How GovCon Leaders Can Achieve Mission Impact with Outcome-Driven Software Delivery

‍

During his time as a U.S. Air Force targeteer, Bryon Kroger saw missions fail because of terrible software.

"I can point to missions that I still think about today where horrible things happened because of terrible software that had been delivered."

It’s a story that many in governent software and contracting know all too well. It highlights a persistent gap between what programs are funded to deliver and what actually gets deployed, adopted, and used in real operations. That gap — between delivery and impact — remains one of the most enduring challenges in the government contracting ecosystem.

Output Isn't the Goal. Outcomes Are.

In traditional contracting environments, the focus tends to be on outputs: how many requirements were met, how much code was produced, whether documentation was finalized. But these metrics often obscure a more important question: did the software do what it was supposed to do?

Measuring outputs is simple. Measuring outcomes — a change in user behavior — is harder. But it's where the real value lies.

Kroger suggests a more meaningful metric: outcomes in production. Not only should software be deployed, it should be used by real users in real environments — and it should be changing something measurable.

"We have a maniacal focus on outcomes in production. And in production is an important part of that too, because it can't just be shelf wear. It has to be adopted and actually in use in operations."

This shift in thinking has implications far beyond engineering. It changes how teams are structured, how success is measured, and how leadership aligns business decisions with mission goals. It also demands a deeper understanding of the systems we operate in.

Change Requires Systems Thinking

Government software delivery doesn’t fail because people aren’t working hard. It fails because the system isn’t built to reward the right things. Kroger frames this challenge as one of systems thinking: understanding the full operating environment — technical, bureaucratic, regulatory — and designing around it.

This is what he refers to as “bureaucracy hacking.” Not in the sense of circumventing process, but in learning how to retool it. If a piece of the system is helping drive outcomes, double down on it. If it’s getting in the way — like an ATO process that delays mission-critical updates — it needs to be redesigned.

Building Teams That Can Drive Outcomes

Delivering software that works in the field requires more than technical excellence. It requires people who understand the context they’re working in — and who have the patience and urgency to navigate it effectively.

Kroger outlined a few traits that signal whether someone is likely to thrive in outcome-focused environments:

• Agency and ambition: The willingness to take ownership and push for meaningful change
• Strategic patience: The ability to navigate slow-moving processes without burning out
• Tactical urgency: A bias for action when the window for impact is open
• Change management skills: The soft skills needed to get software adopted, not just built

These are often treated as leadership traits, but Kroger argues they’re just as essential in individual contributors — especially in teams expected to drive change in complex organizations.

Impact-First Growth, Not Growth at Any Cost

In a market where growth is often the primary goal, Kroger has chosen a different priority: mission impact. If a project doesn’t clearly lead to better outcomes — faster delivery, higher adoption, improved performance — it’s not worth pursuing.

"The goal isn't to grow the business." Kroger said, "you have to reorient your entire growth model around impact. Like if that's what you actually care about, your business metrics, the way that you think about your business and your team should all revolve around mission impact.”

This mindset leads to difficult choices. It means turning down lucrative opportunities if they don’t align with the mission. It means saying no to headcount-heavy contracts designed to win on volume rather than results. And it means investing in metrics that are harder to track but more meaningful in the long run.

"You can grow incredibly large in this space building bridges to nowhere. And unfortunately, a lot of people are willing to do that. I'm just not.”

Procurement Is Evolving — Slowly

There are signs that the acquisition environment is starting to reward outcome-oriented delivery. Kroger pointed to recent solicitations that focus on impact rather than labor categories — a meaningful shift for organizations that optimize for small, fast, high-performing teams.

It’s still not the norm. Traditional proposals that emphasize compliance and low price per seat remain dominant. But there’s growing recognition that 20 skilled people who deliver working software in production are more valuable than 50 who generate artifacts that go unused.

For purpose-driven teams, this shift is encouraging. “Maybe this is your opportunity to go back and do it the way that you wanted to." Kroger said, "because I think we're seeing the right thing become the easy thing.”

What This Means for GovCon Leaders

Shifting from output to outcome isn’t just a matter of metrics. It requires changes in culture, hiring, procurement, and delivery. For those leading technology efforts in government, here are a few questions to ask:

• Are we tracking what gets delivered — or what gets used?
• Do our teams understand the mission context they operate in?
• Are we building capacity to manage change, not just write code?
• Do our incentives support outcomes — or just activity?
• When we grow, are we scaling impact — or just staff?

As procurement processes begin to catch up to modern delivery practices, there’s real opportunity for government leaders and their partners to rethink how software is built and measured.

‍