To address urgent operational needs in a changing threat environment, this report examines one type of government acquisition method, called government strategic investment (GSI). Through a combination of case studies and economic modeling, this research will help government acquisition managers judge the suitability of strategic investment methods for motivating future government mission–oriented innovation by private firms.
Download
Download eBook for Free
Full Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.8 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Summary Only
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.1 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback100 pages | $29.95 | $23.96 20% Web Discount |
Research Questions
- What were the experiences of previous U.S. government-sponsored venture capital initiatives?
- How did these past initiatives develop mission-oriented capabilities?
A wide range of military capability improvement efforts have benefited from development and procurement methods that accommodate urgent operational needs. Changes in the threat environment suggest a need for a fresh examination of the adequacy and suitability of acquisition methods for the coming decade. This report examines one class of acquisition method, known as government venture capital (GVC), or government strategic investment (GSI). The research extracts general observations from previous cases and from a partial economic model of the GSI type of initiative. Taken together, these analyses will help government acquisition managers to judge more thoroughly the suitability of strategic investment methods for motivating future government mission–oriented innovation by private firms.
The report does not explicitly compare GSIs and alternatives for their efficacy in advancing government mission objectives. If it had, it is likely that the main advantage of GSI would be improved access to information about alternative approaches available in the commercial market, resulting from the close relationships the GSI structure engenders between government and business.
Key Findings
Qualitative analysis of cases led to the following observations.
- In the three government strategic investment (GSI) cases examined, mission-oriented innovation was of equal or greater importance than generating financial return.
- GSI participation in venture capital investments has provided government with additional information about technology-focused market sectors and companies.
- GSI initiatives rely on the operational flexibility afforded by Other Transaction authority.
- GSI initiatives rely in a significant way on a government-to-private sector "interface" function.
- The GSI's responsibility to government customers adds significant difficulty to the task of investment management.
- GSI initiatives need staff with private market capabilities to serve investment management functions.
Economic modeling analysis led to the following observations.
- It is possible to systematically assess selected incentives to which private firms will respond.
- The desired balance of GSI financial support between equity investment and contractual support depends on likelihood of sale in government and commercial markets.
- The GSI initiatives in the case studies illustrate a range in the balance between equity investment and contractual support.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter Two
Strategic Investment for Innovation Support
Chapter Three
Case Studies of U.S. Government Strategic Investment
Chapter Four
Economic Framework for Innovation Incentives
Chapter Five
Observations from GSI Case Studies and Economic Modeling
Appendix A
Economic Model Algebraic Details
Appendix B
Other Transaction (OT) Authority Reference
Research conducted by
The research described in this report was prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The research was conducted within the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by OSD, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.