Tracking the Department of War's industrial-base priorities — and what they mean on the Michigan shop floor.
Industrial Base Policy & Practice · August 2026
Human in the Loop
Artificial intelligence is quietly entering supplier qualification, and almost no one publishes how they govern it. This commentary makes an argument that runs against the grain of most human-in-the-loop writing: the line between what a machine does and what a named person decides is an engineering decision before it is an ethical one. Generative scoring would destroy determinism — and determinism is the only reason one manufacturer's 68 is commensurate with another's 71, or that a re-score after remediation measures improvement rather than a different mood in the machine. Hand judgment to a model and the number stops being a measurement and becomes an opinion with a decimal point. What follows from that: why a model cannot hold a signature, why introducing AI forced more accountability into the file rather than less, and why the productivity gain in this work lands outward — on the Michigan shops that get qualified and the people they hire — rather than inside the firm holding the tool.
~1,650 words · 7-minute read
Industrial Base Policy & Practice · July 2026
Built for Volume, Bought for Variance
There is a paradox at the center of defense supplier readiness: to succeed, a manufacturer must become more rigid and more nimble at the same time — audit-ready configuration control on one hand, low-volume, high-mix adaptability on the other. Michigan's manufacturers are not unprepared because they lack capability; they are superbly prepared for something else. Decades of commercial success architected them for volume, while defense programs buy variance. This feature argues that defense readiness is an organizational architecture problem — concentrated decision rights, tribal knowledge, and systems that cannot testify on a firm's behalf — and why every one of those failure modes is measurable before a dollar is spent chasing defense work.
~950 words · 4-minute read
Industrial Base Policy & Practice · July 2026
The Hollow Middle
The defense industrial base has built a mature, multibillion-dollar market to help a manufacturer get compliant — CMMC consulting alone is roughly a $2 billion business. But almost no one is built to advise the decision that comes first: whether to enter defense at all. Upstream, help exists only at two extremes — free, generalist counseling and six-figure bespoke strategy — leaving the mid-market manufacturer to make a capital-intensive, hard-to-reverse bet with no structured, scored read on its own readiness. This feature maps the hollow middle, why it stays empty, and why the decision no one sells is the one that most decides whether a Michigan shop wins or loses in defense.
~950 words · 4-minute read
Industrial Base Policy & Practice · July 2026
The Second Valley of Death
Everyone knows the valley of death between R&D and a fielded capability — and the Department of War's Rapid Integrated Scalable Enterprise (RISE) was built to bridge it. But there's a second valley right behind it, and almost no one is funding a bridge across it: the business-readiness gate at transition. A supplier can win the award, mature the technology, and still stall — because its cost accounting can't survive DCAA, it has no CMMC posture, or it can't show a prime through to its own sub-tier supply base. This piece maps that gap, domain by domain, and why it lands hardest on Michigan's manufacturers.
~1,000 words · 5-minute read
Industrial Base Policy & Practice · June 2026
From Strategy to Supply Base
The first-ever National Defense Industrial Strategy named sub-tier visibility and supplier resilience a national priority — and the Department of War is pressing that mission harder today, including a May 2026 visit to Michigan's own Detroit Arsenal. This commentary maps that policy, domain by domain, onto the Defense Expansion Pathway™ — and shows why it lands squarely on every Michigan supplier inside a prime's supply base.
~1,300 words · 6-minute read