LEAN THINKING
and the increasing number of stakehold- ers they employ as a result. Tis exposes certain aspects of the process, such as legal reviews or statements of work, to diverse individual interpretations, which height- ens the propensity for contracting office and legal staff to accept contract adminis- tration responsibilities that extend beyond their skill sets or, from a supervisory standpoint, are not part of their nominal duties. Such actions increase the necessity for document rework, and increase work- load as a result.
To avoid redoubling efforts and mitigate the ill effects of personnel transitions, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) employs multidisciplinary groups known as project delivery teams (PDTs). Te PDT, which integrates key process play- ers, including contracting officers, project
FIGURE 2
managers, attorneys and even customers, ensures that stakeholders have a shared vision of project goals, and fosters a cli- mate of process improvement by garnering the customer’s perspective at routine intervals throughout the process. Tese cross-functional teams are highly effec- tive at streamlining information sharing while removing barriers from the process, such as unclear customer requirements or needless compliance reviews.
DEFINING PROCESS TIME Our interviews revealed a perceptual dis- crepancy between contracting officers and customers as to when a contract request is considered actionable, which leads to disagreement regarding the calculation of total process time. Customers typi- cally start clocking contract action time immediately upon submitting a request,
whereas contracting officers postpone tracking cycle time until they possess a completed acquisition requirements package. From the customer perspective, acquisition lead time continues to accrue regardless of any rework required to make the package actionable. Contracting offi- cers and customers consistently reported that this phase, known as requirements development, ranges from two to 30 days. Failure to recognize the voice of the cus- tomer results in disparate perceptions of process lead times and leads to disrup- tions in the customer-contracting office relationship. Figure 3 depicts how cus- tomers and contracting office personnel each interpret acquisition lead time.
THE UTILITY OF TEMPLATES Templates of requirements documents, such as those detailed in the ACC-APG desk book, are available to aid customers in successfully developing requirements packages. However, contracting officers frequently demonstrate an aversion to providing customers with templates. Tis reluctance stems from concerns that cus- tomers will blindly copy and paste blocks of text into their documents instead of adequately researching requirements.
USACE contracting authorities strongly encourage the use of templates, often providing customers with previously approved products to better enable timely and thorough requirements devel- opment. Moreover, the Sept. 14, 2010, memorandum
titled “Better Buying HOW TO CUT CYCLE TIMES
Incorporating options into orders reduces cycle time by anywhere from 70 to 90 percent, significantly enhancing the contracting officer’s ability to respond to customer requirements. This also reduces workload on the acquisition workforce, enabling them to address other contracting needs. (SOURCE: ACC-APG)
Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” from then-Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Dr. Ashton B. Carter, strongly encourages the acquisition workforce to promote and use templates in develop- ing solicitations. Templates save time and reduce the possibility of rework that increases work-in-process inventory
102
Army AL&T Magazine
January–March 2015
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 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184
