Defense Acquisition Magazine July-August 2026

Defense Acquisition magazine The Revolutionary Transformation Continues 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 July-August 2026 Vol LV | No. 4 | Issue 311

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 .

IMMERSIVE COMMERCIAL ACQUISITION PROGRAM NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS DEADLINE TO APPLY - OCTOBER 9, 2026

A competitive program for acquisition professionals who are willing and excited to be the bridge between the Department of War and the commercial tech world.

Gain skills and experience finding, delivering and scaling commercial technology solutions, and accelerating technology transitions. Program participation takes place in a virtual collaborative environment over the course of 12 months. Learn More and Apply at https://www.diu.mil/work-with-us/ immersive-commercial-acquisition-program-icap

Scan to Learn More

06 From The Editor— Heavy Transmission and Transformation Benjamin Tyree

18 Stop Digitally Paving Cow Paths David Kuroda

Defense business systems fail when or- ganizations digitize bad processes, pro- tect local habits, and call the result transformation.

A look at how American Independence was won 250 years ago—and the people, companies, and forces that made it pos- sible.

24 In Forward Gear With Critical Thinking Todd Smith

12 Acquisition Training Must Learn About Disruption In the Age of AI Donna Carroll and Glenn Lamartin

The Army Ground Combat Vehicle pro- vides a case study on critical thinking, cognitive bias, and decision making in the face of uncertainty.

28 Compliance Paradox:

Blockbuster video failed because it held onto a legacy model that had produced success in the past, not a lack of aware- ness of market changes.

Fixed-Price Contracts vs. Cost-Based Demands Roza Sheffield and Megan Mocho The government’s push for cost data on fixed-price proposals can complicate the drive for efficiency and risk allocation.

32 MDAP Program Manager Changes 34 2026 Innovation in Action Awards – Innovation in Overcoming Obstacles – Innovation in Implementing Acquisition Flexibilities 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. 4, ISSUE 311

Managing Editor Benjamin Tyree Art Director Michael Bubar-Krukowski

Editorial Assistant Susan Muth Assistant Editor Collie J. Johnson Associate Editor Dr. Larrie Ferreiro Editorial Support Dr. Olena McLaughlin

Lead Graphic Design Nicole Brate Graphic Design Steffon Edmonds Production Manager Frances Battle Circulation Manager Michelle McDonald

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: Based on photos by 1st Sgt. Austin Berner, Petty Officer 3rd Class Roberto A. Nieves Felix, Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Oscar Pichardo, and Tech. Sgt. John Winn. This image was compiled and edited using multiple filters and graphic techniques.

Scan to Read our Digital Publication

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

FROM THE EDITOR

HEAVY TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFORMATION America, Not Alone— FROM 1776 TO THE PRESENT

Above: The new VC-25B presidential aircraft, which will serve as the next Air Force One, conducts a flyover of the National Mall, as viewed from the Lincoln Memorial, in support of Salute to America 250 in Washington, D.C., July 4, 2026. Source: U.S. Air Force photo by AJ Bleye This image was cropped to show detail and edited using multiple filters plus dodging and burning techniques.

6 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

FROM THE EDITIOR

crafty New England lawyer John Adams sealed several deals with foreign powers that brought new weight to bear in America’s cause. France, a longtime rival of Great Britain, sympathized with the Colonial struggle, if not all its ideals. That commit- ment—in financial, material, and military support—nearly doubled the French national debt, producing a financial crisis that contributed to the revolution in France itself. But with France on America’s side in the latter 1770s, her ally Spain soon followed. Both nations provided money and arms to the would-be new republic. Spain also deployed its navy to protect French possessions in the Caribbean. This freed Admiral de Grasse to move his battleships north to the Chesapeake Bay, pinning the British between the sea and American and French troops facing them on the land. A book and Pulitzer award finalist on the alliance was authored by this magazine’s associate editor, Dr. Larrie Fer- reiro— “Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the Men of France and Spain Who Saved It.” Finally, the cautious Dutch weighed in, at first officially neutral but covertly providing gunpowder and supplies un- til they were dragged into the war by British attacks on their colonies and their fleet. But, what about the money? Notably, the most common currency used in the Colonies during the Revolutionary War was the Spanish peso, known as the “Spanish dollar” be- cause it contained roughly the same silver weight as the Ger- man thaler. Thus, the name applied to U.S. currency bears fingerprints from America’s heavy reliance on the European allies for hard money during the Revolutionary Founding. National memories endure for generations. The per- sonal role of the Comte de Rochambeau and the Marquis Service members from the U.S. Southern Command’s Joint Color Guard prepare to present the colors for the singing of the national anthem during the Miami Marlins America 250 Celebration and Military Appreciation game at Loan Depot Park on July 11, 2026. The game commemorated a historic national milestone while honor- ing the dedicated service and sacrifice of our nation’s military members Source: U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Christopher Bermudez

There were many acts of American heroism to remember and celebrate, including some that will resonate strongly with acquisition and sustainment professionals.

With approach of the 250th anniversary of the Declara- tion of Independence, a wealth of new and revisited televi- sion programming poured forth on the events of 1776-1784. PBS aired Ken Burns’ six-episode series, “The American Revolution,” as well as the 10 episodes of “Washington’s Spies,” an account of America’s anti-British espionage based on the book by Alexander Rose. The film musical, “1776,” originally released prior to the bicentennial 50 years ago, has been a revived feature. Whether studiously historical or imaginative and enter- taining, these milestone epics remind us of one important fact: The Founding of the United States might easily have failed. The 13 Colonies that revolted against British rule were woefully short of arms and munitions, the industry to manufacture them, and the money to buy them. Therefore, the revolution began with high hopes, audac- ity, and a resolute will but few other means to wrest victory from a powerful, militarily equipped, and martially accom- plished empire of the first order. There were many acts of American heroism to remember and celebrate, including some that will resonate strongly with acquisition and sustainment professionals. These in- clude then young Continental Army Col. Henry Knox’s haul - ing and sledging 60 cannons by yoked oxen over 300 miles in freezing conditions from Fort Ticonderoga in Upstate New York to Massachusetts between December 1775 and January 1776. This great trek, known as the “Noble Train of Artillery,” enabled George Washington to force the British Army out of Boston. There also was Washington’s memorable December 1776 crossing of the icy Delaware River with whatever would float to both remove his Army and artillery from a vulnerable po- sition and stage a surprise attack on Britain’s Hessian mer- cenaries in Trenton, N.J. This daring maneuver and many others during more than eight years of the Revolutionary War prefigured the Allied boldness on land and sea that won World War II. But the United States in its War for Independence also was blessed with friends abroad. The diplomatically suave inventor-celebrity Benjamin Franklin and the cautiously

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 7

FROM THE EDITOR

de Lafayette in the final victory at Yorktown was commemo - rated when American troops joined the Allied effort in World War I. On July 2, 1917, after a march to the grave of Lafay - ette in Paris, U.S. Army Col. Charles E. Stanton proclaimed, “Lafayette, we are here!” What lessons, then, might we derive from our national Founding and the roles of the European states? The first lesson, perhaps, is that a nation’s ability to man - ufacture and supply its own defense needs can be crucial to that nation’s independence, to say nothing of its ability to function as a major world power. And allies can prove essential or at least help fill the gap when domestic capa - bilities are in short supply. Current U.S. policies emphasize rebuilding the Defense Industrial Base, a more equitable sharing among allied na- tions of defense responsibilities and costs, accelerated and more efficient acquisition processes through a revolution - ary regulatory overhaul, and regional sustainment for lo- gistical support. All these measures aim to ensure there are reliable sources of military supplies and secure America’s position in an increasingly contested world. Allies remain important and can provide various and decisive forms of support. The United States has long en- joyed a worldwide network of alliances unparalleled in history. These, along with greater self-reliance and self- initiative on the part of all, are crucial to maintaining our

force positions close to contested areas and those at risk of being contested. Historic examples extend well beyond our Founding. Many of the weapons and inventions that secured victory in World War II—the atomic bomb, penicillin, and airborne radar—were begun with scientific work in Britain but finally brought to fruition and produced in America. A critical ad- vantage accrued to both the United States and Britain in dealing with German submarine warfare when Britain broke the Enigma code generated by a complicated machine used by the German naval command. As historians have noted, the past doesn’t exactly repeat itself—but the past, the present, and no doubt the future can rhyme in meaningful ways. In our present, the incred- ibly successful MRAP program of special armored, explo - sive-protected vehicles was based on vehicle designs from South Africa, Israel, Canada, and other sources—but all of them are built in the United States. Dr. Ferreiro recently alerted us to a company now op- erating in the United States that has roots dating to the 16th century Spanish Royal Arms Factory that provided substantial material aid to the American War for Indepen- dence. SAPA Transmission has remained involved in sup- plying important military equipment for the United States and European allies.

[A] nation’s ability to manufacture and supply its own defense needs can be crucial to that nation’s independence, to say nothing of its ability to function as a major world power.

8 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

FROM THE EDITIOR

SAPA’s website notes that its existence traces to 1573 and that SAPA “today is a leader in mobility technologies for armored vehicles.” Key U.S. operations of SAPA Transmission (USA) are in Shelby Township, Mich., where the company produces ad- vanced combat transmissions (ACTs) and auxiliary power units. The corporation works with the U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center and provides technologies for both tracked and wheeled vehicles with a focus on power man- agement and hybrid architectures. Defense Acquisition magazine recently spoke with Ryan Howell, vice president for business and government rela- tions, about the current state of SAPA Transmission’s busi- ness. Howell highlighted that SAPA Transmission provides its ACTs for the entire United States Army’s tracked vehicle fleet and to its NATO Allies. SAPA Transmissions have powered M1 Abrams Tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles, and the Self-Propelled Howitzer. In Europe, SAPA ACTs are fielded in Spain’s VCR 8x8 Dragon and Pizarro Armored Fighting Vehicle. “For the United States,” he added, “we are proud part- ners with General Dynamics Land Systems for their XM30 Wolf Fighting Vehicle offering.” Further highlighting SAPA Transmission’s support to the U.S. Army, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George announced at the Association Above: Patrouille de France, French Air and Space Force aerobatics team, fly over the New York Harbor leaving trails of red, white, and blue smoke during the Inter- national Naval Review (INR) 250 Parade of Sail and International Aerial Review 250 in New York, July 4, 2026. The Parade of Sail marked the opening of INR 250, a multinational maritime celebration commemorating the 250th anniversaries of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and the nation, honoring the sea services’ enduring commitment to defending the United States and strengthening partnerships with allied and partner nations. Source: U.S Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Giovannie Oterosantiago

of the United States Army’s 2025 national convention that the new M1E3 would have a SAPA ACT incorporated into its powertrain. Howell said that SAPA Transmission was incorporated in the United States in 2003. “We opened our Michigan head- quarters in 2021, and we are currently breaking ground on our second advanced manufacturing facility,” he added. Howell reported that SAPA in Spain remains involved in broad military ordnance and weapon production for Spain and other European Union (EU) member nations. “In addi- tion to the Austro-Spanish vehicle mentioned earlier, they also work some Air Defense Artillery systems for the EU.” The company’s role in our Founding struggle remains a source of pride both to the company and the Basque locale of its Spanish headquarters. Asked what all SAPA provided to the Continental Army during the American War for In- dependence, Mr. Howell replied: “Guns, ammunition, uni- forms and related items, and medicine.” Materiel supplied through the company’s network included more than 200 cannons, 30,000 muskets (on which later American-made muskets were modeled) and bayonets, 150 tons of gunpow- der, cannonballs, half a million musket balls, and thousands of tents. Of friends and enemies, it has always proved best to have plenty of the former to balance out the latter. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense , “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” That is as true today as it was two and a half centuries ago. Therefore, to all our readers and all Americans and friends of America everywhere, a happy 250th and many more to come! —Benjamin Tyree

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 9

FROM THE EDITOR

10 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

FROM THE EDITIOR

Fireworks launch over the National Mall in Wash- ington, D.C., during Salute to America, July 4, 2026. Freedom 250 launched 850,000 fireworks in a historic display, which became the world’s largest firework showcase. Source: U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Seara Marcsis

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 11

FROM BLOCKBUSTER TO NETFLIX: Acquisition Education and Training Must Learn About Disruption in the AGE OF AI

by BY DONNA CARROLL, M.ED., and GLENN LAMARTIN, DPA

12 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

People often assume Blockbuster failed because it did not see Netflix coming. In reality, Blockbuster recognized the threat well enough. The company experimented with online rentals, launched subscription services, and understood consumer be- havior was beginning to shift away from physical stores. The problem was not awareness. The problem was holding on too long to the legacy business model that had made Blockbuster successful in the first place. Are acquisition education and train- ing at risk of making the same mistake?

Blockbuster’s operating model, organizational structure, revenue streams, and identity were deeply tied to the storefront experience. Even as the environment changed, the company continued improving the existing model rather than rethink - ing how customers accessed content. Meanwhile, Netflix was not simply im - proving movie rentals. It was building a fundamentally different way of de - livering and continuously adapting content around user behavior. This matters because disruptive innovation rarely appears dominant in its early stages. Mature systems spend years refining efficiency, scale, reliability, and performance. When judged against these mature systems, disruptive innovation appears less ca-

pable or practical. As a result, organi- zations frequently continue optimiz- ing the existing model because it still produces results and aligns with in- stitutional incentives. S-Curve theory helps explain this dynamic. Mature technologies and systems typically evolve along an S-Curve over time (Figure 1). Organizations nearing the end of a mature technology or system life cy- cle often intensify their improvement efforts even as the underlying envi - ronment begins changing. Existing systems continue producing measur- able success, so institutions naturally focus on improving efficiency, refin - ing delivery, and expanding capabili - ties within the current model. At the same time, tensions begin emerging

Figure 1. Technology and Systems Development of Mature Systems vs. Disruptive Innovations

1. The S-Curve starts with modest and

2. Growth then

3. This point of maximum growth is the point of takeoff

4. After takeoff, mature products and systems typically improve incrementally over time until they approach the upper end of their lifecycle

accelerates rapidly, and the slope arches upwards, until it reaches maximum growth

shallow growth

Disruptive Innovations

5. Disruptive innovations often emerge below the previous S-Curve as a less refined alternative operating on a different developmental path

Time

Source. Author

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 13

between the assumptions underpin- ning the model and the realities of the evolving environment. This tension is increasingly vis- ible within acquisition education and training, where modernization efforts continue to improve a system built upon a set of assumptions that have guided workforce development for decades: • Learning primarily happens through formal courses. • Employees move through training in a predetermined sequence. • Instruction occurs at specific points in time rather than continuously during work. • Workforce development follows standardized career pathways. • Expertise is primarily delivered through institutions and instruct- ors. • Effectiveness of training is mea- sured by completion rates and satisfaction scores. Training based on these assump- tions has been highly effective in an environment characterized by steady career progression, predictable in- structional cycles, and consistent professional knowledge domains. But the acquisition environment is no longer stable. It is increasingly

Organizations nearing the end of a mature technology or system life cycle often intensify their improvement efforts even as

the underlying environment begins changing.

shaped by technology change, cross- functional demands, iterative execu - tion, operational uncertainty, and rapidly evolving workforce demands. Questions about whether tradi- tional acquisition education and training structures will continue meeting future workforce demands are not just theoretical. For example, the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) mandated a comprehensive assessment of the Defense Acquisition University (Warfighting Acquisition University) to strengthen its ability to train and develop the acquisition workforce for current and future needs. The study will not focus solely on curriculum content or instructional delivery. It will also examine certifi - cations, faculty models, experiential learning, and broader workforce de- velopment approaches. This assess- ment suggests concern not simply with what acquisition professionals are being taught but whether the in- stitutional model used to develop this workforce remains aligned with the operational environment. In many respects, the assessment reflects growing recognition that acquisition education has arrived at a strategic inflection point. This does not mean the current model has failed. Mature systems of- ten continue effectively performing long after disruptive pressures be- gin emerging. The risk is operating a highly efficient learning system that continues producing courses, certifi - cations, and training that no longer fully align with workforce needs and expectations. Increasingly, acquisi - tion professionals expect learning to be personalized, adaptive, available

in real-time, and directly connected to job performance. The end of a learning model life cycle. For decades, acquisition edu- cation and training have been orga- nized around a standardized instruc- tional model. Functional certifica- tion pathways, uniform curricula, sequential course progression, and fixed training sequences have formed the foundation of workforce develop- ment. This architecture was designed to support consistency, governance, compliance, and scale across a highly specialized workforce operating within a complex regulatory environ - ment. In many respects, it is highly effective. Yet today’s acquisition workforce operates within a learning ecosystem far broader than any previous gen- eration of acquisition professionals. Formal institutional instruction now competes with an expanding array of digital learning platforms, profes- sional networks, online credentials, knowledge communities, and AI- enabled performance support tools. This means acquisition professionals can access information, expertise, guidance, and learning support on demand without relying on formal education programs as the primary gateways to development. Acquisition education and training institutions continue investing heav- ily in modernization to improve effi - ciency, accessibility, and scalability of instruction. These efforts are mean - ingful and necessary. But the larger question is whether improving the current system is enough. Does ac- quisition education need to evolve beyond a course-centric model to one better able to support how acquisi-

14 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

Figure 2. From One Size Fits All Toward Adaptive Development With AI

FROM: ONE SIZE FITS ALL

TO: INDIVIDUALIZED DEVELOPMENT

Every learner moves through the same path.

Each learner follows a path tailored to their needs, role, context, and demonstrated proficiency.

AI continuously adapts development based on: Demonstrated Proficiency Job

Stronger Leader

Same Course

Learner A

Coaching

Advanced Scenarios

Portfolio Leadership

Standardized Instruction

More Effective Practitioner

Same Content

Learner B

Assignment Operational Context Developmental Gaps Workforce Demand Signals Performance Patterns

Learner B

Refresher Support

Workflow Guidance

Risk Tools

Same Place

Adaptive Individualized Development

Learner C

Broader Contributor

Learner C

Collaboration Practice

Cross- Functional Development

Mission Simulation

Learner D

Same Outcome

High- Confidence Operator

Learner D

Real-time Decision Support

Targeted Reinforcement

Performance Feedback

•Fixed Pathways •Standard Pacing

•Periodic Instruction •Limited adaptation

Knowledge Retrieval

Decision Support

Reinforcement in Workflow

Learning

Coaching

Designed for standardization and scale

Source. Author

Emerging Workforce Adaptation

tion professionals learn, collaborate, make decisions, and perform? If the existing course-based learn - ing model is approaching the upper end of its life cycle, it’s time to ask, “What does the next model of acquisi - tion education look like?” While still in its early phases, AI is beginning to re- veal the outlines of a different learn - ing paradigm, one less dependent on static instructional events and more centered on personalized develop- ment through continuous adaptation and on-the-job support. Emergence of a new learning paradigm. Historically, acquisition education and training operated through a standardized instructional model. Learners progressed through predetermined courses, faculty de- livered a standardized curriculum developed by the institution, and learning remained largely separated from operational execution. The re - sult was a one-size-fits-all approach to learning, regardless of individual experience or developmental needs. AI-enabled systems can change this

relationship between the institution and its learners. AI reshapes acquisition education from a standardized, course-centric instructional model toward a more adaptive, individualized, and work- flow-integrated approach to work- force development (Figure 2). Instead of moving every learner through the same courses and train- ing experiences, AI systems can per - sonalize learning based on an in- dividual’s needs, performance, job assignments, and work environment. As a result, learning can be tailored to individual development points rather than requiring everyone to follow the same path. At the same time, AI embeds learn- ing within an individual’s workflow rather than confining it to classrooms or discrete instructional events. Guid- ance, coaching, knowledge retrieval, decision support, and targeted feed- back occur in real time during execu - tion. In effect, AI shifts learning from episodic instructional events toward continuously adaptive operational support at the point in time of need.

Early indicators of this shift toward the use of AI are appearing within acquisition education and training. During a recent Services Acquisition Workshop, students described nu- merous ways they already integrate AI into their day-to-day work to support analysis, writing, and decision-mak- ing. Similar patterns emerged during recent executive-level courses, where participants integrated AI directly into simulation activities. While learners were encouraged to explore AI’s use during portions of the simulation, many incorporated it into planning, analysis, coordination, and decision- support activities in ways that mir- ror how they use AI in the workplace. This suggests the acquisition work- force may already be adapting to AI- enabled ways of working faster than acquisition education is evolving. Simulations evolve significantly within this emerging paradigm. Rather than functioning as one-time training events, simulations become evolving learning environments

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 15

where learners repeatedly practice, adapt, and make decisions under changing operational conditions. AI- enabled role players, dynamic injects, tailored feedback, and continuously adjusted complexity levels create learning experiences that adapt to learners in real time. AI is already used to accelerate cur- riculum development, expand access to learning, and enhance instructional delivery. While these applications are important, they largely improve the performance of the existing model. The more impactful change emerges when AI begins personalizing devel- opment around individual needs, integrating learning directly into the workflow, and adapting instruction based on learner behavior and perfor- mance. At that point, AI is no longer improving how education and train- ing are delivered; it is changing the model itself. Continuous evaluation and adap- tive learning. When people reflect on Netflix’s disruption of Blockbuster, they typically focus on streaming technology. Streaming certainly mattered, but one of Netflix’s most important innovations was its ability to continuously learn from user be- havior and adapt recommendations, creating a personalized experience that connected viewers with content they were likely to value but might otherwise have overlooked. This shift toward learning from user behavior has important implications for evalu- ating acquisition education. Much of how training effective- ness is measured still relies on trans- actional measurement models. Success is assessed through end-of- course surveys, Likert-scale satis- faction measures, Kirkpatrick Level

1 and Level 2 evaluations, comple- tion rates, and Net Promoter Scores. These approaches provide useful in- formation regarding learner reactions and short-term knowledge acquisi- tion; however, they primarily mea- sure reactions to instructional events rather than assessing how expertise develops, performance evolves, and learning transfers into outcomes in the workplace. AI makes possible a transition from evaluating learning after instruction to continuously assess learning dur- ing execution. In this model, AI ob - serves and adapts to learner behav- ior. Evaluation no longer exists as an event conducted after instruction; it becomes part of the learning process. AI-enabled systems analyze learner interactions in real time, identify developmental patterns, personal- ize instruction, recommend targeted experiences, monitor competency progression, and dynamically adapt learning pathways. AI can also func- tion as a personalized trainer, adjust- ing guidance, pacing, reinforcement, and support in real time based on the learner’s demonstrated needs and behaviors. The evolving role of faculty. The role of faculty also changes as learn- ing becomes more personalized, adaptive, and embedded within op- erational work. Instead of functioning as content transmitters, faculty oper- ate as coaches, facilitators, develop- mental guides, and orchestrators of adaptive learning environments. Hu- man expertise does not become less important; it becomes more impor- tant. AI relieves faculty of routine in- struction and administrative burdens, allowing for greater focus on mentor-

ship, judgment development, context interpretation, and coaching. The Strategic Challenge Blockbuster did not fail because it stopped innovating. In many ways, it became exceptionally good at im - proving what had made it success- ful. Blockbuster’s failure was con- tinuing to optimize the storefront model while advances in technology were reshaping consumer viewing behavior and preferences for access- ing video content. The same risk now confronts acquisition education, op- timizing a delivery model that might not meet future learning needs of the workforce. Modernization efforts such as im - proving the efficiency, accessibility, and scalability of acquisition instruc- tion through expanded certifications, enhanced digital delivery, and re- fined competency frameworks build upon the longstanding strengths of a course-centric and standardized learning model. Yet the workforce itself is chang- ing. Acquisition professionals increa-

Questions about whether traditional acquisition education and training structures will continue meeting future workforce demands are not just theoretical.

16 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

singly operate in environments where information is available on demand and digital tools are integrated into daily work. The ways people access knowledge, solve problems, and develop expertise are also evolving alongside technology. As a result, workforce expectations are shifting from simply receiving more training toward learning experiences that are timely, relevant, personalized, and in- tegrated with day-to-day job perfor- mance. Just as Blockbuster struggled to meet changing customer expecta - tions, institutions must respond to how the workforce expects learning and development to occur. The future of acquisition educa- tion and training will not be defined by courses, episodic instruction, or in- stitutionally sequenced progression pathways. It will be defined by contin - uous adaptation, support embedded in the workplace, personalized devel- opment, workflow-integrated learn - ing, and AI-enabled systems capable of evolving alongside the workforce. The strengths of the current model should not be discarded. But neither

can institutions afford to wait until a new model is fully mature before ex - ploring its potential. The organization that shapes the future is the one will- ing to recognize emerging possibili- ties early, experiment thoughtfully, and be open to change. The opportu- nity is not to adjust to the next model of acquisition education after it takes hold; it is to help shape it while it is emerging. CARROLL is an instructional designer sup- porting the Defense Systems Management College (DSMC) of the Warfighting Acquisi- tion University at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. She has over 30 years’ experience supporting a variety of curriculum design and develop- ment efforts for the Department of War, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the CIA. She has a M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction and a B.S. in Education from George Mason University. LAMARTIN is a professor of Acquisition Man- agement, executive coach, and futurist at the DSMC and an adjunct professor at George- town University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Following a full career as a DoW acqui- sition professional, he served as an execu- tive in industry. He has a DPA and an M.S. in Systems Management from the University of Southern California and a B.S. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland.

The authors can be contacted at Donna.Carroll.ctr@waru.edu and Glenn.Lamartin@waru.edu .

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors 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

– WSA 010 Agile Product Owner (Online Workshop) – SWE 0099 Setting Up an Agile Project (Online Course) – SWE 2031 What Agile Means for the Defense Acquisition Workforce (Online Course)

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 17

Stop Digitally Paving Cow Paths

by DAVID KURODA

Michael Hammer’s warning still lands because it names a failure pattern defense acq- uisition professionals know well. Organizations buy modern software, point it at an out- dated workflow, and call the result digital transformation. In his 1990 Harvard Business Re- view article, “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate,” Ham- mer urged leaders to stop paving cow paths. The image endures be- cause it is true. A cow path is a route worn by habit. Paving it does not cre- ate a better road. It only hardens an inefficient one. The modern version is easy to spot. A program office buys an enter - prise business system, then spends years customizing it to preserve old forms, old approvals, old reports, and old local practices. The form becomes a screen. The routing slip becomes workflow. The spreadsheet becomes a custom report. The paper folder becomes a repository. The process is not reengineered. It is simply digi- tized in place. The cost shows up later. Custom- ization drives up implementation expenses, expands testing, compli - cates cybersecurity patches, slows upgrades, increases training burdens, and locks the organization into the very practices the new system was supposed to replace. The root cause usually is not technical. It is resistance to change disguised as a requirement. The objections are familiar: We have always done it this way. We are dif- ferent. Our process is special. Some- times that is true. Often it is not. For defense business systems, business process reengineering can- not be ceremonial. It must come be- fore automation, requirements final - ization, software configuration, and major reorganization. That is not good practice. Federal law requires that defense business processes be reviewed and revised through

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 19

business process reengineering, as appropriate, to align with commer- cial best practices and minimize cus- tomization of commercial business systems. Department of Defense In- struction 5000.75 also gives the func- tional sponsor a central role in lead- ing the business process changes that support system acquisition. The Reorganization Reflex Government organizations reor- ganize often. Some reorganizations are necessary. Missions change, stat- utes change, budgets change, threats change, and leaders inherit structures that no longer fit the work. But reor - ganization becomes a bad habit when it is used as a substitute for under- standing how the work gets done. The pattern is familiar. A leader sees poor performance and redraws the boxes. Offices are renamed. Re - porting chains shift. New directorates appear. Old ones disappear. A new battle rhythm is issued. Yet the same approvals still pile up, the same data still get entered more than once, the same handoffs still stall action, and the same customers still wait. That is administrative motion, not transformation. A new organization chart may clarify authority, but by it- self it rarely improves cycle time, au- ditability, data quality, customer ser-

vice or accountability. If the process crossed five offices before reorgani - zation, it may still cross five offices afterward. The work simply moves through new boxes with the same old delays. Business process reengineering offers a better starting point. In their 1993 book Reengineering the Corpo- ration: A Manifesto for Business Revo- lution , Hammer and James Champy described reengineering as the fun- damental rethinking and radical rede- sign of business processes to achieve

dramatic improvements in cost, qual- ity, service, and speed. The key word is process. Reengineering starts with the flow of work that produces value for a customer or mission user. Reor- ganization should follow that under-

standing, not replace it. A Process Map Is Not an Organization Chart

One common workshop mistake is treating process mapping as another way to document the organization structure. Participants begin with of- fices, branches, and job titles. They describe who owns what. They argue over lanes. Then they call the result a process map. A process map is different. An or - ganization chart shows who reports to whom. A process map shows how a trigger becomes an outcome. It should capture the start event, end result, customer, tasks, decisions, handoffs, data, systems, controls, re - work loops, and delays. A strong map exposes how work crosses bound - aries. A weak one simply redraws the bureaucracy. This distinction matters because many broken processes are hidden in the seams between organizations. No single office sees the whole thing. One office initiates the request, an - other validates funds, another checks

A program office buys an enterprise business system, then spends years customizing it to preserve old forms, old approvals, old reports, and old local practices.

20 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026

compliance, another enters data, an- other approves exceptions, and an - other answers the customer. Each of- fice may perform its part reasonably well while the end-to-end process still fails. Process-mapping methods such as Business Process Model and Notation can help when used with discipline. The notation matters less than the conversation. Teams need enough shared language to distinguish tasks from decisions, internal handoffs from external exchanges, data objects from systems of record, and human work from system work. The map should make implicit decisions ex - plicit. If several arrows leave one ac- tivity box, a hidden decision probably is buried inside the task. That hidden decision is exactly the kind of logic that later becomes expensive system configuration. Paper Process in Digital Clothing The most common automation error is simple. An organization takes a paper process and makes it elec- tronic without changing the logic of the work. In the old process, a per- son filled out a form, collected signa - tures, emailed attachments, waited for review, corrected mistakes, and saved a copy. In the new process, a person fills out a screen, routes it for electronic signatures, uploads attach- ments, waits for review, corrects er- rors, and saves a copy in the system. That is not transformation. It is paper process in digital clothing. The Ford accounts payable exam - ple in Hammer and Champy’s 1993 book still matters because Ford did not merely automate invoice match- ing. It removed the invoice from the process. The old approach matched purchase orders, receiving docu- ments, and invoices. The redesigned process used an online database and receiving confirmation to trigger pay - ment, cutting mismatches and staff - ing needs in the function where Ford applied it. The lesson is not to copy Ford. The lesson is that serious reen-

Missions change, statutes change, budgets change, threats change, and leaders inherit structures that no longer fit the work. But reorganization becomes a bad habit when it is used as a substitute for understanding how the work gets done.

gineering changes the work, not just the tool. Department of War organizations should apply the same skepticism to their own paper-era habits. Is the signature required by law or by custom? Is the review adding con- trol or simply adding queue time? Is the spreadsheet an official re- cord, a workaround, or a symptom of poor data trust? Is the local report needed for a decision, or does it ex - ist because the old system could not answer a question? These are not software questions first. They are Weak business process reengi- neering shows up later as over-cus- tomization. A commercial system comes with standard workflows, data structures, controls, reports, and in- tegration patterns. The organization then asks the vendor or integrator to bend the system around local prac- tices. Some customization is unavoid- able in government. Statutes, appro- priations law, security, auditability, mission risk, and policy constraints matter. But not every preference is a requirement. Not every local varia- tion is mission essential. business questions. The Cost of Weak Reengineering The cost compounds quickly. Cus- tom code must be designed, tested, secured, and maintained. Unique in- terfaces must be monitored. Custom reports must be reconciled. Modified workflows must be retested after up - grades. Security patches are becom- ing more complicated because local changes can affect configured logic. Training gets harder because users are not learning the product; they are

learning a local variant. Future mod- ernization is getting more expensive because the organization has built a custom fence around itself. Poor reengineering also drives re- quirements churn. When leaders have not agreed on the future process, the requirements document keeps mov- ing. Every stakeholder discovers an- other must-have, another exception, another local report, or another ap- proval path. Changes after solicitation can also increase acquisition risk and erode confidence in the procurement process. If the organization cannot agree on the work before it buys the tool, it should not expect the tool to settle the argument afterward. Perfection is another trap. Insisting that a product satisfy every local pref- erence can make an otherwise afford - able solution unaffordable. Leaders should separate must-have require- ments from nice-to-have features and be skeptical when users demand that the new system look exactly like the old form. The more the screen must resemble yesterday’s paperwork, the more likely the organization is paving a cow path. The same caution applies to prod- uct selection and implementation. New or unproven tools deserve care- ful reference checks. Vendor assur- ances are not enough. Acquisition teams should speak with comparable users, confirm that the product per - forms as advertised, and understand how much customization those us- ers require. They should also invest in experienced project management and change management. A business system implementation is not a side assignment for whoever has spare

JULY – AUGUST 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 21

capacity. It is a mission-change effort with technology attached. How Leaders Should Run the Work A practical business process re- engineering session does not need theatrics. It needs a clear purpose, the right participants and enough discipline to challenge assumptions. The facilitator should start by bound- ing the process: What event starts it? What output ends it? Who is the cus- tomer? What mission outcome does it support? What system capability will support the future process? Without those answers, the group will drift into anecdotes. Next, the team should map the cur - rent process as it works, not as policy says it works and not as senior leaders hope it works. Frontline users, super- visors, functional owners, data own- ers, control owners, system experts, and policy representatives all need a voice. The map should capture tasks, decisions, handoffs, queues, data en - try, systems, documents, approvals, rework, and exceptions. It also should identify which steps are required by law, regulation, or policy—and which steps persist out of habit. Then the team should measure enough to size the problem. Cycle time, queue time, transaction vol- ume, rework rate, exception rate, labor hours, and defect rates are of- ten more useful than opinions. When data are incomplete, sampling beats guessing. A process that cannot be measured can still be discussed, but improvement will be hard to prove. Only then should the team design the future process. The sequence matters: Eliminate, simplify, stan- dardize, then automate. Remove steps that create no value and add no required control. Combine steps where possible. Run parallel reviews when sequential reviews add no ben- efit. Standardize data definitions. Re - place email routing with workflow. Replace local spreadsheets with au- thoritative data. Shift routine checks

to system rules when the process is stable and the data are reliable. Finally, leaders should challenge every customization request. What decision requires the field? What law requires the approval? What mis- sion fails without the report? Can the standard product handle the work if the process changes? What evidence shows customization is unavoidable? These questions may be unpopular. They are also the questions that pre- Business process reengineering is uncomfortable because it forces organizations to confront their own habits. It asks whether the work still makes sense, whether the structure supports the work, and whether tech- nology is enabling a better process or preserving a familiar one. vent years of avoidable cost. Change the Work First For defense acquisition leaders, the lesson is direct. Do not reorga- nize before understanding the work. Do not automate before redesigning the process. Do not customize a de- fense business system to protect ev- ery local practice. And do not mistake movement on an organization chart for mission improvement. The cow path will always have de- fenders. They know the route. They built workarounds, which they may even prefer because using work- arounds preserves local control. But a modern business system should not pour asphalt over yesterday’s wan- dering trail. The purpose of business process reengineering is to decide

where the road should go before the department pays to build it. KURODA is a professor of Program Manage- ment at the Warfighting Acquisition Uni- versity. He has led major Army software ini- tiatives, served as Division Chief at the Army Software Engineering Center, and advised on complex electronic warfare programs. He has held executive roles in commercial software development and retired from the U.S. Army as a senior intelligence analyst. He holds degrees in liberal arts and information systems, is certified in advanced program management, and is a graduate of PMT-401, PMT-402, and the Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy. The author can be contacted at david.kuroda@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 Acquisitio n magazine should credit the author and the magazine.

Related Resources

– ETM 1040 Technical Management Fundamentals (Online Course) – ETM 1071 Digital Literacy Fundamentals (Online Course) – ETM 2070V Digital Literacy for Practitioners (Virtual Instructor- Led Course)

22 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 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 62 Page 63 Page 64

Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker