[jimmyswimmy]

Article is very interesting and focuses on the historic faces of DARPA, not really getting too much into the modern state of the agency. Over the past 10+ years DARPA have embraced the OTA - other transaction authority - as a contract vehicle to allow DARPA PMs additional flexibility and speed in letting contracts. This has allowed, perhaps, a return to more of the ideas of the old days in which a performer and PM might seek that "meeting of the minds" mentioned in the article, and issue funding to start work.

A real limitation perhaps that DARPA has is the 3-5 year PM timeline. PMs start with a project and vision for their work, often a multiphase effort. We often joke that the challenges DARPA offers are not all that difficult, only the schedule is. A few years ago I worked on what would have been a wonderful project on a 2 year timeline which was compressed to half that, with the usual shifting sands of requirements consuming the majority of the allocated time.

I can't say that giving PMs a longer timeframe would be a good thing - that 3-5 year PM clock keeps everything moving apace. Perhaps the longer-term programs ought to be given by the office directors to PMs, but then you have the disadvantage (mentioned in the article) of PMs having to execute a project they don't believe in. That hasn't worked well; disengaged PMs, focused on their passion projects, don't give the needed attention to inherited assignments.

The future of the agency is concerning. Given increasing time and funding limitations, coupled with the Heilmeier focus, there's been a tremendous push towards immediate results. Which means simpler targets that don't provide the amazing leaps ahead that DARPA was once known for. Look to their current SBIR topics, which include one on the use of language models for suicide prevention, and another on processing data to generate facility clearances. These are not leaps ahead, but instead incremental, focused improvements. We once lost a DARPA proposal because our plan was too certain to work, they wanted more risk. Quite a change.

DARPA still hires visionary PMs, and they have the tools again to realize these visions. I hope to see a return to the DARPA referenced in the early article. It will be fun to pitch ideas to those guys. I'm tired of talking to the ones who are too focused on today to think about tomorrow.

[jvanderbot]

The few DARPA tasks I've worked on or had steerage over usually involved getting results quickly and iterating. The initial kickoff call with the stakeholders were about shared vision, but then there was a quick feedback loop until a final report was derived from the call notes and slides.

In that respect, it's a very decent way to do R&D - you have access to a highly motivated stakeholder with a clear vision of how your work fits in the larger scheme, and are allowed to iterate your way to a product both are proud of.