In this episode Strategic Institute talks about recent Congressional language that seeks to broaden the aperture when it comes to who and what qualifies for OTA awards, while at the same time the bureaucracy is attempting to narrow the thinking around OTAs and kneecap their potential. Who should be served, the will of 'the people' as represented by Congress -or- should the bureaucracy take precedent?  

Also discussed are clear solutions using OTAs, current lack of incentives, who should be responsible for needed positive change, and a lot of banter that should interest anyone who cares about improving federal R&D outcomes and better delivering new advanced capabilities.

The overarching question is, should DoD develop a robust understanding of what the potential of OTAs are, what they are really for, why they were developed, their history -or- should DoD continue to take a myopic view, not to be bothered by greater perspectives or knowledge?  What do you think, is this an institutional wide case of "missing the forest for the trees"?       

In this podcast episode, Strategic Institute, discusses what has been largely missing in the attempts to use mandated flexible authorities to improve federal acquisition for R&D and delivering new capabilities - KNOWLEDGE.  

In the rush to use these authorities as a 'work-around' 'hack' 'easy button' or turn them into a process an important steps have been missed.  Namely the acquisition of knowledge through education, exploration and experimentation.  This has occurred for numerous reasons.  However, if leadership and professionals are serious about earnestly improving outcomes it equipping themselves with knowledge, empowerment, is essential.  

What do you think?  Should Federal Acquisition pros just go along with whatever the rhetoric says, or should they seek to become knowledgeable and share it?      

In this podcast episode, Strategic Institute, discusses applying critical thinking to federal acquisition processes for R&D and delivering new capabilities.  Featured are ideas of using flexible acquisition authorities to explore new business approaches and collaborative arrangements, the notion that you can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it, what defines intelligent action, being trapped in institutional corruption, and finally how the Space Shuttle program hindered low cost access to space.  

Side note: We will be offering a $199 three hour virtual training on Other Transactions with the literal pioneer of OTs and the team that has spent thousands of thought hours behind OT education. Limited time offer.    

In this episode, Strategic Institute, reiterates their main points: that focus on new concepts and ideas in 'teaming' to make the best use of talent and better fulfill mission goals, and applying critical thinking to the use of flexible acquisition authorities.  These ideas have been broadly rejected by bureaucrats and insiders who vehemently protect the status-quo of 'teams' remaining in their silos fulfilling their functionary duties, keeping them separated, and applying compliance oriented FAR-think to hurry up and create process out of flexibility before understanding the potential and opportunities.  

The question remains, is the current thinking which has essentially gone unchanged for decades (50+ years), really the right approach as insiders would have us believe?  Without even a small shake up in thought, much less a revolution, will efforts to 'streamline' the FAR and the use of flexible acquisition authorities for R&D produce more of the same?  Predictably, yes.  How can it not?    

This moment in time is brimming with opportunity and the need for change has never been more pressing, yet bureaucrats and insiders seemingly are unable to operate outside of a process (compliance) for process sake...  Prioritizing mission  and goals, assembling high performing teams, and exploring the flexibility Congress has provided (and mandated) is either too hard and too much or simply not incentivized and championed?  What do you think?     

In this episode, Strategic Institute discusses the unique perceptions of contracting, management, teaming, and time etc. within federal acquisition for R&D and for delivering new advanced capabilities.  Federal processes operate under their own logic, divorced from common and broader methods known outside of the ‘industry’.  It seems, those who have been indoctrinated into these systems ‘insiders’ have had their ideas and perceptions molded to an arcane regulatory system focused on and demanding compliance.  For all the fuss, it’s too bad that this system fails to achieve mission goals in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner.  It hinders program success, certainly speed.  It is a system focused on processes, not outcomes, and an entire culture has developed around it.  Those inside appear unable to step outside the ‘bubble’ they have created and apply common sense and smart business principles and approaches for delivering win/win scenarios.  They can’t see it, they think they can, but they don’t.  The system they have barricaded themselves in doesn’t let in much light.  However, there are solutions.   

We briefly discuss how Other Transactions, flexible acquisition authorities to enable new and different approaches to deliver the fruits from federal R&D, and how they have been met with resistance by those desperate to put them into a box, before even exploring the potential and opportunities.  OTs, meant to enable new thinking and the creation of a new paradigm, have been met with narrow-mindedness and prioritizing the preservation of the current system.  OTs have NOT been met with an open mind or an earnest desire to use the flexibility provided to level up.        

Lastly, we discuss Special Acquisition Forces (SAF).  A commonsense approach to exploring the flexibility OTs offer.  Leaders would be wise to focus on assembling teams with the right qualities to perform and equip them to succeed in different operational environments while clearing the way and providing them top cover.  This seems to be what’s needed – leadership at the various levels, curiosity, and an earnest drive to improve the system.      

For More:  https://strategicinstitute.org/

In this podcast, Strategic Institute highlights the opportunities, mandated by Congress (2018 & 2023) and now the President (2025), to use flexible acquisition authorities and create teams (Special Acquisition Forces) to explore, experiment with new and different business approaches and collaborative arrangements to improve speed and deliver better solutions and value for the warfighter, taxpayer, natsec and posterity.

The flexibility Other Transactions Agreements (OTA) allow is just that FLEXIBILITY, it is up to leadership and the workforce to discover how to best apply this freedom to accomplish mission (project) goals.

It has been said, that “Freedom is the Special Sauce” behind America’s success in business and more broadly. Operating in 'Freedom of Contract' mode is very different, antithetical even, to the current regime overly focused on compliance with a highly-regulated purchasing system (even for R&D). However, the defense industry has the talent to make the best of these freedoms. Leaders need to reorient thinking and recognize, assemble, and equip program teams for success. In this case, doing the next right thing is simple, unlearning old habits and misinformation is the hard part.

In this podcast episode, Strategic Institute, discusses why defense acquisition, a well-known weakness in the process for R&D and delivering new advanced capabilities, stays the course despite urgent needs and mandates.  A problem decades in the making, DoD does not acknowledge that systems no longer prioritize mission and purpose, but instead comply with diktats from bureaucratic and special interests, penalizing outcomes.

Other Transactions offer the flexibility for an alternative system (R&D, prototyping etc).  They allow teams to prioritize mission.  DoD already has the authorities to do business differently, to collaborate differently – to focus on outcomes, not stupid rules.

OTAs allow you to do the the things, but you have to DO the things!

In this episode, Strategic Institute, highlights their long standing message of teaming for success.  It is widely believed that family is the essential building block of society/civilization, just like a team is for any significant endeavor or enterprise.  Federal Acquisition by-and-large does not seem to respect how critical the team is in contributing to success of a program or project.  To say that the DoD and FedGov need to revamp their philosophy in regard to assembling effective teams focused on mission is an understatement.  DoD's default is to add layers of bureaucracy, a new innovation cell or some cool new department with "X" in the title - add more bureaucracy.  What leadership has been really bad at is identifying, creating, and maintaining 'killer' teams that can knock-it-out-of-the-park!  The focus need not be on creating new bureaucracy, but on the smaller pieces, the ingredients - the team.  

DoD and FedGov has more senior 'leaders' than any other time in history?  If they are not assembling effective teams, empowering and protecting them, so they can best accomplish their mission, then what are they doing?!  Seriously, that is literally their job!  DoD acquisition needs good people and even better leaders to stand up, take responsibility and use the tools they have been given.  It's time to think about how it puts together teams both internally and with external players too.    

Rick Dunn also make a good point that the 'so-called' Other Transactions Consortia model functions like condominium and not like consortia at all.   

Why do you think DoD and FedGov fails to conceptualize, much less foster excellence in teaming?     

More teams, less bureaucracy   

In this podcast episode, Strategic Institute gets back to basics, asking what is the purpose of Other Transactions, why were they created, what is their 'mission'? The answer, while misunderstood by many, is simple and clear.

Additionally, we tackle the 'so-called' OT consortia issue, which generally speaking, are NOT consortia, may not be legal, and have an obvious conflict of interest problem, among others. BUT they are extremely convenient and easy for federal contracting and management offices.  Why are flexible contracts (10 U.S.C. 4022) meant for prototype projects (those involved in prototyping) being awarded to a support services contractor not engaged in prototype activities?  The consortia members, the performers, are not awarded OTs but subcontracts (aka commercial contracts). The OT is being awarded to an entity that does not do prototyping!  The reality is, it's a hack!  This 'easy button' approach, pushed by DoD, has had the consequence of disincentivizing people from exploring, learning, and experimenting with new and different business approaches and collaborative arrangements, and creating more dynamic teams.  Not to mention this action flips the bird to Congress (warfighter & people too) who mandated preferential use of these authorities AND equipping the acquisition workforce to succeed working in a different operational environment - over SEVEN years ago! This has been ignored, while business-as-usual has been protected and continues to be heavily incentivized. The 'so-called' OT consortia model has become a hindrance to innovation, obscuring the potential for both Other Transactions and real consortia.

We recognize that some are putting their thinking caps on, even within the current framework, that's awesome! We like seeing critical-thinking and problem-solving applied to acquisition processes. Other Transactions are flexible, they allow teams to create, build, be a part of something more. At this point, just about anything will be better than the mainstream.  Truth be told, if folks remove the shackles, both procedural and mental, and orient themselves on mission, Other Transactions are remain wide open, yet still poorly understood.  The flexibility allows you to do things, but you have to do the things!

 In this episode, Strategic Institute, discusses the opportunity to make improvements in defense acquisition for R&D and delivering new advanced capabilities by recognizing and jettisoning systems and processes that have become institutionally corrupt, that do not serve its 'purpose', its 'why' or the reason it exists.

How will the defense bureaucratic-industrial complex respond to a renewed push to clean up, streamline, and improve how it operates to better deliver for the warfighter, natsec and beyond?  The multi-generational resistance to improvement and straying on its mission to benefit the interests of bureaucrats and contractors has gotten worse in recent years. Due to this, the U.S.A. is falling behind technologically and in its ability actually field the best solutions in a timely or relevant manner.

As new technology driven defense companies take the lead and A.I. is implemented, the old business-as-usual acquisition bureaucratic procedures, unable to add value, are becoming irrelevant. This system doesn't need high-paid box checkers towing-the-line, it needs creators, critical thinkers and problem-solvers, and those with business-savvy which it is ill-equipped. The incentives are wrong

DoD has failed to train and mentor the next generation of acquisition pros.  Instead, leadership has done what is always has: protect the status-quo, innovate at the fringes, use trendy jargon and internal myth, while blaming others instead rising to the challenge and being accountable.

Is now finally the time for defense acquisition to refocus on and prioritize its purpose?