O


n a quiet road winding past the walls of a forward operating base north of Baghdad, would-be terror-


ist pours kerosene into a puddle on the blacktop in the dark of night and walks away. Over the next day, as the tem- perature tops 130 degrees, the kerosene will soften the spot. On the next night, someone returns to dig away the chunky, tar-covered gravel and place an impro- vised explosive device (IED). In just a few minutes, the hole is refilled and some sand thrown on for concealment. All that remains to be done is to wait for the next Coalition convoy hauling supplies or an unsuspecting patrol to roll out.


Not long ago, similar scenarios played


out over and over, causing injury and death. However, while terrorists con- tinue to attack using simple, line-of-sight technologies such as garage door openers hardwired to explosives, U.S. forces are achieving more advanced technical solu- tions to move the warfighter out of harm’s way, because scenarios such as these led to the Army’s current Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) paradigm and associ- ated process.


A MAJOR SHIFT Before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army Acquisition Community procured, fielded and sustained systems by following a detailed, at times lengthy process. While this process proved helpful and still is used today to fill specific types of


system requirements,


its lengthy cycle times were unsuitable for the increased operations tempo of the current fight. Te QRC paradigm emerged as an alternative, its primary tenet being speed of procurement. Te QRC became a streamlined version of the traditional acquisition processes, with the goal to purchase and field systems rapidly. Time has become the driving force


in QRC programs, and the execution of non-QRC acquisitions is also now compressed. However, in the process of executing QRC programs, the long-term implications of the QRC were pushed to the periphery, and understandably so.


Because of its short history, the QRC


paradigm has yet to be fully explored. In fact, there is little systematic theoretical or empirical research on the dynamics of the QRC paradigm as it exists today—or, more important, its long-term implications. Tis paucity of


information most likely


stems from several factors, including the rapid evolution of the QRC paradigm; a lack of agreement on the definition of a QRC; and, perhaps most


disagreement on whether a QRC should represent a short- or long-term solution.


To better understand the process commonly understood


as QRC, the


author conducted a research study to examine its conceptual


structure. Te


research examined the application of the rapid acquisition policy and its impact on acquisition workforce professionals. Te primary goal was to explore and determine how, and to what extent, QRC programs were executed differently than non-QRCs. For example, decision- makers are now more amenable to “out-of-the-box”


thinking, approving


nonconventional actions more frequently to satisfy warfighter requirements.


Moreover, the research sought answers to a larger question: How might the QRC paradigm influence future Army acquisition policy?


Even with the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, answers to these questions will become increasingly relevant as the Army seeks to effectively navigate financial


constraints while maintaining combat overmatch.


THE RESEARCH APPROACH Te author adopted a case-study approach with the goal of synthesizing the day-to- day experiences of key QRC personnel into an initial understanding of the QRC process, and ultimately developing rec- ommendations for areas worthy of change within the Army’s QRC approach.


Te following overarching research questions focused on


the long-term


implications of the existing QRC paradigm and whether it


satisfying long-term Army acquisition requirements:


important,


1. Are QRC programs executed differ- ently than non-QRC programs? 2. What are the logistics and sustain- ment implications of QRC programs? 3. By extension, are there additional sustainment processes of QRC pro- grams that are unique to QRCs? If so, how do they differ from those charac- teristic of non-QRC programs?


Data were collected via interviews with a sample of 13 participants


from the


Army Acquisition Community who work directly with QRC programs.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analyses conducted for the study uncov- ered a few key, specific areas ripe for further study and change, including a formalized lessons-learned process; a change in Army acquisition policy; for- malized QRC training so that workforce members derive most of their knowledge from institutional practices and protocols, as opposed to just real-time experience and informal guidance; and a revised plan for executing acquisition require- ments in accordance with policy.


Te first recommendation for action is to develop a lessons-learned forum in which


ASC.ARMY.MIL 47 is capable of


ACQUISITION


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