Lack of innovation ... who's to blame?

• Author: Mehrtens, Fritz
• Position: LETTERS - Letter to the editor

I take issue with Mark Johnson and Navy Secretary Donald Winter in saying that industry hasn't put its best minds to tackling technical challenges presented by the current battlefield (Defense Stifles Innovation Despite Urgent War Needs, July 2006).

Actually, I agree with them in a way, but I believe the fault lies with the Pentagon, not with industry. My experience is that the defense acquisition system freezes out innovation by keeping companies ignorant of real battlefield requirements, distorting field needs through bureaucracy, especially in the acquisition community, and demanding the keys to innovations so they can compete procurements and choose the lowest bidder at the expense of the company that was foolish enough to expose an innovative idea in the first place.

Fritz Mehrtens

Irvine, CA

In reference to "Defense Stifles Innovation Despite Urgent War Needs," the problem of bureaucracy stifling innovation certainly exists. Yet the suggestion that "we need a parallel, nontraditional system that helps us win the nontraditional war we are in" is not the answer. It merely sets up yet another bureau.

Acquisition involves technology development and equipment procurement, but these are separate and distinct activities.

Consider the article's first example: Warning shots are not loud enough to stop cars at check-points. The problem statement was that people die because of the lack of a noisemaker. A soldier solution was to purchase (out of pocket) spotlights. Eventually the Pentagon procured green-laser devices that are lauded as successful but belated. This is not a procurement problem. Rather, it is outright confusion.

If soldiers determined that an existing off-the-shelf solution will work, then a simple commercial purchase will suffice. If a solution is unclear, various alternatives will be pursued until a candidate is selected. But if the field commander simply passed the problem up to the combat developers and materiel acquisition commands for resolution, shame on him, but don't complain that it takes time.

And oh, the provisions for rapid procurement exist. They are seldom used because everyone confuses procurement with development.

At the other extreme, the article contends, "Another glaring example of misguided priorities is the costly and technically complex joint tactical radio system currently in development." Again, given all of the oversight and requirements determination already gone through, the last thing we need is yet...