Why the SPEED and FORGED Acts Alone Won’t Win Tomorrow’s Wars

In the previous parts of this series, found here and here, I've discussed the foundational role of the SPEED and FORGED Acts and highlighted the critical unaddressed challenges, using a case as a stark example. Now, in this installment, I want to outline the concrete path forward for the DoD to truly leverage the Acts and integrate lean innovation for mission acceleration. This demands a fundamental shift in how problems are defined, how solutions are developed, and how authorities are operationalized.

Congress has taken an important first step with the SPEED and FORGED Acts, which will give the Defense Department new tools to accelerate acquisition. But legislation alone won’t deliver battlefield advantage. Unless the Pentagon changes how it defines problems, develops solutions, and empowers decision-makers, the Acts risk becoming more paper than progress.

From Requirements to Problems

For decades, the Pentagon has relied on a rigid “requirements” process—long, jargon-filled documents predicting what a future fight might demand. This process routinely produces technologies that are late, mismatched, or obsolete.

There is a better way. The Lean LaunchPad methodology pioneered by Steve Blank—adapted for defense through the Hacking for Defense (H4D) program I co-created with Steve and Joe Felter—flips the script. Instead of starting with preordained requirements, it begins with customer discovery: 50 or more interviews with soldiers, commanders, logisticians, and other stakeholders to understand the real problem before proposing a solution.

At the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force, which I led, this approach proved transformative. We stopped shopping for gadgets and started sourcing problems. Teams deployed to the field, validated pain points, tested solutions, and iterated quickly. H4D has taken this model into the classroom, where students work on live challenges from defense sponsors—often “wicked problems” with no obvious solution. The outcome isn’t a static requirements document; it’s a dynamic, continuously updated narrative that reflects operational reality.

The result is buy-in from operators and solutions that are actually usable. Contrast this with the Army’s experience with the bloated and unstable Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS-A) and soldiers’ preference for Palantir. The lesson is clear: innovation begins not with technology, but with problem curation at the tactical edge.

Building an Agile Culture

The Palantir case also underscores the dangers of the Pentagon’s “waterfall” development model—spending years perfecting a system only to deliver it too late. The alternative is agile development: breaking projects into small sprints, fielding minimally viable products (MVPs), and refining them based on user feedback.

This requires a cultural shift. Instead of punishing all failures, leaders must distinguish between reckless mistakes and intelligent risks worth taking. Instead of centralizing authority, they must push decision-making down to the lowest competent level, closer to the warfighter. The SPEED and FORGED Acts would provide the authority to do this; what’s needed now is the courage to use it.

An MVP may not be flawless, but it is fielded fast, tested in combat conditions, and improved continuously. Soldiers benefit sooner, the Pentagon learns faster, and taxpayers avoid the massive losses of single-point failures.

The Path Forward

The battlefield is evolving too fast for business as usual. America’s adversaries are already leveraging commercial technologies at speed. To keep pace, the Pentagon must embrace lean innovation: define problems through discovery, field solutions through iteration, and empower people at the edge to act.

Legislation opened the door. Now it’s up to the Defense Department to walk through it.

Read the final installment of the “Beyond the Bills” series here.

‍