and leave the trade space as broad as possible in the early stages.
• Carry expanded and contracted versions of the problem statement as options. It is sometimes difficult to truly under- stand what your stakeholders really need, so be flexible in your thinking. A key method of building alignment across the PM team is to work collec- tively with the problem statement by expanding and contracting the scope until the team can coalesce around the level of detail. Te scope should be within the PM team’s ability to control (ideally) or influence (at worst), or the outcomes will be outside the team’s ability to affect.
• Invite diverse thinkers to early meetings. Too many people who think just like you can lead to a biased viewpoint. Seek out people with big ideas or from dif- ferent backgrounds (contracting officer, cost analyst, system analyst, etc.)
• Make sure stakeholders buy in. Te “why” of what you are doing is critical to maintaining their support and their confidence in the team. Te “represen- tative of true success” must be revisited on a regular basis to ensure that the solution actually matters. In the words
of Winston Churchill, “No matter how elegant
the strategy, someone should occasionally look at the results.”
• Create early models to test attain- ability. Does your program office’s estimate
for development cost show
that a course of action is within bud- get? In a technical problem, does your finite element analysis tool show that stress
properties of
levels are within the material available
technology?
How much margin does a given solu- tion provide on the cost, schedule and performance requirements? How much affordability risk does a particular concept or solution create? Te longer it takes to produce the solution, the higher the risk of funding instability, requirements creep or threat evolution.
Testing your stakeholders’ interest in the
Including “live or die” goals, key metrics that will guide thinking during development, ensures that the team understands what is most important to the user.
“why” of your statement can also illumi- nate your path. For example, if you, as the PM, framed the original “why” from the perspective of your PEO, modify it one level up to the perspective of the PEO’s boss, the service acquisition ex- ecutive. In the example of the mortar cartridge, another measure of success might include system compatibility with a future platform or low cost of maintain- ability over its shelf life. Likewise, move the perspective down one level below the PM to the system engineering lead. Does that person’s measure of success for cre- ating value include ease of platform inte- gration? If your problem statement aligns with your key stakeholder’s interests, is solution-neutral and is solvable by real people, you are off to a great start.
CONCLUSION Programs get bogged down when they’re ill-defined. Tat lack of definition only gets worse when a new PM rotates through.
If the problem statement sults in a materiel solution that takes too
Consider the situation facing a PM who has just taken over a program to produce the Army’s newest guided mortar car- tridge. A well-defined program, based on a well-defined problem statement, should allow for program business to continue as usual, with little or no ambiguity fac- ing the team, and little danger of the pro- gram getting bogged down.
For more information, contact Peter Burke at
peter.j.burke.civ@
mail.mil.
COL. LUKE CROPSEY (USAF) is the
senior materiel leader for the Direct Attack Program under the Air Force’s Program Executive Officer for Weapons at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. He holds an M.S. in system design and management
from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.S. in materials science from Michigan State University and an M.S. in national resource strategy from the National Defense University. He is a distinguished graduate of the United States Air Force Academy with a degree in mechanical engineering. He is Level III certified in program management and in engineering, and is a member of the Air Force Acquisition Corps.
MR. PETER BURKE is the deputy proj- ect manager for combat ammunition sys- tems under the Army’s PEO for Ammuni- tion, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. He is a graduate of Harvard Business School’s General Management
Program, and
holds an MBA from the Florida Institute of Technology and a B.S. in industrial engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. He is Level III certified in program management
re-
ing, and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.
+
ASC.ARMY.MIL 47
long to deliver or does not meet customer needs, it could waste millions of dollars.
and in engineer-
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 |
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
