Make Good Choices, Dod Optimizing Core Decisionmaking Processes for Great-Power Competition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NOVEMBER 2019 Make Good Choices, DoD Optimizing Core Decisionmaking Processes for Great-Power Competition Susanna V. Blume and Molly Parrish About the Authors About the Defense Program Susanna V. Blume is a Senior Fellow The CNAS Defense Program does serious work on the most and Director of the Defense Program at pressing challenges facing the Pentagon, presented in an the Center for a New American Security accessible and practical way. We seek concrete impact (CNAS). Her research areas include the on defense policy, both now and in the future. We are a U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) budget, trusted source in the U.S. defense ecosystem, producing defense posture and force management, high quality analysis and policy recommendations on and strategy and strategic planning. implications of competition with China and Russia for U.S. Prior to joining CNAS, Blume served as Deputy Chief of defense strategy, military operations, defense budgeting, Staff for Programs and Plans to the Deputy Secretary and institutional reform. True to CNAS values, the Defense of Defense, whom she advised on programming and Program selectively addresses the issues that require the budget issues, global force management, operational and most thought leadership, such as new operational concepts strategic planning, force posture, and acquisition policy. and chronic institutional shortcomings that hinder the During this time, she served as Executive Secretary of the United States from competing effectively with China and Deputy’s Management Action Group, the top resource Russia militarily. decisionmaking body at DoD. She also served in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and in Acknowledgments the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans and Posture. During her years at DoD, Blume We would like to thank the many, many people who participated in two Quadrennial Defense Reviews, the contributed their time and their ideas to this report: Marty 2013 Strategic Choices and Management Review, and six Bollinger, Chris Brose, Elbridge Colby, Scott Comes, Lisa Program and Budget Review cycles. Blume holds a master’s Disbrow, Chris Dougherty, Ben FitzGerald, Bill Greenwalt, degree in international studies from the Johns Hopkins Kristin Hajduk, Robert Hale, Michael Hermann, Anthony University School of Advanced International Studies, a Ierardi, Andrew Krepinevich, Peter Levine, Mike McCord, Eric law degree from the George Washington University Law Mellinger, Jim Miller, Jamie Morin, Ely Ratner, Diem Salmon, School, and a bachelor’s degree in the history of art from Raj Shah, Robert O. Work, and Pat Zarodkiewicz. Johns Hopkins University. We would also like to thank our partners in the defense and Molly Parrish is a Research aerospace industry who gave their time and expertise and Assistant for the Defense Program at very patiently answered our many questions about what it is the Center for a New American Security. like to have the U.S. Department of Defense as a customer, Parrish’s research focuses primarily what works well in the processes addressed in this report, on Department of Defense internal and what does not. In particular, we would like to thank Bill processes. This includes the annual Lynn and Joe Militano of Leonardo DRS; Jeffrey Schloesser, President’s Budget, DoD acquisition Ryan Ehinger, Colin Smith, and Mike Reilly of Bell Helicopter reform, and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, (a Textron Company); Jeremy Bayer, Janness Simler, and and Execution (PPBE) process. Parrish also assists with Lynn Williams of Boeing; Don Cline of Elbit Systems; Niki the CNAS Defense Program’s “A New American Way of War” Johnson and Chris Pehrson of General Atomics; Betsy wargaming efforts. Prior to joining CNAS, Parrish served Schmid of General Dynamics; Joe Tofalo of Huntington as the Center Coordinator for the Center for Emerging Ingalls Industries; Tania Hanna of L3Harris; Bill Bender of Infectious Diseases (CEID) at the University of Iowa. She Leidos; Dan Fata, Cord Sterling, Tressa Guenov, and Christy also served as a lab technician at the CEID, assisting with Grubbs of Lockheed Martin; Chris Bowie, Erin Simpson, and epidemiological research, which earned her authorship on David An of Northrop Grumman; and Sally Sullivan, David four articles published in several renowned peer-reviewed Schild, and James Hickey of Raytheon. scientific journals. Parrish graduated from the University of Iowa with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Finally, we would like to thank Loren DeJonge Schulman, International Relations, and Global Health. Ben FitzGerald, Zach Mears, Lisa Disbrow, Peter Levine, and Bob Hale for their review of this document in draft and for their thoughtful and very helpful comments. Megan Lamberth and Sarah Newsome also deserves our thanks for their assistance with the images in this report. We would also like to thank Maura McCarthy and Mary Gladstone for their excellent editorial advice, and Melody Cook for her wonderful design of this publication and its graphics. Cover Art Melody Cook/CNAS MAKE GOOD CHOICES, DOD Optimizing Core Decisionmaking Processes for Great-Power Competition 01 Executive Summary 03 Introduction 08 Requirements 10 Programming and Budgeting 14 Acquisition 19 Integration of DoD’s Three Core Processes 20 Conclusion DEFENSE | NOVEMBER 2019 Make Good Choices, DoD: Optimizing Core Decisionmaking Processes for Great-Power Competition Executive Summary However, the United States has formidable advantages of its own. First and foremost is that very legacy force. This report is about how the U.S. Department of Defense While expensive to sustain, it remains the most capable (DoD) makes the decisions that determine how large, joint force in the world today. It has also afforded U.S. how capable, and how ready the future Joint Force will service members the opportunity for unmatched oper- be. It provides recommendations for how the depart- ational experience and training. In addition, the United ment should update the ways in which it makes these States remains at the center of global technological inno- decisions to ensure that the U.S. military can effectively vation. This last advantage is perhaps the most critical to compete with China, focusing on how the United States sustaining U.S. military preeminence into the future, if the can sustain and enhance the military technological Department of Defense can develop new ways to access, advantage it has long enjoyed. Specifically, it addresses: adapt, and adopt the wealth of technological innovation occurring in the United States every day. ¡ What DoD needs. The Joint Capabilities Integration The processes and systems addressed in this report are and Development System (JCIDS), referred to in this not irretrievably broken, but there is room for improve- report as the requirements process; ment if the U.S. military is to remain the most capable and ¡ What DoD buys and how much. The Programming, technologically advanced in the world. To this end, the Planning, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES), recommendations in this report are pragmatic, achievable, referred to in this report as the programming and bud- and focused on clearly defined problems; they also avoid geting process; and creating additional bureaucracy. ¡ From whom DoD buys it and how. The acquisition process, which in this report will focus on Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs), as well as the development pipeline. China has many advantages over the United States in the way that it makes and implements these decisions. Its national security decisionmaking apparatus is highly centralized and can move very quickly without the need to drive toward consensus on difficult decisions. The Chinese government also enjoys substantial control over its private sector, and thus control over what it produces, how, and for whom. Finally, Beijing does not have to balance spending on sustaining a large legacy force against investment in the force of the future. China does not have much of a legacy force to speak of and is thus able to put the vast majority of its resources into next-generation capabilities. 1 @CNASDC Summary of Recommendations Requirements Programming and Acquisition Integration ¡ DoD should enhance Budgeting ¡ DoD should fully ¡ The deputy secretary existing ways and create ¡ Congress should implement recent of defense and the new ways to bring reorganize appropriations changes in authorities vice chairman of disruptive technologies titles (the “color of and recommendations for the Joint Chiefs of into the Department of money”) to reflect the streamlining regulations. Staff should serve as Defense. kind of life cycle a thing Congress should resist formal integrators ¡ DoD should increase has, not what part of the the temptation to of the requirements, transparency in the life cycle a thing is in. undertake substantial programming and new reforms until DoD budgeting, and requirements process ¡ When delivering fiscal has done so. acquisition processes. while maintaining ethical guidance to the services, boundaries. the secretary of defense ¡ Congress and DoD should ¡ Congress and DoD should should hold back some consider developing a stop mandating across- resources to be allocated regime where there are the-board headquarters at the end of the process explicitly different risk reductions and instead and use it to harness tolerances for different make determinations interservice competition types of acquisitions about where mission can as a force for good. programs. be cut