A Note on the Changing Faces of (D)ARPA - by Eric Gilliam
Unlike the rest of the FreakTakes ARPA series, today’s piece does not have the usual narrative structure. It is, instead, a set of personal notes cleaned up and re-structured as a post. While the post is atypical, the ARPA series would be incomplete if I did not outline the factors that mark key regime changes at the agency over time. The piece is not an exhaustive account of every regime change in DARPA history, but details three major variables that mark regime changes and provide some illustrative examples. Most of the examples are drawn from the early history of computing at DARPA because it is both well-known and well-documented. Enjoy!
DARPA doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is enmeshed in both the military ecosystem and the D.C. ecosystem. DARPA also has no labs; it is dependent on the community of performers (contractors) available to it — academic labs, companies, and others. Major changes in the politics, economics, incentives, or preferences of any of the above can substantially change what a DARPA office is at any given time.
It is a testament to DARPA’s resilience that it has been able to withstand so many changes throughout the decades, continuing to serve its mission in a less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial fashion than the vast majority of the government R&D ecosystem. However, it is still essential that those seeking to understand historic DARPA successes understand the “regime” — a DARPA office’s political environment, performer ecosystem, etc. at a given moment — in which particular projects existed.
