tures: wheels, armor, range, fuel type, and speed—eventually resulting in a well-researched, well-specified truck like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. But this approach starts with the as - sumption that a truck is the answer. In contrast, were the require - ment framed simply as the ability to move troops safely, quickly, and cost-effectively, the solution space could include aircraft, drones, rail systems—or even breakthrough tech - nologies like autonomous transport or hypothetical teleportation. By locking into a specific vehicle solution early, the government may never explore better, faster, or more scalable alternatives. Yet, once such a system-focused requirement is approved and funded, acquisition teams often leap straight into com - pliance planning—selecting a deliv - ery pathway before understanding whether the solution truly meets the need. This results in a backward process: defining constraints before exploring possibilities. Adopting a strategy-first model would mean starting with opera - tional goals, then assessing the need and how a solution can best be devel - oped. Only after that analysis should a program select the pathway that supports the intended approach. Regulatory frameworks must serve the strategy—not replace it.
when the technology is insufficiently mature to support rapid delivery. MTA has a mandated five-year window for operational capability. If the techni - cal solution is still evolving or lacks a tested baseline, attempting to force it into that window creates unnecessary risk. Timelines become compressed, development milestones slip, and costs escalate. The problem is not the frame - work itself; it is the failure to match strategic decisions with technical and program realities. Mandating a pathway without understanding the capability, technology, or execution model can delay progress rather than accelerate it. Fixing What Programs Control The AAF has improved the regula - tory landscape, but several persistent challenges remain. These are not pol - icy failures; they are cultural, proce - dural, and behavioral characteristics. One common issue is unrealistic scheduling. Many programs develop overly aggressive timelines to meet
budget cycles or to align with lead - ership expectations. These timelines may not reflect technical risk, staff - ing availability, or system complexity. Program managers, seeking funding or approval, may present optimistic delivery plans that are unlikely to hold up. This leads to missed mile - stones, increased oversight, and di - minished stakeholder confidence. A better approach involves using early engineering analysis, technical readi - ness assessments, and independent cost estimates to create credible, risk-informed schedules. Another challenge lies in contract structures that do not align with how the work will be done. For example, a program pursuing agile software development might still be operat - ing under a cost-type contract bet - ter suited for traditional hardware efforts. This disconnect leads to ten - sion between execution and over - sight. Program managers must work closely with contracting officers to shape acquisition strategies that enable flexibility, incentivize perfor - mance, and reflect the iterative na - ture of the work. Cross-functional collaboration is also frequently underutilized. Despite AAF guidance encouraging early inte - gration among engineering, testing, contracting, and finance, many teams continue to operate in silos. Decisions about design, validation, and delivery occur independently—sometimes be - cause of organizational design and
When Mandates Get In The Way
Misapplied top-down mandates can amplify this problem. Sometimes, well-intentioned guidance from se - nior leaders directs a program to use a specific pathway like MTA, even
Mandating a pathway without understanding the capability, technology, or execution model can delay progress
rather than accelerate it.
MAY – JUNE 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 29
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker