BEEN THERE, DONE THAT
Decades of acquisition “reform” initiatives have failed to produce true innovation and change within defense acquisition because they have not addressed requirements (capability-based and threat-driven), funding (fiscal year- and calendar-driven) and acquisition (milestone- and event- driven) reform with equal vigor.
acquisition executives (CAEs) as deci- sion-makers—considerably smaller staffs would be required to support the DAE or CAEs as oversight to PEO MDAs. Ultimately, MDA decisions are merely recommendations to service leadership, who control the overall service modern- ization strategy with requirements and resources.
CONCLUSION So, Congress—specifically, the House and Senate armed services committees, responsible for the NDAA—I’m talking to you: You got it right to try to legis- late defense acquisition reform, but you didn’t target the root cause of the issue: non-value-added bureaucracy and over- sight of programs. If you want to reduce service and OSD acquisition staffs and not simply transfer the bloat to another part of the service, strip the decision- making authority away from top-level OSD and service officials and give that authority to the folks who are truly and uniquely qualified: members of the acqui- sition profession who have the education, training, expertise and experience to
124
make those decisions—PEOs. PEOs are demonstrated leaders, acquisition profes- sionals, and an underutilized, invaluable national resource available for OSD and service leaders.
Te DOD 5000 directive is based clearly and rightly on the policy objectives of flexibility, responsiveness, innovation, discipline and streamlined, effective management while emphasizing compe- tition. More BBP initiatives that reiterate the same concepts in the DOD 5000 series are not needed. Enforce the prin- ciples and concepts already outlined therein. Keep acquisition reform simple and target the non-valued-added pro- cesses. Target bureaucracy, and the result will be the elimination of waste and the effective application of the commercial best practice of lean thinking.
DOD already has invested in the train- ing, education and experience of PEOs. Now it can maximize this investment by empowering PEOs as the program mile- stone decision-makers. Make the PEOs the MDAs for their assigned programs
by mandating it in new congressional NDAA legislation and by changing DOD acquisition policy and regulations.
Can I say for sure that PEOs as MDAs would eliminate all acquisition program cost and schedule overruns and perfor- mance shortfalls? Unfortunately, no. But it would empower the right folks and simplify the PM chain of command, applying a key principle of war—simplic- ity—to defense acquisition.
I acknowledge that this recommenda- tion only
addresses bureaucracy and
oversight within the Defense Acquisition Management System—another incre- mental reform approach, you might say. However, if we first establish trust and confidence in PEOs as MDAs, over time maybe we can expand the conversation to consider giving PEOs not only MDA responsibilities but funding and require- ment authorities as well, thus applying another key principle of war: unity of command.
DR. ROBERT F. MORTLOCK, COL., USA (Ret.), managed
defense systems
development and acquisition efforts for the last 15 of his 27 years in the Army, culminating in his assignment as the project manager for soldier protection and individual equipment in PEO Soldier. He retired in September 2015 and is now a lecturer for defense acquisition and program management in the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval Postgraduate School
in Monterey,
California. He holds a doctorate in chemical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, an MBA from Webster University, an M.S.
in national
resource strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and a B.S. in chemical engineering from Lehigh University.
Army AL&T Magazine October-December 2016
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 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192
