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
program achieves reliability thresholds as outlined in DODI 5000.02.


CONCLUSION Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. In retrospect, I would have applied the four best practices described here—tech- nology readiness assessment, manufac- turing readiness assessment, knowledge management and reliability growth—to my own program management during my Army career, if I had been aware of them at the time. Unfortunately they had not become part of the DOD acquisition community’s collective body of knowl- edge.


I can say now, though, that I would ad- vise any current or soon-to-be PM to use these best practices. Tey will put acqui- sition developmental programs on the right track for better outcomes.


For more information, go to the NPS Acquisition Research Program website at http://www.acquisitionresearch.net/ page/view/home/.


MEGA PROJECTS, MEGA PROBLEMS


DOD has a bad habit of launching enormously complex projects that become both too big to fail and too big to succeed in anything approaching on-time, on-budget delivery, the author says. Some examples: the XM1203 Non-Line of Sight Cannon, which was part of the Army’s FCS program, canceled in 2009 after the Army had spent roughly $20 billion on it; the Joint Strike Fighter, only now approaching combat readiness 15 years after contract award and on track to cost nearly $1 trillion to maintain and operate over its lifetime; and the $13 billion Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carrier, which is two years behind schedule and has yet to consistently perform its most basic function, launching and retrieving aircraft. (Image by U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center)


Reliability Growth. Te OSD’s Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) and the Defense Science Board have clearly linked poor re- liability of warfighting systems to higher sustainment costs. Research by DOT&E and the Defense Science Board pinpoints reliability and maintainability as integral parts of the systems engineering process


that must be reported in connection with the systems engineering plan at milestone A, the decision point for the development RFP release, milestone B and milestone C. For Acquisition Category I programs, reliability growth curves showing the growth strategy must be part of the en- gineering plan and the test and evalua- tion master plan, to be tracked until the


MICHAEL W. BOUDREAU, COL., USA (RET.), was a senior lecturer at NPS from 1995 until his retirement from civil service in July 2016. While an active-duty Army officer, he was the project manager for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles within the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support. He commanded the U.S. Army Materiel Support Command – Korea and the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant. Boudreau is a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Defense Systems Management College and the Army Command and General Staff College. He holds an MBA and a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Santa Clara University.


+ ASC.ARMY.MIL 145


COMMENTARY


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