There is a growing disconnect between policy (CMMC) and practice (Baseline Technical Maturity), and it is playing out in real time across America’s small to medium sized manufacturing base.

The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification, or CMMC, was designed with good intentions. Protect Controlled Unclassified Information. Strengthen the Defense Industrial Base. Reduce risk to national security. On paper, the objectives are hard to argue with.

The problem is not the intent. The problem is the assumption.

CMMC assumes a level of technical maturity that simply does not exist in most small to medium manufacturers.

Unless a company has already been pushed by another governance framework, private equity ownership, or prior deep federal contracting experience, the reality looks very different from the model. Most of these organizations did not grow up inside structured compliance environments. They grew up on shop floors.

For decades, their focus has been straightforward.

Make quality parts.
Meet deadlines.
Control costs.
Keep the doors open.

They have survived by being efficient, practical, and resourceful. Many operate machines that are twenty or thirty years old. Some still rely on equipment that predates modern network security standards. Infrastructure upgrades typically happen for one reason. Something broke.

Capital expenditures are scrutinized through a simple lens. Does it increase throughput? Does it reduce scrap? Does it shorten lead times? If the answer is no, it rarely makes the list.

Now enter CMMC.

Suddenly, these same organizations are expected to document policies, implement multifactor authentication, segment networks, maintain asset inventories, enforce configuration baselines, monitor logs, conduct formal risk assessments, and demonstrate evidence of continuous control operation.

None of those are unreasonable in isolation. Collectively, they represent a cultural and operational shift that is massive.

The framework assumes:

• Formalized governance structures
• Dedicated IT and security staff
• Established documentation practices
• Budget flexibility for infrastructure modernization
• Experience operating under audit pressure

Most small manufacturers have none of these in place.

Instead, they have:

• A part time IT provider
• A production manager who doubles as facilities lead
• Tribal knowledge instead of documented process
• Flat margins and volatile supply chains
• Leadership focused on production, not policy

The risk is not that manufacturers do not care about security. The risk is that the compliance bar is being set at a level that does not account for starting position.

When you hand a 30 page control requirement set to a company that has never written a formal policy in its history, the gap is not incremental. It is exponential.

And here is the uncomfortable truth.

For many of these companies, CMMC is not just a cybersecurity initiative. It is an enterprise maturity mandate disguised as a compliance requirement.

They are not being asked to improve a firewall rule. They are being asked to transform how they govern information, document decisions, manage assets, and measure risk. That takes time, capital, and leadership alignment.

Without realistic transition paths, financial support mechanisms, or phased maturity expectations, the outcome will not be universal compliance. It will be attrition.

Some manufacturers will exit the defense supply chain entirely. Not because they are incapable of building secure systems, but because the cost and complexity of entry exceeds their margin structure.

If that happens at scale, we will have secured the perimeter while shrinking the base.

The defense industrial ecosystem depends on thousands of specialized, small, family owned, or regionally rooted manufacturers. Many of them are exceptionally good at what they do. Precision machining. Fabrication. Assembly. Finishing. Niche component production.

They are craftsmen and operators first. They were never structured to be compliance driven enterprises.

CMMC is not wrong. But it is incomplete if it does not acknowledge where the majority of this sector actually stands.

If the goal is resilience, we need more than requirements. We need:

• Practical roadmaps aligned to manufacturing reality
• Financial incentives or cost sharing models
• Simplified guidance tailored to small enterprise environments
• Education that bridges the knowledge gap without overwhelming

Cybersecurity maturity cannot be mandated into existence. It has to be built.

And building requires meeting organizations where they are, not where we wish they already were.

If we ignore that gap, we risk protecting the data while hollowing out the very industrial base we are trying to defend.

Interested in more forward thinking technology information see our blog here.