Reframing Acquisition Logistics Comprehensive Examination – Action Learning Project

1

Reframing Acquisition LogisticsReframing Acquisition LogisticsComprehensive Examination –

Action Learning Project

James L. KellyDepartment of the Army

American University - Key 28 Cohort

2

Reframing Acquisition LogisticsReframing Acquisition Logistics

Agenda• Introduction• The Problem• Enter Chinook• Action–Learning• Recommendations

3


Introduction• Organization: Assistant Secretary of the Army

- Acquisition, Logistics and Technology• Mission: Develop, acquire, field and sustain• Scope: Total lifecycle responsibilities• Issue: Emphasis on early outcomes• Result: Later outcomes suffer

4


Introduction (cont.)• ASAALT is a relatively new organization• Has not embraced its new responsibilities• Army’s fielded capabilities programs:

– Fail to meet availability requirements– Fail to meet reliability requirements– Experience support cost overruns

5


The Problem• Desire to address both

problems: organizational and capabilities programs

• Overwhelming task• Focus on one program• Improve other programs

and the overall ASAALT organization through Action Learning

6


Enter Chinook• Improved heavy lift helicopter capability• New production and service life extension• Upgrades 529 CH-47D to CH-47F/MH-47G

– Restores high/hot flight performance– Enhances Army and Joint interoperability– Provides long-range SOF insertion/extraction

7


8


Enter Chinook (cont.)Key acquisition lifecycle program decisionsKey milestone activities already completeTypically flawed program objectivesRequired my direct action in 2004

Full-rate production decisionLogistics assessment

9


BAConcept

RefinementSystem Development

& DemonstrationProduction &Deployment

Operations &Support

C

FRP DecisionReview

LRIP/IOT&EDesign

ReadinessReview

TechnologyDevelopment

ConceptDecision

DoDI 5000.2, May 2003 FRP DecisionNov 04

ASARC Dec 97DAB May 98

LRIP ApprovedDec 02

CH-47F ProgramMNS

Mar 94ORD JROC

Apr 98ORD CH 3

JROC Feb 04

CH-47F Program Entered the Acquisition Lifecycle at MS B

10


CH-47C 78-03449 (Haiti, 1988) CH-47D 92-03449 (Bosnia, 1995) CH-47D 92-03449 (Afghanistan, 2002)

CH-47D-F 92-03449 2012 - Service Life to 2032

CH-47A 60-03449 Prototype #8

(Philadelphia, 1960)

CH-47B 66-03449 (Vietnam, 1969)

11


Action Chronology1. Introduce action

learning, sponsor2. Select and train the

action learning team3. Begin to address the

success measures4. Integrate learning

Action Results Dec 03, near, mid,

long-term effort 30 day Jan-Feb 04,

verify near problem Late Feb 04 draft ILS

review, FRP decision milestone schedule

Mar 04 ASARC

12


Aircraft SystemILS Review

• Performance:– Reliability– Availability– Maintainability

• Suitability• Safety

Logistics SystemILS Review

• Supportability strategy• Business case analysis• Lifecycle cost analysis• Support agreements• ILS management

control plan

13


LRIP 1

CY06-18

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06-18

MajorProgram

Milestones

Brief to AAE MS II

TestProgram

LL CAJan ‘02

CY96 CY97 CY98 CY99 CY00 CY01 CY02 CY03 CY04 CY05IPF CAMay ‘01

LRIP1 CADec ‘02

Cont Dev

Draft RFP Proposal

LLLRIP 2/ FRP to 2022

Lot 3 CADec 04

LL2

OPTEC Continuous EvaluationLive Fire Testing

Boeing R&D/CRDABearcat 3 Testing

FRP DRFRP DRNov ‘04Nov ‘04

FUE (14)May 07

LRIP1 1st Del Oct‘04

ProgramDefinitionand EMD

LRIP and

Production

EMD Contract Award

CDRA/C 1

1st FlightA/C 1

Roll-Out Program Definition

Eng & Mfg Development (EMD)

Remfg AC #1

Remfg AC #2

RFP

OT&E

LRIP2 CADec ‘03

DT

IPP CAJun ‘02

Special ASARCMar ‘02

R&M Data Collection

Vibr

LL CAJan ‘03

LL CAJan ‘04

ILSReview

14


#1 What am I learning about myself, my leadership potential, and the structure, people, politics, and culture of the organization? How is this learning evolving over the course of the project?– Solid leader, had to lead outside of the normal structure– Brokering, coaching, facilitating and mentoring skills– Unforeseen challenges: facilitating SES, coaching– Structure, people, politics and culture inflexible– Significant repositioning to remain relevant

15


#2 How is my mindset influencing the data that I see, the decisions I make, and the results I achieve?– 20-year Army Aviator– See acquisition results– Not used to questioning– My mindset challenges

the status quo

16


#3 What am I blind to and how might I expand my vision of what I can see about myself, and others in this organization?– Army Acquisition Corps

mindset, Level-III cert.– Army requirements,

permanent action learning process

17


#4 What courses at AU am I drawing on in the process of conducting this project? Specifically, how am I applying these courses to the project?– PUAD 622 Leadership: Leadership - Applied all four of

Professor Zauderer’s unique leadership roles: broker, coach, facilitator, leader; applied self-leadership concepts throughout

– PUAD 624 Budgeting: Stewardship - Applied Professor Rigby’s US Federal and DoD budget concepts from planning through budgeting, execution & final audit of achieved goals

18


#4 (cont.)– PUAD 625 Research & Program Evaluation: Accountability

- Applied Professor Kingsbury and Norland’s supremely useful Logic Model which became the foundation of the integrated logistics review and acquisition reframing

– PUAD 627 Politics & Policy Making: Awareness - Applied Professor Zuck’s concept of the political playing field and thus defined the opposing and supporting sides; brought logisticians into the game via the ASARC-IPT arena

19


#4 (cont.)– PUAD 634 Acquisition Management: Methodology -

Applied Professor Mohr’s contracting principles to late phase of the acquisition lifecycle; insisted on competitive selection, performance-based support contracts; applied the new GAO procurement evaluation framework to ASAALT structure

– PUAD 654 Organizational Diagnosis & Change: Learning - Applied all of Professor Kramer’s organizational framing and Action Learning concepts; applied structural frame to the ASAALT organization; permanent Action Learning

20


#5 How did Action Learning perform in a real organization? Better than at AU; Why...?– Action Learning team very familiar with the problem– All had a stake in the CH-47F program outcomes– All shared in the risk of inaction or failureIn addition…– DoD uses integrated product teams extensively– One can lead from coach, presenter or participant roles– Pace, results and scope of defense acquisition work has

many searching for and receptive to new ways of thinking

21


#6 What didn’t I expect to learn?– DASA-ILS staff divisions

are not well integrated– Action Learning and ILS

review are universally applicable in DoD

– Action Learning project components form an integrated product

22


Acquisition LogisticsRecommendations

• Establish milestone D• Conduct initial ILS

review at entry to milestone B

• Permanent Action Learning process

• Four frame analysis

Action LearningRecommendations

• Project must include: action, risk, urgency

• Don’t underestimate training requirement

• Project components are distinct, three-legged stool

23

Thanks

Reframing Acquisition Logistics Comprehensive Examination – Action Learning Project

Documents

Transcript of Reframing Acquisition Logistics Comprehensive Examination – Action Learning Project