Another great article! I totally agree again. My favorite passage was this one, because I think it's true for most of the oversight concerns and granularity tradeoffs in collapsing budget lines:
"However, the fact that these constraints are not applied proactively does not preclude them from being applied retroactively. Detailed accounting can be maintained through the use of meta-tagging with categories negotiated with the defense congressional committees in advance. This would provide the same level of insight (perhaps even greater) while not artificially constraining flexibility that might be needed to deliver key military capabilities."
There may even be ways to tag lines proactively but not prescriptively, suggesting what is the "probable plan" but still protecting flexibility. Here I am thinking of differentiating meta-tagging from budget structure, with the conceptual equivalent of technological maturity being simply an attribute of an activity rather than a guarantee of particular spending activity
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It also applies to NASA. I would argue that drawing a boundary between research and development is also perhaps too far, as R&D is not a linear, but a cyclical process. Venky writes in the most thoughtful way I’ve seen yet in these two books: Cycles of Invention and Discovery https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967960; and the Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674251854
JG agree with breaking down boundaries for more dynamic, iterative development. The goal was to consolidate eight R&D categories into two to enable greater flexibility while retaining or even gaining insight into budget execution. Thank you for the book recommendations - interesting research ideas.
Another great article! I totally agree again. My favorite passage was this one, because I think it's true for most of the oversight concerns and granularity tradeoffs in collapsing budget lines:
"However, the fact that these constraints are not applied proactively does not preclude them from being applied retroactively. Detailed accounting can be maintained through the use of meta-tagging with categories negotiated with the defense congressional committees in advance. This would provide the same level of insight (perhaps even greater) while not artificially constraining flexibility that might be needed to deliver key military capabilities."
There may even be ways to tag lines proactively but not prescriptively, suggesting what is the "probable plan" but still protecting flexibility. Here I am thinking of differentiating meta-tagging from budget structure, with the conceptual equivalent of technological maturity being simply an attribute of an activity rather than a guarantee of particular spending activity
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It also applies to NASA. I would argue that drawing a boundary between research and development is also perhaps too far, as R&D is not a linear, but a cyclical process. Venky writes in the most thoughtful way I’ve seen yet in these two books: Cycles of Invention and Discovery https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967960; and the Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674251854
JG agree with breaking down boundaries for more dynamic, iterative development. The goal was to consolidate eight R&D categories into two to enable greater flexibility while retaining or even gaining insight into budget execution. Thank you for the book recommendations - interesting research ideas.