COMMENTARY
product manager for the Infantry Carrier Vehicle, Medical Vehi- cle, and Field Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle in the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program office.
Before assuming the product-office charter, I attended the infan- try pre-command course at Fort Benning, Georgia—home of the infantry. As the only acquisition officer in this course, I felt both humbled and honored to be attending the same course as the Army’s future infantry battalion and brigade commanders. On the first day, we had a reception to meet the infantry school commandant and Fort Benning commanding general.
I could not have been prouder to represent the Army Acquisition Corps. Each officer in the course stated the command they were to assume, and I introduced myself as the next Infantry Carrier Vehicle product manager. Te commandant very politely but matter-of-factly asked me why the vehicle didn’t have a manned turret like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle it was replacing. He followed by stating that the vehicle commander’s eyeballs were the best reconnaissance and surveillance systems and yet the Infan- try Carrier Vehicle did not allow a mechanized infantryman to “pop a hatch” and scan the vehicle’s surroundings.
Already feeling a bit intimidated and resisting the urge to defend the Army-approved requirements, I stumbled through a response and stated what great points the general had made.
But I understood right then that I was about to take the lead for the development, testing and production of one of the Army’s highest priority acquisition programs, and Fort Benning (or at least its top officer) was not a proponent. I thought to myself that this would be an interesting three years. Wasn’t Fort Benning the customer? Or was the general the customer? Or were the infantry battalion and brigade commanders the customers? Or was each mechanized infantryman the customer?
Te Army assigned a U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command capability manager to represent the user, lead the requirements- definition activities and serve as the liaison office between the users and the acquisition program office. Te Army Requirements Oversight Committee (AROC) approved the requirements for the vehicle in a capabilities-development document. How could the Army not include the requirement for a manned turret if that was the top priority for Fort Benning’s commander?
It’s important to put the Infantry Carrier Vehicle acquisition effort in the proper context. Te vehicle was part of a family of eight manned ground vehicles within the planned Future Combat
Systems Brigade Combat Team construct for the Army Future Force. Te FCS program entered the acquisition framework as an official program of record at Milestone B to begin engineering and manufacturing development efforts in 2003, with a planned Milestone C (low-rate initial production) in 2010.
Te experience mentioned above occurred in 2007—four years into the engineering and manufacturing development phase and well past the point of questioning the basic requirements. A year later, the same Benning commandant test-drove a prototype of the Infantry Carrier Vehicle in the contractor test facility (park- ing lot). Te FCS Program Office had hopes of turning him into a proponent. He was impressed with the design progress but became nauseated after a 10-minute test drive. For maxi- mum force protection and survivability of the vehicle crew, the new vehicle’s requirements called for it to be driven by computer screen from inside the vehicle. Despite high resolution cameras, some latency existed between what the driver’s eyes saw on the computer screen and what the driver’s body felt. Proper training of drivers can overcome this phenomenon. However, the program’s attempt to create an advocate in the general failed. And again, I was left with the same question: Who’s the customer?
INPUT, FEEDBACK FIRST
Whether in commercial industry or in the federal government, one key to success in acquisition is first getting early input and continuous feedback from the customer and truly understanding the customer’s requirements. (Photo by Capt. Scott Kuhn, 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division)
https://asc.ar my.mil
137
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
