What is Agile?

Agile is a framework for software development that emphasizes iterative progress, collaboration, and adaptability over rigid planning and sequential execution. Born from the Agile Manifesto in 2001, it prioritizes:

  • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
  • Working software over comprehensive documentation
  • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
  • Responding to change over following a plan

Common Agile methodologies include Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming (XP), and SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework). At its core, Agile breaks large projects into small, manageable increments called “sprints” (typically 1-4 weeks), delivering functional software continuously rather than waiting months or years for a final product.

Why Agile Matters in Defense

The defense industry faces unique challenges that make Agile particularly relevant:

1. Accelerating Threat Landscapes

Adversaries evolve tactics rapidly. Traditional waterfall development cycles—taking 18-36 months to field software—are obsolete when threats emerge weekly. Agile’s iterative approach allows defense systems to adapt in weeks, not years.

2. Technological Complexity

Modern defense systems integrate AI, autonomous platforms, sensor fusion, and cyber warfare capabilities. No single upfront design can anticipate all integration challenges. Agile allows teams to discover and resolve issues incrementally.

3. Budget Constraints and Accountability

Defense programs are under intense scrutiny. Agile’s frequent deliverables provide visibility into progress and value, reducing the risk of multi-billion dollar failures discovered only at final delivery.

4. Warfighter Feedback

The best requirements come from operators in the field. Agile’s emphasis on continuous stakeholder engagement ensures software evolves based on actual combat experience, not theoretical specifications written years earlier.

The Pros of Agile

Faster Time-to-Value

Working software ships in weeks or months, not years. For defense, this means capabilities reach warfighters faster, potentially saving lives and missions.

Reduced Risk

By delivering in small increments, problems are discovered early when they’re cheaper to fix. No more “big bang” failures at the end of multi-year programs.

Better Alignment with User Needs

Regular demos and feedback loops ensure the product actually solves real problems. In defense, this means less “shelfware”—expensive systems that never get used.

Improved Team Morale and Retention

Agile empowers teams, reduces bureaucratic overhead, and creates a culture of ownership. In an industry struggling to retain software talent, this matters.

Transparency and Predictability

Stakeholders see progress every sprint. Leadership gets honest assessments of velocity and obstacles, enabling better decision-making.

Adaptability to Change

Requirements will change—that’s a feature, not a bug. Agile embraces this reality rather than fighting it with cumbersome change control boards.

The Cons of Agile

Documentation Gaps

Agile’s emphasis on “working software over comprehensive documentation” can create problems in defense, where systems must be maintained for 20+ years, often by different contractors. Insufficient documentation leads to vendor lock-in and costly sustainment.

Security and Compliance Tensions

Traditional security accreditation processes (ATO, RMF, FedRAMP) assume stable, well-documented systems. Agile’s rapid iteration conflicts with lengthy security reviews, creating bottlenecks.

Contract Incompatibility

Most defense contracts are fixed-price, fixed-scope agreements that assume requirements are known upfront. Agile requires flexible, collaborative contracting models that many acquisition professionals resist.

Scalability Challenges

Agile works well for small teams (5-9 people). Defense programs often involve hundreds of developers across multiple contractors, geographies, and security domains. Coordination overhead can negate Agile’s benefits.

Incomplete Upfront Planning

While Agile avoids over-planning, defense programs require significant architecture decisions early—especially for hardware integration, security frameworks, and interoperability standards. Insufficient upfront design can lead to costly rework.

Stakeholder Availability

Agile requires active, engaged product owners. In defense, the “customer” is often a busy military officer with operational duties who cannot participate in daily standups or sprint reviews.

Cultural Resistance

Defense organizations have decades of waterfall-based processes, certifications, and career incentives. Agile requires cultural transformation, which is slow and politically fraught.

Recommendations for Defense Enterprise Organizations

Standard Agile implementations fail in defense because they don’t account for regulatory, security, and contractual realities. Here’s how to adapt:

1. Adopt Agile-Compatible Contracting Models

Problem: Fixed-price contracts lock in requirements before learning happens.

Solution:

  • Use modular contracting with small, sequential awards tied to demonstrated capability
  • Implement Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with task orders scoped per sprint or release
  • Pilot Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) that allow flexible, prototype-focused agreements
  • Include contract language for “technical direction” that allows scope adjustments within boundaries

2. Integrate Security into Every Sprint (DevSecOps)

Problem: Traditional security reviews happen at the end, creating 6-12 month delays.

Solution:

  • Embed security engineers in Agile teams from day one
  • Automate security testing (SAST, DAST, container scanning) in CI/CD pipelines
  • Use continuous ATO approaches where security controls are incrementally verified
  • Implement security user stories alongside functional requirements
  • Partner with authorizing officials early to define security increment thresholds

3. Balance Agility with Essential Documentation

Problem: “Working software over documentation” leads to sustainment nightmares.

Solution:

  • Define “Definition of Done” that includes minimum viable documentation
  • Automate documentation generation (API docs from code, architecture diagrams from infrastructure-as-code)
  • Treat documentation as a first-class backlog item, not an afterthought
  • Use lightweight formats (Markdown in Git) versioned with code
  • Mandate architecture decision records (ADRs) for key technical choices

4. Scale Agile Deliberately with SAFe or Disciplined Agile

Problem: Hundreds of developers need coordination that basic Scrum doesn’t provide.

Solution:

  • Implement SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) with proper training and coaching
  • Use Agile Release Trains (ARTs) to synchronize multiple teams around common objectives
  • Establish Communities of Practice for cross-team technical standards
  • Invest in Agile Program Management Offices to facilitate, not dictate
  • Use tools like Jira Align or Azure DevOps to visualize dependencies

5. Embrace Hybrid Approaches for Hardware-Software Integration

Problem: Pure Agile doesn’t work when software depends on 3-year hardware development cycles.

Solution:

  • Use waterfall for hardware timelines while maintaining Agile for software development
  • Implement hardware abstraction layers early so software can evolve independently
  • Use simulation and digital twins to decouple software testing from physical hardware
  • Plan integration sprints at defined hardware milestones

6. Invest in Product Owner Capacity

Problem: Military stakeholders can’t dedicate time to Agile ceremonies.

Solution:

  • Hire civilian product owners with military domain expertise
  • Create rotational programs where junior officers serve as assistant product owners
  • Use async communication (recorded demos, collaborative documents) to reduce meeting burden
  • Conduct quarterly roadmap planning with senior stakeholders, delegating sprint-level decisions to proxies

7. Establish Clear Architectural Guardrails

Problem: Too much iteration without architectural vision creates technical debt.

Solution:

  • Define system architecture upfront with emphasis on modularity, APIs, and standards
  • Use architecture review boards that meet weekly, not quarterly
  • Implement fitness functions—automated tests that enforce architectural principles
  • Adopt microservices or modular monoliths to allow teams autonomy within boundaries
  • Document and enforce interoperability standards from day one

8. Measure What Matters

Problem: Traditional metrics (lines of code, requirements traced) don’t reflect Agile value.

Solution:

  • Track deployment frequency and lead time to measure agility
  • Measure Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) for defects
  • Use Objective and Key Results (OKRs) tied to warfighter outcomes, not features delivered
  • Conduct user satisfaction surveys with operators after each release
  • Monitor technical debt through automated code quality tools

9. Create Safe Environments for Cultural Change

Problem: Risk-averse cultures punish failure, preventing the experimentation Agile requires.

Solution:

  • Establish innovation cells or software factories (e.g., Kessel Run, NavalX) with autonomy
  • Provide Agile training and certification for government acquisition professionals
  • Celebrate productive failures—retrospectives should highlight learning, not blame
  • Rotate Agile champions into traditional program offices to spread practices

10. Leverage Modern Cloud Infrastructure

Problem: Agile requires rapid deployment; legacy infrastructure creates bottlenecks.

Solution:

  • Migrate to cloud environments (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, Platform One)
  • Implement Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) to automate provisioning
  • Use containerization (Kubernetes) for portability across environments
  • Adopt GitOps for declarative, auditable deployment pipelines

The Bottom Line

Agile is not a silver bullet, especially in defense. But it’s also not optional. The pace of warfare, the sophistication of threats, and the complexity of modern systems demand iterative, collaborative, and adaptive development practices.

The key is not to blindly adopt Silicon Valley Agile, but to thoughtfully adapt it for the unique constraints of defense: security accreditation, contractual rigidity, long-term sustainment, and mission criticality.

Organizations that succeed will be those that recognize Agile as a mindset, not a checklist—one that requires legal, cultural, and technical transformation. Those that fail will continue building systems too slow to matter, too rigid to adapt, and too disconnected from warfighter needs.

The question isn’t whether defense should adopt Agile. It’s whether they can afford not to.

How is your defense organization adapting Agile? What obstacles are you facing in implementation?