By Dan Chenok, Executive Director, IBM Center for The Business of Government and Sara Sayyar, Consultant, U.S. Federal HR and Talent Transformation, IBM
As agencies face pressure to deliver technology faster and get better results from every contract dollar, acquisition leaders see an opportunity to shift federal buying from rules compliance toward mission outcomes.
To explore how federal acquisition can better support modernization, the IBM Center for The Business of Government and Recoding America recently convened leaders from government, industry, and academia. When asked to name the most pressing issues in acquisition, participants’ answers clustered around focusing on outcomes and not process, developing a culture that fosters innovation and risk management rather than risk avoidance, incremental improvements toward larger reforms, and enhancing workforce skills.
Organize Around Outcomes, Not Rules
Participants agreed that the federal acquisition community’s low tolerance for risk makes it hard to break out of established ways of operating. Some suggested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy could play a stronger role in driving change, though that would require more resources. An idea drawn from industry would involve bringing supply chain and procurement functions under a single agency leadership structure; greater integration could help align high level purchasing decisions with organizational priorities, ultimately strengthening supply chain resilience.
Central ownership of results also matters. Participants pointed to past initiatives in the Department of Homeland Security as examples of a structure built around a clear leader accountable for outcomes. Common mission metrics give agencies and contractors shared understanding and incentives for what results to achieve. Recent executive orders favoring fixed-price contracting have depicted an emphasis on clearly defined mission-focused requirements and visible results. Participants stressed that acquisition professionals should structure work around outcomes and their impact on end users, and that acquisition should be integrated more closely with program offices that lead work to drive these outcomes.
The group also debated the “snowflake” problem: agencies often see themselves as unique and resist standardization, a view reinforced by agency-specific legal, policy, and budget requirements. Some argued that agencies have more in common than they believe and should drive toward shared outcomes, such as those in the Federal Integrated Business Framework. Demand for unique products makes it difficult to embrace common solutions across the organization. Others countered that some federal applications have specialized needs that make standard interfaces hard to apply. A practical middle path emerged: procure based on common rules and outcomes for routine shared day purchases, while preserving agency flexibility for more complex acquisitions.
Share Risk and Create Space to Experiment
Contracting officers often operate in a highly risk-averse environment; project failures face consequences, while innovation lacks adequate incentives. This dynamic discourages creative acquisition approaches that may benefit the overall agency mission. To address these challenges, agencies can reshape incentives to encourage risk-taking, and evaluate COs on mission-based outcomes above compliance.
One proposal involved a “safe harbor” that lets teams fail fast on small experiments, while still holding programs accountable for shortfalls in scale operations. Program offices should be empowered to own outcomes in both areas, matched with performance standards appropriate to each.
Timing presents another obstacle. Technology investments can take several years to show measurable financial or performance benefits, yet contracts require annual spending within defined budgets. Participants advocated for a culture that recognizes these longer timelines, given the time that can pass before a true mission outcome produces long-term and visible change for end users. Outcomes can be harder to define for software development, where immediate user impact often is difficult to measure; innovation often requires an agile approach to make progress over time.
Improve the System Step by Step
Rather than waiting for sweeping reform, participants recommended defining the transformation goals first and then working downstream to remove the specific hurdles in the way. Pilot programs offer valuable lessons; moving to full-scale, long-term implementation requires deliberate change management.
Participants identified several incremental changes that could improve government performance:
Oversight drew particular attention. Participants noted that current structures can discourage innovation and outcomes-based approaches, in part because inspectors general often focus on avoiding failure and negative headlines. Options to address this include engaging oversight earlier in the acquisition process, strengthening technical expertise and data access for oversight bodies such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and rethinking oversight to enable innovation while retaining appropriate accountability. A former Pentagon change management center was cited as a group that worked well with GAO on policy.
Rebuild and Rebrand the Acquisition Workforce
Participants agreed that successful reform will depend on changes to acquisition community organizational structures, and to the skills of professionals who make up the workforce. Several noted that “workforce spirit” has suffered in recent months, with high turnover in senior procurement and policy leadership roles even as younger, entry-level professionals join government.
One recommendation would rebrand the contracting officer role. Instead of focusing mainly on enforcing rules and preventing risks, contracting officers could have a first priority of advancing the agency mission.
Participants also called for stronger in-house capability. Industry can provide large-scale delivery, but government needs enough technical expertise to understand the systems it buys, write clearer requirements, and assess results as needs change over time. This supports a flexible government-industry collaboration model rather than outsourcing every core capability. Bringing industry experience into government and fostering two-way talent pipelines, giving acquisition more attention as a career focus in higher education, and broadening acquisition staff training beyond the FAR could all help advance professional standards.
With greater use of artificial intelligence, agencies can automate many routine contracting tasks, freeing acquisition professionals to act as strategic business advisors. Participants cautioned, however, that AI should not replace professional expertise, since models without sufficient human oversight can return inaccurate or outdated information. Agencies need sound governance frameworks in applying AI to procurement, which can bring the right structures and skills focused on applying principles to AI models – principles that include transparency, explainability, fairness, and augmentation to improve rather than replace human decision-making.
Looking Forward
Participants saw real momentum for change, building on the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul initiative led by GSA. Federal acquisition now has momentum to move beyond compliance and towards a mission-focused approach. AI and automation can accelerate system development and give agencies the bandwidth to rethink core business processes across technology, finance, workforce, and program delivery, leading to contracts that incentivize mission performance rather than procedural inputs. Colorado’s e-procurement modernization initiative provides a model.
Effective progress can come from focusing acquisition on mission outcomes, sharing risk sensibly between government and industry, modernizing oversight, and investing in a confident and creative acquisition workforce. Together, these steps can help federal acquisition drive better service to the public.