The Pendulum of Decentralizing Decision Making and Its Effect On Acquisition Timelines

Newton's Cradle demonstrating the principles of momentum and energy conservation with a series of swinging spheres.

If we could just decentralize decision making, we could speed up acquisitions…right?

Well, not so fast (pun intended); this Center for Strategic & International Studies report suggests the opposite is true for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPS) at DoD.

Check out this data showing the pendulum swings of centralizing and decentralizing authority for MDAPs and the effect on acquisition cycles:

Overview of Defense Acquisition Reform Cycles and Cycle Times from FY 1963 to Present: This table presents data on various reform cycles, highlighting centralized and decentralized approaches, with mean cycle times ranging from 5.0 to 8.0 years. Total average cycle time is 6.9 years based on analyses by DIIG and CSIS.

If you wonder why that salty KO looks at your fancy new idea with a lack of enthusiasm, it just might be because it isn’t the first, or even second time they have seen it.

I often say, “there is rarely such a thing as a new idea, just a better time to try an old one.”

So what does this data tell us? It suggests at the very least that for very large complex acquisitions, decentralization of decision making doesn’t equate to speed or efficiency. Is this unique to the military? Probably not, how often we in the acquisition world joke that a $50k purchase is as difficult as a $50 mil purchase. When a requirement falls below the ‘give a damn’ threshold, it is incredibly hard to get people’s attention, to get approvals, to get things done. Nevertheless, we know the answer can not be that all acquisitions should flow through the approval process of the most senior leaders in an organization. DoD is experimenting with this concept through their middle tier acquisitions and Software acquisition pathways, too soon to tell, but given this context we can see why they would take this approach.

So perhaps this is just a DoD problem. Let’s zoom out and look at the broader Public Sector, through this 2022 Gartner Study, titled “Gartner Survey Finds Government Tech Purchase Decisions Take on Average 22 Months”

Some of the key date points identified in the study:

• Public sector buying teams are large, with varying levels of participation in the process.

• Government C-level executives are less involved (41%) than private sector counterparts (55%).

• 68% attribute delays to lack of specific information from the technology provider.

  
  

So here we see less involvement from Government C-suite execs (when compared to private sector). “At 22 months, the public sector has the longest average buying cycle for technology purchases compared to other industries, according to a survey from Gartner, Inc.”

The Gartner study found that Public sector buying teams are large and complex, typically comprising 12 participants with varying involvement levels. Government C-level executives are less involved in technology purchases (41%) compared to their private sector counterparts (55%) to avoid perceptions of political influence, making them less likely to defend the process if challenged. Instead, lower-level operational staff often take on the role of business subject matter experts, heavily influencing decision-making through their evaluations and recommendations.

Several factors contribute to delays in the public sector buying cycle, including developing the business case, scope changes requiring additional research, and budgeting agreements. These delays often occur before the official procurement process begins. Moreover, 68% of public sector respondents report significant delays because of insufficient information from technology providers.

To mitigate these delays, public sector organizations value references from existing clients and actionable content from providers. Gartner suggests that technology providers should offer accessible public sector references and comprehensive product collateral to support the buying process at every stage.

It is interesting to see what these groups find as they continue to study this problem.

Meanwhile, we, the public, the change agents, those committed to the betterment of our government, must consider how we can do more then admire the problem.

From Leading Agile Acquisitions, I would offer, “The path to change begins with small manageable steps that show success. Often, I am tasked with resolving large-scale problems fraught with high stakes. While desperation can indeed be a potent motivator, the ensuing changes are usually chaotic, and the risks are substantial. Empirical evidence suggests that most IT acquisitions are prone to similar challenges. Therefore, a more logical strategy would be to focus on less risky, smaller-scale projects as testing grounds for new methods. Inevitably, mistakes will happen, but these are valuable learning opportunities to develop processes that ensure success in more critical scenarios.”

I think what we will find, is what we already know from the good ol’ lean six sigma days, and what Agile Acquisitions teaches us; regardless of where decisions are made, we need to look for ‘slack’ in the process. Here are some things to look for when trying to improve your process (be it for acquisitions or anything else):

• Can we map the approval process?

• How long, on average does the artifact spend at any point in the process (and do we know why certain points take longer than others, is that something that can be managed)?

• Is everyone in the process empowered to say ‘Yes’ (as opposed to just no)?

• Are any of the points in the process redundant to another point?

• Can any of the processes be automated?

  
  

These are just a starting point but, starting is the point!