Dr. Atzpodien, the so-called “turning point” has spurred numerous investments—yet at the same time, we are facing challenges with regard to schedule, cost, and quality targets in many projects. In your view, what role do professional project, program, and client management structures play in the success of these initiatives?

Our industry—and system integrators in particular—naturally have such professional structures in place. The problems lie more in the supply chains, where stressful situations can arise in very different ways at each stage and must be handled professionally in each case.

To address this, our association offers events specifically for our small and medium-sized members that focus, for example, on the rapid financing of expansion investments. We have also—together with our colleagues from the German Association for Materials Management, Purchasing, and Logistics (BME)—launched a matchmaking platform called “SVI Connect” on January 1, 2026, which is funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. So far, over 2,000 companies have registered on the platform, seeking to make their resources available—and, first and foremost, visible—for the upscaling process. The purpose of the platform is to enable companies in the supply chain that need additional resources very quickly to find them in a structured manner through the platform. So you can see that we’re doing a great deal to facilitate the organization of upscaling, as I mentioned. In this regard, we’re seeing an enormous willingness in Germany from all kinds of quarters to pitch in. For example, there are many companies in the automotive supply sector that have already successfully made their way into the defense supply chains. This requires a willingness to learn, but also the readiness to accept setbacks and keep trying anyway.

Mr. Siegler, many defense companies are currently faced with the decision of whether to expand existing facilities (brownfield) or build entirely new production sites (greenfield). In your view, what criteria should take precedence in this strategic decision—given that speed, regulatory approval, and scalability are all equally critical to success?

The decision between brownfield and greenfield should not be based solely on cost and time considerations but should also be informed by a long-term location strategy. Based on our experience, three criteria are key: the speed of capacity deployment, scalability to meet future demand, and technical and regulatory feasibility. Brownfield solutions often offer advantages in terms of permitting processes for existing infrastructure and frequently enable faster capacity expansion. At the same time, it is not uncommon to encounter restrictions imposed by existing utility and logistics structures, or to face compromises and limitations during ongoing operations.

Greenfield projects, on the other hand, offer the opportunity to optimally align production, logistics, and safety concepts with future requirements from the very beginning. This can be the more sustainable approach, particularly in the case of rapidly growing production volumes or new manufacturing technologies. Many projects also demonstrate that the best solution does not have to be an either/or choice. Successful companies combine brownfield and greenfield approaches and develop an integrated, phased site master plan that links short-term capacity goals with long-term development.

Mr. Siegler, you oversee numerous industrial projects in highly regulated environments and the defense industry. What differences do you observe in project management and risk management between brownfield expansions during ongoing operations and greenfield construction projects?

The key difference lies in the projects’ risk profiles. With greenfield projects, the focus is typically on land development, infrastructure construction, permitting, and the coordination of a wide range of trades. The risk here often lies in external dependencies and, in some cases, long lead times.

With brownfield expansions, on the other hand, the focus shifts to managing ongoing operations. Avoiding production interruptions, complying with safety requirements, planning and implementing migration and relocation scenarios, and managing interfaces between legacy and new infrastructure represent the greatest challenges here.

In our view, project structures that take a joint and integrated approach to production, logistics, buildings, technical infrastructure (TGA), IT, and safety requirements from the very start of the project are crucial. Active risk management that continuously assesses and controls technical, scheduling, and operational risks is equally essential.

Mr. Siegler, many companies need to multiply their production capacity within just a few years. What do you currently see as the most important success factors for implementing brownfield transformations or greenfield programs on time and within budget, even under intense time pressure?

The most important success factors are early planning and the creation of a target vision, as well as consistent program management. Many companies lose time because strategic decisions are not made until during implementation.

Successful projects begin with robust capacity and scenario planning. Building on this foundation, production, logistics, building, and infrastructure concepts are developed that—using modern simulation and digital twin methods—ensure risks are identified early and decisions can be made much more quickly. Standardization also plays a key role. Companies that can draw on proven, modular production, building, IT, and automation standards reduce complexity, accelerate implementation, and increase the likelihood of meeting ambitious time and budget targets. Under intense time pressure, it is ultimately not so much the technical solution that matters as the quality of the project organization and the added value provided by the project management tools used.

Dr. Atzpodien, many BDSV member companies are facing the challenge of expanding their production, logistics, and infrastructure capacities—in some cases significantly—on short notice. Where do you currently see the greatest need for external planning and consulting support along the chain of strategy development, engineering, implementation, and cross-functional project management?

I think that—at least as far as the short-term measures mentioned above are concerned—we currently have a need primarily in the area of implementation. What counts is the output, which must be achieved as quickly as possible. To do this, new manufacturing facilities must be planned or existing ones redesigned in many areas. But product designs must also be adapted to changed manufacturing conditions and increased production volumes.

In many respects, experience from the automotive sector can be put to use here. At the very least, I know of companies involved in automotive product development processes that have already successfully gained a foothold in the defense sector. The Bundeswehr’s Procurement Office also intends to make greater use of such processes in the future. However, this will also require further regulatory relief in the area of infrastructure planning. For example, new production facilities for the defense industry must, in the future, be granted similar preferential treatment when planning permits are issued as facilities belonging to the Bundeswehr itself. To this end, a so-called “Infrastructure Future Act” is currently being drafted, which will hopefully come into effect soon.

Mr. Siegler, defense projects are subject to specific security and compliance requirements. What specific additional requirements does this entail for the planning and construction of greenfield plants, as well as for the renovation of existing sites?

In addition to issues related to building codes, permitting, and environmental regulations, security, confidentiality, and cybersecurity requirements are becoming increasingly important.

As early as the initial planning phase, access control systems, security zones, information protection, supply chain requirements, and resilient IT and communications structures must be established and taken into account. These requirements affect not only buildings and infrastructure but also production and logistics processes in equal measure.

Brownfield projects face the additional challenge of adapting existing facilities and structures to new security standards. Technical retrofits are often necessary without disrupting ongoing operations during implementation. We recommend an integrated planning approach in which security and compliance requirements are incorporated into all relevant planning disciplines from the very beginning.

Dr. Atzpodien, defense projects are characterized by a high degree of complexity in terms of stakeholders, regulations, and security requirements. What additional capabilities do companies need today, beyond their core technical expertise, to manage this complexity?

Yes, there are specific challenges, but they can be learned. For example, special security standards must be adhered to, or security clearances must be obtained for certain personnel—namely, those who handle classified information. In addition, contracts with the German Armed Forces are subject to what is known as public pricing law. But even this can be mastered with some training. We hold online training sessions on these topics for our association members from time to time so that they can bring themselves up to speed. So, to reiterate: There are undoubtedly certain barriers to entry. But as I hear time and again, these can be overcome if you make the effort and put in the work.

Mr. Siegler, resilience is increasingly becoming a strategic location factor. What characteristics must a modern defense site possess today to be resilient, scalable, and operational in the long term—whether in a brownfield or greenfield setting?

Today’s defense sites must do much more than simply provide production capacity. Resilient site structures offer the ability to deliver consistent and predictable performance under constantly changing conditions.

The key characteristics for achieving this are flexible production structures, scalable logistics systems, a well-thought-out mix of manual and automated processes, redundant power and utility supplies, and a robust digital control infrastructure. At the same time, sites should be able to integrate new technologies and additional capacity. In a brownfield approach, this often involves the gradual modernization of existing structures. In a greenfield project, this flexibility in building structures, material flows, and warehouse concepts can be planned from the outset, for example, through phased construction or multifunctional space planning.

Mr. Siegler, many companies are facing the challenge of creating new production and logistics space under significant time pressure. Where do you currently see the biggest gap between political aspirations and the reality of operational implementation in brownfield and greenfield projects in Germany?

The political objective is clear and understandable to everyone. However, the gap between this objective and the actual pace of implementation remains significant. We see no lack of willingness to invest or of commitment to industrial policy on the part of companies. However, it regularly becomes apparent that, on the part of the authorities, lengthy approval processes and complex coordination structures—especially when compared to procedures in other countries—significantly slow down projects. Within the industrial companies themselves, the challenge of simultaneously establishing or modernizing production, logistics, infrastructure, and IT is sometimes underestimated.

Here, limited internal planning capacity and a mindset that is not yet geared toward the speed required for the upcoming project tasks limit project progress. The bottleneck is therefore often not financing, but rather the lack of experience among all stakeholders in professionally planning, approving, and implementing complex industrial projects. Anyone who wants to successfully implement these programs needs interdisciplinary teams and efficient project and change management structures in place early on.

Dr. Atzpodien, when we consider defense capabilities holistically—from industrial capacity to resilient locations to robust project and implementation structures—where do you see the biggest gaps that Germany, in particular, must close in order to ensure its long-term ability to act in the area of security policy?

First of all, I am firmly convinced that we, too, would develop much greater resilience if we were forced to do so. This also applies to industry and its ability to scale up production even further if necessary. The deterrence capability we need today consists of both hard and soft factors. When it comes to soft factors, it depends above all on our own mindset—that is, on our willingness to always factor in resilience and to accept certain restrictions in order to achieve it.

Former NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg summed it up as follows in 2024 on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference: Spending more money on defense means less money for other important tasks. But what could be more important than our security and the preservation of our peace? There is nothing more to add to that.