(SBA) - In one of my lives, I worked as a slimy defense contractor
When dealing with government entities, especially military projects, one had to make it clear to the customer that in the management of such projects one should expect that the customer needs to become familiar with three words—fast, good and cheap. When contracting defense work, the customer gets two of those words.
The project can be done fast and good, but not cheap. The project can be done cheap and good, but that means the project will take time to complete. One can also have the project done fast and cheap, but that means the outcomes will be less than good. No matter how many projects I was party to, these combinations were always in play. Of course, the customers had a hard time coming to grips with the realities of the contracting world, but like physics, these characteristics of modern contracting are immutable.
I am concerned about a recent memorandum originated in the office of the Secretary of Defense. Secretary Hegseth, following the guidance received from the White House, has asked the senior leaders in the Pentagon to figure out what organizational charts should look like when the civilian workforce is whittled down to whatever the numbers might be. I do not have issues with the general guidance, but I do have trouble with the deadlines being directed by a secretary that may have missed the “fast, good, cheap” lesson in business school.
The guidance from the secretary is that all the senior leaders must have their new organizational charts submitted by April 11 of this year. I fear the short deadline will not leave enough time for thoughtful, effective ideas to be brought forward. I fear the American people will get as a product some slammed together notion of what an office or branch might look like, given the fact that those leaders may not have enough time to take a realistic look at what is really needed to get their mission accomplished. The operative word is mission.
I would hope that these leaders would establish what the missions of their organizations are and then figure out what those organizations ought to look like five or ten years down the road when the missions are all they do. These leaders must shed all the add-ons that have come over time. They must focus just on what Congress has mandated—nothing more and nothing less.
I have little confidence that the Secretary of Defense will receive quality products from the supposed leaders in the various departments and agencies. There simply is not enough time allowed to get thoughtful inputs. He is going to get “fast and cheap.” which means the inputs will not be good.
What occurs to me is that this memorandum is again a show piece without anyone taking this exercise seriously. There will be great hoopla about what the Pentagon produces, but actually following through on this initiative will be the real test.
The American people are being treated to one of the most forceful displays of governance in my memory. Perhaps no president or administration has moved so quickly with so much activity since Reagan in the 1980s. The difference appears to be, however, that Reagan actually had a plan, and the Trump administration is taking a hammer to the surface porcelain of government, not really concerned about how much breakage occurs.
I’m still skeptical about all of this moving and shaking. I think I have moved from an “Iowa Nice” mentality to one of “Show Me.” I will be the first to jump on the bandwagon if and when DOGE, HHS, DOD and the rest of the outfits prove that government and governance are important to them. As an American citizen, nothing is more important than government being a lighter burden every day.
