Defense Acquisition and the Case of the Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration Office: Ad Hoc Problem Solving as a Mechanism for Adaptive Change

Abstract : This report describes the preliminary analysis and findings of our study exploring what drives successful organizational adaptation in the context of technology transition and acquisition within the Department of Defense (DoD). It is based on our initial collection and analysis of archival and interview data. We began this study seeking to understand what influences the successful transition of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies to the warfighter, focusing on the Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstration (JCTD) office as a successful case study. In the course of our investigation, we noted shifts in organization structure, goals, and business processes of the JCTD in response to changing needs of warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Further exploration indicated that these shift were not unique to the JCTD, but were one example of many adaptive solutions to changing needs faced by the DoD acquisition community. This led us to focus our research on better understanding what drives successful organizational adaptation. Our preliminary analysis suggests that ad hoc problem solving may be an undervalued yet broadly practiced skill set within the DoD, which may support adaptive responses to change by the acquisition community. We are currently collecting additional data, which we will use to further explicate our findings.

[1]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[2]  S. Winter Understanding dynamic capabilities , 2003 .

[3]  Mark C. Suchman Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches , 1995 .

[4]  D. Snow,et al.  Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment , 2000 .

[5]  Maureen A. Scully,et al.  A Picture of the Frame: Frame Analysis as Technique and as Politics , 2002 .

[6]  D. Teece Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance , 2007 .

[7]  Karen Golden-Biddle,et al.  Liminality as Cultural Process for Cultural Change , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[8]  John W. Selsky,et al.  Contrasting Perspectives of Strategy Making: Applications in ‘Hyper’ Environments , 2007 .

[9]  Markus C. Becker,et al.  Applying Organizational Routines in understanding organizational change , 2005 .

[10]  A. Pettigrew Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice , 1990 .

[11]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[12]  E. Bono The use of lateral thinking. , 1967 .

[13]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[14]  Karen Locke Grounded Theory in Management Research , 2000 .

[15]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[16]  N. Hoffart Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[17]  Michel Delapierre and Lynn Krieger Mytelka BLURRING BOUNDARIES: NEW INTER-FIRM RELATIONSHIPS AND THE EMERGENCE OF NETWORKED, KNOWLEDGE-BASED OLIGOPOLIES , 1998 .

[18]  John T. Dillard Toward Centralized Control of Defense Acquisition Programs , 2005 .

[19]  A. Clarke Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn , 2005 .

[20]  P. Christopher Earley,et al.  A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset , 2010 .

[21]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Task Revision: A Neglected Form of Work Performance , 1990 .