Clearly, now is the time to fix the broken systems and processes, and the Pentagon’s acquisition system is in need of a fix – sequestration or no sequestration, as identified in a recent NDIA article. Cost overruns for major acquisition programs can be up to 70 percent. Given the size of some acquisition programs, even a 10 to 20 percent savings could make a substantial difference to the defense budget over time.
The article identifies the followings areas to clean up the acquisition process:
- Bringing the service chiefs into the acquisition chain of command in order to make tradeoffs.
- Instituting more discipline in the requirements process.
- Eliminating red tape, reviews, and administrative burdens so Program Managers can actually focus on doing program management.
The author notes that talented program managers are becoming endangered with all of the power point briefings and program updates, which are not as important as the ability to stay within scope, cost, and schedule or remove burdensome processes. The system needs to select, grow, and nurture this program management expertise. Along with removing or reducing the wasted time spent on program reviews and updates, incentives and rewards are also key ingredients. How many of the talented acquisition professionals have “moved on” because of budget cuts, furloughs, and pay freezes?
While bringing the service chiefs in and having more discipline in the requirements process are good ideas, there is also a severe need to speed up the acquisition process. Service chiefs rotate out – sometimes too frequently. The requirements process is so bogged down that it can (and often does) take years to get a requirement from the end user, have it validated, get it programmed for development, develop it, and get it back out to the field. This needs to be fixed so that end users are not so frustrated that they do not even bother submitting a requirement up their chain of command because the thought process is: “I’ll never see it in my lifetime”. This is where the few rapid R&D shops can really thrive.
Top leadership needs to grow the staff, but caution is needed so the pendulum does not swing too far in the other direction. The article mentions that top leadership should be deeply involved in balancing budget, requirements, and program performance; however, the danger is that it is creating more red tape and administrative burden, which has already been identified as part of the broken system. Additionally, it borders on the edge of having a micro-manager. How much better would it be for the leader to grow and nurture good managers, provide direction, and trust the staff to execute?
Evidently, any change to the broken system will not happen easily or overnight. However, with the right leadership and managers, changes can be made to the Pentagon’s acquisition system. Any savings in the acquisitions process could easily be better applied within the defense budget.
