UNDERSTANDING ARMY ACQUISITION
Tus, the decision for investment milestones now rests with the component acquisition executive.
“Te operational side still drives requirements and resources, while the secretariat side executes the acquisition of capabilities needed,” Dillard noted, but “emphasis on prototyping and rapid produc- tion has increased. … Real-world threats are driving a palpable sense of urgency in the Pentagon to acquire capabilities faster.”
ARMY FUTURES COMMAND’S MISSION Just as OTAs embrace innovation, the Army Futures Command aims to do the same—culturally, procedurally and institution- ally. “We are trying very hard to describe what problems we want to solve, and then let indus- try innovate in terms of how they can possibly solve that problem,” Gen. John M. “Mike” Murray, AFC commanding general, told an AUSA panel in October.
“Tis is about winning, and this is about looking and doing things differently in moving the Army into the information age,” he said.
“Because we will not be success- ful if we just continue to do the same things we’ve always done in the past.”
As always, requirements are key.
“What I have seen AFC accomplish thus far is to redirect some existing programs of record to make them oriented nearer-term, the focus being upon early-as-possible capabilities,” Dillard said.
“Hopefully, this is not so shortsighted as to throw off the invest- ments in longer-term advancements. All in all, it is safe to say that AFC has inserted itself into the process of both combat and materiel developments, and with the power to ‘move the needle’ that comes with four-star power.”
BEWARE OF BACKSLIDING Bureaucracy remains an ever-present threat to the Army’s newfound agility, however.
The increased use of OTAs and the standup of AFC have given rise to a cautious optimism that is more optimism than caution.
From the Army acquisition exec- utive’s point of view, “AFC fundamentally has changed the front end of the process, which is requirements generation,” Jette said in the interview. “And based upon the guidance of the senior leaders, particularly the secretary, the idea is to find a more intimate way to connect the requirements to the development of the acquisition strategy.”
Te results are telling, observers agree.
“IPTs (integrated product or process teams) were among the first acquisition reforms we pressed for in the ’90s, because we knew they could really facilitate program efficiency and effectiveness,” Soloway said. “AFC is really an IPT on steroids, and that’s truly intriguing.”
“The folks on the ground tell me that there are several layers between them and our most senior leaders telling us to do things faster,” Dillard said. “Tose layers of bureaucrats and processes are still well-entrenched, and I’m not sure we can remove those layers or if things will go any better with- out them. Institutional knowledge comes at a cost—it often feels like handcuffs to the folks trying to get things done.”
It is noteworthy that there’s a guidebook of only 53 pages on other-transaction authority, whereas the FAR is over 2,000 pages, and the defense supplement almost as large, Dillard said.
In fact, Stuart A. Hazlett, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for procurement, told a panel at AUSA that he feared writing an official policy on OTAs could produce another FAR. “I’ve been reluctant to write policy dealing with OTs in the Army. … What we don’t want to happen is for us to start writing policy and allow this thing to start slipping out of control and, before I know it, I’ve got a FAR-based kind of approach again.”
An acquisition system that in the past has not had much tolerance for cost increases or schedule delays, and which has responded to ambiguities with more time-eating rules and capability require- ments, is now being asked to tolerate mistakes and even failures in the interest of trying harder and faster to get state-of-the-art technologies to the warfighter, Etherton said. Right now, the
https://asc.ar my.mil 13
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
