WORKFORCE
review and Army Systems Acquisition Review Council walkups, as well as capa- bility development document approvals and several demonstration and test events.” His work with CMDS also provided the opportunity to serve as co-chair on a source selection evaluation board, where he helped develop the request for proposals package; led the factor and subfactor teams in evaluating technical, cost, small busi- ness and past performance specifications; and ensured that all systems performance specifications were adequately addressed.
For Williams, the biggest takeaway was the breadth and depth of the defense acquisi- tion enterprise. “As a whole, it’s larger and more complex than most people realize,” he said, “and no one is an expert in all of it. But it has so many niches and nuances, and there are plenty of ways you can make yourself an expert in one area if there’s something that really appeals to you.”
STANDING SENTINEL
Williams says his job with the Sentinel A-4 radar program requires that he “respect the details and see the big picture.” (Photo by PEO Missiles and Space)
Williams joined the Army Acquisition Workforce in 2006 after graduating from the University of Alabama. His first assignment was with the Close Combat Weapon Systems project office as a systems engineer for the TOW—tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided—missile. “I hired in under a two-year development plan as a general engineer. At first I was just happy to have a job, but I soon real- ized how lucky I was: Acquisition provides a unique opportunity to serve my country outside of the traditional military setting. I didn’t know then that I’d still be here 14 years later, but it has been great—and I’ll gladly stay another 14 years if they’ll let me.”
In 2014, he was assigned to the Cruise Missile Defense Systems (CMDS) project office, which he noted was an important transition point in his career. His first assignment at CMDS was the Indirect Fires Protection Capability Increment 2 – Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I). “Before join- ing CMDS, my experiences were mostly related to contracts for operations and sustainment and obsolescences. IFPC Inc 2-I afforded me the opportunity to join a program at milestone A,” he explained. “Accordingly, I was able to go through and benefit tremendously from events such as system requirement review, system func- tional review, preliminary design review, critical design review, technical readiness
Looking back over the past 14 years, he identified a couple of notable changes. “With the Army modernization effort, we’re seeing a shift from system-based project offices to product-based offices. It’s a great idea, but it’s a big change, and it will take some time to adjust to it,” he said. “I’ve also noticed that there’s a growing need for each person to be multi- disciplined—a leader can’t just wear one hat anymore. He or she needs to have a solid background in technical issues, communications and program specifics.” Williams also noted the increased impor- tance of building relationships within and outside of his organization. “It’s vital that you’re able to network with others, both to support the program you’re working on and to help resolve issues that come up. If you’re having a problem, chances are someone else has had it, too, and their experiences can help you figure out a solution.”
—SUSAN L. FOLLETT
https://asc.ar my.mil 153
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
