ARMY AL&T
Involving all Soldiers—from those fresh out of the schoolhouse to seasoned combat veterans—at the earliest opportunity is the first step to getting the
requirements right.
the options for the communication suites offered by our industry partners, and help us mature the requirements.
Tis technical interchange meeting enabled industry partners, Product Manager TSO and representatives from Product Manager Mission Command to openly exchange critical information on the best techni- cal approaches used in the past, present efforts, emerging technical advances and best practices. Industry partners asked questions about different approaches and responded to questions about their respec- tive design solutions. Tis engagement was leveraged as a forum to debate the scale of data needed for remote obstacle manage- ment and the level of data encryption needed. Tis benefited all participants by opening the aperture of all prior assump- tions and biases, reducing the final scale of the effort to a more manageable approach while not releasing proprietary compo- nents of industry programs.
While each industry partner had a plan to demonstrate a future system using a
prototype communication solution, key to this forum was a means for early matu- ration of a scalable device that could be integrated by anyone. Tis investment in a common satellite modem was a risk solu- tion intended to provide industry partners either a backup plan or a solution for their program.
Te effort leverages previous investments made by the Army, the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, the Project Manager for Position, Navigation and Timing, the Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office and U.S. Special Oper- ations Command to reduce cost and schedule burdens for the terrain-shaping obstacles. Another benefit to this engage- ment is that the open architecture in the module will be easily updated for the next generations of communication waveforms.
CONCLUSION Te open discussion among developers, stakeholders and Soldiers helped further refine the final design and focus the direc- tion the government is pursuing for the development of terrain-shaping obsta- cles, from munitions to controllers to a common communications solution. Te frequent and early engagement of Soldiers was also a critical piece of design and requirements refinement. After all, they only truly see things from their point of view, and that is what we are trying to build.
Te requirements authors were pleased with the open discussion that took place in the forums. “Tese events helped the capability developer refine requirements just from an information sharing and situational awareness of perspectives and points of view,” said John Hegle, chief of the Requirements Division of the Maneu- ver Support Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate. “We heard from vendors, engineering support staff,
program managers, Soldiers and other stakeholders that have ideas to help in establishing a successful path forward. Acquisition done right is always a team sport where you seek to find a balance, an optimal solution set, for addressing identified capability gaps. We discovered it should be done sooner than we first planned to better support multidomain operations.”
A similar sentiment was expressed by an industry partner. “I found the indus- try exchange unusually refreshing,” said Robert Bills, president of NAL Research Corp. “Normally, industry meetings with government program offices are one-way communications from the government to industry with a few questions from the audience. Tis forum was open and free- flowing, two-way communications with honest dialogue and debate that was used to support the program manager’s decision on a future communications approach for the CTSO [close terrain-shaping obsta- cles] program.”
When developing concepts of opera- tion, early candid dialogue and Soldier involvement are the keys to informing requirements, regardless of what type of program you have. Tere is no limit to what these engagements will uncover, clar- ify and inform.
For more information, go to the Project Manager Close Combat Systems website at
https://www.pica.army.mil/pmccs/.
LT. COL. PHILLIP POTEET is the
product manager for Terrain Shaping Obstacles. He holds an MBA and a B.A. in psychology from Texas Tech University. He has more than 10 years of acquisition experience, is Level III certified in program management, and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.
https://asc.ar my.mil
79
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
