“PMs need to be part of the process from start to finish,” said LTC Adrian Marsh, product manager for Ground Soldier Sys- tems within Program Executive Office (PEO) for Soldier. “PMs can give valu- able input to the tester and evaluator, can assist with integration and problem-solv- ing, and can help ensure that no test time, which is expensive, is wasted. A lot of this is due to the level of knowledge PMs have about the system under test.”
ATEC SEs AND TOs: THE HONEST BROKERS Te purpose of an OT is to determine whether a weapon, munition or other piece of equipment would be effective and suitable for use in combat. Te TO is responsible for the planning, execu- tion and data management of an OT; the SE uses the results of the OT to evalu- ate the system being tested so that senior
leadership can make informed purchas- ing decisions. Most TOs are vehemently protective of their tests, as are SEs, who work hand in hand with the TOs and are usually the main ATEC interface with PMs. Te main interest of the test and evaluation community is conduct- ing a high-quality test that produces measurable data—positive or negative. Anything that could interfere with the outcome of the test is strictly avoided so that the results are as accurate as possible. Hence, TOs and SEs seek to control as many variables as they can, including test participants and access to the test site.
FORGING A TRIDENT FROM A TRIUMVIRATE In today’s resource-constrained environ- ment, an OT presents numerous opportunities for clashes among all of the stakeholders, but it is possible to mitigate
some of the resulting tension and create a better test environment for all acquisition professionals.
“We’ve got to get better at building rela- tionships, understanding
each other’s
requirements and seeking out leaders,” said COL Willie J. Locke III, director of the U.S. Army Operational Test Com- mand (USAOTC) Mission Command Test Directorate. PMs and TCM leaders agree. When asked about relations among the TO, SE and PM in operational testing, MAJ Simeon Wood, assistant product manager for Nett Warrior, said that “an
‘us versus them’ mentality causes more conflict than necessary during opera- tional testing.” He also noted that the training and preparation for an OT often seems one-sided and that
the rapport
necessary for a better team environment is notably underdeveloped in many cases.
“Te team-of-teams concept is vital for us to implement in order to understand the larger concept of getting a quality prod- uct fielded,” said Wood. Tis concept was previously defined by GEN Stanley McChrystal (USA Ret.) as the output of the adaptability, agility and cohesion of a small team combined with the power and resources of a large organization. In the OT realm, each of the smaller teams (PM, TCM and SE/TO) has this type of backing from parent organizations (PEO, TRADOC, ATEC), but the notion that the smaller teams can also operate as a single team to achieve a successful test could truly alleviate much of the us-versus-them mentality MAJ Wood describes.
DATA ROUNDUP
Soldiers from the test unit at Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) 14.2, in spring 2014 at Fort Bliss, TX, pick up and program Nett Warrior’s end user devices (EUDs) from the data collection point. Mission requirements have steadily increased the demand for EUDs in units across the Army. OTs are often about integration of equipment, but integration of personnel and their expectations would also be valuable. (Photo by Tad Browning, USAOTC)
Undoubtedly, much of the tension could also be resolved by getting to know each other better as acquisition professionals. Doing so facilitates trust. In the sports world, players on a team have unique positions but are united by a common
ASC.ARMY.MIL
29
ACQUISITION
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
