BBP 3.0 101


and understand that the extra cost will not automatically put them out of the run- ning but that cost still has “to be below our overall affordability cap.”


THINKING SMALLER Dr. Joseph Conroy checks the vehicle operation of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) micro quadrotor, a platform for testing integrated sensing and processing on size-constrained robotic systems. New to BBP 3.0 is an effort to improve the return on investment in R&D. (Photo by Doug Lafon, ARL)


parallel with our analysis-of-alternative activities, to ask industry to do some early design trade-offs.” Tis would allow DOD to get inputs from industry in a structured way, and in a competitive envi- ronment, he said. “All of the knowledge about the exact requirements and all tech- nology do not reside in the government.”


As part of the effort to incentivize inno- vation in both industry and government, Kendall wants to make sure that DOD provides clear “best value” definitions so that it “can pick and choose wisely,” he said. Any purchasing decision involves a trade-off between cost and capability. DOD wants to get the best product at the lowest cost, which may lie somewhere


124


between the objective, or optimum, and threshold, or good enough, levels. Te problem is that cost tends to be every- thing, and as the threshold is likely to be cheaper, there has to be “some way to get credit for being above that level,” he said. “Otherwise, there’s no reason to offer an enhanced, objective level of capa- bility” that might cost more but would give DOD exactly what it needs. “Te idea here is that we will tell industry what it’s [worth for that level of] performance:


‘We’ll pay another, let’s just say, 10 percent if you get us to that level of performance. Or we’ll pay another 30 percent if you get us a higher level of performance.’ ” He wants to make sure that industry can propose better-than-objective capabilities


ELIMINATE BUREAUCRACY Tis focus area is one that continues from BBP 2.0, and Kendall emphasized that “We want our chain of command to be empowered to do the job it’s been given to do. … We want to find ways to get cycle time down ... without creating excessive risk. I’ve been asked by some of the people on the operational side why the acquisition system takes too long. It isn’t the oversight of the acquisition sys- tems that’s slowing down our programs,” he said. “What slows down our programs is not getting the work done. Not fulfill- ing the requirements. Not getting the design finished. Not getting the tests done. Not actually building the product on time. Tat’s where we’ve got to focus if we want to reduce cycle times.”


An important aspect of reducing bureau- cracy is streamlining documentation. Good


documentation, Kendall said,


“should be the actual plan that will be implemented and used as a management document by the program office. Tat’s the goal we’re still striving for. I don’t think we’re there yet.”


PROMOTE COMPETITION Another core BBP 3.0 concept that con- tinues from 2.0 is the effort to create and maintain competitive environments.


“We’re a low-volume, specialty-product buyer, for the most part, and we generally cannot afford competition in production. We can afford competition leading up to EMD [engineering, manufacturing and development]. Occasionally we can carry competition through EMD, and very rarely can we have competition in produc- tion.” Tat means that DOD has to find other ways to promote competition.


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