Sometimes financial decisions that are seemingly rational on their face can precipitate mass exodus of your best engineers.



The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free

A minimum viable product (MVP) is not always a smaller/cheaper version of your final product. Defining the goal for a MVP can save you tons of time, money and grief.

An MVP is not a Cheaper Product, It’s about Smart Learning

Prior to WWII the U.S was a distant second in science and engineering. By the time the war was over, U.S. science and engineering had blown past the British, and led the world for 85 years.

How the U.S. Became A Science Superpower

The U.S. has spent the last 70 years making massive investments in basic and applied research. Government funding of research started in World War II driven by the needs of the military for weapon systems to defeat Germany and Japan. Post WWII the responsibility for investing in research split between agencies focused on weapons development and space exploration (being completely customer-driven) and other agencies charted to fund basic and applied research in science and medicine (being driven by peer-review.)


The Endless Frontier: U.S. Science and National Industrial Policy: Part 6a The Secret History of Silicon Valley

US global dominance in science was no accident, but a product of a far-seeing partnership between public and private sectors to boost innovation and economic growth.



How the United States Gave Up Being a Science Superpower

International Policy students will be spending their careers in an AI-enabled world. We wanted our students to be prepared for it. This is why we’ve adopted and integrated AI in our Stanford national security policy class – Technology, Innovation and Great Power Competition.

Here’s what we did, how the students used it, and what they (and we) learned.

Teaching National Security Policy with AI

We just finished our 10th annual Hacking for Defense class at Stanford.

What a year.

Hacking for Defense, now in 70 universities, has teams of students working to understand and help solve national security problems. At Stanford this quarter the 8 teams of 41 students collectively interviewed 1106 beneficiaries, stakeholders, requirements writers, program managers, industry partners, etc. – while simultaneously building a series of minimal viable products and developing a path to deployment.

Hacking for Defense @ Stanford 2025 – Lessons Learned Presentations

We just finished the 15th<>annual Lean LaunchPad class at Stanford. The class had gotten so popular that in 2021 we started teaching it in both the winter and spring sessions.

During the 2025 spring quarter the eight teams spoke to 935 potential customers, beneficiaries and regulators. Most students spent 15-20 hours a week on the class, about double that of a normal class.

Lean Launchpad at Stanford – 2025

I’ve been having coffee with lots of frustrated founders (my students and others) bemoaning most VCs won’t even meet with them unless they have AI in their fundraising pitch. And the AI startups they see are getting valuations that appear nonsensical. These conversations brought back a sense of Déjà vu from the Dot Com bubble (at the turn of this century), when if you didn’t have internet as part of your pitch you weren’t getting funded.

Why Investors Don’t Care About Your Business

How did you go bankrupt?”
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

Every disruptive technology since the fire and the wheel have forced leaders to adapt or die. This post tells the story of what happened when 4,000 companies faced a disruptive technology and why only one survived.

Blind to Disruption – The CEOs Who Missed the Future

Todd Harrison joined me on the Acquisition Talk podcast to discuss a wide range of issues, including how the reorganization of defense space forces is shaping up, why real authority in Washington is budget authority, whether rapid acquisition authorities are here to stay, why the KC-46A tanker program should be considered a success, and much more.

The episode features a discussion of the on-going space re-organization. Todd explained how the DOD’s growing reliance on space capabilities is also creating risks. Many other nations are rapidly gaining capabilities to deploy effective countermeasures. The lack of effective responses from the Air Force has brought criticism from Washington. Proponents for a Space Force argue that space is a distinct profession, with its own mission, culture, and technologies.

We learn about the various players in defense space and prospects for the future. Todd believes that more of the responsibilities for space, currently spread among out among the services and OSD, should be consolidated into the Space Force. He makes allusions to when the Air Force was separated from the Army, and that the separation of responsibilities perhaps didn’t go far enough. I push back, citing the benefits of diversity and competition. Todd responds that diversity should still exist, but we won’t have the unnecessary duplication of platforms when all that is needed is a new payload.

This podcast was produced by Eric Lofgren. Soundtrack by urmymuse: "reflections of u". You can follow us on Twitter @AcqTalk and find more information at AcquisitionTalk.com.

reflections of u

The military space reorg. and everything else with Todd Harrison

A podcast on the management, technology, and political-economy of weapon systems acquisition.

The military space reorg. and everything else with Todd Harrison

Acquisition Talk

Related tracks