DOTmLPF + dotMlpf = DOTMLPF
ACD integrates accelerated capabil- ity activities between proponent force modernization domains to ensure unity and priority of effort, and synchroni- zation and optimization of
resources.
ACD co-leads the Capabilities Develop- ment for Rapid Transition process with G-3/5/7 to prioritize rapidly equipped systems in current operations so that they can become enduring capabilities.
MBL lends the critical experiments to capabil-
identify
determine
the usefulness of developmental initiatives, and inform requirements for the acquisition process. MBL main- tains the post-experiment analytic capability to report on the
effective-
ness and make a recommendation to discard, investigate further, or invest now to put that capability into Soldiers’ hands. The Infantry Mortar Leader Course cadre from MCoE are the Army’s subject-matter experts in mortar system training and operations. FCoE’s Direc- torate of Training and Doctrine adds the critical capability of being the Army’s expert on training for and executing a
Had ATEC and TRADOC not worked together on this assessment, each would have completed its own assessment. The result would have been duplica- information for decision makers. Both commands would have sent data collec- tion teams to the units in theater, looking to interview the same set of Soldiers. The data collection would have disrupted the Soldiers and units twice, asking many of the same questions.
Without the combined subject-matter
expertise and shared analysis, Army acquisition decision makers could have seen two divergent conclusions. At a time
- tant, one can see that this combined assessment reduced the required man- power, increased synergy between two commands to produce the most robust assessment possible, and, most important, reduced interruptions to the Soldiers and
CONCLUSION In the end, acquisition decision makers will decide whether the combined assessment produced a superior look at the APMI, but
from the participants’
perspective, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. Other instances of the two commands working together, including the Network Integration Evaluation, Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment, and other FOA assessments
In the APMI case, decision makers now have a single, comprehensive document that not only outlines the potential of a single materiel solution, but also cov- ers other important aspects of potential changes
in doctrine, training, and
leadership, and the impact each has in achieving the desired capability and clos- ing the capability gap.
The APMI DOTMLPF assessment high- lighted some unintended consequences and revealed other non-material areas of improvement that may not have been found with separate assessments, such as doctrine and training on how to employ mortars given precision munitions, and
Our recommendation is that ARCIC
and ATEC team up more often to com- plete DOTMLPF assessments, such as by building informal relationships at the on the test and evaluation integrated
JAMES BREEZE, a contractor for SAIC Team at the Maneuver Battle Lab. He is
steps that could lead to a better, more
For more information on ATEC, go to
http://www.atec.army.mil. For more information on PEO Ammunition, go to
http://www.pica.army.mil/peoammo.
MAJ MARCUS GRIMES is ATEC’s Mili- tary Evaluator and Operations Research Analyst for APMI; he was on the ATEC Forward Operational Assessment team from January to August 2011. He holds a B.S.
in mechanical engineering from the
United States Military Academy, an M.S. in engineering management from the Uni- versity of Missouri – Rolla, and an M.S. in systems engineering from the University of Virginia.
PAUL WALLACE is the ATEC System
Team Chair for APMI. He holds a B.S in physics from California State University, in systems planning, research, development and engineering (SPRDE) – program sys- tems engineer and in SPRDE – systems engineering.
CHRIS WARSHAWSKY is Lead Spiral Developments Integrator
(Team Leader)
in the Accelerated Capabilities Division at ARCIC. He holds a B.S in business admin- istration from Western Carolina University and an M.S. in technology systems man- agement from University of Maryland University College. He is a member of the U.S. Army Acquisition Corps.
102
Army AL&T Magazine
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
