Rear Adm. (Sel) Jeffrey A. Wieringa, USN

Program Executive Officer, Tactical Aircraft Systems, NAVAIR

Parallels from the past emerge in

spiral development of the F/A-18A

through F Variants.

A L SO IN THIS ISSUE: SO IN THIS ISSUE:

GOVERNMENT-WIDE

IT ACQUISITIONS

“EXCALIBUR” APPLYING UNIQUE

DECISION SUPPORT TO EXPLOSIVES

SELECTION

DCMA SUPPORTING ARMY

“SHADOW” TUAV PROGRAM

PATRIOT DIAGNOSTICS SUPPORT AT

REDSTONE

ARSENAL

M AY- JU N E 20 0 3

Spiral Development and the

F/A-18 Aircraft 

P ROGRAM M ANAGER

FROM MALIBU TO BAGHDAD— PERSPECTIVE OF A PM FROM THE WARFRONT

FOUR DOD PROGRAM TEAMS NAMED 2003 PACKARD AWARD WINNERS

Program Manager Interviews Diane Morales

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Logistics & Materiel Readiness)
2

Diane Morales, Deputy Under Secretary

of Defense (Logistics & Materiel

Readiness)

Program Manager Interview

From the customer’s customer to the supplier’s supplier, logistics today is about

processes, enabling technologies, and welltrained people.

36

“Excalibur” Applying Unique Decision

Support to Explosives Selection

Richard Rhinesmith • Bruce Williamson

Quality Function Deployment (QFD)—

a step-by-step approach.

8

Malibu to Baghdad

Lt. Col. John H. Masterson, USA

Operation Iraqi Freedom—Perspective of

a Program Manager Assigned to the Warfront.

12

Government-wide Information

Technology (IT) Acquisitions

David Haas

Increasing the likelihood of program management success through leadership and

Integrated Product Team development.

88

Vision and Cultural Change in

Government Satellite Programs

Dr. Kenneth D. Shere • Dr. Scott R. Turner

Program Management lessons learned

from The Aerospace Corporation on government satellite programs. 

50

Spiral Development and the F/A-18

Rear Adm. (Sel) Jeffrey A. Wieringa, USN

Parallels from the past emerge in Spiral

Development of the F/A-18A through F

variants.

Vol X X XII, No.3, DAU 174

A B I M O N T H LY M AGAZINE OF THE D EFENSE

The Defense Acquisition University is accredited by The Commission of the Council

on Occupational Education (COE), a national

institute of accreditation recognized by the

U.S. Department of Education.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 1

24

DCMA Providing Insight, Support to

Army “Shadow” Tactical Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) Program

Joyce Mason

The Army’s “Shadow” TUAV program is

the first Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program to progress into the production acquisition stage.

A CQUISITION U NIVERSITY

DEPARTMENTS

In the News.....................................................................................................................................................................63

Career Development.................................................................................................................................................75

Policy & Legislation....................................................................................................................................................80

Conferences, Workshops & Symposia............................................................................................................85

Inside DAU ......................................................................................................................................................................86

Acquisition and Logistics Excellence................................................................................................................95

Published for the

DEFENSE

ACQUISITION

UNIVERSITY

President

Frank J. Anderson Jr.

Commandant

Col. Ronald C. Flom, USA

Director, Operations Group

Col. Ronald J. Hayne, USA

Acting Director, Visual Arts and Press

Ed Boyd

PROGRAM MANAGER

Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collie Johnson

Chief, Layout and Design . . . . . . . . . Paula Croisetiere

Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sylwia Gasiorek-Nelson

Letters to the Editor and other correspondence

are welcome and may be mailed to the address shown

below or sent by e-mail to collie.johnson@dau.mil. Article preparation/submission guidelines are located on

the inside back cover of this issue or may be downloaded from our Web site at http://www.dau.mil/pubs/

pm/articles.asp. Inquiries concerning proposed articles

can also be made by phone at (703) 805-2892/

3364 or DSN 655-2892/3364. 

PM Magazine (ISSN 0199-7114), published

bimonthly by the DAU Press, is free to all U.S. and foreign national subscribers. Postage is paid at the U.S.

Postal Facility, Fort Belvoir, Va. POSTMASTER: Send

address changes to:

PROGRAM MANAGER

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY 

ATTN DAU PRESS STE 3

9820 BELVOIR ROAD

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5565

To subscribe by mail, send us your request in writing or fill out and mail our convenient postage-free online mailer at http://www.dau.mil/forms/subscribe_form.

pdf. To comply with USPS regulations, your request

must contain your original signature. Faxed signatures are not acceptable.

PM Magazine is a vehicle for transmitting information on policies, trends, events, and current thinking

affecting program management and defense systems

acquisition, technology, and logistics. Statements of fact

or opinion appearing in PM Magazine are solely those

of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by

DoD or DAU. Articles may be reprinted. When reprinting, please credit the author and PM Magazine.

Some photos appearing in this publication may be digitally enhanced.

ALSO

2003 Acquisition & Logistics Excellence

Conference and Trade Show .........................................................................................................................18

Measuring Performance to Drive Risk Management.............................................................................32

Join DAUAA....................................................................................................................................................................42

Become a DAUAA Corporate Sponsor..........................................................................................................45

Transformation of Acquisition Training Within DoD.................................................................................46

Summer PEO Forum................................................................................................................................................48

DAU Board of Visitors Welcomes Six New Members............................................................................49

PEO EIS Industry Day 2003................................................................................................................................54

Aldridge Retires, Wynne Named Acting USD(AT&L).............................................................................60

28

Patriot Integrated Diagnostics Support

System (IDSS) Program Technology at

Redstone Arsenal

Capt. James O. McLinnaham, USA • Dr.

Dennis G. Beeler

PATRIOT IDSS technology experts a world

away are helping keep PATRIOT systems

deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom up

and running. 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Diane Morales

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Logistics and Materiel Readiness)

From the Customer’s Customer to the Supplier’s

Supplier, Logistics Today is about Processes,

Enabling Technologies, and Well Trained People

2

T

oday, our nation faces a stern test

from a new kind of enemy. The

War Against Terrorism has challenged us to re-energize our planning—and to step up our pace

of transformation. We must therefore

accelerate our initiatives to change the

way our military forces do business. And

logistics has an even more critical role

to play. Our resolve to defend democracy has never been stronger, and transforming the way we approach our work

in logistics and preparedness has never

been so urgent. 

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

is the Department of Defense (DoD)

blueprint for transforming our forces to

defeat 21st century threats. It defines

strategic imperatives for all military operations across a 20-year horizon with

specific requirements for DoD logistics,

including:

• Project and sustain the force with minimal footprint.

Professor Randy Fowler, Director of Logistics and Sustainment, DAU Curricula

Development Support Center, interviewed

Diane Morales on behalf of Program

Manager on June 10. Morales spoke with

Fowler from her Pentagon office, offering a personal perspective on logistics

support to the combatant commanders

and describing how DUSD(L&MR),

under her vision and direction, is transforming to meet the logistics needs of the

nation’s warfighters in the most efficient

manner possible. Preceding the interview

is a “State-of-the-Union”-type message

from Morales on Department of Defense

Logistics today. 

“I came back to the Pentagon, to my current

position, to improve the way we provide

logistics support to our forces in the field. My

highest priority is to do everything in my power

to provide the best support to our operational

commanders, so they can achieve their vital

missions armed with the most advanced

technologies we can create.”

Photos by Richard Mattox
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 3

• Implement performance-based logistics to: 1) compress supply chains, 2)

improve readiness for major weapon

systems, and 3) improve availability

of commodities.

• Reduce cycle times to industry standards.

The Future Logistics Enterprise (FLE)

is DoD's near-term logistics transformation strategy. FLE aims to transform

the logistics operation of the military

into the most advanced synergistic collaborative supply chain in the world.

This integrated logistics capability will

provide advanced, operationally effective weapons and logistics support to

the warfighter in the most efficient manner possible.

The Quadrennial Defense Review tasked

us to provide our combatant commanders with logistics support to enable

forces to deploy anywhere in the world

within 96 hours. This meant that we

had to bring our supply chain readiness

to a state that would allow the combatant commander to follow up with a

major joint force deployment, in theater and ready to engage in less than two

weeks. This transformation enables logistics to become a “competitive advantage” to our warfighters, much like

Wal-Mart and other commercial firms

have consciously focused on enhanced

logistics as a weapon against their competitors.

We still are working these issues—our

deployment to Afghanistan took about

23 days. We need to cut that in about

half. Our advances in planning and increased ability for coordination enabled

us to enter Baghdad on Day 20. By accurately forecasting the demands on the

logistics support mechanisms during

the pre-deployment, deployment, and

sustainment phases, we were better positioned to provide time-definite support to our warfighters rather than relying on the traditional “just-in-case”

materiel build-up. 

In order to succeed in deploying within

96 hours, we had to first create the highlevel view of what the warfighter needs

for support. In commercial terms this

is called the end-to-end supply chain.

This supply chain extends from the customer's customer to the supplier's supplier and includes processes, enabling

technologies, and well-trained people. 

The acquisition community is critical to

our success in logistics. Implementing

Total Life Cycle Systems Management

processes builds into the acquisition

process the accountability and responsibility we need to provide end-to-end

customer service to our warfighters. 

Q

Logistics has certainly been prominently

featured in Operation Iraqi Freedom [OIF].

How has/did the coalition logistics system

perform? 

A

During our deployments to Afghanistan

and Iraq, the world has again seen the

resounding success of our planning for

joint operations—and it has begun to

see the improvements that our drive for

logistics transformation are making possible.

The quick victory by our forces in these

two crucial battles within the larger War

Against Terrorism has been truly impressive. It has proven that both our battlefield tactics and our strategic vision

are succeeding. Our program to transform America's armed forces—creating

the most mobile, most agile, most effectivefighting force in history—is helping

us meet America's new global responsibilities.

In preparing our armed forces for the

challenges they will face, transformation is in the forefront of our agenda—

and transforming logistics is a central

part of that process.

Q

The Department has been preparing for

this type of battle since Desert Storm. What

logistics changes resulting from the last

decade's logistics transformation have had

the most notable impact on military operations in Iraq? 

A

It was gratifying for the logisticians to

see the success of the programs we

have been developing and implementing since the first Gulf War. In

Operation Iraqi Freedom, we used a

streamlined approach to logistics, analyzing how long it takes us to get supplies from the port to the frontlines,

and from there determining how many

days' supplies we needed to maintain.

“Future Logistics

Enterprise [FLE] is

the transformation of

the way America fields

its weapons systems,

supplies our troops,

and projects our power

so that we can win

wars...The DoD has

never undertaken such

a significant

transformation.”
4 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

In Iraqi Freedom, U.S. forces kept five

to seven days of supplies on hand.

This can be contrasted with the 60

days of supplies we had on hand during the first Gulf War.

Another difference was the use of technology. U.S. forces maintained a “digital awareness” over logistics support during OIF. We had greater visibility of

where supplies were going and we could

redirect them if necessary. We were

much more certain in terms of logistics

capabilities and connectivity in theatre

than during Desert Storm. The implementation of computerized ordering and

tracking offered significant advantage

for us.

Q

What are the lessons learned in Operation

Iraqi Freedom with regard to logistics?

A

We are all eager to have the specifics regarding lessons learned from OIF, but

it's too early to be able to provide that

detail. In fact, we currently have plans

to begin the study of lessons learned and

are anxious to begin this discovery, as

we believe we will be able to attribute

many of the recent successes to programs we have implemented, such as

Performance Based Logistics, Total Life

Cycle Management, and others.

One thing we did learn was the speed

with which our troops were able to adjust tactics and capabilities. Much of the

support that we have begun to build

into the system for maintenance and ensuring mission capability for weapon

systems was demonstrated in OIF. 

Additionally, we had logistics professionals working alongside the warfighters so that we would have first-hand,

real-time visibility into the logistics requirements—as they occurred. This effort put our logistics organization closer

to the end customer during battle—the

warfighter.

Q

For future operational scenarios, what are

the primary challenges confronting our logistics system? As you know, since you have

been in the job before, DoD has been about

the business of logistics reengineering/transformation for many years. Are some areas

especially problematic? 

A

The primary challenge for us is the transformation to a more agile, flexible, and

adaptable logistics system. Today's

threats require our military to act within

hours, rather than days or weeks. I think

that we have made significant progress;

however, the size and scope of our operations is what make these challenges

more significant for DoD than other organizations. Integrating changes into a

complex network such as the one used

by the military services requires time as

well as precision.

I came back to the Pentagon, to my current position, to improve the way we

provide logistics support to our forces

in the field. My highest priority is to do

everything in my power to provide the

best support to our operational commanders, so they can achieve their vital

missions armed with the most advanced

technologies we can create.

Q

Your strategic focus and USD (AT&L) leadership priorities have placed major emphasis on accelerating logistics transformation via an integrated set of initiatives

called the “Future Logistics Enterprise,” or

FLE. What is different about this set of

strategic logistics initiatives from efforts in

the past? 

A

FLE is the transformation of the way

America fields its weapons systems, supplies our troops, and projects our power

so that we can win wars. The initiatives

within FLE are being implemented

across the Services and agencies in a

standardized fashion. The DoD has

never undertaken such a significant

transformation. The initiatives of FLE—

aligning the logistics systems to support

weapons systems vs. segments of the

supply chain, and building Total Life

Cycle Systems Management and Enterprise Integration—have been implemented in some areas of DoD but never

before have we undertaken the task of

implementing such significant changes

throughout the organization. 

Q

Are there any initiatives within the FLE that

provide the force for integrating the overall framework of future logistics processes? 

A

Yes; in fact, the FLE comprises six separate initiatives we can discuss, but typically we categorize the initiatives into

three main categories. Those categories

are: 1) Weapon Systems Support, 2)

“In preparing our

armed forces for the

challenges they will

face, transformation is

in the forefront of our

agenda—and

transforming logistics

is a central part of that

process.”
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 5

Total Life Cycle Systems Management,

and 3) Enterprise Integration.

Weapon Systems Support

Weapon systems support is important

to the logistics organizations because

this area consumes about 80 percent of

our resources. We've been spending

about $64 billion each year on weapon

systems sustainment through a structure that, for years, has been disjointed.

It has broken up integrated logistics support as if it were just an afterthought of

the acquisition process. The result has

been functional stovepipes. In that disjointed structure, no one has been in

charge of, or accountable for, a particular system.

Furthermore, the “hard break” between

acquisition and sustainment has set up

a system in which Program Managers

have been taking narrow views of their

responsibilities: the system has prodded

them to concentrate on cost, schedule,

and performance, and there has been

little longer-term focus on reliability,

maintainability, and footprint. 

Our current efforts are to align support for these systems before the acquisition process begins to maintain

that support throughout the life cycle

of the system.

Total Life Cycle Systems

Management 

We are implementing a life-cycle framework, in which our Program Managers

are responsible and accountable for:

• the appropriate consideration of sustainment requirements during the design stage of weapons systems; and

• the integration of the sustainment

chain to meet warfighter operational

requirements.

This new process is a “closed loop” system. Logistics engineers are directly engaged in the development process to ensure superior levels of reliability,

maintainability, and mobility. Feedback

from the field and actual reliability/

maintainability results are used to design evolutionary upgrades in a disciplined, systematic way.

To ensure accountability during sustainment, life-cycle systems managers

are negotiating performance agreements

with customers. They are responsible

for customer and supplier relationships

as well as the management of the sustainment dollars for the customers.

Weapon-systems support is provided

by integrated government/industry partnerships, built upon industry's inherent strengths in engineering, information management, and supply-chain

management, and the government's

strengths in maintenance and tactical

operations.

Enterprise Integration

To make our business work, we need

processes and contemporary information systems that embody best practices.

Within the Department of Defense, we

have more than 600 logistics information systems that involve more than 400

million lines of computer code. Making

the situation even more difficult, many

of the systems are batch-processed, with

little or no network capability. Thus,

they cannot provide the real-time, onthe-ground data that our combatant

commanders need.

To strengthen our preparedness in

this area, we're moving rapidly to implement commercial logistics business systems, built to international

standards, which will help cut

through functional stovepipes and

help deliver business solutions. These

systems will allow us to manage our

logistics enterprise based on business

roles and responsibilities instead of

positions and systems. 

Specifically, in just over a year we have:

• defined an integrated enterprise architecture built upon operational requirements and best practices;

• launched six specific Enterprise Integration projects; and

• gone “live” with two enterprise solutions based on COTS [Commercial

Off-the-Shelf] software to enable endto-end service delivery.

Taking these efforts together, you can

see we're moving forward quickly to ad-

“U.S. forces

maintained a ‘digital

awareness’ over

logistics support

during Operation

Iraqi Freedom. We

had greater visibility of

where supplies were

going and we could

redirect them if

necessary...The

implementation of

computerized

ordering and tracking

offered significant

advantage for us.”
6 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

dress our logistics challenges through

our implementation of FLE.

These changes under FLE will save time,

by providing more visibility in the supply chain and increasing the productivity of maintainers on the front lines.

They will save money, by eliminating duplication and achieving economies of

scale. And—most important of all—they

will save lives, by giving our warfighters

what they need, when they need it, to

accomplish their mission.

Q

As you've stated in this interview, the customer orientation is very important within

the FLE. A recurring theme is the need to

provide end-to-end customer support. In

your view, how can the DoD Components

improve their customer support to the

warfighter? 

A

As you mentioned, we are establishing end-to-end accountability for key

combat supplies and services such as

food, fuel, water, and parts distribution.

Designated service providers that support deployed forces based on operational requirements will accomplish this

end-to-end accountability. 

Our intent is to stop the “pick-up game”

that goes on now in sorting out combat

services during an emergency. We must

establish a framework for consistent, reliable service and planning—both in advance of, and during, a time of crisis.

Our critical need to address this area is

clearly demonstrated by our end-to-end

distribution process. Today, many supply chains support varying customer requirements. You don't have visibility

about when to expect the parts you

order. The average order and ship time

for a part from a CONUS depot to a deployed base is 17 days. That's unacceptable to me, to our logistics leadership, and-most of all-to our frontline

maintainers who are working so hard

to keep our equipment working.

In 2001, the Services, DLA [Defense Logistics Agency], and TRANSCOM

[Transportation Command] were pursuing more than 50 independent initiatives to improve pieces of this problem—but no one took a comprehensive

view. Today, we are synchronizing those

initiatives and developing enhanced

business rules and procedures. Our aim

is to streamline the process and to minimize hand-offs whenever possible. We

intend to implement a reliable defense

distribution process and orchestrate

seamless, time-definite delivery of materiel, to reduce the burden on our

warfighters. The Services' and Defense

Agencies' support of these efforts to create a synchronized system will help us

achieve success more quickly.

Q

In the Defense Acquisition University classroom, one of the major issues brought up

by the Program Managers and acquisition

logisticians are the depot maintenance laws,

the so-called Core and 50/50 laws. What

is your strategy for complying with these

laws while at the same time pursuing transformative logistics actions? 

A

First and foremost, we will comply with

the applicable laws governing depot

maintenance and repair. In the last several years, Congress has provided the

Department incremental flexibility in

DIANE K. MORALES

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Logistics and Materiel Readiness

Diane K. Morales was sworn in

July 17, 2001, as Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (DUSD

[L&MR]). The U.S. Senate confirmed

her nomination on July 13.

As the DUSD(L&MR), Morales serves

as the principal advisor to the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics for policy

and oversight of the Defense Logistics Agency and Military Departments' logistics activities. She specifically oversees Department of Defense

policy in the functional areas of materiel management, maintenance,

supply chain integration, transportation/mobility, installations, and

environment.

Morales has more than 20 years of

experience in business and defense

matters. Most recently, she was President of DMS, a management services

firm that focuses on defense and

commercial logistics. Her previous

government positions included serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Logistics, 1990-93; Board

Member, Civil Aeronautics Board,

1983; and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of

Interior, 1981-83.

In the private sector, Morales was

President of Morales Consulting Services; Vice President for Government

Affairs at the Earth Technology Corp.;

Marketing Services Manager of

3D/International Inc.; and Account

Executive at the advertising and public relations firm of Goodwin, Dannenbaum, Littman & Wingfield Inc.

Morales, a graduate of the University

of Texas, is a native of Houston,

Texas.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 7

the management of maintenance depots

with provisions that encourage publicprivate partnerships. I believe that partnering is a win-win for both public depots and their commercial partners.

Partnering provides increased efficiencies and allows each sector to take advantage of its core competencies.

As we see the benefits of public-private

partnerships grow, I believe it will be

easier to agree on other incremental

changes that will allow us to improve

support to the warfighter. Given that

Core and 50/50 are facts of life, depot

maintenance partnerships are an effective means of enabling performancebased logistics support for weapon systems while still meeting these statutory

requirements.

Q

Mr. Aldridge retired from government service as the USD (AT&L) on May 23, 2003.

His initiatives will leave a lasting mark on

defense acquisition, technology, and logistics. One of his major initiatives from the

beginning was to improve the morale and

welfare of the DoD workforce. You have

undertaken some logistics workforce development emphases, too. How are those

coming? 

A

The quality of the Department's logistics workforce development program

differs considerably depending on

whether or not one is part of the acquisition workforce. Generally, I think

that we have done a good job of addressing the needs of the those logisticians who are part of the Acquisition

workforce because the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act

[DAWIA] mandates and ensures funding for certain training, education, and

experience requirements that must be

met for certification purposes. It is the

remainder of the logistics workforce,

which includes the vast majority of logisticians, who I believe have been neglected in the past. 

The Future Logistics Enterprise relies

heavily on commercial best practices

and systems rather than DoD-unique

ones, and will entail a major cultural

change that cannot be achieved without

the proper indoctrination of the workforce. FLE is increasing the number of

logisticians in the acquisition workforce

by expanding the scope of the group to

include not only acquisition logistics but

also other life cycle systems managers

who support Program Managers. However, for both acquisition and non-acquisition logisticians, we are examining

other needs to ensure that all DoD logisticians receive the requisite training

and education to operate proficiently in

our Future Logistics Enterprise. 

Q

Your Future Logistics Enterprise initiative

has ambitious objectives, going to the very

core of how we conduct our logistics functions and processes. Aside from these structural changes, what is being done to train

and prepare the logistics workforce for their

role in implementing these changes? 

A

We are very aware that change does not

occur without the requisite awareness,

guidance, and training of the overall

workforce, and we have been very careful to develop comprehensive guidance

and training objectives consistent with

our FLE implementation plan. First, our

definition of FLE objectives and corresponding dissemination of information

has consistently joined the “what” and

“why” of the initiative with the practical application guidance necessary to

get it done. We're not just painting grand

abstract goals and putting them out

there—we're being very specific in what

we want to achieve, why it is important,

and who constitutes the change agents

in getting it implemented.

Second, we are working very closely

with our DoD educational and training

resources within the DoD, the private

sector, and the corporate level. The Defense Acquisition University has had a

lead role in a joint effort to ensure that

DoD courseware addresses the Future

Logistics Enterprise.

Editor's Note: To learn more about the

DUSD(L&MR)'s activities and programs,

visit the DUSD(L&MR) Web site at

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log.

“Today, many supply

chains support varying

customer

requirements. You

don't have visibility

about when to expect

the parts you order.

The average order and

ship time for a part

from a CONUS depot

to a deployed base is 

17 days.That's

unacceptable to me, to

our logistics leadership

and—most of all—to

our frontline

maintainers who are

working so hard to

keep our equipment

working.”
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Masterson is Product Manager for the Army

Phoenix Battlefield Sensor System (PBS2),

AN/TPQ-47, Program Executive Office for

Intelligence and Electronic Warfare and Sensors

(IEW&S), Fort Monmouth, N.J. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

Malibu to Baghdad

Perspective of a PM Assigned to the Warfront

LT. COL. JOHN H. MASTERSON, USA

8

On the evening of April 4, 2003,

I drove my rental car leisurely

down Ventura Highway toward

Malibu, Calif. Upon arrival at

Coastal Highway No. 1, my

hunger pulled me into a place called

Johnnie’s New York Pizza. I sat at the

bar to eat and watched Fox News updates on the war in Iraq, as a couple of

patrons viewed my obvious military

haircut and politely asked, “Goin’ overseas?” A couple of Pepperdine U. undergrads peered up from their homework with polite smiles and I felt blessed

by the most liberal of societies...surfboard-wielding Pepperdinians who

cared enough to study. 

Baghdad was to be completely in U.S.

hands soon, and the most distant

thought in my mind was to stand on the

roof of an occupied building at Saddam

International Airport 18 days

later...watching tracer rounds pierce the

night air toward Ad Dawrah to my east.

An unbelievable series of events had

transpired over a two-week period, and

my physical movement went like this: 

California’s Simi Valley to L.A.; fly to

Newark, N.J., drive to Fort Monmouth,

N.J., where I was stationed to pack all

my gear...midnight drive to Washington D.C., and Fort Belvoir, Va., for reload and training on some special equipment; fly from D.C. to Atlanta, drive to

Fort Benning, Ga., for 4 days of training on weapons and mask, and predeployment medical exams; drive back to

Atlanta, fly to D.C. area to standby on

mission call; visit with my dear Mother

who drove one solid day to see me as if

she may never again; depart from D.C.

in one-way rental car that I dropped in

Wilmington, Del., then taxi to Dover

AFB with a Vietnam-era cab driver

named Dave who had virtually commanded a Hawk Battery as an E-4 in

’Nam.

This guy was ripping through traffic

proudly delivering this high-ranking

[right] lieutenant colonel to the nearby

The story that follows was captured from

an e-mail received by Defense Systems

Management College Professor John

Higbee from Army Lt. Col. John Masterson, a product manager and 2002

graduate of DAU’s Program Manager

Skills Course (PMSC). Masterson wrote

the e-mail enroute to Iraq.

I told my cab

driver, Dave, who

had virtually

commanded a

Hawk Battery as

an E-4 in ’Nam,

to be careful as

he drove me to

Fort Monmouth

to board the

C-5A Galaxy that

would transport

me to Iraq.“I

think they’ll wait

on me.” 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 9

air base, a trip Dave had made numerous times over the last few months, allowing his taxi service to survive. I told

him to be careful, “I think they’ll wait

on me...” and called the desk at Dover

to be sure the flight line knew I was on

the way. 

“I’m actually trying to get caught by the

police,” Dave replied, “because then

they’ll give me an escort to the base and

we won’t have to fight this traffic....” I

didn’t interfere with his plan and after

convincing the gate guards that he was

a Vietnam Vet (and not a “Communist

Pig”), we sailed to the terminal just in

time for a van to escort me (really) to a

waiting C5-A Galaxy Transport Jet, that

in all the hurry to get me and five special forces soldiers on board, then idled

for another hour as fumes and noise

poured out into the Delaware sound.

(Testimony to the power needed to deliver war.) I finally exhaled as I strapped

into temporary platformed seats above

a cargo hatch that was loaded with

everything one might need to wage victory.

Six hours later and four time zones

away, we land in Spain, just north of

Seville at a small transition point called

Moron Air Base. Breakfast at the local

dining facility was preceded by my

walk across the base; the smell of a

breeze that had gently circumvented a

few palm trees was relaxing even

though the sun was coming up four

hours prior to my brain expecting it.

We waited here for another three hours

in the USO lounge that provided free

coffee, paper, letters, and MWR

(Morale, Welfare, and Recreation) ink

pens for writing home, while on the

tarmac the plane was drinking more

fuel at the pump for the ride to Kuwait.

Landing in Kuwait was interesting in

that the airport was divided into “civilian” and “military” sections. I had a

coworker (who was already on site)

pick me up and deliver me to Camp

Doha about an hour west-northwest

of Kuwait City. I had only been in

Camp Doha a few hours when I found

out that Baghdad was in my future,

and by Wednesday morning a CH-47

Chinook helicopter with two massive

blades whirled into Camp Virginia

near Udairi Range in northern Kuwait.

Twelve other soldiers and I crammed

care packages and U.S. Mail on board

and I strapped myself in across from

a box that read:

To: Any Soldier

From: Troop 670, Northfield 

Elementary School, MD

We took off in a storm of dust clipping

the desert brush at

200 miles per hour.

We flew with left and

right-door gunners

manning loaded .50

caliber machine guns

and with the rear

ramp dropped, we

witnessed the land

move beneath us. Unbelievable ride. Desolate scraps of civilization speckled the land

between Kuwait’s border and Baghdad. 

Every 20 miles or so

where some stream

crept from nowhere,

you could see mudhut homes adjacent to

pitifully meek gardens. Staff-leaning

shepherds standing

on horse-thin ankles

kept watch over

skinny sheep that

seemed to wonder

where the greenness

had gone. Where the

stagnant streams became actual trickles of

water, the life forms

were more animated.
10 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Often you’d see youngsters clad in bright

robes popping out with arms flailing

and bright smiles to wave at the big

noisy machines that dusted their incomplete rooftops. I noticed the door

gunner throwing Tootsie Rolls gently

from the chopper; one hand on a loaded

.50 caliber machine gun, the other

searching diligently for candy from a

clear Ziploc bag at his side. Quite a contrast and certainly identifying of the

spectrum we have presented to the Iraqi

people over the last two months.

The Chinook landed for hot fuel-up,

blades cranking, just south of a place

code named “Dogwood”; then took off

in a flurry toward Saddam International

Airport...fittingly name-changed to

Baghdad International by coalition

forces.

Unbelievable occupation of a city. The

airport was one big headquarters for an

entire operation that now had the daunting task of calming the harassing fires

of rogue bands in and around the city

and restoring order. Picture me sleeping on the ticket counter at Reagan National, and the scene is set for how we

completely came into this place...I found

a corner office full of war dirt and fallen

ceiling tiles and cleaned it away so I

could sleep soundly in a waterless, powerless, and hot meal-less world. I had

no room to complain having talked to

several soldiers who had not been in a

shower since mid-March...in war, the

entire environment is relative...and

there is always someone that has lived

an extreme that you, personally, will

never breech. 

Easter morning was a bit different this

year. By noon, I would have gone in an

armed convoy through the toughest

neighborhoods in Baghdad and at 1

p.m. found myself on the west bank of

the Tigris River listening to the perimeter security take AK-47 rounds throughout the afternoon. The entanglement

between U.S. Army battalion commanders and local mafioso-clerics was like

two third graders arm-wrestling in the

lunchroom, but with guns to the temple of the loser.

The Iraqi mentality centers on power,

and showing any weakness in front of

these people is a sure way to lose your

shirt. Rage, aggression, and fire power

are very clearly understood and Rocket

Propelled Grenades (RPGs) that pierce

the perimeter are met with total to-thethroat reactions. Two nights prior to my

arrival, the battalion commander in the

zone I was visiting counter-attacked decisively to make a point that we will not

tolerate neighborhoods that let the rogue

Palestinians and Syrians pepper our

troops with small arms fire. This tactic

works. Calm reigned with the strongarming and U.S. soldiers slept.

I had spoken to the real warriors of the

3rd Infantry Division and came to realize that our sheer dominance of night

vision and superior weapons are

brought about by an American society

that will accept very few casualties in

war. This has demanded that we stay

on the leading edge of weapons development; and though we put undue

pressure on commanders in the field

to execute their missions with zero loss

of life, it is that very thing that keeps

the acquisition community prodded

for excellence. 

I realized then that giving your life for

your country is relatively easy. You walk

into a bullet that you didn’t mean to

walk into. The timing is bad and nonconsequential to your life that is now,

physically, over. The giving of a life for

the country is what families do—Moms,

Dads, Brothers, Sisters. Mothers who

get out of bed and change diapers. Dads

who get Johnny on the bike and teach

him how to throw a ball as soon as possible...hardworking Americans who desire their kids to become productive citizens, who teach them manners and go

through all the trials and tribulations of

raising this kid through the all-knowing teenage years to become a young

adult...and then the call comes and they

find out that that soldier, airman, marine, or sailor is returning through Dover

for one final trip home without saying

goodbye...that’s giving a life for a country...so we all thank the relatives of all

who have suffered that.

A cool breeze kicked up from the Tigris

and I pictured this land as it has been

since man walked the earth. Hard to believe we were just upstream from the

Garden of Eden where the Tigris and

Euphrates Rivers make full confluence...and yes, a long way from Malibu.

God Bless the U.S.A.

Lt. Col. John H. Masterson, USA

Editor’s Note: The author welcomes

comments on this article and may be

contacted at John.Masterson@iews.

monmouth.army.mil.

I had spoken to the

real warriors of the

3rd Infantry

Division and came

to realize that our

sheer dominance

of night vision and

superior weapons

are brought about

by an American

society that will

accept very few

casualties in

war...it is that very

thing that keeps

the acquisition

community

prodded for

excellence.
These rewards are now

being enjoyed by some 

of our authors. You too

may: 

• Earn continuous learning points. 

• Get promoted or

rewarded. 

• Become part of a focus

group sharing similar

interests. 

• Become a nationally

recognized expert in

your field or specialty. 

• Be asked to speak at a

conference or

symposium.

If you are interested, please contact the

PM Managing Editor (collie.johnson@

dau.mil) or the ARQ Managing Editor

(norene.fagan-blanch@dau.mil) or visit

the guidelines for authors at http://www.

dau.mil/pubs/pm/articles.asp or

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/arqart.asp.

Enjoy the Benefits!

If you are an expert on one or more topics and are willing to referee articles for the ARQ, email norene.fagan-blanch@dau.mil.

Many of DAU's Acquisition Review

Quarterly journal and Program Manager magazine authors have enjoyed

the benefits of publishing articles. Even if

your agency does not require you to publish, consider these career-enhancing possibilities: 

• Share your opinions with your peers. 

• Change the way DoD does business. 

• Help others avoid pitfalls with “lessons

learned” from your project or program. 

• Teach others with a step-by-step tutorial on a process or approach. 

• Investigate a hot acquisition topic

through research or surveys. 

• Interview a prominent person within

the DoD AT&L community.

• Condense your graduate project into

something useful to the acquisition

community.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Haas works for Altarum Institute, Alexandria, Va., where he leads Collaborative Change Management.

12

I

f you provide support for a major

acquisition program, more than

likely your program is headed for

failure. By failure, I mean that the

program will be cancelled, incur significant cost and schedule overruns, or

become unable to meet major functional

requirements. Research on the subject

is consistent across many types of large

acquisition programs, including:

• Information Technology Acquisition (83 percent failure rate) 

• Supply Chain Management (67

percent failure rate) 

• Business Process Reengineering

(70 percent failure rate)

• Customer Relationship Management (55-75 percent failure rate). 

The Silent Crisis in IT

Acquisition

The list of federal acquisition

successes is very long, but the

list of publicized failures is also

significant. In June 2001, Sen. Fred

Thompson produced a report on government-wide information technology (IT) acquisition failures

that described an Army ammunition tracking program that was

unable to produce a working

system after eight years of effort

and an expenditure of $41 million; a

Department of Defense security case

control management system that cost

$76 million, but did not reduce the time

necessary for investigations; and a DoD

environmental security corporate information management program that

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Government-wide Information

Technology (IT) Acquisitions

Increasing Likelihood of Success Through

Leadership and IPT Development 

DAVID HAAS
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 13

could not demonstrate success after

$100 million in expenditures and nine

years of work. According to the DoD Inspector General, “Virtually every information technology project that we audit

exhibits significant management problems. Those flaws include poorly defined requirements and frequent user

dissatisfaction.”

The president's staff, legislators, and the

military are aware of the problem and

have tried for years to implement solutions through legislation, executive

order, regulation, and policy. Prominent

legislation includes: 

• Government Performance and Results

Act of 1993—Requires agencies to

anchor performance improvement

in sound strategic planning. Calls for

careful assessment and (if necessary)

redefinition of an organization's mission, goals, customers, and performance outcomes. 

• Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995—Emphasizes achieving program benefits and meeting agency

goals through the effective use of IT.

In plain terms, agencies should maximize the potential of technology

to improve performance, rather

than simply automating inefficient processes.

• The Clinger-Cohen Act of

1996—Requires agency heads

to analyze the missions of their

organizations, benchmark and

assess the performance of their

business processes and, based

on this analysis, redesign their

mission-related and administrative processes (as appropriate) before making significant

investments in information

technology to support those

missions. 

President Bush addresses these

concepts in his President's

Management Agenda (PMA),

which embraces a vision for

reform guided by three principles: citizen-centered (not bureaucracy-centered) government; results-oriented government; and

market-based government, actively promoting rather than stifling innovation

through competition. The Office of

Management and Budget has put teeth

into the PMA by issuing agency report

cards on a quarterly basis that initially

found insufficient implementation of

these mandates in most agencies.

Common Characteristics of 

Successful Programs

The military is moving to identify the

critical factors for IT acquisition success.

The Assistant Secretary of the Navy established the Software Program Manager's Network (SPMN) in 1992 to identify industry and government software

best practices and promote these practices to managers of large-scale DoD systems acquisition programs. Operation

and administration of the network now

belong to the Office of the Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and

Logistics. The best practices promoted

by SPMN include: work breakdown

structures, earned value management,

requirements management, and other

program management tools designed to

provide effective program management

oversight and project control.

Intuition might lead one to believe that

these and other technical best practices

are the keys to addressing the causes of

program failure. The best-practice Capability Maturity Model, promoted by

the Software Engineering Institute at

Carnegie-Mellon University, and the Program Manager's Book of Knowledge,

published by the Program Management

Institute, reflect the view that lack of

technical rigor causes program failure.

However, research finds that program

failure is most closely correlated to low

levels of leadership support and user involvement in the program. 

A well-known study in this area is the

CHAOS List produced by the Standish

Group, which summarizes the critical

factors for program success in order of

importance to program success (Figure

1). Additional research and studies identify similar causes of program failure including lack of sustained management

commitment and leadership, cultural

lack of preparation, and resistance to

change. 

In a November 2002 report, the General Accounting Office identified nine

key practices for successful government

transformation (Figure 2), which further confirm the critical role of leadership and communication in program

success. While employee involvement

is listed as the eighth most important

item, readers will note that several highly

rated items, such as dedicating an implementation team and establishing a

communications plan, are components

of employee involvement.

I've found over the years that some leaders who initiate change and transforCritical Success Factor Rank Order

Executive support . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 

User involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 

Experienced project manager . . . . .3 

Clear business objectives . . . . . . . .4 

Minimized scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 

Standard software infrastructure . . .6

Firm basic requirements . . . . . . . . .7 

Formal methodology . . . . . . . . . . .8 

Reliable estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Other criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 

FIGURE 1. The Chaos List (Standish Group)
14 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

mation efforts then turn around and resist them. It is important to recognize

that there is a pivot point in every project when the leader and potential users

grasp both benefits and drawbacks of

the proposed change. Assuming the approach is sound, the individuals will at

that point either choose to focus on program benefits and become program

champions, or disown the program and

become critics by focusing on the drawbacks and difficulties in implementation. At that point, the program must

be “sold back” to the sponsor and the

organization.

How can a program office or project

team build executive support to increase

the likelihood of executive support? The

solution set is diverse and will vary according to each program's specific

strengths and weaknesses. No cookbook

approach exists—as we are not dealing

with code or hardware, but rather people with varying motivations and aspirations. I have found one consistent

technique that works extremely well in

lowering leadership and user buy-in

risks (and it is a well-established DoD

best practice)—Integrated Product

Teams (IPTs). The IPT model builds

buy-in through the active involvement

of the functional areas impacted by

change.

IPT Background 

Since its introduction by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry in

1995, the DoD Integrated Product and

Process Development (IPPD) methodology has been successful in promoting cross-functional solutions to difficult acquisition problems. The key

component of this success has been the

IPT as a multifunctional team that promotes information sharing and the production of deliverables that meet common goals. 

IPTs, as you know, consist of structured

teams that integrate acquisition activities from product concept through production/field support, and address acquisition processes ranging from strategy

to planning to execution. (I have just

described Overarching, Working, and

Program IPTs respectively.) The advantage of IPTs over traditional teams is the

formal structure that encourages productive and concentrated effort. For example, formal IPTs have charters, assigned authority, and functional diversity. 

The goal of an IPT is to operate as a collaborative team, identifying and solving

problems as they occur and delegating

responsibility as required to “get the job

done.” Under the best of circumstances,

however, the rigors of the program effort can degrade the effectiveness of IPTs.

The stress of multiple personnel

changes, aggressive timelines, software

development difficulties, and frequent

geographic dispersal cause the operation of IPTs to regress and reflect a more

traditional staff meeting, with reporting

and decision-making/task assignment

not reflective of a true team environment. Once the slow slide in effectiveness begins, leadership support and

stakeholder buy-in begin to erode, leading ultimately to the program's failure

to achieve its objectives. Research shows

over and over that the IPPD methodology is sound, but flaws in establishing

or maintaining IPTs according to IPPD

principles typically cause failure.

To address the issue, I led a project team

at Altarum Institute in developing an

IPT Development Methodology designed to establish or reestablish teaming efficiencies by drawing together best

practices and proven methods for building and sustaining high-performance

IPTs. The methodology focuses on eight

conceptual critical success factors: 

• Effective team leadership.

• Successful IPT initiation.

• Broad range of team member competencies.

• Shared vision among participants.

• Team member empowerment.

• Practice of teaming skills.

• Availability of enabling tools. 

• Effective collaboration among IPT

members. 

We created a relationship between these

eight conceptual critical success factors

and 23 practical IPT development ac1. Ensure top leadership drives the transformation.

2. Establish a coherent mission and integrated strategic

goals.

3. Focus on a key set of principles and priorities.

4. Set implementation goals and timeline.

5. Dedicate an implementation team.

6. Use a performance management system. 

7. Establish a communications strategy.

8. Involve employees.

9. Plan to build a world-class organization.

FIGURE 2. The Key Government Transformation Practices
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 15

tivities that must be completed to assure a high-performance IPT. Taken together, the 25 activities form a checklist for monitoring the quality of an IPT's

purpose, process, communication, and

people.

Figure 3 combines all the facets of the

IPT methodology. Be aware that the

methodology must be customized to

take into account environmental and

organizational issues for a particular acquisition program, and that the different activities are stressed based on the

acquisition phase of the program. That

said, the model works just as well for

weapons systems acquisition as it does

for IT acquisition programs. 

Activity Grouping I: Purpose. The activities under this heading ensure that

the entire team works toward a common goal, rather than multiple competing goals. After all, a team working

at cross-purposes will fail to reach its

objectives. The focus on purpose helps

IPT members meet the critical success

factors of shared vision, collaboration,

and empowerment. 

Recommended activities include development of a written charter, budget documents, performance outcome criteria,

and documentation of the team's purpose. I recommend development of IPT

charters with performance-based exit

criteria that define deliverables even before the team begins its work. The

methodology guidance also calls for regular progress reports to the chartering

authority. 

Activity Grouping II: Process. The goal

is to create a process that keeps the IPT

members focused on achieving results

within a defined timeframe. Facilitators

should be identified who can assist team

members in developing and implementing performance expectations, standardized workflows, designated approval authority, and managementthrough-exception techniques. Often

teams work without clear understanding of how best to take advantage of the

different tools and techniques available

to them; the techniques are identified

and described through these activities.

Activity Grouping III: Communications.

This set of activities ensures that information channels are established to provide immediate, accurate, and comprehensive information for IPT members

and program leadership. IPT communication can include e-mail updates,

standardized reports, internal progress

reports, and team meeting minutes. Program leadership communication can include regular project communication,

briefings, and document dissemination. 

Activity Grouping IV: People. The training and cultivation of IPT members require careful consideration. A mix of

perspectives, experience, and expertise

is required among the members of effective IPTs. The IPT leader must continually evaluate stakeholder representation to assure both broad and effective

team participation. IPT leaders need:

• A clear understanding of the skills and

qualifications of their team members.

• A set of competencies against which

the members are matched.

• A documented set of roles and responsibilities for IPT members. 

In this area, structured activities such as

assessment and action planning are used

to assist the IPT leader in addressing

weaknesses.

Case Study

An example of how the IPT methodology can turn around a struggling program recently occurred within a government logistics and supply chain management organization. Six months before my involvement, an integration

contractor assisted the organization in

initial trials of a software program as an

element of a major acquisition program.

Despite the best efforts of technicians,

trainers, change management agents,

and help desk staff, production fell dramatically as soon as the application was

installed, and would not budge from

very low levels. I was asked to lead a

team that would quickly evaluate the

situation and develop a plan for improving productivity. 

It turns out that the users had already

documented hundreds of problems associated with the application, and the

need for further evaluation of the problem no longer existed. Consequently, we

made a quick course correction and decided to use the IPT Methodology as a

framework for helping the user community solve the worst problems. Despite requests that we bring in technical experts to fix the software and coach

users, we proposed and then implemented a four-step process involving

the users themselves:

• Brainstorm quick “win” opportunities for improvement.

• Establish short-duration, problemsolving IPTs. 

• Implement improvements identified

by the teams.

FIGURE 3. IPT Development Methodology 
16 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

• Report back on findings, including

performance change.

To begin with, we brought the 35 initial users together to first, identify the

top issues related to application implementation; and second, assign priorities to these issues. Next we asked for

volunteers to form IPTs that would address the top five items, which included

such typical implementation issues as

access to historical data, topics requiring additional training, and status of

trouble tickets. The volunteers were

given simple ground rules—no meeting longer than 30 minutes, focus on

changes the team can make—and then

met several times to find a solution to

the assigned issue. 

After a week, we brought the full team

back together for report-outs. One team

member from each IPT provided an explanation of the proposed solution with

time for comment from the entire group.

While many concept demo users remained skeptical of the process, a number were won over. Feedback comments

included, “It's great to hear that others

are having the same problems that I am

having.” We found that the greatest benefit came not from implementing the solutions themselves, but from providing

users with a forum for discussion, an

opportunity for team building, and a

means of communicating effectively.

The users asked us to support the completion of a second round of IPTs, which

addressed more complex issues. We did

that, and left the group with the following set of tools for continuing the

process: 

• Action Item Database to identify future IPT issues.

• IPT framework to address the issues.

• Best practices documentation to communicate solutions. 

Empowering Teams

I used the IPT methodology to empower

the teams so they could effectively generate rapid improvements, implement

a repeatable team-based process, begin

efforts to establish a culture of teamwork, and provide a set of useful management tools to streamline activities. I

expect that the IPT process will increase

a sense of empowerment and shared vision for the user community.

How can a program office build executive support and user involvement to

increase the likelihood of program success? I believe that effective use of the

IPPD methodology and IPT approach

is one key to achieving that goal. I recommend reviewing the formal guidance

and supporting Web sites of the DoD

sponsors, including: 

• The USD (AT&L) Web site on systems engineering: http://www.acq.osd.

mil/io/se/ippd/ippd_pubs.html.

• Interim Defense Acquisition Guidebook: http://dod5000.dau.mil/InterimGuidebook.doc.

• Defense Acquisition University Change

Management:http://deskbook.dau.mil/

software/gen/overview.html.

I also recommend that you implement

IPTs with the goal of increasing participation in the acquisition process, including the following activities:

• Make the sponsor part of the team by

selecting members in coordination with

the sponsor and including formal and

informal stakeholder influence. (One

team, for example, might consist of the

acquisition program manager, contractor project manager, and testing

lead.) 

• Gather information using interviews,

observation, and informal conversation to understand team members and

determine their views, values, and drivers related to the program, roles and

responsibilities, and organization.

• Meet with the team to set program

mission, objectives, and action plan.

Establish ground rules for providing

leadership and direction such as communication strategies, program oversight, and collaboration.

• Establish performance measures

against which the decisions of the advisory committee and the program

will be measured. Include process

measures to gauge current status of

effort and outcome measures to evaluate success toward reaching objectives.

• Consider executive coaching to assist

in developing sponsor and advisory

committee communication skills. The

coach must be independent of the

program office to provide objective,

unbiased advice and feedback to the

sponsor.

These and other techniques can be used

to assist acquisition programs in reducing the risk of failure in a manner that

the commercial world may someday emulate.

Editor's Note: The author welcomes

questions or comments on this article. Contact him at david.haas@

altarum.org.
PM :MAY-JUNE 2003 17

Army Acquisition Support Center

Prepares for the Future

With New Online Look

http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil

FORT BELVOIR VA

The Army Acquisition Support Center (ASC), the new Field

Operating Agency under the Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, has revamped its Web

site to better serve its customers, and ultimately the soldier.

ASC's customers, the entire Army Acquisition, Logistics and Technology workforce (AL&TWF), will notice the striking bronze and green

design of the new site, <http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil>, which reflects the

dynamic face of the AL&TWF and reinforces its support of the warfighter. The new Web site

provides user-friendly navigation and encompasses the goals and structures that make up the

organization. 

"Army acquisition plays a critical

role in protecting America and

America's fighting forces," said

ASC Director Col. Mary Fuller.

"ASC is preparing for the future

and helping to ensure that those

who make the decisions that

affect our fighting forces are

well equipped with the most

technologically advanced resources. We have upgraded our

Web site to make it a more useful tool for our customers—both

in the office and in the field."

ASC, formed by merging the

Army Acquisition Career Management Office with the Army

Acquisition Executive Support

Agency as well as career programs CP-14 (Contracting) and CP-13/17 (LogPro), presents a new site that features in-depth

information about the organization's infrastructure, programs, publications, career information, and events. ASC's workforce operates in a dynamic environment using leading-edge

concepts and technologies to ensure that warfighters have the equipment and supplies they

need to do their job. 

The Army Acquisition Support Center is designed to support the readiness of the Army's warfighter by developing a world-class professional acquisition workforce, effectively acquiring and stewarding resources, and providing customers with the best possible products and services.

http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil

Reinforcing

Support to the

Warfighter Through

User-Friendly Access

to Information

Resources
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Gasiorek-Nelson is a full-time contract editor for

Program Manager Magazine, DAU Visual Arts and

Press, Fort Belvoir, Va.

DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION

Acquisition and Logistics Excellence

2003 Conference and Trade Show

SYLWIA GASIOREK-NELSON

18

H

ow will the digital age change

the way government and large

businesses identify small, minority and woman-owned suppliers, subcontractors, manufacturers, and service providers? And

how will those small businesses meet

large prime contractors and government

buying agencies and end users? The

2003 Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Conference and Trade Show provided a unique forum and opportunity

for that much needed “big guy, little guy”

interaction and networking. 

This year's event was held at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville,

April 23-24, 2003. Sponsored, planned,

and supported by Naval Air Command,

defense industry, and several government agencies/administrations/centers,

the 2003 conference brought together

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

(AT&L) professionals from government,

academia, and defense industry, as well

as many distinguished speakers and

panelists. The two-day gathering proved

to be a great marketing opportunity for

small businesses to meet large prime

contractors and government buying

agencies, as well as an opportunity for

structured and informal interaction

among members of the acquisition community. Another bonus was training delivered by professionals in the business,

as well as valuable insights from senior

acquisition and logistics leaders.

Numerous seminars in acquisition training, career development, leadership, and

health and wellness created a forum for

teaming, collaboration of ideas, and continuous examination/adoption of innovative practices. 

Opening Remarks

Welcoming all the participants, Christine Stelloh-Garner, Director, Acquisition Career Management (DACM), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy

for Research, Development and Acquisition, said, “We've got a great agenda

for you. My office is involved with this

event, and that's a thrilling idea for me

as I've tried to get smart over these last

couple of months as to what I do, what

I need to do for you, and how our office can serve you. And I'm finding that

this event, which emphasizes continuous learning, is a great opportunity.” 

She noted that DoD has focused for the

entire past year on Transformation. And

Transformation, she emphasized, provides a message that change is here to

stay. “All of our speakers will share with

you over the next couple of days, either

in the individual training sessions or

here in the main session, that the conference theme—Achieving Speed, Agility,

and Innovation to Win the Challenges of

Our 21st Century Warfighter—will come

through again and again. So I believe

the only constant will be change,” she

said.

Stelloh-Garner related that last year the

Navy Secretariat underwent a great deal

of change. The entire Secretariat downsized, as the Acquisition Reform Office

was combined with the old Office of Acquisition and Business Management. In

fact, she added, a number of new

Deputy Assistant Secretaries of the Navy

(DASNs) emerged from that downsizing and consolidation effort:

• DASN Acquisition Management

“From the DACM

perspective,

acquisition career

management is the

best job in the

Navy... It's

program

management 

to the max.”

—Christine Stelloh-Garner

Director, Acquisition Career

Management

Department of Navy

Photos by Army Staff Sgt. Kevin Moses
PM: MAY-JUNE 2003 19

• DASN Air Program

• DASN Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence

(C4I)/SPACE

• DASN Integrated Warfare Program

• DASN Littoral and Mine Warfare

• DASN International Programs

• DASN Logistics

• DASN Management and Budget

• DASN RDT&E

• DASN Ship Program

From her perspective as the Navy

DACM, Stelloh-Garner said that acquisition career management is the best job

in the Navy. “If you are aspiring for a

job, this is the one you want to have at

some point. It's program management

to the max—except we get to work

specifically with people in careers rather

than hardware and systems. And I can't

tell you how much I'm enjoying this job.

I look forward to coming to work. I

work with a great team both within my

immediate staff as well as the extended

team—representatives from NAVAIR

[Naval Air Systems Command] and

other agencies we work with,” she said.

Continuous Learning

Stelloh-Garner commented that it's important to continue learning. “Continuous Learning money is what we are

using today to help sponsor this event.

Continuous Learning is what you are

going to experiment with over the next

couple of days.” Referring to the

USD(AT&L)'s policy that every member of the AT&L workforce accrue 80

Continuous Learning Points every two

years, she advised conference participants to be sure they get credit for the

2003 conference.

Conference Keynote Speaker

Introducing the morning keynote

speaker, Defense Acquisition University (DAU) President Frank Anderson Jr., Stelloh-Garner noted the

similarities between Anderson and

Revolutionary War-era publicist

Thomas Paine, who was a catalyst for

bringing America together to engage

in its war for independence.

Anderson, she said, is “DoD's Thomas

Paine”—a catalyst for change not only

within his own organization, but also

across the entire Department. 

Transformation, she said, was the name

of the game at DAU. She related how

Anderson has focused on the internal

organization of DAU for the last year,

and is now teaming with the Services

and Service DACMs on how to deliver

training as a team, how to identify training requirements, and how to best fulfill those requirements. 

DAU as Corporate University

Anderson began his presentation by providing an overview of what's happening in the Defense Acquisition University and what's going on in the

Department as far as Transformation. 

Explaining the concept of a corporate

university, Anderson said that DAU is

somewhat of a split personality. “We are

torn between being an active institution

and corporate university, but our entire

mission is to help all of you excel in the

workplace.” DAU, he continued, does

not provide degree-type training, but

because of the wide number of strategic partnerships with academic institutions, the training received through the

university counts toward individual degrees.

Anderson emphasized that as a corporate university, DAU is participating in

a lot of initiatives in its continuous efforts to enhance the AT&L workforce

skill sets. DAU has a packet of Continuous Learning programs and 49 Continuous Learning modules on the Continuous Learning Web site (http://

clc.dau.mil/kc/no_login/portal.asp). 

“We are not a research institution. We

are not trying to create new knowledge,

but we're trying to do research on those

things that will help all of you advance

in your workplace,” he stated.

“We want line of sight between those

things that we have invested in, and the

ability of the workforce to use our

Knowledge Sharing and Communities

of Practice Web sites as 21st Century

learning assets. That is one of the huge

ways that we hope to help create a

smarter workforce—by connecting practical with practicality,” Anderson said.

Just as DoD is looking at Transformation and the way the Department con-

“We are

recognizing that

there is power in a

team, and we've

seen it in action.

We are going to

have to do that in

terms of how we do

logistics, the way

we do acquisition,

the way we shape

acquisition

strategies.”

—Frank Anderson Jr.

DAU President
ducts warfare, he said that DAU is going

to have to go through the same kind of

Transformation in terms of how the University supports the acquisition, procurement, and support of DoD's weapon

systems “to make sure that we share

knowledge instead of hoarding it.” 

Noting the size of the various acquisition career fields, Anderson said that the

largest career fields are Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering (SPRDE), followed by Contracting. Each career field, he added, has

a functional team set up (Course Administrator, Functional Advisors), and

each team for each one of the functional

communities tries to answer two fundamental questions:

• What is it that you need to know?

• What should you be able to do to

excel in your job? 

Inviting the audience to provide feedback, Anderson said, “When you rate a

course—if you don't like it, don't tell us

it was great so you can leave town with

your certificate. Take the time to give us

thoughtful feedback because we are trying to respond to those things that will

make training better for you and for the

next individual going through our

course. We are collecting the information so that you have an opportunity to

influence the kind of training that you,

and those that will follow behind you,

will be receiving.”

Transformation

Anderson told the conference participants that Secretary of Defense

Donald Rumsfeld has sent out new

Transformation Guidelines—“a very

important document,” he said, “that

empowers all of us to take a leading

role in terms of how we will change

and shape the Department of Defense.” Anderson discussed three important aspects of the Transformation

document.

First, he reminded everyone that it is up

to all of us to succeed. “It's not just about

change for the sake of change, but looking at better ideas in terms of how we

do things,” he said. 

Second, Anderson said that Transformation isn't something that can be done

at the top, but it involves all of us. “Secretary Rumsfeld can't change the institutions that we have here in Jacksonville

or elsewhere throughout the Department of Defense. It is up to the leadership team here and to all of you that

show up to work everyday. It is going

to take all of us, each and every one of

us, who are going to have to make the

commitment to change. All of us are

going to have to decide that we are willing to improve the organization that we

are a part of. Transformation is going to

occur because of all of us,” he said. 

And third, he continued, we have to answer the following questions:

• When is the transformation going to

be done? 

• When will we be through with

change? 

“We won't,” he stated. “The only constant that we have in this Department

is, in fact, change. All of us need to get

comfortable with it.” 

He went on to say that the reason the

Navy and the Marine Corps are willing

to sponsor conferences of this nature is

“because they want you to take something back to the workplace—this is all

about creating a learning culture and

about sharing.” Anderson invited all the

participants to go back to their workplace

and share and encourage every one of

their teammates to be a part of the Transformation movement that the senior leaders are trying to bring in for us.

“This gives all of us an opportunity to

shape and change our working environment. We are all responsible. We are

in power. If we are going to make a difference, we are going to have to change

each and everyone's job to ensure that

we are optimizing every single dollar invested in our organization. It is the only

way we can truly transform the Department,” he said. 

Everybody in the Department of Defense, Anderson said, should feel good

about what our warfighters are doing

and the power of jointness. “We are recognizing that there is power in a team,

and we've seen it in action. We are going

to have to do that in terms of how we

do logistics, the way we do acquisition,

the way we shape acquisition strategies.

There is power in team unity,” he stated. 

20 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

“We are trying not

to tell you how to

bake the cake, but

tell you what we

want to

achieve...That is a

fundamental

difference between

the old way of

doing business and

the new way of

doing business.”

—Edward C. “Pete” 

Aldridge Jr.

Former USD(AT&L)
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 21

“It’s all about sharing—not only sharing between the different Services, but

sharing within Services, sharing between

Departments. We want to ensure that

every one of our teammates is the

smartest he or she can possibly be, because through collective action we will

win. We really want to do the right

thing—and we believe we are,” he emphasized.

Anderson concluded by saying that

Transformation involves all of those who

work for the Department. “You have to

see where you personally fit; you have

to think about your role. DoD is our organization—we are trying to transform

where we all work. We need to keep

challenging ourselves and pressing hard

to make sure what we do tomorrow is

better.”

Luncheon Keynote Speaker

Welcoming the luncheon keynote

speaker, [then] Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge Jr.,

Stelloh-Garner said that the conference

planners were particularly fortunate and

honored to host Aldridge as their

keynote speaker in view of the fact that

he had just announced his imminent retirement as USD(AT&L).

“The fact that he still take the time out

of his schedule to come to talk to us, to

share ideas with you is a great, great

honor. I hope you'll have the opportunity to meet with him and ask him questions on his perspectives on where we

are, where we have been, and where he

thinks we need to head—what business

is not yet done.”

Aldridge began his remarks by talking

about the initiatives and strategies developed during his tenure as Under Secretary. One of the first things he did was

to change the acquisition community's

focus from acquisition reform to acquisition and logistics excellence. This, he

believed, better reflected the goals and

aims his office was trying to instill

throughout the acquisition community.

“When I first entered this job a little over

two years ago,” he said, “I set for myself

five goals that I wanted to accomplish.”

Those five goals, which Aldridge instituted in May 2001, are now the foundation of DAU's strategic planning and

curricula. “I want to let you know why

I developed those goals,” he said, “and

what I think we've done to accomplish

them.” 

Goal 1

To improve the credibility and effectiveness of the acquisition and logistics

support process. Aldridge stated that

cycle times were too high, too long,

and cost overruns were too frequent.

The credibility of the acquisition and

procurement process—from the perspective of Congress, which funded

DoD's acquisition systems and programs—was almost zero. “We had to

focus on how to rebuild this acquisition and logistics support system,”

said Aldridge.

DEFENSE ACQUISITION BOARD

Aldridge restructured the Defense Acquisition Board to eliminate many unnecessary meetings, moved the Assistant Secretaries, (who in the past served

on the Board) and replaced them with

the Service Secretaries so they could

brainstorm together the entire decisionmaking process of their Military Departments. “It's amazing how fast things

happen this way,” he said. “Issues are

decided in a meeting rather that two to

three months of staff time trying to figure out how to get them through the acquisition process.” 

EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION

Another thing Aldridge did—a monumental change in the eyes of many

throughout the acquisition community—was convincing the Deputy Secretary of Defense to cancel the burdensome DoD 5000 series—some 250

pages. “We cancelled the old 5000 series, put some interim guidance in place,

and cut it down to about 40 pages. You

can actually read this document and

know what to do,” he said.

The new document gives more responsibility to program managers—more

ability to innovate, to create, and to be

more efficient. “We are trying not to tell

you how to bake the cake,” Aldridge

emphasized, “but tell you what we want

to achieve. I think that's what the guidance is. That is a fundamental difference

between the old way of doing business

and the new way of doing business.”

SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT

“In the past we had recognized spiral

development, but we didn't mandate in

the technology program that it was essential to make spiral development happen right along with the program.”

Spiral development, evolutionary development, and properly pricing programs must go hand-in-hand, he emphasized.

FUTURE LOGISTICS ENTERPRISE

“We started a new logistics idea—the

future logistics enterprise,” Aldridge continued. “It's a way to take on the logistics system in a more business-like approach.” Aldridge sees the Future

Logistics Enterprise as providing requestors and suppliers more visibility

into the in-transit material. “We need to

be better predictors of the need ahead

of time. We have to be able to plan our

services contractors just as we plan for

acquisition of equipment, and the Future Logistics Enterprise is a process we've

started to make that happen,” he said.

Goal 2

To revitalize the quality and morale of the

AT&L workforce. Aldridge told the conference participants that over the past

10 years or so, we all experienced the

reductions in the acquisition workforce.

“It's not just about

change for the sake

of change, but

looking at better

ideas in terms of

how we do things.”

—Frank Anderson Jr.

President, Defense

Acquisition University
22 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

“That's not a very good message,” he

emphasized. “Government has to continue to be a very smart buyer of the

equipment and the support we get from

the contractors. We have to invest in the

workforce and determine what workforce we need, what size, and what skills

are necessary today and in the future.”

On the personnel side, he said that

OUSD(AT&L) had a good start on an acquisition workforce strategic plan that

fits into DoD's acquisition workforce pilot

projects. “We started the Acquisition

Workforce Demonstration Project—a pay

for performance program. Rather than

the automatic step increase, this sends a

strong message to people about how we

expect them to perform,” he stated.

Another unqualified success Aldridge

pointed out was the re-invigoration of

DAU. “We want that university to be the

landmark in its ability to train and educate acquisition workforce members

so that they can do a much better job,”

he said. 

Goal 3

To improve the health of the defense industrial base. “If we are to have the finest

weapon systems in the world, we have

to have the finest industry in the world

as well. We cannot expect the finest

equipment delivered to our warfighters

without the defense industry that provides that equipment being healthy, innovative, and profitable.” Contrary to

some prevailing perceptions throughout the government, profitability is not

a bad word, he said. “It's the engine of

innovation.” 

Companies who are profitable attract

investors, he pointed out, and also attract quality people. They deliver highquality products and the government

benefits from that.

“Two days after I took office,” Aldridge

said, “I published a policy document

that the Department of Defense will no

longer encourage contractors to pay for

[DoD’s] shortfalls in research and development activities.” (Industry was

using Independent Research and Development [IR&D] money to pay for

cost increases in DoD development programs.) Aldridge also mentioned that

the Department is working to attract

non-traditional industry to come and

work for the Department of Defense. 

Goal 4

To rationalize the weapon systems and

infrastructure with our defense strategy. “We need to think about the new

world order and rationalize what

we're doing with weapon systems and

infrastructure.” He spoke of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Defense Planning Guidance, and how

those reviews led to changes and

ideas. 

All those policies have led to decisions

on weapon systems,” Aldridge said.

Some of them he mentioned included

the Army Crusader; the Navy's DD(X)

“family of ships” program; and the Joint

Strike Fighter, now a hugely successful

international program. In fact, he said,

the Joint Strike Fighter is the largest defense program in the history of the Department of Defense. 

Aldridge said that the Navy has started

the SSGN conversion of the TRIDENT

to a conventional submarine; the Marine Corps has restructured the flight

test program for the V-22 Osprey; the

Secretary of Defense has redesignated

the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) as the Missile Defense

Agency (MDA), effectively placing increased emphasis on ballistic missile defense; and the Army has restructured

the RAH-66 Comanche program—“all

in the name of Transformation,” he

noted.

Transformation is not a thing, not an

end-state, he said. Transformation is a

journey and usually consists of two

parts. One part is using things we currently have in better, more innovative

ways. Transformation is also the innovative use of new technology to achieve

improvement in capability.

Goal 5

To initiate high-leverage technologies to create the warfighting capabilities and strategies of the future. Aldridge observed that

over the years, the Science and Technology (S&T) budget of the Department

Defense has been declining. It was being

used, he said, as a billpayer for other

needs of the Department—and it was

wrong. The reason it happened, he explained, was because S&T tends to be

way out in time and doesn't have an immediate, measurable impact. “To try to

offset that trend, we set a goal that about

3 percent of the total spending of the

Department of Defense would focus on

S&T,” he stated.

“We pushed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA], which

had digressed as a result of previous

S&T budget cuts, back on the leading

edge of technologies,” said Aldridge. He

also spoke of the Department's emphasis on Advanced Concept Technology

Demonstrations (ACTDs) and how DoD

is trying to get the technologies it develops to the warfighters faster. “ACTDs

“If we are going to

make a difference,

we are going to

have to change

each and

everyone's job to

ensure that we are

optimizing every

single dollar

invested in our

organization. It is

the only way we

can truly transform

the Department.”

—Frank Anderson Jr.

DAU President
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 23

do that,” he said. “We are focusing our

activities on space, information, robotics, energy, and precision measurement—those kinds of things have a high

priority within the S&T budget.”

Aldridge acknowledged that certain

things still remain to be done. For

example, increasing the rate of shipbuilding; raising the Tactical Air

(TACAIR) modernization rate higher

to lower the average age of DoD's tactical forces; eliminating substandard

family housing units at a faster pace;

and modernizing more quickly some

of DoD's aging legacy systems.

Overall, Aldridge believes the acquisition community should be very proud

of what it has accomplished. “Look at

the things we've accomplished vs. those

we didn't...I think we are on the right

vector, and I know, my successor Mike

Wynne [Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L], is going to

come in and keep us on the same vector,” Aldridge said.

Aldridge predicted that the AT&L community will continue to make progress

toward Transformation. “It's been only

a little over two years, but I'll tell you

they were 'dog years'—seven years to

one. And so I'm looking to a little bit

different, less stressful life. Thank

you...and keep up the good work.”

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND SEMINARS

• DAWIA and Continuous Learning Program

Requirements Updates

• Small Business Loan Program 

• HUBZone Program

• Improving Business Performance Through Effective

Project Management Practice

• Merging Logistics and Acquisition at the OSD Level

• The Lean Operations

• Multimedia Job Performance Aids (MJPA)

• Performance-Based Services Contracting 

• Lead Maintenance Technology Center Environment 

• One Touch Support 

• Evolutionary Approach to Systems Acquisition

Workshop

• Spiral Development 101

• Joint Aviation Technical Data Integration (JATDI)

• Partnering with the Government 

• The RIFLE Program

• Mitigating the Impact of Obsolescence

• Acquisition and Logistics Training and Education 

• Weapons of Mass Destruction (Small Pox) 

• Career Planning and Goal Setting

• Naval Aviation Logistics Information System Tools 

• DoD E-mall

• Reverse Auction

• Optimal Nutrition for Health and Performance

• Strategy in Action Systems Thinking

• Joint Configuration Management Information

System

• On Your Way to Total Fitness

• The National Stock Number (NSN) Story

• RCM Overview

• Myers-Briggs Workshop

• Lean Enterprise Value (MIT)

• Improving Supply Chain Management Relationships

• Technology Transfer and Export Controls 

• Empowering the Workforce: Applying Situational

Leadership II

• A Hands On Approach to Motivation

• Opportunity to Do Business with Government

Through Prime Contractors

• E-Buy (GSA) 

• GSA Advantage Seminar

• How to Obtain a GSA Contract

• Spiral Development of the F/A-18 Program

• Navy's New Initiative for Facilities Support

Contracting (FSC)

• General Wellness

• The Best of all Opportunities—The OSD MentorProtégé Program

• Wide Area Work Flow
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Mason is the DCMA Maryland Program Integrator for the Army’s Shadow 200 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) program. She is an April 2003 graduate

of DAU’s Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course (ACQ201).

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

DCMA Providing Insight, Support to

Army “Shadow” TUAV Program

First DoD UAV Program to Progress into

Production Acquisition Stage 

JOYCE MASON

24

T

he Department of Defense is undergoing a transformation, focused on new methods of managing acquisition programs with

fewer resources. Will service provided by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to the customer be compromised? Not in the least!

This article will demonstrate DCMA’s

experiences on the Tactical Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) program. Specifically, we’ll discuss the new acquisition

philosophies from a DCMA perspective,

and identify promising practices we discovered during our transformation

process that demonstrate our effectiveness in continuing to provide worldclass support that enables warfighters

to fight and win. 

Shadow 200 UAV

On Dec. 27, 2002, the Army awarded

AAI Corp. a contract to provide four

Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV)

systems for the Shadow 200 UAV after

completion of a rigorous Systems Capabilities Demonstration (SCD). The

mission: to provide the Army field commander with a capability for “over the

horizon” tactical reconnaissance. The

acquisition strategy included the selection of proven off-the-shelf technology

that could be matured through block

enhancements to meet specific tactical

objectives. AAI had previously established a core competency in this technology in the mid-1980s with the Pioneer UAV program. 

Program Support Team

Once the contract was in place, DCMA

mobilized the necessary resources for

the Shadow 200 UAV effort and established a multifunctional Program Support Team (PST). This DCMA team of

professionals serves as the eyes and ears

The Defense Contract Management

Agency is an independent combat support agency within the Department of

Defense. As the Department’s contract

manager, DCMA is responsible for ensuring federal acquisition programs, supplies, and services are delivered on time,

within cost, and meet performance requirements.

The first in a new generation of UAVs, the compact “ShadowTM TUAV system provides U.S.

Army brigade commanders with crucial intelligence—delivered efficiently from its electronic

payload directly to tactical command centers. From left: The Shadow Tactical UAV Team—

Joyce Mason, DCMA Maryland PI; Linda Scott, AAI Corp. PM; Tim Owings, TUAV Project Office, Assistant Program Manager (APM) Brigade; Mike Padden, TUAV Project Office, Chief Acquisition; Steve Reid, AAI Corp. UAV Director; Ron Smith, TUAV Project Office Logistics; and

Charles Johnson, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Procurement Contracting Officer.

Photo by Anthony Fiaschetti
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 25

for military program offices and buying

commands, providing support for contracting, production, quality, government property, safety, engineering, and

software functional disciplines. Orchestrating the effort was a Program Integrator (PI), who served as the primary

conduit for communication between the

supplier, the project office, and DCMA

teams. The DCMA team also met with

the supplier to discuss the initial program technical, cost, and schedule risks,

and to ensure compliance with contract

terms and conditions once the

contract was awarded.

In-Plant Presence

DCMA provides the customer an

industry-wide perspective as a result of its presence across the defense industry spectrum. Indeed,

one of DCMA’s greatest benefits

is its in-plant presence. The inplant DCMA Quality Assurance

Representative (QAR), teaming

with the contractor’s Quality Engineer, concurrently reviewed the

risks associated with completed

drawings, procurement requisitions, and manufacturing instructions as they became available. In addition to improved

efficiency in releasing orders to

manufacturing, the review provided an early opportunity for the

QAR to select key verification

points in-plant as well as at key

supplier locations to mitigate

identified risks.

Major subcontract purchases were

also reviewed for cost, schedule,

and technical risks. Where significant risks existed, delegations

for contract administration actions were formulated and coordinated with sister DCMA offices

to provide the necessary level of

oversight. Support Contract Administration Delegations were issued to nine

DCMA sister organizations to help mitigate risks associated with the Shadow

200 UAV systems or components.

Communications Network

A communications network was established with the PI and the local and extended DCMA staff. Daily communications provided a proactive environment

to resolve problems before they impacted the overall procurement. This

communications network also was used

to gather an independent view of the

program that was provided via a

monthly status report to the Project

Manager (PM). This insight was an invaluable asset to the program according

to Army Col. John Burke, Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle Systems (UAVS) Project

Manager.

“DCMA’s administrative contract management with the prime contractor and

our program office, link the day-to-day

government program management with

the contractor’s ability to perform, saving travel and additional on-site personnel,” Burke said. “The inside-theplant location, long-standing familiarity

with the prime contractor’s processes,

financial management, and sub-contract

management allow forecasting of cost

and schedule instead of corrective actions. DCMA’s national network of contract management offices is able to readily bring government oversight and

inspection to sub-contract problems remote from the prime contractor’s location.”

IOTE and Delivery of Systems

Nearing delivery of the LRIP 1 systems

for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), a specific challenge was anticipated resulting

from the lack of flight facilities

at the primary point of manufacturing. AAI designs and produces the systems at their Hunt

Valley, Md., location and ships

them to the Fort Huachuca,

Ariz., flight center for system

demonstration (functional flight

checks) and final acceptance. 

The Maryland and Phoenix/

Sierra Vista DCMA operations

act as one to assure a smooth

transition through the acceptance

process. The established process

provided closed-loop feedback

of any system deficiencies that

enabled quick implementation

of changes in manufacturing or

quality assurance methods.

DCMA QARs at both locations

were called upon to provide near

real-time support to meet program needs and keep the project

moving forward. 

During IOT&E and delivery of

systems to combat units, the program entered a new phase requiring operations and maintenance in addition to the ongoing

preplanned improvements and

ramp-up for full-scale production. DCMA’s Administering Contracting Officer (ACO) initiated contractual

vehicles to provide component spares

and Repair of Repairables (ROR) as the

operations tempo increased. These

methods were developed via the IPTs to

meet program needs in a timely and consistent manner. The program successfully completed IOT&E in April 2002. 

Shortly after the TUAV

Program Milestone III

Decision presentation was

held at the Pentagon on Sept.

25, 2002, it was announced

that the Army’s Shadow TUAV

program would be the first

Department of Defense UAV

program to progress into the

production acquisition stage.

Given the history of UAV

acquisitions, this was

considered a welcome

announcement.
26 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Exercising Options for Nine

Additional Systems

Delays in IOT&E created the opportunity for breaks in production between

LRIP and the Full-Rate Production (FRP)

decision. To maintain the production

capability and avoid shutdown and

restart costs, the program exercised options for nine additional systems

over two fiscal years (designated

LRIP FY01 and LRIP FY02). This

level of production was determined to be sufficient to carry

through until a Milestone III decision could be made to progress

into FRP. 

DCMA used this opportunity to

incorporate many lessons-learned

from IOT&E and refine its surveillance approach. Where the

supplier had demonstrated

process maturity and capability,

DCMA refocused attention to

higher-risk areas. The DCMA

ACO also modified the system

Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) to sub-CLINs for systemlevel components so that components could be delivered and

tested independently from the remainder of the system for the

subsequent nine LRIP systems.

This allowed flexibility of mixing

assets within the systems to support flight testing and deployment. 

Call for Independent

Review

Also, the UAVS PM requested that

DCMA have an Electrical Engineer perform an assessment of the maturity of

the production engineering and quality

control processes involved in the procurement of the Remote Video Terminal Rugged Field Computer to curb subassembly impact on cost, schedule, and

technical performance that might

threaten project success. DCMA quickly

coordinated with its sister office in Pittsburgh to complete this task. With the

insight of the in-plant QAR at the subcontractor facility assisting the engineer,

an independent view of the production

engineering and quality control

processes was provided to the UAVS PM

in just 16 calendar days, which included

a conclusion and recommendation. 

Preparing for Milestone III

After the deliveries of the LRIP FY01

systems, in preparation for the Milestone

III decision, a series of Production Readiness Reviews (PRRs) were scheduled.

From April 2002 to August 2002, reviews were held at each of the major

subcontractors’ facilities. Fact-finding

sessions were also held at the prime contractor’s facility. During each review,

DCMA participated along with program

office staff and provided insight and professional expertise based on their knowledge of that vendor’s processes and their

risk associated with cost, schedule, and

technical performance. These reviews

culminated with the formal PRR held in

August 2002 at AAI Corp. DCMA participation included PST members as well

as the local DCMA deputy commander.

The review was successful and received

the endorsement of the local DCMA

commander.

Concurrent with the PRR activities, the

team entered into an alpha contracting

process in preparation for awarding the

FRP contract. Continuing in the IPT tradition, the Statement of Work (SOW),

specification changes, schedules for performance-based payments, and engineering and logistical support SOWs

were developed. The team members used this opportunity to

apply lessons-learned from the

earlier program phases to provide a smooth transition from

LRIP to FRP.

Milestone III Decision

The TUAV Program Milestone III

Decision presentation was held

at the Pentagon on Sept. 25,

2002. Attesting to the spirit of

teamwork on the project, the

DCMA Maryland commander

and PI were requested to participate by the PM. During the review, DCMA’s contributions to

the success of the project were

noted. Shortly after the presentation, it was announced that the

Army’s Shadow TUAV program

would be the first Department of

Defense UAV program to

progress into the production acquisition stage. Given the history

of UAV acquisitions, this was

considered a welcome announcement.

FRP Contract Awarded

The FRP contract was awarded

to AAI Corp. on Dec. 27, 2002, exactly

36 months to the day after the exercise

of the first LRIP CLIN. DCMA continues its responsibility to ensure its industry partners fulfill their contractual

obligations, and continues to lead the

way to efficient and effective business

processes. Throughout its support of the

TUAV program, the agency has served

as a bridge between the customer and

suppliers; the Agency’s intimate knowledge of the industrial base enables it to

deliver great customer service. DCMA

enables the warfighter to win!

Editor’s Note: The author welcomes

questions or comments on this article.

Contact James.Harrington@dcma.mil.

Throughout its support of the

Tactical Unmanned Aerial

Vehicle program, the Defense

Contract Management Agency

has served as a bridge

between the customer and

suppliers; the Agency’s

intimate knowledge of the

industrial base enables it to

deliver great customer

service.
PM :MAY-JUNE 2003 27

SMi’s Third Annual...

Battle 

Management C4I

8th & 9th October 2003

The Hatton, London

Aunique opportunity to hear international case studies and expert

perspectives from leaders in the field including:

• Major General Gordon Nash, Commander, Joint Warfighting Center, US Joint Forces Command*

• Group Captain Paul Colley, Assistant Director Concepts, Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, Ministry of Defence, UK

• Colonel Rob Weighill, Assistant Director Concepts, Directorate General Doctrine and Development, Ministry of Defence, UK

• Colonel Neil Baverstock, Deputy Director, Command and Battlespace Management, Ministry of Defence, UK

• Colonel Simon Shadbolt, Deputy Director, J6 Policy, Ministry of

Defence, UK

• Colonel Jonathan Campbell-James, VCDS CBM ISR Study Leader,

Defence Intelligence Staff, UK

• Colonel Stephen Bond, TRADOC System Manager for J-STARS,

CGS and DCGS-A, US Army

• Lieutenant Colonel Steve Anderson, SO1 Requirements, Defence

Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency, Ministry of Defence,

UK

• Lieutenant Colonel Lars Lindberg, Deputy Commander, Swedish

Defence Wargaming Centre

• Lieutenant Colonel Merfyn Lloyd OBE, SO1 CBM, DSTL

• Major Rick Lykins USMC, C4 Branch Head, Technology Division,

US Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory

• Dr Roland Edwards, DEC CC&II, Tac CBMSc, Ministry Of Defence,

UK, and DTL Human Sciences Group, DSTL

Benefits of Attending:

• ENHANCE your understanding of battle management C4I in the

information age battlespace

• IDENTIFY emerging battle management concepts, doctrine and

processes

• EXAMINE the tenets, capability and architecture of C4I

• GAIN insight into initiatives at joint, coalition and international level

• UNCOVER the contemporary debate surrounding the challenges

of the man-machine interface

"Very interesting. Overall a very good conference"

Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Hoscheit PhD, Chief C4I Division, US Army Space & 

www.smi-online.co.uk/battlec4i.asp

Register online and receive full information on all of SMi’s conferences

Alternatively fax your registration to +44 (0) 870 9090 712 or call +44 (0) 870 9090 711

* Subject to Final Confirmation

Supported by
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

McLinnaham is the Assistant Program Manager for Logistics assigned to the Lower Tier Project Office, Air and Missile Defense, Huntsville, Ala. He is Level-III certified in Contracting, and Level-II certified in Program Management. Beeler is the Integrated Diagnostics Support System Division Manager for CAS, Inc., Huntsville,

Ala. He holds a B.A. in Business, an M.S. in Contract and Acquisition Management, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

PATRIOT IDSS Program Technology at

Redstone Arsenal 

Supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom

CAPT. JAMES O. MCLINNAHAM, USA • DR. DENNIS G. BEELER

28

As far back as 1993, DoD had a

vision that handling tough diagnostic jobs would entail the

use of experts who may be on

the other side of the world from

the weapon system being diagnosed. In

February 1993, Program Executive Office Air Defense, and the Office of the

Secretary of Defense signed a Memorandum of Agreement to use PATRIOT

as a test bed for what was to become the

Integrated Diagnostics Support Demonstration (IDSD) program. The IDSD 

program, which integrated Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) and Government-off-the-Shelf (GOTS) technology,

was tested over a three-year period using

tactical PATRIOT systems in both

CONUS and OCONUS. Drawing on

high-technology experience from PATRIOT, other systems, and the commercial world, IDSD integrated satellite

communications; expert system technology; remotely controlled Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment

(TMDE); electronic publications; digital video; and computerized data acquisition. 

In 1996 the IDSD program, upon successful completion, transitioned into

what is now known as the Integrated

Diagnostics Support System (IDSS). Between 1996 and 1998, IDSS underwent

another series of unit tests, which

stressed the technology from the soldiers' point of view. From the beginning

of the IDSD/IDSS program, acceptance

of the concept of improving maintenance by utilizing technology steadily

improved. The overall IDSS evaluation

demonstrated that integrating the basic

building blocks of personal computers,

test equipment, and communications

provided a framework for effective system support and low-cost growth of additional capabilities. 

Results of the IDSS evaluation indicated

that the goals for maintenance enhancement could be attained, and that

soldiers were very enthusiastic about

using these new tools and technology.

Access to up-to-date information was

found to be instrumental in returning

weapon systems to an operational status. Computers normally used to assist

in the troubleshooting and analyzing of

data were also found to potentially reduce errors and speed up procedures. 

Initial Fielding of IDSS

From Oct. 26, 1999, to Nov. 5, 1999,

the PATRIOT Project Office (PPO) conducted an initial fielding at Fort Bliss,

Texas, of the IDSS technologies to the

Ordnance Missile and Munitions Center and School (OMMCS) Training DePATRIOT Integrated Diagnostics Support System (IDSS) Technology—Experts a world away

help keep Operation Iraqi Freedom PATRIOT systems up and running.

Photo courtesy PATRIOT Project Office
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 29

tachment. On Oct. 20, 1999, the PPO,

now a part of the Lower Tier Project Office (LTPO), received a final go-ahead

from the OMMCS Commandant that

set the stage for fielding to the Training

Detachment. 

The fielding effort began with disassembly of seven PATRIOT Automated

Logistics System (PALS) AN/PSM-80

(V)1 computers in order to install sound

cards and Institute of Electronic and

Electrical Engineers 488.2 Instrument

Interface cards, which provide audio

and instrumentation support for the various IDSS functions. The computers

were then re-assembled, and upgraded

hard drives with the IDSS software enhancements were installed. The new

software includes Microsoft Windows

'95 Operating System; Interactive Authoring Display System based on PATRIOT Interactive Electronic Technical

Manuals; Procomm by Quarterdeck to

allow data file transfers using the Single

Channel Ground/Airborne Radio System tactical radios; Symantec pcAnywhere for file application sharing and

remote access and control; and Microsoft

NetMeeting to facilitate voice communications among nodes on the new PATRIOT Local Area Network (LAN). 

The second week of the process consisted of detailed training for personnel

from OMMCS and Raytheon Training

Systems on the use of the entire IDSS

system. IDSS field analysts began the

session by giving the students a detailed

overview of the IDSS programs. Following the overview, they taught each

student the process of setting up the

LAN, and how to use the IDSS system

using the latest technology. The students

were also taught the setup of the required modernized TMDE used in the

performance of the Computer Aided

Procedures developed by CAS, Inc.,

specifically for the IDSS program. They

also demonstrated the capability of being

able to remotely control the test equipment and monitor troubleshooting efforts from other locations external to the

unit. 

In early 2000, the LTPO decided to to

upgrade the older computers to new

Dell 7500 laptops. To that end, they initiated procurement and obtained the

new Dell laptops as replacements for the

PALS computers. This represented a

major upgrade for the soldier in the field,

since the new Dell laptops had a newer

operating system, more memory, and

larger hard drives. 

Expanding and Applying the

IDSS Technology

During Desert Storm, the limited data

that were recorded by non-tactical

portable data recorders and other prototype equipment in the PATRIOT systems had to be sent back to the States

for analysis via courier service or shipped

via Federal Express. This method of getting data back for analysis took anywhere from two to 14 days, depending

on the method used. Problems also existed due to more stringent import/export controls. It became apparent early

on that a method was needed to expedite the data from remote locations anywhere in the world back to the analysts

in the United States.

IDSS personnel from CAS, Inc., took

this need to the CAS system engineers

and asked for assistance in resolving this

issue. System engineers using IDSS technology designed a secure satellite communications system capable of transferring the data from remote locations

back to CAS servers. Once this was in

place, the data-reduction analysts were

able to download the necessary data

from the servers located in the Air and

Missile Defense Data Analysis Network

(AMDAN) facility. This new methodology provides the capability for sending

data, voice, and video in a secure mode

to the central AMDAN facility.

Not only does this technology provide

the logistical data needed, it also provides a wealth of operational information for the analysts. Embedded Data

Recorder (EDR) data can provide such

information as whether or not a particular engagement was successful (and if

not, why?). If anomalies exist, the datareduction analysts will be able to detect

those anomalies and system engineers

will be able to provide feedback as to

corrective action needed. This corrective action may be in the form of a software improvement to a particular item

within the system or to support the issuance of a field bulletin back to the

units in the field.

The EDRs, when available, enable evaluation to determine specific aspects of

functional areas of hardware and software as well as overall system effectiveness. Without this data, critics could

argue, as they did after Desert Storm,

that PATRIOT was not effective. However, the greatest benefit of recorded data

is in the investigation of anomalous

events. Recorded data can be quickly

distributed to analysts at Raytheon,

Lockheed Martin, CAS Inc., the LTPO

Research, Development and Engineering Center, and other contractors to

quickly isolate causes of phenomena

that may be due to weather, atmospheric

conditions, hardware faults, software

problems, or operational procedures.

This can lead to responsive changes that

protect the force and enable warfighters to be more effective.

Without recorded data, analysts must

speculate about observed problems, and

in many cases it becomes impossible to

The overall IDSS

evaluation demonstrated

that integrating the basic

building blocks of

personal computers, test

equipment, and

communications provided

a framework for

effective system support

and low-cost growth of

additional capabilities. 
30 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

reproduce the anomaly or discover its

cause. The net effect can be delays in

adjusting to battlefield conditions, delays in correcting residual problems, and

reduced combat effectiveness.

The commander and the soldiers are

critical links in the potential benefits

that can result from recorded data. The

commander must emphasize the importance of data, and the soldiers must

activate the recording of data and maintain the data recorders. To date, EDRs

from Operation Iraqi Freedom have

proven invaluable in assessing PATRIOT

performance and in evaluating anomalous events.

In some cases the lack of recorded data

has impacted analysts’ ability to be as

responsive as desired to some field reports. The EDRs are not considered mission-critical items. The troops can fight

without data recording; however, the

recorded data and the insight revealed

on system performance could be critical to fighting effectively and surviving

to fight tomorrow’s battle.

This new technology provides literally

a “foxhole-to factory” means of obtaining data in a timely manner, and the

ability to use such data as necessary for

the support of our soldiers in the field.

The chart below depicts technology in

place today in remote locations throughout the world and the methodology used

in transferring EDR data. 

The IDSS program has truly been a team

effort. PATRIOT’s prime contractor,

Raytheon, is responsible for the remote

maintenance monitor and getting IDSS

technology into the field. CAS, Inc., PATRIOT’s System Engineering and Technical Assistance contractor, has played

a major role in IDSS, assisting with the

design and development of LANs, computer aided procedures for performing

remotely controlled TMDE procedures,

and secure satellite communications. At

the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile

Command Integrated Materiel Management Center, the Electronics Publications Division manages specialized

publications needs. The logistics laboratory has been responsible for developing the video systems. Military users

have played an active role in the definition of the system itself and how it

should be used. Representatives of the

allied nations using PATRIOT have been

an integral part of joint efforts to guide

the overall development of IDSS. 

While challenges associated with integrating COTS/GOTS components exist,

today’s environment of funding constraints and streamlined acquisition dictates tailoring the use of commercial

products and other integration of technologies as a mainstream approach to

contain both cost and risk. Challenges

will always exist to provide the soldier

with tools, technology, and interfaces

that are intuitive while at the same time

imposing minimum impact to the existing support infrastructure. IDSS is

meeting this challenge.

Editor’s Note: The authors welcome

questions or comments on this article.

Contact them at James.McLinnaham@

us.army.mil; or denis.beeler@cas-inc.

com.

Current Data Transfer Process 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 31

The acquisition ladder is a tough climb

without the right education...DAU.

When was the last time you or one of your associates attended one of the 85 different acquisitioncourses offered by the Defense Acquisition University at one of its 12 locations around the country?

Did you know industry personnel may also attend?

Are you current on the DoD 5000-series cancellations and

revisions? Do you know the latest acronyms and terms?

When was the last time you or your associates took an introductory, intermediate, or advanced course in acquisition,

technology and logistics?

Did you know that DAU now offers 18 certification courses

that are taught entirely or in part using distance learning? Or

check out one of the 49 self-paced learning modules now on

our Continuous Learning Center Web site (http://clc.dau.mil/).

We also offer fee-for-service consulting and research programs. And take advantage of our competitively priced conference facilities.

Maybe it's time to talk to your training officer about some

additional training opportunities. Or call the DAU Registrar at

1-888-284-4906 to see how we can structure an educational

program just for you.

Visit the DAU Web site for the DAU 2003 Catalog and other

publications at http://www.dau.mil. To apply

for all DAU classes in the catalog, including Distance Learning classes, go

to http://www.dau.mil and visit the

DAU Course Schedule. To apply for

a course, click on the “Enroll Here”

link found in the DAU Home Page

banner.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Patnode is a Professor of Program Management

and Leadership at the Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, Va.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Measuring Performance to 

Drive Risk Management

We Need a New Yardstick—Objectives and

Thresholds Aren’t Good Enough

MAJ. NORMAN H. PATNODE, USAF

32

Although the performance of

many acquisition programs has

improved over the last few

years, the fact is we still need

to deliver useful capability to

the warfighter faster and cheaper. How

do we make this happen? By doing a

better job of identifying, planning for,

and managing the uncertainty that’s inherent in every project. One way of

doing this is to increase the use of risk

management in DoD acquisition programs.

It seems we’ve been teaching risk management and emphasizing it within DoD

for centuries. So how do we actually increase its use in our acquisition programs? Perhaps we should start by recognizing the wisdom in the age-old

adage, “Tell me how you measure me,

and I’ll tell you how I behave.” One way

to create a behavior is to measure it. But

how in the world do we measure a Program Manager’s use of risk management

in his or her program?

Program Performance

Let’s start with how we measure the performance of programs today. What tool

do we use to measure progress? Currently, we compare a program’s cost,

schedule, and technical performance to

the threshold and objectives in the acquisition program baseline. That’s the

“yardstick” we use to measure a program’s performance, and by extrapolation, the Program Manager’s performance.

What if in addition to, or perhaps even

instead of requiring Program Managers

to establish objectives and thresholds

for cost, schedule, and performance, we

asked them to determine the Worst

Case, Best Case, and Most Likely Case

for cost, schedule, and technical performance as shown below in Figure 1?

What if we put those estimates into the

baseline, and used them as the yardstick

to measure a program’s performance?

How is this going to help? Why should

we abandon thresholds and objectives?

Perhaps we shouldn’t. However, it’s

worth looking at how the thresholds

and objectives are set. Do they actually

bound the most likely case as shown at

the top of Figure 2? How do we know?

Without identifying and analyzing the

risks, we can’t be sure that in actuality

the threshold and objective aren’t located as shown in the bottom of Figure

2. Obviously, the risks depicted by these

two pictures are not the same. What’s

needed is to determine the actual risks

on the program.

Now, think about this for a moment—

what does a Program Manager have to

do to determine the Worst Case, Best

Case, and Most Likely Case for cost,

FIGURE 1. Cost, Schedule, and Technical Performance

Estimates at Milestone A
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 33

schedule, and technical performance on

his or her program? Can this be done

without identifying and analyzing the

risks on the program? Shouldn’t the

knowledge gained from determining

these estimates give us the insight

needed to better determine the risks on

a program?

You see, by putting these estimates in

the acquisition program baseline and

using them as the yardstick to evaluate a program’s performance, we drive

exactly the behaviors we desire in our

Program Managers. They will have to

identify and analyze the cost, schedule, and technical performance risks

on their programs using at least three

different sets of assumptions. If we follow through by asking them to explain

the assumptions behind each case, we’ll

see better estimates and better use of

risk management in our acquisition

programs.

Making it Work

Let’s explore this further. How do we actually make it work? We start with the

three estimates—Best Case, Worst Case,

and Most Likely Case—for cost, schedule, and technical performance. For illustrative purposes, let’s look at cost.

Given the three sets of cost estimates

shown in Figure 3, we then plot the program’s current funding level relative to

our estimates. From this information,

we can assess the program’s probability

of success from the perspective of cost.

To fully evaluate the program, we also

need to determine the probability of success from the perspectives of schedule

and technical performance. We can do

this by applying a similar process for

both schedule and technical performance.

It’s worth noting here that when we

develop our Worst Case estimates,

we’re not talking about catastrophic

headline events such as, “Alien Spacecraft Crashes into Shipyard—Will

Take 100 Years to Rebuild.” Rather,

we want our Program Managers to

capture realistic events, which, if they

occur, will have severe consequences

on the program.

Likewise, we wouldn’t expect the Best

Case estimate of technical performance to be based on the expectation that the Program Manager’s

nephew will successfully develop a

workable application of cold fusion

next year during his studies at Stanford. What’s needed here are realistic estimates of both the risks and opportunities of the program.

In today’s environment, it’s not enough

to just address risk—we also need to

create and capitalize on opportunities.

Can we double the technical performance by accepting a six-month schedule slip to integrate a new processor?

Will $680K spent up front on long-lead

items allow us to get to IOC [Initial Operational Capability] 14 months sooner?

There are many such opportunities 

on every program. We need our Program Managers to aggressively search 

them out so we can better satisfy the

warfighters.

Figure 4 presents a method to evaluate

not just the investment needed, but also

the potential return on our investment.

Program risk is evaluated by analyzing

changes in the Worst Case estimates of

cost, schedule, and technical performance, as well as changes in the probabilities associated with those estimates.

This is a direct application of risk analysis—what’s the probability of an event

occurring, and what’s the consequence

if it does?

The same approach is taken to evaluate

opportunity—the potential return on

our acquisition investment. How have

the Best Case estimates changed over

time? What are the assumptions behind

the estimates for cost, schedule, and

technical performance? What’s our conFIGURE 2. Setting Thresholds & Objectives—What is Reality?

To drive the increased

use of risk

management in DoD

acquisition programs,

we should begin

requiring our Program

Managers to

determine the Worst

Case, Best Case, and

Most Likely Case for

cost, schedule, and

technical performance

on their programs. 
34 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

fidence level in these estimates? By evaluating the changes in the Best Case estimates and any changes in the probability of achieving those Best Case

estimates, we gain a better perspective

of the opportunities remaining in a program.

For a balanced perspective, we need to

be sure to evaluate both risk and opportunity. The way to make sure our

Program Managers assess risk and create and capitalize on opportunities is to

put Worst Case, Best Case, and Most

Likely Case estimates for cost, schedule, and technical performance in the

acquisition program baseline, and use

them as yardsticks to measure program

performance.

Let’s return for a moment to the idea of

measuring a program’s probability of

success. We want to do more than just

measure it; we want to drive behaviors

that increase it. So what question should

our measurement answer? As shown in

Figure 5, when Program Managers brief

the status of their programs we want

them to answer the question, “What specific actions are you going to take to increase the probability of success?”

It’s important to recognize that each of

the specific events shown in the stairstep diagram (Figure 5) comes at a cost

in both time and dollars. However, after

doing the risk analysis and building this

information into the baseline, when

budgets are squeezed and program

funding has to be cut, using the stairstep diagram allows us to make smarter

investment decisions about how best to

provide capability to the warfighters.

That’s the bottom line. We can’t make

wise investment decisions unless we

fully understand the risks and opportunities. To gain this understanding our

Program Managers must continually

identify and analyze the risks and opportunities on their programs, and include the results of those analyses when

they report the performance of their programs. To drive the increased use of risk

management in DoD acquisition programs, we should begin requiring our

Program Managers to determine the

Worst Case, Best Case, and Most Likely

Case for cost, schedule, and technical

performance on their programs. By

changing the yardstick, we’ll change the

behavior, and that’s a positive step in

moving the acquisition community toward better support of the warfighters.

Editor’s Note: The author welcomes

questions or comments on this article.

Contact Patnode at Norman.patnode

@dau.mil. 

FIGURE 4. Risk vs. Opportunity

FIGURE 5. What is Required for Success?

FIGURE 3. Tracking Cost from Another Perspective
35 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

DAU Course Application— Get the Latest Facts

WHO MAY ATTEND DAU COURSES?

• Military Service members must apply under their

Military Service, regardless of their assignment.

• Federal civilians apply under their affiliated Military

Service, DoD, or non-DoD Federal Service category.

• Defense industry employees working on DoD contracts apply under their own category.

• Foreign personnel registering under a Foreign Military Sales process apply under a special category.

Email Art McCormick at arthur.mccormick@dau.mil

if you have questions.

HOW CAN I APPLY FOR A COURSE?

Go to www.dau.mil and click on Enroll Here. Apply for

all courses at this site, including distance learning and

hybrid courses.

HOW DOES THE APPLICATION PROCESS WORK? 

Each DoD Military Service, e.g., Army, Navy, etc., is assigned quotas in DAU classes. Each agency, including

non-DoD, has a specific training office that acts on applications. Each agency, including DoD non-military

departments, funds training costs, such as TDY, assists

with TDY orders, places its students in a wait or reservation status, or may disapprove an application. Students should contact their agency’s POC if they have

questions about the status of their application, why

they are on a wait list, or how they should prepare their

TDY orders. The POC list can be found at

www.dau.mil/registrar/apply.asp at the bottom of the

page.

HOW MUCH DO COURSES COST?

At this time, DAU does not charge tuition for its courses,

except for foreign students who register under a Foreign Military Sales process. This category of foreign student, Department of Transportation-related agencies,

industry, and non-DoD federal employees fund their

own students’ travel and per diem costs. For military

and civilian DoD employees, there are no travel or per

diem costs to the student or the student’s agency to attend DAU courses as long as the proper procedures are

followed. The Director, Acquisition Career Management Office (DACM) associated with each DoD agency

will cover these costs, and students need to follow their

processes.

WHAT ARE CLASS MODES?

Web-enabled courses are strictly computer-based training. The course schedule shows classes running from

Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 since enrollment is constant throughout the fiscal year. Once approved for the course, students have 60 days to complete it, 28 days for BCF102, 90 days for CON-101. After applying, students

will receive various messages from “the system,” including log on and password information. Students

won’t be able to log on until they receive a message saying they have a confirmed registration. Students will

receive a message telling them whom to contact in case

of technical difficulties or questions for an instructor.

These messages should be saved for future reference.

Hybrid courses are composed of a Web-enabled phase,

lasting about 45 days, followed a couple weeks later

by a classroom phase lasting 5 days, except for PMT352 which lasts 6 weeks. Students must apply for the

B phase of a hybrid. They will automatically be enrolled

in phase A when they receive a reservation in phase B.

Students won’t be able to start phase A until about 60

days before phase B starts (45 days for phase A plus15

days after the Web-enabled phase ends and the classroom phase begins). This is done because the instructor wants the knowledge students acquired in phase A

to be fresh in mind when they arrive to class. Students

will receive a message telling them whom to contact in

case of technical difficulties or questions for an instructor. These messages should be saved for future reference.

On-site or Residential Courses are traditional classroom

courses. On-site courses are conducted at sites outside

of the DAU campus network. Residential classes are

held at a DAU regional campus.

HOW TO CONTACT THE DAU REGISTRAR?

DAU Registrar

dau.registrar@dau.mil

Phone:

703-805-3003 (DSN 655-3003) or 1-888-284-4906

Industry and Non-DoD Students

industry.registrar@dau.mil

Phone

703-805-4498
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Rhinesmith is a physicist in the Advanced Systems Concepts Office, U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command–Armament Research, Development

and Engineering Center (TACOM-ARDEC), Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. He holds a B.A. and an M.A. degree in Physics. Williamson is a Munitions Systems Engineer at

TACOM-ARDEC, where he works with Insensitive Munitions improvement programs. Niles is a Senior Chemical Systems Engineer, Insensitive Munitions Office,

TACOM-ARDEC, where he leads the development of reduced sensitivity melt-pour explosives for the Army unitary warheads.

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION

“Excalibur” 

Applying Unique Decision Support Tool

to Explosives Selection 

Quality Function Deployment (QFD)—

A Step-by-Step Approach

RICHARD RHINESMITH • BRUCE WILLIAMSON • JOHN NILES

36

S

ince the invention of the cannon,

the explosive fills used to drive

lethal mechanisms have been the

subject of ever increasing interest and study. Traditionally, munitions designers have used such explosives as Comp-B, TNT, or LX-14,

depending upon the particular application. While these munitions passed various safety and rough handling tests in

order to be certified for fielding, they

may still experience a severe adverse reaction if caught in a fire or hit by bullets, fragments, or other battlefield

threats. Indeed, many well-documented

accidents/incidents happen over the

years involving explosive ordnance.

In an effort to improve munitions survivability and safety, the Department of

Defense (through the Joint Requirements

Oversight Council) several years ago established a policy requiring all new munitions be capable of withstanding accidents, fires, or enemy attack. One

method of addressing this requirement,

the use of “Insensitive Munitions” (IM),

including propellants and explosives,

was mandated. Thus a new class of IM

explosives has been developed over the

past decade. Because these IM formulations differ somewhat from each other

in a variety of ways (physical properties, explosive output, manufacturing

process and cost, sensitivity and toxicity, etc.,) the explosive selection process

Recently, the Army’s “Excalibur”

artillery projectile development

program, located at Picatinny Arsenal,

N.J., used a decision support tool

called Quality Function Deployment

(QFD) to support their explosives

downselect decision. 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 37

for a given munition has become more

complex. How, then, do we determine

which of these many explosives formulations is best to use for a particular munitions design? 

To deal more effectively with this challenge, some munitions-design teams

used Quality Function Deployment

(QFD) as a decision support tool for

their explosive downselect process. QFD

provides an organized, step-by-step approach to comparing how well a particular solution addresses customer

needs. Recently, the Army’s “Excalibur”

artillery projectile development program, located at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.,

used QFD to support their explosives

downselect decision. They established

a multi-functional QFD team consisting of explosives design experts, munitions systems analysts and engineers,

and a QFD facilitator. To assure all relevant parties were represented, team

members were drawn from the Army

(including the authors of this article),

Navy, government, and contractor organizations.

The QFD Approach 

The QFD team tackled the problem

using the four-step process described in

Figure 1.

Step 1

Determine who the customers are and what

they need. We decided there were two

sets of customers involved with the IM

explosive decision:

• The warfighter who uses the munition.

• The Program Manager who is responsible for developing and manufacturing the munition. 

The user/warfighter’s military needs are

captured in an Operational Requirements Document (ORD), written specifically for this munition. The ORD provides a detailed description of the

military environment in which the munition has to survive and operate safely

and reliably. The Program Manager’s

needs were determined through discussions with the Excalibur design team

and include such factors as technical

maturity, schedule risk, manufacturing

complexity, environmental health concerns, and life cycle costs. An overall set

of customer needs was created from the

combined user and Program Manager

requirements.

Step 2

Determine a set of engineering metrics that

address every customer need. The key here

is for engineers to be able to evaluate

how effectively each metric addresses

individual customer needs. One or more

metrics must be determined that relate

strongly to meeting each need. A metric is a characteristic or quality of the

explosive that can be measured or assessed. A total of 43 engineering metrics were used to address Excalibur customer requirements.

A QFD matrix (also called the “House

of Quality”) is used to compare customer needs on one axis to engineering metrics on the other axis. Our QFD

team filled in the matrix by comparing

each metric to each need to determine

where strong, moderate, weak, or no

interrelationships exist. We assigned

numerical values of 9, 3, 1, and 0 to

represent strong, moderate, weak, and

no interrelationships, respectively

(using numerical values allows a quantitative evaluation to be made). Figure

2 shows a partial listing of this QFD

matrix.

Step 3

Compare how well each explosive formulation under consideration satisfies the engineering metrics. To make an accurate

assessment, our team first had to compile a database of technical information

(consisting of physical and chemical

characteristics, manufacturing methods,

production costs, test results, toxicity,

etc.,) on each explosive. Data on 13 explosives formulations (11 IM plus TNT

and Comp-B “baselines”) were collected.

Subject matter experts on our team used

a second QFD matrix to compare engineering metrics on one axis to explosives candidates on the other axis. A numeric scale of 1 through 5 was assigned

to represent poor through excellent ability of the explosive to satisfy each metric. Figure 3 shows a partial listing of

this second matrix.

Step 4

Ask customers to prioritize all their needs.

The Excalibur Program representative

fulfilled the role of the customer and

ranked all the needs (by apportioning

approximately 1,000 points among

them). Once these rankings were inserted into the first QFD matrix, the relative importance, or score of every enFIGURE 1: Four-step QFD Process for IM Explosive Selection
38 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

gineering metric was automatically calculated. (The score for a given metric

is the product of the customer importance times the interrelationship value

with that metric summed down the

metric column.)

Figure 2 (bottom row) lists these

scores. The engineering metric scores

were then transferred to the second

QFD matrix, resulting in a calculated

score for each IM explosives candidate

(bottom row of Figure 3, p. 40). The

explosive with the “highest score” becomes the leading candidate for use in

the Excalibur warhead.

Assessment of the QFD 

Selection Process

The process of collecting and analyzing

the various sets of customer requirements, engineering metrics, and explosives candidates (together with the technical database) evolved over several

months. We completed the final evaluation during an intensive two-day meeting, where explosives and manufacturing experts as well as the Excalibur Program Manager representatives painstakingly examined, compared, and agreed

upon all data entries to the QFD matrices. As a result of this analysis, the IM

explosive candidate receiving the highest score in the QFD process was selected for further development as the

Excalibur warhead explosive. 

How did we feel the QFD approach

worked in this application? Let’s look at

FIGURE 2: Excalibur Explosive QFD Matrix No. 1
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 39

some of the perceived positives and negatives of the QFD analysis:

POSITIVES/STRENGTHS

• Consensus was reached as to the best

explosives candidate for the Excalibur

warhead. 

• Facts and data replaced personality

clashes as the basis for judgment.

• Decision related directly to customer

needs—not to arbitrary decision making by managers or to vested interests.

• Politically sensitive decision was delegated to objectivity through the ability of QFD method to transfer discussions to a set of quantitative

engineering criteria. 

• Permanent record of the decision

process was retained.

Negatives/Risks

• Considerable amounts of engineering, cost, and schedule data must be

gathered upon which to base a decision. The commitment to do this must

be made early-on, to minimize downstream schedule and cost impacts.

• It may require a significant expenditure of time, thought, and perseverance for a group of experts to assemble and complete the QFD matrices.

• The assignment of weighting factors

to the customer’s requirements/needs

could have been conducted earlier in

the process to allow more time for the

QFD team to understand how the

weightings might affect results. This

would improve the decision process

as far as which explosives candidates

should be submitted for consideration. It will also allow time for the customers to better evaluate the consequences of their decisions.

For example, if the customers weigh

any one requirement extremely high,

it could render all other requirements

essentially meaningless as evaluation

factors. An initial sensitivity test could

be run to see if any “overriding” requirements exist. The customers may

not have intended such an override

situation to exist and might want to

attribute a greater balance among their

needs. Care should also be taken to

ensure that all customer groups are

identified and given an opportunity

to influence the weighting factors.

• Explosive candidate scores revealed

very little difference existed (less than

2 percent separating the top four explosives scores), calling into question

the significance of selecting one candidate over another. The reason for

doing the QFD approach in the first

place was that all 11 IM candidates

appeared generally acceptable for this

munitions application, and QFD was

used to select among close alternatives. Since the munitions were generally similar in performance, it should

be expected that their scores would

reflect this fact. An unacceptable explosive would not be considered in

the first place.

• In the absence of detailed, specific, or

accurate data, best engineering/expert

judgment must be relied upon (and

even experts can be wrong). A total

of eight explosives experts (representing the Army, Navy, government,

and contractor organizations) were

used to evaluate data for this effort

during the final two-day meeting.

• Sometimes the performance of the IM

candidates in the actual munition configuration can only be estimated,

which can lead to erroneous assessments of performance. Ideally, all IM

candidates should be evaluated/tested

in the specific munition configuration

of interest prior to conducting the

QFD analysis. Due to perceived

schedule and funding constraints,

however, this is not always possible,

so “expert assessments” of how effectively the IM explosive candidate

might work (e.g., based on how well

it performed in other munitions configurations) are used to predict expected performance.

If later testing demonstrates reduced

or unacceptable performance of the

selected candidate, the QFD matrix

must be reviewed to determine the

next best candidate. It should not automatically be assumed that the second-highest-scoring IM candidate

should be used, since it may be that

both candidates have the same fatal

flaw in their design. 

An Explosive “Setback”

Recently, the IM explosive selected from

the QFD rankings seriously failed a setback safety test and was discarded from

further consideration in the Excalibur

program. The question could be asked:

In an effort to improve munitions

survivability and safety, the

Department of Defense established a

policy requiring all new munitions be

capable of withstanding accidents,

fires, or enemy attack. The use of

“Insensitive Munitions” (IM), including

propellants and explosives, was

mandated. Thus a new class of IM

explosives has been developed over

the past decade. 
40 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

“Was this the result of a flaw in the QFD

process?” We made a thorough review

of the QFD data and found that matrices relating to the user need—“safety

during weapon firing”—showed several

engineering metrics that were strongly

related to this need. The two most relevant to test failure were “setback sensitivity assessment” and “risk of dangerous voids.” Since at the time the QFD

was completed no IM candidate had

conducted setback sensitivity tests in

the actual Excalibur weapon configuration, this was an area where “expert assessment” played a strong role. Our experts based their opinions on the

available data collected, which was based

on the explosive’s past performance in

other munitions. Although no specific

data were provided on setback test results, the “top explosive” candidate had

claimed successful performance/selection in other munitions; i.e., it had been

selected as the explosive fill for two Navy

projectile programs. This prompted our

explosives experts to assign a value of 4

(indicating “desirable, exceeds, pretty

good”) out of a maximum of 5 as to how

well this explosive satisfied both the set- FIGURE 3: Excalibur Explosive QFD Matrix No. 2

Engineering Metrics and IM Explosive Candidates (Partial list)
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 41

back sensitivity and risk of dangerous

voids assessments (evidently, as with the

stock market, past performance in other

munitions may not be an indicator of

future success). However, our assessment does not appear to have been unreasonable, based on the data available. 

It does not appear that the QFD process

was at fault, but it suffered from a lack

of relevant test data in key areas. Moreover, the QFD matrices and data tables

enabled an efficient post mortem of this

problem to be conducted. One cautionary note: the second-highest-scoring IM

candidate had essentially the same sensitivity data as the top-scoring explosive.

This suggests it may not be the best alternative explosive candidate for Excalibur, and that additional testing together

with a careful scrutiny of lower scoring

candidates would be prudent.

Participant’s Perspective 

From a participant’s perspective (provided by an explosives expert who participated in this QFD exercise), a number of issues contributed to the difficulty

of this effort. A more rigorous systems

engineering/testing approach would

have been extremely helpful to more accurately tie the system requirements to

the explosive characteristics used for the

QFD.

For instance, some important engineering metrics were eliminated, or only

roughly assessed, as a result of lack of detailed test data (for example, specific setback data). To await results of further

testing would have forced a delay in the

selection process and possibly impacted

the Excalibur program schedule and increased costs. Having the additional data

available, however, might have significantly improved this particular selection. 

A more rigorous systems engineering

approach would have benefited the selection process in several ways:

• The amount of data requested for customer needs versus engineering matrix could be reduced.

• The amount of time and effort expended for the evaluation could also

be reduced.

• The timing of the final QFD data review should coincide with completion of data collection, rather than be

prematurely set to coincide with a preset program schedule date. Prior determination of key design parameters

and test data would result in a more

accurate focus to the explosive selection process.

• Given the time to properly conduct

data collection, the prioritization and

deployment of customer/system requirements could be conducted in a

more rigorous and quantitative fashion. This would reduce emphasis on

qualitative judgment based upon experience (such as the setback data previously mentioned).

• Prioritization of customer needs

should have been done much earlier

in the QFD process, before the explosives candidates were provided.

Lack of early knowledge of the key

user needs may have resulted in a potentially best-choice explosives candidate not even being submitted for

consideration.

The eight explosives experts assessing

the QFD data may have been too many

and resulted in an overly long and detailed evaluation time. The team should

be more limited in size and comprise

an odd number of individuals to avoid

ties on ranking metrics and overly detailed discussions on minor variables.

To help reduce the long and arduous

final QFD discussion and ranking period, explosives candidates should be

limited to no more than two of each

explosive type. A formal QFD prescreening process, limited to a small

amount of major engineering metrics, could be used for this activity. 

After completion of the pre-selection

process, some critical safety and performance tests should be run on the

remaining candidates using actual

system hardware to provide greater

assurance of accurate correlation of

engineering metrics to the end-item

requirements.

Taken as a whole, these adjustments

would allow for a more accurate determination of the best characteristics and

energetic material to meet end-item

needs.

Overall Application 

of QFD Methods

We believe the QFD process contributed

to the Excalibur IM explosive selection

by organizing customer needs and facilitating the assessment of how well engineering metrics meet these needs and

how well the explosives candidates satisfy the metrics. However, the QFD

process itself cannot make up for a lack

of critical test data. When lack of data

was noted, the options exercised were

to: 1) eliminate the engineering metric

for which data were unavailable, or 2)

have technical experts “assess” how well

they believed the explosive candidate

would perform based on what data were

available.

These assessments were apparently not

accurate enough to reliably predict performance in certain key areas such as

setback tests. The IM explosive candidate selected for further testing suffered

a catastrophic test failure and was discontinued. The Excalibur program is

following the QFD rankings to select its

follow-up choice. While we are still

learning about applying QFD to explosives selection, the transparent nature

of the QFD process made it relatively

easy to review the data after the fact as

to possible causes of the setback test failure. The overall application of QFD

methods to the explosives selection area

should be viewed as a positive contribution.

As a final caution, keep in mind that

QFD matrices and results are often

unique to the particular set of users’

needs being investigated. They should

not automatically be applied to another

customer’s needs (even if they appear

somewhat related) without a careful review.

Editor’s Note: The authors welcome

questions or comments on this article.

Contact Rhinesmith at rrhine@pica.

army.mil; Williamson at bwilliam@pica.

army.mil; and Niles at jniles@pica.army.

mil.
42 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

JOIN DAUAA

Defense Acquisition University

Graduates, Faculty, and Staff!

Take advantage now of the great

benefits of DAUAA Alumni membership —

• Addition of DAUAA membership to

your resumé.

• Continuing involvement in defense

acquisition activities and links to

other professional organizations.

• Networking with other members of

the defense acquisition community

through the Association Web site.

• Timely updates on evolving

defense acquisition policies in Association Newsletters.

• Forum on defense acquisition

through newsletters and

symposium papers.

• Continuing Learning Points (CLPs)

for DAUAA Annual Symposium

participation — up to 16 CLPs —

toward meeting DoD continuing

education requirements.

Call (703) 960-6802 to join DAUAA

or complete one of the forms (opposite page). To learn more about

DAUAA or register online using a

credit card, visit the DAUAA Web site

at http://www.dauaa.org or e-mail at

dauaa@erols.com

JOIN DAUAA

Defense Acquisition University

Graduates, Faculty, and Staff!

Take advantage now of the great

benefits of DAUAA Alumni membership:

• Addition of DAUAA membership to

your resumé.

• Continuing involvement in defense

acquisition activities and links to

other professional organizations.

• Networking with other members of

the defense acquisition community

through the Association Web site.

• Timely updates on evolving

defense acquisition policies in Association Newsletters.

• Forum on defense acquisition

through newsletters and

symposium papers.

• Continuing Learning Points (CLPs)

for DAUAA Annual Symposium

participation — up to 16 CLPs —

toward meeting DoD continuing

education requirements.

Call (703) 960-6802 to join DAUAA

or complete one of the forms (opposite page). To learn more about

DAUAA or register online using a

credit card, visit the DAUAA Web site

at http://www.dauaa.org or e-mail at

dauaa@erols.com.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 43

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED!

DAU Alumni Association News!

All DAU Course Graduates

Gain Full Membership Status!

Industry & Government Employees 

Who Are Not DAU-DSMC Graduates

Are Eligible for Associate Membership!

GIVE A COPY OF THIS OFFER TO AN ASSOCIATE

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED!

DAU Alumni Association News!

All DAU Course Graduates

Gain Full Membership Status!

Industry & Government Employees 

Who Are Not DAU-DSMC Graduates

Are Eligible for Associate Membership!

GIVE A COPY OF THIS OFFER TO AN ASSOCIATE

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED!

DAU Alumni Association News!

All DAU Course Graduates

Gain Full Membership Status!

Industry & Government Employees 

Who Are Not DAU-DSMC Graduates

Are Eligible for Associate Membership!

GIVE A COPY OF THIS OFFER TO AN ASSOCIATE
44 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED!

You have a new chance to join the DAU Alumni Association!

All course graduates gain full membership status!

The benefits of DAUAA membership have increased. Graduates of all DAU courses are now eligible

for full membership status. Industry and government employees who are not DAU-DSMC graduates

are eligible for associate membership. Take advantage of this opportunity to join DAUAA today!

❑1 yr $2500 ❑3 yr $6000

Fill out this card and mail with a check payable

to DAUAA. Mail to:

DAU ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

2550 HUNTINGTON AVE STE 202

ALEXANDRIA VA 22307

Register Online at: http://www.dauaa.org

Name ........................................................................

Address .....................................................................

..................................................................................

Rank/Title/Service ......................................................

Company/Agency ......................................................

Phone (H)..................................................................

(W)..............................Fax .............................

For information call (703) 960-6802 • (800) 755-8805 • Fax: (703) 960-6807 • E-mail dauaa@erols.com

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED!

You have a new chance to join the DAU Alumni Association!

All course graduates gain full membership status!

The benefits of DAUAA membership have increased. Graduates of all DAU courses are now eligible

for full membership status. Industry and government employees who are not DAU-DSMC graduates

are eligible for associate membership. Take advantage of this opportunity to join DAUAA today!

❑1 yr $2500 ❑3 yr $6000

Fill out this card and mail with a check payable

to DAUAA. Mail to:

DAU ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

2550 HUNTINGTON AVE STE 202

ALEXANDRIA VA 22307

Register Online at: http://www.dauaa.org

Name ........................................................................

Address .....................................................................

..................................................................................

Rank/Title/Service ......................................................

Company/Agency ......................................................

Phone (H)..................................................................

(W)..............................Fax .............................

For information call (703) 960-6802 • (800) 755-8805 • Fax: (703) 960-6807 • E-mail dauaa@erols.com

THE RULES HAVE CHANGED!

You have a new chance to join the DAU Alumni Association!

All course graduates gain full membership status!

The benefits of DAUAA membership have increased. Graduates of all DAU courses are now eligible

for full membership status. Industry and government employees who are not DAU-DSMC graduates

are eligible for associate membership. Take advantage of this opportunity to join DAUAA today!

❑1 yr $2500 ❑3 yr $6000

Fill out this card and mail with a check payable

to DAUAA. Mail to:

DAU ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

2550 HUNTINGTON AVE STE 202

ALEXANDRIA VA 22307

Register Online at: http://www.dauaa.org

Name ........................................................................

Address .....................................................................

..................................................................................

Rank/Title/Service ......................................................

Company/Agency ......................................................

Phone (H)..................................................................

(W)..............................Fax .............................

For information call (703) 960-6802 • (800) 755-8805 • Fax: (703) 960-6807 • E-mail dauaa@erols.com
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 45

A T T E N T I O N

I

n the past, defense industry organizations

and personnel have needed, but not always

received, the same acquisition training and

education opportunities that are currently

offered by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to government employees. The DAU

Alumni Association (DAUAA) has recently

begun a Corporate Sponsorship program to help

DAU fill that gap. This program envisions a

more balanced approach to education and training that will be mutually beneficial to both industry and the government.

Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and Rockwell-Collins have already

become DAUAA Corporate Sponsors. We hope

to add you as a sponsor in 2003. 

Corporate Sponsorship of the DAUAA is open

to any defense industry firm that practices business according to federal and state laws that

prohibit discriminatory practices. Sponsors cannot be companies with whom U.S. law prohibits conducting DoD business. Foreign governments or their agents cannot participate in

DAUAA sponsorship.

For a nominal consideration/fee, your company

receives these benefits:

• Up to 20 annual memberships are allocated

for each Corporate Sponsor. Employees chosen by the sponsor will receive an annual

DAUAA Associate Membership at no extra

cost.

• Preferential formal and social opportunities

at DAUAA’s Annual Acquisition Symposium

at the Capital and Northeast Region campus,

Fort Belvoir, Va. 

• Employees of a sponsor may attend the symposium at the discounted member rates. 

• Sponsors will receive a reserved exhibit space

at no cost. 

• Program participation opportunities for both

individual speakers and panel participation

is offered preferentially to sponsors, although

the DAUAA reserves the right to select program speakers based on the overall structure

of the symposium. 

• Sponsoring companies may have their name

and logo in the annual symposium program

and/or handouts. 

• Sponsor executives will be offered seating in

proximity to invited DoD officials at plenary

sessions and meals.

• Your company is featured on the DAUAA Web

site (http://www.dauaa.org), with a one-page

description of your company, its products and

services. (Note: DAUAA is prohibited by IRS

rules from advertising or endorsing specific

products or services, so it reserve the right to

withhold all or part of the description not

compliant with IRS rules.)

Sponsorship status becomes effective the date

of receipt of your application, along with the

nominal consideration/fee. DAUAA is a nonprofit organization, and sponsorship contributions are tax deductible. DAUAA reserves the

right to change or expand benefits at any time

when approved by the governing DAUAA Board

of Directors.

Although this sponsorship program is still in

its early stages, companies are already inputting ideas and suggestions into

planning for the 2004 DAUAA

Symposium. 

BECOME A DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY

ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

CORPORATE SPONSOR 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Richard is a Program Analyst with the Office of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics), in Alexandria, Va. Currently, she is completing National Security and Strategic Studies at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. Prior to

joining AET&CD in 2001, she worked as a Procurement Analyst and Professor of Contracting, Defense Systems Management College Norfolk Campus, in Norfolk,

Va.

ACQUISITION EDUCATION, TRAINING,& 

CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Transformation of Acquisition

Training within DoD

DAU Poised to Offer Students a 21st Century

Transformed Training Environment

MARCIA RICHARD

46

I

am truly proud to be an acquisition

professional working within the Department of Defense (DoD)today.

The professional education and

training DoD has afforded me over

the past 20 years, as well as my current

studies at the Naval War College

(NWC), have more than equipped me

to take my place in the professional acquisition workforce. And after completing the National Security and Strategic Studies curriculum at NWC in June

2003, I will have fulfilled all requirements of the Defense Leadership and

Management Program (DLAMP).

DLAMP is yet another fine developmental program designed to provide

Department of Defense civilians extensive leadership and management training and education. Its goals are to develop future civilian leaders who clearly

understand DoD’s national security mission as well as strengthen communication between senior military and civilian leaders. 

NWC—A Life-Altering

Experience

Prior to attending NWC, my DLAMP

mentor, Air Force Brig. Gen. Darryl

Scott, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Contracting, told me that attending

NWC would be a life-altering experience. Well, he was correct—I am permanently altered in that my insight into

the mindset and needs of the warfighters I support has increased exponentially! Since NWC is my third graduate

program, I can honestly say that it is the

most intellectually challenging and mentally stimulating of my educational experiences. For the first time in my 20-

year career, I have a real opportunity to

learn, share, and gain significant insight

into the warfighters—the men and

women who are my ultimate customers,

and whom I support as a member of the

Acquisition Education, Training, and

Career Development (AET&CD) professional staff. 

As a student in the NWC senior class,

last trimester we studied National Security Decision Making (NSDM). In

NSDM, we discussed many interesting

topics relevant to DoD’s strategy and

force planning, executive decision making, and policy making and implementation today. We examined the way DoD

did business in the past, how the Department currently does business, and

explored the concept of transformation,

and how DoD will do business and fulfill its various missions in the future. 

Having entered the career field of acquisition training in 1992 as a Professor of Contracting with the Naval Center for Acquisition Training—now a part

of the Defense Acquisition University

(DAU) Mid-Atlantic Region—I can personally attest to the remarkable transformation in acquisition training. This

“Regardless of the challenges we in the acquisition

training community face,

we must always keep foremost in our minds that all

of our efforts, large and

small, must constantly be

reassessed to ensure that we

are always providing our

very best in support of the

needs of the warfighter.” 

—Frank Anderson Jr.

DAU President 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 47

article seeks to share what I learned

about the transformation of acquisition

training not only from those NWC discussions, but also from two interviews

I held with key acquisition executives. 

DAU Transformation

Acquisition training within the Department of Defense has been and is transforming. The leadership of the DAU is

determined to find new and improved

ways to better serve the acquisition

workforce and become a premier Corporate University. They are working side

by side with their customers, developing the skill and know-how to provide

just-in-time training for new and evolving practices and becoming more internally efficient by making data-driven

decisions. 

In January 2000, I served as a member

of the DAU strategic planning team;

from that time to now, DAU’s transformation has been nothing short of remarkable. In January 2000, the University’s transformation was in its infancy

and since that time has fully matured.

Currently, DAU has a Strategic Plan in

place for the years 2002–2009, Training

Transformation (T2). As DAU President

Frank Anderson has expressed on numerous occasions, “The strategic plan,

the guiding strategy for managing the

organization, must be a document that

is continuously reassessed and updated.

As long as we remember that, we are

heading in the right direction. If ever

we reach a point that we feel we’ve done

everything correctly, that we’re finished—that’s when we are probably in

trouble.” 

Strategic Relocation of Facilities

One of the first initiatives that DAU implemented was to strategically relocate

its facilities (campuses) with major acquisition customers. Although this was

a very intense process because of structural requirements as well as the physical relocation of personnel—both faculty and staff—the end result is a

constant DAU presence co-located near

commands with the largest concentrations of acquisition workforce members,

which fosters closer professional relationships with the customers and, ultimately, enables DAU to build speed and

agility into the products and services it

provides. 

Corporate University

As previously noted, DAU is now a Corporate University. By definition Corporate Universities provide customers tailored information and learning aids when

they need it. This in no way means that

DAU will cease to provide Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act

(DAWIA) training. On the contrary,

DAU’s success in providing certification

training that satisfies DAWIA acquisition career field requirements is one of

the areas of which it is most proud. 

Tailored Training

In a short video DAU recently produced,

DAU Fine Tuning, Anderson states, “Satisfying our core competencies, providing certification training is one area

where we’ve got it right; we will continue to monitor and update those

courses, as required.” Throughout the

video and during a recent interview I

conducted with him in December 2002,

Anderson emphasized that providing

tailored training (rapid deployment

learning packages) with speed and agility

on evolving practices such as evolutionary acquisition, will be a primary

focus for DAU during 2003.

E-Learning

E-Learning is another area in which

DAU is making tremendous progress.

Anderson explained that in 1998, approximately 2 percent of the training

provided by DAU was through e-Learning; in contrast, by 2002 70 percent of

DAU graduates were participating in eLearning to varying degrees. Although

this is significant progress, he acknowledged that DAU is still learning and

growing in this area, and added that

DAU will also be establishing its Virtual

Performance Learning Center this year. 

Communities of Practice

The leadership throughout DoD has

placed a lot of emphasis on the need for

more collaboration throughout the Department. The establishment of Communities of Practice (COPs), which are

online portals that subject matter experts from within DoD, civilian agencies, and industry can go to share information on various acquisition and

acquisition-related topics, is but one attempt by DAU to foster and support the

collaboration effort. 

Metrics

Another area that DAU will be focusing

on as a part of its transformation is efficiency. Proper balance is always crucial and although DAU has many exciting challenges ahead, it will also strive

to become as efficient as possible, especially during a time of limited resources and budgetary streamlining. Anderson intends to make DAU a

data-driven, decision making environment using metrics to support those decisions. Data-driven decisions were not

necessarily the way DoD in general and

“The mission of the acquisition workforce, including the

acquisition training community, is ultimately to provide

support to the warfighter,

when and where required.” 

—Claude M. Bolton Jr.

Assistant Secretary 

of the Army

(Acquisition, Logistics &

Technology)
48 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

DAU specifically operated in the past.

“All leaders must use their knowledge,

experience, and intuition when making

decisions,” he stated, “but smart leaders use knowledge, experience, intuition, and metrics. 

“Regardless of the challenges we in the

acquisition training community face,”

Anderson concluded, “we must always

keep foremost in our minds that all of

our efforts, large and small, must constantly be reassessed to ensure that we

are always providing our very best in

support of the needs of the warfighter.” 

Customer Perspective

Claude M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary

of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and

Technology) and Army Acquisition Executive represents the Army’s acquisition workforce—customers—who receive training/certification through DAU.

His diverse background affords him the

ability to assess situations from various

perspectives. Bolton was a warfighter

and aviator tested in combat, served as

Commandant of the Defense Systems

Management College (DSMC), directed

the Air Force Materiel Center (AFMC),

and is a 1986 graduate of the NWC, to

name a few. 

“This is an unprecedented time of transformation,” Bolton told me. “The Army

has not seen such change in over 100

years.” Although a great deal of progress

is being made, he is concerned that we

may be slipping in the acquisition community. He believes that rescinding the

DoD 5000 series may be a part of the

challenge because the 5000 gave managers direction on how to manage—and

now that guidance may no longer be

relevant.

Bolton supports DAU’s e-Learning strategic direction in that, because of TDY

constraints, incremental packages of tailored learning, delivered via e-Learning,

represent a vehicle that the Army and

DoD as a whole will have to perfect and

utilize more in the future.

Noting that some new, innovative, and

exciting changes are going on within

DAU/DSMC, Bolton added that he

would like to see a course(s) on “Lead

Systems Integration” and “Other Transaction Authority” as opposed to all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based

training. 

Returning to his main focus during the

interview—the warfighter—Bolton concluded, “The mission of the acquisition

workforce, including the acquisition

training community is ultimately to provide support to the warfighter, when

and where required.” 

More Joint Operations

In March 2003, I entered my last

trimester at Naval War College, “Joint

Military Operations (JMO).” Jointness

has been a constant theme throughout

our seminars, and a topic we as students

have debated and discussed extensively.

Our discussions invariably concluded

that the Services as we currently know

them will not soon disappear and our

armed forces become one Service, but

most if not all of us agree that more joint

operations will and should take place

in the future. My personal conclusion

is that we will see more joint operations,

more joint acquisitions, and more training on developing joint policies,

processes, and procedures for joint acquisitions. 

Finally, although we are allocating energies and monetary resources for transformation throughout the Department,

we are not preparing for the future at

the expense of maintaining our current

military superiority. It is still very reassuring for me to learn first-hand at NWC

that Air Dominance, Forward Naval Presence, and Boots on the Ground! are still

the warfighting strategies upon which

our acquisition and procurement efforts

must focus.

Editor’s Note: The author welcomes

questions or comments on this article.

Contact her at marcia.richard@dau.mil.

IN MEMORIAM

Paul O. Ballou Jr.

T

he Defense Acquisition University has received word of the death of Dr. Paul O.

Ballou Jr., in mid-June 2003, from a sudden massive brain hemorrhage. Often referred

to around campus as the “Kentucky Colonel,”

Paul joined the Defense Systems Management

College (DSMC) as a Professor of Contract

Management and Financial Management

(1978-79), and in 1980 became a Professor

of Multinational Program Management. 

He came to the college with more than 26

years of acquisition experience in buying

and selling for major companies and government agencies. Prior to joining DSMC, he was Acquisition Management Officer for the U.S. Army Information System Selection and Acquisition

Agency; Director of Acquisition, Defense

Mapping Agency Systems Center; and Director of Acquisition, National Defense

Stockpile at the General Services Administration. He had extensive industry experience with the Hughes Aircraft Company

and United Technologies Corporation in

the fields of finance, contracts, and administration.

Paul was interred in Kentucky in June 2003.

He is survived by his wife, Patricia, son Paul III, and daughter Jane.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 49

DAU Board of Visitors

Welcomes Six New Members

KELLEY BERTA

April 15, 2003, was a historic day

for the DAU Board of Visitors

(BoV). It was the first time a full

day of orientation briefings was

offered to a class of incoming

BoV members. Dr. J. Ronald Fox, BoV

Chairperson, and Frank J. Anderson Jr.,

DAU President, welcomed six new

members to the advisory board: David

J. Berteau, Syracuse University; Dr.

Priscilla H. Douglas, PHDouglas and Associates; Nicholas W. Kuzemka, Lockheed Martin; John F. Phillips, Honeywell; retired Air Force Gen. Bernard P.

Randolph; and retired Army Gen.

William G. T. Tuttle. 

Anderson opened the orientation day

with an explanation of the transformation of DAU from a classroom-based institution of the 20th century to a customer-centric learning organization of

the 21st century. With DAU's vision and

mission aligned with the goals of the

Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), Phase 1 of the

transformation focused on the organization and Phase 2 with processes. Phase

3 will be a period of harmonization, integration, and improvement. 

Following Anderson's introduction, the

members were provided a virtual tour

of DAU's five regional campus facilities.

The director of each staff component of

the University presented an overview of

the mission and functions of his or her

component, and the Dean of the DSMC

School of Program Managers discussed

the executive and international training

responsibilities of his organization. 

On April 16, the current board members joined the new consultants for the

standing quarterly BoV meeting. In addition to those listed previously, board

members include: Charles E. “Pete”

Adolph, SAIC; R. Stephen Ayers, SAIC;

Dr. J. Ronald Fox, Harvard University;

Stephen R. Mercer, Boeing; Robert J.

Murray, The CNA Corporation; and

James L. Sanford, Northrop Grumman.

The board bid farewell to three longSeated from left: James L. Sanford, Northrup Grumman; Dr. J.

Ronald Fox, Harvard University; Frank J. Anderson Jr., DAU; Peter

DeMayo, Consultant.

Standing from left: Retired Army Gen. William G.T. Tuttle Jr, Consultant; David J. Berteau, Syracuse University; Robert J. Murray, The

CNA Corporation; Eric M. Levi, Consultant; Charles E. "Pete" Adolph,

SAIC; Dr. Priscilla H. Douglas, PHDouglas and Associates; retired Air

Force Gen. Bernard P. Randolph, Consultant; John F. Phillips, Honeywell; R. Stephen Ayers, SAIC; James M. Gallagher, The Dayton Group;

Stephen R. Mercer, Boeing; Nicholas W. Kuzemka, Lockheed Martin. 

Photo by Army Staff Sgt. Kevin Moses

standing members: Peter DeMayo, Consultant; James M. Gallagher, The Dayton Group; and Eric M. Levi, Consultant.

Since its inception as an academic institution, DAU has been subject to governance and guidance from the BoV on

organizational, administrative, and curricular matters. All BoV members, past

and present, have been invaluable to the

foresight, planning, and progress of DAU

as an institution. Although the departure of three longstanding members will

leave an undeniable void, DAU and the

remaining BoV members look forward

to continuing their association with former members, and working with the

new members on several challenging

initiatives the University is undertaking

in 2003. 

Editor's Note: Berta is the Director, Outreach and Communications, Strategic

Planning, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, Va.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Wieringa is temporarily assigned to Program Executive Officer, Tactical Aircraft Systems, Patuxent

River, Md. 

BEST PRACTICES

Spiral Development and the F/A-18

Parallels from the Past Emerge in Spiral

Development of the F/A-18A through F Variants

REAR ADM. (SEL) JEFFREY A. WIERINGA, USN

50

S

piral development is being invoked as the preferred current

method of procuring weapon systems. Although it is generally accepted that spiral development was

first articulated by

Barry Boehm in 1988,

some of its distinguishing features, such

as a cyclic approach for

incrementally growing

a system's degree of definition and implementation, can be

found in the archives

chronicling the Navy's

development of the

F/A-18 strike fighter,

with particular attention to this aircraft's

most recently enhanced

variants—the singleseat F/A-18E and the

dual-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. 

Historical Background

Parallels from the past may be worthy

of study by those in charge of spiral development in the future. Interesting

comparisons can be made between the

Navy's developmental efforts with F/A18E/F, a truly evolutionary development,

and more revolutionary developments

in weapon systems attempted over the

years. Those who are to implement spiral development in the future might gain

valuable insight from a study of the F/A18E/F. Even the original F/A-18A, which

F/A-18E Super Hornet.

U.S. Navy Lt. Corey Pritchard

earned a place in aviation

history books July 24,

2002, when he became the

first pilot to land a Super

Hornet during its first

deployment onboard an aircraft carrier. After a 45-

minute flight from Naval Air

Station Lemoore, Calif.,

Pritchard brought his F/A18E Super Hornet onto the

deck of the USS Abraham

Lincoln. 

Photo Courtesy Boeing Media
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 51

first flew on Nov. 18, 1978, was in some

ways a precursor of spiral development. 

It had started out with the objective of

producing a truly multimission strike

fighter, one that could replace both the

aging F-4 Phantom in the fighter role,

and the aging A-7 Corsair II in the light

attack role. In addition to being truly

multimission, the F/A-18 was also designed to be affordable, not only in developmental and acquisition cost, but

even more importantly in life cycle cost

where the key to success was a significant improvement in both reliability and

maintainability. All of these goals were

achieved. 

The original F/A-18 continued to evolve

successfully, partly because it was designed from the outset with future improvements in mind. Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) was that era's

buzzword-equivalent of spiral development. The P3I purists, however, insisted

that the F/A-18 wasn't an authentic example of P3I because its designers, developers, and managers got started without really knowing for sure precisely

which enhancements it was to incorporate or exactly when or how they were

intended to be incorporated.

Today these very uncertainties are considered by some to be highly useful traits

in spiral development. One authority

on spiral development puts it this way:

“When you do spiral development, you

do not know ahead of time when you

start at the beginning of spiral zero

where you're going to come out. As you

resolve the risks, you may even redesign

what you are trying to accomplish.”

Digital Architecture

One of the keys to the Hornet's success,

and to that of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as well, was its digital architecture.

The ingeniously designed multiplex bus,

with its ability to integrate the evolving

software of the mission computer, the

flight control computer, and approximately 30 additional microprocessors

located throughout the airplane, gave

the original F/A-18 the potential for

more than 20 years of growth and enhancement in weapons, sensors, countermeasures, and other systems. It had

spiraled so vigorously that by the time

the larger, longer range, more survivable, more versatile Super Hornet came

to be designed, 80 percent of the Hornet's avionics had been updated so successfully that they could be used for the

Super Hornet. By this time, however,

the original F/A-18A/B had spiraled up

through C and D versions and no longer

had the electrical, cooling, and volume

capacity to handle all the new weapons,

sensors, countermeasures, and other

systems that were becoming available

for the Super Hornet. 

Just as the original Hornet depended

on spiral development for its success,

the Super Hornet has followed the

same path. The first Super Hornets, deployed on board USS Abraham Lincoln

last summer, signify simply the first

turn of their own spiral, but a very hefty

segment at that: they embody the additional range, payload, and bringback

that were the aircraft's initial objectives;

they incorporate considerably greater

survivability than their predecessors;

and they are capable of serving as airborne tankers. 

Even though the F/A-18E/F and its

evolving systems and subsystems may

not fit everyone's definition of evolutionary acquisition and spiral development, anyone attempting a spiral development in the future would benefit

from a study of them. 

Other Systems/Subsystems

One of the more interesting subsystems

of the F/A-18E/F is its Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures

suite. An outgrowth of the countermeasure systems that evolved on the

F/A-18A/B/C/D versions, it in turn will

continue its spiral through a phased approach. 

Block 1

Its Block 1 includes a proven jammer,

the ALQ-165—an operationally successful jammer incorporated in latemodel F/A-18C/D aircraft and now also

included in the F/A-18C/D aircraft flying with the air forces of allied nations.

Additional protection is provided by the

ALE-50 towed decoy. 

Block 2

In Block 2, the ALQ-165 will be replaced

by the ALQ-214 radar frequency countermeasures system, a “techniques generator” that determines an appropriate

signal to counter an attacking missile. 

Block 3

In Block 3, the ALE-50 will be replaced

by the ALE-55 fiber-optic towed decoy.

With this combination, the ALQ-214

will generate an optimal signal to

counter the incoming threat, to be transmitted by the ALE-55 towed decoy. The

phased, spiral approach of the Super

Hornet's electronic warfare capability is

designed to increase survivability in proportion to the evolving threat.

Other systems and subsystems of the

F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F will be of equal interest to future spiral developers. The

General Electric F400-GE-400 engine

powered the original F/A-18 aircraft. On

later model F/A-18C/D aircraft it was

replaced by the F400-GE-402, the enhanced performance engine. Profiting

from lessons learned in designing an engine for the A-12 program, General Electric developed a larger and even more

powerful engine for the F/A-18E/F, the

GE-414-400. 

Parallel Evolutions

Parallel evolutions in radar, forwardlooking infrared sensors, landing gear,

weapons launchers, and reconnaissance

systems for the Super Hornet each provide fascinating areas for explorations

in spiral development, even though

probably none of them would satisfy the

precise philosophical criteria for this definition. But for those interested in “Applied” rather than “Theoretical” spiral

development, the F/A-18 evolution from

A to F models will provide a fertile field. 

Because of the F/A-18E/F's carefully designed-in capacity for growth, each successive deployment of Super Hornets

will see additional spirals of enhanced

capability, primarily through the incorporation of still newer weapons, 

sensors, countermeasures, and other

systems currently in test, under development, or simply on the drawing

boards of aeronautical engineers. 
52 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Even though the F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F

variants were designed without the conscious use of the invariant characteristics of the spiral development process,

they did incorporate many of these characteristics. They employed in each cycle,

concurrent rather than sequential determination of key artifacts: operational

concept, requirements, plans, and design, thus avoiding premature sequential commitments. Each cycle took into

consideration critical stakeholder objectives and constraints, product and

process alternatives, risk identification

and resolution, and stakeholder review

and commitment to proceed, thus

avoiding commitment to alternatives

that were risky or unacceptable to stakeholders.

The level of effort and degree of detail

in each activity within each cycle was

driven by risk considerations, avoiding

too little or too much of each activity

and avoiding overkill or belated risk resolution. Stakeholder life cycle commitments were managed through the establishment of realistic milestones,

avoiding analysis paralysis, unrealistic

expectation, requirements creep, architectural drift, Commercial Off-the-Shelf

shortfalls or incompatibilities, unsustainable architectures, traumatic cutovers, and useless systems. Emphasis

was placed on system and life cycle activities and artifacts rather than initial

development activities and artifacts, thus

avoiding premature suboptimization on

hardware, software, or development

considerations. 

Students of spiral development can find

a wealth of information on exactly how

the Hornet and Super Hornet blazed the

spiral trail by referring to three comprehensive books on these aircraft: Orr Kelly,

HORNET: The Inside Story of the F/A-18,

Presidio Press, 1990; Dennis Jenkins,

F/A-18 Hornet: A Navy Success Story, McGraw Hill, 2000; and Brad Elward, THE

BOEING F/A-18 HORNET and SUPER

HORNET, Specialty Press, 2000.

Editor's Note: The author welcomes

questions or comments on this article.

Contact Jackie Johnson at JohnsonJK

@navair.navy.mil.

Rear Adm. (Sel) Jeffrey A.

Wieringa's naval service began in

1973 through the Aviation Reserve Officer Candidate (AVROC) program. He graduated from Kansas State

College, Pittsburg, Kan., with a Bachelor of Science in Physics in 1975. Following his commissioning as an Ensign in 1976, he was designated as a

Naval Aviator in 1977.

Following A-6 Intruder training at

VA-128, he reported to Attack

Squadron One Four Five where he

completed two cruises on board USS

Ranger. His next assignment was to Air

Test and Evaluation Squadron Five

(VX-5) as an Operational Test Director for numerous bomb, missile, and

fuze projects. This tour culminated

with the Fleet introduction of the Skipper II missile with air wings on board

USS John F. Kennedy and USS Independence stationed off the coast of Beirut,

Lebanon.

After A-6 refresher training at VA128 he reported to Attack Squadron

One Six Five where he completed two

cruises on board USS Kitty Hawk. During this tour he conceived and executed a program that established a tactics department within the squadron.

As a result of his performance on this

tour, he was selected as “The Outstanding Naval Aviator U.S. Pacific

Fleet.” Starting in July 1987, he was

selected to attend the U.S. Naval Test

Pilot School (TPS). He completed the

curriculum as class leader for TPS Class

93, and was designated an Engineering Test Pilot in June 1988. His following tour was with the Naval Air

Test Center, Strike Aircraft Test Directorate, as Ordnance Systems Department Head and project test pilot. His

flight test responsibilities included ordnance carriage and separation as well

as carrier suitability envelope expansion flights on A-6 and A-7 aircraft.

In July 1990 he was designated an

Aeronautical Engineering Duty Officer and reported to the Naval Air Systems Command as the A-12 Avionics

Systems Project Officer and later the

AX Program as Assistant Program Manager (Systems Engineering) or “Class

Desk Officer.” In June of 1993 he completed F/A-18 flight training at VFA106 and reported to Patuxent River

Naval Air Station, Md., where he was

assigned as the F/A-18 Project Coordinator. His responsibilities included

the coordination of all F/A-18-related

efforts throughout the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division.

Wieringa screened for selection as

Deputy Program Manager, PMA-265

as the co-leader for the F/A-18E/F Integrated Program Team until July 1998.

He then held the office of Executive

Director for Operations in the Research

and Engineering Department within

the Naval Air Systems Command.

Wieringa commanded the F/A-18 Program, PMA-265 from April 2000

through May 2003. Capping the numerous accomplishments during his

command was the successful first combat deployment of the Super Hornet in

Operation Iraqi Freedom and 250 F/A18s. In May of 2003, he was selected

for Rear Admiral (Lower Half). 

Wieringa has flown 40 different

types of aircraft, including the F/A-18F

Super Hornet, accumulating over 4,000

flight hours and 534 carrier landings.

His personal awards include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service

Medal (two awards), Navy/Marine

Corps Commendation Medal (four

Awards), and the Navy Achievement

Medal. 

REAR ADM. (SEL) JEFFREY A. WIERINGA

F/A-18 Program Manager

April 2000—May 2003
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 53

The theme of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and

Material Shortages (DMSMS) 2003 Conference is

“DMSMS Excellence: Essential in Peace...Indispensable

in War.” DMSMS impacts every Air Force, Army, and Navy

weapon system. The objective of this year's conference is to

focus on the need for proactive DMSMS management to support the warfighter. As the military seeks a quicker, more lethal

warfighting capability, we must also implement business practices that respond to non-availability issues rapidly and efficiently. This conference will present an opportunity to hear the

views of military leaders on what will be required to support

the modern warfighter and a forum to discuss the best programmatic, technical, and logistics approaches. Additionally,

breakout sessions covering Industrial Base issues and detailing

the Electronic Parts Obsolescence Initiative (EPOI) have been

added. For additional information, please contact James Neely,

DMSMS 2003 Chairman, at (937) 904-43! 74 or email:

james.neely@wpafb.af.mil. Or, if you have questions about the

conference in general, contact Tracy Tapia at (937) 426-2808.

ext. 244, email: ttapia@utcdayton.com, or visit the DMSMS

Web site at http://www.dmsms2003.utcdayton.co.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Tapp is a public affairs specialist in the Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS), at Fort Belvoir, Va. 

INFORMATION DOMINANCE

PEO EIS Industry Day 2003

Developing a Shared Understanding to

Support the Warfighter

K E L LY TA P P

54

T

he Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association

(AFCEA) Belvoir Chapter hosted

the first Program Executive Office Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS) Industry Day on March

26, 2003, at the Fairview Park Marriott

in Falls Church, Va. Industry Day was

conceived by PEO EIS as a means to

help develop a shared understanding

between vendors from the private sector and PEO EIS Program Managers

(PMs). As such, it provided a unique

forum for PMs to meet with industry

counterparts, share ideas and best practices, and develop innovative strategies

best suited to meet the PEO EIS mission.

Supporting the Warfighter

PEO EIS is responsible for developing,

acquiring, and deploying tactical and

non-tactical information technology systems and communications to assure the

Department of Defense and the U.S.

Army of victory through information

dominance. To that end, PEO EIS is dedicated to supporting the warfighter

through infostructure and information

management systems. 

Participation in Industry Day exceeded

initial projections and demonstrated

readiness by both PMs and the private

sector to form partnerships to help the

warfighter. Fifty-five vendors from the

private sector, 17 Project and Product

Managers from PEO EIS, and teams

from Army Knowledge On-Line and

Navy-Marine Corps Internet exhibited

at the conference. Over 400 participants

attended the full conference and more

than 140 others registered to view the

exhibit hall. 

Welcome

Welcoming the participants to the first

PEO EIS Industry Day was Kevin Carroll, Army Program Executive Officer

for Enterprise Information Systems. Reviewing the origins of PEO EIS, he explained that PEO EIS is actually a recent

consolidation of three other organizations: Program Executive Office, Standard Army Management Information

Systems (PEO STAMIS); Communications Electronics Command (Army) Systems Management Center (CECOM

SMC); and Acquisition, Logistics and

Technology Enterprise Systems and Services (ALTESS).

PEO EIS, Carroll said, is a pivotal information technology enabler responsible for implementing its three Deputy

Program Executive Offices: Business Information Systems, Army Enterprise,

and Communications. A large number

of EIS systems, he added, are supporting operations in Southwest Asia with

on-the-ground government and contractor partner support teams.

BIS Project Manager

Presentations

Following Carroll’s remarks, Deputy Program Executive Officer for Business Information Systems (BIS) Gregory Kee

introduced the BIS Project Managers.

Focusing on the business tools needed

to achieve total information dominance,

the PMs discussed their products and

programs, sharing information on how

they are working to provide such tools.

LT. COL. JOSEPH KLUMPP, PRODUCT

MANAGER, ARMY HUMAN

RESOURCES SYSTEM (AHRS)

Klumpp discussed how AHRS supports

commanders with an automated personnel management system that serves

the Army during peacetime, during mobilization, in war, and during demobilization.

COL. STEPHEN BROUGHALL,

PROJECT MANAGER FOR LOGISTICS

INFORMATION SYSTEMS (LIS)

Broughall demonstrated how LIS products and programs direct, coordinate,

report, and evaluate all functional, programmatic, and technical aspects of assigned standard Army logistics systems. 

LT. COL. CLAUDE HINES, PRODUCT

MANAGER FOR MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR COMBAT CASUALTY

CARE (MC4)

Hines explained MC4’s role in developing and deploying to the Army an integrated family of medical communications and automated information

systems to enhance Army and Joint

combat casualty care, whether at peace

or war. These systems, according to

Hines, provide commanders with visibility of their medical situation as well

as the status of their troops. 

GARY WINKLER, PROJECT MANAGER

FOR TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION

SYSTEMS (TIS)

Winkler described how TIS automates

the processes of planning, organizing,

coordinating, and controlling unit-related deployments, sustainment, dayto-day Installation Transportation Offi-
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 55

cer/Transportation Management Officer

operations, redeployment, and retrograde operations in support of the Defense Transportation System. 

MAJ. JOSEPH JEFFERSON, ASSISTANT

PROJECT MANAGER FOR TACTICAL

LOGISTICS DATA DIGITIZATION

(TLDD)

Jefferson described the project as the

collaboration of multiple information

technology initiatives that will result in

automating current supply and maintenance processes to reduce paper and

clerical errors on the battlefield.

Keynote Speaker

Lt. Gen. Peter Cuviello, Army Chief Information Officer/G6, addressed Industry Day attendees during a lunchtime presentation. Cuviello’s presentation

focused on making the Army more

knowledge-enabled and network-centric. Recent Army directives, he noted,

call for a more wired backbone and significant server and application consolidations. Part of the struggle to consolidate servers, he said, is getting through

the “if I don’t own it, and I don’t run it,

it isn’t [worth anything] mentality.”

Cuviello said that the Army has been

able to track most of its vehicles and

troops on the ground in Iraq through

contributions of PEO EIS technologies.

The new PEO EIS satellite-based Movement Tracking System (MTS), together

with other satellite, Global Positioning

System (GPS), and mapping systems

technology significantly improved tracking of, and communications with, vehicles in the field—a concept known as

Blue Force Tracking. Improved Blue

Force Tracking, Cuviello said, provides

commanders with a continual, near-realtime picture of where military vehicles

are at any given moment. The system

provides communications technology

in places where standard radios fail, giving warfighters the information when

they need it.

Cuviello also described how PEO EIS

Automatic Identification Technologies

(AIT) of Radio Frequency Identification

Device (RFID) tags and In Transit Visibility (ITV) programs added to supply

and inventory management. These technologies, he explained, eliminate the

need to have soldiers in the field open

shipping containers to determine their

contents and routing.

The Army’s technologies, Cuviello noted,

have been holding up well during the

war in Iraq. “If this isn’t an operational

test, then there isn’t one that can be done

in any of the test sites we have around

the nation,” he said. “Things are working.”

Army Enterprise Project

Manager Presentations

Col. Wellsford “Wells” Barlow, Deputy

Program Executive Officer for Army Enterprise (AE), introduced Project Managers under AE working on innovative

projects.

LT. COL. CHUCK HOPPE, PRODUCT

MANAGER FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE

SYSTEMS AND SERVICES (ALTESS)

Hoppe described the information management policy, guidance, support, and

services ALTESS provides in the development and acquisition of weapons and

materiel. ALTESS, he added, also provides specialized information management support and services to other Department of Defense and Army elements,

as well as the Acquisition Community

in support of the Army Acquisition Executive’s mission. 

COL. SHARON HOLMES, PROJECT

MANAGER FOR DISTRIBUTED LEARNING SYSTEM (DLS)

Holmes summarized how DLS is dedicated to providing a quality distance

learning system to all Army components

in the most expeditious and cost-effective manner possible.

COL. THOMAS HOGAN, PROJECT

MANAGER FOR ENTERPRISE

INFOSTRUCTURE (EI)

Hogan discussed how EI establishes an

operational architecture and infostructure for the enterprise by optimizing the

dynamic integration of key product offices responsible for the management

and implementation of processes and

systems critical to the goals of Army

Knowledge Management.

DAVID CUIMMO, PROJECT MANAGER

FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT &

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND PENTAGON RENOVATION (IM&T-PR)

Cuimmo talked about the effort to provide intensive centralized product management of the modernization and replacement of IM&T services and

capabilities during the renovation of the

Pentagon.

OLGA LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT

PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE ARMY

SMALL COMPUTER PROGRAM

Lawrence reviewed the goal to provide

information technology excellence

through innovative products and support services that meet the automation

needs of its customers, while ensuring

standardization, interoperability, and

state-of-the-art technology.

Communications Project

Manager Presentations

Joanne Powell, Deputy Program Executive Officer for Communications, foIndustry Day was

conceived by PEO

EIS as a means to

help develop a

shared

understanding

between vendors

from the private

sector and PEO EIS

Program Managers.
U.S. ARMY

PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE

OFFICE

ENTERPRISE

INFORMATION

SYSTEMS 

(PEO EIS)

INDUSTRY 

DAY 2003

56 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Claude M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,

Logistics and Technology, delivers the Feature Address at the inaugural PEO EIS Industry Day 2003.

Kevin Carroll, Program Executive Officer Enterprise Information Systems; Shelia Andahazy, President AFCEA Belvoir Chapter; and

Bolton agree that planning should begin now for PEO EIS Industry

Day 2004. Carroll delivered the welcome address for the day’s

events and Andahazy the concluding remarks.

Army Maj. C.J. Wallington, Army

Knowledge On-Line (AKO); Army

Lt. Gen. Peter Cuviello, Army

Chief Information Officer/G6; Andahazy; and Carroll discuss the

road map whereby AKO will be

the collaboration portal to which

Army activities migrate information for the network-centric Army

of the future. Cuviello delivered

the PEO EIS Industry Day 2003

keynote address.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 57

David Ciummo, Project Manager for Information Management &

Telecommunications-Pentagon Renovation talks about intensive

centralized product management during the renovation of the Pentagon.

Gary Winkler, Project Manager for Transportation Information

Systems (TIS), describes how TIS automates the processes of planning, organizing, coordinating, and controlling unit-related

deployments in support of the Defense Transportation System. 

Army Col. N. Lee Price, Project Manager for the Defense Communications and Army Transmission Systems (DCATS) discusses the

achievements of DCATS in supporting the Joint Warfighters, Major

Commands, and Combatant Commanders.

Army Col. Stephen Broughall, Project Manager for Logistics Information Systems (LIS) demonstrates how LIS products and programs direct, coordinate, report, and evaluate all functional, programmatic,

and technical aspects of assigned standard Army logistics systems. 

William Smith, Project Manager of Defense Communications and

Army Switched Systems (DCASS), describes the overall project

management of global Defense Communications Systems (DCS).

Army Col. Sharon Holmes, Project Manager for Distributed Learning

System (DLS), summarizes how DLS is dedicated to providing a

quality distance learning system to all Army components.
U.S. ARMY

PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE

OFFICE

ENTERPRISE

INFORMATION

SYSTEMS 

(PEO EIS)

INDUSTRY 

DAY 2003

58 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 Photos by Richard Mattox

Joanne Powell, Deputy Program Executive Officer for

Communications, introduces Communications Program Managers. 

Gregory Kee, Deputy Program Executive Officer Army Information

Systems, introduces the Business Information Systems (BIS) Project

Managers.

Shelia Andahazy (seated), President

AFCEA Belvoir Chapter, explores the

wireless technology of Combat Service

Support Automated System Interface

(CAISI)–the last mile solution. CAISI provided connectivity for PMs at PEO EIS

Industry Day 2003. Observers standing

from left are Joanne Powell, Deputy

PEO Communications; Kevin Carroll,

PEO EIS; Army Maj. Salvatore Fiorella;

and Linda Valenzano, PM DCATS. 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 59

Army Col. Thomas Hogan, Project Manager for Enterprise Infostructure (EI), discusses how EI establishes an operational architecture

and infostructure.

Army Lt. Col. William "Chuck" Hoppe, Product Manager for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Enterprise Systems and Services

(ALTESS) describes services ALTESS provides in the development

and acquisition of weapons and materiel. 

Army Lt. Col. Claude Hines, Product Manager for Medical Communications for Combat Casualty Care (MC4) explains MC4's role in developing and deploying medical automated information systems. 

Army Lt. Col. Joseph Klumpp, Product Manager, Army Human

Resources System (AHRS), discusses how AHRS supports commanders. 

cused on innovative communications

systems, and subsequently introduced the Communications Project

Managers. 

WILLIAM SMITH, PROJECT MANAGER

OF DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AND

ARMY SWITCHED SYSTEMS (DCASS)

Smith described the overall project management of global Defense Communications Systems (DCS), Army non-tactical secure/nonsecure command and

control (C2) base information voice systems, data switching systems, and associated networks.

COL. N. LEE PRICE, PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE DEFENSE COMMUNICATIONS AND ARMY TRANSMISSION

SYSTEMS (DCATS)

Price discussed the achievements of

DCATS in supporting the Joint Warfighters, Major Commands, and Combatant

Commanders with dedicated worldwide

strategic satellite ground components,

long haul terrestrial microwave communication systems, tech control facilities, command center upgrades, base

radios, combat vehicle intercom systems, and deployed forces infrastructure. 

Feature Address

Claude M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary

of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics,

and Technology, delivered the Industry

Day Feature Address. He began by discussing his current role as the Army Acquisition Executive, focusing on his career in in the U.S. Air Force and many

PEO EIS implements

its three Deputy

Program Executive

Offices: Business

Information

Systems, Army

Enterprise, and

Communications.
After two years as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics

(AT&L), Edward C. “Pete”

Aldridge Jr., officially retired

from government on May 27, 2003.

Principal Deputy Under Secretary

(AT&L) Michael W. Wynne became the

Acting USD(AT&L). 

Aldridge was sworn in as Under Secretary on May 11, 2001. His career included 18 years of service in the Pentagon as an operations research analyst;

as the Director of Planning and Evaluation under current Secretary of Defense

Donald Rumsfeld during Rumsfeld’s first

tour as Secretary of Defense; and as

Under Secretary and then Secretary of

the Air Force under President Reagan. 

In the 1980s Aldridge was an astronautin-training in preparation for his participation as a payload specialist on the

first planned mission from Vandenberg

Air Force Base in California. 

During his tenure, Aldridge focused on

a theme of “Acquisition and Logistics

Excellence” and set five goals for the

AT&L workforce. In his resignation letter, Aldridge noted “significant progress

on accomplishing these five goals and

setting in place the acquisition, technology and logistics support activities”

necessary for defense transformation. 

Michael W. Wynne was sworn in as the

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(AT&L) on July 17, 2001. He also served

as the Principal Deputy to the Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology & Logistics. 

Wynne spent 23 years with General Dynamics in various senior positions with

aircraft (F-16), main battle tanks

(M1A2), and space launch vehicles (Atlas

and Centaur). He also spent three years

with Lockheed Martin, having sold the

Space Systems Division to [then] Martin Marietta. He successfully integrated

the division into the Astronautics Company and became the general manager

of the Space Launch Systems segment,

combining the Titan with the Atlas

Launch vehicles. 

Prior to joining industry, Wynne served

in the Air Force for seven years, leaving

active duty as a captain and assistant professor of astronautics at the U.S. Air Force

Academy in Colorado, teaching control

theory and fire control techniques. 

60 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

years of experience in weapons systems

acquisition.

Surprising his audience with a pop quiz,

Bolton asked those attending to identify who wrote the first compiler and

who was the first recognized computer

programmer (Answer—Navy Adm.

Grace Hopper and Augusta Ada Byron,

respectively).

From this review of the roots of technology development, Bolton went on to

discuss the evolution of Army transformation through the development of the

Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS, he

said, is leading the Army to a Network

Concentric Unit of Action where the soldier and the network are connected to

assure the Army of information dominance. An enthusiastic “Hoo-AH” from

the audience greeted Bolton’s announcement of the Army’s goal of victory through information dominance.

Using a dynamic slide presentation,

Bolton demonstrated the concept of soldier-Web connectivity by forcing 200

legacy standalone systems through a

funnel to form a select group of Webenabled, joint systems. There is a great

need within the Army, he said, to reduce

unique legacy functional systems and

migrate to Web-enabled, joint systems.

A Worthy Cause

Sheila Andahazy, President of the

AFCEA Belvoir Chapter, concluded Industry Day 2003 by thanking attendees

for their participation. Andahazy noted

that $10,000 raised from Industry Day

will support the AFCEA Belvoir Chapter’s annual scholarship fund for promoting science and technology at the

local area secondary and middle schools,

in addition to helping graduating seniors as they pursue a science and technology curriculum in college.

Editor’s Note: For more information on

PEO EIS Industry Day 2003, including

copies of the presentations and event

photographs, visit the PEO EIS Web site

at http://www.eis.army.mil. For information on the AFCEA Belvoir Chapter,

visit the Chapter’s Web site at http://

www.horizons.com/afceabelvoir. 

Aldridge Retires, Wynne

Named Acting USD(AT&L)

E.C. “Pete” Aldridge Jr.

Former Under Secretary of Defense

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)

Michael Wynne

Acting Under Secretary of Defense

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)
FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

❑ PROGRAM MANAGER (PM) MAGAZINE

❑ ACQUISITION REVIEW QUARTERLY (ARQ) JOURNAL

❑ ACQUISITION TODAY NEWSLETTER

NAME AND TITLE (PLEASE PRINT)

ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

SIGNATURE

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

❑ PROGRAM MANAGER (PM) MAGAZINE

❑ ACQUISITION REVIEW QUARTERLY (ARQ) JOURNAL

❑ ACQUISITION TODAY NEWSLETTER

OLD ADDRESS

NAME AND TITLE (PLEASE PRINT)

ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ZIP

NEW ADDRESS

NAME AND TITLE (PLEASE PRINT)

ORGANIZATION

ADDRESS

CITY

STATE ZIP

SIGNATURE

PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 63

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS

(RELEASED APRIL 12, 2003)

DOD RELEASES SELECTED ACQUISITION

REPORTS FOR DECEMBER 2002 PERIOD

T

he Department of Defense has released details on major

defense acquisition program cost and schedule changes

since the September 2002 reporting period. This information is based on the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs)

submitted to the Congress for the Dec. 31, 2002, reporting

period. 

SARs summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule, and

technical status. These reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the president's budget. Subsequent quarterly

exception reports are required only for those programs experiencing unit cost increases of at least 15 percent or schedule delays of at least six months. Quarterly SARs are also

submitted for initial reports, final reports, and for programs

that are rebaselined at major milestone decisions. 

The total program cost estimates provided in the SARs include research and development, procurement, military construction, and acquisition-related operations and maintenance (except for pre-Milestone B programs, which are limited

to development costs pursuant to 10 USC §2432). Total program costs reflect actual costs to date as well as future anticipated costs. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances. 

The current estimate of program acquisition costs for programs covered by SARs for the prior reporting period (September 2002) was $1,112,183.1 million. After adding the

costs for two new programs (Joint Tactical Radio System

[JTRS] Cluster 1 and JTRS Waveform) in September 2002,

and subtracting the launcher portion of GMLRS [Guided

Multiple Launch Rocket System], the adjusted current estimate of program acquisition costs was $1,130,503.1 million. 

For the December 2002 reporting period, there was a net

cost decrease of $834.7 million or -0.1 percent for those programs that have reported previously, excluding costs for the

aforementioned programs submitting initial SARs. For this

submission, the initial SAR programs are Excalibur (Family

of Precision 155mm Projectiles), GCSS (Global Combat Support System) Army, HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket

System), Land Warrior and SSGN (Trident Conversion). 

The net cost decrease of $834.7 million was due primarily

to a net reduction in the planned quantities to be purchased

(-$48.8 billion) and the application of lower escalation indices (-$13.5 billion). These decreases were partially offset

by additional engineering changes (hardware/software)

(+$30.7 billion), higher program estimates (+$23.2 billion),

and a net stretchout of the development and procurement

schedules (+$7.4 billion). Further details of the most significant changes are summarized below by program:

New SARs (As of Dec. 31, 2002)

The Department of Defense has submitted initial SARs for

Excalibur (Family of Precision 155mm Projectiles), GCSS

(Global Combat Support System) Army, HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), Land Warrior and SSGN (Trident Conversion). These reports do not represent cost growth.

Baselines established on these programs will be the point

from which future changes will be measured. The current

cost estimates are provided below:

Current Estimate

($ in Millions)

September 2002 (70 programs) . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,112,183.1

Plus two new programs (JTRS Cluster 1 and . . . . .+20,027.3

JTRS Waveform)

Less final report on the completed launcher . . . . . .-1,707.3

portion of GMLRS (formerly MLRS Upgrade)

September 2002 Adjusted (72 programs) . . . .$1,130,503.1

Changes Since Last Report:

Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ -13,488.9

Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-48,835.5

Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+7,384.1

Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+30,662.0

Estimating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+23,163.0

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+13.2

Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .+267.4

Net Cost Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$-834.7

December 2002 (72 programs) . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,129,688.4

Program Current Estimate

($ in Millions)

Excalibur (Family of Precision 155mm . . . . .$4,798.7

Projectiles)

GCSS (Global Combat Support System) . . . . .1,689.4

Army

HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket . . . .4,312.9

System)

Land Warrior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2,844.4

SSGN (Trident Conversion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3,898.5

Total $ 17,543.9

IN THE NEWS
64 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Summary Explanations of Significant SAR Cost

Changes (As of Dec. 31, 2002)

Army

Abrams Upgrade (M1A2)—Program costs decreased by

$1,660.1 million (-18.3%) from $9,096.1 million to $7,436.0

million, due primarily to a reduction in the Service Extension Program (SEP) retrofit quantity of 378 SEPs (from 419

to 41 SEPs) and associated reductions in initial spares, peculiar support, and other weapon systems costs related to

the decrease in SEP retrofit quantity. 

ATACMS-BAT (Army Tactical Missile System-Brilliant Antitank)—Program costs decreased $4,085.1 million (-62.7%)

from $6,515.3 million to $2,430.2 million because the program was terminated. 

ATIRCM/CMWS (Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasure/Common Missile Warning System)—Program costs increased $1,052.1 million (+36.9%) from $2,851.4 million

to $3,903.5 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of

1,626 systems from 1,078 to 2,704 systems (+$386.8 million) and additional trainers and contractor logistics support (+$242.9 million). There were also increases for restoration of funding for Tier 2/3 threats, miniaturization, all band

laser capabilities, and incorporation of multi-band fiber optic

(+$99.1 million), and an increased cost estimate for ATIRCM

hardware (+$53.8 million). 

Black Hawk Upgrade (UH-60M)—Program costs increased

$1,154.3 million (+8.8%) from $13,183.5 million to

$14,337.8 million, due primarily to a reduced procurement

rate that stretched the program from FY22 to FY26 (+$593.4

million). There were also increases to incorporate MultiFunctional Displays (MFDs) (+$438.1 million), added capabilities for Dual Digital Flight Controls (+$330.9 million),

and the 701D engine (+$98.9 million). These increases were

partially offset by the application of revised escalation rates

(-$385.3 million). 

Bradley Upgrade—Program costs decreased by $1,463.0

million (-34.5%) from $4,245.8 million to $2,782.8 million, due primarily to a 442 vehicle reduction in the quantity of upgrades from 1,037 to 595 vehicles and associated

reductions in contractor engineering, initial spares, peculiar

support, training devices, and contractor logistics support

related to the decreased quantity. 

Comanche—Program costs decreased $9,581.9 million 

(-20.0%) from $47,905.6 million to $38,323.7 million, due

primarily to a quantity decrease of 563 aircraft from 1213

to 650 aircraft (-$12,688.6 million). These decreases were

partially offset by increases related to a stretchout of the annual procurement buy profile (+$615.8 million), a program

restructure that shifted to a Blocking Strategy (+$550.6 million), and cost growth prior to the restructure (+$632.7 million). There were further increases related to aircraft weight

growth (+$498.5 million), higher contractor overhead rates

(+$289.8 million), increased software integration and testing (+$273.6 million), and additional flight testing

(+$267.3M). 

FMTV (Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles)—Program costs

increased $1,195.7 million (+6.6%) from $18,074.4 million

to $19,270.1 million, due primarily to the addition of Embedded Diagnostic Hardware (+$757.0 million), a change

in the procurement buy profile in response to budgetary

constraints (+$555.1 million), and an upward revision in

hardware/engineering change estimates to reflect actual costs

extrapolated over the program life (+$356.5 million). These

increases were partially offset by the application of revised

escalation rates (-$463.5 million). 

GMLRS (Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System)—Program costs increased $1,140.7 million (+10.7%) from

$10,691.2 million to $11,831.9 million, due primarily to

the addition of unique hardware for a Unitary Warhead

(+$877.6 million) and higher estimates to accelerate the program (+$558.8 million). These increases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (-$340.4

million). 

MCS (Maneuver Control System)—Program costs increased

by $296.5 million (+28.5%) from $1,039.3 million to

$1,335.8 million, due primarily to a requirements change

reflecting the purchase of Standard Integrated Command

Post Shelters (SICPS) (previously funded outside the program) and the retrofit of previously purchased hardware to

support the change from Version 6.X to Version 7.X software (+$411.0 million). These increases were partially offset by a quantity decrease of 1,095 re-procurement systems

from 9,724 to 8,629 systems (-$67.8 million) and associated reductions in other weapon systems costs related to the

decrease in re-procurement systems (-$51.7 million). 

SMART-T (Secure Mobile Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical Terminal)—Program costs increased $196.5 million (+25.4%)

from $774.5 million to $971.0 million, due primarily to the

acquisition of Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF)

modification kits. 

Navy

AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle)—Program

costs increased by $982.5 million (+10.2%) from $9,640.3

million to $10,622.8 million, due primarily to higher estimates for the suspension, engine, and drive train (+$573.2

IN THE NEWS
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 65

IN THE NEWS

million), impacts of the one-year program restructure on the

System Development and Demonstration contract (+$324.6

million), a stretchout of the procurement buy profile for the

program restructure (+$158.1 million), and the addition of

survivability materials to the vehicle (+$116.1 million). These

increases were partially offset by the application of revised

escalation indices (-$261.9 million). 

DDG 51 Destroyer—Program costs decreased $3,224.0 million (-4.9%) from $66,026.7 million to $62,802.7 million,

due primarily to the quantity decrease of 2 ships from 64 to

62 ships (-$1,890.8 million) and an associated estimating

allocation* (-$672.4 million). There were additional decreases for the application of revised escalation indices 

(-$544.9 million) and for cost savings associated with the

FY02-05 Multi-Year Procurement contract award (-$330.0

million). 

E-2C Reproduction—Program costs increased $423.2 million (+10.8%) from $3,912.5 million to $4,335.7 million,

due primarily to an increase of 3 aircraft from 41 to 44 aircraft (+$218.6 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations* (+$31.8 million). There were

also additional increases related to the new aircraft for contractor and government furnished equipment (+$74.3 million), technical publications and production support (+$47.4

million), and initial spares (+$38.4 million). 

FA-18E/F—Program costs increased $1,959.1 million

(+4.0%) from $48,791.1 million to $50,750.2 million, due

primarily to additional engineering design for the new EA18G model (+$1,055.1 million). Additionally, the total quantity increased 4 aircraft from 548 to 552 aircraft (+$198.6

million), along with associated schedule and estimating allocations* (+$41.8 million). Of the previous quantity of 548

F/A-18E/F aircraft, 86 will now be produced as EA-18G aircraft; additionally, the aforementioned increase of 4 will be

produced as EA-18G's for a total of 90 EA-18G aircraft, leaving a total of 462 F/A-18E/F aircraft. Finally, there were increases in initial spares and peculiar support costs related to

the addition of EA-18G (+$1,016.9 million). 

JSOW (Joint Stand Off Weapon)—Program costs decreased

by $2,114.3 million (-29.9%) from $7,073.2 million to

$4,958.9 million, due primarily to a quantity decrease of

4,303 BLU-108 weapons (from 16,114 to 11,811 weapons)

associated with deferral of Navy and Air Force BLU-108 programs (-$1,193.7 million). There was also a significant decrease in the estimate for contractor manufacturing and support based on actual cost from the full rate production

contract (-$938.5 million). 

MH-60S (Fleet Combat Support Helicopter)—Program costs

increased $644.7 million (+12.0%) from $5,387.5 million

to $6,032.2 million, due primarily to additional requirements related to Link 16 and the Airborne Mine Countermeasure upgrades (+$440.7 million). Also, peculiar support

for trainers increased by $161.7 million. 

SSN 774 (Virginia Class Submarine)—Program costs increased $8,352.1 (+11.4%) million from $73,440.1 million

to $81,792.2 million, due primarily to program re-pricing

for additional Special Hull Treatment funding and increased

construction costs based on actual returns from the first four

submarines (+$3,569.5 million). There were additional increases attributed to higher industry inflation rates for labor

(+$3,407.9 million) and material (+$720.1 million), increased estimates for Government Funded Equipment (GFE)

(+$1,261.5 million), increases in estimates for change orders (+$954.8 million), and a stretchout of the annual procurement buy profile from FY15 to FY17 (+$815.0 million).

These increases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (-$1,181.3 million) and multi-year

procurement savings for FY14-17 at $150 million per sub

(-$1,200 million). 

T45TS (Naval Undergraduate Jet Flight Training System)—

Program costs increased $739.3 million (+13.3%) from

$5,569.6 million to $6,308.9 million, due primarily to an

increase of 28 aircraft from 183 to 211 aircraft (+$554.0 million), increases to initial spares (+$ 25.5 million), and other

logistics-related elements to support the additional aircraft

(+$111.8 million). There was also a delayed budget adjustment associated with contractor claim adjustments (+$41.6

million). 

Tactical Tomahawk—Program costs increased by $789.0M

(+36.4%) from $2,169.9 million to $2,958.9 million, due

primarily to a quantity increase of 671 missiles from 1,725

to 2,396 missiles (+$450.4 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations* (-$51.8 million). There were

additional increases related to a stretchout of the procurement profile (+$233.7 million) and revised missile hardware

estimates (+$122.0 million). 

V-22—Program costs increased by $2,021.9 million (+4.4%)

from $46,240.8 million to $48,262.7 million, due primarily to a change in scope of the return to flight Blocking requirements (+$756.0 million), a change in material and labor

rate estimates (+$1,205.1 million), and a revised estimate of

recurring flyaway items (i.e., GFE electronics, engineering

change orders, and ancillary equipment) (+$257.9 million). 
66 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

IN THE NEWS

Air Force

AEHF (Advanced Extremely High Frequency) Satellite—

Program costs decreased $644.4 million (-11.6%) from

$5,561.3 million to $4,916.9 million, due primarily to eliminating procurement for two satellites, satellites #4 and #5,

from the program (-$969.3 million). This quantity decrease

was partially offset by cost increases associated with a sixmonth slip of the first satellite launch from June 2006 to December 2006 (+$280.7 million). 

B-1B CMUP (Conventional Mission Upgrade Program)—

Program costs decreased $546.3 million (-34.5%) from

$1,581.3 million to $1,035.0 million, due primarily to termination of the Defensive System Upgrade Program (DSUP)

portion of the program (overall program quantities decreased

by 60 aircraft kits from 120 aircraft kits for both Computer

Upgrade and DSUP to 60 aircraft kits for Computer Upgrade

only). 

C-17A—Program costs increased $1,343.1 million (+2.3%)

from $58,998.3 million to $60,341.4 million, due primarily to additional funding for FY08-09 flexible sustainment

(+$1,526.7 million) and for FY08-09 systems engineering

project management, contractor furnished equipment and

mission support (+$225.7 million). These increases were

partially offset by the application of revised escalation rates

(-$703.9 million). 

EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle)—Program costs

increased $1,370.0 million (+7.2%) from $18,914.5 million

to $20,284.5 million, due primarily to assure access to space

by funding two viable launch service providers (+$539.0

million), and launch services adjustments to include mission assurance (+$527.5 million) and commercial market

price variations (+$287.2 million). There were additional

increases for payload weight growth (+$275.0 million) and

a stretchout of the annual procurement buy profile (+$132.3

million). These increases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation rates (-$411.0 million). 

F/A-22—Program costs increased $2,063.9 million (+3.0%)

from $69,721.4 million to $71,785.3 million, due primarily to updated cost estimates for engine (+$734.3 million)

and airframe (+$3,006.8 million) recurring costs, additional

risk (+$1,263.0 million), and reduced production cost savings (+$572.2 million). There were additional increases for

increased Engineering and Manufacturing Development

(EMD) cost (+$876.0 million), a stretchout of the annual

procurement buy profile (+$415.5 million), additional funding for system modernization (+$1,958.2 million), and the

application of revised escalation rates (+$359.5 million).

These increases were partially offset by a quantity reduction

of 63 aircraft from 341 to 278 aircraft (-$6,869.4 million)

and associated weapon system support costs (-$443.6 million). 

GBS (Global Broadcast Service)—Program costs increased

$94.0 million (+14.6%) from $645.7 million to $739.7 million, due primarily to a net increase of 303 receive suites

from 748 to 1,051 receive suites (+$98.7 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations* (+$14.2 million). In addition, there were increases to facilitate Internet

Protocol development (+$15.8 million) and Defense Emergency Response Funds (DERF) to facilitate two-person lift

development (+$7.0 million). These increases were partially

offset by a decrease in the estimated cost of Army receive

suites (-$41.5 million). 

Global Hawk—Program costs decreased by $1,031.7 million (-15.1%) from $6,846.6 million to $5,814.9 million,

due primarily to a directed reduction in program requirements and capabilities (-$478.9 million), a downward revision in program cost estimates to reflect actuals, contract negotiations, and overhead rate changes (-$402.4 million), and

the application of revised escalation rates (-$159.6 million). 

JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile)—Program costs

increased $887.6 million (+28.1%) from $3,163.2 million

to $4,050.8 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of

6 developmental test/operational test missiles for JASSM-Extended Range (ER) (+$6.8 million) and 640 procurement

missiles (from 3700 to 4340 missiles) (+$433.0 million).

There were also increases for JASSM-ER development and

additional capability engine/fuel costs (+$438.6 million). 

JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition)—Program costs increased $1,890.0 million (+48.9%) from $3,865.4 million

to $5,755.4 million, due primarily to quantity increases of

30,874 from 43,292 to 74,166 tail kits to the Navy and

59,332 from 92,679 to 152,011 tail kits to the Air Force in

support of Operation Enduring Freedom. 

NAS (National Airspace System)—Program costs increased

$344.6 million (+31.0%) from $1,112.7 million to $1,457.3

million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 2 systems

from 90 to 92 systems (+$13.3 million), technology refresh

(+$58.4 million), and additional airfield automation (+$41.9

million). There were also cost increases due to additional requirements, site installation/site adaptation and program extension (+$229.2 million). 

Navstar GPS (Global Positioning System)—Program costs

increased $920.1 million (+15.5%) from $5,937.2 million

to $6,857.3 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of

4 satellites from 33 to 37 satellites (+$288.4 million), the

addition of space modification costs not previously reported
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 67

IN THE NEWS

in the SAR (+$149.6 million), and additional requirements

for Flexible Power (+$301.0 million). The costs for the User

Equipment segment of the program increased to support

additional Military code (M-code) requirements (+$150.8

million). 

WGS (Wideband Gapfiller Satellites)—Program costs increased $667.2 million (+76.1%) from $876.9 million to

$1,544.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 2

satellites from 3 to 5 satellites (+$634.3 million), a radio frequency (RF) modification associated with satellites #4 and

#5 to support Airborne Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (+$63.2 million), and restoral of launch and

flight support services for satellites #1-3 in FY 2004-2007

(+$18.6 million). These increases were partially offset by a

decrease associated with contract savings through the use of

existing hardware, which resulted in a revised estimate for

Primary Injection Points for Gapfiller broadcast service 

(-$19.9 million). 

DoD

BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense System)—Program costs increased $15,679.4 million to $62,896.5 million, due primarily to the engineering changes associated with adding

Blocks 2008 and 2010 BMD capability and associated Mission Area Investment costs (+$17,997.4 million), and an increase to achieve Block 2004 Initial Defensive Capability

(+$1,451.5 million). These increases were partially offset by

engineering changes associated with the net realignment of

Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) and Medium Extended

Air Defense System (MEADS) development funds to the

Army (-$2,026.2 million), various DoD and Congressional

reductions (-$554.2 million), and economic and estimating

changes for inflation rate adjustments (-$1,194.1 million). 

JSF (Joint Strike Fighter)—Program costs decreased by

$26,721.9 million (-11.8%) from $226,458.3 million to

$199,736.4 million, due primarily to a decrease of 409 Navy

aircraft (from 2,866 to 2,457 aircraft) (-$25,434.9 million),

associated decreases in initial spares and support requirements (-$3,956.3 million), as well as the application of revised escalation rates (-$3,404.4 million). These decreases

were partially offset by increases in outyear costs due to production affects from lower aircraft quantities (+$2,623.7 million), the addition of International Commonality Effort

(+$1,270.0 million), refined engine program to optimize interchangeability (+$1,157.8 million), and revised estimating methodology from parametric to bottom-up (+$451.4

million). 

JSIMS (Joint Simulation System)—Program costs decreased

$362.1 million (-28.0%) from $1,293.3 million to $931.2

million, due primarily to the elimination of outyear funds 

(-$411.8 million), revision of funding expenditures (-$19.4

million), and Congressional reductions (-$12.6 million).

These decreases were partially offset by increases for the provision of funding to the Joint Warfighting Center to establish a Software Support Facility (+$75.6 million). 

* Quantity changes are estimated based on the original SAR

baseline cost-quantity relationship. Cost changes since the

original baseline are separately categorized as schedule, engineering, or estimating “allocations.” The total impact of a

quantity change is the identified “quantity” change plus all

associated “allocations.”

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.defenselink.mil/news.

U.S. ARMY NEWS SERVICE

(RELEASED MARCH 28, 2003)

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS (FCS) COMPLETES

CAPSTONE DEMONSTRATION 

Calling it the ‘graduation event’ in a series of demonstrations held during the course of the current phase of the

Future Combat Systems program, the Army, the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Lead

Systems Integrator (LSI) announced today the successful

completion of the program’s Capstone Demonstration. 

The Capstone Demonstration, which was conducted this

week at Fort Knox, Ky., and Fort Belvoir, Va., is a culmination and wrap-up of seven previous demonstrations held

during the FCS Concept and Technology Development (CTD)

phase. The demonstration was intended, in part, to illustrate

the FCS program concepts and to demonstrate the program’s

readiness for transition to the System Development and

Demonstration (SDD) phase. 

“The demonstrations have been instrumental in eliminating uncertainty and reducing risk; they have given us

valuable insights into the enhanced capabilities of an FCSequipped force,” said Col. William Johnson, Program Manager, Objective Force. “It’s been a tough and demanding year,

but the Army/DARPA/LSI team should be proud of their

tremendous accomplishments.” 

“I was especially pleased with the feedback from the soldiers at Ft. Knox taking part in the simulations,” Jerry McElwee, Vice President and FCS LSI Program Manager, said.

“They provided many frank and positive comments on the

simulated FCS capabilities added to their ability to accomplish assigned missions. More importantly, they helped us

identify those capabilities and areas that require more attention.” 
68 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

IN THE NEWS

The Capstone Demonstration consisted of a series of multimedia presentations, interwoven with a warfighting simulation of a Unit of Action that showed the overall capabilities of the FCS System of Systems—how it is organized, the

technologies behind it, how it is deployed, and how it is sustained. The simulation portion of the demonstration was executed at the Unit of Action Mounted Battle Laboratory at

Fort Knox, Ky., with a live video feed to the portal at Fort

Belvoir. 

FCS, the Army’s transformation program, is a networked

“family of systems” that uses advanced communications and

technologies to link the soldier with manned and unmanned

air and ground platforms and sensors. This highly agile and

lethal force will provide the tactical formations required to

fulfill the Army’s vision for an Objective Force. 

The LSI, working in partnership with the Army and

DARPA, has total systems performance responsibility for the

FCS program. The LSI manages the identification, selection,

and procurement of major systems and subsystems. The LSI

also works with the Army to develop the operational, systems, and technical architectures, which provide links to the

Objective Force as well as Joint, Interagency, and Multinational organizations. 

DARPA currently manages the FCS CTD phase of the program. Following entry into the SDD phase, the U.S. Army

Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems will

take responsibility for systems integration, production, fielding, and sustainment. The FCS first unit equipped will be

fielded in 2008, and the initial operational capability for the

first FCS-equipped Unit of Action will be in 2010. 

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS

(RELEASED APRIL 4, 2003)

EIGHTH ROUND OF BUSINESS INITIATIVES

APPROVED 

T

he Department of Defense announced today the DoD

Business Initiative Council (BIC) has approved additional initiatives intended to improve business practices

within the Department and enhance support to the warfighter.

A total of fifty-eight initiatives have now been approved for

implementation over the past 20 months. 

The five initiatives approved in this round were: eliminating the need for individual ready reserve recruits to replicate their primary skill training; streamlining the military

passport application process; accelerating congressional notification for validated combat needs; proposing changes to

thresholds for congressional notifications of newly initiated

projects; and re-engineering of depot maintenance reporting. 

The BIC was launched in July 2001 to implement bureaucracy-reducing and money-saving opportunities in the business practices of the Department of Defense. This is core to

Secretary Rumsfeld's broader “Battle on Bureaucracy” campaign, announced on Sept. 10, 2001. Events of the following day, and since, have not diminished the need to continue this “battle.” 

Along with other major improvement programs, BIC initiatives contribute to the overall objectives of more cost-effective use of DoD resources, better use of personnel, and more

rapid achievement of DoD goals. 

The council, established and presided over by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,

the Honorable Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge, is composed of

the Military Department Secretaries, the Under Secretary of

Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for

Personnel and Readiness, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff. The BIC reports directly to the Senior Executive Council, whose members include the Secretary and

Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and the Military

Department Secretaries. 

In approving this latest round of BIC initiatives, Aldridge

stated: “The Department is seeing real results from the previously approved initiatives and the enhancements to business processes are having a direct impact. The Department

has, for example, streamlined the process for disposing of

information technology equipment, developed a means for

the Services to share common flight clearance information,

improved the processes for purchasing software and hardware on an enterprise basis, re-engineered the process for

personnel security investigations, and obtained Congressional approval of a number of financial management authority changes.” 

Responsibility for administration of the BIC will now transfer to the Air Force from the Navy Department. 

This responsibility is being shared among the Services on a

six-month rotational basis to help assure commitment and

participation. This arrangement is in keeping with the Secretary's ongoing pledge to improve Departmental coordination and collaboration. 

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.defenselink.mil/news.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 69

IN THE NEWS

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS

(RELEASED APRIL 24, 2003) 

DEFENSE PROGRAM 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVED

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology

and Logistics (AT&L) Pete Aldridge today approved a

detailed plan to implement a new management structure for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program. Programmatic responsibilities for the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, the Joint Staff, Army, Defense Threat Reduction

Agency (DTRA), and a newly named Joint Program Executive Officer are included in the new plan. 

The Chemical and Biological Defense Program provides the

science and technology base, product development, and procurement for a range of items such as protective equipment,

chemical and biological agent detectors, decontamination

equipment, and medical countermeasures. The new plan

streamlines management structures and strengthens accountability for different elements of the program. The plan

also calls for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (AL&T)

Claude Bolton to report to Aldridge as the Defense Acquisition Executive for program implementation. The Joint Program Executive Officer will be Army Brig. Gen. Stephen V.

Reeves, who will report to Bolton. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense staff program oversight

will be accomplished by the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs

Dale Klein, and Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

for Chemical and Biological Defense Anna Johnson-Winegar. Requirements issues will be the responsibility of the Joint

Staff's Joint Requirements Office for Chemical, Biological,

Radiological and Nuclear Defense, led by Air Force Brig.

Gen. Stephen M. Goldfein. DTRA will manage the science

and technology portion of the program and will perform

program financial management functions. 

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.defenselink.mil/news.

AIR FORCE NEWS SERVICE

(RELEASED APRIL 14, 2003)

F/A-22 PROVIDES 

TECHNOLOGICAL LEAP FORWARD

Staff Sgt. A.J. Bosker, USAF

WASHINGTON, April 14, 2003—One cannot view the

F/A-22 Raptor as only a replacement for current Air

Force fighters, the Service's top acquisition official

told lawmakers April 11. 

“[The F/A-22] is basically a technological leap forward to

counter the threats we perceive [we will face] in the future,”

said Dr. Marvin R. Sambur, Assistant Secretary of the Air

Force for Acquisition, during testimony to the House Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National

Security. 

Responding to the subcommittee's concerns over the cost

and progress of the Raptor, Sambur explained that the Air

Force recently presented the Department of Defense with a

comprehensive business plan that outlined the need for and

viability of the F/A-22. 

“We're not here to give you excuses for problems of [past

F/A-22 program] performance,” he said. “We're trying to

make improvements now and in the future.” 

Air Force officials have taken a comprehensive look at

the need for the F/A-22, balanced that with other Service

needs, and determined that the Raptor is the way to go, Sambur said. 

Under the program's imposed cost cap, the Air Force will

only be able to procure 224 Raptors. However, the Air Force

needs at least 381 aircraft to fully meet air expeditionary

force, training, and maintenance requirements and to avoid

making the F/A-22 another high-demand, low-density asset,

Sambur said. 

The F/A-22 is developing and implementing state-of-theart technology, giving leading edge capabilities and pioneering

manufacturing techniques that will ultimately yield not only

the world's greatest aircraft, but will also establish an invaluable set of lessons learned to developing future complex

weapons systems, he said. 

The unique combination of capabilities increases the effectiveness of the entire joint force and makes any fight unfair. 

“The Raptor is the pathfinder and we have to do it right,”

Sambur said. 

Sambur said he was given a mandate from the Secretary

of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche and Air Force Chief of

Staff Gen. John P. Jumper to improve the way the Air Force

does business in delivering capability, such as the F/A-22, to

the warfighter. 

Over the past year, he and the acquisition community

have been working to determine the root causes of programs

not meeting established baselines and goals resulting in

slipped development times, reductions in deliveries, and increased costs. 

“Our findings indicate that unstable requirements, faulty

cost estimates, lack of test community buy-in, inadequate

systems engineering, and unstable funding have led to these

problems,” Sambur said. 
70 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Therefore, he said he instituted a series of measures to address these underlying causes. 

The first is a more agile acquisition policy that emphasizes collaboration between the warfighters, the acquisition

community, the engineers, and the testers to foster a team

mentality. 

“This team continues working together throughout the

requirements and development process, providing a stable

foundation for the overall program,” he said. 

The second measure addresses test community buy-in by

developing a seamless verification process to ensure that

both the development and operational tests occur in a single process. 

“By getting the operational testers involved early in the

process, they can assess the operational value of developmental testing and reduce the duplication of effort,” Sambur explained. 

Instilling a strong systems engineering foundation

in the acquisition process is the third step. Future acquisition strategy plans that lack the necessary attention to systems engineering will not be signed by future milestone decision authorities, he said. 

“I am also demanding that systems engineering performance be linked to contract award fees and to the

incentive construction,” Sambur said. 

The final measure, the implementation of a more

disciplined program priority process, will help reduce

problems from unstable funding, he said. 

“We will also insist on the use of spiral development methods for [future programs],” he told the subcommittee. 

Spiral development is the Air Force's preferred approach to acquiring new systems, Sambur said in written remarks. It allows the Air Force to incrementally

deliver weapons system capability quickly—providing the warfighter technology as it matures within acceptable program risk. 

It will counter funding instability by allowing the Air

Force to fund each spiral so potential cuts in funding do not

compromise a capability that is complete and ready to be

fielded today, he said. Another benefit of spiral development

is the flexibility to insert the latest technology into the development and production lines. 

“We remain focused on providing the necessary capabilities to the warfighter, and this can only be achieved through

effective and efficient management during the development,

production and fielding of systems,” Sambur said. “Only by

incorporating a strong collaborative process, reestablishing

our credibility, infusing systems engineering in our acquisition process, prioritizing programs, and implementing spiral development can we overcome the tough challenges

ahead.” 

Editor's Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.af.mil/news.

The Air Force recently presented the Department of Defense with a comprehensive business plan that outlined

the need for and viability of the F/A-22 Raptor. Dr. Marvin

R. Sambur, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, told the House Committee on Government Reform

Subcommittee on National Security that the F/A-22 is basically a technological leap forward to counter threats the

United States may face in the future. 

Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force

IN THE NEWS
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 71

IN THE NEWS

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS

(RELEASED MAY 23, 2003)

ALDRIDGE ANNOUNCES DETAILS OF TANKER

LEASE PROGRAM

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology

and Logistics Edward C. “Pete” Aldridge today announced the approval of the Air Force KC-767 tanker

lease initiative. In the next step, the Secretary of the Air Force

will now forward a report to Congressional oversight committees detailing the terms and conditions for review and

approval. 

The agreement provides for leasing 100 KC-767 aircraft

from the Boeing Co. for six years starting in 2006, at a cost

of $131 million lease price plus an additional $7 million in

lease-unique costs per aircraft. The total cost will be less than

$16 billion. The initiative also includes a provision to purchase the aircraft for about $4 billion at the end of the lease

2017. 

The strategy allows the Air Force to begin replacing the

KC-135E tanker fleet three years earlier than planned. With

an average age of over 43 years, the KC-135E fleet is the oldest combat weapon system in the Air Force inventory. 

The KC-767 will be the world's newest and most advanced tanker. It can offload 20 percent more gas than the

KC-135E and unlike the E-model, can itself be refueled in

flight. It will also have the capability to refuel Air Force, Navy,

Marine, and allied aircraft on every mission. 

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS

(RELEASED MAY 22, 2003)

DOD MOVES TO STREAMLINE PROGRAMMING

AND BUDGETING PROCESS

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Dov S. Zakheim

today announced changes that will streamline the Department's planning, programming, and budgeting system. This improved Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and

Execution (PPBE) process is expected to revolutionalize internal DoD budget efforts, increase effectiveness, and add

additional emphasis to execution. 

The changes come as a result of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz’ direction to the Senior Executive Council to study and recommend improvements to the overall

DoD decision-making processes. Today, Wolfowitz signed

the management initiative decision that implements recommended changes to the PPBE. 

Zakheim noted that no legislative changes are required

and that the Congress will see the same budget justification

as it has in the past. 

The DoD will evolve from an annual program objective

memorandum and Budget Estimate Submission (BES) cycle,

to a biennial (two-year) cycle starting with an abbreviated

review and amendment cycle for FY 2005. The Department

will formulate two-year budgets and use the off-year to focus

on fiscal execution and program performance. 

The two-year cycle will guide the Department's strategy

development, identification of needs for military capabilities, program planning, resource estimation and allocation,

acquisition, and other decision processes. This change will

more closely align DoD's internal cycle with external requirements embedded in statute and administration policy.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) will continue

to serve as the Department's major statement of defense strategy and business policy. It also will continue to be the single link throughout DoD that integrates and influences all

internal decision processes. Section 922 of Public Law 107-

314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for

fiscal year 2003, amended section 118 of Title 10 of the

United States Code to align the QDR submission date with

that of the President's budget in the second year of an administration. 

The off-year Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) will be

issued at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. The offyear DPG will not introduce major changes to the defense

program, except as specifically directed by the Secretary or

Deputy Secretary of Defense. There will be no DPG for fiscal 2005. 

Rather than a program objective memorandum during

the off-year, the Department will use program change proposals to accommodate real-world changes, and as part of

the continuing need to align the defense program with the

defense strategy. 

The Department will use Budget Change Proposals (BCPs)

instead of a budget estimate submission during the off-year.

BCPs will accommodate fact-of-life changes (e.g., cost increases, schedule delays, management reform savings, workload changes, etc.) as well as changes resulting from congressional actions. 

The FY 2005 execution reviews will provide the opportunity to make assessments concerning current and previous resource allocations and whether the Department achieved

its planned performance goals. Performance metrics, including the program assessment rating tool, will be the analytical underpinning to ascertain whether an appropriate

allocation of resources exists in current budgets. To the extent performance goals of an existing program are not being

met, recommendations may be made to replace that program with alternative solutions or to make appropriate funding adjustments to correct resource imbalances. 

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www.defenselink.mil/news.
72 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

IN THE NEWS

DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE NEWS

(RELEASED JUNE 5,

2003)

2003 PACKARD

AWARDS PRESENTED

T

he David Packard Award for

Acquisition Excellence was

presented to four Department of Defense program teams

at a June 4, 2003, ceremony at

Fort Belvoir, Va.. Making the

presentations to the four winners was Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics

Michael W. Wynne. The four

teams were recognized for their

use of innovation in the acquisition process. This year's winners are: Special Operations

Command’s Special Operations

Craft Riverine (SOCR); the

Navy's Joint Services Family of

Decontamination Systems; the

Air Force's Passive Attack

Weapon (PAW) Quick Reaction

Capability; and the Joint Air

Force/Navy Joint Direct Attack

Munitions (JDAM) Project Office. 

The David Packard Award

was established to recognize Department of Defense (DoD)

civilian and military organizations, groups, or teams, which

have made highly significant

contributions that demonstrate

exemplary innovation and best

acquisition practices. These

awards reflect achievements that

exemplify the goals and objectives established for furthering life cycle cost reduction and

acquisition excellence in DoD.

In presenting the awards, Wynne commented that these

programs “have shown what can happen when we release

the power of innovation in our workforce.”

The 2003 Packard Award highlighted the winning formulas for the awards:

• The JDAM Joint Project Office (Air Force/Navy) team accelerated the production of JDAM, delivering munitions

in one-half of the time and one-half of the projected price.

This guidance system proved to be more accurate, reliable, and effective than originally required. 

• The Special Operations Command SOCR team was innovative in its approach to the successful fielding of a

complete SOCR system, allowing a four-person crew to

Four Agencies Honored f

The Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)

Joint Project Office (Air Force/Navy) Team

The Joint Services Family of

Decontamination Systems (Navy) Team
carry eight special operations forces in an air transportable

armored watercraft. 

• The Joint Services Family of Decontamination Systems

(Navy) team was selected for its exceptional accomplishment in multi-Service teaming, extensive use of cost as an

independent variable, international teaming, and recognition for Foreign Comparative Testing. This system uses

Commercial-Off-the-Shelf components in its design to decontaminate military equipment. 

• The PAW Quick Reaction Capability (Air Force) team responded after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack by delivering a complete and operationally tested system in less

than 100 days. The team delivered all logistics support elements, a “targeteering” tool to predict collateral effects,

and integration on the F-16 aircraft.

Editor’s Note: This information is in the public domain at

http://www./defenselink.mil/news. 

PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 73

IN THE NEWS

The Passive Attack Weapon (PAW) Quick Reaction Capability (Air Force) Team

The Special Operations Command

Special Operations Craft Riverine (SOCR) Team

or Acquisition Excellence

“These Packard

Award-winning

programs have

shown what

can happen

when we

release the

power of

innovation in

our

workforce.”

—Michael Wynne

Acting USD(AT&L)
74 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

IN THE NEWS

ARMY NEWS SERVICE

(RELEASED MAY 28, 2003)

INSTITUTE FOR SOLDIER

NANOTECHNOLOGIES OPENS

Curt Biberdorf

NATICK, Mass. (Army News Service, May 28, 2003)—

The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, a joint research collaboration between the Army and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formally opened during a ceremony in Cambridge, Mass., May 22. 

Founded in March 2002 by a $50 million grant from the

Army, the institute's mission is to develop technologies for

advancing soldier protection and survivability, officials said,

by combining basic and applied research in nanoscience and

nanotechnology. 

Scientists and engineers will be reaching for large results

from the smallest of objects. Often at the level of manipulating individual atoms and molecules, nanotechnology involves the design and production of new materials or complex devices at the nanometer scale. A nanometer is about

50,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair. 

The research may be obtuse, but the benefits are clear,

said Charles Vest, president of MIT, during the ceremony.

The vision is a 21st century lightweight bulletproof and waterproof battle uniform no thicker than ordinary spandex

that monitors health, eases injuries, communicates automatically, and potentially lends superhuman abilities. 

“We already have the smartest soldiers. Now we're going

to give them the smartest uniforms,” said Claude Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and

Technology. 

Maj. Gen. John Doesburg, Transition Team Director, U.S.

Army Research, Development and Engineering Command

(Provisional), said the importance of the new institute “cannot be overstated.

“When you look back to the Middle Ages and fast forward to today, we can't say we've come a long way,” Doesburg said. “The technology that we saw today is revolutionary.

What better place than this to do it.” 

Nanotechnology once seemed far-fetched, but new equipment and tools can already create new materials, and in coming years we'll develop new machines for nanomaterials, said

Vest. 

Bolton said it was only in the last 10 years that scientists

were able to actually see atoms. 

“You can't do better than at the atomic level,” said Richard

Smalley, a professor at Rice University, who further emphasized the thought expressed by previous speakers that the

benefits of the institute affect more than the military. “In all

this nurturing, we may make the next new technology that

leads all people to prosperity. This research will lead to other

discoveries that will help the world.” 

Spc. Jason Ashline from the 10th Mountain Division (Light

Infantry) at Fort Drum, N.Y., testified to the importance of

the work to be done before cutting the ribbon to open the

institute. During a firefight in Afghanistan, the infantryman

survived a hit to the chest from an AK-47 rifle round because of the protective body armor he was wearing. 

Guests at the event were guided on tours of the Institute's

28,000 square feet of space on the fourth and fifth floors of

500 Technology Square on MIT's campus. The space consists of extensive, flexible laboratories; offices for students,

visiting researchers and MIT faculty; and headquarters. 

Research is currently under way in protection, performance improvement, and injury intervention and cure. 

At three stations, demonstrators showed how fluids could

be used to engineer a dynamic armor system that automatically changes from flexible to stiff when a ballistic threat is

detected, how two separate nanoscale coatings for water resistance and microbe-killing can be combined and applied

to textiles, and a method of creating artificial muscles that

could provide extra strength for lifting or jumping, or serve

as automatic tourniquets. 

The facility contains state-of-the-art nano-fabrication and

nano-characterization capabilities along with easy access to

the rest of MIT's research infrastructure. 

About 150 faculty, graduate students and post-doctoral

research associates divided into seven research teams will

apply their skills on nearly 50 research projects. Several visiting scientists from Army laboratories and participating industrial partners also will be part of the staff. 

Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Md.; U.S. Army

Natick Soldier Center, and U.S. Army Research Institute of

Environmental Medicine, both at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center in Natick, Mass.; and industry partners illustrated their roles in making an advanced uniform system

with displays at a first floor exhibit. 

Roaming about the displays were soldiers wearing the latest uniforms for Objective Force Warrior and Future Warrior. Both are product concepts that will incorporate nanotechnology. 

MIT was chosen as the “best of the best” universities for

the institute while the industry partners will help to speed

transition to the field, said A. Michael Andrews, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology/Chief Scientist, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the

Army. 

Editor's Note: Curt Biberdorf is with the Natick Public Affairs Office. This information is in the public domain at

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news. 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 75

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS

UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES

DIRECTORS OF THE DOD FIELD ACTIVITIES

SUBJECT: Military Contingency Contracting Force Qualifications

Title 10 United States Code §1724, as amended by Section 824 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, establishes specific educational requirements for

contracting officers (see attachment for details). However, Congress, recognizing the need for

qualified military members to support contingency operations, permits the Department of

Defense (DoD) to establish qualification requirements for the Contingency Contracting Force

(CCF).The CCF consists of those members of the Armed Forces whose mission is to deploy

in support of contingency operations and other operations of DoD.

The attached policy establishes the minimum qualification criteria for CCF member

development, retention and accession.The Military Departments may supplement the policy to

meet organizational needs. Please provide copies of your supplemental policies and

procedures as they are issued to Mr. Richard Sylvester, Deputy Director, Defense Procurement

and Acquisition Policy (Acquisition Workforce and Career Management), 3060 Defense

Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. My point of contact is Ms. Leslie Blackmon at 703-

695-1097 or e-mail: leslie.blackmon@osd.mil.

E.C. Aldridge, Jr.

Attachment:

As stated

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3010 DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-3010

ACQUISITION, 

TECHNOLOGY AND

LOGISTICS

Editor’s Note: To download the attachment to Secretary Aldridge’s memorandum, go to the Director, Defense

Procurement and Acquisition Policy

Web site at http://www.acq.osd.mil/

dpap/.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT
76 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

DAU COURSES

DAU ADDS NEW MODULES TO CONTINUOUS

LEARNING CENTER WEB SITE

T

he DAU Continuous Learning Center, in collaboration

with the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy

office, is pleased to announce the availability of two new

Continuous Learning Online Modules: Introduction to

Knowledge Management (Part A) and Introduction to Knowledge Management (Part B). 

Introduction to Knowledge Management (Part A) provides

an overview of the basic concepts of Knowledge Management (KM). Part A, Lessons 1 and 2 of this course, have

been developed to provide the learner with a common language, the foundation knowledge, the KM value proposition, and awareness of the tools and skills needed to work

effectively within a knowledge sharing environment and to

foster effective knowledge sharing within an organization. 

Introduction to Knowledge Management (Part B) provides

an overview of the basic concepts of KM. Part B, Lessons 3

and 4 of this course, have been developed to teach the learner

the skills, tools, and methods essential for effective KM. 

This course is available to all users of the DAU Continuous

Learning Center at http://clc.dau.mil; select the Learning

Center, select the Course Information and Access, and then

select the course title.

EARN CONTINUOUS LEARNING POINTS

To access DAU Continuous Learning Center modules that

will help acquisition workforce members fulfill the requirement for 80 continuous learning points every two years,

go to http://clc.dau.mil/kc/no_login/portal.asp. Note that

this is a separate program from Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) certification, and classes

are open to everyone. 

EQUIVALENCY EXAM FOR PMT-250

DAU continues to administer an equivalency exam for its

Program Management Tools (PMT-250) course. The equivalency exam is intended to provide an opportunity for students who already possess the knowledge contained in the

course to demonstrate their proficiency. It is not intended

to take the place of the course for students who are not already proficient in the material. The exam is comprises seven

module areas; students have only one opportunity to take the

exam and must obtain a score of 70 percent or higher in all seven

module areas to pass. If the exam is successfully completed,

the student receives credit for course completion. If the exam

is not successfully completed, the student will have to apply

for and complete a Web-based offering of PMT-250.

Before applying for the exam, students should ensure they

meet one of the following criteria: 1) Certified Level III in

career fields other than Program Management (PM) and

preparing to enter the PM career field training track to take

PMT 352; or 2) Certified Level II in the PM career field prior

to Oct. 1, 2001, and will be applying to take PMT-352 at a

later date. 

DAU ANNOUNCES NEW COMBINED

CONTRACTING LEVEL III COURSE 

Beginning in FY 04, the best of two DAU courses will be

combined into one: CON-301 and CON-333 will be combined into a single course—CON 353. This course will be

required for Level III certification if the student has not completed both CON-301 and CON-333 in the past. If the student has completed only one of the previous two courses,

he or she will still be required to take the new course for

certification.

DAU plans to revise the current schedule for both classes,

provide pilot test opportunities for the new course, and

make several sections of CON-301 and CON-333 available

through the end of FY 2003. 

NDIA TO SPONSOR DSAM OFFERINGS FOR

INDUSTRY MANAGERS

The National Defense Industrial Association will sponsor

offerings of DAU’s Defense Systems Acquisition Management (DSAM) course to interested industry managers Aug.

18-22, 2003, at the Crowne Plaza Northstar Hotel in Minneapolis, Minn.; and Nov. 17-21, 2003, at the Adam’s Mark

Hotel in Orlando, Fla. 

DSAM uses the same acquisition policy information provided to DoD students who attend DAU courses for formal

acquisition certification. It is designed to meet the needs of

defense industry acquisition managers in today's dynamic

environment, providing the latest information related to:

• Defense acquisition policy for weapons and information

technology systems including discussion of the new DoD

5000 series (directive, instruction, and guidebook). 

• Defense acquisition and logistics excellence initiatives. 

• Defense acquisition procedures and processes. 

• The Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System and

the Congressional budget process. 

• The relationship between requirements generation, resource allocation, science and technology activities, and

acquisition programs.

For further information, contact Christy O'Hara (703) 247-

2586 or email cohara@ndia.org. Prospective government

students must first contact Air Force Maj. Jim Ashworth at

(703) 805-5809 or email james.ashworth@dau.mil.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 77

PUBLICATIONS

2003 ARMY ACQUISITION CORPS CAREER

MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK NOW ONLINE

The new 2003 Army Acquisition Corps Career Management

Handbook is now online. Published by the Army Acquisition Support Center, the Handbook is designed to inform

new workforce members and to act as a reference guide for

the more experienced. It clearly outlines the unique requirements for members of the workforce and provides information that will allow them to plan their careers and meet

their goals. Download the Handbook from the Acquisition

Support Center Web site at http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil.

2003 ACQUISITION EDUCATION, TRAINING

& EXPERIENCE (AETE) CATALOG NOW

ONLINE

The 2003 version of the Army Acquisition Support Center’s

AETE Catalog is now on ASC’s Web site. Keep checking the

site for updates to this unique educational tool designed just

for the acquisition professional. Questions about the catalog may be directed to Randy Williams in ASC’s Career Management Division, 703-704-0102 or e-mail randy.williams@

us.army.mil.

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

ACQUISITION CAREER PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTAL ASSIGNMENT

The Army has issued a special announcement of developmental assignments in multiple functional areas at Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) supporting the

Department of Defense (DoD) and/or Army Business Initiative Council (BIC).

POSITION: GS 12-15 or military equivalents, in any occupational series in Resource Management; Acquisition Management; Test and Evaluation; Manpower and Personnel;

Installation Management; Logistics, and Information Management.

ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION/DUTIES: This will be a training assignment in one of the functional areas of the Army

or DoD Business Initiative Council (BIC) support team. The

BIC is chartered to improve the efficiency of business operations by implementing reforms throughout the DoD or

Army that allow savings to be reallocated to higher priority

efforts. The BIC serves as the corporate board of directors

for these reforms. It is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and is comprised of the Service Secretaries and OSD and OJCS representatives. The developmental assignments will be primarily

in support of the Process Function Boards (PFBs) that support the DoD and Army BIC processes. These boards are:

Manpower and Personnel, Resource Management, Information Technology, Acquisition Management, Test and Evaluation, and Installations and Logistics. The Installations and

Logistics board has three functional components: ASA I&E,

ACSIM and G4. Duties will include managing administrative actions of the individual boards, helping to analyze and

coordinate technical information related to functional areas,

and working as a liaison between the support team, the functional boards and the BIC initiative champions.

AREA OF CONSIDERATION: Department of the Army employees in the following categories:

• On permanent appointment to the competitive service.

• Excepted service or non-appropriated fund employees,

with competitive status.

• Eligible for competitive conversion or appointment to the

competitive service, e.g., family members eligible under

EO 12362 as amended.

Selectees will be assigned at present permanent grade level.

TOTAL NUMBER OF POSITIONS: up to 15

LENGTH OF PROGRAM: 3-12 months

LOCATION OF ASSIGNMENT: HQDA, Pentagon, in various staff support elements. If a selectee is from outside the

commuting area of the developmental assignment, the costs

of the travel and up to 55 percent of the maximum payable

local per diem will be centrally funded.

To read the full announcement, go to the Army Acquisition

Support Center Web site at http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil and

scroll down to the bottom of the page. 

DAU STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

DAU MIDWEST REGION SIGNS LOI’S WITH

LOCAL COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, &

BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS IN SUPPORT OF

MIAMI VALLEY ACQUISITION CONSORTIUM

(MVAC)

Providing a talented Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

(AT&L) workforce to replace retiring personnel has become

a crucial issue for the Department of Defense. To address

that, the Defense Acquisition University Midwest Region

(DAU-MW) joined with local colleges, universities, and business associations to develop the Miami Valley Acquisition

Consortium (MVAC). The main goal of MVAC is to create

the best-prepared acquisition workforce in Ohio. One of the

major MVAC initiatives is to focus on increasing youth awareness about career alternatives and opportunities in acquisition and logistics. Full implementation of a program involving high school students, teachers, and counselors is

CAREER DEVELOPMENT
78 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

targeted for 2004. Another goal of the MVAC is to provide

current employees with additional training options. MVAC

members are teaming to determine if DAU courses may be

accepted for college credit. Team members are also discussing

DAU, college, and university speaker-exchange programs.

The most immediate result of this unique effort is the development of several partnerships committed to sharing

knowledge, ideas, and best practices. Three of the partners—

the University of Dayton, Wright State University, and Sinclair Community College—joined with Gerald Emke, Dean

of DAU-MW, in a ceremonial signing of Letters of Intent

(LOIs) on Feb. 28, 2003. Signatories of the LOIs were: Peter

G. Wagner, School of Business, University of Dayton; Dr.

Richard E. Williams, Associate Dean for Academic Programs,

Wright State University; and Daniel R. Ricica, Chairperson,

Management, Marketing, Purchasing and Transportation,

Sinclair Community College.

These LOIs establish a strategic partnership to meet current

and emerging DoD AT&L workforce education and training needs. Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan,

and Cuyahoga Community College have also signed LOIs

with DAU-MW. Partnership members will provide a coordinated effort to meet the goals of MVAC. For more information on this strategic alliance, contact Pam Oxendine,

DAU-MW Professor, at Pam.Oxendine@dau.mil.

LOCKHEED MARTIN PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

As part of the DAU partnership activities, six members of

DAU will attend the Lockheed Martin’s Program Management Institute at their new Center for Leadership Excellence

facility in Bethesda, Maryland. This is a three-day program

sponsored by the corporate Vice President, Science and Engineering, and is presented by outside consultants and Lockheed Martin executives with significant program management experience. The primary topics include: the role of the

program manager, lessons learned from the program management experience and customer issues.

The six selectees and their respective DAU business units

are: Michael Asada (DAU-Midwest Region); Thomas Edison (DAU-West Region); John Horn (DSMC-School of Program Managers); John Kelley (DAU-Capital and Northeast

Region); Randy Smith (DAU-Capital and Northeast Region);

and Randy Zittel (Capital and Northeast Region). Six alternates were also selected.

These attendees were selected from 17 applicants based on

responses to three criteria. The criteria included documenting:

personal goals for the training; preparation; and contributions they will make from the course to further DAU’s vision and mission. Additionally the applicants discussed their

DAU departmental expectations with their supervisors and

included those comments.

Besides attending the course and using the experience in

their work at DAU, the six attendees will collaborate on a

variety of actions to share their experiences with the rest of

their respective campus members. Participants earn 30 hours

of continuous learning points. DAU expects to continue this

partnering experience offered by Lockheed Martin.

DAU AND ROCKWELL COLLINS FORM

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

On April 4, 2003, the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)

and Rockwell Collins formed a strategic partnership by signing a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The

signatories of the MOU were DAU President Frank Anderson Jr., and Rockwell Vice President for Government Operations and Government Systems, Michael K. McDonald. 

The MOU establishes the framework for DAU and Rockwell to pursue educational opportunities and to share training resources.

For more information about this partnership, contact Wayne

Glass, Director for Strategic Partnerships, DAU Strategic

Planning, at Wayne.Glass@dau.mil.

DAU SIGNS MOA WITH

FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE 

In efforts to extend its educational strategic partnerships and

leverage learning opportunities, the Defense Acquisition

University (DAU) and Federal Supply Service (FSS) signed

a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on May 7, during the

2003 GSA Expo held in San Antonio, Texas. The MOA provides opportunities to share course materials, training materials, best practices, and selected research information.

The signatories of the MOA were: Frank Anderson Jr., DAU

President, and Donna Bennet, Commissioner, FSS. 

The MOA establishes strategic partnership to meet acquisition education goals and increase the skills, knowledge, and

abilities of the DoD AT&L workforce.

For more information on the partnership, contact Wayne

Glass, Director for Strategic Partnerships, DAU Strategic

Planning, at Wayne.Glass@dau.mil.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 79

DAU AND UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY FORM

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP 

On May 21, Army Col. Ronald Flom, Commandant, Defense Acquisition University (DAU), signed a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Kentucky.

The signing took place during the University of Kentucky’s

Lean Manufacturing Conference, held in Lexington, Ky. This

strategic partnership provides an important opportunity for

research opportunities in lean manufacturing, sharing of

materials, and addendums for degrees and certificates. 

The signing of the MOU establishes a strategic partnership

leading to educational opportunities for currently enrolled

and potential students of both institutions. The agreement

is designed to facilitate the transfer of DAU course credits

toward University of Kentucky degree or certificate programs. 

For more information on this partnership, contact Wayne

Glass, Director for Strategic Partnerships, DAU Strategic

Planning, at Wayne.Glass@dau.mil. For more information

on the degree programs offered by the University of Kentucky, visit their Web site at http://www.uky.edu.

AWARDS

ARMY SPC. NORMITA DAVISSON NAMED

ENLISTED PERSON OF THE 4TH QUARTER FOR

2002

On May 13, 2003, DAU

President Frank Anderson

Jr., presented Army Spc.

Normita Davisson the Enlisted Person of the 4th Quarter (EPOQ) 2002 Award,

during a ceremony held at

DAU Headquarters, Fort

Belvoir, Va. Davisson was

chosen from a field of top

rated nominees competing

in the EPOQ program. The

EPOQ program recognizes

personnel for outstanding

performance, leadership,

support of command mission, and community involvement.

In addition to the Certificate of Commendation, she received

a $50 gift certificate to the Post Exchange and a $25 gift certificate. Davisson is an Audiovisual Production Specialist in

the DAU Video Services Department.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Robert E. Myers (left), Chancellor, Extended Campus Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), and Army Col. Ronald C. Flom,

DAU Commandant, formalize a DAU-ERAU partnership at a

ceremony held on May 13 at DAU Headquarters, Fort Belvoir, Va.

DAU AND EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY (ERAU) FORM

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU and the

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU)

signed an Articulation of Agreement on May 13,

2003, in an attempt to 1) encourage students to

transfer to the Associate/Bachelor of Science in Technical Management or to Associate/Bachelor of Science in Professional Aeronautics programs offered

by ERAU; and 2) to smooth the transfer process by

minimizing loss of academic credit. The Agreement

serves as a quick and clear reference showing how

DAU’s courses are applicable to ERAU’s Technical

Management and Professional Aeronautics degree

programs.

For more information on this partnership, contact

Wayne Glass, DAU Director for Strategic Partnerships, at Wayne.Glass@dau.mil. For more information on degree programs offered by Embry-Riddle, visit the ERAU Web site at www.embry

riddle.edu.

Photos by Army Staff Sgt. Kevin Moses
80 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

POLICY & LEGISLATION

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES

DIRECTORS OF THE DOD FIELD ACTIVITIES

SUBJECT: Forecast of Policy for Unique Identification of Tangible Items – UPDATE

On February 11-12, 2003, the Department of Defense (DoD) Unique Identification (UID)

Integrated Product Team (IPT), met to further define policy requirements and an implementation strategy to achieve a long-term UID item marking vision. During the two-day offsite

meeting, the IPT re-validated the vision established in my December 19, 2002 memorandum,

defined key terms for unique identification of tangible items, and made great strides in

rationalizing requirements of existing standards to support DoD’s use of unique identification.

The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate that progress and establish the next

steps for the UID IPT.

The IPT validated that:

• The purpose of UID is to identify a set of data for tangible assets that is globally

unique and unambiguous, ensures data integrity and data quality throughout the 

life of the asset, and supports multi-faceted business applications and users.

• The unique identification of tangible assets will rely, to the maximum extent practicable, on international standards and commercial item markings and not impose 

unique government requirements.

• Implementation of UID will facilitate item tracking in DoD business systems as well 

as the capture of reliable and accurate data for life-cycle asset management, accountability, and financial purposes.

• This UID solution is different from that being developed for real property.

The IPT identified the minimum data set for the UID and defined several key terms

integral to the implementation of a UID policy. Included in those terms are the data content

elements of the UID. Familiarization and understanding of those key terms and the evolving

policy can be accomplished by reviewing the attachments to this memorandum.

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3015 DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-3015

ACQUISITION, 

TECHNOLOGY AND

LOGISTICS
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 81

POLICY & LEGISLATION

Additional policy communications will be forthcoming as further definition is achieved. My

plan remains to make UID item marking a mandatory requirement for all new weapons

systems programs, including major modifications, no later than July 2003.

The IPT will continue to work on remaining issues in the following areas:

• Develop policy for marking of tangible items already in inventory and

operational use, specifically focusing on requirements of major system

modifications.

• Develop policy modifications to MIL-STD-129, MIL-STD-130, DoD

4140.1-R, DoDI 5000.2, DoDI 5000.64, DoD 7000.14-R, CJCSI 3170.1C,

DCMA One Book, and MIL Handbook 61A to ensure synchronized policy

execution.

• Issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to expedite two

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) cases:

—One on item marking, and

—One on item value.

• Develop business strategies to prioritize the application of UID to legacy

items.

• Submit proposed collaborative standards solution through International 

Organization of Standards (ISO) process to obtain approval by SubCommittee 31.

• Prepare a pledge document for key business stakeholders to ensure support for this strategic imperative.

• Develop a users guide on UID requirements and application.

• Determine minimum architecture/systems requirements to capture UID

information at inspection and acceptance and identify opportunities for

rapid implementation.

The point of contact is Lt Col Gregory Redick. Questions concerning this guidance

should be addressed to him at (703) 614-3883 or by e-mail at gregory.redick@osd.mil.

Attachment:

As stated

Editor’s Note: To download the attachment to Secretary Wynne’s memorandum, go to the Director, Defense

Procurement and Acquisition Policy

Web site at http://www.acq.osd.mil/

dpap/.
82 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

POLICY & LEGISLATION

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTORS, DEFENSE AGENCIES

ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

(POLICY AND PROCUREMENT), ASA(ALT)

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

(ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT), ASN(RDA)

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

(CONTRACTING), SAF/AQC

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY,

AND SUPPLY (DLA)

SUBJECT: Acquisition Flexibility for Urgent Needs

We are challenged every day to solicit industry, award and modify contracts, deliver

capability and make payment faster. Speed is increasingly a critical measure of success,

particularly as we support overseas military operations and the defense against terrorism. As

we create strategies to quickly meet these needs, we should use the flexibility of FAR and DoD

FAR Supplement (DFARS) authorities that exist to support urgent situations and national

security requirements. In those circumstances where you are specifically precluded from

taking actions you determine necessary, I expect you to support, authorize, or seek

appropriate deviations and give me feedback.

The Air Force recently issued guidance highlighting many existing techniques for rapid,

agile contracting support (available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap). I wholeheartedly support

these techniques and urge you to put them into practice where appropriate. Recently, we

published significant changes to the FAR authorized by the Homeland Security Act.These

authorities, coupled with DoD’s temporary emergency procurement authority, increase the

thresholds for using simplified acquisition procedures.They also allow us to treat buys that

directly support defense against or recovery from terrorism or chemical, biological, nuclear, or

radiological attack as commercial items with no dollar limitation for use of simplified acquisition

procedures.These are bold opportunities that, if used with diligence, can achieve significant

results for our customers.You may find the attached matrix helpful in promoting the use of

these authorities.

I challenge the acquisition leadership to push new and existing authorities to the

contracting officer and aggressively pursue and approve FAR and DFARS deviations when

needed. Please let me know when you identify opportunities to improve processes, shorten

cycle times, and enhance responsiveness to the customer. Our Web site to collect this

information is http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/transf.htm.We will use your input to assess

results and make needed changes.

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-3000

ACQUISITION,

TECHNOLOGY AND

LOGISTICS
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 83

POLICY & LEGISLATION

Please pass on my gratitude to the acquisition workforce for their continued dedication

and commitment to the Department’s mission. My points of contact are Ms. Angelena Moy

(DPAP/DARS) at (703) 602-1302 or e-mail: angelena.moy@osd.mil and Mr.William

Timperley (DPAP/Policy) at (703) 697-8336 or e-mail: william.timperley@osd.mil.

Deidre A. Lee

Director, Defense Procurement and

Acquisition Policy

Attachment:

As stated

Editor’s Note: To download the attachment to Lee’s memorandum, go to the

Director, Defense Procurement and

Acquisition Policy Web site at http://

www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/.
84 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

POLICY AND LEGISLATION

NEW DOD 5000 SERIES DOCUMENTS

RELEASED AND SIGNED

With an eye toward increasing the authority and independence of the program manager, the new DoD 5000 series is

now authorized. The new DoD Directive 5000.1 and DoD

Instruction 5000.2 are available at: http://www.acq.osd.

mil/dpap.

DFARS TRANSFORMATION 

The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) Transformation task force is actively seeking input

from within the Government and from industry with respect to ideas for improvements to the DFARS and the process

by which the DFARS is written. The Office of the Secretary

of Defense (OSD) has established a Web site to collect ideas

from interested parties. The task force is truly open to any

and all ideas, and we highly encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to submit your ideas individually

via the Web site at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/

transf.htm.

Although the initial deadline has passed for submission of

proposals, the task force will continue to collect proposals

for consideration. Further, proposals will continue to be

posted on the DFARS Transformation Web site so that you

may view all improvement proposals submitted to date and

so you can see what others within the government and industry are recommending.

NEW GAO REPORT (GAO-03-645T)

AVAILABLE

Best Practices: Better Acquisition Outcomes Are Possible If DoD

Can Apply Lessons Learned From F/A-22 Program, April 11,

2003. This report reviews commercial best practices and

identifies key enablers to the success of product development programs and focuses on how DoD can better leverage its investments by shortening the time it takes to field

new capabilities at a more predictable cost and schedule. To

download the report, go to the Air Force Center of Acquisition Excellence (ACE) Web site at http://www.safaq.hq.

af.mil/ACE/.

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT—FEDERAL

EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT FLEXIBILITIES

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was changed via

Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 012 on Jan. 27, 2003,

to implement Homeland Security Act purchasing flexibilities across all Federal Agencies. DoD is operating under similar Temporary Emergency Procurement Authorities authorized in FY02. A summary matrix of the revised authorities

is available in MS Word and PDF at http://www.acq.osd.

mil/dp/dars/new.html. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

AIR FORCE CONTRACTING SUPPORT

Charlie E. Williams Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air

Force (Contracting) and Assistant Secretary (Acquisition),

issued a memorandum on March 21, 2003, directing all

members of the Air Force contracting community to “lean

way forward” and proactively plan for known and anticipated customer needs during OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. To that end, he directed them to use all available techniques to provide rapid and responsive support to meet

warriors’ needs such as oral solicitations, “Unusual and Compelling Urgency” exceptions to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, letter contracts, and undefinitized contractual actions. “Put the necessary contract vehicles and

supporting documents in place as soon as possible,” Williams

said. “We must create solutions, around the globe, providing our customers with the rapid, agile combat support

needed to help ensure victory.”

Points of contact for the OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

policy are Dave Powell, DSN 425-7062, Commercial (703)

588-7062, david.powell@pentagon.af.mil; and Air Force

Lt. Col. Al Boykin, DSN 425-7073, Commercial (703) 588-

7073, al.boykin@pentagon.af.mil.

ARMY CONTRACTING SUPPORT

Emily Clarke, the Army’s Director of Procurement and Industrial Base Policy issued a memorandum on March 19,

2003, stating that all contract requirements related to the

support of the nation’s armed forces “should be accorded

the highest priority in our offices.” It is imperative, she stated,

“that we employ the best tools available to support them.”

Clarke urged the Army’s Policy Chiefs and Principal Assistant for Contracting (PARC) Offices to provide “unprecedented delivery times in the most cost-effective manner.” To

that end, she published a list of contract options to consider

for accelerated support. Review the entire list at http://www.

acq.osd.mil/dp/dars/new.html.

NAVY CONTRACTING SUPPORT

M.Jaggard, Chief of Staff/Policy for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition), issued a memorandum to Department of the Navy

major commands on April 7, 2003, that delegated authority to heads of naval contracting activities to establish increased micropurchase and simplified acquisition thresholds, and streamline acquisition procedures. The delegation

of authority, implemented under the provisions of Federal

Acquisition Circular 2001-12, issued Jan. 24, 2003, will expedite delivery of supplies, services, and procurements for

the nation’s defense. 
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 85

CONFERENCES, WORKSHOPS & SYMPOSIA

2003 AUSA LOGISTICS

SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITION

Program Executive Officers

(PEOs) and Project Managers

(PMs) from throughout the

Army journeyed to the 2003

AUSA Logistics Symposium &

Exhibition in Richmond, Va.,

from April 22-24. Maj. Gen.

Terry E. Juskowiak, Commanding General, United States

Army Combined Arms Support

Command/United States Army

Quartermaster Center and Fort

Lee and Commandant, United

States Army Quartermaster

School, Fort Lee was the host

for the event.

PEO Aviation; PEO Combat

Support and Combat Service

Support; PEO Command, Control, Communications Tactical;

PEO Enterprise Information

Systems (EIS); PEO Soldier;

PEO Simulation, Training and

Instrumentation; and PEO Tactical Missiles exhibited.

Also, PMs from Automatic Identification Technology; Brigade

Combat Team; Force Projection;

Force Sustainment Systems;

Heavy Tactical Vehicles; Light

Tactical Vehicles; Petroleum and

Water Systems; Physical Security Equipment; Recovery; Sets,

Kits and Outfits; and Test, Measurement, & Diagnostic Equipment exhibited their wares.

PEO EIS received praise from a number of senior

leaders at the AUSA Logistics & Symposium Exhibition. Combat Service Support Automated Information Systems Interface (CAISI) is part of PM

Defense Communications and Army Transmission

Systems. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army

and G-4 (Logistics) Lt. Gen. Charles Mahan (left),

Alphonso McFarlin of Program Office CAISI, and

Lt. Gen. John Caldwell, the Military Deputy/Director of the Army Acquisition Corps in the Office of

the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,

Logistics, and Technology) discuss the future use

of CAISI. CAISI is an approved, secure, self-healing wireless local area network that provides

seamless communications interface between

combat service support battlefield computers

and commercial communications systems using

line of sight transmission in the field. 

AUGUST 10-14, 2003

The International Society of Logistics (SOLE) invites your

participation in SOLE 2003, the 38th Annual International

Conference and Exhibition at the Von Braun Conference

Center in Huntsville, Ala. For registration information, call

301-459-8446 or go to http://www.sole.org.

AUGUST 12-14, 2003

The Army Acquisition Senior Leaders' Conference (formerly

the PEO/PM/Acquisition Commander Conference), will be

held this year in Seattle, Wash. Attendance is by invitation

only. This year’s theme will be “Army Acquisition Corps

—Strengthening Our Link with the Warfighter.” Information on the conference will be posted on the Acquisition

Support Center, U.S. Army Acquisition Corps Web site at

http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil/.

SEPTEMBER 2003

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA) will hold

an Acquisition Symposium in Falls Church, Va., in September 2003. Watch the AUSA Web site at https://www.

ausa.org/www/ia.nsf for more details in the coming weeks.

Photo by Richard Mattox
86 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

My friend—actually my boss—retired

today, June 30, 2003. About 10 years

ago Greg Caruth spoke with me after I

transferred to DAU’s Visual Arts and

Press Department as managing editor of PM

Magazine. “If all goes well, we’ll have a decade

of working together on PM,” he casually remarked to me that day in his capacity as DAU

Visual Arts and Press Director. Somehow, some

way, I turned my head for a brief moment and

that decade passed. 

Greg has been the Visual Arts and Press Director for so many years no one can remember when he wasn’t around. When he

first reported to the Defense Systems Management School (DSMS) back in 1971 as a

young Air Force recruit, no one could have

foreseen—especially Greg—that he would

stick around for over 33 years.

He was one of the original Air Force cadre assigned to DSMS, and served in a military or

civilian capacity over the years under the leadership of all but one of the 15 Defense Systems Management

College (DSMC) Commandants, two Defense Acquisition

University (DAU) Commandants, and two DAU Presidents.

He was an integral part of ensuring the continuity of the DSMS,

DSMC, and DAU identity as he watched the transition of

DSMS over the years from a school to a college in 1976, and

from a consortium college to consolidation as part of the Defense Acquisition University in 2000.

After leaving the Air Force and DSMS, Greg became a

civilian in 1975 and worked nearly a year at the Army

Logistics Management Center (now College), at Fort Lee,

Va., followed by four years at the National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. Returning to the

Defense Systems Management School in 1979, which by

then had become the Defense Systems Management College, he became the supervisor of DSMC Visual Arts. And

in 1995, he became Director of DAU Visual Arts and Press

when the University

Press and Visual Arts Departments merged.

Greg is best known for his nationally recognized DSMC and

DAU exhibits and posters at conferences throughout the Washington, D.C., area, with themes such as Uncle Sam, Leonardo

da Vinci, Sun Tzu, Pharaoh, Cave Man, and Star Warrior. He

also founded and sculpted the art for the Acker Skill in Communications Award. Other sculptures he created were bronze

busts of the late Army Brig. Gen. Winfield S. Scott, first DSMS

Commandant; and DSMS founder, the late David Packard,

former Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

Words to Leave By

Like Greg, I too am nearing the retirement that always loomed

in the distant future. It’s true. The years do go by “quicker

than a weaver’s shuttle.” And the retirement that seemed so

far off now becomes a double-edged sword: freedom from

As a young airman assigned to the

Defense Systems Management

School, Feb. 5, 1974.

DoD photos 

INSIDE DAU

DAU Visual Arts and

Press Director Retires

Greg Caruth—A Career by Design

COLLIE J. JOHNSON

Looking the part of artist-inresidence and Chief, Graphic Arts

Branch, Defense Systems Management College, July 1979.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 87

the workplace, but also a reminder of our own mortality and

how fleeting the years truly are.

Those of us who worked for Greg and others who have known

him well for many years all echo a united sentiment: “Who

will they ever get to replace Greg?” Throughout the DAU main

campus at Fort Belvoir as well as DAU’s five regions, his beautiful art work, sculpture, and carefully selected prints and furnishings brighten our day and inspire us.

Thanks Greg—for a career by design from which we at the

Defense Acquisition University all reaped the benefit. 

Postscript

Greg will pursue a second career in interior design and furnishings at Simms Furniture in Fredericksburg, Va., where

he resides with his wife Rita. 

Pictured in November 1998 with the bronze sculpture he created honoring the late David Packard, former

Deputy Secretary of Defense and founder, Defense Systems Management School (College). The bust resides

permanently in the lobby of the MacArthur Building, which is currently the DAU Headquarters at Fort Belvoir,

Va. The clay original, which took about 35 hours to create at his home, was molded and cast at Equestrian

Forge foundry in Leesburg, Va.

Portraying Pharaoh’s

Chief Builder in his “Tribute to Ancient Acquisition Management” exhibit, which debuted at

FOSE 2002. Greg designed a number of exhibits for DAU over the

years—all of them

unique, and all of them

show stoppers. 

INSIDE DAU
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Shere is a Senior Engineering Specialist at The

Aerospace Corporation where he is on senior staff

to the Computer and Systems Engineering Subdivision. He holds a B.S. in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering and a Ph.D. in Mathematics—

both degrees from the University of Illinois. He has

many years’ experience in systems engineering,

management, and strategic thinking. Turner is Director, Ground Systems Department at The Aerospace Corporation. He holds a B.S. in Computer

Science from Washington University and a Ph.D. in

Computer Science from the University of California

at Los Angeles. He has extensive experience in

satellite ground systems, networks, expert

systems, and object-oriented software

development.

GOVERNMENT SPACE PROGRAMS

Vision and Cultural Change in

Government Satellite Programs

Three Most Important Approaches to Changing Culture:

Communication, Communication, Communication

DR. KENNETH D. SHERE • DR. SCOTT R. TURNER 

88

One of the most interesting challenges an organization can face

is radical change. The urgency

for change can have many reasons, including congressional

pressure, funding cuts, and new requirements. Whatever the reason, in this

article we look at lessons learned when

a program manager has a vision for a

new way of doing business.

From Our Perspective

In our work with government space programs we’ve seen this many times–from

programs struggling to deploy new types

of sensors to programs faced with increased requirements and budget reductions. In this article we summarize

the most important program management lessons we’ve learned from our experiences.

We’ll focus on government space programs. The Aerospace Corporation is a

Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) providing technical support to the Air Force and the

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

Composite Image by Air Force Staff Sgt. Scott Miller
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 89

on virtually all of their satellite programs.

The Aerospace Corporation also supports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This gives us a

unique perspective across almost all government satellite programs.

Many of these lessons may be familiar

to anyone with program management

experience. This should come as no surprise; as Aerospace CEO Dr. William

Ballhaus likes to say, “We aren’t making

any new mistakes–we keep making the old

mistakes over and over again.” Nonetheless, we feel our results may be useful,

especially to those with limited insight

into the government space program.

Nucleus of Lessons Learned

The lessons we cite in this article are

based on discussions with government

program managers, vendors, and commercial satellite operators. We also drew

from our cumulative 50+ years of experience in space programs, and the expertise of our colleagues at the Aerospace Corporation. The Aerospace

Corporation also has a robust program

of knowledge capture to preserve corporate expertise, and this proved a valuable resource also.

We surveyed six government programs;

talked with three vendors of Telemetry, Tracking, and Commanding

(TT&C) systems for satellite ground

stations; investigated three commercial

companies; and reviewed two studies

on Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS)

software to determine lessons learned

in developing ground stations. We also

surveyed papers presented at the

Ground System Architecture Workshop

(GSAW) in 2002 and reviewed papers

from previous years. The results of

these activities form the nucleus of our

lessons learned.

LESSON 1: VISION IS CULTURAL

CHANGE

The strategic perspective talks to vision,

organizational structure, and culture.

These items change at different rates

causing conflicts and difficulty in realizing the vision.

Vision defines the future, the goals

needed to achieve that vision, and the

performance metrics needed to measure progress toward that vision. Vision is relatively easy to obtain. In our

experience, most organizational leaders think strategically and have a vision

of where they need to be. Where most

leaders fail is in creating a strategy to

achieve the envisioned future. A strategy is no more than a plan for achieving the organization’s goals. It identifies necessary changes to the organizational structure and relationships

among organizational components.

This seems relatively simple, so why

do most strategic plans fail?

The answer is that most leaders view a

strategy as a product change rather than

a culture change. When a telephone

company proclaims the vision of “Broadband Internet provider,” they are not

simply embracing a new product, but a

new corporate culture. They are changing the rules for success that have been

used by many of their senior people,

and the rules taught to the next generation of leaders. Introducing broadband

Internet products the same way call waiting was rolled out is a recipe for failure.

Changing an organization’s culture is

difficult; it requires different methods

than changing a product line.

A recent satellite program provides a

good example of this problem. On his

own authority, a director began an innovative effort to reduce costs. He implemented a program of process improvement that would result in

substantial reductions in operations and

maintenance costs. However, the program was terminated before it had a

chance to show results. Why? The director made two mistakes.

• He did not provide a strategic vision

to his executive management (this is

part of Lesson 3, discussed later in

this article).

• He did not spend enough time on cultural issues.

Consequently, most senior managers reporting to him did not embrace the effort. Both his senior managers and executive management evaluated the effort

based upon the “old rules”—the existing corporate culture—and judged it

unsuccessful. The three most important

approaches to changing culture are communication, communication, communication.

The culture of an organization is the set

of rules for success that we teach the next

generation. These rules are rarely docuThe Aerospace

Corporation is a

Federally Funded

Research and

Development 

Center (FFRDC),

providing

technical support

to the Air Force

and the National

Reconnaissance

Office on

virtually all of

their satellite

programs. 
90 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

mented or taught explicitly. They are

learned by “osmosis” from the previous

generation or created by the employees

themselves. This is why it is so hard to

change an organizational culture. It often

requires a new generation of employees

to embrace a new culture, which is why

taking five or more years to change an

organization’s culture is not uncommon.

Considering that military personnel typically have a three-year assignment, cultural change in their organizations needs

to be sustained across management

changes—this exacerbates the difficulty

in cultural change.

The strategic perspective helps achieve

a vision change by: 1) focusing effort on

cultural change, and 2) providing understanding to everybody involved (e.g.,

operators, system users, budget personnel, executive management, and congressional staffers). If the director mentioned previously had created a strategic

perspective and sold that to his management, he would likely have retained

the funding he needed for success.

LESSON 2: CHANGE IS HARD

Even when vision exists and a strategic

plan has been created, implementing

change remains extremely difficult. People and organizations resist change.

A program manager (speaking about

eliminating stovepipes within a major

government program) said, “Cultural issues can overwhelm good technical engineering.” Similarly, the Vice President

of a commercial satellite communications company admitted, “The largest

hurdle to success for consolidating [satellite operations] is organizational.” 

In a front-page article, The Washington

Post pointed out that major corporations

in the airlines, electronics, computers,

telecommunications, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, automobile, and fast food

industries refused to seriously consider

changing their business models during

the 1990s—even though clear signs of

impending problems existed (S. Pearlstein, “When Business Plans Go Bust,”

Jan., 2003). These companies included

United Airlines, McDonald’s, HewlettPackard (HP), AOL, Verizon, and every

non-discount stock brokerage.

The results of ignoring your business

model can be disastrous, especially when

combined with other market factors. 

• United Airlines is in Chapter 11 because their labor costs are very high,

the spoke and hub approach is generally inefficient from cost and customer satisfaction perspectives, and

their service has deteriorated.

• McDonald’s experienced its first losing quarterever and is still losing business in the United States due to a

more health-conscious public.

• HP bought Compaq in a bitter

takeover battle and is trying to find a

new identity.

• AOL Time Warner is worth less today

than the former Time Warner was

worth before the merger, partially because high-speed modems and excellent search engines cut down the

need for AOL services.

• Verizon has been losing money on its

long distance phone service and has

been unable to bring high-speed services to the home—but their recent

efforts in the cellular phone market

have been successful.

• Traditional stock brokerages have

been losing substantial business to

discount brokerages because transactions are cheaper and full service has

dubious value when customers lose

confidence in advice provided by

stock brokers.

Recognizing the difficulty of change—

and doing something about it—is critical to future success.

LESSON 3: LEARN FROM

SIMILAR SYSTEMS

Tremendous overlap and similarity

exists between military and civilian

organizations. This is why retired

generals like General Gordon Sullivan are able to write successful business books (Sullivan, G., and Harper,

M., Hope Is Not a Method: What Business Leaders Can Learn from America’s

Army, Broadway Books, 1997) and

have had successful second careers

as consultants. Both military and

civilian organizations must take advantage of this similarity by looking

to the other community for successful (and unsuccessful) business cases.

For example, a typical civilian government Satellite Operations Center (SOC)

operates 15 satellites with 12 operators

per shift. Does the program manager of

the SOC need to build a business case

for more consolidated operations? No.

The case has already been made in the

commercial sector: 

• Iridium operates 78 satellites with 6

operators per shift. 

• GPS operates 24 satellites with 2 operators per shift.

• Intelsat operates 23 satellites with 3

operators per shift.

Vision is relatively

easy to obtain. In

our experience,

most

organizational

leaders think

strategically and

have a vision of

where they need to

be. Where most

leaders fail is in

creating a strategy

to achieve the

envisioned future.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 91

• One COTS vendor uses the guideline

of 6 to 12 satellites per operator per

shift.

• Another COTS vendor uses the guideline of at least 4 satellites per operator per shift.

Of course, there are some differences

between the government and civilian

sectors. Some government satellites are

significantly more complex than commercial satellites. Complexity is not,

however, an excuse to ignore this business case, but an opportunity to adapt

the business case for the government

sector. In this instance, the business case

still works for command and control of

the satellite, but additional effort is

needed for operating the payloads. 

Program managers should be aware of

similar programs in other sectors, and

analyze those programs for successes

and failures before embarking on their

own changes. This is particularly useful for military program managers, who

typically operate under more conservative operating rules than their civilian

counterparts. Success and proven technology in the commercial sector can be

a bellwether for the military sector. 

LESSON 4: USE BEST PRACTICES

Both NRO and Space Based Infrared

Satellite (SBIRS) program office personnel have stated that program risks

are relatively low if you plan the effort

and use good systems engineering

throughout the life cycle. 

The following is a list of best practices

identified by the organizations we interviewed:

• Automate as much as possible, both

operations and the acquisition

process. The purpose of this automation is to reduce operations and maintenance cost, and to automate

processes that are easy for machines

but onerous for people. In the case of

acquisitions, define a meaningful metrics program ; i.e., you should be able

to make decisions based on the results of your metric calculations. Automate the collection of metric data

and the analysis of this data whenever

possible. In the case of operations,

minimize the number of people

needed to operate a system. 

• Use a high-level system perspective. 

Incorporating operational concepts

for security, training, and maintenance

into the system architecture avoids future costs. For example, analyzing

problems or anomalies “at the factory”

reduces the need for on-site maintenance engineers.

• Use Web technology for system and

operational documentation. In many

cases, this approach can be expanded

to include product distribution.

• Learn what technologies and

processes your contractors are using

for their commercial work. Learn why

they are used and apply them to your

acquisitions. Write your contracts so

that contractors use these technologies and processes for their government work also.

For example, all of the major prime contractors in the space business use six

sigma and lean manufacturing processes

for their commercial work, but program

offices generally ignore these methods.

Set up a win-win approach. One such

approach is to structure an operations

contract in a way that allows the contractor to benefit financially from reducing the cost of operations. Suppose

a contractor received an incentive award

of 50 percent of the validated cost savings for the first year and residuals (at a

lower percentage) for each of the following years of the contract. With this

type of structure, everybody wins.

Applying These Lessons to COTS

Satellite Ground Systems

Over the past decade, COTS systems

(both hardware and software) for SOCs

have become commercially available and

provide a good example of many of these

lessons learned. When COTS first became available, many government satellite program managers recognized the

opportunity for substantial cost and risk

savings, and hurried to embrace a COTS

philosophy. Yet even today there are few

government satellite programs using

purely COTS solutions for ground operations. Why?

Initially, many programs with the vision

of COTS failed to embrace the strategic

perspective needed to achieve cultural

change (Lesson 1). For example, many

programs tried to acquire COTS software using their familiar DoD acquisition processes. They began acquisition

by developing requirements completely

independent of COTS capabilities. They

did this to “prove” to their management

that with a level playing field, COTS solutions would show significant cost and

risk savings (Lesson 3). Of course, the

exact opposite occurred. Custom requirements forced a custom solution;

building that on top of COTS software

was actually more expensive than writing it from scratch. 

Some government

satellites are 

significantly more

complex than 

commercial

satellites.

Complexity is not,

however, an

excuse to ignore

this business case,

but an

opportunity to

adapt the business

case for the

government sector.
92 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Programs that did succeed in fielding

COTS systems often had problems with

operations (Lesson 2). For example,

many programs used their traditional

model of software updates: heavily controlled, massive updates on yearly or

longer intervals. By the time the program was ready for a software update,

the underlying COTS might have gone

through two, three, or even more releases. This forced the program to

“leapfrog” updates, something that is

usually poorly supported by the COTS

vendor, and which introduced large

amounts of change into the operational

system. 

In another example of Lesson 1, a

prominent consolidation effort failed because the organization was not prepared

to accept the cultural change that led to

reduced staffing. Through consolidation

and automation, the effort eliminated a

number of operational positions within

the program. But because the program

manager had not properly prepared the

organization for this cultural change,

upper management refused to reduce

staffing. And without the reduced

staffing, the project’s cost savings were

lost.

Later programs have been more successful by taking advantage of these

lessons learned. First, they recognized

that the success of COTS in the commercial sector had already proven the

business case, freeing them to use new

models of acquisition. Second, they embraced a strategic perspective and based

system requirements on known COTS

capabilities, improving the cost and risk

savings. Third, they recognized the difficulty of changing operations, and spent

additional effort to prepare management

for cultural change, create new concepts

of operations, and train operators accordingly. 

Our discussions with vendors and companies offering satellite communications

services echoed many of these same

lessons: 

• Adapt your concept of operations to

match the COTS products—not vice

versa! This is the major pitfall of COTS

use. If you insist on modifying COTS

software to meet the way you have

traditionally done business, the cost

will rise and significant custom code

will be required, obviating most cost

savings.

• Keep current—implement vendor releases. In some situations, it is acceptable to “freeze” a system at a particular release. But most new systems

are not static; they evolve for increased

functionality, for interoperability with

other systems, etc., and all these goals

are more easily achieved with up-todate software. It is also easier and

more cost-effective to upgrade incrementally, rather than making a big

“jump” caused by skipping releases.

• In satellite operations, COTS command and control systems represent

a savings, but still require substantial

tailored code.

• Be wary of licensing fees and operational costs. Many acquisitions focus

on the purchase costs and ignore or

place a low priority on continuing operational costs and licensing fees.

However, systems often outlast expectations, compounding the impact

of high operational costs and licensing fees. 

The Aerospace Corporation investigated

why acquisitions using COTS continue

to have cost overruns and performance

problems. The conclusions:

• The acquisition organization (government or civilian) cannot control

critical aspects of COTS. You do not

need to use all of the functional capabilities of COTS software packages.

Using the underlying concepts of operations of vendor-supplied software

eliminates integration problems.

• A 1981 (!) Jet Propulsion Laboratory

document on the Deep Space Program showed software reuse (including COTS) can produce substantial

savings, but still requires about 12

percent of the purely custom development cost for test and integration.

Our experience in the years since then

indicates that 12 percent is, if anything, a low estimate.

• Whenever possible, create win-win

situations—partnerships are useful.

Vendors are not bad guys. They need

to make a profit to survive, so work

with the vendors. When vendors understand your problems, they may be

able to resolve some of them in future

releases.

• Don’t modify the COTS. If you need

to change something to get the vendor software to work, first try to get

the vendor to make the modification.

If that is impossible, keep changes external and isolated from the commercial software.

Finally, as specified in a Mitre study,

COTS savings are generally overstated;

difficulty and limitations are generally

understated. When using COTS, learn

as you go; adjust plans accordingly.

Accept, Sell, Implement

The program manager with a new vision for his or her organization faces

numerous challenges. In our experience,

most of these are cultural and organizational, and the program manager who

recognizes this, and plans for it from the

inception of his or her vision, has a

much greater chance of success.

• Accept that a new vision means cultural change.

• Sell the cultural change to executive

management.

• Implement change with best practices.

As a closing note, it is interesting to observe that the lessons cited in this article are very similar to the lessons published in 1976 by the General

Accounting Office (Lessons Learned

About Acquiring Financial Management

& Other Information Systems). Most of

those lessons involved leadership, managing change, and using best practices.

While technologies change from year to

year, the management challenges of

adopting and adapting to those changes

remain fundamentally the same. 

Vision is not a new product—it is a new

culture.

Editor’s Note: The authors welcome

questions or comments on this article.

Contact them at shere@aero.org and

srt@aero.org.
PM : MAY-JUNE 2003 93

THE FALCON AND THE MIRAGE:

MANAGING FOR COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS

Author: B.A. “Tony” Kausal

Publisher: DAU Press (November 2001)

Great differences exist between France and the

United States in the ways each nation acquires

new weapon systems. Some differences are cultural; others are a difference in organizational or

management style. Much can be

learned from recognizing those differences and gauging the results they

have on meeting milestones and producing successful programs.

This guidebook examines the French

Ministére de la Défense and the Délégation Générale pour l’Armement

(DGA) and compares and contrasts

each agency to the U.S. acquisition

structure, and the ways each interacts with Defense industry. The author examines the System Program Offices of each

country, and gives his insights based on years of experience with the U.S. Air Force and his recent assignment as part of a professional exchange between

the Defense Acquisition University (where he was

the Air Force Chair in the DAU Executive Institute),

and the Centre des Hautes Études de l’Armement

(CHEAr) in France.

Online

An online copy is available at http://www.dau.mil/

pubs/pubs-main.asp#Online.

Printed Copy

To request a printed copy of The Falcon and the Mirage: Managing for Combat Effectiveness, choose one

of three options: 1) Fax a written request to the

DAU Publications Distribution Center at (703) 805-

3726; 2) mail your request to Defense Acquisition

University, Attn: AS-CI, 9820 Belvoir Road, Suite

3, Fort Belvoir VA 22060-5565; or 3) e-mail

jeff.turner@dau.mil.

THE FOURTH ESTATE: THE IMPACT OF

MASS COMMUNICATIONS ON DEFENSE

SYSTEMS ACQUISITION DECISION

MAKING

Author: Robert F. Delaney

Publisher: DAU Press (January 2002)

T

his guidebook examines Department of Defense

Policy and gives an overview of the acquisition

process in relation to Public Affairs and the Media. It delves into the

historical background of the Press

and Media in the United States and

the rise of adversarial media-government relations. It also discusses

the rise of mass communications in

America and the impact of mass

media on American culture and politics. It examines the media and the

political process, including polls and

lobbying. It also discusses media

techniques and the future of information technology, including cyber warfare. It investigates national security, public policy, and public opinion using real-world examples from the

White House, Congress, and the Pentagon. Finally,

it discusses decision making in the Age of Instant

Communications—how to relate to the Media and

Program Managers, and how to include Media planning in Acquisition decisions.

Online

An online copy will soon be available at http://www.

dau.mil/pubs/pubs-main.asp#Online.

Printed Copy

To request a printed copy of The Fourth Estate: The

Impact of Mass Communications on Defense Systems

Acquisition Decision Making, choose one of three options: 1) Fax a written request to the DAU Publications Distribution Center at (703) 805-3726; 2)

mail your request to Defense Acquisition University, Attn: AS-CI, 9820 Belvoir Road, Suite 3, Fort

Belvoir VA 22060-5565; or 3) e-mail jeff.turner

@dau.mil.

DAU Guidebooks Available

At No Cost to Government Employees
94 PM : MAY-JUNE 2003

Arrange for an Offering of DAU’s New:

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

• Learn and apply team building processes to

develop and maintain effective teams

• Learn the roles of the project team leader and

the skills needed to successfully perform these

roles

• Evaluate individual leadership and team

building strengths and development needs

using a variety of feedback instruments.

COURSE LENGTH 

AND TOPICS

This one-week course will cover leadership,

team building, team problem solving and decision making, team conflict resolution,

setting team goals, empowerment and

coaching, and leading change. The

course will be taught using lecture/discussion, case studies, team exercises,

and individual feedback instruments.

Leading Project Teams Course

TARGET AUDIENCE

Acquisition workforce members with functional

expertise but little team building or leadership

experience.

PREREQUISITES

Completion of ACQ 101 is required and ACQ

201 is desired.

COURSE OFFERINGS

This course is offered on a fee-for-service basis

with the date and location negotiated with the

sponsor. The course can also be tailored to better meet the needs of the sponsoring

organization.

CALL NOW!

Call the DAU Program Management

and Leadership Department at 703-

805-3424 or E-mail owen.gadeken@

dau.mil to set up a course offering.
Acquisition

Logistics Excellence

Surfing the Net

An Internet Listing Tailored to the Professional Acquisition Workforce

&

Defense Systems Management College

(DSMC)

http://www.dau.mil

DSMC educational products and services; course

schedules; job opportunities.

Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA)

http://www.darpa.mil

News releases; current solicitations; “Doing Business with DARPA.”

Defense Information Systems Agency

(DISA)

http://www.disa.mil

Structure and mission of DISA; Defense Information System Network; Defense Message System;

Global Command and Control System; much

more!

National Imagery and Mapping Agency

http://www.nima.mil

Imagery; maps and geodata; Freedom of Information Act resources; publications.

Defense Modeling and Simulation Office

(DMSO)

http://www.dmso.mil

DoD Modeling and Simulation Master Plan; document library; events; services. 

Defense Technical Information Center

(DTIC)

http://www.dtic.mil/

Technical reports; products and services; registration with DTIC; special programs; acronyms;

DTIC FAQs. 

Defense Electronic Business Program

Office (DEBPO)

http://www.defenselink.mil/acq/ebusiness/

Policy; newsletters; Central Contractor Registration; Assistance Centers; DoD EC Partners.

Open Systems Joint Task Force

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osjtf

Open Systems education and training opportunities; studies and assessments; projects, initiatives

and plans; reference library.

Government-Industry Data Exchange

Program (GIDEP)

http://www.gidep.org

Federally funded co-op of government-industry

participants, providing an electronic forum to exchange technical information essential to

research, design, development, production, and

operational phases of the life cycle of systems, facilities, and equipment.

Army Acquisition

http://acqnet.saalt.army.mil

A-MART; documents library; training and business opportunities; past performance; paperless

contracting; labor rates.

Navy Acquisition Reform

http://www.ar.navy.mil

Acquisition policy and guidance; World-class

Practices; Acquisition Center of Excellence; training opportunities.

Naval Sea Systems Command

http://www.navsea.navy.mil

Total Ownership Cost (TOC); documentation and

policy; Reduction Plan; Implementation Timeline;

TOC reporting templates; Frequently Asked

Questions.

Navy Acquisition and Business

Management

http://www.abm.rda.hq.navy.mil

Policy documents; training opportunities; guides

on areas such as risk management, acquisition environmental issues, past performance, and more;

news and assistance for the Standardized Procurement System (SPS) community; notices of

upcoming events.

Navy Best Manufacturing Practices

Center of Excellence

http://www.bmpcoe.org

A national resource to identify and share best

manufacturing and business practices being used

throughout industry, government, and academia.

Space and Naval Warfare Systems

Command (SPAWAR)

https://e-commerce.spawar.navy.mil

Your source for SPAWAR business opportunities,

acquisition news, solicitations, and small

business information. 

Joint Interoperability Test Command

(JITC)

http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil

Policies and procedures for interoperability certification. Access to lessons learned; link for

requesting support.

Air Force (Acquisition)

http://www.safaq.hq.af.mil/

Policy; career development and training opportunities; reducing TOC; library; links.

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)

Contracting Laboratory’s FAR Site

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

FAR search tool; Commerce Business Daily

Announcements (CBDNet); Federal Register;

Electronic Forms Library.

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics) (USD[AT&L])

http://www.acq.osd.mil/

ACQWeb offers a library of USD(AT&L) documents,

a means to view streaming videos, and jump points

to many other valuable sites.

Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP)

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap

Procurement and Acquisition Policy news and

events; reference library; DPAP organizational

breakout; acquisition education and training policy and guidance. 

DoD Inspector General

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/pubs/index.html

Search for audit and evaluation reports, Inspector

General testimony, and planned and ongoing

audit projects of interest to the acquisition community.

Deputy Director, Systems Engineering,

USD (AT&L/IO/SE)

http://www.acq.osd.mil/io/se/index.htm

Systems engineering mission; Defense Acquisition

Workforce Improvement Act information, training, and related sites; information on key areas of

systems engineering responsibility.

Defense Acquisition Deskbook

http://deskbook.dau.mil

Automated acquisition reference tool covering

mandatory and discretionary practices.

Defense Acquisition History (DAH) Project

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/acquisition/

acqhome.htm

The DAH Project is a multi-year program to produce a detailed history of defense acquisition

since 1947, to be published in six volumes. The

site features a quarterly online newsletter, project

status announcements, acquisition history links,

and contact information.

Defense Acquisition University (DAU)

http://www.dau.mil

DAU Course Catalog, Program Manager magazine

and Acquisition Review Quarterly journal; course

schedule; policy documents; guidebooks; and

training and education news for the Defense Acquisition Workforce.

Defense Acquisition University Distance

Learning Courses

https://dau.mil/registrar/apply.asp

Take DAU courses online at your desk, at home,

at your convenience!

Army Acquisition Corps (AAC)

http://asc.rdaisa.army.mil

News; policy; publications; personnel demo; contacts; training opportunities.

Department of Defense
Commerce Business Daily

http://www.govcon.com/

Access to current and back issues with search capabilities; business opportunities; interactive yellow pages.

DoD Specifications and Standards

Home Page

http://www.dsp.dla.mil

All about DoD standardization; key Points of

Contact; FAQs; Military Specifications and Standards Reform; newsletters; training; nongovernment standards; links to related sites.

Earned Value Management

http://www.acq.osd.mil/pm

Implementation of Earned Value Management;

latest policy changes; standards; international developments; active noteboard.

Fedworld Information

http://www.fedworld.gov

Comprehensive central access point for searching, locating, ordering, and acquiring

government and business information.

GSA Federal Supply Service

http://pub.fss.gsa.gov

The No. 1 resource for the latest services and

products industry has to offer. 

MANPRINT (Manpower and Personnel

Integration)

http://www.MANPRINT.army.mil

Points of contact for program managers; relevant

regulations; policy letters from the Army Acquisition Executive; as well as briefings on the MANPRINT program. 

Program Management Community of

Practice (PMCoP)

http://www.pmcop.dau.mil

Includes risk management, contracting, system

engineering, total ownership cost (TOC) policies,

procedures, tools, references, publications, Web

links, and lessons learned.

Acquisition

Logistics Excellence

Surfing the Net

An Internet Listing Tailored to the Professional Acquisition Workforce

&

Acquisition Network (ACQNET) 

http://www.arnet.gov/

Virtual library; federal acquisition and procurement opportunities; best practices; electronic forums; business opportunities; acquisition training; Excluded Parties List.

Committee for Purchase from People

Who are Blind or Severely Disabled

http://www.jwod.gov

Provides information and guidance to federal

customers on the requirements of the JavitsWagner-O’Day (JWOD) Act.

Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI)

http://www.faionline.com

Virtual campus for learning opportunities as well

as information access and performance support. 

Federal Acquisition Jump Station

http://nais.nasa.gov/fedproc/home.html

Procurement and acquisition servers by contracting activity; CBDNet; Reference Library.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

http://www.asu.faa.gov

Online policy and guidance for all aspects of the

acquisition process.

General Accounting Office (GAO)

http://www.gao.gov

Access to GAO reports, policy and guidance, and

FAQs.

General Services Administration (GSA)

http://www.gsa.gov

Online shopping for commercial items to

support government interests.

Library of Congress

http://www.loc.gov

Research services; Congress at Work; Copyright

Office; FAQs. 

National Technical Information Service

(NTIS)

http://www.ntis.gov

Online service for purchasing technical reports,

computer products, videotapes, audiocassettes,

and more!

Small Business Administration (SBA)

http://www.SBAonline.SBA.gov

Communications network for small businesses.

U.S. Coast Guard

http://www.uscg.mil

News and current events; services; points of contact; FAQs.

U.S. Department of Transportation

MARITIME Administration

http://www.marad.dot.gov/offices/cargo_pref.

html

Provides information and guidance on the

requirements for shipping cargo on U.S. flag vessels.

Federal Civilian Agencies Topical Listings Industry and Professional Organizations

Association of Old Crows (AOC)

http://www.crows.org

Association news; conventions, conferences and

courses; Journal of Electronic Defense magazine.

DAU Alumni Association

http://www.dauaa.org

Acquisition tools and resources; government

and related links; career opportunities; member

forums.

Computer Assisted Technology Transfer

(CATT) Program

http://catt.bus.okstate.edu

Collaborative effort between government, industry, and academia. Learn about CATT and how

to participate.

Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)

http://www.eia.org

Government Relations Department; includes

links to issue councils; market research

assistance.

International Society of Logistics

http://www.sole.org/

Online desk references that link to logistics

problem-solving advice; Certified Professional

Logistician certification.

National Contract Management

Association (NCMA)

http://www.ncmahq.org

“What’s New in Contracting?”; educational

products catalog; career center. 

National Defense Industrial Association

(NDIA)

http://www.ndia.org

Association news; events; government policy;

National Defense magazine.

Project Management Institute

http://www.pmi.org

Program management publications, information

resources, professional practices, and career certification.

Software Program Managers Network

http://www.spmn.com

Site supports project managers, software practitioners, and government contractors. Contains

publications on highly effective software development best practices.

If you would like to add your acquisition or acquisition and logistics excellence-related Web site to

this list, please put your request in

writing and fax it to Sylwia

Gasiorek-Nelson, (703) 805-

2917. 

DAU encourages the reciprocal

linking of its Home Page to

other interested agencies.

Contact the DAU Webmaster

at: webmaster@dau.mil.
Purpose

The purpose of Program Manager Magazine is to instruct members of

the DoD Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (AT&L) Workforce and Defense Industry on policies, trends, legislation, senior leadership changes,

events, and current thinking affecting program management and defense

systems acquisition, and to disseminate other information pertinent to

the professional development and education of the DoD Acquisition Workforce.

Subject Matter

Subjects may include, but are not restricted to, all aspects of program

management; professional and educational development of DoD’s AT&L

Workforce; acquisition and logistics excellence; Defense industrial base;

research and development; test and evaluation; modeling and simulation; commercial best business practices; and interviews with Government-Industry Defense executives.

Program Manager is not a forum for academic papers, fact sheets, technical papers, or white papers (these are typically recognized by their structured packaging, e.g., Introduction, Background, Discussion, Methodology, Recommendations, Conclusions). Those papers are more suited for

DAU's journal, Acquisition Review Quarterly. Program Manager Magazine

publishes, for the most part, feature stories that include real people and

events. Stories that appeal to our readers—who are senior military personnel, civilians, and defense industry professionals in the program management/acquisition business—are those taken from real-world experiences vs. pages of researched information. 

Good writing sounds like comfortable conversation. Write naturally and

avoid stiltedness. Except for a rare change of pace, most sentences should

be 25 words or less, and paragraphs should be six sentences. Vary your

syntax. Avoid falling into the trap of writing one declarative sentence after

another. Package your article with liberal use of subheads.

Length of Articles

Program Manager is flexible regarding length, but articles most likely to

be published are generally 2,000-3,000 words or about 10 doublespaced pages, each page having a 1-inch border on all sides. However,

do not be constrained by length requirements; tell your story in the most

direct way, regardless of length. Do not submit articles in a layout format,

nor should articles include any footnotes, endnotes, or references. Be

sure to define all acronyms.

Photos and Illustrations

Articles may include figures, charts, and photographs. They must, however, be in a separate file from the article. Photos must be black and white

or color. Program Manager does not guarantee the return of photographs.

Include brief, numbered captions keyed to the photographs. Place a corresponding number on the lower left corner, reverse side of the photographs. Also, be sure to include the source of the photograph. Program

Manager publishes no photos from outside the Department of Defense

without express permission. Photocopies of photographs are not acceptable. 

With the increase in digital media capabilities, authors can now provide

digital files of photos/illustrations. (Our author guidelines at http://

www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/articles.asp contain complete instructions on transferring these files.) Note that they must meet the following publication

standards set for Program Manager: color and greyscale (if possible); EPS

files generated from Illustrator (preferred) or Corel Draw (if in another format, provide program format as well as EPS file); TIFF files with a resolution of 300 pixels per inch; or other files in original program format (i.e.,

Powerpoint).

Biographical Sketch

Include a short biographical sketch of the author(s)—about 25 words—

including current position and educational background.

Clearance

All articles written by authors employed by or on contract with the U.S.

Government must be cleared by the author’s public affairs or security office prior to submission. In addition, each author must certify that the article is a “Work of the U.S. Government.” This form is found at the end of

the PM Author Guidance. Click on “Copyright Forms” and print the last

page only, sign, and submit with the article. Since all articles appearing

in Program Manager are in the public domain and posted to the DAU

Web site, no copyrighted articles will be accepted. This is in keeping with

DAU’s policy of widest dissemination of its published products.

Submission Dates

Issue Author’s Deadline

January-February 1 December

March-April 1 February

May-June 1 April

July-August 1 June

September-October 1 August

November-December 1 October

Submission Procedures

Articles (in MS Word) may be submitted via e-mail to collie.

Johnson@dau.mil or via U.S. mail to: DAU PRESS, ATTN C. JOHNSON,

9820 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 3, FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5565. For

photos/illustrations accompanying your article, send us the original photos or follow the guidance under “Photos and Illustrations”—opposite column. All submissions must include the author’s name, mailing address,

office phone number (DSN and commercial), and fax number. 

Program Manager Writer’s Guidelines in Brief

(http://www.dau.mil/pubs/pm/articles.asp
A Bimonthly Magazine 

of the Defense 

Acquisition University