[digikata]

I'm no military historian, but there are terrible failure stories for products pushed out before they're ready to the frontlines too. Beauacracy is a waste, but some of those steps seen as wasteful in the DoD procurement process are "scar tissue" from where things went wrong either in the battlefield or, as often, protection against incapable, or worse, fraudulent contractors.

You're right, my post wasn't a list of requirements, just an illustration of some of the things one might end up having to care about when packaging up a military product used in dangerous situations. There's a balance to be made, it should be made on a case by case basis.

[stcredzero]

some of those steps seen as wasteful in the DoD procurement process are "scar tissue" from where things went wrong either in the battlefield

This is precisely part of the mechanism that causes every military to be well prepared for the previous war but unprepared for the current one.

I propose greater emphasis actual feedback mechanisms based on experience in the field. These can be made to work on timescales of months or weeks. When bureaucracy comes into things, iteration timescales can stretch to years and change can become generational.

[digikata]

The path you mention exists, but not every program is fast tracked - nor should they all be. If you go too fast and mess up, soldiers can die. If you go too slow and mess up, same result.

I get frustrated too at too-slow, too-big companies running projects with billion dollar price tags resulting in no workable product, but I'm not as sure that the solutions are simple. I am sure that without constant oversight from within and without it could be much worse.

[shabble]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop