As a Federal Defense lobbyist, I look for patterns in the noise—signals that reveal where defense and policy leaders are leaning as the environment evolves. Recent poll responses from my network reflect the push and pull between innovation, policy, and funding realities shaping today’s defense ecosystem.

I’ve summarized the key takeaways. Some answers confirm long-held beliefs; others point to shifting mindsets that could influence strategy in the months ahead.

Lobbying & Engagement Still Matter

When it comes to winning funding or scaling adoption in the defense sector, one question comes up time and again: does direct engagement with policymakers still move the needle, or has the landscape shifted enough that market forces alone can carry the day? My recent poll offered a clear—though not unanimous—answer.

Question (True or False): Lobbying Congress or engaging with the executive branch is unnecessary for winning funding or scaling adoption.

The results showed 57% False and 43% True. The majority still believe relationships on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch remain essential to unlocking funding and scaling new technologies. Yet, the sizable minority suggesting otherwise hints at growing faith in market forces—or perhaps frustration with the pace of policy influence.

The takeaway here is clear: while new technologies and private-sector momentum matter, personal engagement with decision-makers remains a critical factor for success in the defense market.

CPARS Reform Sparks Debate

Contractor performance reviews have long been a source of tension between industry and the government. With Congress proposing a shift to a “negative-only” objective system for CPARS evaluations, we asked the defense community whether this change would deliver the fairness it promises.

Question: Should the DoD overhaul CPARS to adopt a “negative-only,” objective, and fact-based contractor performance evaluation system, as proposed by Congress?

The results varied:

• 39% Yes
• 28% No
• 28% Not sure
• 6% Maybe

Support leans toward reform, but the split shows industry leaders remain cautious about unintended consequences—especially if the system fails to recognize positive performance as well as shortcomings.

AI Alliances Seen as High-Impact

Technology partnerships are reshaping the defense industrial base, but their potential to deliver real transformation varies. I wanted to know how effective stakeholders believe alliances like Warp Speed for Warships—a collaboration between BlueForce Alliance and Palantir—could be in modernizing Navy shipbuilding.

Question: How effective do you believe AI-powered tech alliances like Warp Speed for Warships will be in modernizing Navy shipbuilding?

The results showed:

• 55% Highly effective
• 18% Moderately effective
• 18% Not effective
• 9% Minimally effective

The optimism here reflects growing confidence that public-private alliances can break through decades-old bottlenecks—if the workforce and infrastructure can keep pace.

Strategic Priorities Diverge

As global security challenges escalate and defense spending rises, companies face hard choices about where to focus their energy and resources. We asked participants to name their top strategic priority in this shifting environment.

Question: As global tensions drive up defense spending, what’s your top priority?

• 40% Government relations
• 30% Expanding international partnerships
• 30% Strengthening supply chains
• 0% Accelerating R&D

For many, doubling down on government relationships tops the list—a reminder that access and influence remain at the heart of defense strategy. With government relations leading the way, these results highlight the persistent need for access and influence alongside operational resilience and global engagement.

International Partnerships Take Center Stage

In a separate poll focused solely on international engagement, respondents revealed a striking consensus on the importance of global collaboration in the defense sector.

Question: As global tensions rise, what’s your top priority?

100% of voters chose “Expanding international partnerships”. This unanimous vote underscores the reality that no nation—or company—can navigate today’s defense challenges alone. International collaboration has moved to the forefront of strategic planning.

AI Adoption Challenges: Security Tops the List

The Pentagon’s new AI action plan aims to accelerate adoption across the force, but real-world implementation faces hurdles. I asked defense stakeholders which obstacles they believe stand most in the way.

Question: What is the biggest hurdle to rapid AI adoption within the DoD?

Results showed a clear victor:

• 53% Security and reliability concerns
• 24% Bureaucracy and acquisition processes
• 24% Data governance challenges
• 0% Talent shortages

With security and reliability concerns dominating, it’s clear that trust in AI systems must come before scale—and before new investments in workforce or infrastructure.

Oracle Procurement Support for Small Tech Firms

Oracle recently launched a no-cost program to help smaller technology companies navigate the often-complex DoD procurement system. We asked respondents what they saw as the most valuable outcome from programs like this.

Question: What’s the most important benefit of Oracle’s no-cost procurement support program?

Results were:

• 44% Accelerates adoption
• 22% Reduces barriers
• 22% Levels the playing field
• 11% Builds resilience

The emphasis on accelerating adoption reflects industry impatience with procurement bottlenecks—and the demand for faster paths from innovation to deployment.

Improving SBIR/STTR Programs

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs have long been pathways for innovation, but many argue their potential is under-realized. We asked participants which change would have the biggest impact on delivering results.

Question: Which step is MOST critical for improving the impact of SBIR/STTR programs in defense?

The responses were mixed:

• 45% Dedicated Phase III funding
• 32% Small business support
• 14% Acquisition pipeline integration
• 9% Greater participation from disadvantaged/women-owned firms

Calls for dedicated Phase III funding reveal frustration with the “valley of death” between prototype success and real-world application—a gap many small firms fail to cross.

Reconciliation Fund Use Still Murky

Finally, I asked a simple but revealing question about funding mechanics—whether reconciliation funds function the same way as appropriations when applied to contracts. The responses suggest lingering uncertainty on this point.

Question (True or False): Reconciliation funds spend on a contract the same way as appropriate.

The results showed 56% True and 44% False. The near-even split points to the need for better clarity on funding processes—confusion here can slow projects before they even begin.

Final Takeaway

Taken together, these poll results reveal a defense ecosystem hungry for speed, clarity, and trust—whether in contracting, AI adoption, or international collaboration. The demand for transparency and efficiency grows louder each year, with stakeholders signaling where reforms and investments should focus first: security in AI, faster procurement pathways, international partnerships, and consistent funding mechanisms.

The message is unmistakable:

technology alone won’t solve the sector’s biggest challenges.

Success depends on the intersection of innovation, policy influence, and strategic engagement across public and private domains. Leaders who understand this interplay—and act early—will be best positioned to shape the defense landscape as new capabilities, risks, and opportunities emerge.

In my work, I help clients interpret these signals, anticipate change, and take strategic steps before the next big policy wave hits.

How is your organization positioning itself to act on these trends before the next wave of defense innovation and policy shifts arrives?

What Am I Reading?

Brigid Schulte’s Over Work offers a timely exploration of how the pandemic reshaped our relationship with work and why the effects will reverberate for years. Drawing on wide-ranging research, she traces the generational divide in attitudes toward in-person versus remote work—placing the line of demarcation at roughly age 50. That framing helps explain the ongoing tension in many workplaces where presence is still equated with productivity.

What stands out is Schulte’s attention to balance—not just between work and leisure, but in the larger web of caregiving responsibilities that often go unseen. She persuasively argues that the strain of caring for children, aging parents, or the sick is not simply a “personal issue” but a public one, directly affecting health costs and workforce stability. The notion of “job lock,” where health insurance binds workers to jobs long past their optimal tenure, emerges as one of the most stubborn barriers to healthier career transitions.

Overlaying Schulte’s insights with today’s rapid advances in artificial intelligence adds an additional dimension. AI’s growing impact on knowledge-based and digital work will likely accelerate the trend toward flexibility, enabling more people to operate effectively outside a traditional office. This suggests the future of work may not simply be hybrid but fundamentally redefined, with caregiving and personal well-being finally acknowledged as essential to both productivity and economic health.

Over Work is both a reflection on where we’ve been and a prompt to imagine where we might go if we take seriously the need to redesign work for a healthier, more adaptable, and people-centered future.