Mary, One of the thoughts that is fascinating about your comment is the likely tension between the centralized, institutional, vendors and the small business long tail vendors. Could the institutional vendors “overwhelm” the process?
The ultimate goal of any Gov2 strategy should in large part be to achieve the best result, and most options for the government and its stakeholders. Generally speaking gov 2 tools are viewed as a low cost way to enable the long tail – small businesses. Theoretically, they should be able to touch a greater subset of a limited population of opportunities. They should also be able to advance more possible solutions for government – the quality of ideas rising to the top. But that can only happen if all ideas start on an equal footing.
We might say that today large vendors that aggregate resources have advantages. And undoubtedly smaller vendors also have advantages in many others – especially where highly specialized knowledge is required. Gov 2 or in this case acquisition 2 could and maybe should shuffle the deck in ways that we can not anticipate.
Chances are good that application of 2.0 to acquisition much as in the private sector will generate emergent properties that we do not expect. And to complicate our decision making, it might take a while for us to be good at it, or to fully understand how to best leverage.
Chances are good that we aren’t going to get acquisition 2 exactly right, at inception. But the alternative is status quo and we have seen in private sector transformations that stasis is not a viable option.