experience in the field. “Te fact that we’re still using it is proof of the concept.”
Before IPTs, the contracting process was sequential—first it went to the budget guys, then to engineering, and so on— and time-consuming, Gadeken said.
“With an IPT, we put people in a room, shut the door and say, ‘Look: We’re not going to leave until everyone is working toward a common goal.’ ”
Initially, the IPT concept represented a big cultural shift, eliminating functional
stovepipes and changing the focus of the oversight function—HQDA, for example—from one of critique to one of approval. Perry’s nearly three-year tenure as defense secretary, from February 1994 to January 1997, was an important factor in the successful adoption of the concept. While other initiatives often die off when the people behind them move to another role, the IPT concept benefited from Perry’s continuity in office. “Te people he picked to be the next acquisition lead- ers, including Gil Decker, were fully on board, too,” Gadeken noted. Gilbert F.
Decker was the Army acquisition execu- tive during Perry’s leadership of DOD.
SPEEDING THE PROCESS CECOM used what it called “the Pacer approach” to complete rapid procure- ment and fielding for three systems, starting with the Super High Frequency Tri-Band Tactical Satellite Terminal, primarily a systems integration effort, and the Tactical Endurance Synthetic Aperture Radar (TESAR), an advanced concept technology demonstration. It also used the approach successfully for Applique, a computer-based research and development acquisition. A contract for six Tri-Band systems was awarded in just 72 days—a dramatic difference from the typical 270 days. For TESAR, it took just 60 days to award a contract, and the team cut processing time by 60 percent after eliminating documents and reviews that added no value to the acquisition.
Te CECOM teams operated under a “no business as usual” policy: Te IPT ques- tioned all actions and requests, which had to be justified and defended before approval. IPT members worked simul- taneously in collaboration—not serially, each within a separate function—to develop the absolute minimum for essen- tial requirements, eliminating those with no added value, and incorporated industry as a partner early in the process. Additionally, the program managers for each effort worked to keep their teams together through all phases of the acqui- sition, ensuring continuity and easing transitions from one phase to the next.
MAKING THE TEAM
An IPT, used in complex development programs and projects, comprises representatives from appropriate functional disciplines working together to build successful programs; identify and resolve issues; and make sound and timely recommendations to facilitate decision-making. The emphasis of the IPT is on involving all stakeholders—users, customers, management, developers, contractors and others—in a collaborative forum. (SOURCE: Defense Acquisition University)
CECOM cited several keys to its success with these acquisitions: teamwork, par- ticipation and what was then prosaically referred to as “electronic commerce”—an electronic bulletin board that facilitated real-time communication. (Imagine the possibilities.)
ASC.ARMY.MIL 171
THEN & NOW
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
