<aside> 💡

Refining program ideas is an iterative process of deep thinking and open conversations, ensuring the ideas are aligned with bold, impactful goals. This module emphasizes the importance of using the Heilmeier Catechism to rigorously evaluate programs by asking key questions about objectives, approach, risks, and impacts. Refining ideas requires the ability to identify and strengthen weak points, balancing ambition with feasibility. DARPA PMs must embrace cross-disciplinary thinking, work with diverse performers, and plan for transitions to real-world applications. Iteration and feedback loops with peers are critical, as early refinement can make or break a program’s success.

</aside>

⚡Practical outcomes:

• Solid (though certainly not final) answers to the Big Four HQs.
• Relative confidence that the performer base exists for your program.
• A pretty good sense for how you're going to address the Other Four HQs
  • You’ve talked to users about transition issues
  • You’ve talked to a wide array of key potential performers and have a good sense for the blockers and the technical areas
  • You’ve talked to potential integration/engineering performers about the challenges of bringing it all together (which strongly informs the timeline, phases and intermediate milestones)
  • You’ve probably talked to potential evaluation teams about measurement strategies and metrics.
• You’ve evaluated other recent programs (at your org and others) to ensure your idea is sufficiently new.
• You have a good draft argument for why this won’t happen without your program.
• You can communicate all this effectively to colleagues and leadership and have begun to get them on board.

At a certain point in the exploration and field mapping process, PMs must begin to more ruthlessly refine their young program ideas. Refining ideas requires both thinking and talking. You need deep thinking to connect and distill the pieces of information that you’ve gathered while exploring and field mapping. Then you need to talk to people to test your ideas with those who have more knowledge in specific areas.

Refining ideas should happen in a loop with exploration: one conversation might spark an idea for a sub-goal, only for the next conversation with another expert to shift that idea in a new direction. This process can be challenging, as promising ideas may need to be scrapped or significantly revised before your project takes its final shape. In this module, we’ll guide you through how to navigate this iterative process of refining ideas.

The information in this module will become particularly important once you’ve learned enough about a space to come up with ideas for whole programs. For an idea to flourish into something impactful, you must rigorously examine it from every angle to identify and address weak points. This is especially critical in the context of DARPA programs, where even minor “details” could demand millions of dollars or years of highly skilled labor to fix. Upfront refinement can be the difference between a program’s success or failure.

Some describe the ability to identify and strengthen weak points as “taste” or “high standards.” While these are accurate descriptors, it’s important to remember that this skill is one that can be cultivated. Hard work and deliberate practice can help you develop the judgment needed to refine program ideas effectively. The first part of this module will explore one key element of "taste": understanding what does and doesn’t constitute a DARPA program.

📋What makes an idea a DARPA program?

Since the mid-1970s, **the Heilmeier Catechism** has been a cornerstone of DARPA's decision-making process, often determining whether a project secures funding. Named after the DARPA Director who formalized and placed extreme emphasis on its use, George Heilmeier, this famous set of questions remains a crucial tool for evaluating program proposals. While the wording may vary slightly, the core questions are as follows.

The Big Four. Focus on these first, the rest you’ll address later once the program starts to coalesce.

• What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
  • Sometimes the “what…do” here confuses people because they get too into the weeds too fast. I often like to reframe this as “What are you trying to accomplish?” or “What are you trying to change?” or “What is your bold goal?”
• How is it done today, and what are the limitations of current practice?
  • It's often useful to break this down into “state of the practice” (i.e. what people actually do in the real world) and “state of the art” (i.e. examples where innovators are pushing the boundaries along some dimension but its not yet in common use) because those can be very different things (and those SOTA innovators may end up being some of your key performers).
• What is new in your approach, and why do you think it will succeed?
  • The most important thing here is to elucidate your big insight that will enable your bold goal. Sometimes this takes the form of “Why now?” Is there new knowledge or emerging technology that makes your goal plausible? This is also a good time to think about what can be parallelized into distinct Technical Areas.