Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Recommendation 38: Implement best practices for portfolio management.

Problem

In both Volume 2 and Volume 3 of the Final Report, the Section 809 Panel recommends DoD transition 

from program-centric to capability portfolio-centric acquisition management. Although 

implementation of a capability portfolio management framework is a best practice in itself, recognizing 

that the transition to portfolio management will not come easily nor without risk the best practices 

described below are put forth to help advance the transition and improve outcomes. Recommendations 

36 and 37 provide detailed rationale for portfolio management and outline implementation actions to 

transition to a capability portfolio management framework for acquisition and sustainment of weapon 

systems. This recommendation identifies several specific approaches (creating critical questions, 

leveraging data, using analytical strategy modeling, and empowering the workforce) that serve as 

portfolio management best practices and would improve the likelihood of a positive transition to a 

multitiered portfolio framework that enables integration of requirements, budget, and 

acquisition/sustainment with decentralized decision authority.

The changes to acquisition and sustainment in Recommendations 36 and 37 are not totally unfamiliar 

to some aspects of DoD, but the key characteristics of portfolio management addressed within these 

recommendations have never been implemented as a comprehensive framework across DoD. The 

challenge is abandoning the deeply ingrained, stove-piped, program-based decision processes and 

procedures to adopt a new paradigm, while continuing to accomplish weapon systems development, 

testing, fielding, and sustainment. DoD, including OSD, JCS, Military Services and Defense Agencies 

have, over the decades, organized various collections of like capabilities into portfolios. An 

infrastructure for capability portfolio management exists in the Military Services and Defense Agencies 

with PEOs who already supervise, if not manage, capability portfolios. 

In 2008 DoDD 7045.20 was signed directing DoD “to use capability portfolio management to advise 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Heads of the DoD Components on how to optimize 

capability investments across the defense enterprise (both materiel and non-materiel) and 

minimize risk in meeting the Department’s capability needs in support of strategy.” 

Recommended implementation approaches, including enhancing PEO/PAE authority, establishing 

ECPs, rescinding both 5000.01 and DoDD 7045.20, and reissuing DoDD 5000.01 as the Defense 

Capabilities Acquisition and Sustainment Framework (DCASF), require commitment and 

leadership. Those activities, however, offer critical improvements to timeliness, flexibility, 

affordability, and technological innovation for weapon systems investments. It addresses and 

removes major challenges of the decades-old processes and procedures by focusing on managing 

by portfolio instead of program; by integrating requirements, budget, and acquisition/sustainment; 

and by delegating authority.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Background

Currently, the USD(P) coordinates two strategic plans that are developed within the planning 

phase of PPBE—the NSS and the NDS.

1 Subsequently, D/CAPE publishes fiscal guidance and DoD 

reprogramming guidance in coordination with the DoD Comptroller. More than 10 years ago, 

DoDD 7045.20 called for CPM strategies and alignment of PEs (the structure for funding) to 

these portfolios; however, no substantial changes to the program approach have materialized. 

The current DSS structure—comprising JCIDS, PPBE, and DAS—is not well suited for portfolio-based 

management because integration across DSS for capital assets occurs through formal, designated 

acquisition programs. These programs are either MDAPs or nonmajor programs (non-MDAPS). DoD 

groups many, but not all, of these programs into portfolios managed by PEOs. Although PEOs were 

created in the 1990s to align programs into portfolios, the DSS process maintained a program-centric 

view. PEOs were not assigned any additional duties in statute or DoDD 5000.01 to accomplish 

portfolio management. Instead, they are midlevel managers between the PM and Component or OSD 

MDA. Often, though not always, non-MDAP programs have MDA delegated to PEOs by SAEs.

During the past 20 years, portfolio management has become widely accepted by industry as a best 

practice and has proven to offer many benefits. Organizations tend to perform best with centralized

strategy and decentralized execution. The evolving industry methodology for managing capital assets 

in portfolios has shown increased efficiency and effectiveness “as portfolio management is the bridge 

between strategy and execution.”2 The Section 809 Panel’s recommendations regarding migration to

a portfolio-based acquisition system move defense acquisition in this direction by establishing clear

portfolio allocations from OSD to Military Services, then on to PAEs and PMs (see Figure 2-7). This

decentralized structure both improves innovation and requires more coordination.

 

1 The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process, DoDD 7045.14 (2017). 2 Charles R. Mahon and John D. Driessnack, Winning in the 21st Century: An Acquisition Point Paper to the Section 809 Panel, September

2017, accessed June 7, 2018, https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/white-papers/command- negation.pdf.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Figure 2-7. Portfolio Allocation

Industry guidance on project, program, and portfolio management has evolved since the 1960s,

reflected in guidance published by the American National Standards Institute and the International

Organization for Standardization.3 Many countries, including the United States, have adopted these

evolving industry standards. OMB Circular A-11 and A-119 both encourage agencies to embrace 

industry standards.4 To move to a portfolio management approach in the management of capital

asset projects and programs, DoD should transition to a portfolio governance model that aligns

strategy, risk tolerance, resource capacity, and evaluation results. Doing so would add an

integrated, tiered capital asset view (OSD to Military Service to execution portfolio to program)

across DSS with enterprise-level capability views cross-cutting the Military Service-oriented view. 

The enterprise and execution views form the multitiered portfolio management system (see

Figure 2-8).

 

3 “The Standard for Portfolio Management, ANSI/PMI 08-003-2017,” and “Guidance on Portfolio Management, ISO 21504:2015,”

International Organization for Standardization, accessed November 15, 2018, https://www.iso.org/standard/61518.html. 4 Charles R. Mahon and John D. Driessnack, Winning in the 21st Century: An Acquisition Point Paper to the Section 809 Panel, September

2017, accessed June 7, 2018, https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/white-papers/command- negation.pdf.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Figure 2-8. Multitiered Portfolio Management System

The ECP colead would provide senior decision makers views to resource allocation that would

align objectives, capacity, and risk tolerance with execution portfolios managed by empowered and

appropriately resourced PAEs. The PAEs could then optimize within their allocations down to PMs

who have a lifecycle baseline (for both acquisition and sustainment).

Discussion

Taking a Portfolio View of Capital Asset Management

In its Volume 2 Report, the Section 809 Panel advocated for shifting from a program-centric DAS to one 

cemented around portfolio capabilities, with corresponding tools and resources that will support more 

effective program management. CPM would enable analysis and integration of cross-cutting data and 

create an enterprise view that would support better-informed decision making. This approach would 

provide new perspectives at both the strategic and tactical levels. The strategic enterprise level could 

view portfolios based on technology or capability. At the tactical execution level, portfolios would be 

viewed based on their organization (see Figure 2-9). In this model, the capability and execution views 

are tiered from the OSD to the Military Services and to the PAE. To maximize the ability of these new 

perspectives to enhance decision making in a portfolio-centric system, there are several best practices 

that should be considered.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Figure 2-9. Service Execution Portfolio and Enterprise Portfolio Information Flow

Moving from program-centric to portfolio-centric acquisition requires changing the primary view of 

how capital assets are managed. Portfolio management requires active management of the collection of 

programs/projects within the portfolio.

5 Portfolio management does not require a change in the overall 

federal approach for capital budgeting, but it does incorporate aggregated product lines or product 

mixes that facilities portfolio capability value assessments and resource allocation based on a broader 

capability view. 

Industry portfolio management standards require portfolio-level strategic plans and roadmaps that 

enable strategic management. Included in these plans is value management, for which optimization is 

achieved by balancing benefits, risks, and resources. Additionally, a holistic, systems approach is 

needed given most portfolios are complex, adaptive systems. 

Portfolio and program leaders should be transparent with the challenges (constraints, assumptions, 

issues, risks, and opportunities) within the portfolio of programs. The allocation to a portfolio and 

within a portfolio should be informed by the challenges. Points to consider include the following: What

is the challenge profile within the portfolio and the individual programs? Is the portfolio resilient enough to 

handle realized risks and lost opportunities that are historical within Defense Systems? Armed with 

empowerment and flexibility in how resources are allocated, the PAE would craft a portfolio allocation 

that is robust enough to handle—at least in the near-term execution and budget years—cost, schedule, 

 

5 Ibid. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

and performance variations that are inherent in defense systems. The portfolio team, with improved 

stability in resource allocations and mission capability, should be able to anticipate the level of 

variation in the near term given credible data and clarity on the challenges.

Creating Critical Questions on Portfolio Value

A single approach or model for portfolio management would not be successful, as the 50-plus PEOs 

today represent a broad range of capital assets with various definitions of what would constitute 

portfolio capability value. DoD, through the tiered enterprise-execution portfolio concepts, should 

tailor capability value modeling to inform decisions relative to resource allocations from OSD to 

Components to portfolios to programs. The models can assist with optimizing portfolio effectiveness of 

capabilities while balancing short-term needs with long-term capabilities, especially for weapon and 

combat-oriented information systems and product lines. Each portfolio needs to develop its own set of 

critical questions on portfolio value that drive not a business case, but a missions/capability value case that 

informs strategy. 

OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, outlines direction for 

capital investment, budgeting, and management. Additional guidance is captured in the Capital 

Programming Guide (CPG) supplement to Circular A-11, which asks agencies to answer three critical 

questions:

§ Does the investment in a major capital asset support core/priority mission functions that need to 

be performed by the federal government?

§ Does the investment need to be undertaken by the requesting agency because no alternative 

private-sector or government source can better support the function?

§ Does the investment support work processes that have been simplified or otherwise redesigned 

to reduce cost, improve effectiveness, and make maximum use of commercial off-the-shelf 

(COTS) technology?6

The CPG concept of having critical questions should be tailored to DoD. The recommended DoD 

enterprise- and execution-tiered approach necessitates tailored questions for each level of resource 

allocation. CPG, Section I.5.8, Portfolio Management, notes, 

Capital assets should be compared against one another to create a prioritized portfolio of all major capital 

assets. ... While the benefits and costs of capital asset portfolios should be quantified in monetary terms 

when feasible, agencies also measure return on the basis of outputs and outcomes. ... Agencies should 

choose a portfolio of capital investment that maximize return to the taxpayer and the Government – at an 

acceptable level of risk.

 

6 Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide, v3.0, Supplement to OMB Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting and 

Acquisition of Capital Assets, 2017, accessed November 9, 2018, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/a11_2017/capital_programming_guide.pdf. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Portfolio management theory and standards are readily available from commercial sources and academic 

literature. The theory is not repeated here. Agencies are encouraged to focus on the practical application 

portfolio management theory. Most likely, the practical application will involve the tailoring of the 

principles to an agency’s unique circumstances. 

All of the items in a portfolio must support strategic plans, goals, objectives and priorities. The strategy 

and goals drive the selection and prioritization. The selection process should eliminate unnecessary and 

poorly planned projects. In addition, the risks associated with each item should be evaluated and responses 

should be developed. The risk management process should reduce threats to the agency objectives. This

should result in a portfolio that is balanced so that the mix of items maximizes the agency’s ability to 

achieve strategic goals. 7

The U.S. Army PEO for Ground Combat Systems, which manages the portfolio of tanks and other 

ground-based fighting vehicles, provides an example of this type of portfolio strategic planning linked 

to prioritization across product lines. The PEO, having the challenge of budget reductions, developed a 

tailored portfolio-level model (CPAT), to determine the optimal investment strategy for ground combat 

modernization over the next 25–35 years.8 The model demonstrates the type of portfolio-level analytics 

that can be used. The model has been subsequently used in more than 40 studies applying operations 

research methods to optimally prioritize investments across acquisition and sustainment challenges. 

This type of capability value modeling—which is not just focused on efficiency, but also effectiveness 

given the constraints and assumptions for the portfolio—is becoming the norm within portfolio 

management best practices. A recent paper from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Program and 

Portfolio Affordability Tradeoffs Under Uncertainty Using Epoch-Era Analysis, “introduces a method to 

conduct portfolio design for affordability by leveraging Epoch-Era Analysis [EEA] with aspects of 

Modern Portfolio Theory.”9 EEA “enables the conceptual design of systems that are resilient to 

potential change in context and needs (exogenous uncertainties) throughout the system lifecycle.”10

Using Analytical Modeling of Strategy

An approach for addressing missions/capability is applying mission engineering approaches to map 

system capabilities to mission needs at the capability portfolio level. Mission engineering—which 

combines the structure of systems engineering with the tactical insights of operational planning—can 

provide a basis for assessing portfolio contributions to the delivery of capabilities against assigned kill 

chains and threads, understanding the effects of investment decisions on operational priorities, 

assessing the fighting capability of existing and planned weapon systems, identifying capability gaps in 

light of existing and planned acquisitions, and providing a common mission picture to senior leaders.

 

7 Ibid.

8 Scott J. Davis et al., “Maximizing the US Army’s Future Contribution to Global Security Using the Capability Portfolio Analysis Tool 

(CPAT),” Informs Journal on Applied Analytics, 46, no. 1 (2016): 91-108, https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.2015.0824. 9 Parker D. Vasik, Adam M. Ross, and Donna H. Rhodes, “Program and Portfolio Affordability Tradeoffs Under Uncertainty Using EpochEra Analysis,” INCOSE International Symposium, September 13, 2016. 10 Ibid. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Mission engineering maps system capabilities to mission needs at the capability portfolio level.11

Mission engineering emphasizes data-driven, capability-based assessments to produce integrated

warfighting capabilities that can be translated into specific programmatic guidance for programs and 

can visually identify gaps.

Leveraging Data

The transition to portfolio management will allow program-level data to be leveraged and leaner as 

programs are managed within a portfolio structure. When appropriate, PAEs and functional leaders

can reduce program-level instruction (DoDI 5000.02) and statutory documentation requirements

through the use of portfolio approaches. Portfolio-level documentation should not be additive, but

instead enable program-level documentation and reporting to be consolidated as appropriate. 

A holistic system approach to data and documentation should evolve with the goal of improved 

transparency. As portfolio management matures, the Select Acquisition Report (SAR) and Defense 

Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) should transition to portfolio level.

Empowering Workforce

Prior to the Packard Commission, material and/or systems commands, which could best be described 

at the time as functional matrix organizations, held responsibility for acquisition and sustainment. One 

of the major findings of the Packard Commission was that individuals in the functional organization 

(today, often referred to as competencies) had decision authority on matters that affected a program’s 

cost, performance, and/or schedule. Implementation of the Packard Commission’s recommendations 

was an attempt to remedy this situation by better unifying programmatic decisional authority. The 

Packard Commission, and the advent of integrated program teams in the 1990s, shifted the balance of 

power in the direction of PMs and PEOs. In the intervening years, the influence PEOs and PMs has 

declined, as evidenced by the current situation in which process too often eclipses the mission of 

product development and delivery. Recommendations 36 and 37 in this report work to restore line 

management authority and rebalance the emphasis of product over process, in particular by 

designating the SAE/PAE as the top of the chain of command responsible for managing the system 

from initiation to disposal.

A prime reason processes have overpowered products has been the resistance of the functional 

competencies to colocate their personnel with program teams, especially within the contracting and 

comptroller competencies. To the maximum extent practicable, functional competency personnel 

should be colocated with PMs and PAEs. Functional competency personnel should support PMs and 

PAEs by doing the following:

§ Providing competent, qualified personnel.

§ Operating and sustaining efficient and effective infrastructure.

§ Establishing consistent policies and technical guidelines.

 

11 “Mission Engineering Integration and Interoperability (I&I),” James D. Moreland, Naval Sea Systems Command, accessed August 2, 

2018, https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Dahlgren-Resources/Leading-Edge/I-I-LeadingEdge/Moreland/.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

§ Streamlining processes.

§ Incorporating advanced technology and operating and support lessons into design. 

Colocating competency personnel should include competencies charged with maintaining clearance 

certification (e.g., flight clearance and submarine safe) which must function as a check-and-balance to 

ensure safety and good functional practice. The purposeful tension between the PM’s and PAE’s 

directive authority, functional competencies, technical guidelines, and consistent policy charters should 

not impede progress. That tension is intended to further programmatic efficiency while maintaining 

standards and safety. When conflicts between the entities cannot be resolved, they must be 

expeditiously elevated to senior leadership for adjudication.

Although colocation would be quite helpful, it is not the only approach to help facilitate portfolio 

management. To actively manage portfolio challenges, PAEs need a more empowered workforce than 

most current PEOs have. For PAEs to be agile, the workforce also needs to be agile within the 

organization. Thus, the individuals assigned to the PAE execution organization by the enterprise, 

whether they are program managers, contracting officers, financial managers, system engineers, or 

other functional members, should be empowered by their system command or parent organization 

when assigned to the PAE organization. Individuals should be assigned, to the maximum extent 

practical, as full-time employees to PAE organizations, allowing PAEs and their senior acquisition 

functional matrix leaders the necessary agility in balancing resource needs. The workforce members 

assigned full time to the PAE organization should be rated within the PAE organization by their 

respective senor matrix leaders, who are also assigned full time. Senior matrix leaders should be rated 

by the PAE or deputy PAE as appropriate. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) provides a current example. 

In addition to overseeing the programs within the MDA portfolio, the MDA director, unlike most 

PEOs, has a more active management role in the portfolio, with increased contracting, financial systems 

engineering, and other functional authorities. Although rated by the PAE, common sense checks and 

balances are required for certain functional experts with specific decision-making authority of their 

own, such as warranted contracting officers. Such functional experts should have a concurrent rater 

within their specific functional area to support their independent decision-making role.

Conclusion

Moving defense acquisition from a highly centralized, program-centric model with stovepipe-driven 

requirements, budget, and acquisition processes to a collaborative, decentralized, portfolio-centric 

framework entails nothing more than implementing management best practices. The move would 

yield timely, flexible, agile, cost-effective, and technologically innovative weapon systems acquisition 

and sustainment. Portfolio management is no longer in its infancy; there are standards and best 

practices that DoD can use while implementing the recommended multitiered capability portfolio 

framework. DoD could start with using critical questions to drive a long-term portfolio investment 

strategy that supports meeting capability needs, implementing analytical modeling of strategy to apply 

mission engineering approaches to map system capabilities to mission needs at the capability portfolio 

level, leveraging data that allow the MDAs (DAE, SAE, PAE, PM) and functional leaders to reduce 

program level instruction (DoDI 5000.02) and statutory documentation requirements, and empowering 

the workforce to make decisions. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

Creating Critical Questions on Portfolio Value

Portfolio managers need to devise critical questions on portfolio value that support development of 

capital-asset-focused strategies, roadmaps, and analytical models. The portfolio manager should ask 

critical question that cut across DSS to tease out strategies that drive an optimized portfolio. Each 

portfolio leader should establish a set of criteria that sets the key questions for determining portfolio 

capability value allocation decisions at each enterprise and execution portfolio tier. With more than 

50 current PEOs migrated to being PAEs, the execution portfolios will cover a broad set of defense 

systems, and each portfolio would have a unique set of criteria to help determine for the portfolio what 

value means, allowing for tailored approaches. 

Using Analytical Modeling of Strategy

All portfolio levels, whether OSD ECP portfolios or Military Service and PAE execution portfolios, 

need to use models to support allocation recommendations and decisions. All DoD-level ECPs should 

develop a 20-year capital asset strategy, aligned and linked to the NDS, which addresses their assigned 

functional capabilities. The goal of these strategies is to inform the discussion (through critical 

questions) on how defense resources should be allocated at the enterprise level across the services and 

execution portfolios to optimize capability in accordance with the NDS. Each strategy should focus on 

and recommend potential paths for changes to current Military Service and Defense Agency allocations 

relative to missions and resources with a focus on which changes have the best potential for an 

optimized capability across the next 20 years. The strategies should be supported by operations 

research (OR) modeling that considers both current and future (out to 20 years) capacity/mission 

planning needs.

Leveraging Data

Current program-oriented documentation can be transitioned to include a portfolio view to assist 

management and communication of the portfolio strategy and roadmap. Portfolio leadership should 

leverage and update current program-centric data sets to support creation of portfolio data sets and 

information needed to identify and document portfolio capability value decisions and allocations to 

portfolios/programs. A lean approach should be taken to consolidate the current program-centric 

planning/resource/reporting documentation to a more holistic system approach for portfolio-centric 

documentation. The portfolio strategy, roadmap, and periodic assessment reporting should provide 

transparency to stakeholders. Documentations, as appropriate, would be approved by negation. As 

portfolio strategies are created and overall portfolio management reporting matures, the programoriented and DAES reporting would transition to a portfolio strategy annual and quarterly reporting. 

Empowering Workforce

Workforce responsibility, authority, and accountability of the workforce should be fully aligned to the 

objectives of the PAE organizational mission. The operational chain of command runs from SAE to 

PAE (replaced PEO) to senior portfolio staff, including PMs and functional leaders. Senior functional 

leaders from the enterprise should be assigned full time to the portfolio organization and be rated in 

the portfolio organization on their contribution to successful achievement of the portfolio’s objectives. 

Colocating competency personnel should include competencies charged with maintaining clearance 

certification (e.g., flight clearance and submarine safe), which must function as a check-and-balance 

system to ensure safety and good functional practice. Tension will occur between PM’s and PAE’s 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 3 of 3 | January 2019

Portfolio Management Framework Volume 3

directive authority and functional competencies. That tension is to further programmatic efficiency 

while maintaining standards and safety but needs to be elevated if it is affecting execution. The senior 

functional leaders within the PAE organization should also rate the full-time functional workforce 

assigned to the PAE as appropriate.

Implementation

Legislative Branch

§ There are no statutory changes required for this recommendation.

Executive Branch

§ Revise DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, as The Defense Capability Acquisitions 

and Sustainment Framework (a recommended draft is attached in the Implementation Details 

for this section) and incorporate applicable Section 809 Panel recommendations including the 

following

- Implement best practices for portfolio management.

§ Direct development of an implementing DoDI for the Defense Capability Acquisition and 

Sustainment Framework, which should include the following among other best practices:

- Establish key questions for determining portfolio capability value relative to resources 

efficiency and effectiveness.

- Use a combination of models to support resource allocation and capability delivery 

effectiveness decisions at each portfolio tier (PAE, Service, OSD). 

- Leverage and update current program-centric data set to support the creation of portfolio 

sets of data and information to document portfolio capability value and resource allocations 

to portfolios/programs. Aggressively lean documentation requirements. Address required 

reporting transition from program to portfolio as portfolio management matures. 

- Fully align responsibility, authority, and accountability of the workforce to the objectives of 

the PAE organizational mission. Delegate functional authority to individuals assigned to the 

PAE execution organization by the enterprise to execute the PAE organization’s objectives. 

Rate these individual within the PAE organization on their contributions to the success of 

those objectives. Plan for tension between program and functional leadership that will 

positively affect outcomes so leaders learn to work together to achieve the PAE 

organizational mission objectives.

Implications for Other Agencies

§ There are no cross-agency implications for this recommendation.