 Hello and welcome to the Cube. I'm Shelly Kramer, Managing Director and Principal Analyst at the Cube Research and I'm here today with Tara Murphy Doherty, the CEO of Govini, a leading national defense software company. Tara is beyond impressive. I mean, when I look at her bio, it's crazy. She's held leadership positions in technology across industry, government, and the nonprofit sectors. She's been at Palantir Technologies. She's served as the Chief of Staff of Global Strategic Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. See what I mean. She's had other senior roles. She serves on the Board of Directors for the National Defense University Foundation, the Board of Advisors for the National Security Innovation Program at the Reagan Institute, and she holds a number of other advisory board positions. She's a sought after speaker on a variety of topics, very knowledgeable about all things related to critical defense technologies and simple little things like nuclear modernization and AI, and really, she's totally focused on the U.S.'s competition with China. Welcome to the Cube, Tara. What an amazing background. I'm so excited for this conversation. Thank you, Shelly. I'm thrilled to be here. You know, and I do have to admit personally, sitting through anybody, you know, reading my bio is always a little bit cringe-worthy, but girl, you've got some amazing chops. It's really exciting to be able to spend some time with you. So, let's start with a quick overview of Gopini. I know that your company builds software that accelerates the defense acquisition process, and this is really important because this allows the national security community to build the capabilities that it needs to deter U.S. adversaries more quickly. No small thing, right? And I think that this is particularly important because I think in general, government agencies are somewhat slow to action. So talk with me a little bit about Gopini and how what it is you're doing is helping shift the defense acquisition process into something that is streamlined and efficient and doing the U.S. government the justice it deserves. Absolutely. Our mission at Gopini is to transform the defense acquisition process in order to make it a strategic advantage for the United States. I'd argue today it's a liability, and it's for reasons you mentioned, Shelly, it's slow, it's overly complex, and if the process can't move at speed, then the United States won't be able to feel the military capabilities that we need to keep up with the challenges in the world. So that's what we're after at Gopini. Yeah, absolutely. No small set of challenges, right? So you've got something called the ARC that I believe is the key to making all that happen. Is that right? That is right. So the ARC is defense software that is purpose-built for the defense acquisition process. And what is really novel about the ARC is it brings a combination of external commercial data that the Department of Defense in particular needs in order to make the decisions that are required throughout the acquisition process, and it combines it with artificial intelligence enabled applications. Think modern software like we use in so many parts of our lives today in order to execute this really important work. That combination has never existed before in a way that is designed specifically for this community of users and this particular process, and that's why the impact is so significant. Well, and you know, one thing that I honed in on, you know, when I was prepping in advance for this call, looking at some of what Gopini does is, you know, supply chain risks are a very real thing. So being able to work to eliminate that and I think is an important part of this equation in general. Absolutely. Everyone realized when the pandemic hit just how fragile our supply chains are at the consumer level and then also at a national defense level. And actually, those supply chain challenges and that realization is really what started to usher in a lot of the broader change that we're seeing the Department of Defense adopt across the acquisition process. And so part of it is supply chain fragility and getting out in front of those challenges, making sure that decision makers and leaders and program managers who are responsible for this defense acquisition process are anticipating those challenges and then taking actions to either avoid them entirely or minimize the impacts. But then it goes beyond that into, okay, you have the suppliers that you need in order to execute this program. Do you have the parts on time? Are those parts counterfeit or trustworthy? Can you manage a program through a multi-decade lifespan all the way into its sustainment phase? And then of course, how do you modernize that program to become not just the capability that we need today, but that next-generation system that we need in order to effectively deter and if necessary, fight adversaries in the future. Yeah. So a holistic strategy is at play here, not just one simple tech solution that we plug in. It's a much broader thing here that I think that you bring to the table and that's key. It really is broad and that is an important point. Shelly, sorry to jump in, but it's something that people often miss in the defense acquisition process of the construct is they think about the word acquisition and they think, oh, this is about buying. Procurement. This is about procurement, exactly. Is this for writing contracts? Sure, that's one small part of it, just like supply chain management is one small part of it, but really what the defense acquisition process is, is it is the end-to-end system of conceiving of, developing, and producing, and ultimately fielding the weapon systems and platforms that assure U.S. national security interests at home and abroad. And that, to your point exactly, is very broad in and of itself. And requires a comprehensive strategy. Yeah, absolutely. So let's talk a little bit more about the impetus here and what drove you and your team to build the arc. And I'll admit before we dive into that that I was thinking about this conversation this morning. And a line from a Jimmy Buffett song popped into my head, and the fins to the right, fins to the left, and you're the only girl in town. And I started laughing because I think that we've got Russia, we've got North Korea, and we've got China. And we're dealing with all threats from all, and oh, by the way, let's add the Middle East in there as things intensify there. So we've got no small set of challenges, no insignificant number of adversaries. And of course, from a technological standpoint, I think it's not a stretch to say China is probably the biggest threat. So I'd love to hear a little bit of your thoughts about the threat that we face, the threats that we face, and really what you're thinking is there. One of the things that's really remarkable about working in this space is just how intense it all feels. I used to joke with my parents, why couldn't I have wanted to be a florist? Because actually, Shelley, not only are you absolutely right, but at this point, I would argue in all seriousness that the threat is existential. And certainly, the threat to the current world order is existential. So even if we Americans feel fairly safe at home, part of that is because since the end of the Second World War, we have been the global leader that has established not just the international system, but the values and principles that guide that system, things like a respect for human rights and international sovereignty. When you have leaders like Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, who clearly have no respect for that sovereignty, who disregard human rights, that's why it matters that the United States stays in a global leader position. And frankly, I would like it to be the leading global position. So the threat is significant, it's diverse, it's myriad, it's unrelenting. And this is all the reasons why we need, as United States, to continue to demonstrate that military might. We don't do it like the North Koreans do and put out a parade of rockets, whether they work or not. We do it by having a really, really effective military. That means an all volunteer force that is armed with the best capabilities in the world. And the reality is we have the best people in the world. We have genius in this country and values of ingenuity and creativity and innovation. We simply need to harness that better for natural security purposes. Yeah, no argument from me on that front for sure. And I think the challenge that we have, one of the challenges that we have in the United States is that when you're talking about communist nations where one individual has all-consuming power, and that's a completely different situation than here in the United States. And we've got a bipartisan system of government. We historically don't get along with one party and the other party and making decisions. The number of times I see ordinary average Americans complaining about supporting Ukraine. And I think about, do you really understand what's going on globally here? Do you really understand that the answer of, why don't we just let Russia take Ukraine? There's some of this that doesn't make any sense. We're thinking about the threat to Taiwan that China poses. And again, a lot of Americans aren't thinking about the reality of these threats. And I think that then trying to get consensus when it comes to budget and funding and dealing with the bipartisan issue. So it really is an issue. And I think that the U.S. is definitely not moving as quickly, certainly as China is. And I think the other thing that's important here is that when you're looking at China in particular, you're looking at a government that has just said, we're going to dominate. We're going to dominate in all things technology. And we are going to spare no effort. And we are going to spare no cost. And this is so important to us. And they just sort of, and not that individuals within the country have a lot of decision-making power. But I think that when you're dealing with communist nations, it's incredibly different than a democracy. And I think that's a challenge for us. Absolutely. The very nature of what makes our system of democracy strong, which is that there's room for debate, and there's room for dissent even, is also challenging when it's up against that single-minded kind of authoritarian approach. And your description of the Chinese Communist Party and how they have been not just determined but single-minded in their ambitions, both regionally and globally, is spot-on. We see this probably more than anywhere else in the field of artificial intelligence, where the Chinese Communist Party has been so vocal about becoming the global AI leader, about unseating the United States from a leadership position in both global politics as well as technology superiority. And it's brazen. It's brazen, which I understand the ambitions and I understand their own pursuit of their national interests. But when it comes at the cost of American security, that's where we need to draw a line. And that, frankly, should be among the most non-partisan opinions we've ever heard. It should be easy to agree on. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we've seen more agreement on countering the China threat over the past few years, really since the 2018 National Defense Strategy, than we have in a very long time. So that's positive. But we still need the government to function. We need a budget, like you mentioned. Otherwise, it's going to not just be hard to protect our own national interests. It's going to be really hard to attract new companies to work with the government. And that's such an important part of developing these critical capabilities that we're talking about. Yeah, absolutely. So I think one of the challenges here is that a lot of the proposed solution to some of the problems that we're discussing is policy changes. And while policy is absolutely an important part of solving for this, there's so much more. And I know that that's really what a lot of what you focus on at Govini. Definitely. And as you mentioned in my bio, my background is in defense policy. And so it's near and dear to my heart, but it's not the answer to everything. And yet policy debates are fascinating. They're fun to debate. They're important. It's easy to focus on questions related to policy and questions related to authorities that impact the Department of Defense and its decision making. It's not always as much fun or gets as much attention to put on to the process side of this. And when I refer to process, I don't mean the series of meetings or organizational constructs that the Pentagon creates in order to make decisions. We've heard a lot about this in the news with the announcement of Replicator. I mean on a day to day basis, the organizations that manage major defense acquisition programs that are creating the capabilities, those weapons systems and platforms that ultimately are going to go in the hands of the warfighter. What's the process for managing those, for getting them created, scoped off the production line and sustained and ultimately fielded? That's the process that today has been completely, remains completely dominated by outdated manual approaches. And in typical government fashion, as the complexity of the environment has changed, their response has been not to actually introduce technology that modernizes the process, but simply to keep putting more people against it. And that is not going to, I would argue it's broken today, certainly not going to work in the future. Yeah, absolutely. And I find that when we talk about things like process improvement and process automation, these are not sexy, exciting bits of technology, but they're so important. And they're critical when your goal is to be able to move quickly. And I think that that's really what's important to keep in mind here. And these non-sexy process improvement pieces of the equation really play a vital role. They do. And we've seen large private sector enterprises learn this lesson. There is a point at which your organization has become so successful that you need process. And as the organization grows, you need those structures. And as you take on more complicated work and are doing more things faster, you need software that is designed for different jobs. I don't understand why DOD thinks that it's any different. And the reality is that the organizations have become larger, more complex, the systems we're creating are incredibly complex and novel. And yet everyone's still trying to run these processes off of spreadsheets. That's a big part of what's holding us back. The good news is it's actually easier to change, I think, than the policy problems. And it's certainly easier to change than an authority's problem that you have to run down with Congress. So that's a little bit of good news if we can get people to understand that this kind of software is now available for their missions. Well, and you know, what I don't think you touched on that I think is important here is that solving these problems sustainably and at scale and at a rapid pace, these are all part of the equation. And I believe that your solution is kind of purpose built for that. It's exactly purpose built for that. And we have seen tremendous changes among the program offices in particular that have adopted the ARC for their process execution and their program management across defense systems. So for example, we've seen reductions in time to execute those processes of up to 75%. That's getting three quarters of your work week back just by using modern technology and data. That's a lot. That's a lot. So what I'd like to do now is shift a little bit and talk about this, the defense technology space. And we've seen more and more interest in the part, on the part of venture capitalists in defense technology companies like Govini. I saw that pitchbook data shows that in the last four years at least 125 billion of venture capital has been invested in startups that build defense tech that compared to 43 billion in the four years prior. So we've seen a significant rise in VC interest. Why do you think? I mean, I feel like that was a massive softball question. But for one, the numbers alone are fascinating because it really speaks to absolutely a trend that is evident. And we're seeing capital flock to this space. I think it's a function of the fact that not only do defense budgets continue to rise. So there's a really interesting market opportunity here. But also it's clear that the future of warfare is going to be increasingly technological and that emerging technologies, which are dominated by America's innovative industries and the startups coming out of used to be just or primarily Silicon Valley now coming out of tech hubs all across the United States, these capabilities have a role to play even in operational military context. So that's incredibly interesting. And the combination of those two things I think is propelling a lot of this interest. Yeah, absolutely. I think that one of the things that I've talked about a lot over the course of the last couple of years is that when it comes to success at digital transformation and modernization initiatives, the mindset of being able to do it all yourself is really a very outdated mindset. And I think that that's really, you know, this is a great example of the defense community, the government agencies being able to partner with innovative startups who bring, you know, bring the ability. I think that I saw this, you know, this statement Silicon Valley speed, right? So we've got Silicon Valley seed, speed and US US ingenuity and expertise. And we add all of these things into the equation. I think it's, it's a no brainer, you know, in terms of being able to work with the Department of Defense and bring some of these solutions to bear in a really rapid way. Absolutely. And if the investments are increasing, then we need to expand the pool of players that are contributing and working together to your point. You know, a lot of the debate around bringing Silicon Valley companies or innovative startups into the defense ecosystem has been very critical of the traditional defense primes. And yet I think it is and not or. We should not be thinking that a startup or an early stage business that is at a venture stage of life is going to displace major systems integrators that do phenomenal, phenomenal things for our war fighters, but they can't do it alone and the complexity of the current environment and the requirements in terms of that technology insertion that we need to see into our military systems. That is where these new players need to enter the picture. And what's required and what the Department of Defense needs to do a better job of incentivizing is expanding that pool so that it's both. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So let's talk a little bit about how important it is to bring new technology to the fore to counter the threats that China poses. I know that, you know, national media is widely covered, China's aggression in the Asia region. It's growing military strength is not any secret. You know, we've seen we've seen China playing games with Taiwan, threatening to blockade Taiwanese vessels, all of that sort of thing. So how can the Department of Defense strengthen the US position on the world stage and fend off the threat of China? Well, there are a lot of different levers they can pull. And among them are certainly number one, maintaining deterrence. That's all about making sure that your adversaries are in a mindset where every single day they choose not today to attack the United States or harm our national interests in some way. The most powerful thing we can do from a deterrence perspective is have a powerful force that is credible in terms of being ready to deploy. And that speaks directly to the defense acquisition process. And in fact, that's what the defense acquisition process is for. You know, you also mentioned earlier a really important point about Americans questioning support or I should say ongoing support to Ukraine, because I think it's fatigue, not disinterest that has them questioning it. But a second major lever in all of this are US allies and partners. Part of that is making sure that those allies and partners have the capabilities that they need. What we produce out of the defense acquisition process is not just for the US military alone. It's to make sure that Israel can defend itself against Hamas, that Ukraine can defend itself against an invasion from Russia. And the return is important in return for having the world's best network of allies and partners. It means we're capable of being able to fight a war effectively, no matter where it takes place around the globe. And that is incredibly unique and important to remember when you consider just how far away China is and the implications that creates from a force projection perspective. Yeah, absolutely. So I want to shift now and talk a little bit about, you know, we've been talking about next gen military systems. And it's important, it's progress, it's technology advancement. But you know, I think sometimes when you think about government entities, and you think about cutting edge technology, those worlds don't really collide. I've been in a lot of government buildings, and I've seen a lot of government equipment and things like that. And sometimes, aging equipment and platforms is a significant problem. So what do you see? You know, I know that you sort of have a front row seat to this. Talk with me a little bit about what you see in reality, and really how next gen technology is going to play a significant role in our success here. Most of our users today, actually, users of the arc are in offices that are managing programs in sustainment. And actually, 70% of a program's total lifetime costs typically fall in the stage of sustaining that platform or weapon system post production for decades. So it is a huge part of the overall process and overall ecosystem. When you think about the complexity of something like a nuclear powered submarine, or a stealth bomber, or a sixth generation fighter jet, these are incredibly, incredibly complex systems. And they're wildly expensive, they're hard to build. And so once you create them, they need to be not just available, but militarily, operationally capable for a very long time in order for our national defense system to work. That's one of the underpinnings that we have bet on is having the most sophisticated capabilities in the world. Look at the Columbia class submarine, for example. This is going to be a submarine unlike anyone has ever built before, and it has a projected lifespan of 90 years. How do you plan for what the industrial base will look like 90 years from now? When everybody working on it, it'll be dead. Exactly. And what does that mean from a workforce perspective and a skills perspective? We're seeing the department actually do some really interesting things in the area of additive manufacturing. And this has been a phenomenal application of the arc where they're looking in our data and using software to say, we can today, in the design phase, figure out what parts of these incredibly sophisticated systems can be 3D printed so that we're not reliant on a manufacturer that's around today being around in 50, 60, 90 years. That makes perfect sense. That makes perfect sense. So let's talk a little bit about the defense acquisition process. Is it a stretch to say that it's perhaps a little broken? Sadly, it's not a stretch. I think that is a very accurate diagnosis. And stepping back to maybe spend one more minute on what do we mean by the process? We've hit on a couple of points, but the entirety of the system actually begins with science and technology. That's the stage where we're conceiving of and experimenting with the early technologies that ultimately will be prototyped and then turned into systems that we actually produce. So you move from science and technology into production, where we're actually manufacturing these capabilities. And then we've talked about sustainment of those capabilities and modernization, all of which is underpinned by a need to assure that we have resilient supply chains to affect that whole process. That's incredible in terms of the scope of effort, the number of people involved, applied against the kind of systems that we're talking about. And so it's understandable to some extent that it's pretty broken today. What the department needs to do is it needs to figure out how can it take as modern an approach to that overall process as it's taking to things like our next nuclear-powered submarine or stealthy fighter. I think the point about it hasn't been popular to look inward at process improvement and process modernization is an important one and a really necessary step, also a very achievable step. And the last thing I would say is that when you think about the fact that these million-plus people who execute the defense acquisition process are really doing so without the kind of modern software that we all use to do everything from run our businesses to manage our personal finances, it's somewhat unbelievable. And so it's about time, I think, that a great innovative company steps in and builds modern software that is purpose-built and completely tailored to this set of workflows within the defense acquisition process. You will find no argument for me on that front at all. And I think that a lot of what we've seen in the past has been the Department of Defense's MO has perhaps been outsourcing to professional service contractors or employing other low-tech approaches. And that's really not, that's not what we're talking about. This is embracing best-in-class technology to get where you want to be quicker, more effectively, all of those sorts of things. And I know I will get no argument from you on that one. That's right. If you look at the amount of money that the Department of Defense spends on people to execute these programs, it's mind-boggling. Why not make sure that these people have the capabilities that they need to do their jobs, which are every bit as important as the jobs of the warfighters as well? Yeah, absolutely. So tell me a little bit about what Govini is doing to improve the defense acquisition process. Primarily, we are bringing, number one, the data that the Department of Defense has lacked to date because it isn't data that they maintain in their own internal databases, but that reflects the dynamics happening in the market around them. We talked about the importance of the realization around supply chain fragility that happened during the pandemic. There are myriad other trends that have highlighted the need that DoD has to consider data in its decision-making about the rest of the world. The Department of Defense is a global enterprise. It should understand the dynamics in which it operates. A great example would be adversarial capital making its way into the United States, primarily Chinese investors in some of these companies that we're trying actively to attract into the national security ecosystem. How do you balance that foreign investment and those threats with the desire to propel the American economy, of course, and like I said, bring them into the defense fold? Data has been a really important part of what we've done to help improve the ability of these offices to manage their programs. The second thing is we work with the government's data as well and taking first in class kinds of approaches to data at scale and being able to apply that machine learning and those schemas and all of that data work to traditional DoD datasets has been incredibly powerful. What happens is the program offices are getting insights that they've never had before out of the data that they already sit on today. That's been game changing in terms of being able to become more proactive about challenges that they may face in their programs. A great example would be part shortages. We have users who are identifying ahead of being notified by a supplier that a part won't be available on a correct timeline and using an AI driven engine to be able to surface, well, what's an alternative part that I can buy to keep my program on track? I'd say that that third element touches on the AI piece quite a bit, which is modern software that is designed to execute these workflows. We think about it as if you have a job to do and you are managing a defense program, you should not have to execute that job through disparate spreadsheets, email, and let's be honest, picking up the phone and calling that supplier or that person at the Defense Logistics Agency that you've worked with for 20 years to run down apart or understand what has happened to a particular vendor that just isn't good enough, it doesn't scale, it isn't efficient, and it's not going to get us where we need to go. Well, and I think the magic words here are single source of truth. And that's really a lot of what your technology does is it pulls all of this in, all of these disparate data sources together, the data is clean, it's normalized, it's consumable by humans, it's a single source of truth. And that's what we find all of the biggest organizations in the world are seeking that single source of truth as it relates to their data. And the government should of course be doing the exact same thing. Absolutely. It's actually a big part of why I joined Gavini six years ago now, which is hard to believe. But my experience working in the Pentagon is that single source of truth just didn't exist. And we were making incredible decisions every single day that impact US national security and impact countries around the world. And we did so with our very best judgment and analysis that we could conduct. But it was very rarely ever data driven. That is wildly insufficient. It's also significantly changing in terms of how DOD is adapting capabilities like the ARC. I think it's been slow. That trend has been slow to hit some of these program offices that manage the defense acquisition process, because they're so spread out throughout the country. They work on far flung military bases in skiffs on classified information. And so they've been a little bit hard to get to, but I'm excited that the ARC is bringing this kind of data driven change and ability to make decisions in a different way to them. That's great. It's exciting. It really is exciting. And in the cheesiest of ways, I was on site visiting a client sometime last year, and it happened to be Honeywell and their lab facility, their research lab facility up in Buffalo, New York. And the gentleman who ran the program said, you know, I know this sounds like so cheesy, but when my seven-year-old son asks me, you know, Daddy, what do you do? He said, I get to get up every day and work on things that make the world more sustainable and a better place. And I think that really, again, that's kind of what you wake up every day doing. And that doesn't suck. It doesn't suck at all, actually. And you know, I remember the days I was working in technology for a Silicon Valley company back in 2015 and 2016, when it was not cool to be working on US national security. And people, especially in the technology sector, weren't sure that that was a mission that they wanted to support. And through all of that, you know, I was interested in serving this mission from this particular angle. And I am absolutely thrilled to see that shift. We see more and more entrepreneurs, founders, people working all sorts of technology sides that want to contribute to this mission, too. And most importantly, want to work on something bigger than themselves. We hire for that at Givini. Our team exemplifies it. And one of the things that's great about it is, no matter what kind of day you have, no matter how frustrating that client or user might be, you work on something that really matters in the world. And especially if you're working with the people, that does not suck. It does not suck. You just wake up knowing you're working with good people doing good deeds. And I think that's key. So my last question, and we're going to wrap this show, is what one piece of advice would you give to founders and startups looking to sell to the government? Go talk to a mission owner. Figure out what problem your capability, your product can solve and focus on solving a problem for a mission owner. I think too often founders, entrepreneurs who want to contribute to this space get hung up on how do I go to market in this incredibly complex federal ecosystem? Do I have to hire a lobbyist and go talk to the hill? How do I win a contract? How do I write the proposal? Forget it. Take the most direct path to somebody who's driving part of the defense mission and solve a problem for them. Because the Department of Defense is full of people who are trying to break the status quo and better achieve the mission. And they make phenomenal partners to get things done, giving you an incubation space in order to prove the viability of your product. And there's a solid foundation and a much stronger one than just chasing the contract. Yeah, that's awesome. Great advice, Tara. So thank you so much, Tara Murphy Doherty, GoVini CEO. It's been a fantastic spending time with you today and learning what you and your team at GoVini are doing and keep us posted. I know you have exciting things happening in the future.