Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Defense</strong> <strong>Acquisition</strong> Review Journal SoSE experts envision future requirements generation as a fluid process, capable of coping with shifting environments. Accordingly, SoS requirements must provide for flexibility in parameters and boundaries. Because overall SoS performance results from complex component system interactions, the J-8’s ability to produce an “integrated, time-phased, fiscally informed capability, acquisition, and divestiture plan” (DAPA Report, 2006, p. 39) that captures SoS capabilities is questionable. Instead, the J-8 should describe SoS requirements more holistically. The proposed JCAD system could accommodate such an approach by emphasizing overarching capabilities and architectures, rather than traditional program proposal elements such as system technical descriptions, delivery profiles, and production quantities. Furthermore, the JCAD process pits Services against one another to compete for material solutions. This competition would hinder development and integration of SoS components across Service boundaries. As the JCAD process is currently envisioned, Services competing to develop SoS components would lack incentives to prioritize capabilities that enhanced other Services’ needs. SoS development in this parochial manner would quickly degenerate into inefficient parallel engineering of systems that might form a loosely interoperable system, but would remain a far cry from the capabilities that integrated SoSE could achieve. Several modifications to the proposed JCAD could tailor its processes to better support SoS requirements generation. First, because SoS development must be flexible and iterative, the J-8 should describe the incremental value desired for new SoS (or particular component) capabilities rather than attempt to create an integrated, time-phased capability plan prior to program inception. Second, material solutions proposals for SoS components should broadly describe capabilities and integrating architectures instead of specific technical descriptions and force structure proposals. Finally, inter-Service competition should be based on selecting the best leader for SoS integration efforts. This approach would facilitate joint cooperation on proposals, establishing a more collaborative atmosphere for SoS development. conclusion—recoMMenDations to tailor reforM Decades of unsuccessful reforms have frustrated generations of professionals seeking to fix defense acquisition through incremental improvements. The DAPA panel proposes to break this pattern with a sweeping reform plan, actionable recommendations, and an implementation strategy. While these proposals offer significant promise, they do not anticipate critical challenges presented by SoS development. While defense leadership is counting on SoS capabilities, the current and proposed acquisition systems are ill equipped to facilitate actual development of these systems. To better facilitate SoS acquisition, the following modifications to the DAPA Report recommendations are suggested: � Organization. Plans to restructure defense acquisition must incorporate mechanisms to coordinate joint efforts. Assignment of a lead-sponsor to oversee inter- Service collaboration in SoS development would support this goal. 188
� � systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent Budget. Efforts to stabilize acquisition budgets, such as the SPFA, should be introduced in an SoS development program. This arrangement would empower an SoS lead-sponsor to make trade-offs among component systems. Requirements Generation. The proposed JCAD processes should be tailored to three specific guidelines: a) Focus SoS requirements on incremental capability needs and architectures instead of detailed technical descriptions. b) c) Encourage earlier joint cooperation on SoS material solutions. Use competition to select SoS lead-sponsorship instead of Service-specific material solutions for SoS components. Incorporating these ideas in today’s defense acquisition reforms would help catalyze transformations in the acquisition workforce needed for SoS development and significantly improve the likelihood that tomorrow’s systems will realize their potential. 189
Page 2 and 3:
Vacant Office of Small Business Pro
Page 4 and 5:
133 151 disruption of testing regim
Page 7 and 8:
Defense ARJ executiVe eDitor Defens
Page 9 and 10:
July 2008 Joint attack Munition sys
Page 11 and 12:
Does orGaniZational leVel influence
Page 13 and 14:
creatiVe Potential anD PracticeD cr
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arM
Page 33 and 34:
tAble 1. suMMary Case inforMation S
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
tAble 9. Continuity of tradoC staff
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
HoW to Make incentiVe systeM of anD
Page 51 and 52:
tAble 2. suMMary of Consensus views
Page 53 and 54: HoW to Make incentiVe systeM of anD
Page 63 and 64: conclusions HoW to Make incentiVe s
Page 65 and 66: endnotes HoW to Make incentiVe syst
Page 67 and 68: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? PPBe: a
Page 69 and 70: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? 1995).
Page 71 and 72: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? cation;
Page 73 and 74: Our policy to counter international
Page 75 and 76: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? reminis
Page 77 and 78: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? process
Page 79 and 80: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? COE. As
Page 81 and 82: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? with th
Page 83 and 84: RefeRences PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pi
Page 85 and 86: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? Martin,
Page 87 and 88: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? Wachows
Page 89 and 90: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? 6. The
Page 91 and 92: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent syste
Page 93 and 94: tHe Defense acQuisition fraMeWork:
Page 95 and 96: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent tHe D
Page 97 and 98: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent searc
Page 99 and 100: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent “em
Page 101 and 102: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent for l
Page 103: systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent DAPA
Page 107 and 108: RefeRences systeM of systeMs DeVelo
Page 109 and 110: endnotes systeM of systeMs DeVeloPM
Page 111 and 112: a GliMPse into DoD WeaPon systeMs P
Page 113 and 114: � � � � � � � systeM
Page 115 and 116: systeM DoD WeaPon of systeMs DeVelo
Page 123: systeM DoD WeaPon of systeMs DeVelo
Page 126 and 127: Defense Acquisition Review Journal
Page 128 and 129: Defense Acquisition Review Journal
Page 130 and 131: defense Acqu s t on un vers ty web
Page 132: Defense Acquisition Review Journal
show all

Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?