If “bureaucracy” suggests uncompromising adherence to established rules and procedures, a hierarchy of decision-making power, and a tendency to avoid risk (often by delaying action or avoiding it altogether), then DARPA is an anti-bureaucracy. Barry Pallotta says, “This is not a culture of ‘no.’ It’s a culture of getting things done.” The Contract Management Office offers one important instance of that anti-bureaucratic spirit.
That is from the excellent Innovation at DARPA report. Reminds me somewhat of Harvey Sapolsky’s account of the Fleet Ballistic Missile program:
When a Navy field office accountant sought to apply the usual bureaucratic delays to FBM contractor requests, he was told that he would be immediately transferred to another, less desirable assignment if he attempted to do so again. “Think big or get out” was the message.
Both passages highlight how the culture of bureaucracy must be managed to ensure the success of innovation.
Bureaucracy is supposed to be an information processing system. It was considered efficient back in the 19th century. Business adopted bureaucracy when its scale got sufficient. It seems to make the most sense when you have easily partitionable tasks that require minimal communication.
To achieve centralized policy direction and decentralized administration, you need the information processing of bureaucracy. This policy-administration dichotomy is a core aspect of governance that was introduced to the US by Woodrow Wilson. It was critical to McNamara and Packard’s philosophies of defense management, and remains so today.
What happens when centralized decision-makers, accountable to the public, do not have the knowledge to to decide what emerging technologies to pursue? Further, what happens when the public doesn’t have the knowledge or incentives to understand the choices made? This is certainly the case is DOD acquisition.
Rethinking accountability in a world of intangibles is a major challenge for the 21st century.
Leave a Reply