$


THE EFFICIENCIES CHALLENGE


How one PEO charted a path to working smarter, faster, and better—at less cost


by Lori A. Grein P


rogram Ground


Executive Office Combat Systems


(PEO GCS) is responding to the changing fiscal environment by


embracing the challenges set by our coun- try’s leaders to become a more efficient and agile organization. The outcome? Within one year, PEO GCS completed 33 projects, resulting in a total cost savings or avoidance of more than $136 million.


“Our success in developing and deliver- ing ground combat capabilities depends on our ability to adapt to the envi- ronment,


transform our culture, and


change the way we operate,” said Scott Davis, Program Executive Officer GCS.


“We must become more efficient and remain accountable for how we man- age and employ the resources provided by the taxpayer.”


The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology


(ASAALT) presented PEOs with a 2 to 3 percent efficiency target for FY11. PEO GCS achieved 280 percent of that goal in cost savings and cost avoidance. To achieve this goal, PEO GCS employees obtained PEO approval to independently form a team that draws on perspectives from three subject-matter experts: a Continuous Performance Improvement/ Lean Six Sigma (CPI/LSS) lead, a Better Buying Power expert, and a senior cost analysis manager who is also a certified LSS Black Belt.


The team enlisted representatives from across the PEO and project manage- ment offices (PMOs) and formed a CPI steering committee to guide the process improvement-oriented activities.


THREE TYPES OF PROJECTS The first


task of the steering commit-


tee was to define CPI as it relates to the organization.


REUSING MISSION-CAPABLE EQUIPMENT


Robotic Systems Joint Project Office is turning in unused robots to Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services, allowing other federal and state entities to use mission-capable equipment that Soldiers no longer need and avoiding additional costs. Here, a Talon 4 remote-controlled bomb disposal robot investigates the area after an improvised explosive device destroyed the rear axle and tires of a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle during Operation Kherwar Pahtar, Kherwar District, Logar Province, Afghanistan, May 14, 2011. (Photo by 1LT Darrick Noah.)


Three types of project were identified: the LSS gated project,


the non-gated


project, and value engineering (VE). The LSS gated projects follow a disciplined, five-step process


to achieve solutions that meet fact-based customer require-


ments. LSS is used when the solution to a problem or opportunity is not known. The non-gated project is one in which the solution is clearly identified but there is a need to determine a process for implementation. The VE process ana- lyzes product functions or processes and is used to achieve the lowest total cost of


effective ownership consistent with


user needs. PEO GCS partners


Research, with VE


experts from the U.S. Army Tank Automotive


Development,


and Engineering Center and PEO Simulation, Training, and Instrumen- tation to facilitate studies and conduct VE workshops.


ASC.ARMY.MIL


115


EFFICIENCIES


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176