Budgetary Dominance: The "Deep Game" of the Program Objective Memorandum (POM)

There are two distinct games being played in the defense technology market.

The first is the "Shallow Game." This is the visible, frenetic activity of the startup ecosystem: the Demo Days, the pitch competitions, the accelerator cohorts, and the tactical scramble for pilot contracts. It is characterized by high energy, short timelines, and an obsession with "product-market fit."

The second is the "Deep Game." This contest unfolds quietly inside the Pentagon, hidden within classified spreadsheets and high-stakes deliberations. It operates on a timeline measured not in quarters, but in years. This is where the multi-billion dollar Programs of Record for the next half-decade are conceived, contested, and funded.

This process is the Program Objective Memorandum (POM).

The POM is the operating system of the Department of Defense (DoD) budget. It is the single most important—and historically most misunderstood—mechanism in defense acquisition. Founders who ignore the POM remain perpetually trapped in the "Valley of Death," baffled as to why their brilliant prototypes never secure production funding. Founders who understand and influence the POM build "franchise" programs.

Success in the federal market requires moving beyond sales to execute a 24-month strategic campaign. This is the operational doctrine for winning the Deep Game.

The Internal Battle Plan: Defining the POM

To manipulate the system, one must first understand its mechanics. The POM is not a contract; it is a planning document. It is the primary "Programming" output of the DoD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE)process.

Functionally, the POM is the internal, competitive 5-year budget request for an entire military service (e.g., the Army or the Navy). It translates high-level strategic guidance into funded requirements.

The Mechanism of Action: The POM cycle typically begins in the Programming Phase (T-minus 24 to 18 months before execution). Service Headquarters issue budget targets to their Program Executive Offices (PEOs). The Program Managers (PMs) within these offices must then construct their "POM submission".

It is critical to understand that this submission is a zero-sum competition.

• The budget "top-line" is fixed.

• Every dollar allocated to a new program must be taken from an existing one.

• The PM for a "Next-Gen Jammer" is fighting for the same limited capital as the PM for an "F-35 Upgrade."

Each PM must prove that their program delivers higher strategic value against the National Defense Strategy (NDS) than their peers. The Service leadership then "racks and stacks" these submissions.

• Winners get "in the POM." They become a funded budget line with a Program Element (PE) code.

• Losers fall "below the line." They effectively cease to exist as viable long-term opportunities.

The "POM Punch": Anatomy of Failure

The POM cycle is the structural root cause of the Valley of Death. It explains why technical success does not automatically generate revenue.

The Scenario A venture-backed firm wins a $1.5 million SBIR Phase II contract. They spend 18 months executing flawlessly, delivering a prototype that exceeds all performance metrics. The tactical end-user is ecstatic and demands 1,000 units immediately.

The Reality The Program Executive Officer (PEO) reviews the request and says, "This is amazing capability, but I have no money for it."

The Root Cause The failure occurred 18 months prior. When that PM was building their POM submission two years ago, this specific solution did not exist. It was not in the plan. Consequently, it is not a funded line item in the President's Budget. The PEO literally cannot legally buy it at scale because the Appropriation does not exist.

The Result The technology becomes an orphan, stranded on the R&D side of the chasm with no Procurement budget to catch it. The next opportunity to enter the budget is the next POM cycle (e.g., FY28), forcing a multi-year delay that most startups cannot survive.

The Strategic Playbook: Shaping the POM

You cannot "win" a POM in the traditional sense; you are not in the room when the decisions are made. You must execute a deliberate, 24-month Shaping Campaign so that your internal champion wins their battle for you.

The strategy is not to sell a product. The strategy is to arm a champion with the Artifacts of Justification.

1. Identify the POM Owner A common targeting error is focusing on the end-user. The Colonel who loves the tech has influence, but they do not own the budget line. The Program Manager (PM) or the PEO owns the budget. This is the individual who must write, submit, and defend the POM submission to the Service Chiefs. You must locate the specific Program Office tasked with solving the problem your technology addresses.

2. Arm the Champion The PM must prove to their leadership (often a 3-Star General or Senior Executive Service member) that a "new start" program is a smarter bet than the status quo. They need ammunition. The vendor must provide it in the form of "Government-Literate" artifacts:

• Alignment White Paper: A document mapping the solution directly to "big arrow" priorities in the National Defense Strategy. It answers the question: Why does this matter to the Secretary of Defense?

• Mission Use Case: A narrative backed by exercise data proving operational impact (e.g., "Reduces Kill Chain latency by 90% vs. legacy systems").

• Budget ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude): A realistic 5-year cost estimate. The PM cannot program budget for a capability if they do not know what it costs at scale.

• Execution Plan: A draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) demonstrating low-risk executability.

3. The "Bank Shot" (Unfunded Requirements) If a program lands "below the line" during the rack-and-stack, the game is not over. These valid but unfunded priorities often populate the Service’s Unfunded Requirements List (UFR)—a "wish list" sent directly to Congress.

• The Maneuver: Because the firm did the shaping work (White Papers, Cost Data), the program is "shovel-ready."

• The Result: A Congressional staffer can champion it for a budget "plus-up" in the Appropriations bill. This allows the firm to win the war via a "Congressional Add" despite losing the internal battle.

Cadence is Strategy

The POM dictates the tempo of the market. "Failing to plan" in this sector is showing up in the "Execution Year" (when the RFP is released) and expecting to win. "Planning to win" is starting a campaign 24 months prior, during the Programming Phase.

The capture cadence must align with the clock:

• T-Minus 24 Months: Identify the POM owner and submit shaping artifacts.

• T-Minus 18 Months: Track the Program Element (PE) line as the budget solidifies.

• T-Minus 12 Months: Ensure the requirement survives the Congressional markup.

• T-Minus 0: Respond to the RFP you helped ghostwrite.

  
  

The Long Game

A POM campaign is the difference between a tech demo and a scalable business. It requires operational rigor and a capture cadence measured in years, not quarters.

At DualSight, we operate on an embedded partner model because success fees do not incentivize the 24-month shaping work required to win the Deep Game. We provide the Strategic Advisory to map the PPBE cycle and the Capture Strategy to arm your champion with the artifacts that build a franchise program. We help you navigate the timeline that dictates your survival.

SCHEDULE A CALL