to discuss with the TCM representatives, some face to face, to understand the reasons for adding a workstation as well as the challenges and constraints—fiscal, contractual, schedule-based, etc.—of executing the change.
Ten, Kozlowski said, “We were able to come together to suc- cessfully communicate this requirement clarification at the AROC.” Now, she said, “we are in process of executing a con- tract modification to have the manufacturer integrate the third workstation for EMD prototypes. Tis is a win for the Soldier.”
Kozlowski said her prior work experience prepared her well for this job. Her two most recent assignments, as the assistant prod- uct and project manager (APM) on the Bradley program and as part of OASA(ALT), gave her valuable experience. “My Brad- ley APM experience helped me to understand the APM roles and responsibilities,” she said. “My time in the Pentagon on developmental assignment provided me with unparalleled expe- riences in seeing senior Army leaders from various stakeholders, staffs and functional areas in action.” She came to understand in depth the interests of all the key players in the acquisition community and how they all worked together at the most senior levels, she said. “Tis is tremendous insight to be able to bring back into a PM and into an APM role.”
Kozlowski’s career advice is to recognize the critical importance of being able to manage the details and see the big-picture strat- egy at the same time.
Corey DeSnyder
Lead Systems Engineer and Sys- tems Engineering Branch Chief Corey DeSnyder has seven years of service as a civilian and 11 years as a government support contrac- tor. He has an M.S. in systems engineering from Johns Hopkins University and a B.S. in aerospace engineering from the Univer- sity of Michigan. He is Level III certified in systems engineering and Level I certified in program management.
DeSnyder leads the Systems Engineering Integration Team, which is in charge of technical design decisions for the program with configuration control of the PSpec and systems engineer- ing plan. From his vantage point, he sees that “finally,” DOD as a whole is willing to make the performance trades necessary to
field a vehicle within cost and schedule constraints. “Too many times,” he said, “we get promised the full set of requirements fast and cheap and, therefore, get stuck with cost and schedule overruns with a subset of functionality.”
DeSnyder is prepared for his role with the AMPV program because of his prior experience as an engineer on the Joint Strike Fighter program, handling airborne software. “I was part of the initial stages of that program that culminated in the system devel- opment and demonstration contract,” he said. “I saw firsthand how competition drove a lower-cost proposal on a cost-plus con- tract, which resulted in cost overruns and functionality delays from the start. I was able to convey those observations when the AMPV competition had similar results, and we were prepared to present trade-offs that needed to be made against cost, schedule and performance.” Te difference with the AMPV program is that those trades still stayed within cost and schedule, he noted.
His career advice is to build your background experience. “Don’t get pigeonholed in one program and in one technical area,” he said. “It helped that I had experience in a joint program.”
Juan Carlos Santiago
Architecture Lead Juan Carlos Santiago has 18 years of civil- ian experience, a B.S. in electrical engineering and a master’s in engineering management from the New Jersey Institute of Tech- nology. He is Level III certified in engineering. Santiago is respon- sible for managing development of the system architecture and ensuring that it remains in sync with requirements and design. He said AMPV is using a pro-
cess developed by the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), the Ground System Architecture Framework (GSAF).
Aside from working with the AMPV manufacturer to ensure that the architecture is developed in accordance with GSAF and aligned with requirements and design, Santiago works with TARDEC systems engineering personnel to support the matu- ration of the GSAF process. “I consider both the manufacturer and TARDEC to be my stakeholders,” he said.
His greatest satisfaction is getting through a critical design review, and he looks forward to the first prototype delivery
ASC.ARMY.MIL 149
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 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192
