I work for a large defense prime (you probably know that one), with about 7 years of experience in systems engineering.
A few years ago, I walked into my VP's office and asked if I could start learning more about the business side of things. I wanted to understand why we invest hundreds of millions of dollars in certain technologies, how those investment decisions are made, and how we develop our long-term strategic plans.
What I didn't realize at the time was just how far down the rabbit hole that question would take me.
When I started this journey, I had a particular idea in mind. It was a new capability, or at least a different approach to addressing some of the operational challenges the DoD is facing today.
As I started digging into the research, I discovered that the same concept had already been considered back in the 1960s. The more I studied, the more I realized just how remarkable military innovation was during the Cold War. Almost every new idea I could come up with had already been thought of, studied, or even experimented with decades ago. Some of those concepts were abandoned because the technology wasn't mature enough, while others simply weren't practical at the time.
Along the way, I had the opportunity to speak with some of the old guard from the Cold War, now in their 70s and 80s, as well as a few retired colonels who had served in combatant commands.
One thing that really stuck with me was how they described the business mindset of defense contractors during the Cold War compared to today.
According to them, defense contractors used to work much more closely with the military to understand operational challenges, investigate potential solutions, and develop new capabilities. Companies were more willing to invest their own resources, take on business risks, and explore ideas without waiting for the government to tell them exactly what to build.
Of course, the Cold War had its own problems, but the pace of experimentation and innovation was something else entirely.
Then the Cold War ended.
Over the following three decades, the defense industry became increasingly conservative and, frankly, somewhat complacent. A lot of the responsibility for identifying operational gaps, developing solutions, and determining what capabilities were actually needed shifted toward the DoD.
Meanwhile, contractors became increasingly comfortable waiting for the customer to define the requirements before figuring out how to deliver them.
And I think this has created a fundamental problem in how we approach systems engineering today.
We spend an enormous amount of time making sure we're building things the right way, but perhaps not nearly enough time asking whether we're building the right things in the first place.
I've also noticed something troubling as I've become more involved in mission engineering and long-range strategic planning. Some of the engineering leadership I've worked with are incredibly knowledgeable about the technical aspects of their programs, yet have a surprisingly limited understanding of the actual missions those systems are supposed to support.
They understand requirements, architectures, interfaces, verification, and all the processes necessary to deliver a system. But ask them about the broader operational challenges, the evolving threat environment, or why a particular capability is needed in the first place, and the conversation becomes much more difficult.
The mindset often seems to be: Tell us what the customer wants, and we'll figure out how to build it.
But what if the customer doesn't know exactly what they need? Or what if the requirements they give us are already outdated by the time we finish developing the system?
There's a famous quote often attributed to Henry Ford: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
Fast forward to today.
The DoD has published updated guidance on mission engineering, and during recent industry days, they've been encouraging defense contractors to step up and work alongside the government rather than simply wait for requirements to be handed down.
There seems to be a growing emphasis on contractors taking a more proactive role in understanding the mission space, identifying operational gaps, and helping shape the capabilities needed to address them.
And then there's Anduril.
I'm still pretty skeptical of them, and personally, I think their marketing is better than their actual engineering. That being said, I do give them credit for challenging the traditional defense industry business model. They've pushed the conversation back toward companies taking risks, investing their own resources, developing capabilities proactively, and bringing potential solutions to the military instead of waiting for a contract.
In some ways, it almost feels like we're moving back toward the model that helped drive so much innovation during the Cold War.
This whole experience has made me wonder whether systems engineering is heading toward another major shift, one where understanding the mission, operational environment, geopolitics, economics, and policies becomes just as important as technical expertise.
I'm not suggesting traditional systems engineering is going away. Requirements, architecture, integration, verification, and all the other fundamentals are still absolutely essential.
But perhaps we've become so focused on executing requirements and delivering systems that we've lost sight of the bigger picture.
Are we building things the right way, or are we actually building the right things?
And more importantly, should systems engineers have a greater role in answering that second question?
I'm curious what other systems engineers think, particularly those who have been in the industry much longer than I have.
Are we entering a new era where systems engineers are expected to understand not just how a system works, but why it's needed, how it fits into the broader mission, and whether it's even the right solution to begin with?
Or is this simply mission engineering becoming more prominent, while traditional systems engineering remains largely unchanged?
For those who have spent 20–30 years in the defense industry, is this actually a fundamental shift in how we do business, or are we just rediscovering lessons that the industry forgot decades ago?
