Ever wonder why the best tech doesn't always win in defense? Meeting lots of defense tech founders recently has shown me a hard truth—99.9% of them vastly underestimate defense go-to-market. This isn't a market where the best tech wins by default. Winning in defense requires much more regulatory capture than people realize—-product-led growth (PLG) is essentially non-existent. Traditional tech founders face huge disadvantages when building exclusively for DoD customers. In this field, having cutting-edge technology isn't enough, you need a massively unfair advantage (beyond technology) to succeed here. It's an area where connections, understanding the bureaucracy, and navigating the procurement maze are critical. I don't recommend building for this sector unless you're prepared for these unique challenges.
James Gayner MBE
4mo
Larsen, on the money as usual. There’s lots of reasons for it. Some valid (it’s tax payers money and the defence of the nation is at stake foremost amongst them), some less so. But whatever the causes, the symptoms are still largely the same. Both sides of the pond. We must do better.
Mike McGinty
4mo
But it does mean that if you realise that and can bring great tech and combine it with understanding the user need and the procurement processes then it can be very effective. But always conplex!
Joshua Ouellette
4mo
💯
Creel O'Neil
4mo
Well put Larsen. I'd add a couple things: 1. This customer is used to buying systems (not subcomponents) that border on science fiction. When you think you have something amazing, remember that their perspective comes from landing autonomous probes on alien worlds with little to no human control. 2. Software usually isn't enough. At the end of the day, this is a competition between empires. And products must have impact in the real world. 3. You can't do part-time defense work. The 24-month business cycles and bureaucratic requirements mean your federal work has to have a full complement of bodies to deliver. Once you ink that contract, no matter the size, the expectation is that they'll have full support (not just your sales guy to call when something breaks).
James Pitcher
4mo
“You need a massively unfair advantage… It's an area where connections, understanding the bureaucracy, and navigating the procurement maze are critical.” Ironically, much of the red tape and bureaucracy was meant to ensure fairness and transparency. These policies need to be reevaluated with a focus on what has actually been incentivized and put into practice.
Gerry D'Agostino
4mo
The unfair advantage is probably the most salient point. Even with that the most needed and advanced technologies they take years to receive traction they deserve
Ross Campbell
4mo
Another factor, which from what I've seen is as true in the US as it is in the UK, is a marked institutional preference in procurement organisations for the big defence 'primes'. Ultimately this preference is about convenience for the officials concerned. They are easy to contract with, are hardened to being 'messed around' by bureaucrats and the bureacratic process and are easy 'go to' suppliers who (claim to) provide everything. This requires little imagination or effort on the part of said officials. Never mind their time and cost performance track record, relentless efforts to expand the scope of works or the quality of their equipment, convenience trumps all! As an aside, I did more than once while working in defence have to intervene to stop procurement teams trying to 'collapse' thriving SME markets into a single prime - because it was more 'convenient' to the procurer.
Ashwin Lalendran
4mo
+1 Dual use is still a repeatable playbook where both startups and government can still win. But requires founders to be unwavering in their commercially-led product roadmap. Then either seek out or react to USG funding to reduce technical risks on their roadmap. Bonus: get access to unique value add USG can provide (ie spectrum management, restricted airspaxe, etc). Kodiak Robotics, Applied Intuition, Oxide Computer are some good case studies.
Stephen Potter
4mo
its is also where being anti-risk is highly rewarded. Whereas the defense tech disrupters are encouraging risk. Ie. how can we do this differently and disruptively with step change in capabilities with this tech. Government (uniformed and non uniformed) are incentivized with promotions by eliminating risk. Except when in active combat where servicemembers are dying. Remember CIED, CIED vehicle protection? Our whole of procurement needs to operate on UONS level speed and risk taking. Second, the level of prime's entrenchment is higher than commercial markets. Commercial markets have lobbyists, etc. DOD primes have former generals and congressional staffers shaping the regulatory capture environment that could shift huge budgets and kill programs etc. It is a long game of chess for sure.
Defense Tech Accelerator | OUSD(R&E) Reservist | ex-Shield AI & True Anomaly | MIT & USAFA
4moIn this market, the best product does not win...the best go-to-market strategy wins.