SOURCE: AFI
Winners of the Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) ADITI challenges have raised concerns with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) over the lack of upfront clarity in project requirements, a recurring issue that complicates development timelines and financial planning. According to sources cited by idrw.org, several startups and vendors involved in these high-stakes defence innovation programs are frustrated by the Indian Armed Forces’ tendency to introduce additional technology demands or altered specifications after contracts are awarded—a practice that disrupts budgets and forces companies to shoulder unexpected costs.
The iDEX framework, launched in 2018 under the Department of Defence Production, aims to foster innovation by engaging startups, MSMEs, and individual innovators to develop cutting-edge solutions for India’s defence needs. The Acing Development of Innovative Technologies with iDEX (ADITI) scheme, a flagship initiative, offers grants up to ?25 crore to tackle critical and strategic technologies, such as AI, quantum systems, and anti-drone solutions. However, the promise of streamlined collaboration is being tested by what some winners call a “moving goalpost” problem.
“Requirement clarification should be done upfront,” an ADITI winner reportedly told the MoD, echoing a sentiment shared by multiple vendors. The issue stems from draft requirement lists—known as Problem Statements under iDEX—that outline the initial scope of a project. These documents, crafted by the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, or Air Force), are meant to guide innovators toward specific deliverables. Yet, idrw.org sources reveal that once contracts are signed and development begins, the Forces often request additional features or upgraded specifications not previously mentioned. This forces companies to recalibrate their technical and financial plans midstream.
For instance, a startup awarded a contract under ADITI 1.0 to develop an expendable active decoy drone swarm for the Indian Air Force (IAF) reportedly faced demands for enhanced electronic warfare capabilities beyond the original high-speed and long-range parameters (Mach 0.9, 500 km range). Such changes, while strategically valuable, require redesigns, additional R&D, and new components—costs that exceed the initial grant and agreed-upon budget. “The whole financial aspect needs to be recalculated, putting extra investment pressure on us,” a company representative lamented.
This pattern isn’t isolated. Another vendor, working on a helicopter-launched drone system with Man-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) capabilities, encountered a late-stage request to integrate a more advanced Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) system than specified, alongside tighter Circular Error Probable (CEP) targets. While the iDEX grant—capped at ?25 crore under ADITI—covers up to 50% of the product development budget, the remaining costs fall on the vendor. Unforeseen upgrades can thus strain cash flows, especially for startups and MSMEs with limited capital reserves.
The financial ripple effect is a sore point. “Some companies are not happy,” idrw.org was told, as the lack of locked-in requirements undermines the viability of their business models. Unlike traditional defence contractors, iDEX participants—often lean outfits—rely on precise scoping to align innovation with profitability. When new demands emerge post-contract, vendors must either absorb the cost, seek additional funding (which isn’t guaranteed), or renegotiate terms, delaying projects and eroding trust.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.