🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the inadequacy of the current U.S. Department of Defense software acquisition pathways in effectively managing the unique challenges posed by artificial intelligence systems—particularly their data dynamism, model evolution, and governance requirements. Through scenario-based policy analysis, the authors embed a hypothetical AI-enabled project into critical junctures of the existing acquisition process to systematically evaluate how policies translate into practice. The analysis reveals that core guidance documents lack operational specificity, while AI-related controls are fragmented across supplementary materials, leading programs to rely on inconsistent local interpretations. To bridge this gap, the paper proposes a dedicated AI acquisition sub-pathway alongside targeted documentation enhancements, substantially aligning policy with practice in areas such as data provenance, lifecycle management, and human oversight.
📝 Abstract
As AI systems transition from experimental prototypes to mission-critical tools, their dependence on dynamic data, evolving models, and governance raises questions about whether existing acquisition pathways can keep pace. The U.S. Department of Defense has modernized its acquisition processes through the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, with the Software Acquisition Pathway (SWP) serving as the primary mechanism for acquiring software-intensive capabilities. This paper evaluates whether SWP is sufficient to address the unique demands of AI acquisition.
In this work, we perform a scenario-based evaluation that traces a notional AI-enabled program through key SWP planning activities to assess how policy translates into program artifacts and decisions. We use Policy Scenario Analysis to examine whether the SWP-centered governance stack provides sufficient actionable support for AI acquisition. The governance stack provides a viable foundation for iterative delivery and AI testing. However, we identify a recurring actionability problem in the core guidance. AI-specific controls for data provenance, lifecycle management, and human oversight remain distributed across supplemental documents rather than embedded in the program-facing mechanisms through which SWP is executed. This disconnect leaves program offices reliant on inconsistent local interpretation. We conclude by recommending an AI-supporting sub-path and targeted artifact refinements to better bridge this policy-to-artifact gap.