search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
UNMANNED UPGRADE With the Gray Eagle QRC, the Army provided an upgrade in unmanned aircraft technology to benefit Soldiers on the battlefield. The QRC preserved the milestones, checks, balances and procedures central to a formal program of record procurement. Here, two Gray Eagle unmanned aerial vehicles newly assembled by 2nd Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment await missions April 12, 2012, at Forward Operating Base Shank in Logar province, Afghanistan. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Ken Scar, 7th MPAD)


acquisition community. Acquisition professionals learn how to execute a QRC primarily through informal training and word of mouth from their to


internal networks, formalized, their as policy-based organizations to enable


opposed training.


At a minimum, PMs should consider developing and conducting training in


QRC process in its entirety, including, for example, the process for execution across ASA(ALT) and the AMC. Te policy should accurately and comprehensively capture the main functional areas and the relationships between the program man- agers (PMs)—the life-cycle managers of a system—and the LCMCs, as well as how funding moves between the organizations. Tere is a need for acquisition policy- makers to influence the development of acquisition policy so that it clearly defines and articulates the steps relating to QRCs.


Te findings also demonstrate a need to formalize QRC training across the


acquisition professionals to do their jobs well and under less stressful conditions. Organizations, such as the Defense Acquisition University, that provide professional education may be another avenue for developing and implementing such training.


Finally, the results of this study demonstrate a need to revisit the process by which the acquisition community executed Army requirements before the QRC paradigm. Tis could entail developing a working group to analyze the acquisition process before the year 2000, in conjunction with lessons learned from the current QRC paradigm. A “hybrid” policy could emerge that would enable more flexibility within the acquisition process, albeit within a larger, structured approach.


CONCLUSION Tis topic is ripe for further exploration. For example, the Army requirements and funding processes, which are inextricably bound up in the QRC paradigm, also warrant further exploration for potential change, particularly in light of current financial constraints.


For more information, contact the author at Shayla.S.McCullough@us.army.mil or 703-704-2872.


DR. SHAYLA MCCULLOUGH is a DA civilian serving as an integrated logistics support branch chief in Army Acquisi- tion. McCullough holds a B.S. in urban forestry from Southern University A&M College, an M.S. in business administra- tion from Texas A&M University, and a Ph.D. in public policy and public admin- istration from Walden University. She is Level III certified in acquisition logistics, a member of the U.S. Army Acquisition Corps, and an Army Lean Six Sigma Black Belt candidate.


ASC.ARMY.MIL


49


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