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
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker