Despite the government’s reputation of slow on the uptake, federal agencies are aware of how far they lag behind the private sector technologically.
The departments of Homeland Security, Defense and other agencies in the intelligence community have opened offices in San Francisco, Boston, and Austin to enhance the way they operate through proximity to cutting-edge tech companies. Some agencies like the United States Agency for International Development have appointed chief innovation officers.
Still, the government struggles to innovate. What do I mean by the word innovate? As Merriam Webster puts it, to “do something in a new way,” which can be challenging for a government impacting the lives of millions.
Aside from the high stakes and various other go-to culprits, the federal government often points fingers at long acquisition timelines, antiquated procurement processes, and risk-averse government contractors as barriers to innovation.
After all, the government is buying artificial intelligence technologies and capabilities the same way it buys airplanes and ships: by spec. The acquisition process incentivizes lengthy timelines and thus gives the advantage to stale incumbents. Unsurprisingly, these symptoms don’t help make government agencies function better.
Even as someone deeply in support of acquisition reform, I know acquisitions can also make for an easy scapegoat. I also know that folks in the federal government might agree with me about many of the tools and flexibilities we need already exist in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and innovative procurement vehicles. The government has over-interpreted those tools, don’t know they exist, or is too afraid to try them.
Recent efforts to overhaul the acquisition process include the congressionally mandated Section 809 Panel review of Defense acquisition reform, National Defense Authorization Act reform incentivizing new procurement methodologies, and the uptick of o ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
