Introduction
In military contracting, the interaction between the state and its counterparts in the private sector is crucial. Such a situation highlights the fundamental necessity for a collaboration between the authorities and the defense sector to exist in the implementation of military material procurement programs. The findings of several investigations undertaken by the the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), nevertheless, indicate that the DoD and the defense sector do not have a solid partnership-based relationship. The DoD and military sectors must interact, but the research shows that there is certainly a gap in this area. The below discussion aims to assess how the program managers are impacted by Mills, Fouse, and Green’s article’s suggestions that were modified into the 5000.02 instructions.
Background
The results of a study ordered by David Ahern on account of the OSD were released by DAU in July 2009. Relying on replies from PMs operating in Acquisition Category I and II initiatives, the research was conducted. Its supporters wanted to know if DoD was instructing its managers in a way that was acceptable and relevant to their jobs (Mills et al., 2011). They also wanted to figure out if there were any chances for these people to become more proficient. The study includes conclusions in three areas: learning objectives, learning strategies, as well as career and experience development.
In the section titled “Topics of Training,” the most important conclusion was that project leaders need extra education in industry standards, including aspects that encourage construction companies and methods in which program managers could utilize rewards to attain better program effectiveness for the state customer. The question is why this is a big area of worry for top government program managers, given the decades of cooperation between the state and the defense sector in researching, manufacturing, and fielding war-fighter structures (Tossell et al., 2016). The findings are likely to show that although government PMs are aware of the inherent benefits of developing strong relationships with businesses, the existing state of affairs between these two entities does not support the deeper knowledge and collaboration that government project managers want.
Early in 2010, DAU surveyed PMs working for private companies. The goal was to gain an understanding of how the private sector perceives the possibilities and problems that exist in their joint connections with their public counterparts. A wide range of project managers from five significant military sector enterprises participated in the DAU methodology. The findings revealed information about the extent of the present sincere collaboration between DoD and industry project managers. The results of the poll were divided into five major categories: leadership, respect, money, communication, and processes. These five components outline the essential relationship elements required for creating and maintaining any successful and reliable engagement, including the advantageous and shared cooperation between the state and the defense sector.
In addition to being possible, a successful DoD-defense industry relationship will also lead to better acquisition results. Collective observation and expertise show that flexibility is among industrial businesses’ main needs and demands from government service offices. Hence, regardless of unanticipated circumstances and changes, government project managers look to the private sector to supply necessary capabilities as near to the original timeline and cost projections as feasible (Alfred et al., 2017). Moreover, private businesses look to the government for stability. In other words, the private sector looks for a certain amount of assurance regarding the volume of existing and future activity they will be hired to do for the state. For the advantage of its investors, the industry can anticipate performance, manage subcontractor relationships, and modify employment levels thanks to stability.
It is impossible to achieve total industry stability and total governmental flexibility. To be successful, the partnership requires that each entity contributes to meeting the needs of the others (Lacson et al., 2017). It is suggested that the five elements for a successful partnership – discussed above – serve as the foundation of mass via which the state and business should attempt to interact. There are several pieces of evidence that seem to support such an argument.
Government and corporate project managers have access to a wide range of program administration and acquisition control tools inside DAU. It might be assumed that the university can directly assist in the endeavor to build and maintain strong relationships, even if the major objective of DAU training capabilities is to allow efficiency in administering DoD acquisition projects. All of the operational domains that support DoD material acquisition programs provide top-notch acquisition training (Dominguez et al., 2012). The tools offered by DAU go well beyond the curriculum and have a sizable internet presence.
Then, government and business workers can also pursue education and certification possibilities through the Project Management Institute. It seems reasonable to say that this training could be just as successful in establishing and overseeing ties between the two businesses as DAU-sponsored learning has been. This is especially true given that the global defense sector will be heavily impacted by PMI’s suite of operations in the future (Homola et al., 2017). Multiple goals would be achieved by encouraging industry-standard certifications as a career advancement opportunity for Defense Acquisition Workforce personnel. First, fostering a shared understanding would facilitate improved interaction between the state and industry people. It would be possible to create a shared environment for project planning conversations by concentrating on and comprehending the industrial standards for project management.
In addition to the benefits of DAU and PMI courses for productive partnerships, the scholars advise taking the following actions into account. The first recommendation may be formulated as follows – TWI possibilities for DoD acquisition workers are now few (Mills et al., 2011). According to the OSD research, expanding the use of learning with industry programs is crucial for enhancing acquisition systems integration. One might agree with this evaluation and suggest working together to enhance the amount of TWI offerings accessible to acquisition experts each year through OSD and the PM departments of the defense sector.
Then, it is recommended to advise government program offices to ask industry partners to include the identities and cost forecasts for a limited number of their employees to accomplish DAU qualifications in their contract propositions to the state in an effort to boost possibilities and financing for contractor participation at DAU courses. These could be professionals from the private sector who were supporting the government contract (Mills et al., 2011). With this model, there would be no worry about using up essential overhead money because the contractor company could charge directly for the education of its employees. In exchange, staff who are more knowledgeable about the DoD’s material procurement procedures would help the government project office. The yearly DoD strategy, scheduling, financing, and execution procedure might help government project offices acquire the required funds.
The third recommendation is referred to effective cooperation between government, and business would be made much easier if DAU students had a greater understanding of the budgetary realities of the commercial defense sector. For its Intermediate Systems Acquisition training program, the DAU-South Region has already created a new part in which learners are given the fundamental knowledge on direct, indirect, and charged rate personnel costs (Mills et al., 2011). This kind of instruction can and ought to be used in all operational domains of other DAU programs.
The fourth recommendation is related to a brand-new course called “Understanding Industry,” which has just been created by DAU. In September 2010, the Senior Service College Fellowship participants successfully launched this course. This new DAU service is designed to give the Defense Acquisition Workforce important insights into how the business partners operate and assist DoD material acquisition projects. This course is a thorough 2.5-day program that instructs students on the essential elements of the sector partner’s business operations and tests them using a Capstone practice (Mills et al., 2011). The original pilot offering had extremely positive overall results – the course is still being improved.
Finally, the fifth recommendation is that DAU might offer frequent chances for interaction with the staff and management of private defense sector companies to aid in their understanding of the DoDI 5000.02, as well as related procedures. The National Defense Industry Association and its member groups already get annual lectures from DAU (Mills et al., 2011). Regular collaborations of this kind between DAU and business would be very beneficial to the broader endeavor to create and sustain successful government-defense industry alliances.
Thus, the idea standing behind the formulated recommendations is that the versatility of industry can provide the state and the stable management with coordinated initiatives by the government and sector to engage the five dimensions described in the discussion. Both governmental operations and business bottom lines will benefit from this “win-win” scenario (Worger et al., 2016). Efficient government collaborations will offer US and ally warfighters superior capacities supplied in a more expedient and cost-effective way. At this point, it seems reasonable to turn to the exploration of the extent to which these suggestions have been implemented in the DoDI 5000.02 and how they affect program managers.
First Recommendation
The first recommendation is referred to the processes of training with industry. The DoDI 5000.02 imply that a program manager will provide alternatives for personal, group, and joint training for operations, maintenance, and support employees in collaboration with approved DoD Component officials and, when applicable, establish training choices based on training performance assessments (Department of Defense, 2015). This can be implemented with other testing and evaluation activities. With a focus on alternatives that improve user capacities, retain skill competencies, and lower individual and group training costs, a thorough study will be supported by the key tasks indicated in the work task examination, training device document coordination paper, and conditioning workouts.
The program manager should create plans for the training frameworks that take into account the application of new learning methodologies, simulation techniques, encapsulated learning and distance learning, and orchestration systems that provide “anytime, anywhere” training and lessen the requirement on the training facility. Program managers are to employ simulation-supported integrated training when possible and affordable, and the training methods will completely embrace and replicate the extensibility of the operating network (Wilson et al., 2009). Given that there already had been an exact extent of implementation of this recommendation prior to the scholars’ research, the effect of it on program managers under the current conditions is moderate.
Second Recommendation
The second recommendation is to incentivize DAU course attendance. The DoDI 5000.02 implies that in order to handle the risks related to the item being purchased, the business model outlined in the acquisition strategy must be created. It should equally distribute risk between businesses and the state (Department of Defense, 2015). The strategy will be supported by a full comprehension of the risks connected to the product being purchased and the actions that need to be taken to mitigate those risks. The company strategy should be founded on a market study that takes into account the market’s capacities and constraints. The contract kind and incentive plan should be customized for the project and made to encourage the business to operate in a way that awards the accomplishment of the employee’s objectives (Buchanan et al., 2020). Any contracting plan should include incentives that are both reasonably achievable and large enough to encourage the contractor’s behavior and the results the government wants.
These incentives seem to include expenses on increasing the interest in attending the DAU course. Program managers seem to get some benefits from this, but taking into account the range of their responsibilities, they are included in designing incentive strategies in general. Hence, their performance should involve an additional workload, and the impact of the second recommendation is likely to be significant.
Third Recommendation
The third recommendation is to update the DAU course content. As explored above, this is comprehensively connected to the implementation of Intermediate Systems Acquisition (ACQ 201B). In accordance with this course – its most important aspects – program managers gain the following skills (Alexander, 2013). They will take action to ensure ergonomically designed systems, human factors construction, and perceptual engineering are used during platforms of mechatronics over the course of the curriculum to enable efficient human-machine integrations and to satisfy prerequisites for human systems integration. Examples of these actions include work packages and government/contractor complex product teams (Department of Defense, 2015). System designs will reduce or eliminate system features that demand too much intellectual, physiological, or sensory processing power, demand a lot of training or effort, lead to mission-critical mistakes, or create safety or health risks.
Program managers are to be able to describe the traits of a “successful” military acquisition strategy from several angles, identify the fundamental moral principles that are important in the acquisition context, and apply the phases of the Principled Decision-Making Model to a moral conundrum. Then, based on factors such as cost, scheduling, and technical viability, program managers should be capable of comparing several options to achieve the required capability. They should also know how to create a structure chart for the acquisition strategy program that demonstrates the necessary connections between the various commercial and technical departments involved in the program’s development and execution. This also implies the determination of the allotted funding type that is required for each phase and task effort and the proper order and timing of the experimental and functional test activities per phase and work output using the acquisition program architecture chart. Thus, given such a wide range of skills and competence to gain from the course, it seems that the third recommendation affects program managers considerably.
Fourth Recommendation
The fourth recommendation is to develop new industry-specific content. The scholars make an emphasis on the “Understanding Industry” course. In this regard, program managers are to acquire the following competencies (Department of Defense, 2015). By using the integration process, they can make sure that lower-level system components are integrated with higher-level system components and that the finished system is integrated with its operating environment.
Then, utilizing interdisciplinary teams, program managers should integrate crucial software acquisition and maintenance tasks in order to improve the processes for design, manufacture, and supportability. There is also a necessity to evaluate inputs from pertinent stakeholders to translate them into workable and specialized demands that are handled, identifiable, and substantiated throughout the software lifecycle procedure and that define the desired action of the software application to be built in order to meet the intended users.
Moreover, program managers are to enlighten and influence others to embrace and act on certain ideas and communicate technical and difficult material in a clear, structured way, both orally and in writing. This correlates with the need to develop a thorough awareness of the system, identify issues utilizing a Total Systems method, assess the relevance and quality of information, take into consideration interdependencies, and evaluate various solutions when making suggestions (Plaga et al., 2016). Thus, the development of the new course considerably affects program managers. They are to gain many competencies that require much effort, time, and cognitive predisposition.
Fifth Recommendation
Finally, the fifth recommendation is related to the increased DAU engagement within the scope of the industry. It is important to outline the essentials of this proposal from the perspective of program managers – aspects most pressing for them. Such a suggestion implies that the mentioned educational institution should arrange a number of additional seminars that would provide employees from the private defense sector with the opportunities to better understand the processes in which they are involved. This seems to cover a broad range of aspects – starting from the macroeconomics of the industry in general and ending with leadership affairs (Department of Defense, 2015). Constant affiliations of this sort between DAU and the sector are expected to be of great value in the framework of collaborations between the state and private defense entities.
It seems reasonable to claim that the described set of activities resulting from the recommendation’s implementation has a moderate influence on the program manager’s routine and responsibilities. Particularly, they should be prepared for the proposed seminars and even conduct some of them as experts from the field. In order to be successful in this vein, program managers are to develop their skills as lecturers and orators so that the audience can be convinced and the content delivered.
Conclusion
The above discussion was dedicated to the evaluation of the degree recommendations from Mills, Fouse, and Green’s article, adapted in the 5000.02 instructions, which affect program managers. The background of the ideas suggested by the scholars was provided so that the full picture could be visible, as well as the essence of their recommendations explored. During the study, it was found that the first and the fifth suggestions from the scholars have a moderate effect on program managers’ performance. Meanwhile, the second, third, and fourth ones were found to affect program managers considerably.
References
Alexander, J. (2013). An analysis of training requirements and competencies for the Naval Acquisition Systems Engineering workforce. Calhoun. Web.
Alfred, P., Kosnik, B., Lacson, F., Merriman, S. C., O’Neil, C. M., Seely, O., & Thomas, J. (2017). Human systems integration stakeholders: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned across government and industry. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1706–1710.
Buchanan, R. K., Goerger, S. R., Rinaudo, C. H., Parnell, G., Ross, A., & Sitterle, V. (2020). Resilience in engineered resilient systems. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 17(4), 435-446.
Department of Defense. (2015). DOD instruction 5000.02. Web.
Dominguez, C. O., McDermott, P., Shattuck, L., Savage-Knepshield, P., Nemeth, C., Draper, M., & Moore, K. (2012). Where’s the beef: How pervasive is cognitive engineering in military research & development today? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 453–457.
Homola, J., Dao, Q., & Edwards, T. (2017). Safety in a transformational era of transportation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1626–1628.
Lacson, F. C., Risser, M. R., Gwynne, J. W., & Kosnik, W. D. (2017). The human systems integration framework: Enhanced HSI support for system acquisition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1720–1724.
Mills, S., Fouse, S., & Green, A. (2011). Creating and sustaining an effective government-defense industry partnership. Defense AR Journal, 18(3), 295–312.
Plaga, J. A., Kosnik, W., Lacson, F., Thomas, J., & Whitmore, M. (2016). Recent trends in human systems integration. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 494–498.
Tossell, C. C., Finomore, V. S., Endsley, M. R., Wickens, C. D., Bennett, W. R., Knott, B. A., & McClernon, C. K. (2016). Human factors and the United States Military: A 75-year partnership. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 91–93.
Wilson, D. P., Malone, T. B., Lockett-Reynolds, J., & Wilson, E. L. (2009). A vision for human systems integration in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53(24), 1839–1843.
Worger, D., Jalao, E. R., Wirthlin, J. R., Colombi, J., & Wu, T. (2016). Intervention strategies for the Department of Defense acquisition process. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation,13(2), 139–151.