CIMSEC’s San Diego Jan Meet-Up

1535581_10100595204103015_1555322923_nSan Diego CIMSECians rejoice! Our San Diego Chapter will be having its first informal meet-up (no-host happy hour). No formal agenda, just bring yourself and a desire to chat with maritime folk on the issues that concern you. Eric Hahn is organizing the outing and can be reached at sandiego@cimsec.org for more details.

Where: The Fish Market, 750 North Harbor Drive (by the USS Midway: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zIJGW4d6Azao.kX5JVKNV3uy4)

When: Wed, Jan 22nd 6:30pm-9:00pm

RSVP: sandiego@cimsec.org. All are welcome.

DEF[x] Annapolis, March 1st

logoMany of my friends were also in Chicago that October weekend for the city marathon, but I arrived into O’Hare for quite a different reason. I was there for the inaugural conference of the new national organization, the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum. Knowing one of the founders and having followed the social media buzz, I was ready for an awesome experience. What followed over the three day weekend at the University of Chicago Booth Business School, far exceeded all expectations.

The Defense Entrepreneurs Forum focuses on fostering innovation within the defense sector by bringing together current or recent members of the armed services with their counterparts in the private sector. Through ad hoc networking and cross-pollination, DEF facilitates Silicon Valley-type innovation and connects people to push new solutions forward. What makes DEF further unique among defense conferences, besides the civilian business dress code that freed us from rank-defined relationships, was its focus on the junior and emerging leaders. It gave them the opportunity to present their ideas in front of peers and professionals, to receive real-time feedback, and to grow the support network for their ideas.

Flying back from Chicago, DEF had two growth initiatives for the next twelve months: to virtualize and regionalize. The virtualization process took the form of active online discussion groups through the DEF Whiteboard, Reddit, and LinkedIn networks. And in terms of regionalization, well, March 1st is approaching quickly.

DEF[x] Annapolis on March 1st is the first regional chapter of the national organization. In a few short months, the chapter will host its first regional conference at St. John’s College in Maryland’s capital. A one-day event, it will be patterned after the hugely successful Chicago event with a series of dynamic speakers, interactive panelist discussions, breakout groups, and a post-conference social at one of Annapolis’ many fine downtown establishments. The conference will bring together professionals from the Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland areas with select undergraduate students from the service academies, Georgetown, and other universities. As the new year begins, #DEF2013 will give way to #DEF2014 and we truly hope that if you’re in the region, you’ll consider joining us. If unable, follow DEF[x] Annapolis on Facebook and Twitter to keep updated and enjoy live streaming of the event.

The Current Acquisition Regime is Sinking America’s Navy

By now it is no secret that the U.S. Navy is the service in the best shape for 2014. However, a decade of combat operations and two decades of underinvestment have left the Navy too small and inadequately equipped to meet all of the growing demands placed upon America’s men and women in uniform. The military’s equipment is old, unreliable, increasingly obsolete, and insufficient in number.

Last year I coauthored a paper on Representative Mac Thornberry’s defense acquisition reform initiative. The reforms would help to free up resources for badly needed weapons modernization and put the Department of Defense on a sustainable fiscal path. The reforms would also help keep new ships under construction and existing ships maintained.

To be fair, fixing problems with defense acquisition would not remedy all that ails the Navy and the broader defense program. Strengthening the program will require an array of different initiatives, of which the most important and most immediate is breaking the impasse over the federal budget in a way that preserves adequate overall defense funding and replaces the current structure of sequestration. Nevertheless, defense acquisition reform is a necessary initiative within this array.

To ensure that effective reform is implemented, Congress should:

  • Ensure accountability for major acquisition. Congress should reverse its inclination to centralize acquisition authority and micromanage the acquisitions process. Instead, it should authorize the services to regain responsibility for acquisition programs, allowing flexibility and decentralization in management.
  • Implement performance-based logistics. Despite the success of previous performance-based logistics, Congress continues to exercise bias against private contractors. Instead, Congress should incentivize a performance-based approach, managed by public-private partnerships.
  • Repeal the outdated Federal Acquisition Regulation and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. Certain provisions, including the reduction in non-value-added overhead currently imposed on the industry, should be eliminated.
  • Reduce DOD overhead. Congress should ensure that the Defense Business Board staffing recommendations are implemented and that DOD fulfills its commitment to a 20 percent reduction in civilian and military headquarters funding.
  • Reform the auditing process. Congress should require DOD to follow best practices in managing its finances. Money saved from the proper and timely payment of invoices and the consequent reduction of interest penalties should be put back into acquisition; the funds saved as a result of improved audits should also be returned to acquisition accounts.
  • Reform and reduce security clearance costs across the DOD enterprise. Congress should prioritize reforms that reduce cost, push for major improvements in the timeliness of investigations and adjudications, reduce unnecessary redundancy and waste, and streamline policies and procedures.
  • Disciplining the Acquisition of High Technology.  Define Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) up front and use that to bound requirements. Require better funding balance of research and development (R&D) and procurement; having on ramps for new technologies (spiral development) but requiring they be funded through R&D, conversely baring using R&D for procurement.
  • Defense Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC). Adopt a new approach for assessing the military’s infrastructure requirements while taking advantage of lessons learned from the previous BRAC. This new approach must be global, transparent, and conducted in close discussion with affected communities.
  • Acquisition Workforce Reform. Focus on the longevity and Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) of senior leaders.
  • Contracting Reform. Eliminate measures that reduce efficiency and add cost, particularly stopping abuse of small business set asides.

The Navy continues to juggle the pivot to the Asia–Pacific and unforeseen requirements in the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the sea service is also struggling to determine the future of its surface fleet. Reforming the defense acquisition process is critical for making the most of each dollar spent on our national security.

Emil Maine is a National Security Research Assistant at the Heritage Foundation, where he conducts independent research on U.S. defense posture. The views and opinions expressed in this article are his own.

Wanted: Innovative Failures

 

Oh, thanks... because a normal spoon is SO much harder to use.
Oh, thanks… because a normal spoon is SO much harder to use.

Here at CIMSEC, we’ve featured a number of posts on the nature of innovation recently, mostly focused on ongoing initiatives such as the CRIC. I’d like to take a breather for a few days and take a retrospective look at a critical piece of innovation – failure. And so, CIMSEC brings you Dead Ends Week, starting 24 March.

Dead ends can include ship designs, new technologies, tactics or even something so mundane as an administrative process in the maritime domain. If the initial attempts didn’t go anywhere, it’s fair game. The only exception is aviation – there are simply so many aerospace examples, only a couple of truly unique initiatives can be included, or this will turn monotonous very quickly.

Please, submit your contributions!

A good thought process as you pick topics would be to (very roughly) classify the dead end, discuss why it failed, and explain what lessons came of it. Variation is welcome.

Some ideas for different types of dead ends:

–         Nullified by some extrinsic change (such as new developments in buggy whips failing to gain a foothold in the automotive era)

–         Lost to a rival system (the classic VHS vs. Beta contest)

–         Simply didn’t work as advertised (probably the most fun, and self-explanatory)

–         Ingenious, but with no real application (i.e. WTF?)

Let the parade of failures begin!

 Matt McLaughlin is a Navy Reserve lieutenant and strategic communications consultant who grew up on a cul-de-sac, which isn’t quite a dead end but is pretty close. His opinions do not represent the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense or his employer.

Fostering the Discussion on Securing the Seas.