resources are allocated against those requirements. Only then can you truly establish an effective, high-performing relation- ship between government and contractor.
A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
Before signing the APB, it is advisable for a PM to conduct an IBR. If the APB is the most important acquisition document that a PM must produce after the MS B decision, the initial IBR is perhaps the most important post- MS B meeting in the life of a program. It can go a long way to cement a common understanding among the government and contractor personnel of program requirements and resources.
BUILDING THE RELATIONSHIP Te initial IBR allows you and your contractor teammates to better understand the requirements for the program, ensure proper allocation of the resources across the work breakdown structure (WBS) and reach a common perspective on the pro- gram risks—in effect, to officially begin your execution of the program from a common starting point.
you and establish your own effective relationship between your program office and your contractor teammates?
SETTING THE BASELINE In another moment of reflection, you decide not to take the greased-skids route that appears to be laid out before you. Tat’s because you know that, historically, DOD has a mixed record of getting it right from program start to first-article delivery. At some point, programs depart from cost and schedule expec- tations, leading to a new program baseline, restructuring or, ultimately, termination. All too often, one of the root causes for this worst-case outcome is a poor relationship between the government and contractor based upon misaligned or unrealis- tic expectations.
For example, the level of risk in executing the program can vary wildly between the government and the contractor, lead- ing to conflict and disagreement early in the program life cycle. Both the contractor and government leadership must align their expectations of risk to have any hope of succeeding.
Instead of producing an APB document immediately, you decide first to have what is perhaps the most important meeting in the life of a program, the initial integrated baseline review (IBR) after the MS B decision. While you deeply respect the efforts of those who brought the program to this point, and you have confidence that the source selection process chose the right con- tractor, you are not entirely convinced that all concerned fully understand the program. You want reassurance that the contrac- tor and the government team view the program requirements through a common lens. Tis requires that you understand all aspects of the program by applying a systems engineering analy- sis in which requirements are decomposed for better clarity and
Tis review also allows you and the contractor team to better understand each other and establish a collaborative relationship based on professionalism and trust rather than intimidation and suspicion. It gives you an opportunity to assess any gaps in plan- ning or overly enthusiastic decisions that may have been made in the run-up to the MS B decision. In effect, it is the first point at which you, as the PM, can fix deficiencies in program planning, either on the government side or in the contractor’s proposal.
It is also the first opportunity in the program for you and your contractor counterparts to truly dig into the details and deter- mine if you can actually execute the program in accordance with the contractor’s baseline reflecting actual program resources, in lieu of program cost estimates and contractor proposals. You are effectively validating how the contractor allocated the program
ONE TEAM, ONE GOAL
It’s not just the specifics of an acquisition program—the funding, the vendor’s track record, the technology readiness level, etc.—that posture it for success. It’s also the relationship between the government personnel, led by the PM, and the contractors assigned to the program. Developing a collaborative, trusting, high-performing relationship takes time and clear, open communication on goals and expectations.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
137
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 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184
