Portfolio Acquisition Executives: Management by Speed

The Pentagon is overhauling its acquisition system by adopting mission portfolios—a strategy inspired by corporate portfolio management but with broader authority and accountability than most private-sector models.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has rolled out the Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE) framework, representing a major shift in how the Pentagon develops and delivers technology and capabilities.

Instead of measuring performance through paperwork and compliance, success will be judged by outcomes: how quickly solutions are delivered, how relevant they are to current needs, and how they foster competition within the industrial base.

𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆

This new approach mirrors how leading technology companies manage their investments—by strategic theme rather than by individual products or programs.

However, the Pentagon’s PAEs have even greater flexibility. They can reallocate resources on demand, bypassing slow annual budget cycles. PAEs also serve longer terms—about four years—ensuring continuity from initial concept to field deployment.

𝗔 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗽 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲

1. Unified Authority
In most companies, financial and product decisions are split between different leaders. The PAE model brings them together, streamlining decisions and accelerating action.

2. Outcome-Based Accountability
PAEs are measured not by profit or market share, but by their impact on missions and delivery speed. Accountability is tied to results.

3. Continuous Governance
Each portfolio is tracked through “scorecards” measuring speed, competition, and relevance—offering a level of transparency rare even among top global corporations.

𝗔 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗪𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵

With the PAE initiative, the world’s largest public-sector organization is adopting a management model long promoted in the private sector—but with greater authority and a sharper focus on mission. For those interested in how governments respond to technological change, this may be today’s most compelling management experiment.

This post was first published on LinkedIn in November 2025.

𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄 “𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗼 𝗔𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲” (𝗣𝗔𝗘) 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is in the midst of a major overhaul of its acquisition system—and one of the centerpiece changes is the creation of the Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE).

This change signals a shift from traditional program-centric acquisition toward a portfolio-based, mission-driven model. Below is what’s publicly known so far.

🔍 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗣𝗔𝗘?

Under the upcoming reform, what were previously multiple Program Executive Officers (PEOs) managing discrete programs will increasingly become PAEs—senior officials responsible for a portfolio of related programs aligned by mission, domain, or technology.

A PAE’s portfolio could include several systems or capabilities (e.g., unmanned systems + autonomy + logistics + software), all under one accountable leader.

🧩 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 & 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀

They are expected to reallocate funds within the portfolio (e.g., divert funding from slower programs to higher-priority ones) to prioritize speed and relevance.
PAEs will be empowered to make trade-offs in favor of rapid fielding, rather than perfection. “Good enough, quickly” becomes a possible metric.
PAEs will serve longer stints (minimum ~4 years) and be evaluated on portfolio-level metrics such as delivery timelines, competition, and mission outcomes, rather than just compliance.


There are lots of open questions, in particular around budgets scope and scale and talent. Each service has been directed to submit portfolios within 60 days.

But one thing is clear: This reform is one of the most significant shifts in DoD acquisition culture in decades. 🚀

The first version of this post was published on LinkedIn in November 2025

Why Military Innovation Still Fails — and What Ukraine and China Mean for Investors and Founders

In their seminal 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘐𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘥, Murray & Millett compiled lessons which map directly onto today’s defense and dual-use landscape.

Their core insight was straightforward: militaries don’t fail for lack of technology; they fail for lack of imagination, integration, and institutional courage.

And that pattern is visible again in Ukraine and in China’s accelerating military modernization.

1. Most militaries have the technology — few rethink how to use it

Interwar armies all had tanks and radios; only a handful built new operational concepts around them. Today, Ukraine started winning tactical advantages with cheap, rapidly evolving drones and battlefield software, and Russia has developed similar tools and the means and imagination to adapt.


2. The winners integrated new technologies into new concepts — not old doctrine

The U.S. Navy’s carrier aviation and Germany’s blitzkrieg and weren’t platform breakthroughs, they were doctrinal concept breakthroughs. Today, China’s force design — spanning hypersonics, counter-space, and integrated C2 — aims to leapfrog Western doctrine rather than mirror it.


3. Innovation requires champions with institutional cover

Interwar reformers succeeded only when senior leaders protected them. Today, Ukraine elevates officers who experiment; China backs internal innovators with political alignment.


❓ These conclusions leads to a set of questions:

For founders: Does your technology fit into an emerging operational concept, or is it trying to bolt onto structures that won’t survive the next decade?

For investors: Are we backing startups that change the way missions are executed, not just add another point solution?

‼️ The takeaway

The biggest opportunity in defense and dual-use technology isn’t another sensor, drone, or autonomy stack. Instead, it is enabling the conceptual and organizational shift that modern conflict now demands.

As investors, we look for startups that enable rapid adaptation on the battlefield, align with emergent operational doctrinal concepts, and have customers inside DoD with the authority to champion change.

The interwar period showed what happens when innovation outpaces institutions. Ukraine and China show it’s happening again.

A version of this post was published on LinkedIn in December 2025