I was asked to expand and explain a strategy for utilizing the cheat code of business development I provided in a previous article you can access here (https://lnkd.in/gfaRqt_W). In the expanded article linked below, I go into detail of how to employ the range of tactics I previously described for maximum efficiency. There are already some companies out there utilizing these methods to great effect in both defense and commercial markets (Chris Hughes 💭🔐 is a great example!). This strategy is what should really form the foundation of your business development strategy, then all the additional (more traditional) tactics are executed on top for added effect. Far too often, business development is a large sunk cost exercise in money and time that has low percentage returns. This strategy is designed to effectively reverse that paradigm, to make your foundational business development actions as cheap and easy as possible to drive interactions that can build to more traditional leads for sales.

An interesting question on yesterday’s post got me thinking, what would my ideal defense business look like? Now there are many ways to interpret that question, so let me be specific to caveat my answer. This is a business I think would be the easiest, fastest, and most likely to be make sales or be awarded contracts to the DoD over a multi-year span. This isn’t what would make the most money, garner the most customers, or be the next “big thing”. It’s simply my opinion of a business with the best chance of success at a given scale within the defense industry.

Success is defined by growth, and growth needs to lead to rapid and large scaling to achieve the goals of the VC-backing, and this just doesn’t happen often in the defense industry. It is not that it is impossible to do, just unlikely and not regularly accomplished. The reasons for this are the disparate ways that users, funding, and programmatics are separated within the DoD. The short version is to achieve that kind of success, you require the combination of three things: many users from all/most commands, a platform sponsorship from service level headquarters, and a transition path to for that new service level capability to a PEO. None of those three things are easy to come by, but many try to compile the recipe out of order, but here's the correct method.

“It depends” is a crappy answer no one likes hearing, so let me just give you some general rules of thumb to guide you on your way, while avoiding the traps of useless conversations around every corner.

The best way to identify military customers is to have conversations around problems, vs trying to demo your product. Your money is precious and limited, so stretching every dollar and minute of time for maximum impact is of utmost importance. Here’s the fastest and most efficient way to do that for any product or service.

The regulatory isolation of the “colors of money” by which designated funding is controlled and utilized is what ultimately limits the opportunities for many products in the defense industry. The large regulatory walls between Personnel, Facilities, O&M, Procurement, and RDT&E funding types drives competition to isolate solely within each funding type. Offering a product that saves 2x time/manpower, but costs 25% more than the existing capability, is not a monetary savings that can be realized in any tangible way by the funding organization.

I had a chat yesterday about what advice I would give to the defense industry, and if I had to distill all my thoughts down to just one piece of advice it would be this metaphor. You must be prepared for the marathon, that is what beats the competition, but then you must deliver on the hunt of the game. It’s all about the ability to go the distance while also executing at skill. Those tasks are supremely difficult to execute in parity, and have multiple ways of finding your failures of preparation and determination.

Reputation over function is a common struggle rather it’s software, hardware, or any widget in the defense industry. With one primary customer reputation matters, and often shapes the interactions between military and industry. Better function and lower price don’t always drive the customer, especially in the face of brand preference and legacy utilization.

In short, Machine Learning is currently viewed as the more worthy investment so it gets the focus, and GenAI is a wonderful thing for our adversaries to waste their money on pursuing. Agree or disagree, that was the doomer message coming from experts on the panel, leaving only the commercial reps to try and salvage some kind of worth to pursuing the technology in a meaningful way within the DoD.

Too many great capabilities die the slow death of patient starvation waiting for government facilitation. The video clip below is a masterclass in the results of that reality. Don’t let this be your fate in the Defense Sector! Get ahead and equip your team well for the trip through the valley of death.

Too many great capabilities die the slow death of patient starvation waiting for government facilitation. The video clip below is a masterclass in the results of that reality. Don’t let this be your fate in the Defense Sector! Get ahead and equip your team well for the trip through the valley of death.

"What are the DoD Generative AI Needs?"I gets asked this question repeatedly at least once a day. Instead of me just giving you a hand wavy response, let's do something different.

The secret to military sales is understanding the audience and their environment. Contractor states, “I'm struggling to know what's a great product for the mission or not.” Who is the market and what to sell them are the two single most important questions in defense contracting. The answer to each is also not obvious, and often learned the hard way. Let me help you deal with that pain.

A RIDICULOUS war rages in online communities across social media over DoD GenAI software development. The gnashing of teeth across Internet enclaves of DoD members and defense contractors yesterday seemed to reach a new fever pitch. With more folks publicizing internally developed DoD projects like NIPRGPT, and the inevitable drumbeat of defense contractor backlash for non-commercial development was quite loud. It’s all a bit much at this point, so I think it’s important to level set some expectations for folks who either forgot or haven’t learned yet from experience.

I had the opportunity the other day to have a fascinating discussion about roadblocks to change in the DoD, especially as it applies to Great Power Competition. One of the main points brought up was the philosophical differences between service providers and warfighters, and how that fundamentally influences all resulting aspects of their operations.

Here is a description on the process and key documents required for personnel at the squadron level in the Air Force to request and gain approval for new funding of $2 million or more:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is at a crucial point in its initial planning stages for how best to deploy capital to develop and purchase AI systems for a range of functions across the services. The plan offered below gives some insight to how the services could leverage the strengths of diverse contracting tools to foster innovation and maintain the DoD's competitive edge. The following plan outlines a suggested order of contract execution and potential parallel implementation of these contract types, to provide both high effectiveness and efficiency of their combined outputs.

Though I know this might be upsetting to some. The chart above shows some general terms of how the decision and action matrix works for acquisition decisions across a range of variables, but this is mainly depicting cost as the central organizing metric.

Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) are a unique acquisition tool used by the United States government to solicit proposals for research and development projects. These announcements allow the government to engage with academia, industry, and other organizations to drive scientific and technical innovation in areas of strategic interest. This essay will delve into the history of BAAs, compare their advantages and disadvantages to other acquisition tools, and present best practices for both government agencies and proposers.

The Rapid Acquisition Authority (RAA) is a crucial instrument for the United States government to expedite the procurement of research and development (R&D) projects, enabling them to respond quickly to emerging needs and maintain a technological edge in various fields. This essay will examine the history of the RAA, compare its advantages and disadvantages to other contract types, and outline best practices for implementing it effectively.