Defense Acquisition magazine Digital Acquisition: Special Issue 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. 5 | Issue 312
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/darj/guidelines-contributors .
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 Introducing This Issue Jeffrey Havlicek and Aleksandra Scalco, Ph.D.
Digital acquisition is essential to modern - izing acquisition processes and delivering vitally needed products and supplies to the warfighter.
10 Digital Acquisition
Leadership Unchained: The Problem and the Core Solution Robert Hannah; Lt. Col. Christopher Balsters, USAF; Jeffrey Havlicek; and Aleksandra Scalco, Ph.D. A fundamental understanding is needed of the acquisition life cycle that aligns da - ta sharing and decision-making. Acquisition Reference Architecture Dr. Anandi Singh A single, unified digital architecture is needed to modernize digital acquisition.
16 The Missing Link:
32 A Test Case: Leveraging Copilot to Assist in Data Ingestion and Analysis (Caveat Emptor) Seth Shepherd
20 Validating IPT Use of a Technical Management Stack for Engineering Work and Data Jeffrey Havlicek
Using artificial intelligence to help col - lect and analyze test data arguably aligns perfectly with current DoW goals. How might that work in practice?
A possible environment enabling Inte - grated Product Team (IPT) technical man - agement in a systems-of-systems, cross- functional context is discussed.
36 Securing AI-Enabled Systems Through Digital, Model-Based
26 A WarU Workshop Bridges Digital Engineering and Acquisition
Systems, and Loss-Based Engineering Dr. Aaron Jacobson AI-enabled capabilities acquired through software-intensive pathways shift assur - ance concerns to data integrity, model drift, supply chain trust, and distributed digital ecosystems.
Lt. Col. Tyrone Theriot, USMC (Ret.) An immersive cross-functional team- based learning approach enhances un - derstanding of program office activities and roles.
42 Leveraging AI to Fight Complexity and Unlock Digital Acquisition Brian Kozola
04 Editor’s Note 31 MDAP Program ALSO IN THIS ISSUE
Digital Acquisition methods offer an effective way to manage complexity, accelerate deliv - ery, and optimize performance.
Manager Changes
48 Digital Acquisition:
A Catalyst for Acquisition Transformation Jorge Esparza, Ph.D., and LaRonda Conley, Ph.D. DoW is trimming fat from the acquisition pro - fession, allowing a focus on speed, significant risk analysis and mitigation, and ultimately a steady state of national security and protec - tion.
COVER IMAGE: U.S. Army Lt. Col. Rhonda Booth, commander of the 173rd Light Support Battalion, 173rd Mobile Brigade Combat Team, observes jumpmasters with paratroopers during an airborne training operation over Italy, June 15, 2026. U.S. Army Photo by 1st Lt. Misael Ramos. This image was compiled and edited using multiple filters and graphic techniques.
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. 5, ISSUE 312
Editor’s NOTE Defense Acquisition magazine is proud to bring to our readers this Digital Acquisition Special Issue developed by a team of Warfighting Acquisition University’s faculty members. We thank the contributors and especially their team leader, Dr. Aleksandra Scalco, for the time, effort, and persistence involved in this project. We hope there is something here that will benefit every acquisition workforce reader. This issue is based on the state of affairs during its preparation. We know that new policies are coming in this critical area, and we will cover those going forward. We know that the importance of digitalization will continue growing in all functional areas. Figuring out its present promise and limits are one task; the other is learning how to adopt it constructively and adapt our work to its future possibilities. The ball is definitely in our court.
Managing Editor Benjamin Tyree Art Director Michael Bubar-Krukowski
Editorial Assistant Susan Muth Assistant Editor Dr. Olena McLaughlin Associate Editor Dr. Larrie Ferreiro Circulation Manager Michelle McDonald
Lead Graphic Design Nicole Brate Graphic Design Paul Kim Steffon Edmonds Production Manager Frances Battle
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 posi - tion of Warfighting Acquisition University, the Depart - ment of War (DoW), 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 DoW website (www.war.gov/Multimedia/Photos/). The appearance of the U.S. Department of War visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorse - ment. Some images may be digitally enhanced.
—Benjamin Tyree, Managing Editor
Scan to Read our Digital Publication
SUBSCRIBE FREE PUBLICATIONS Sign up on our website to have the Defense Acquisition magazine and Defense Acquisition Research Journal delivered straight to your inbox.
www.WarU.edu/publications
INTRODUCING THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON DIGITAL ACQUISITION by JEFFREY HAVLICEK and ALEKSANDRA SCALCO, PH.D. SPECIAL ISSUE TEAM LEADS
6 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
A WarU Workshop Bridges Digital Engineering and Acquisition
Digital acquisition is essential to modernizing acquisi- tion processes and delivering the lethality and survivability of warfighting products and services. Meeting warfighting needs requires disciplined acquisi - tion leadership, integrated modern digital architectures, and a modernized acquisition workforce. This special edition is organized in a progression. It begins by establishing why digital acquisition is now unavoidable, then turns to who must lead it and how leadership intent must be structured through architecture and governance. From there, the articles move into how digital acquisition is executed in practice, how the workforce is trained to oper- ate in digital environments, how emerging tools such as AI can augment decision-making, and how AI-enabled systems must be secured and assured. A digital logic thread is deliv- ered while offering readers multiple entry points. Digital Acquisition Leadership: The Problem, the Stakes, and the Core Solution Robert Hannah, Lt. Col. Christopher Balsters, USAF, Jeffrey Havlicek, and Aleksandra Scalco, Ph.D., examine a persis - tent leadership challenge: acquisition systems continue to optimize near-term performance while deferring life-cycle affordability and sustainment consequences. By refram - ing digital acquisition as a leadership discipline rather than a tooling upgrade, the authors show how digital models and portfolio accountability enable executives to govern trade-offs early rather than absorb them later. The authors shift the conversation from transformation aspiration to leadership responsibility. The Acquisition Reference Architecture (ARA) Dr. Anandi Singh addresses a structural tension at the heart of digital acquisition: Programs are expected to move faster and integrate more closely yet lack a common architectural foundation that enables reuse and interoperability. By pro - posing the ARA as a layered, enterprise-level framework, the author offers a concrete mechanism for scaling digital engineering across programs and services and sees archi - tecture as the connective tissue between leadership intent and executable digital practice. Validating IPT Use of a Digital Acquisition Technical Management Stack Jeffrey Havlicek engages a practical execution gap: Policy calls for integrated, mode-based acquisition, but program offices struggle to unify engineering, cost, schedule, risk, and test data in daily decision-making. Drawing on vali - dated outcomes from workshops at the Warfighting Acqui - sition University (WarU), the author offers an experience- based view of how a shared technical stack enabled by Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) functions as an authoritative source of truth for integrated product teams (IPTs). Architectural concepts are grounded by the author in observable, repeatable program behavior.
Lt. Col. Tyrone Theriot, USMC (Ret.) explores a familiar workforce challenge: Digital acquisition concepts are widely discussed yet rarely practiced under realistic program pres - sures. Through a field-tested account of a WarU workshop, WSE 006, the author provides a practitioner’s view of how cross-functional teams apply digital models to real trade- offs such as cost, schedule, performance, and risk. This ar - ticle demonstrates how digital acquisition competence is built, not declared. A Test Case: Leveraging Copilot to Assist in Data Ingestion and Analysis (Caveat Emptor) Seth Shepherd probes a growing tension in AI-enabled ac - quisition: Automation promises efficiency, yet confidently generated outputs can quietly undermine data integrity. Us - ing a simple but revealing test analysis example, the author reframes AI as a junior analyst that demands disciplined hu - man oversight rather than blind trust. The article tempers enthusiasm for AI by reinforcing the need for validation, governance, and judgment. Securing AI-enabled Systems Through Dr. Aaron Jacobson addresses a critical assurance prob - lem: Traditional verification and compliance methods fail to capture the dynamic risks introduced by AI-enabled, software-intensive systems. By integrating MBSE with System-Theoretic Process Analysis for Security and loss- based engineering, the author offers a system-level lens for identifying timing, control, and feedback vulnerabilities that evade component-level testing. As the issue’s security capstone, this piece extends digital acquisition from speed and integration to resilience and mission assurance. Leveraging AI to Fight Complexity and Unlock Digital Acquisition Brian Kozola confronts a foundational barrier to scaling digital engineering across the acquisition enterprise: The workforce is asked to manage growing system-of-systems complexity through modeling approaches that remain too specialized and technically demanding for broad adoption. By pairing SysML v2’s text-based syntax and standardized Application Program Interface with AI-enabled natural-lan - guage interaction, the author presents a compelling path toward making system models much more widely acces - sible, interoperable, and useful. Digital, Model-Based Systems, and Loss-Based Engineering
SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 7
Digital Acquisition: A Catalyst for Acquisition Transformation
Jorge Esparza, Ph.D., and LaRonda Conley, Ph.D., confront the widening gap between legacy acquisition processes and the pace, complexity, and competitive demands of mod - ern warfare. By framing digital acquisition as an enterprise catalyst grounded in digital engineering, leadership align - ment, and architecture, the authors offer a unifying lens for understanding why policy intent alone is insufficient. In concluding the issue, this article establishes the strategic rationale of this special issue of the magazine. HAVLICEK is a professor of Engineering and Technical Management at the Warfighting Acquisition University and an early author of the digi- tal acquisition policy in the U.S. Air Force Office of the Chief Engineer. His background includes a combined 32-year career as a U.S. Air Force officer and federal civilian of engineering and operations research. He holds a B.S.E. in Industrial and Operations Engineering from the Univer- sity of Michigan in Ann Arbor, an M.S. degree in Acquisition Logistics from the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), and a graduate certificate in Operations Research (Human System Integration) from the Naval Post- graduate School. He also earned doctoral candidacy at AFIT in Opera- tions Research. SCALCO is a professor of Engineering at the Warfighting Acquisition University. Her career spans more than 25 years in systems engineer- ing, cybersecurity, and DoW acquisition, including as an Information Security Systems Designer (ISSD) at the National Security Agency. She received the Department of the Navy Civilian Service Commendation Medal in 2025 for her contributions to national security as a designated Navy Cyber Subject Matter Expert for Mission Critical Control Systems. She holds a Ph.D. in Systems Engineering from Colorado State Univer- sity, an M.Eng. from Iowa State University, an MBA from the University of Phoenix, and a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri. The authors can be contacted at Jeffrey.Havlicek@waru.edu and Aleksandra.Scalco@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.
8 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
Tailor Your Acquisition Strategy with the AAF
The Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF) is a powerful addition to your acquisition toolbox.
Based on six acquisition pathways, it equips Department of War professionals with customized processes that can help deliver better solutions faster. Our university is here to help you master the AAF so you can accomplish the mission at speed and scale.
Resources and Tools: ▪ Guided Learning ▪ Quick Reference Card ▪ Document Identification Tool ▪ AAF Pathway Selection Workshop
For a details visit: aaf.dau.edu For details visit: aaf.dau.edu
DIGITAL ACQUISITION LEADERSHIP UNCHAINED: The Problem and the Core Solution by ROBERT HANNAH, LT. COL. CHRISTOPHER BALSTERS, USAF, JEFFREY HAVLICEK, and ALEKSANDRA SCALCO, PH.D.
To accelerate capability delivery, executive leaders must address a fundamental gap: a comprehen- sive understanding of the acquisition life cycle. The primary obstacle is the difficulty in aligning data sharing and decision-making, particularly when faced with incomplete information.
Under pressure, organizations de - fault to siloed operations, with engi - neers prioritizing performance and logistics teams addressing down - stream issues. This leads to two criti - cal transition failures: from Science and Technology (S&T) to acquisition, and from production to sustainment. Bridging these gaps requires leader -
ship to drive connected information sharing and unified decisions, even in conditions of uncertainty. Digital Acquisition is an important tool for leaders to understand and utilize to meet Acquisition Transfor - mation Strategy objectives to balance speed and rigor. Information can be prioritized, risks defined, informa -
tion shared across all functional or - ganizations, and short- and long-term affordability can be assessed to influ - ence the design early in the process. Capability to meet National Defense Strategy objectives needs not only development with speed at scale but also must be affordable and available to our warfighters.
erational trade-offs, even amidst imperfect data. While digital models can unify teams, another persistent challenge surfaces: the tendency to prioritize performance over afford - ability throughout the life cycle. A major gap is our failure to evalu - ate long-term affordability as sys - tems mature, whether working with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or custom modifications. We default to technical performance and immedi - ate data while neglecting Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) metrics. As a result, leadership lacks the visibility needed to determine if a system remains affordable over its life cycle. Without integrated cost mod - els, we can’t make proactive, ev - idence-based decisions or ac - knowledge known reliability risks. Leaders should integrate cost models by
Key takeaway. These steps break down silos and enable faster, more re - silient delivery of capabilities. Digital Models = Single Source of Truth Resolving this challenge requires executive ownership of systems from inception through sustainment. Ex - amples, such as Air Force digital modeling efforts, demonstrate how shared digital baselines enable in - tegrated decisions and clarify op -
Executives can implement the fol - lowing actions to close this gap: • Implement regular portfolio-level data reviews, even when infor - mation is imperfect, to surface is - sues and support timely, unified decisions. • Create centralized digital work - spaces where stakeholders can share real-time updates and in - sights, improving visibility across all functional areas.
SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 11
Figure 1. The Core Crisis: Performance Intoxication and Life-Cycle Blindness [ SILOED UPSTREAM ][ BURDENED DOWNSTREAM ] RDT&E & Procurement BudgetsOperations & Support (O&M) Tail ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐┌──────────────────────────────── ───┐ │SYSTEMS ENGINEERING││LOGISTICS│ │• Focus: Power, Thermal, Speed│──»│• Absorbs Downstream Gaps│ │• Mindset: "Make it work first"││• Burdened by High Parts/Labor│ └───────────────────────────────────────┘└──────────────────────────────── ───┘ ││ ▼▼ VALLEY OF DEATH 1: S&T to PM VALLEY OF DEATH 2: PM to Sustainment
Because traditional roles manage only select appropriations, PMs have focused on short-term milestones, leaving operations and maintenance as external concerns. This fragmen - tation, especially under incomplete data, undermines vertical and hori - zontal alignment. Executive spon - sorship is required to synchronize all life-cycle stages. The Financial Reality Failing to integrate recurring life- cycle cost models into early design cycles leaves leadership completely blind to the long-term affordabil - ity of both COTS items and custom modifications. The consequences of ignoring early life-cycle metrics are gov - erned by unyielding mathematics: Intended equation. When organizations rush unsup - portable platforms into production, fixed sustainment tails squander fu - ture modernization opportunities. Fewer systems are purchased be - cause the existing fleet breaks down, draining capital. Without cost models, leaders lack the data to reduce costs or accept known risks. The Solution Transitioning to a Portfolio Acqui - sition Executive (PAE) model estab - lishes end-to-end accountability for entire capability ecosystems, rather than isolated programs. The PAE de - livers unified operational outcomes, dynamically managing all financial streams. Investing in fleet reliability can yield savings in operations and maintenance (O&M), thereby fueling next-generation design.
Source. Author
establishing cross-functional groups focused on RAM and life cycle cost - ing, mandating early cost models before key milestones, and periodi - cally updating these models with real data. These steps empower informed trade-offs and ensure that affordabil - ity is central to decision-making. The following are examples of how errors arise because of data shortages. • Affordability. Long-term life-cy - cle costs are routinely overlooked during system maturation and modification phases. • Performance bias. Teams default to tracking immediate technical performance while neglecting critical RAM data. • Missing cost models. Without ac - curate data, we cannot forecast the downstream financial impact of design and procurement choices. Key takeaway. Data-driven lead - ership is essential to managing costs and making informed reliability trade-offs. The Functional Silo Loop Accelerating capability delivery requires closing a key gap: execu - tive-level understanding of the ac - quisition life cycle. When schedules compress and operational demands rise, organizations revert to silos over coordinated action (Figure 1). Lead - ers must ensure collaboration to drive accountability and performance across the value chain in view of the following issues: • Technical bias. Subsystem do - main engineers isolate their fo - cus on immediate performance
parameters (e.g., speed, power, weight, thermal properties). They assume supportability can wait until the system is fully functional. • Downstream dump. Because the upfront design window closes prematurely, RAM requirements are understudied and poorly esti - mated from the initial architecture. • Logistics burden. Logistics and product support teams are left to handle the consequences during operations, forced to use excess parts and manual labor to keep an unreliable design operational (Figure 2). Dual “Valleys of Death” The dual “valleys of death” fracture organizational accountability across two particular operational handoffs: • S&T to acquisition. High-perform - ing tech concepts transfer to pro - gram managers (PMs) without any structural framework for long-term manufacturing or supportability. • Production to sustainment. Sys - tems clear Initial Operational Test and Evaluation only for life-cycle managers to discover the platform is physically unsupportable and financially unsustainable.
Figure 2. Incomplete RAM Data Effects Lifecyle Costs Downstream ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │THE LIFECYCLE COST FACTOR│ ││ │[██████████─────────── 70% to 90% of Out - Year Lifecycle Costs ───────────]│ │▲│ │└── Driven directly by early RAM data (Reliability & Maintainability, Coonce & Tate, 2018, pp. 1 - 15) │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Source. Author
12 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
A major gap is our failure to evaluate long-term affordability as systems mature, whether working with commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) or custom modifications. We default to technical performance and immediate data while neglecting Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) metrics.
Executives should build integrated data and financial reporting systems that can track funds and performance across all five appropriations. They also need to stand up cross-func - tional teams that include engineer - ing, logistics, finance, and product support functions to enable holistic life-cycle management. It is further advisable to imple - ment digital models and portfolio- level analytics to unify visibility of both legacy fleet sustainment and new system development efforts. Fi - nally, executives should develop le - gal and process pathways for repro - gramming budget authority as O&M savings emerge, ensuring resources can move fluidly within the portfolio. Key takeaway. The steps listed above enable organizations to shift from siloed programs to an agile, data-driven portfolio approach. Model as a Single Source of Truth Digital engineering reduces func - tional silos by establishing a shared source of truth across program man - agers, systems engineers, logisti - cians, and operators throughout the life cycle. This shared digital baseline supports concurrent engineering, strengthens doctrinal alignment, and enables operational data to refine de - sign assumptions over time. • Concurrent engineering. Logis - ticians are brought into the vir - tual design room on day one to map the mission thread down to individual replacement compo - nents before the physical layout is frozen. • Doctrinal alignment. This enforces compliance with defense acqui -
sition doctrine (e.g., DoD Instruc - tion 5000.88), making systems engineers explicitly accountable for designing reliability and main - tainability directly into the plat - form alongside baseline form, fit, and function. • Closed-loop feedback. As dem - onstrated by modern legacy air - craft teardowns, physical assets can be translated into living digi - tal models. Real-world opera - tional data from the field is fed back into predictive systems, continually tightening engineer - ing estimates and closing the gap between digital digits and physi - cal hardware. (Intelligent defense industry-based predictive main -
tenance framework: Digital Twin perspective, 2026)
Pareto Framework for Executive Action
Leading effectively in a digital ac - quisition environment requires fil - tering out data noise to enable rapid, confident leadership decisions. In - stead of overwhelming executives with thousands of data streams, or - ganizations must apply the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule) to isolate the top 20 percent of critical metrics— led by RAM and material cost data— that mathematically dictate program return on investment. By coupling Pareto metrics with predictive cost models and AI-enabled
SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 13
systems engineering, software-intensive programs, and digital transformation. He currently serves a WarU instructor of Digital Engineering Management, Agile Software Development, and Design Consideration. Balsters has led initiatives advancing Model- Based Systems Engineering education and training across DoW organizations. HAVLICEK is a professor of Engineering and Technical Management at the WarU and an early author of the digital acquisition policy in the U.S. Air Force Office of the Chief Engi- neer. His background includes a combined 32-year career as a U.S. Air Force officer and federal civilian of engineering and operations research. He holds a B.S.E. in Industrial and Operations Engineering from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, an M.S. degree in Acquisition Logistics from the Air Force Insti- tute of Technology (AFIT), and a graduate certificate in Operations Research (Human System Integration) from the Naval Postgrad- uate School. He also earned doctoral candi- dacy at AFIT in operations research. SCALCO is a professor of Engineering at the WarU. Her career spans more than 25 years in systems engineering, cybersecurity, and DoW acquisition, including as an Information Security Systems Designer at the National Security Agency. She received the Depart- ment of the Navy Civilian Service Commen- dation Medal in 2025 for her contributions to national security as a designated Navy Cyber Subject Matter Expert for Mission Critical Control Systems. She holds a Ph.D. in Systems Engineering from Colorado State University, an M.Eng. from Iowa State Univer- sity, an MBA from the University of Phoenix, and a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri. The authors can be contacted at Robert.Hannah@waru.edu ;
When schedules compress and operational demands rise, organizations revert to silos over coordinated action. Leaders must ensure collaboration to drive accountability and performance across the value chain.
simulations (e.g., Monte Carlo), port - folio leaders gain a distinct frame - work for immediate action: • Immediate decisiveness. Pro - ceed confidently if the digital model confirms the design tracks safely within the designated affordability box. • Delegated risk mitigation. If risk thresholds are breached, push specific, task-oriented mitiga - tion activities back to the working level to buy down risk and build statistical confidence. • Cross-functional trade-offs. If a system violates reliability base - lines, step in and execute hard de - sign trades—such as denying re - quests for increased system weight or power—to aggressively protect life-cycle supportability. Technology, processes, and digital tools are merely enablers. Realizing this transformation requires an ab - solute cultural mandate across every tier of the workforce: Every stake - holder, from the senior executive to the entry-level engineering intern, must operate under a single, non- negotiable mission of delivering af- fordable readiness to the warfighter. To drive cultural alignment, leaders should implement targeted trans - formation levers such as dedicated leadership training programs focused on collaborative behaviors and life- cycle thinking, as well as incentive structures that recognize and reward cross-functional teamwork and pro - active sustainment decisions. In addition, ongoing communica - tion campaigns should reinforce the mission and highlight success sto - ries of cross-functional integration, ensuring the message of affordable
readiness is internalized throughout the enterprise. Conclusion Digital acquisition leadership be - gins with a simple but demanding shift: Leaders must govern systems across the full life cycle, not just through acquisition milestones. When digital models, affordability data, and sustainment realities are integrated early, organizations can make faster, better decisions that produce capabil - ity which is both effective in the near term and supportable over time. HANNAH is a professor of Life Cycle Logis- tics at the Warfighting Acquisition University, (WarU) South Region at Redstone Arsenal, Ala. He has 38 years of experience in acqui- sition and sustainment as a former program integrator for the Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar Intercept Program at KBR, Inc.; a dep- uty program manager for multi-intelligence vehicles at the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command; and a product manager for mounted combat systems for the U.S. Army Future Combat Systems. He holds an M.S. in Project Management from the Naval Postgraduate School. BALSTERS, an Air Force lieutenant colonel, is a senior acquisition professional and educator with over 21 years of experience in defense
Christopher.Balsters@waru.edu ; Jeffrey.Halicek@waru.edu ; and Aleksandra.Scalco@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.
14 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
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
The Missing Link: ACQUISITION REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE by DR. ANANDI SINGH
The U.S. Department of War (DoW) needs a single, unified digital architecture to modernize digi- tal acquisition. The Acquisition Reference Architecture (ARA) addresses this need by offering a microservices-based system built on standardized, reusable, and interoperable parts for busi- ness, weapons, and C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance).
The ARA, along with the Govern - ment Reference Architecture (GRA) and Contractor Reference Architec - ture (CRA), forms a layered frame - work that gives both government and industry a shared foundation. This article explores the ARA’s design, strategic benefits, policy alignment, and how it can be put into practice (Figure 1).
Modern defense acquisition de - mands swift adaptation to chang - ing threats, yet many DoW initiatives rely on fragmented, program-spe - cific architectures. The absence of a top-down standard forces repeated reinvention, increases costs, and slows delivery. The ARA is proposed as the miss - ing link: a comprehensive, microser -
vices-based reference architecture that serves as the authoritative foun - dation for digital engineering across the DoW acquisition life cycle. The ARA decomposes complex ac - quisition capabilities into small, inde - pendent, loosely coupled microser - vices aligned with core domains (i.e., weapons, C5ISR, and business enterprise systems). Each microser -
16 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
Figure 1. Layered Framework: ARA → GRA → CRA
vice performs a single, well-defined function, enabling independent de - velopment, deployment, scaling, and technology selection. This approach delivers greater agility, resilience, and development efficiency, forming a common archi - tectural foundation. Programs can “shop” at the ARA level to select fea - tures and functions, upgrade, deploy, and scale capabilities without affect - ing the wider system. Decentralized governance empowers the acquisi - tion workforce to choose the most suitable technology stack—including software, versions, and applications— for each specific program.
ACQUISITION REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (ARA) Enterprise-wide common denominators Unclassified reusable assets Microservices, standards, reusable libraries
GOVERNMENT REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (GRA) Service-specific instantiations (Army, Navy, Air Force) Inherit from ARA Classified/Unclassified components
CONTRACTOR REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (CRA) Industry implementation layer Conforms to GRAs (and ARA)
Source. Author
SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 17
DoW, considerably reducing du- plication. Core Design Components • Regulations, Standards, and Guid - ance: a tool-agnostic core with ex - tensions for widely used modeling environments. Because tools and tool versions change over time, the architecture must also preserve compatibility with the software versions and languages needed to support future modular design and sustainment. • Reusable Libraries and Common Components: Shared building blocks such as database connec - tors, logging services, user inter - face elements, validation routines, and other utility functions. • Reliability Support: uses concur - rent design patterns, message passing, and containerization to reduce bugs, isolate failures, and increase compatibility. • Modular Microservices and Con - tainers: provide the foundation for scalability, maintainability, and integration across organizations. Strategic Value of the ARA Strategically, the ARA strength - ens conformity across acquisition programs by establishing a common architectural foundation and improv - ing interoperability among systems, services, and mission partners. It ad - ditionally aligns acquisition efforts with departmentwide objectives, ac - celerates timelines by reusing proven components and patterns, promotes greater competition in sustainment and replacement-part solutions, and provides a single source of truth for common unclassified models and components. Operationally, the ARA enables flexible, cost-efficient scaling across acquisition programs and provides a centralized repository of reusable model components. It also encour - ages faster development by allowing smaller, focused teams to work more effectively, improving fault tolerance while decreasing long-term costs.
The ARA can serve as the “rules of the road” for acquiring systems in the digital age. This structured yet flexible approach will substantially increase acquisition speed and quality.
In practical terms, the ARA func - tions as a “digital marketplace” for acquisition—akin to a Home Depot or Lowe’s for engineering models and components. It offers the following: • Modular microservices and con- tainers • Embedded regulations, standards, and guidance • Reusable libraries and common components • Built-in support for reliability and long-term sustainment Engineering teams across the DoW and Defense Contractors can brow- se, select, and integrate proven build - ing blocks before program initiation This allows faster operating delivery while minimizing risk and duplication Why a Common ARA Matters The ARA will set the foundation for dramatically increasing acquisition speed . Existing Government Refer - ence Architectures (GRAs) are com - monly tailored to individual services or programs. While that customiza - tion can meet local needs, it also reduces reuse, limits interoperabil - ity, and increases duplication across the Department. The ARA builds on the strengths of those efforts while establishing a common enterprise- level foundation that improves con - sistency, enables broader integration, and clarifies the ARA’s central role. Customized GRAs support partic - ular organizational needs but often create silos. A common ARA increases model reuse. This shared foundation strengthens interoperability while still allowing service-level implemen - tation through GRAs.
The ARA establishes common rules and standards for digital acquisition, enabling interoperability across DoW branches and with contractors. It also provides a central repository for digi - tal engineering artifacts, models, and data. It supports lasting sustainment by testing and qualifying replacement parts. The ARA resides at the highest level of the DoW’s digital ecosystem, anchored on the future Digital Back - bone. From strategy through design, development, production, and sus - tainment, it provides overarching guidance across the full acquisition life cycle while preserving necessary flexibility for individual branches and programs. The architecture uses a clear three-layer structure: 1. Top Layer —ARA Enterprise-wide common denominators and un - classified reusable assets. 2. Middle Layer —GRAs Service- specific instantiations that corre - spond with and inherit from the ARA. Classified and unclassified components reside here. (De - pending on the product portfolio, mission, or leadership, this layer can be refined further). ؘ Department of the Army ؘ Department of the Navy ؘ Department of the Air Force 3. Bottom Layer —CRA. Industry im - plementation layer where con - tractors develop solutions that conform to relevant GRAs (and thus the ARA). This layered model approach cre - ates a strong shared repository of re- usable assets accessible across the
18 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
Policy and Standards Alignment
Note: Subsequent research should examine the Digital Backbone required to sustain the ARA, GRA, and CRA within the wider Digital Engineering Ecosys- tem. This backbone will support the in- terconnected software, sub-ecosystems that enable model communication and future acquisition sustainment. SINGH is a practicing systems engineer and a professor of Systems Engineering at the Warfighting Acquisition University. Her ex- pertise spans digital engineering, compliance architecture, and the application of big data and machine learning to streamline large- scale engineering efforts. She holds a doc- torate in Applied Computing from Pace Uni- versity, an MBA, and degrees in information systems. The author can be contacted at Anandi.Signh@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.
sistency, interoperability, and reuse across acquisition for both govern - ment and industry. The ARA can serve as the “rules of the road” for acquiring systems in the digital age. This structured yet flexible approach will substantially increase acquisition speed and quality, posi - tioning the Department to meet fu - ture mission demands with greater agility and capability. The ARA repre - sents not simply a technical solution, but a catalytic enabler for future digi - tal engineering across the defense en - terprise. To resolve these challenges, the Department, Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary for Ac - quisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineer - ing, and the Joint Staff should jointly develop the ARA framework.
The ARA directly supports DoD In - struction 5000.88, Engineering of De- fense Systems (2020), which requires integrated systems engineering, mis - sion engineering, and technical risk management. By embedding regula - tions, standards such as the Modular Open Systems Approach, Sensor Open Systems Architecture, IEEE, and Zero Trust, along with best practices, into the architecture, the ARA reduces com- pliance uncertainty for both govern - ment and industry users. Conclusion The ARA provides the essential missing link for effective digital ac - quisition. By creating a clear, stan - dardized, layered framework—ARA → GRA → CRA—the DoW can drive con -
Operationally, the ARA enables flexible, cost-efficient scaling across acquisition programs and provides a centralized repository of reusable model components. It also encourages faster development by allowing smaller, focused teams to work more effectively, improving fault tolerance while decreasing long-term costs.
SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 19
Validating IPT Use of A TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT STACK FOR ENGINEERING WORK AND DATA by JEFFREY HAVLICEK
20 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026
The Department of War (DoW) transition to a digital acquisition organization is articulated through policy, standards, guide- lines, and strategic plans. A central question emerges: What environment enables effective execution of Integrated Product Team (IPT) technical management in a systems-of-systems, cross-functional context?
An IPT technical management stack that integrates a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) tool with a shared cloud platform to manage engineering work and data across teams may provide a solution. Let us examine the results from multiple offerings of two Warfighting Acquisition University (WarU) work - shops that demonstrate the possibil - ity of routinely implementing digital acquisition methods across various military department program offices for mission engineering and product life-cycle management. These work - shops illustrate how cross-functional engineering teams can utilize MBSE tools such as Cameo and Teamwork Cloud as digital engineering toolsets to collaboratively build, manage, and govern system models. Current acquisition guidance man - dates document-centric technical re - views in accordance with Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.88. However, the Office of the Secretary of War is revising this policy and is expected to include changes that reflect new priorities from digital transformation initiatives. The 2026 Digital Standards Strategy (DSS) ad - vocates for an integrated, digital, model-based approach to enhance the speed and quality of design de - cisions. The DoW System-of-Systems Engineering Guidebook further en - courages capability delivery across interacting systems rather than iso - lated platforms. While orchestration is often as - sociated with future battlefield sce - narios, there is a pressing need for a technical management program development environment that uni - fies requirements, design, analysis, and decision artifacts within a single
framework in DoW program offices and portfolio area offices. New Proof of Concept The WarU workshops, WSE 032 Digital Acquisition Modeling and WSE 006 Digital Acquisition Management, demonstrate that employing a model - ing tool for MBSE—where system re - quirements, architecture, and behav - ior are captured in models integrated with a shared platform—fulfills the unified framework sought in recent DoW policy. In 60 hours of combined instruc - tion, participants complete a full acquisition cycle, from early mis - sion engineering and integration to sustainment planning and source selection testing. The educational assignments produced by the ac - quisition workforce indicate both an increase in participants’ proficiency with digital acquisition practices and the effectiveness of the infrastruc - ture for sharing and interacting with multiple cross-functional data ele - ments within a single IPT knowledge management platform. In WSE 032, each participant acts as a modeler, documenting mission and system design decisions within an architecture typically developed by an organizing, training, and equip - ping command or program office. In WSE 006, participants are orga - nized into IPTs, each assuming a func - tional role and advancing designs into viable manufacturing prototypes. Both workshops use Cameo as the modeling tool and Teamwork Cloud as the main platform for model shar - ing and collaboration, allowing par - ticipants to review and edit models during the process, according to Das - sault Systèmes. Functional motors,
SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 2026 | DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE 21
Elements of Evidence Between validating a known mis - sion gap and commencing design of a new materiel solution, equipping commands often build mission mod - els using mission engineering. WSE 032 begins with mission threads ex - pressed through use cases, activ - ity flows, and state-based execut - able simulations. Students define operational scenarios, decompose them into functions, and represent system behavior through state ma - chines. These models lay a founda - tion for mission need specificity that can be decomposed into functions, which are further decomposed into components and system behavior. Figure 1 shows an actor activity se - quence model built by students dur - ing WSE 032. State machine modeling cap - tures the subsystem’s response and information-exchange logic and tim - ing under different environmental conditions. The calibration exposes
infrared sensors, and remote-control systems are used in the workshop. The focus is on concept explora - tion, evaluation of alternative de - signs, rapid prototyping and testing, and source selection considerations. Participants are required to track planned and executed cost, sched - ule, and performance updates within a single, cloud-accessible database. The combined instructional hours provide a robust experiential learning opportunity and demonstrate that all activities, from capability mission modeling to system sustainment, can be managed within the Cameo/ Temporary Works Coordinator (TWC) framework. While this framework is not the only IT software stack avail - able for integrated design environ - ments, it is a satisfactory option. Furthermore, creative integration suggests that specialized modeling need not be limited to modern appli - cation program interfaces.
interaction points that are insightful for early risk identification and miti - gation planning as well as test plan - ning, as demonstrated in Figure 2. Requirement-to-function mapping is well supported. Requirements link to functions, functions link to archi - tecture, and architecture links to test validation planning as shown in Fig - ure 3. The result is a mission-driven architecture tied to operational use rather than vendor-locked design. The second workshop, WSE 006, extends this product development life-cycle methods pathway beyond the basis subsystem expression into later-stage engineering and technical management activities. The common framework easily stores schedule, risk, cost, and performance test data in a single, cloud-distributed, authori - tative source of truth accessible to all cleared functional representatives on the IPT. It is reasonable to consider sched - uling sophistication that may require a very advanced integrated master schedule. However, wavetop mile - stones and dependencies can be built into TWC as a Gantt Chart within the model and tied to system ele - ments, production milestones, and test events (Figure 4). Risk elements and risk levels are stored as struc - tured data linked to the associated system components. According to the DoW’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget justification, unit materiel costs and related produc - tion data can be clearly documented and accessed within digital acquisi - tion models. The use of distributed and authoritative structures in these models aims to bring together infor - mation previously managed sepa - rately. In a classical policy-driven, document-based environment, cost, schedule, and risk reside in separate digital objects—often across different servers and access points. Here, they exist as views of one model. A change in design or material costs cascades to updates in schedule dependen - cies, cost estimates, and risk expo - sure without manual change manage -
Figure 1. Mission Engineering Use Case—Actor Activity Sequence Model from WSE 032
<allocate> Starship Captain
<allocate> Starship Weapons Operator
<allocate> Photon Torpedo
coordinates : Enemy Position
Upload Tracking Information
Ship Detected
Track Enemy Position
fire torpedo
M 2
M 1
Track Enemy Position
Monitor Behavior
Load Torpedo
[lost track]
[track successful]
[else]
DP 1
Update Enemy Position
DP 2 [destroyed in flight]
[acting aggressively]
coordinates : Enemy Position
[else]
Self Destruct
Destroyed
Hit Target
fire torpedo
intruder detected
torpedo detonated
M 3
DP 3
torpedo detonated
Source. Author
22 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | SEPTEMBER –OCTOBER 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 56Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker