<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Living on the Edge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ryanjsloan.com/blog/living-on-the-edge/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ryanjsloan.com/blog/living-on-the-edge/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on computing, the web and technology</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nicholas Johnson</title>
		<link>http://ryanjsloan.com/blog/living-on-the-edge/#comment-708</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicholas Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ryanjsloan.com/blog/?p=55#comment-708</guid>
		<description>This reminds me a lot of the drastic changes that Gates made the DOD undertake in defense acquisition with the FY2010 budget proposal.  For the last two decades (read: post-Cold War era), shiny has been the name of the game as defense platforms got bigger, faster, stealthier, more networked and high tech, and also, more expensive.  Gates saw that we were beginning to hedge our military capabilities on mega expensive super platforms that could deal with 99% of situations, but had capabilities that were really only needed in a small number of situations.  The types of engagements we are currently in simply don't have a place for the newest, most capable thing on the market; to the contrary, often the dirtiest, most proven equipment and methods have been the most effective.  The balance Gates has sought to recover he calls something like "investing in the 90% of the time solutions" which results in a force with a slightly reduced mission capability, but an extremely enhanced ability to carry out most missions. You're not alone, Mr. Sloan, in realizing that sometimes getting 90% productivity from all team players is more valuable than getting 100% from a select few.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This reminds me a lot of the drastic changes that Gates made the DOD undertake in defense acquisition with the FY2010 budget proposal.  For the last two decades (read: post-Cold War era), shiny has been the name of the game as defense platforms got bigger, faster, stealthier, more networked and high tech, and also, more expensive.  Gates saw that we were beginning to hedge our military capabilities on mega expensive super platforms that could deal with 99% of situations, but had capabilities that were really only needed in a small number of situations.  The types of engagements we are currently in simply don&#8217;t have a place for the newest, most capable thing on the market; to the contrary, often the dirtiest, most proven equipment and methods have been the most effective.  The balance Gates has sought to recover he calls something like &#8220;investing in the 90% of the time solutions&#8221; which results in a force with a slightly reduced mission capability, but an extremely enhanced ability to carry out most missions. You&#8217;re not alone, Mr. Sloan, in realizing that sometimes getting 90% productivity from all team players is more valuable than getting 100% from a select few.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
