OPERATIONAL TESTING AND THE ACQUISITION TRIUMVIRATE


PROGRAMS IN ACTION


A dismounted rifle company conducts phase 2 of initial operational test and evaluation for Nett Warrior in November 2014 at Fort Polk, LA. This platoon element effectively cleared the building, aided by the use of Nett Warrior to improve situational awareness, mission planning, land navigation and command and control. Improved situational awareness and planning could reduce the tension between TCM, PMs and ATEC. (Photo by Larry Furnace, USAOTC)


When a capability gap reaches TRADOC’s table, the Army Capabilities Integration Center delegates the responsibility to the appropriate TCM office, which has a TRADOC-approved charter for specific capability areas and programs and a vari- ety of avenues to approach a gap solution within the DOTMLPF framework. It’s that office’s duty to coordinate with other Army leaders and teams to close this gap.


A material solution is just one of several possible approaches. TCMs have the flexibility and the responsibility to take a broader approach using several of the DOTMLPF processes to bridge a capa- bility gap. TCMs must comprehensively monitor DOTMLPF impacts associated with fielding products to units. Tey involve themselves early in the process through proactive communications with associated PMs and ATEC to ensure that operational requirements


are properly


addressed in a request for proposals and to monitor test efforts.


For example, the TCM for armored brigade combat teams (ABCTs) may provide DOTMLPF input to both


28 Army AL&T Magazine July-September 2015


TRADOC and an ABCT regarding a number of acquisition programs,


such


as the Abrams, M88 Family of Vehicles, M113 and other tactical wheeled vehicle platforms. Te TCM will also pass on appropriate doctrine and lessons learned from other ABCTs, monitor the organi- zational and personnel force structures to ensure continued relevance, and monitor individual and collective training within the units, among other tasks associated with DOTMLPF integration.


Te TCM, commonly known as the combat developer, also creates the doc- trine and organizational training support package and provides this to the test agency 6-12 months before the start of an OT. Te package serves as a set of guide- lines for testing and evaluating capability production document requirements.


THE PM: THE PROCESS OWNER Te PM, as the materiel developer, is the acquisition process owner. From a pro- gram’s birth to its ultimate disposal, the PM oversees all of the milestones and all of the life-cycle processes between


milestones, while maintaining a bal- ance among program cost, schedule and performance. Because the tenure of an individual PM is typically three years, different individuals often manage differ- ent segments of the program’s life cycle.


Regardless of when an acquisition officer enters the program’s life cycle, the PM’s natural inclination is toward success. Te Defense Systems Management College defines a successful acquisition program as “one that places a capable and support- able weapon in the hands of a user when and where it is needed, and does so with affordable resources.” In this context, a failed test can easily appear to be a road- block to success.


Excluding or marginalizing the role of the PM in the test process can increase the tension associated with operational testing. Te PM, who is likely to have the most knowledge about a product or sys- tem and can give valuable input to a test officer (TO) or system evaluator (SE), is especially interested in making sure a fair test is conducted because the success of the program largely depends on it.


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