Can sequestration really have a silver lining? A recent NDIA article proposes that it actually can. The take is that the short-term pain will accelerate a transformation process for the Army that would have taken much longer, if left on its own to occur. The author looks at resilience science and the Army as a case study and proposes six opportunities or silver linings: scalable Army, increased modularity, organizational simplicity, organizational openness, revised priorities, and information as an economic multiplier.
In theory, reduced budgets should force the government to do things smarter and more efficiently. Before agencies begin to work smarter and more efficiently, they have to go through the initial resistance to change process, where agencies hold tightly to their specific programs. This resistance to change tends to create the opposite effect of what is desired because agencies do not share much information for fear of being seen as a duplicative program. Additionally, even when opportunities for collaborative interagency requirements arise, agencies are not contributing as much money to the common requirement out of fear of further budget cuts for their agency. Because of the uncertainty of the future and the bureaucracy that exists within the overall system, there is the very real danger that more stovepipes are being built that will only become more painful to tear down.
The article also proposes transformational investments in technology will occur due to the strain of sequestration; however, until the bottom is in view, most agencies are very reluctant to invest in anything new at this point. Any transformation in technology that can occur from the period of sequestration is years down the road.
The silver lining of “organizational simplicity” is perhaps the best and most logical opportunity that could emerge from this painful period. However, it will still take time for this transformation to take place. The goal is for the right programs, working groups, or task forces and the right people to remain in place after everything is said and done.
With the opportunity for “revised priorities,” a very real emphasis needs to be placed on the requirements generation and acquisition process. The Defense Department has been facing scrutiny for the lack of procedures and metrics in its acquisition process. One key issue is the rotation timetable for military. Because military staff rotate frequently, it is common for one staff member to identify the requirements, another member to oversee the development stage, and another member to oversee the implementation stage all within a single command. Lack of continuity of oversight can impact project schedule, budget, and scope.
While budget reductions are imminent, the idea that sequestration – which was never intended to take place – will accomplish these unidentified goals is unlikely. Self-preservation could kick in instead of resilience science. When all is said and done, less programs or working groups may exist, but it does not mean that any of the silver linings were attained during the process.
