams (WIPTs) are chartered to assist the PM in areas such as test and evalua - tion, life-cycle cost estimate, acquisi - tion strategy, and sustainment. These WIPTs involve external stakeholders and exist apart from the program of - fice execution IPTs. The industry role, requires a mini - mum of one prime contractor with an adequate supplier base to meet the program need. Both the program office and industry have communi - cated long-term investment plans and industrial base risks have been identified. More than one supplier for key components is available, and a credible plan for competition in production exists. A good working relationship with the prime contrac - tor is established early after contract award. The PM works to achieve early alignment of government and industry teams around the contract with each IPT. This alignment is often
achieved through an Acquisition Pro - gram Transition Workshop, a work - shop offered by WarU. Several other start-up workshops are also avail - able to IPTs, including the WSM 014 Acquisition Strategy Development Workshop and the WSD 019 Acquisi - tion Team Skills Workshop. Final Thoughts Like any model, this IPTRL assess - ment should be tailored based on the program pathway, complexity, and the program’s unique situation. The intent is not to make this assessment an exact science but rather provide an analytical framework for equipping our most important asset (people) with the tools needed to succeed. Prior to joining WarU, I was in - volved in a couple of start-up pro - gram situations. Experience tells me that the temptation is to rush to develop plans and strategies with - out a full up-and-ready IPT. While we want to go fast, we need to ensure we have the right people, processes, and tools to develop a sound program foundation. The investment made to equip IPTs during program incep - tion will pay dividends in the form of successful execution.
SCHULTZ is a professor of Program Manage- ment and an executive coach in the War- fighting Acquisition University (WarU)’s Capi- tal and Northeast Region, Fort Belvoir, Va. Prior to joining WarU, his career included multiple PM positions in the Air Force and industry. The author can be contacted at brian.schultz@waru.edu . The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the Department of War. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the authors and the magazine.
Related Resources
– (WSM 011) Acquisition Program Transition Workshop (Online Workshop) – (WSM 014) Acquisition Strategy Development Workshop (Online Training Course) – (WSM 019) Acquisition Team Skills Workshop (Online Training Course)
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 9
Support the Mission— Grow the Force by MATTHEW COSGROVE
10 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026 ARABIAN GULF Reconnaissance Marines assigned to the Maritime Raid Force, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), detach from a U.S. Navy MH-60S Sea Hawk after Spe- cial Patrol Insertion/Extraction rigging on Kurayn Island, Saudi Arabia, during routine sustainment training. The Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and 26th MEU conducted sustainment training in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations to enhance the Navy-Marine Corps team’s ability to employ forces for power projection over key maritime terrain. Source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Gary Jayne III This image was cropped to show detail and edited using multiple filters plus dodging and burning techniques.
The United States needs a technically cutting-edge Navy and Ma- rine Corps to defend our country, remain the most lethal force in the world, and reestablish deterrence.
Integrated logistics operations are necessary to accelerate and ensure ready and reliable weapons systems can operate in dynamic and increas - ingly contested environments. Es - tablishing a bedrock of sustainment during acquisition and procurement is critical to delivering a reliable and maintainable weapon system that meets key performance parameters (KPPs). Sustainment requirements that support enduring weapon sys - tems must become the foundation of Department of the Navy (DoN) standard operations. The Warfighting Acquisition Sys - tem and the Adaptive Acquisition Framework emphasize sustainment and product support. The focus on supportability of weapons systems and platforms has never been greater in our military’s history. Readiness and availability are the subject of nu - merous studies, audits, and reviews. The Warfighting Acquisition Univer - sity has provided the Integrated Product Support Elements Guidebook as a valuable tool, and the Department of War’s Product Support Manager Guidebook assists program managers (PMs), product support managers (PSMs), sustain - ment engineers, and logisticians in effectively developing an affordable product support strategy that meets the Warfighter’s requirements. Each program’s Life Cycle Sus - tainment Plan documents the plan for integrating the product support elements as the program advances
through its life cycle. The DoN utilizes these and other department-specific plans, tools, and guidebooks to build its sustainment strategies aligned to meet Warfighter requirements de - fined in KPPs. The DoN has no short - age of documentation and planning for successful development, test, and fielding of our programs. The Life Cycle Logistics (LCL) warfighting acquisition workforce is critical to im - plementing and sustaining our Navy and Marine Corps’ ships, aircraft, and ground and support systems. After the DoN LCL Acquisition Work- force Career Guidebook was updated in June 2024, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Sustainment (DASN-S) released the DoN Sustainment Performance Guide and organized the LCL leadership and sustainment technology enterprise approach. These actions baselined our LCL community, established the leadership group among the Navy and Marine Corps acquisition orga - nizations and key stakeholders, and focused attention on meeting sustain - ment performance requirements. The LCL Career Guidebook pres - ents a Career Navigator Framework and Career Development tools that aid and support a successful career path with recommendations for pro - fessional development and career planning. Acknowledging that the LCL workforce experiences varied starting points or career objectives, the LCL Career Guidebook helps
develop and manage knowledge, skills, abilities, attributes, behaviors, and experiences. The LCL Career Guidebook also as - sists supervisors and reporting se - niors with managing, mentoring, and coaching their assigned LCL civilian employees and military members. The Integrated Product Support (IPS) Ele - ments are outlined from a skills and experience vantage point. The 12 IPS Elements can be organized into three logical management groups: Life Cycle Sustainment Manage - ment, Technical Management, and Infrastructure Management. • Life Cycle Sustainment includes Product Support Management; Maintenance Planning and Man - agement; Supply Support; and Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation. • Technical Management includes Design Interface, Sustaining Engi - neering, Technical Data, and Infor - mation Technology Systems Con - tinuous Support. • Infrastructure Management en- compasses Facilities and Infra - U.S. Army High-Altitude Platoon, Extended-Range Sensing and Effects Company, 3rd Multi-Domain Effects Battalion, conducts a joint four high-altitude balloon launch off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii, April 22, 2026. Source: U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Devin Davis
The focus on supportability of weapons systems and platforms has never been greater in our military’s history. Readiness and availability are the subject of numerous studies, audits, and reviews.
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 11
CARIBBEAN SEA — Sept 28, 2025: A U.S. Marine with Kilo Company, Battalion Landing Team 3/6, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), conducts fast rope sustainment training aboard the U.S. Navy Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), while underway in the Caribbean Sea. U.S. Military forces are deployed to the Caribbean in support of the U.S. Southern Command mission, Department of War-directed operations, and the president’s priorities. Source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Emily Hazelbaker
structure, Manpower and Per - sonnel, Support Equipment, and Training Support. These groups may be used as the basis for constructing courses of ac - tion in a product support business case analysis, as an organizational construct for a product support inte - grated product team, or for workforce management and development. Ensuring that PMs understand their Sustainment Requirements at
the beginning of the program drives their collaboration with PSMs in building an affordable product sup - port strategy that meets the KPPs of Operational and Material Availability. Achieving the KPPs relies on incorpo - rating Key System Attributes (KSAs) into system specifications provided to industry partners. When establishing the KSA requirements of Reliability, Maintainability, and Operations and Sustainment Costs specified in the
contract with industry, the PM and PSM share accountability for deliv - ering a product that meets Warfight - ers’ needs. Practical tools such as sustainment driver trees, root cause and corrective action analysis, and projections of future performance provide the PMs and PSMs success - ful processes for delivering outcomes. A DASN-S September 2024 mem - orandum, “Life Cycle Logistics Civil - ian Leader Development and Talent Management,” to the DoN Systems Commands (SYSCOMs) and Military Sealift Command directed the iden - tification of senior executive or grade- appropriate LCL/Sustainment civil - ian leaders. Those chosen are part of the national LCL leadership team and are responsible for leading sus - tainment technology initiatives and
Additive manufacturing, digital twins, predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence-driven maintenance are transforming how the DoN designs, builds, and sustains.
12 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026
ensuring effective management of the LCL civilian warfighting acquisi - tion workforce. The LCL community invests in sustainment technology not just in our weapon systems but also in our support systems. Addi - tive manufacturing, digital twins, predictive analytics, and artificial intelligence-driven maintenance are transforming how the DoN designs, builds, and sustains. This enterprise- wide community spreads across the leadership, action officer, and work - ing levels for consistent messaging, alignment of goals, shared owner - ship, and accountability. The LCL Career Guidebook , the Sustainment Performance Guide , and the memorandum laid the ground -
work for former DASN-S Erica Plath’s top LCL priorities in 2025. In Septem - ber 2025, she hosted the inaugural, semiannual Life Cycle Logistics Com - munity Gathering of more than 700 attendees at in-person and multiple satellite locations, including program executive offices, SYSCOMs, and War - fare Centers across the nation. The DASN-S team is passionate about building our community and continuously working to bring logis - tics, sustainment, and product sup - port to life. Within the PSM Guide- book , IPS Elements Guidebook , and the LCL Career Guidebook , the terms workforce, people, logisticians, and teams are used more than 170 times. Assembling the LCL event made those
terms a reality by connecting and uni - fying the LCL warfighting acquisition workforce as a community. To deliver effective and afford - able product support in a contested logistics environment and meet the challenging requirements to support the Navy and Marine Corps Warfight - ers, the LCL warfighting acquisition workforce needs training, tools, and a deliberate talent management pro - cess to ensure they have these critical skills. The DoN cannot afford to just repeat the words, “Our people are our most important asset.” Action must be taken to demonstrate that we re - cruit, train, advance, and retain our workforce while paying due attention to their well-being. COSGROVE is the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Sustainment. He is the former director of Product Support Management in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Devel- opment and Acquisition. His career tenure within the Department of the Navy includes over 27 years of experience in acquisition and sustainment Life Cycle Logistics. Cos- grove holds a B.A. in Political Science and His- tory from Lycoming College and an MBA from La Salle University. The author can be contacted at matthew.p.cosgrove2.civ@us.navy.mil . The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the Department of War. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the authors and the magazine.
Related Resources
– Life Cycle Logistics (Online Training Course) – Integrated Product Support Guidebook Suite – (LOG 0460) The Twelve Integrated Product Support Elements (Online Training Course)
U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Talon Antolak, an antitank missile gunner with 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, stops a joint light tactical vehicle on the U.S. Navy landing craft mechanized 13, during Technology Operational
Experimentation Exercise (TOEE) 2022 at Camp Lejeune, N.C. Source: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Meshaq Hylton
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 13
Agile Principles AS FRAMEWORK FOR Warfighting Acquisition Reform
by MIRANDA LEWIS
The Department of War (DoW)’s Acquisition Transformation Strategy (ATS) calls for speed, flexibility, iterative delivery, em- powered program managers, and continuous feedback from Warfighters. Readers familiar with software development may recognize these as the defining features of Agile. Yet the word “Agile” appears nowhere in the document.
The transformation strategy is, in practice, a call to apply Agile prin - ciples at enterprise scale, and not saying so explicitly creates real risk. Without a shared vocabulary and framework, well-intentioned re - forms risk inconsistent implementa - tion across a workforce that is already unevenly prepared for this shift. Rec - ognizing Agile as the philosophy un - derlying the ATS is not an academic exercise. It is a practical step toward making the transformation succeed. Consider this example: A program manager working a critical munitions modernization effort experienced the need for acceleration and efficiencies: Her team knew what the Warfighter needed, the solution existed in the commercial market, yet the acqui - sition process required 18 months of documentation before a contract could be awarded. Without an ac - celerated pathway, by the time the capability would have been fielded, the operational window would have shifted. This is not an isolated story. It is a systemic pattern, and it is precisely what the ATS is designed to break. A Balancing Act The U.S. Warfighting Acquisition System has long struggled with a central tension: balancing rigor - ous oversight and risk management against the equally urgent require - ment to deliver operational capabili - ties to War-fighters in a timely man - ner. Acquisition processes evolved to emphasize compliance, documenta - tion, and predictive planning to con - trol cost, schedule, and performance risks—mechanisms that improved ac - countability but also introduced sig - nificant bureaucratic friction. As stra -
tegic competition has intensified, the pace of commercial innovation has accelerated; clearly, approaches op - timized for predictability are too slow to deliver relevant capability in con - tested environments. The result is a system that, by its own design, strug - gles to keep pace with the threats it The Secretary of War’s Nov. 7, 2025, memorandum directing the transformation of the Defense Ac - quisition System into a Warfighting Acquisition System reinforces this shift, emphasizing speed, flexibility, and reduced bureaucratic overhead as essential to delivering capability to the Warfighter. While presented as acquisition reform, these priorities closely mirror principles long associ - ated with Agile thinking. The transition from defense ac - quisition to warfighting acquisition reflects, in many ways, an implicit movement toward Agile principles at enterprise scale. At the same time, the reluctance to explicitly identify Agile as the underlying framework can limit clarity and consistency in implementation. Examining acqui - sition transformation through this lens helps connect policy intent to practical execution. More impor - tantly, it highlights how objectives such as speed, adaptability, and operational relevance can be more effectively realized. exists to counter. Agile Thinking Distilling Agile core principles . The Agile Manifesto emphasizes early and continuous delivery of value as the highest priority in complex devel - opment efforts. While originally ex - pressed through 12 principles, these ideas can be distilled into a smaller
Students attending the Eastern Army Na- tional Guard Aviation Training Site (EAATS) prepare an aircraft for takeoff at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa., May 12, 2026. EAATS trains over 1,500 service members annu- ally from all 54 states and territories, the active-duty Army and Army Reserve, as well as international military students. Source: U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Kayden Bedwell This image was cropped to show detail and edited using multiple filters plus dodging and burning techniques.
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 15
back allow programs to adjust be - fore problems compound. Acquisi - tion reform efforts increasingly point in this direction. Even so, many organizations re - main incentivized to demonstrate completeness of planning rather than effectiveness of learning. Without a shift in how success is measured, it - erative approaches risk being layered onto traditional processes rather than replacing them. Agile recognizes change as an in - herent and expected feature of com - plex work. Evolving requirements are not a sign of failure—they are a reflec - tion of learning. Traditional acquisition often treats change as disruption. Efforts are made to lock down requirements early in order to preserve stability. In rapidly changing environments, however, rigid adherence to early assumptions can introduce greater risk. The ATS memorandum’s em - phasis on Capability Trade Councils and empowered Portfolio Acquisition Executives reflects exactly this logic. When a threat changes midprogram, the question should not be “How do we protect the baseline?” but “How quickly can we adjust?” Programs that treat a changed requirement as a learning Embrace Change, Empower Teams
Prototyping, experimentation, and continuous feedback allow programs to adjust before problems compound. Acquisition reform efforts increasingly point in this direction.
set of foundational concepts that ap - ply broadly across complex weapon systems development. At its core, Agile prioritizes cus - tomer value above all else. In the context of defense acquisition, this translates directly to delivering mean - ingful operational capability to the Warfighter as early and continuously as possible. Traditional acquisition approaches often emphasize documentation, milestone completion, and require - ments validation prior to delivering capability. While these activities serve important governance purposes, they do not directly provide value to the end user. Agile reframes success in a simpler way: Does the activity con - tribute to usable capability? Consider a program that spent 14 months completing an Analysis of Al - ternatives before a single prototype was evaluated by a user. The War- fighter’s need had already evolved by the time the study concluded. An Agile-informed approach would have placed a prototype in the field within the first 90 days, using that feedback to shape, rather than follow, the requirements process. The memorandum’s emphasis on accelerating delivery reflects this same shift. Rather than waiting for fully integrated solutions, program managers are encouraged to deliver incremental improvements that pro - vide immediate operational benefit. This is not a new concept. In prac - tice, many of these ideas have existed in effective product development for decades, even if they have not been
consistently applied within large bu - reaucratic systems. Iterative development. Agile places strong emphasis on learning through rapid feedback rather than extended up-front planning. Short development cycles and frequent in - teraction with users allow teams to reduce uncertainty over time. Traditional acquisition processes, by contrast, rely heavily on predictive planning. They assume that require - ments and conditions can be defined early and remain stable. In reality, that assumption rarely holds. Com - plex systems development is inher - ently a learning process. This is where iterative develop - ment becomes critical. A software- intensive command and control pro - gram that adopted two-week sprint cycles and monthly operator reviews identified and corrected interface flaws within the first quarter of de - velopment. Under a traditional test- and-evaluate approach, those same flaws would likely have surfaced during op - erational testing
years later and at far greater cost to fix. Proto - typing, experi - mentation, and continuous feed -
16 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026
opportunity rather than a contract disruption consistently deliver more relevant capability. Recent reform efforts encourag - ing trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance reflect a move to - ward adaptability. What this means in practice is simple: The ability to ad - just becomes a strength rather than a liability. Agile emphasizes that decisions should be made by those with the most relevant knowledge. Cross- functional teams are expected to collaborate and respond quickly to emerging challenges. Traditional acquisition systems rely on hierarchical decision-making and layered oversight. While these structures support accountability, they can also slow execution and distance the decision authority from operational understanding. Efforts to reduce approval layers and empower program managers re - flect an important step forward. How - ever, structural changes alone are not enough. Real progress depends on trust—specifically, trust in decentral - ized decision-making. One acquisi - tion office that focused on minimum viable product found a material solu - tion that, with a quick test excursion, was shown to be effective in solving multiple performance issues. Em - powered team members assessed, received user feedback, catalogued, approved for use, and fielded the product in six months’ total. The work did not change. The decision author - ity did. And the product became the standard military rifle ammunition Agile and Lean thinking both em - phasize eliminating activities that do not contribute directly to value. Sim - plicity, or maximizing the amount of work not done, is not about do - ing less but about focusing on what matters most. Over time, acquisition systems ac - cumulate processes and documenta - magazine across all Services. Optimize Whole System, Eliminate Waste
tion requirements that increase fric - tion. Each requirement may have been introduced for a valid reason, but the combined effect can slow ex - ecution without improving outcomes. The Secretary of War’s ATS memo - randum, with its emphasis on elimi - nating the Joint Capabilities Inte - gration and Development System, streamlining the Federal Acquisition Regulation/Defense Federal Acquisi - tion Regulation Supplement require - ments, and replacing Analysis of Al - ternatives with rapid prototyping are all expressions of this principle. Each individual reform targets a specific source of friction. Taken together, they reflect a coherent effort to rede - sign the system around throughput rather than compliance. A useful way to test any process against this stan - dard is to ask a simple question: If this step were eliminated, would the Warfighter receive capability faster or slower? If the honest answer is faster, the step deserves scrutiny. Barriers to Full Adoption Despite strong alignment between Agile principles and the objectives
of the ATS, the memorandum stops short of naming the framework it is describing. This matters more than one might surmise. When a workforce lacks a shared vocabulary for what it is asked to do, implementation be - comes uneven. Some program offices will interpret “speed and flexibility” as license to skip documentation. Others will treat it as encouragement to compress traditional timelines while keeping every existing process intact. Neither outcome advances the transformation. Naming Agile as the underlying philosophy would not constrain the reform—it would accelerate it. The warfighting acquisition workforce already has meaningful exposure to Agile methods through the Software Acquisition Pathway, Warfighting Ac - quisition University coursework, and industry partnerships. That founda - tion can be built upon. But without an explicit connection between the memorandum’s direction and the broader Agile framework, much of that existing knowledge remains siloed in software programs rather than applied across the acquisition
Suggested Reading Beck, K., et al. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development . Department of Defense. (2019). Software Acquisition and Practices (SWAP) study . Defense Innovation Board. Department of Defense. (2022). Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Frame - work (DoDI 5000.02). Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Prod - ucts . Addison-Wesley. Reinertsen, D. (2009). The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development . Celeritas Publishing. Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). “Embracing Agile: How to Master the Process That’s Transforming Management. Harvard Business Review , 94 (5), 40–50. Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (1986). “The New New Product Development Game.” Harvard Business Review , 64 (1), 137–146.
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 17
Figure 1. Traditional vs. Agile-Inspired Approaches
Dimension
Traditional Acquisition Approach
Agile-inspired Reform Approach
Compliance with requirements, milestone approvals, and program baselines Predictive planning based on detailed upfront requirements Requirements established early and tightly controlled to preserve program stability Centralized oversight and layered approval structures Risk minimized through extensive planning and documentation Large, integrated capability delivered at the end of development cycles Formal milestone reviews and extensive compliance artifacts Adherence to cost, schedule, and performance baselines Sequential functional organizations and hierachical decision chains Local optimization of individual program processes
Rapid delivery of operational capability and measureable Warfighter value Adaptive planning informed by iterative learning and user feedback Requirements treated as evolving hypotheses informed by operational feedback Greater decision authority delegated to program managers and integrated teams Risk reduced through experimentation, prototyping, and early operational feedback Incremental capability delivered through iterative releases Tailored governance focused on enabling timely decisions Operational relevance, speed of delivery, and adaptability to changing needs Cross-functional integrated product teams with collaborative decision-making Optimization of the overall capability delivery system
Primary Objective
Planning Philosophy
Requirements Management
Decision Authority
Risk Management
Development Strategy
Oversight Mechanisms
Success Metrics
Organizational Structure
System Optimization
Source. Author
enterprise. Yet, even if the memo - randum were to adopt this language explicitly, a deeper cultural barrier would remain. One persistent barrier is the per - ception of Agile as a software-specific methodology rather than a general framework for managing complex work. This is not just a matter of ter - minology—it shapes how principles are applied. When Agile is viewed narrowly, adoption tends to focus on isolated practices rather than the underlying approach. The Software Acquisition Pathway provides a useful example. It appro - priately incorporates Agile methods for software-intensive programs. At the same time, its association with software can reinforce the idea that Agile is limited in scope. Principles like iterative development, rapid feedback, and adaptive planning
are widely applicable to complex capability development. Organizational incentives also play a role. Many environments continue to reward predictability, compliance, and risk avoidance over experimenta - tion and learning. As a result, program managers may hesitate to adopt itera - tive approaches, even when those ap - proaches are supported in policy. Taken together, these factors sug - gest that reform efforts may fall short of their intent unless these underlying perceptions are addressed. Without clearer recognition of Agile principles, implementation risks fragmentation or inconsistency. Implications for the Workforce The challenge facing the war- fighting acquisition workforce is not simply adopting new processes—it
is rethinking how work itself is ap - proached. This distinction becomes especially important when consider - ing how current reform objectives are expected to be achieved. If we are to realize the goals out - lined in the Nov. 7 ATS memorandum, acquisition professionals must look beyond policy changes and focus on the behaviors that enable those out - comes. Accelerating delivery and re - ducing bureaucratic friction cannot be accomplished through new path - ways alone. They depend on iterative development, early engagement with users, and more decentralized deci - sion-making. In that sense, the mem - orandum reinforces principles that al - ready are well established, even if not always explicitly identified. For warfighting acquisition pro - fessionals, this translates into a dif - ferent way of approaching daily
18 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | MAY – JUNE 2026
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker