There are various proposals to deal with this, but the most effective are probably imposing joint and several liability on certain kinds of litigation (breaking the "investor veil" and allowing rights of action against PE funds for the actions of their portcos) and limiting business judgment rule protection for directors and senior managers who approve LBO sales that are reasonably foreseeable to end in bankruptcy, which creates personal liability for fiduciaries. In other words, align the financial and personal interests of the individuals and companies involved with those of the acquired entity.

The corporate world is, of course, even more prone to this; it's where the military got it from, after all. Slice out every jargonized adjective or verb from a proposal deck and see how little is often left, and how little it really addresses the user concerns.

The broader issue here is that SV VC is starting to feel mildly radioactive when it comes to public opinion; Persona's previous lead fund (up through its Series B) was Index, run by the more conventionally-liberal Neil Rimer, and no one worried about that. The entanglement of Silicon Valley's oligarch class in very extreme politics* at a time of very fraught national political upheaval is making VC money politically-exposed money; if you take FF or Sequioa cash, how certain are you that they won't just get involved in your business, but push you to take specific political or social positions that serve their non-fiscal interests? How certain are your customers that that isn't happening to you?

For decades, SV venture capital has been tech money, and generally smart tech money (I don't like Thiel, but the man is absolutely the smartest of the PayPal Mafia set, and his success bears that out). Now, for various reasons (the end of ZIRP, the failure of major tech bets since 2016 or so to pay off, COVID overvaluations), VCs have moved into rent-seeking, particularly on government and military contracts. It's no longer tech money, it's political money, and, compared to traditional prime vendors, it's not clear that it's smart political money. After all, when the political winds turn, possibly as soon as this November, is it a smart strategy to have worked aggressively and incessantly to alienate the party coming into power? For a lot of startups with regulatory, legal, or political exposure risk, getting entangled with that might be more trouble than it's worth.

* There is no other term that suits the mix of open white supremacy and anti-democratic policies -- repealing the 19th Amendement, for example! -- that we see emerging from the PayPal Mafia.

More than once early iterations have led me to call off a project and tell the client that they'd be wasting their money with us; these were problems that either could be solved more effectively internally (with process, education, or cultural changes), weren't going to be effectively addressed by the proposed project, or, quite often, because what they wanted was not what they actually needed.

Increasingly, AI technical/functional prototyping's making it into the early design process where traditionally we'd be doing clickable prototypes, letting us get cheap working prototypes in place for users to test drive and provide feedback on. I like to iterate aggressively on the data schema up front, so this fits in well with my bias towards getting the database and query models largely created during the design effort based on domain research and collaboration.

The books and papers the OP cites are solid (Rittel and Webber, Buchanan, etc., though TRIZ, I think, is rather oversold), but in my experience the problem with most design thinking practitioners is that they aren't qualified sociologists and ethnographers, so a lot of design thinking is basically a reinvention of the last century of sociological middle-range theory and ethnographic principles, without being strongly informed by either, likely due to the field's foundation in early software requirements studies.

It's exceedingly unlikely that this survives any administrative or legal scrutiny (and if it does, there's a whole lot of former active-status Trump allies, including GOFOs, who are more than vulnerable under these same standards); the main result, I think, is to elevate Kelly's political profile while turning most of the Pentagon even more against Hegseth and Phelan (the former being an over-promoted PAO, and the latter not even having that experience, having spent his career managing Michael Dell's money).