Competitive advantage in the defense industry has long come from scale, manufacturing capacity, and program delivery. Those capabilities still matter. But increasingly, so does engineering speed.

Major defense acquisition programs now take nearly 12 years on average to deliver an initial operational capability, according to recent Government Accountability Office assessments—well above original program expectations (see Figure 1). At the same time, newer defense entrants are fielding capabilities faster and reshaping customer expectations around speed, rapid upgrades, and software delivery.

The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated how quickly military technology can evolve in combat. Software on unmanned systems is often updated in days rather than months. Low-cost, attritable drones—autonomous systems designed to be affordable enough to lose in combat—are reshaping combat economics. Rapid upgrade cycles are changing how militaries deploy and modernize capabilities. Customers now expect systems to evolve continuously rather than through decade-long modernization programs.

Defense organizations, however, continue to struggle to deliver upgrades at that pace. Software integration delays in major defense programs have highlighted the difficulty of delivering upgrades across increasingly complex hardware and software environments. More broadly, the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) growing use of Other Transaction Agreements reflects increasing government willingness to prioritize speed and flexibility in acquisition.

Many executives attribute long development cycles to customer requirements, regulation, or supply chain constraints. Those pressures exist, but in our experience, a substantial share of delay originates inside the engineering organization itself. The biggest issues are slow decision making, fragmented operating models, and development processes optimized more for control than for learning velocity.

Engineering speed is becoming a competitive fault line in defense. The companies making the greatest progress are redesigning how engineering work gets done. By accelerating learning cycles, integrating functions more tightly, and pushing decision making closer to technical teams, some are reducing development timelines by as much as 50%.

Control vs. speed

In many defense organizations, slowdowns accumulate gradually across the engineering system rather than from any single failure point. Engineering functions are typically optimized for control, not speed. Delays emerge from three reinforcing patterns.

Over-centralized decision making. Over time, many engineering organizations have accumulated layers of oversight, reviews, and approvals intended to reduce risk. In practice, these structures often create bottlenecks that significantly slow development.

Technical teams frequently escalate routine trade-offs to senior leaders because decision rights are unclear or because organizations tend to penalize mistakes more than delays. Senior engineers and program leaders become overloaded resolving issues that should have been handled lower down in the organization. The outcome is slower decisions and slower learning cycles.

Functional silos. In many programs, engineering, manufacturing, supply chain, finance, and procurement continue to operate as largely independent functions with different priorities, incentives, and timelines. That separation creates delays at nearly every stage of development. Engineering teams may design around components with long lead times before supply chain teams are involved. Manufacturing constraints often surface after designs are largely complete. Program data often sits across disconnected systems, limiting visibility into emerging risks.

As a result, engineers spend a lot of time coordinating across functions instead of advancing the technical work.

Slow learning cycles. Digital engineering tools have improved dramatically, but many organizations rely too heavily on virtual design and simulation in the early stages of development.

Physical prototypes still surface integration issues, manufacturability constraints, supplier limitations, and software-hardware interactions that digital models often miss. The longer organizations delay physical testing, the greater the risk that problems emerge later—when redesigns become significantly more disruptive and expensive.

Many companies still use prototyping primarily for downstream validation rather than rapid learning. The fastest organizations treat prototypes not as proof that designs are complete, but as mechanisms for accelerating development cycles.

Engineering reset

The defense companies making the greatest progress are redesigning engineering operating models around faster learning cycles, tighter integration, and clearer accountability. Three changes matter most in compressing defense program timelines.

Build smaller, product-focused teams. The most effective primes organize development around products or subsystems rather than traditional functions. Each team includes the people needed to solve problems quickly: engineers, manufacturing specialists, supply chain experts, program managers, and, in some cases, customer representatives. Teams share the same priorities, data, and accountability for schedule and outcomes.

Equally important, decision authority moves closer to the technical work itself.

Teams have clearly defined ownership for day-to-day decisions. Escalation becomes the exception rather than the routine. This shift substantially reduces coordination delays and dramatically accelerates program delivery.

Treat rapid prototyping as a core capability. Leaders approach development as a sequence of rapid test-and-learn cycles rather than a linear march toward a perfect final design. They define what constitutes “good enough” at each stage of development and distinguish clearly between an initial operational capability and later upgrades. Instead of waiting for every requirement to be finalized, they engage customers earlier through prototyping and testing.

Most important, they move hardware and software into integrated testing earlier. This is particularly critical as the software content in defense systems increases. Engineering speed now depends on the ability to integrate, test, update, and deploy software continuously across complex hardware environments. Early testing reduces the likelihood of large redesign cycles later in the program and can enable the phased deployment of operational capability, with enhancements delivered through successive releases.

Companies that excel at speed also simplify internal procurement for prototype work and adopt commercial sourcing approaches where appropriate. Rapid prototyping is difficult when prototype components take months to procure.

Design for manufacturing, scale, and reuse from the start. Many development delays originate from decisions made early in design that create complexity during production. Leading organizations bring manufacturing and supply chain teams into the development process earlier to reduce redesign cycles and improve scalability. They standardize components where possible, maintain curated parts libraries, and reduce unnecessary customization.

The same principle applies to software architecture and development practices. Faster organizations rely on reusable software frameworks, modular architectures, and standardized development environments rather than rebuilding core capabilities program by program. In addition to reducing development time, these practices help new engineers contribute more quickly and improve engineering productivity across programs.

What’s possible

The DoD plans to invest nearly $2.4 trillion in its costliest programs, which become costlier and more strategically risky with each year of delay. That procurement model is no longer compatible with the pace at which the defense environment is changing.

One leading defense prime reviewed the time required to move a program from “authority to proceed” to first operational trial (see Figure 2). The company identified opportunities to reduce the development timeline by 50% without materially changing the platform’s technical requirements. Importantly, many of the highest-impact improvements sat largely within engineering’s control (see Figure 3).

Quick wins. Early gains came from clarifying decision rights, increasing subsystem-level schedule accountability, accelerating hardware testing, and deploying reusable software and program starter kits so teams were not rebuilding core capabilities from scratch.

Structural moves. The next wave of improvements required broader operating model changes: colocating subsystem teams with embedded support functions, moving decision making closer to technical teams, and integrating manufacturing and supply chain expertise earlier in development.

Cross-functional and customer engagement. Additional gains required closer coordination across functions and with customers, including earlier long-lead procurement decisions and tighter alignment on initial requirements to reduce downstream redesign cycles.

The broader lesson is that companies do not need enterprise-wide transformation to significantly reduce development spans. The most effective organizations typically begin with one program, demonstrate measurable cycle-time reduction, and scale successful practices from there.

Speed advantage

The defense industry is growing increasingly complex. Regulatory requirements, supply chain constraints, and technical sophistication will continue to create challenges for every company in the sector. But the organizations outperforming on speed are demonstrating that development timelines are far more controllable than many executives assume.

The defense companies that lead the next era will not necessarily be those with the largest programs or the longest histories. They will be those that learn, adapt, and deliver capability fastest.

The authors would like to thank Jim Harris, Blaine Pellicore, Chris Sinon, and Austin Kim for their contributions.