Nice. The only challenge is the man has an extremely doubt character combined with discussions with Xi and Putin. Oh... and he lets young programmers without security clearances try new things in the databases he operates. This undoubtedly could be very dangerous to our military. Maybe that's the next article [Applying Elon's Morality to the DoD]
Interesting piece, though I think one key element Musk's rules do not have to engage that Harrison speaks to is that of trust.
There is bipartisan agreement on the urgency of the present defense reform challenge. Specifically, there is far less controversy on the argument that increased acquisition capacity will aid in deterring controversy than there was about the Iraq war post-2006 or the like.
However, the United States is polarized in ways that exceed the post-Cold War period pre-2016 period, which my past self might have often found a somewhat jaw-dropping statement.
Musk was operating with supportive shareholders and private capital. We're operating in a trust but verify environment. I think offering alternate means to earn trust is going to be critical for any defense reforms. To me for achieving trust in the defense-unique space, competition is more of a watchword than commercial. (Though of course commercial approaches are often a way to achieve competition in addition to offering a range of benefits of scale from commercial industry.) Faster cycle times and an emphasis on prototypes can also make it easier to earn trust along the way, but I think Harrison really captures the ways reform could founder if process reforms don't have new ways of earning trust replacing the old.
Greg - Fully agree trust is critically needed between the DoD and Congress, DoD and industry, the Services and OSD/Joint Staff, and between operations, acquisitions, and budget communities. In some ways it is easier to build a big F'n rocket and catch it with chop sticks than to effectively operate and transform the massive defense bureaucracy. Yes involving more commercial solutions enables greater competition. We need both to be successful. Delivery of meaningful capabilities at speed and scale requires aligning many competing priorities, incentives, and cultures. The more we can lean the bureaucracy through the algorithm elements the better we can enable that success.
Nice. The only challenge is the man has an extremely doubt character combined with discussions with Xi and Putin. Oh... and he lets young programmers without security clearances try new things in the databases he operates. This undoubtedly could be very dangerous to our military. Maybe that's the next article [Applying Elon's Morality to the DoD]
Excellent piece!
Algorithm in one word: WHY?
> Then proceed.
Interesting piece, though I think one key element Musk's rules do not have to engage that Harrison speaks to is that of trust.
There is bipartisan agreement on the urgency of the present defense reform challenge. Specifically, there is far less controversy on the argument that increased acquisition capacity will aid in deterring controversy than there was about the Iraq war post-2006 or the like.
However, the United States is polarized in ways that exceed the post-Cold War period pre-2016 period, which my past self might have often found a somewhat jaw-dropping statement.
Musk was operating with supportive shareholders and private capital. We're operating in a trust but verify environment. I think offering alternate means to earn trust is going to be critical for any defense reforms. To me for achieving trust in the defense-unique space, competition is more of a watchword than commercial. (Though of course commercial approaches are often a way to achieve competition in addition to offering a range of benefits of scale from commercial industry.) Faster cycle times and an emphasis on prototypes can also make it easier to earn trust along the way, but I think Harrison really captures the ways reform could founder if process reforms don't have new ways of earning trust replacing the old.
Greg - Fully agree trust is critically needed between the DoD and Congress, DoD and industry, the Services and OSD/Joint Staff, and between operations, acquisitions, and budget communities. In some ways it is easier to build a big F'n rocket and catch it with chop sticks than to effectively operate and transform the massive defense bureaucracy. Yes involving more commercial solutions enables greater competition. We need both to be successful. Delivery of meaningful capabilities at speed and scale requires aligning many competing priorities, incentives, and cultures. The more we can lean the bureaucracy through the algorithm elements the better we can enable that success.
Let’s trust the people that deliver.
Good read
Nice Job on this…