Download PDF
Major Matthew B. Cook, USAF, is a Program Manager at the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office.
During the Korean War, U.S. Air Force fighter pilots were faced with a difficult technical challenge. Russian-built MiG-15s outmatched American-made F-86 Sabres, forcing American pilots to develop superior flying tactics to bridge the technical capability gap.1 After the war, the Air Force established the U.S. Air Force Weapons School (Weapons School) in 1953 to train future fighter pilots on such flying tactics as well as on leadership. Next, in Vietnam, the Air Force once again realized—after sustaining tremendous fighter aircraft losses—that its pilots lacked adequate training. As a result, the Weapons School added aircraft as part of a new Aggressor squadron—along with a whole host of new training approaches.2
To create a more robust training environment, the Air Force acquired and captured Russian-built fighter aircraft to fly against trainees and thereby elevate American fighter pilot training.3 Thus, the Weapons School became the Air Force’s premier schoolhouse to train experts forged from an institutional body of knowledge that shares best practices while building leaders of character. The Weapons School expanded to include bombers, drones, intercontinental ballistic missiles, space, cyberspace, air refuelers, and special operations aviation platforms.4 At the center of the Weapons School’s mission to instruct and share best practices is an insight crucial to the Air Force’s future success: while policy and platforms play an important supporting role, it is people that supply the innovation, skill, and character that power the Nation’s military.
In 1992, the Weapons School shifted from only fighter aircraft to all Air Force platforms to generate an impact exceeding the sum of these platforms’ parts. This lesson, which was internalized so well for operators, now needs to extend to Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition professionals and technologists who are quietly shaping the future of the Air Force’s weapons technology and capabilities. Efforts to reform acquisition and improve its cumbersome regulations have focused too much on procedures and regulations and not enough on the people who implement them. To train a cadre of acquisition professionals who are prepared to acquire the next generation of cutting-edge technology, they must be empowered to adopt and execute acquisition reforms, equipped to navigate emerging technologies, and surrounded by a hive mind of instruction and shared experience. The nascent Acquisition Instructor Course could help usher in the software-driven, integrated all-domain era that represents the future of acquisition and of military technology.5 To do so, it must create a top-notch brain trust of instructors and students, focus them on a learning method driven by case studies and exposure, and integrate with the warfighters and users who operate the platforms they procure.
The Imperative for Human- Centric Acquisition Reform: Policy and Technology
On the surface, initiatives to improve cumbersome acquisition regulations may appear revolutionary, but in reality, many of these initiatives create their own bureaucratic tail of policy, red tape, and operating instructions.6 For example, the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) originated in 1958, with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration pioneering its early use, and arrived in DOD in 1996.7 Despite its subsequent decades of evolution, OTA has only recently begun to take off at DOD as far as actual adoption.
As the commercial technology cycle accelerates and receives far more funding for research and development than the U.S. Government can provide, DOD can use OTA as a flexible, efficient mechanism to acquire said technology from commercial companies. OTA allows the government to enter into business agreements with commercial entities unencumbered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. While OTA continues to grow, awareness and use of it still lag due to a lack of understanding, partially because training was not required until 2017.8 Although reforms could dramatically alter the DOD acquisition enterprise, those reforms require training a cadre of early adopters to help inform and evolve the policy through continuous improvement rather than radical, instantaneous change that leaves people behind and results in lagging adoption.9 With any new movement or initiative, people remain crucial. While Congress continues to churn out DOD acquisition legislation and reforms, Defense acquisition professionals must be thought of as key stakeholders in the reform process as the primary executors of these reforms.
In addition to making acquisition professionals key stakeholders to test out acquisition reforms, they must also be given hands-on training and exposure to emerging technologies that will be central to the future of the Air Force. For example, still-new DOD organizations such as the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center are receiving more acquisition latitude to explore how DOD should acquire artificial intelligence (AI).10 However, acquisition professionals need more help to navigate these increasingly important yet turbulent waters. For example, when acquiring AI, it is not uncommon for some acquisition professionals to look for complete ownership of intellectual property from AI startups, failing to recognize that these companies wholly rely on their intellectual property as their lifeblood and their source for future revenue growth. For AI and other dual-use technologies (military/commercial), a more nuanced approach to intellectual property is required to engage startups. Such an approach is not possible without better grounding acquisition professionals in the startup environments that are shaping these technologies.
Another example of how technology can drive acquisition policy is former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord’s Software Acquisition Pathway. Lord’s embrace of commercial software industry best practices, represented by this Software Acquisition Pathway, was one of DOD’s most important acquisition advances in recent history. The Software Acquisition Pathway considers the iterative nature of software and agile methodologies and facilitates a software-centric, collaborative relationship between DOD and industry.11 This collaborative relationship ensures that code can be developed, deployed, and maintained in short, iterative stages rather than all at once in “waterfall” deliveries.
Moreover, software can drive a new approach to how programs get funded. For example, Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 recommended a pilot program of special funding for software.12 The pilot program, often referred to as “colorless money,” removes constraints that separate funding for development and maintenance. This helps make the funding approach more flexible as software projects transition from development to maintenance and back again. As technology continues to shift the DOD acquisition landscape in unpredictable ways, acquisition professionals must be able to lean on top-notch training and hard-fought best practices to be able to adapt.
Talent Must Be Cultivated, Not Programmed
Today, DOD acquisition professionals are trained through computer-based training modules mostly followed by on-the-job training. For example, new DOD acquisition professionals in the Department of the Air Force are put through a 2-week, in-person course providing a high-level overview of DOD acquisition, followed by on-thejob-training.13 Yet on-the-job training is limited to a small subset of a single acquirer’s personal experience; while helpful to illuminate the nuances of a specific organization, it may fall short in preparing acquirers to thrive in broader, uncertain environments.
One bright spot at Defense Acquisition University (DAU), in conjunction with the National Defense University, is the Senior Service College Fellowship (SSCF), which focuses on leadership, acquisition skills, and the National Security Strategy.14 The key to the SSCF’s success is that it is inperson, hands-on, and the attendee’s only occupation. Most DOD acquisition professionals must conduct their DAU training while working their full-time jobs. The SSCF is like the Department of the Air Force’s Acquisition Instructor Course in that it integrates acquisition professionals with the National Defense University’s student body, composed of warfighters, diplomats and other officials from Federal agencies, international fellows, and representatives from industry.15
The SSCF is also like the Acquisition Instructor Course (discussed in more detail later) in that it values professional networks across a diverse range of Service occupations. The SSCF champions many of the same approaches to learning as the Acquisition Instructor Course, with one important difference: only senior acquisition members or executives may apply to the SSCF.16 The SSCF requires applicants to have at least 15 years of DOD acquisition experience, with a preference in some cases for more. While it is no doubt important to elevate the training of senior acquisition leaders, the DOD acquisition enterprise loses out on years of potential return on investment simply based on the SSCF’s target population. In contrast, the Acquisition Instructor Course focuses on the mid-career captain or GS-12 level to ensure that the Air Force trains its leaders of the future—not just its leaders of today.
There have been many attempts to improve acquisition training, most notably from the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and recently the DAU’s Back-to-Basics computerbased initiative. The latter aims to streamline training using a personalized and targeted approach to an individual’s career field.17 The intent of the initiative is to reduce the number of hours spent training in specific disciplines such as program management, contracting, life-cycle logistics, engineering, testing and evaluation, and business financial management/ cost estimating.18 Moreover, the initiative allows individuals to tailor additional training to their needs as their respective careers require ongoing adaptation to an ever-changing world.19
While this approach likely opens access to new types of training that many would not otherwise encounter, it needs to be supplemented by hands-on, experiential learning. DAU is right to highlight that the future of acquisition will require a wider array of training topics, but DOD must go a step further. Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall explains that it is not enough to know acquisition best practices; acquisition professionals must also understand the “why” behind those best practices.20
And training acquisition professionals is not a uniquely American imperative. In 2009, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence enlisted the help of Sir Bernard Gray to conduct an independent review of his nation’s equipment acquisition program.21 As a result of this review—often referred to as the Gray Report—Lord Drayson, Minister for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform, promised to institute a host of Gray’s recommendations.22 Specifically, he pledged to earmark £45 million over the course of 4 years to elevate training and skills related to program management, cost estimates for large projects, systems engineering, and business, all while elevating the profile and status of acquisition as a career field for military personnel.23 The Gray Report suggests that cultivating talent in a defense acquisition system is a challenge not only for the United States but also for our allies.
As an example closer to home, it became readily apparent to me through my experiences with Project Maven and the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center how the program offices for each weapons system could serve as either the biggest impediment or the greatest accelerant to drive agile acquisition in new and creative ways. The chasm between impediment or accelerant can be attributed to lack of education, training, and real-life experience on how to introduce best practices for commercial software into DOD programs. Simply put, tomorrow’s topnotch DOD acquisition professionals in a complex software-based world cannot be programmed through computer-based training. They must be cultivated, shaped, and nurtured into tactical experts and creative thinkers with a deep contextual grounding in the technology and expertise required of their field. A human must be in the loop to help instruct and also to inspire and lead the next echelon of DOD acquisition professionals with their hard-earned wisdom. This approach, of cultivating—not programming—acquisition talent, must catalyze a paradigm for the future training environment of DOD’s acquisition professionals.
A Model for the Future: The Acquisition Instructor Course
In 2019, acknowledging the need for better training, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Steve Wilson and the Department of the Air Force acquisition enterprise took a page from their own warfighting community to deploy a proven method for training: the Acquisition Instructor Course.24 The course is modeled after and partnered with the Weapons School.25 With 186,000 military and civilian personnel supporting DOD acquisition, the Acquisition Instructor Course could serve as a prototype for the Services, DOD agencies, and field activities alike.26
In 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) used a holistic approach in its recommendations regarding improving acquisition training across the Services. Specifically, GAO took inventory of the Services and described four categories to improve management of acquisition talent: training, mentoring, retaining, and selecting.27 The report went on to give a scorecard to each Service in these categories. According to GAO, the Army could improve its training and mentoring, while the Navy could improve its training, mentoring, and selection of program managers. The report also mentions that approximately 350 people attend the highest level courses annually, making up only a tiny fraction of the overall acquisition corps.28
The Acquisition Instructor Course model is primed to address GAO’s findings, especially since the Army’s and Navy’s acquisition corps typically matriculate into the occupation midway through their careers.29 The Acquisition Instructor Course model could accelerate the other Services’ training pipelines while elevating the skill sets of their respective acquisition corps by sending their early and mid-career leaders through 6 months of intensive training, integrating them across all communities, and steeping them in the art of instruction. Finally, as an exemplar for the Services, the Acquisition Instructor Course’s objective is not only to provide world-class training that benefits the Air Force individuals who are selected to attend but also to create a return on investment for the entire Service. In the same way that the Weapons School expects its graduates to serve as weapons officers in their squadrons, Acquisition Instructor Course graduates could serve as acquisition leaders in their units.
The success of this nascent program depends on several factors. First, it depends on supplying the program with top-notch instruction and students to ensure that the best are chosen to participate in a brain trust intended to cultivate DOD acquisition’s top leaders. Success will also depend on how well the Acquisition Instructor Course implements three crucial principles of acquisition training: It must provide tactical training to ensure a consistent baseline of knowledge among its students; it must use the case study method to provide students with hands-on exposure to realworld problems; and it must facilitate integration with the warfighters and operators who use the technology that these professionals acquire.
The first criterion for success is a focus on tactical acquisition concepts across the acquisition life cycle. The tactical training includes contracting, finance, program management, systems engineering, and logistics and sustainment. While many students will arrive at the Acquisition Instructor Course with proven ability, there will undoubtedly be blind spots given the way in which the Air Force acquisition community gains experience. Thus, the course will also expose students to topics such as the budget cycle, sustainment and depot operations, software in acquisition, integration across air, and space and cyberspace operations.
Next, the Acquisition Instructor Course will shift from traditional classwork to the case study method and hands-on exposure. Using case studies and partnerships with key diverse acquisition offices across the Air Force would provide instruction that reflects ground truth and goes beyond the book answer. When training DOD acquisition professionals, exposure to a range of scenarios, challenges, and, most important, diverse people is crucial. This case study–driven approach could also address topics such as the funding process, software, and the challenges of sustaining decades-old aircraft.
Also, students could be immersed through this method in emergent acquisition policies and technologies, such as the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, AI, and digital engineering.30 They could also practice game-changing approaches—such as the previously mentioned Other Transaction Authority and Commercial Solutions Openings, a novel solicitation mechanism for innovative technology—to which their typical dayto- day work may not expose them. Next, students must be exposed to the DOD innovation base through touchpoints with industry, small innovative startups, venture capital, and key organizations like the Defense Innovation Unit.
To round out experiential training, the students should be immersed in “operational acceptance,” which serves as a moniker for testing and evaluation. It is important for acquisition professionals to fully understand the importance of developmental, operational, integrated, and automated tests across the air, space, and cyber domains. Testing continues to evolve, and so too should both the Air Force’s and the Space Force’s future acquisition workforce.
Finally, the Acquisition Instructor Course needs to provide constant integration with the operators whom the acquisition community serves. Through its mission of creating a lasting network of parallel links between acquirer and operator, the Acquisition Instructor Course ensures that both communities will have a resource to reach out to when faced with the toughest challenges. To this point, General Charles Q. Brown, Jr.—now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—stated at his hearing to become Chief of Staff of the Air Force: “I am an advocate for early and constant collaboration between operators [and] acquisition professionals . . . to unleash innovation and spiral development so that the warfighter has access to the most capable and state of the art assets, sooner than later.”31 Also, while formalizing connections between acquirers and operators represents a tremendous benefit of the Acquisition Instructor Course approach, the course promises to elevate the acquisition community and subsequently deliver weapons systems that are more relevant to the warfighter requirement, and to do so more quickly.
Conclusion
As DOD shifts focus to strategic competition and integrated deterrence, national security and the DOD bureaucracy that serves it are in flux. Whether one considers Russia’s cruise missiles and nuclear submarines or China’s recent breakthroughs in hypersonic weapons or its staunch commitment to AI, adversaries are chipping away at American military superiority.32 To counter this erosion, DOD acquisition must change to produce more relevant military weaponry and to do so more quickly. Acquisition reform moves at breakneck pace, but it continues to leave behind the engine that powers it—its workforce. To cultivate a more efficient acquisition workforce, the branches of the military should consider establishing a training pipeline that focuses on a select group of individuals to return to the workforce with the specific mandate to elevate others, like the Acquisition Instructor Course model.
While providing better training to acquisition professionals would have a reverberating effect across the branches of the military, the true value proposition is that deploying instructors back into the workforce would accelerate the DOD acquisition kill chain. In the future of the algorithmic warfare we will soon face, the side capable of turning software updates the fastest is likely to gain the upper hand. Data centers will become as important as aircraft carriers. For this reason, DOD needs a new generation of world-class acquisition instructors who are integrated with warfighters and experts who can help shift DOD from its hardware-centric, industrial-age mindset to a software-centric, digital-age force. JFQ