army knowledge management · 2012-05-03 · infostructure capabilities across the army so that...

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-02-1

JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2002

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

ArmyKnowledgeManagement

In This Issue:• Army Acquisition

Workshop

• CDG Orientation

• R&D Organization

Awards

The U.S. Army is proud to welcome Claude M.Bolton Jr. as the new Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. His distin-guished career has spanned the acquisition arenaand allowed him the opportunity to gain vast experi-ence with the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisi-tion process and major systems acquisition. He is atthe forefront in acquisition and logistics reform. Heunderstands the delicate balance among cost, sched-ule, performance, and supportability. He recognizesthe promise of technology as the enabler for theArmy’s future combat capabilities. He knows thatwarfighters depend heavily on the acquisition, logis-tics, and technology community.

Claude Bolton brings a warfighter’s perspective tohis job. A veteran of more than 30 years of Active mil-itary service, he recently retired as a Major General inthe United States Air Force (USAF) following a highlydecorated career.

A command pilot with more than 2,700 flyinghours in more than 30 different aircraft, Mr. Boltonflew 232 missions over Vietnam—40 over North Viet-nam. He became a test pilot for some of America’sfinest military aircraft: the F-4, the F-111, and the F-16. And, he knows all too well the dilemmas facingprogram managers and program executive officersbecause he’s been there. Among his assignments weretours as the Program Executive Officer for Air Forcefighter and bomber programs including the F-22, F-15, F-16, F-117, B-1, and B-2 programs. He servedas the Program Director for the Advanced Cruise Mis-sile System Program Office and as Deputy ProgramDirector for the B-2 System Program Office. In addi-tion, he served as the first Program Manager for theAdvanced Tactical Fighter Technologies Program,which evolved into the F-22 System Program Office.

Mr. Bolton also knows the value of a well-trained,well-educated acquisition workforce. He served asCommandant of the Defense Systems ManagementCollege (DSMC) when then Secretary of DefenseWilliam J. Perry introduced DOD to a revolution in

acquisition reform. Secretary Perry’s message to dra-matically improve our efficiency so that more wasspent on warfighters and modernization and less wasspent on overhead was echoed in DSMC classrooms.Educating DOD’s acquisition professionals took on anew importance and, during Mr. Bolton’s tenure,DSMC was hailed as a center of excellence for pro-gram management education, training, and research.

As his last assignment on Active duty, Mr. Boltoncommanded the Air Force Security Assistance Centerat Headquarters, Air Force Materiel Command,Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. There, hemanaged foreign military sales programs—complexand challenging international cooperative pro-grams—that were valued at more than $60 billionand supported more than 80 foreign countries. Heunderstands the importance of a worldwide, techno-logically advanced, and competitive Defense indus-trial base. And, he understands that nations mustwork together for a more secure, more prosperousworld.

Mr. Bolton received his USAF commission in1969 through the University of Nebraska’s Air ForceROTC Program, where he was a distinguished gradu-ate. His education includes a bachelor’s in electricalengineering from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln;a master’s in management from Troy State University,Troy, Alabama; and a master’s in national securityand strategic studies from the Naval War College,Newport, Rhode Island.

Among his military honors are the Defense Dis-tinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster(OLC), the Legion of Merit, the Distinguished FlyingCross with OLC, the Meritorious Service Medal with 2OLCs, the Air Medal with 16 OLCs, the Vietnam Ser-vice Medal with 3 Service Stars, the Republic of Viet-nam Gallantry Cross, and the Republic of VietnamCampaign Medal.

Mr. Bolton is married to the former Linda Roll ofAlma, Nebraska. They have two adult daughters,Cynthia and Jennifer.

TTHHEE AARRMMYY WWEELLCCOOMMEESSAANN EEXXPPEERRIIEENNCCEEDD LLEEAADDEERR

January-February 2002; PB 70-02-1

CLAUDE M. BOLTON JR.Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

EDITORIAL ADVISORYBOARD MEMBERS

LTG JOHN S. CALDWELL JR.Director, Army Acquisition Corps

LTG PETER M. CUVIELLODirector of Information Systems for Command,

Control, Communications, and ComputersLTG ROY E. BEAUCHAMPDeputy Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Materiel CommandMG GENE M. LACOSTE

Assistant DCSPERMG JOHN S. PARKER

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Medical Research

and Materiel CommandERIC A. ORSINI

Deputy Assistant Secretary for LogisticsOffice of the ASAALT

DR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS IIDeputy Assistant Secretary

for Research and TechnologyOffice of the ASAALT

DR. LEWIS E. LINK JR.Director of R&D

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersDONALD DAMSTETTER

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Policy

Office of the ASAALTHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Executive SecretaryEditorial Advisory Board

EDITORIAL STAFFHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Editor-In-ChiefDEBBIE FISCHER-BELOUS

Executive EditorCYNTHIA D. HERMES

Managing EditorSANDRA R. MARKS

A. JOSEPH STRIBLINGContract Support

To contact the Editorial Office call (703) 805-1034/35/36/38 orDSN 655-1034/35/36/38. Articles should be submitted to:DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE101, FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Our fax number is (703) 805-4218. E-mail: [email protected].

Introduction To Army Knowledge ManagementLTG Peter M. Cuviello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Army Knowledge Management: The Army’s Information RevolutionMiriam F. Browning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Building Knowledge Ecosystems For Enabling Army TransformationDr. Dana L. Ulery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Life-Cycle Planning For Knowledge ManagementDr. Moonja P. Kim and Wayne Schmidt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Army Medical Department Knowledge ManagementCOL Robin J. Tefft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

The C’s Of Knowledge ManagementPeter Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Transforming The Army By Managing KnowledgeJodi Santamaria and Emerson Keslar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Distribution-Based Logistics OperationsLTC Carl W. Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

USARPAC Knowledge Management EffortsLibby Christensen and Maria Sadd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Army Flow ModelMAJ John McKitrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Army Acquisition Workshop: The Army Transformation Cynthia D. Hermes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

PMs And Acquisition Commanders Of The Year HonoredHeather J. Kohler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Modernizing Air And Missile DefenseCOL Richard P. De Fatta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2001 Army SBIR Phase II Quality AwardsDr. Kenneth A. Bannister and James R. Myers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

CDG Orientation Held For YG02Sandra R. Marks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

New Challenges And Lessons Learned From The CDG ProgramBeverly Wasniewski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Next-Generation Materials For Biologial Weapon DetectionRoy Thompson, Dr. Cheng J. Cao, Dr. Kevin P. O’Connell, Dr. Akbar S. Khan,and Dr. James J. Valdes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Army Cites Outstanding R&D OrganizationsJoseph E. Flesch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Logistics Analysis: A Key To Life-Cycle ManagementDick McGauley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

HQDA Reorganization Impacts OASAALT OperationsCOL Richard P. De Fatta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Operation Extended VisionLTC Camille M. Nichols, MAJ Dana Goulette, and MAJ Mac Haszard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Junior Solar Sprint Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Acquisition

Logistics

Technology

Professional Publication of the AL&T Communityhttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/

FEATURES

COVER

DEPARTMENTS

Army AL&T (ISSN 0892-8657) is published bimonthly by theOASAALT. Articles reflect views of the authors and not necessar-ily official opinion of the Department of the Army. The purposeis to instruct members of the Army acquisition workforce rela-tive to AL&T processes, procedures, techniques, and manage-ment philosophy and to disseminate other information perti-nent to their professional development. Private subscriptionsand rates are available from the Superintendent of Documents,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 or (202)512-1800. Periodicals official postage paid at Fort Belvoir, VA,and additional post offices. POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900BELVOIR RD SUITE 101, FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5567. Articlesmay be reprinted if credit is given to Army AL&T and the author.Unless indicated, all photos are from U.S. Army sources.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

This medium is approved for official dissemination of materialdesigned to keep individuals within the Army knowledgeable of cur-rent and emerging developments within their areas of expertise forthe purpose of enhancing their professional development.

By order of the Secretary of the ArmyERIC K. SHINSEKI

General, United States ArmyChief of Staff

Official:

JOEL B. HUDSONAdministrative Assistant to the

Secretary of the Army��

Knowledge management, which connects people, information, and technology, isclearly a key initiative in supporting the warfighter.

Career Development Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Personnel/Acquisition Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

2 Army AL&T January-February 2002

“. . . The dream behind the Web is of acommon information space in which wecommunicate by sharing information. Itsuniversality is essential: the fact that ahypertext link can point to anything, be itpersonal, local or global, be it draft orhighly polished . . . [And] that once thestate of our interactions was online, wecould then use computers to help us ana-lyze it, make sense of what we are doing,where we individually fit in, and how wecan better work together.”

—Tim Berners-LeeInventor, World Wide Web, 1989

This early, prophetic vision is reflected in theArmy transformation effort toward world-class,network-centric, knowledge-based capabilities.We may not be able to predict the future withknowledge management, but we can betteranticipate the unexpected. The fluid, adaptiveprinciples that form the underpinnings ofknowledge management will provide the Armywith a clear objective vision—a road map to thefuture.

We must streamline our processes, leverageinformation technology to our strategic advan-tage, and use best-business practices to gainmaximum efficiencies. Above all, we mustempower and enable our people by advancingthe sharing of information through the develop-ment of new communication channels and sup-porting key innovation elements, for people areour most important strategic resource. This effi-

cient generation, organization, utilization, andsharing of information will provide the basis forsupport to the warfighter. Army knowledge man-agement is the strategic transformer for theInternet-age Army. It will deliver improved infor-mation access and sharing, while providinginfostructure capabilities across the Army sothat warfighters and business stewards can actquickly and decisively. Army knowledge man-agement connects people, knowledge, and tech-nologies. It is this connection that leads to inno-vation and breakthrough thinking for the Armyof the future.

In this issue of Army AL&T magazine, severalcontributors have presented excellent examplesof initiatives, programs, and concepts thatexploit knowledge management tools and prin-ciples. The Secretary and Chief of Staff of theArmy expect your advocacy and full support aswe collectively achieve the enterprise Armyknowledge management goals in support ofArmy transformation.

LTG PETER M. CUVIELLO is the Director ofInformation Systems for Command, Control,Communications, and Computers and the ArmyChief Information Officer. He holds a B.A. inpolitical science from Canisius College and amaster’s in business administration in operationsresearch and systems analysis from the FloridaInstitute of Technology. LTG Cuviello’s e-mailaddress is [email protected].

INTRODUCTIONTO ARMY

KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

LTG Peter M. Cuviello

January-February 2002 Army AL&T 3

“The Revolution was effectedbefore the war commenced. The Revo-lution was in the minds and hearts ofthe people . . . this radical change inthe principles, opinions, sentiments,and affections of the people was thereal American Revolution.”

—John Adams, 1818U.S. President, 1797-1801

IntroductionIn the early 19th century, John

Adams correctly assessed the will ofthe American people calling forchange. While not as dramatic as theAmerican Revolution, Army knowl-edge management (AKM), neverthe-less, is a pioneering, strategic con-cept to transform the Army into anetwork-centric, knowledge-basedforce. AKM is the information revolu-tion for the Army in the 21st century.

AKM has its conceptual roots inArmy transformation, the global e-business model, and the impera-tives of electronic government. Thegerminating seed for AKM has beenArmy Knowledge Online (AKO), theArmy’s enterprise portal and gatewayfor information access. During thepast year, AKM has been a changecatalyst not only for the Army’s infor-mation technology (IT) world butalso for the functional and majorcommand (MACOM) communitiesthat use the enabling power of IT. Asummary of AKM follows.

A Dynamic ConceptAKM strategy is the center of the

Army’s information revolution. It isthe enabler for mission operations,knowledge generation, informationdelivery, and technology innovation.

The AKM vision encompasses atransformed Army, with agile capa-bilities and adaptive processes, pow-ered by world-class, network-centricaccess to knowledge systems andservices, interoperable with the jointenvironment. It embraces Army andDOD imperatives for informationdominance, and integrates technol-ogy, e-business, and knowledge man-agement (KM) concepts.

The AKM framework, as shownin the graphic on Page 4, consists ofthree interrelated components: intel-lectual capital, infostructure, andchange catalysts. Intellectual capitalis the expertise, experience, andinsights that reside in the work-force—military, civilian, and industrypartners—coupled with new strate-gies for harnessing human capital.Infostructure is the hardware, soft-ware, and communications informa-tion technologies and associatedarchitectures and facilities thatensure universal access, security, pri-vacy, and reliability of Army andDefense networks. The change cata-lysts are the innovative policies,governance structures, and culturechanges that create a network-centric environment and aknowledge-based workforce.

The AKM Strategic Plan, en-dorsed by both the Secretary of theArmy and the Army Chief of Staff inAugust 2001, delineates five goals:

• Adopt governance and culturalchanges to become a knowledge-based organization;

• Integrate KM concepts andbest-business practices into Armyprocesses to improve performance;

• Manage the infostructure as anenterprise to enhance capabilitiesand efficiencies;

• Scale AKO as the enterpriseportal to provide universal, secureaccess for the entire Army; and

• Harness human capital for theknowledge organization.

As a strategic concept, AKM willcontinuously incorporate change.The AKM vision, framework, andstrategic plan goals are constantguideposts, while the specific objec-tives associated with each goal willchange as actions are completed andnew initiatives are started.

Army Transformation LinkAKM is not your typical KM pro-

gram. Its sweeping scope makes it astrategic transformer for managinginformation and IT at the enterpriselevel. Contrast this strategic focuswith a traditional KM program thatfocuses on information sharing, theacknowledgment of tacit as well asexplicit information, and processing.

ARMY KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: THE ARMY’SINFORMATION REVOLUTION

Miriam F. Browning


A classic definition of KM is theprocess of organizing, accessing,improving, sharing, and benchmark-ing explicit and tacit information formission results.

In many organizations, commu-nities of interest evolve to shareinformation to get the job done bet-ter. For example, in the late 1990s,the Army established many of thesegrass-roots level communities suchas medical; personnel; command,control, communications, and com-puters; and acquisition. They devel-oped Web sites and used collabora-tive tools to access, organize, andshare knowledge.

Communities of interest areincapable of surviving unless they arean integral part of the larger environ-ment that sustains them. Thus, AKMwas created as a strategic conceptlinked to Army transformation. AKM

goals and objectives are integratedinto the Army Transformation Cam-paign Plan. In addition, functionalareas and MACOMs have integratedAKM concepts into their own trans-formation plans. The link betweenAKM and Army transformation planshas brought energy and synchro-nized results across a broad spec-trum of Army operations.

Participatory Governance Two critical governance aspects

of AKM are the chartering of theArmy Chief Information Officer (CIO)Executive Board and the establish-ment of strategic partnering betweenthe Army CIO and the Army’s func-tional and MACOM communities.Both of these governance mecha-nisms require strong, committed par-ticipation from all stakeholders.

The Army CIO Executive Board,composed of the CIOs from theMACOMs and a Senior Executive Ser-vice (SES) or general officer fromeach HQDA staff agency, functions asa proactive decision body for all AKMmatters. The board, chartered inApril 2001, meets quarterly and isactively engaged in AKM policy, gov-ernance, and investment decisionsthrough working-level groups andvirtual communication channels. Aseparate, access-protected Web sitehas been established for executiveboard members and their action offi-cers. Draft guidance and policies arecoordinated through the Web site.Even though response times may beaggressive and, at times, the tasksdifficult, the basic philosophy is oneof inclusion and collaboration to getthe job done well.


Strategic partnering is customeroutreach between the Army CIOcommunity and the Army function-als and MACOMs. Fundamental tothe success of strategic partnering isthe idea that the Army CIO, as leadAKM change agent, can be countedon to assist Army communities withinformation and IT initiatives—ensuring a link to AKM and provid-ing advice and counsel on a widerange of related issues. Similarly,Army functional and MACOM com-munities can improve the CIO’seffectiveness by including CIO com-munity members and providingthem with more in-depth knowledgeof their areas.

The Army CIO has initiated aformal program called the Func-tional Exchange Officer (FEO) Pro-gram. The immediate purpose of theFEO Program is for the CIO, func-tional, and MACOM communities towork together to streamline andexpedite the placement of applica-tions on AKO by July 2002. The long-term benefits of the FEO Programare to enhance customer relationsbetween the CIO community andthe rest of the Army and ensure thatArmy transformation strategies aresynchronized.

AKM Guidance Memo The AKM Guidance Memo dated

Aug. 8, 2001, signed by both the Sec-retary of the Army and the ArmyChief of Staff, designates the ArmyCIO as the change leader across abroad spectrum of Army initiatives,many of which are outlined in thememo:

• A fundamental change in the ITworld to the enterprise (versusMACOM or functional) managementof systems, networks, and informa-tion access;

• The centralization of IT dol-lars for Army CIO oversight andprioritization;

• The designation of AKO as theArmy’s enterprise portal and gate-way for information access; and

• The enterprise consolidation ofthe Army infostructure.

The memo includes the captur-ing of best-business and KM prac-tices in the Army for collaborativeuse across the organization and theidentification of innovative ideasand initiatives for reshaping to aknowledge-based workforce.

AKM set the bar high for changein the Army. The commitment ofboth the Secretary of the Army andthe Army Chief of Staff to changerapidly translates into similar execu-tive commitment throughout theArmy. To effect change in their ownorganizations, MACOM and func-tional communities are using theconcepts of the memo (i.e., consoli-dations, central management ofinvestments, streamlining processes,and doing business on the Web).

AKM AccomplishmentsAKM initiatives have resulted in

many accomplishments to date.AKO, the Army’s enterprise portaland gateway to information, hasbuilt enterprise capabilities for uni-versal e-mail, robust search engines,personnel authentication, etc. Threeinitial pilots demonstrated the valueof AKO: the Program Executive Officefor Command, Control and Commu-nications Systems AcquisitionKnowledge Center; the Office of theArmy Deputy Chief of Staff for Oper-ations and Plans Smart OfficeKnowledge Center; and the MilitaryPersonnel Command Officer Knowl-edge Center. The first two pilots builtcollaborative communities of inter-est, and the last pilot re-engineeredand streamlined military personnelprocesses for use on AKO. All threepilots demonstrated cost and cost-avoidance savings in areas such asreduced time spent on accessing andanalyzing information, reducedtravel dollars attributable to the useof online collaborative tools, reducedmanpower requirements attributableto internal Web site consolidations,and a reduction in software licensing

costs attributable to applicationssharing.

Other AKM results include theestablishment of the Army CIO Exec-utive Board; linking AKM to theArmy Transformation CampaignPlan; the establishment of more than35 AKM communities; the use ofAKO for electronic personnel sur-veys; the establishment of theannual Army KM Symposium, jointlysponsored by the Army CIO andCenter for Army Lessons Learned;the development of the Army Knowl-edge Leaders Program for outstand-ing scholar civilian interns; and thecompletion of the Army ScienceBoard study on knowledge manage-ment technologies for the ObjectiveForce.

SummaryLeading the Army’s information

revolution, Army knowledge man-agement is the strategy to transformthe Army into a network-centric,knowledge-based force. AKM as astrategic transformer will improveArmy mission capabilities, enablingthe Army vision for the cyber age.That vision is “Soldiers on Point forthe Nation . . . Persuasive in Peace,Invincible in War.”

MIRIAM F. BROWNING is thePrincipal Director for EnterpriseIntegration, Office of the ArmyCIO, and provides a full range ofstrategic and operational seniorexecutive leadership in the Army’sinformation technology areas. Sheholds a B.A. in political sciencefrom The Ohio State Universityand an M.S. in information tech-nology from The George Washing-ton University. Browning’s e-mailaddress is [email protected].


“ . . . Transformation encompassesevery aspect of our Army. It is morethan just an Interim Armored Vehicle,a beret, or Future Combat Systems.Every aspect of the Army—doctrine,organization, training, leadership,materiel and equipment, recruitingand advertising, acquisition, infra-structure, and much more—must allchange together in a holistic manner.”

—Thomas E.WhiteSecretary of the Army

Senate confirmation hearing May 2001

IntroductionSetting forth his major objectives

at his confirmation hearing beforethe Senate Armed Services Commit-tee, Secretary of the Army Thomas E.White emphasized the paramountimportance of implementing theArmy’s transformation as a total sys-tem whose separate parts must workin concert to achieve the essentialwhole.

Knowledge management (KM)can play a critical role in meeting thisgoal. KM is the emerging disciplineaimed at understanding and imple-menting complex distributed sys-tems made up of people, technolo-gies, policies, and processes so thatthe factors are interwoven to form aholistic solution. KM is about know-ing, about putting information to

work. It’s about sifting through a glutof data and finding the relevant,trusted, valuable information peopleneed in dynamic, complex situationswhere devising options, let aloneanswers, is hard to do. It’s aboutusing information to formulate theright problem in the first place, atremendous and often unrecognizedchallenge in itself. Knowing the stateof business at various levels of theArmy enterprise, or knowing thestate of the force in an active battlesituation, demands that relevantinformation about all kinds of things,people, and the connectednessamong them be quickly and accu-rately found. The information and itscontext must be clearly presented ina way that enables people to synthe-size it into appropriate action.

AMC KM InitiativeThe Army Materiel Command

(AMC) launched a major KM initia-tive in July 2000 to invest in a focusedeffort to build KM capabilities andsolutions to meet AMC’s immediateand future challenges. The ArmyResearch Laboratory (ARL) was des-ignated AMC Knowledge Manage-ment Executive Agent, tasked to pro-vide leadership throughout the com-mand from early research andconcept formulation stages throughsolution implementation. Key

aspects of this initiative are the AMCKM Council, the ARL RainbowEcosystems Model, and alignmentwith Army knowledge managementdirections.

The vision for this initiative is anAMC Knowledge Enterprise charac-terized by three elements:

• Efficiency. Using knowledge toimprove productivity, increase speed,and reduce cost—getting it right.

• Innovation. In new serviceprocesses, creating new knowledgeand enhancing old knowledge.

• Effectiveness. Increasing appli-cation of high-quality, relevantknowledge.

To achieve the vision, we haveestablished six strategic goals:

• Focus KM initiatives to achieveAMC business goals,

• Apply KM principals to developa world-class KM improvementprocess,

• Apply the KM improvementprocess to implement a world-classknowledge enterprise model at AMC,

• Build active AMC knowledgecommunities of practice,

• Implement the KM improve-ment process and the knowledgeenterprise model to build knowledgeorganizations throughout AMC, and

• Leverage the KM improvementprocess for AMC executive agents touse for other focus areas.

The AMC KM Council, a knowl-edge community of practice withrepresentatives from all AMC subor-dinate commands and HQ AMC, is acritical part of this initiative. The KMCouncil is an active “network ofchampions,” linked to commandchief information officers (CIOs) andfunctionals, which meets regularly tobuild KM awareness, share experi-ence and tools, and develop tacticsfor implementing strategic goalswithin their own sphere of influence.The council has a controlled-accessWeb site that allows members andAMC CIOs to interact through online

BUILDINGKNOWLEDGEECOSYSTEMS

FOR ENABLINGARMY TRANSFORMATION

Dr. Dana L. Ulery


discussions and share documents,briefings, lessons learned, andproven KM tools.

Rainbow Ecosystems ModelARL is considering KM complexi-

ties from a systems perspective,focusing on the whole as part of itslarger environment and examiningthe interdependencies of the parts,rather than taking the whole andanalyzing each part separately. Excit-ing new research approaches, fromartificial intelligence to small-worldphenomenon to immune systemstheory research, are being used toanalyze the dynamics of complex,decentralized systems’ behavior. ARLand other organizations find thatconventional approaches to designand build static structures likebridges and buildings are ineffectivewhen applied to dynamic and com-plex KM problems. ARL is, therefore,conceptually drawing from thesenewer, bolder approaches; exploringthe analogies; and seeking ways toadapt these findings to build robustKM systems. We are considering arange of emerging technologies.These include social technologiesthat address organizational attitudes,values, and behavior, as well as infor-mation technologies that addressautomated networking, applications,and data.

The ARL Rainbow EcosystemsModel is a knowledge-based systemsarchitecture that includes an inte-grated automated system of intelli-gent portals, military business trans-action applications, knowledge dis-covery tools, and a foundationalenterprise knowledge warehouse.This architectural model is viewed asa living system for meeting thedynamic computing, people, andprocess needs of KM. The model alsoforms the basis for both horizontal(supplier-customer) and vertical(superior-subordinate) relationships.

The conceptual inspiration forthe Rainbow Ecosystems Model is abiological, social whole whose partswork together and adapt to change in

a way that makes the system robust.ARL calls it an ecosystem modelbecause it is being used to learnabout the behavior of knowledge inthe context of its environment, theculture in which the knowledge existsand is used. The Rainbow Modeldoes not assume that we know whatwe are trying to build ahead of timeor what information we will be look-ing for later because our experiencehas revealed that most often the sys-tem and the needs become inter-twined. Starting with some perceivedneeds, a system is built which, whendemonstrated, typically opens upnew ideas and new ways to handlethe initial problem. This in turnchanges the perceived needs. A goodexample of this phenomenon is theway perceived needs of consumerschange as they became familiar withbuying goods over the Internet.

The Rainbow architectureencourages an iterative designprocess with frequent interactionbetween problem formulators andproblem solvers. This perspective isespecially valuable when the solutioninvolves a system using commercial-off-the-shelf components thatembody practices that are new to theenterprise. For these new practices tobe effective, new ways of thinkingabout the way knowledge is appliedto human work must be internalizedand cemented through policy. TheRainbow Model can help peoplelearn, through iteration, how toadapt new work processes as part ofa total business system.

The ARL Knowledge Manage-ment System (AKMS) implements theRainbow Ecosystems Model to pro-vide a foundation for business inno-vation and knowledge sharingthroughout ARL. AKMS is an ecosys-tem of software that adapts andchanges to the composition of itsclients and the changing technologi-cal landscape. ARL has an equallyimportant second KM system, theKnowledge Management ResearchSystem (KMRS), which is a distortedmirror of the AKMS. KMRS is a sys-

tem where innovative ideas and soft-ware are researched and tested.Those that prove successful are nur-tured until they have evolved to alevel of maturity where they can bemigrated from KMRS to AKMS forregular use by the ARL community.

ConclusionKnowledge management pro-

motes the importance of focusing onknowledge as the sum of what theenterprise has learned, and applyingthat knowledge to the right solutionto achieve success for the enterpriseas a whole. The challenge of this newdiscipline is that it requires a pro-found paradigm shift, from thinkingabout problems analytically to think-ing about problems holistically. TheARL Rainbow Ecosystems Model,which is at the center of the AMC KMinitiative, is helping us meet thatchallenge. It is designed to help AMCdesign system solutions to context-specific complex problems. The AMCKM Council is a vital dimension ofthe Rainbow architecture. KM Coun-cil members influence and con-tribute to the evolution of the Rain-bow system and have a high stake inits success. Our journey is demon-strating that knowledge is enhancedwhen it is shared, and that innovativeuse of knowledge requires holistic,innovative thinking together withdisciplined hard work.

DR. DANA L. ULERY is Chief ofthe Knowledge Management Cen-ter, Army Research Laboratory, andChair of the AMC KM Council. Sheholds a B.A. in both mathematicsand English literature from Grin-nell College and M.S. and Ph.D.degrees in computer science fromthe University of Delaware. Dr.Ulery’s e-mail address [email protected].


IntroductionLife-cycle planning is essential for

the implementation of knowledgemanagement (KM) efforts. Many KMefforts start with an information tech-nology solution in mind and proceedwith the concept, “If we build it, theywill come.” This approach fails to con-sider the user community’s tendency toavoid change unless there is a clear anddriving rationale. However, careful life-cycle planning, with full considerationof all the important components ofKM, will significantly enhance thechance of success. The following fivefactors are cited in most literature asimportant components of KM efforts:leadership, culture, business process,performance measurement, and infor-mation technology.

KM experts contend that if morethan 25 percent of any effort involvesinformation technology, it cannot beconsidered as a KM effort. The othercomponents will typically consume amajority of the resources in a success-ful KM effort.

This article describes lessonslearned from a case where a knowledgemanagement system (KMS) was devel-oped and implemented, with a signifi-cant level of effort focused on changingthe culture and business processes.This change required a large amount oftime and resources to convince peopleto accept the system as a useful tooland to use it to the maximum extent.

P3L KMSThe P3L (People, Product, Publica-

tion Locator) KMS—also called TIPS(Technology Information Products andServices)—was developed to helpresearch and development laboratorycustomers locate information regard-ing expert scientists and to searchproducts and publications produced atthe Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratory (CERL), U.S. Army EngineerResearch and Development Center(ERDC), Champaign, IL. The P3L pro-vides an excellent way to help cus-tomers find solutions to problems. Italso suggests names of experts foradditional advice and consultation. Forexample, a customer can ask aboutdrinking water problems at CampZama and receive the names of expertswith potential answers to this question,as well as what publications are avail-able regarding this issue.

The P3L also encouragesresearchers to share knowledge onproduct development and publicationsand serves as a common point of pub-lication storage, thus enhancing aresearcher’s ability to find relevant lit-erature. The P3L supports researchersby simplifying business processes,implementing standard corporate Webpages for various research topics, elim-inating redundant data calls, andincreasing accuracy of current data.The system allows researchers toupdate their own data and supervisorsto approve changes for researchers

they supervise. This capability ispassword-protected.

BackgroundThe initial system was developed

to enhance communication betweenresearchers and customers as well asamong researchers involved in envi-ronmental conservation activities andpublications. Subsequently, programmanagers in other business areas rec-ognized the value and benefit of P3Land requested it be expanded toinclude all CERL business areas. As thesystem was modified to include otherbusiness areas, the implementationplan was developed, including trainingand a business process change.

In February 2000, an initial trainingsession was conducted for 15 supervi-sors who would review and approveresumes, products, and publications.Training sessions continued untilMarch 2001 to teach 200 researchershow to enter their resumes, products,and publications into the P3L. Cur-rently, all researchers and supervisorsare trained, and their data are enteredinto the system. It took more than ayear of encouragement by supervisorsto have all researchers committed toentering and updating their data.

Change Of Business Process A change of business process for

publishing internal technical reportsthat are generated by research projectshelped encourage the entry of newpublications. Today, the only way for aresearcher to get approval of a publica-tion is through use of the P3L. Thus, allnew publications are captured into thesystem, and the electronic file of thereport is saved under the appropriatebusiness area and the author’s name.This is an improvement over the oldmanual process where a memo forapproval or a report document wassometimes lost, thus delaying thepublication and causing researcherfrustration.

Leadership CommitmentTop management support and

commitment was essential to the sys-tem’s success. From system implemen-tation, CERL’s Director was a strongproponent and allocated enough fund-ing to conduct training and systemenhancement. This ensured that thesystem worked reliably and provided

Lessons Learned . . .

LIFE-CYCLEPLANNING FOR

KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

Dr. Moonja P. Kim and Wayne Schmidt


users with help-desk type support.Without top management’s commit-ment, funding becomes a difficultissue. Without funding, a system can-not be maintained with the appropri-ate level of help-desk support.

Knowledge-Sharing Culture Today, organizations often hire

smart people and then overload themwith tasks, leaving them no time forconversation and little time forthought. Knowledge is transferred inorganizations regardless of whether theprocess is managed. When one com-puter programmer asks another ifhe/she has encountered and solved aparticular problem, the second pro-grammer will share that knowledge.These natural knowledge transfers arepart of organizational life. However,they are fragmentary. The larger andmore complex an organization, thegreater the chance that the knowledgeneeded exists somewhere in the organ-ization, but it may be difficult to find.Spontaneous, unstructured knowledgesharing is critical to an organization’ssuccess.

Outdated industrial-age theories ofthe nature of work influenced manage-ment to assume that water-coolersocializing is a waste of time. However,most water-cooler conversation iswork-related, even though some of thetalk is about sports and the weather.People talk about current projects, theybounce ideas off one another, and theycan get good advice on how to solveproblems. Their conversations arework. In his article “What’s So NewAbout the New Economy?” in HarvardBusiness Review (January-February1993), Alan Webber said that in the neweconomy, conversations are the mostimportant form of work. He said, “Con-versations are the way knowledgeworkers discover what they know, shareit with their colleagues, and in theprocess create new knowledge for theorganization.”

A benchmark 1999 study on “Cre-ating Knowledge Sharing Culture” bythe American Productivity and QualityCenter noted that in “best-practice”organizations, knowledge sharing istightly linked to a core cultural value ofthe organization. In addition, the styleof the knowledge-sharing approachclosely matches the style of the organi-zation as a whole. There is strong man-

agement and peer pressure for peopleto help each other and collaborate.

CERL’s culture encourages teamingand knowledge sharing across branchesand divisions. It is common to seewater-cooler conversations where peo-ple talk about their projects. Because ofthis, the sharing of knowledge by usingthe P3L system was easily accepted.The resistance of researchers to entertheir resumes and publications into theP3L was not due to an unwillingness toshare, it was due to issues such as“what’s in it for me,” and “I don’t wantto waste my time.” However, when newcustomers requested help from re-searchers via the P3L, the researcherswere delighted to hear from those cus-tomers, and most researchers changedtheir attitude.

Performance Metrics NeededAlthough the benefits of the system

are obvious, quantitative data have notbeen collected. Hard data on the num-ber of successful customer uses, failedcustomer attempts, expert points ofcontact obtained, and researchers whofound another researcher’s product orpublication helpful would assist indocumenting the system’s benefits.When there is concrete data showingthe system’s benefits, it is much easierto persuade other ERDC laboratories toimplement the system. The authorshope that some efforts will be made incollecting persuasive hard data in thenear future.

Information Technology FactorFrom its initial concept, the P3L

system was developed as a Web appli-cation. Further, the P3L was to bemaintained by the researchers directly,not by a webmaster. Thus, MacromediaColdFusion server technology wasselected as the implementation toolbecause it allows the system to bedatabase-driven. Updates are accom-plished by completing “fill-in-the-blank” forms, and updating the data-base immediately changes the system.

RecommendationsFrom this experience, we devel-

oped a checklist to follow for life-cycleplanning of any KMS. The checklistcovers the project from concept anddesign to implementation and mainte-nance, considering important KM fac-tors such as business process changes

and cultural transition that an organi-zation will face with a new KMS. Theproposed checklist follows:

• Plan for life-cycle management ofany KMS because it is critical.

• Obtain top management commit-ment. It is the most critical factor forsuccessful system implementation anduse.

• Allocate appropriate funding forimplementation, publicity, user train-ing, and system support. Nothing frus-trates users more than a system withbugs that are not fixed in a timelymanner.

• Demonstrate to users that theproposed KMS has advantages forthem and makes their job easier.

• Train users how to effectivelyenter appropriate data. Some will wantto know only the basics, while otherswill want a complete explanation. Con-sider different classes for differenttypes of users. Valid data are essentialand ensure that the system will be use-ful to customers, managers, andresearchers.

• Link knowledge sharing to a corecultural value of the organization andmatch the style of the knowledge-sharing approach to style of the organi-zation as a whole.

DR. MOONJA P. KIM is Busi-ness Processes Branch Chief atCERL. She holds a Ph.D. in socialpsychology from Rutgers Univer-sity and an M.S. in accountingscience from the University ofIllinois-Urbana/Champaign. Kim’se-mail address is [email protected].

WAYNE SCHMIDT is a ProjectLeader of Knowledge ManagementResearch at CERL. He holds anM.B.A. and a B.S. in electricalengineering, both from the Uni-versity of Illinois-Urbana/Cham-paign. Schmidt’s e-mail address [email protected].


IntroductionThe delivery of health care is

increasingly complex, with emphasis onquality, availability, and accountabilityin an environment of fiscal constraintand expanding missions. The ability tocapture, share, and reuse knowledge isone way to improve the efficiency andspeed of decisionmaking in health caredelivery. Clearly, harnessing health careknowledge is a strategic imperative thathas the potential to maximize scarceresources and improve the quality ofcare.

BackgroundThe Army Medical Department

(AMEDD) has applied knowledge man-agement (KM) principles since 1997when the Center for Healthcare Educa-tion and Studies (CHES) at the ArmyMedical Department Center and Schoollaunched the first-generation Web-based KM initiative, the KnowledgeManagement Network (KMN). TheKMN was a comprehensive project thatincorporated the fundamental featuresof KM: a collaboration tool, a library, aprocess for certifying knowledge, and adatabase of subject matter experts(SMEs). In 2000, the CHES evolved intothe next-generation KM initiative, theAMEDD Knowledge Exchange (KE),which harvested the best of the KMNand focused on AMEDD strategic initia-tives. With this redesign came theunderstanding that KM is not an infor-mation management or informationtechnology (IT) tool, but a strategicimperative in its own right.

AMEDD KM VisionKnowledge management was ini-

tially driven by technology, but itbecame apparent that organizationalculture and processes were the truefocus. Consequently, the CHES pro-poses the following vision for AMEDDknowledge management: “The AMEDDof the future leverages knowledge as a

strategic resource through integratedknowledge management systems and aculture that embraces knowledge shar-ing.” This vision addresses the nexus ofpeople, process, and technology, thetriad of enabling factors that drive anorganization. Using KM to integrate andimprove health care delivery processeswill yield greater efficiency and quality,but only if the organizational culture isready to contribute collaboratively.Change management must be inte-grated into the transition to a collabora-tive environment.

KM must be corporately driven andcollectively embraced to succeed. TheCHES proposes an enterprise-level,integrated approach by forming theAMEDD Knowledge Management Steer-ing Committee, comprised of a crosssection of AMEDD personnel, to deter-mine the strategic priorities that can beenhanced by KM. A charter has beenproposed for this committee to developpolicy, establish priorities for KM invest-ment, monitor resources, measureprogress, and serve as a liaison to otherKM entities internal and external toAMEDD.

The following imperatives are pro-posed for consideration of a corporateKM strategy:

• Transform AMEDD culture so thatthe identification, collection, storage,dissemination, and use of knowledge isa strategic priority and a universallyshared value.

• Create the AMEDD Virtual Librarythat includes the universe of AMEDDcontent (traditional libraries, contentproviders, and the AMEDD DigitalLibrary).

• Create the AMEDD Digital Libraryas a central repository for AMEDDknowledge products.

• Create an AMEDD taxonomy anda search-and-retrieval capability for allknowledge.

• Develop policy for standard sys-tem architecture to support e-business.

• Provide the capability for commu-nities to create and share knowledge.

• Integrate health care informationsystems.

• Develop a single-user interface forKM.

• Provide multiple venues forknowledge sharing, such as local areanetworks, wireless devices, intranet, andInternet.

• Capture and share individual tacitknowledge.

AMEDD KM RenaissanceThe next generation of KM recog-

nizes the importance of focusing on thebusiness of health care and the peoplewho deliver and support it. The CHESknowledge services staff supports theAMEDD’s strategic priorities using athree-tiered approach.

The fundamental tier is a self-service Web site (http://ke.army.mil)that provides AMEDD content. The sec-ond tier is the development and supportof communities of practice (COPs). Thethird tier is customized Web-based pro-gramming to support AMEDD strategicinitiatives. This three-tiered approach isadapted from Three Approaches to Infra-structure, a model developed by theAmerican Productivity and Quality Cen-ter (APQC) (see http://www.apqc.org), apartner in developing KM for AMEDD.In addition to reformulating a concep-tual framework for KM, the CHESredesigned the IT framework to improveefficiency, enhance flexibility, and savemoney.

AMEDD KE IT InfrastructureThe first-generation KM project was

outsourced in its entirety and consistedof commercial products integrated intothe Web site. Although this provided ahigh level of customization, it came at aprice, both from the flexibility and fiscalviewpoints. The CHES concluded that

ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENTKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

COL Robin J.Tefft


KM IT should be a core competency ofthe knowledge services staff. In thenext-generation KM, staff and contractemployees are integral to developing,deploying, and maintaining the Website.

The system architecture is designedto provide continuous use with minimaldowntime. This is accomplished usingredundant servers in a secure serverfarm located at the Army MedicalDepartment Center and School. Thelong-term goal is to house redundantservers in remote locations to minimizethe impact of local network problems.

The backbone of the KE is a data-base. All data are stored as objects in adatabase, providing the capability tosearch and retrieve all data on the site.The data are delivered to the Web using PHP (hypertext preprocessor)programming.

Collaboration tools are custom-designed in hypertext markup language.The programming strategy is to providebasic tools needed by the user in appli-cations and languages that are currentlyavailable in the AMEDD architecture.The programmers use applications thatare available to most AMEDD users andavoid requiring users to download addi-tional applications.

Self-ServiceThe self-service aspect is a new fea-

ture of AMEDD KE. The first-generationWeb site was entirely password-protected and provided AMEDD usersvery little content. The requirement of apassword to access information that didnot need protection was the mostprominent negative comment fromusers. The redesigned Web site providesunrestricted access to appropriateAMEDD knowledge, thereby facilitatingknowledge sharing.

SMEs provide content using a cus-tom templating process. Programmersmeet with the SMEs to discuss theirbusiness process and create a templatefor the SMEs to enter informationdirectly to the Web site. Often, the busi-ness process is streamlined as a result ofthese discussions. This creates a win-win situation: SMEs are empowered topublish information without requiring awebmaster, and AMEDD benefits byreceiving information directly from thesource quickly and accurately. Theknowledge services staff maintainsquality by granting access only to

authorized SMEs responsible for thatparticular subject.

Communities Of PracticeKnowledge sharing through collab-

oration is a hallmark of AMEDD KM.First-generation KM supported severalsuccessful COPs that were migrated tothe new AMEDD Knowledge Exchange.Success stories from communitiesinclude reducing cycle time for curricu-lum development from 4 years to 3months, improving patient care by shar-ing clinical practices, and providing jus-tification for a single standard of educa-tion for accreditation of a graduate pro-gram. Two new COPs are being planned.The CHES is partnering with APQC toform a COP among deputy command-ers for administration in AMEDD med-ical treatment facilities. The goal is toshare best practices and solve commonproblems.

Another initiative is conceptualplanning for the Warrior KnowledgeBase. This COP effort is designed toallow both company-level units and sol-diers training at combat training centersto develop an expert database. Ulti-mately, it will be transferred to soldiersstationed at fixed facilities.

Strategic ProjectsThe knowledge services staff sup-

ports AMEDD strategic projects by pro-viding custom programming and assist-ing with process improvements. One ofthe goals of the Surgeon General’sReengineering and Quality InitiativesWorking Group was to develop aprocess for sharing best practices acrossthe AMEDD. The staff designed acustom application that allows best-practice entries to be submitted,reviewed and, if appropriate, posted forall to see. Another example is the devel-opment of a database-driven solutionfor personnel reporting in a medicalbattalion, which significantly reducedpersonnel time required to providereports.

AMEDD LibrariesThe ability to access AMEDD infor-

mation easily and efficiently is a funda-mental KM capability. The essential ele-ments are the AMEDD Virtual Library,the AMEDD Digital Library, a taxonomy,and a search engine.

The AMEDD Virtual Library is theentirety of available knowledge prod-ucts. This includes information from

traditional libraries, holdings that arepurchased from content providers, andthe contents of the AMEDD DigitalLibrary.

AMEDD currently has no central-ized system for archiving its uniqueknowledge products. The CHES is devel-oping a pilot project for the AMEDDDigital Library in partnership with theArmy Medical Research and MaterielCommand (MRMC), AMEDD librarians,and functional experts. This library willbe a central repository of knowledgeproducts produced by the AMEDD,such as policies, briefings, informationpapers, and guidelines, and any prod-ucts that are of corporate interest.

The development of an AMEDD-unique taxonomy is critical for search-and-retrieval capability. A taxonomy is asystem of classification that groups con-tent by subject headings, enabling moreprecise search and retrieval than a key-word search. The CHES, in partnershipwith MRMC, is researching the softwareand the process to develop a corporatetaxonomy. Research on a search capa-bility is targeted as a future initiative.

ConclusionThe goal of the Army Medical

Department’s KM effort is to allow shar-ing and reuse of AMEDD knowledge toimprove health care. Realization of thisgoal is dependent on an enterpriseapproach to KM by formulating a clearvision and governance structure anddetermining priorities. It is imperativeto develop an IT infrastructure, virtualrepositories of AMEDD knowledge withrobust search capability, and a culturethat embraces knowledge sharing.

COL ROBIN J. TEFFT is theChief, Leadership and InstructionalInnovations Branch, Center forHealthcare Education and Studies,Army Medical Department Centerand School, Fort Sam Houston, TX.She has a Doctor of Public Healthdegree in health promotion andeducation. Tefft can be reached [email protected].


IntroductionTo change and find “the new

cheese,” an organization has to firstknow itself, its people, and its uniqueculture. Time has aptly demonstratedthat automation tools such as per-sonal computers and e-mail do notcreate a paperless office, much less auseful base of knowledge. The Pro-gram Executive Office for StandardArmy Management Information Sys-tems (PEO, STAMIS) has tackledthese problems by establishingAdapa. Named after the Babyloniangod of knowledge and based on afoundation of modern state-of-the-art Oracle9iAS portal and databasetechnology, Adapa is the result ofPEO, STAMIS forming an elite andefficient government/contractorteam to revolutionize its internaloperations. This will be achieved byproviding a completely Web-basedready access to data, building a vari-ety of portal-based applications tosupport internal operations, andimplementing various automatedworkflows of business processes.

As founding principles for Adapa,PEO, STAMIS developed the “C’s” ofKnowledge Management as high-level guidelines. These portal systemdesign, implementation, and man-agement guidelines must be consid-ered prior to a portal implementa-tion. The remainder of this articleprovides a discussion of each of theseguidelines.

C: DriveData on an individual’s C: drive is

the enemy of knowledge manage-ment. Individual data retentiondenies the organization specific dataand gives that person a power base ofunique knowledge. No organizationcan function year after year with datakept on personal and individualcomputers. Eliminating data on theC: drive must be an initial and pri-mary component of knowledge man-agement. Similarly, server drives donot provide the structure for sharingbecause files can be named by any-one and placed anywhere on theserver. To facilitate open sharing ofdata, a directory and structure mustbe pre-established. This allows alibrary-type system where data canbe readily stored, accessed, andsearched. A powerful search featureassists users to find contents.

ContentContent is king. A knowledge

management system that has mini-mal content is worthless. A set of richorganizational content is essential.Management of the content requiresit to be relevant to each communityof users. To facilitate this, activitieswithin the organization must beresponsible for their own content.This also eliminates the need for asingle webmaster to post all data,which is often a bottleneck. Portaltechnology that allows authorized

people to post data and content rap-idly facilitates growth of the system.

CommitmentA knowledge management sys-

tem is an investment. It is muchricher than an organizational Webpage, which can be relatively static.Organizationally, a knowledge man-agement system requires a team ofdedicated technical and process-skilled individuals to manage andcontinuously extend the portal. Alllevels of an organization must becommitted to the portal because theinvestment will continue year afteryear.

CultureA portal inherently changes how

people do their everyday work. Tosome, this can be seen as an intru-sion. Certainly, direct policy on por-tal use assists in the migration to theportal, as would technologicalchanges like closing server filesdown. An easier benefit is to effectculture change slowly and makeeveryone an owner of the system.This can be done by placing value-added features on the portal, such aslinks to local traffic reports (a mustwhen working in the Washington,DC, metropolitan area), or repriori-tizing portal development when acertain user group desires a uniquefeature.

THE C’s OF KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

Peter Johnson


Conspiracy Care must be taken to avoid the

“Big Brother” syndrome. Uncon-strained and unmanaged, a knowl-edge management system canbecome threatening. Workers in theorganization need to see the portal asa tool and not as a replacement fortheir work or as a way to microman-age them. The portal is a tool forindividuals to show their value to theorganization. Authorship and indi-vidual contribution can be high-lighted and recognized in a portal.

CapitalAn organization’s capital invest-

ment is in its people; in turn, intel-lectual capital is the lifeblood of anorganization. Information sharing ina secure environment ensures thateveryone has access to the workproducts and subject matter expert-ise that an organization controls.

CertaintyNo one wants to pick up today’s

newspaper expecting current head-lines and then realize they are read-ing news that is 4 months old. Even

worse is if the person expecting cur-rent news does not recognize that thenews is outdated and uses that infor-mation as if it were current. Thesame principle applies to a knowl-edge management system. Maintain-ing absolute accuracy of data in thesystem is of paramount importance.Date tags, time-limited data, andpurposely expiring data are technicalmethods to establish timely data.Portal technology now allows theportal itself to be the workspace,rather than just a place to post dataor documents developed elsewhere.This method ensures that key dataare always timely because there isonly one place for the work to bedone.

Commonality Technology options today are

vast; there are dozens of standards,hundreds of vendors, thousands ofproducts, and millions of separatepermutations of this landscape.Accompanying this is the ever-changing nature of the products,with version changes, patches, etc. Ifmany different products are assem-bled into a functioning knowledge

management system, one futureproduct change may interfere withthe smooth operation of a portal if the change is not backward-compatible with other components.If a vendor goes out of business, thefuture of the system can also be jeop-ardized. The portal development staffmust be focused on extending portalfunctionality. While technology willchange, the technical staff shouldn’tconstantly be chasing integrationissues as products change. If upfrontcare is exercised to minimize tech-nology components, integrationissues will be kept to a minimum.

SummaryAdapa is much more than a sim-

ple Web site of documents and links.It provides powerful applications thatreside on a database that archivesacquisition knowledge and technicalinformation. Expansion is key to thesystem as new content and function-ality is added every week. By imple-menting a highly secure roles-basedenvironment, Adapa also providessecure access for PEO, STAMIS per-sonnel anywhere in the world. ThePEO, STAMIS’ Adapa will grow from aplace where people go to see theirwork, to a place where people go todo their work. Adapa seeks to capturethat which is individually intangible,but collectively invaluable.

PETER JOHNSON is the ChiefInformation Officer at PEO,STAMIS, Fort Belvoir, VA. He is agraduate of the Industrial Collegeof the Armed Forces and has heldboth project and product managerpositions related to Army infor-mation technology programs.Johnson can be reached [email protected].

An organization’s capital investmentis in its people;

in turn, intellectual capitalis the lifeblood of an organization.

Information sharingin a secure environment

ensures that everyone has accessto the work products

and subject matter expertisethat an organization controls.


IntroductionKnowledge management is play-

ing a prominent role in the Army’stransformation. This was bestexpressed in a memorandum signedby both the Secretary of the Armyand the Army Chief of Staff in August2001. In the memo, they stated,“Army Knowledge Management(AKM) is the Army strategy to trans-form itself into a network-centric,knowledge-based force.” Prior to thismemo, the Program Executive Officefor Command, Control and Commu-nications Systems (PEO, C3S) experi-mented with knowledge manage-ment methods and successfullyapplied them in its workplace.

This effort started in 1997 with arequest from LTG Paul J. Kern, thenMilitary Deputy to the Assistant Sec-retary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology (now withhis fourth star and CommandingGeneral, Army Materiel Command),and LTG William H. Campbell, thenDirector of Information Systems forCommand, Control, Communica-tions, and Computers (DISC4) (nowretired). A PEO, C3S pilot programwas chartered to demonstrate thepositive outcome that could resultwhen knowledge management tech-niques and principles are usedwithin an organization and to pro-vide a process for institutionalizingthese concepts across the Army

acquisition community. In addition,the pilot program’s team memberswere required to provide the PEO,C3S organization (including its head-quarters, project manager suborgani-zations, Defense contractors, andsupporting agencies) automatedtools and business processes; a col-laborative environment; and accessto information required to plan,implement, and execute their criticalmissions despite their decentralizedlocations.

While the tactical Army digitizedthe Army’s battlefield, the institu-tional arm of PEO, C3S embraced theopportunity to act likewise. As aresult, the secure intranet/extranetPEO, C3S Knowledge Center was cre-ated to share information and collab-orate on areas such as program plan-ning, scheduling, budgeting, con-gressional briefings, maintainingconfiguration management, resolv-ing interoperability issues amongproducts, and developing new train-ing and logistics strategies.

Since its inception, the knowl-edge center has met both of its char-tered objectives and has extendedbeyond the borders of PEO, C3S as aconsortium of functional businesspartners. Following a briefing toArmy leaders and Office of the Secre-tary of Defense sponsors in spring2001, the knowledge center team wasasked to add members and initiate

another pilot program. This time, theplan was to establish the acquisitionportal on Army Knowledge Online(AKO) in concert with AKM goals.The intent was to integrate the func-tional tools that a PEO communityneeds into an enterprise portaleveryone will use.

Creative Imperatives“Adapt or perish!” This timeless

and prophetic phrase by CharlesDarwin encourages us to remain rel-evant despite the constancy ofchange. This is a true challenge asthe speed of technical advances rap-idly increases and the slope of thecurve describing Moore’s Law growssteeper. (Moore’s law is a predictionby Dr. Gordon E. Moore, ChairmanEmeritus of Intel Corp., that thenumber of transistors per integratedcircuit would double every 18months.) Creative imperatives havealways driven us to adjust to surviveand, in this respect, times have notchanged.

During the 1990s, the Army expe-rienced significant workforce down-sizing while the number of missionsand responsibilities for Active dutysoldiers increased. Knowledge man-agement was seen as an enabler totransform the institutional Army intoan information-age, networkedorganization that can leverage itsintellectual capital to better organize,

TRANSFORMING THE ARMYBY MANAGING KNOWLEDGE

Jodi Santamaria and Emerson Keslar


train, and equip a strategic land-combat force. While the Army con-tinues to transform, its personnel willneed to undergo yet another culturalchange to succeed in the newly cre-ated environment.

The collaborative tools used byindustry are repackaged for use byproject management offices (PMOs)while they develop acquisitionrequirement packages, conductsource selections, and communi-cate with their industry partners.Processes remain true to the regula-tions to ensure “repeatability,” whilethe technical solutions are flexibleenough to meet the needs and styleof individual teams. Technologiesthat assist the self-aware and adap-tive leaders in the field are now avail-able in the business offices that sup-port them. This permits us to “eat ourown dog food,” or better understandour users, and take advantage oftechnology insertion when possible.Formation of the acquisition portaland further integration with AKOpresents this possibility.

Evolution Or Revolution?When presenting a fair depiction

of the situation, we must describe thebarriers that were conquered as theknowledge center was developed andimplemented—those ever-presentcultural issues. Although it soundssophomoric, people must learn toshare. Any natural inclination not todisclose information was stampedout by staunch general-officer levelleadership support, reinforced over a3-year period. Slowly, the organiza-tion moved up the curve depictingthe IBM Consulting Model. The IBMmodel is a KM model proposed byIBM’s Consulting Group thatdescribes eight different KM stages(including the critical enablers ateach stage) that organizations mustgo through while transitioning frombeginners to a knowledge enterprise.

Throughout the years, we havetried a number of incentive programsto reward and recognize our contrib-utors. We feature their success storiesand photos on our site and presentawards whenever possible. Further,in September 2001, an even strongermotivator was established to ensureparticipation. In particular, the Pro-gram Executive Officer, C3S directedeach of the PMOs to establish knowl-edge managers, responsible for man-aging useful, relevant, and cur-rent content. Simultaneously, heapproved the ultimate incentive—knowledge contributions that affectindividual performance appraisals.This novel concept will be enactedduring the next rating cycle.

Charting The Knowledge MapThe first step is typically the

hardest, but in this case, it was thesecond step. The challenge afterquickly gaining the program execu-tive officer’s support was identifying,collecting, and organizing the infor-mation to be preserved. “Less” maynot seem like “more.” But by earlyfocus on what sets the organizationapart, we can harness the knowledgeessential to survival in the future.This may seem straightforward, but itis anything but simple. And it is pow-erful advice, so take it. Years of gath-ering information left us with thedaunting task of constantly main-taining and arranging it in a user-friendly, searchable format. We haveadopted the AKO’s search tool foruniformity within the Army enter-prise. Our taxonomy has centered onthe acquisition process and our pro-grams. Still, there is work to be done.Focus energies on our core missionupfront, collect related knowledge,and learn from our predecessors totake courage and forego what is lessimportant.

Where We Go From HereOur immediate plans are to inte-

grate with our PEO counterparts andthe Army Research, Developmentand Acquisition Information SystemsActivity to complete the acquisitionportal within the AKO. This will availour users of personalization and AKOWeb mail in addition to the acquisi-tion offerings. We are furtherenabling communities of practicethrough collaborative automationtools and e-learning on a local level.And, through an improved relation-ship with human resources person-nel, we are identifying the assets thatwill be lost through retirement. Thiswill allow us, via video archives, tocapture the “tacit” knowledgeembedded in their experience beforethey depart. Overall, we strive toimpart knowledge that provides con-sequence and ensures successfulmissions with other members of theArmy’s knowledge enterprise. Formore information, contact EmersonKeslar at [email protected] or Jodi Santamaria [email protected].

JODI SANTAMARIA is theAssistant Program Director ofData Systems Analysts Inc., sup-porting the PEO, C3S Chief Infor-mation and Knowledge Officer.She holds a B.S. from The Collegeof New Jersey.

EMERSON KESLAR is theChief Information and KnowledgeManagement Officer, PEO, C3S. Heholds a B.S. degree from JamesMadison University and an M.S.in technology management fromStevens Institute of Technology.


IntroductionInformation assur-

ance (IA) and logisticsoperations permeate allareas of the Army trans-formation. IA is criticalto distribution-basedlogistics operationsbecause timelines andpipelines for delivery oflogistics packages areincreasingly con-strained by environ-mental factors that arerarely under direct Army control.Short timelines are critical to the suc-cess of OCONUS military operations,but they clearly challenge opera-tional planners more than ever. Theconvergence of emerging logisticsand information technologies, in-transit visibility systems, new players,and advanced delivery capabilitiesreflect more complexity than Armylogisticians have previously encoun-tered.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investi-gation Command (CID) is responsi-ble for enforcing three critical factorsinvolved in distribution-based logis-tics operations: IA, fraud deterrence,and logistics security (LOGSEC). TheCID provides law enforcement andcriminal investigative support forinformation assurance and pre- andin-transit delivery of logistics pack-ages, including preconfigured loads.In fact, LOGSEC is a strategic missionfor the CID. The command considersit a key force protection capabilitythat it can uniquely offer to the Army.

Although responsible for onlythree of the factors that add to thecomplexity of modern logistics oper-ations, the CID is modeling its roleand interfaces into the entireLOGSEC knowledge-managementprocess, understanding that criminalinvestigative support is critical tologistics operations throughout thelogistics process. This article exam-ines some initial intersections of theCID’s roles and research in IA, knowl-edge management, and logisticssecurity.

Because of the complexity of thelogistics system and its informationsupport systems, and the countlessthreats to these systems, a newapproach by criminal investigators isrequired. The CID is conducting pre-liminary research into new areas ofmodeling and simulation, known asagent-based modeling. This researchinvolves studying the intersections ofcritical nodes and their linkages toproduce insights for those responsi-ble for the direction of logistics andIA operations.

Initially directed at the criminalinvestigation domain, the CID hasinitiated research into knowledge-management support for advancednetwork intrusion defense and foren-sics capabilities for IA. Supported bythe Office of the Deputy Under Sec-retary of Defense for Advanced Sys-tems and Concepts, the CID and theKrasnow Institute for Advanced Stud-ies at George Mason University(GMU) are working jointly to modelroles and actions of important play-ers in the IA world.

Findings from this joint researchwill support logistics operations in atleast two important ways. First, anyimprovement in IA will directly bene-fit LOGSEC and strengthen the roleof the CID in supporting in-transitsecurity of logistics packages. Sec-ond, in keeping with the extensibilityof new agent-based modeling tools,insights gained from understandingnetworks of communication nodeswill likely have significant applica-tion in logistics preparation and dis-tribution. Research will be peripher-

ally directed at the con-vergence of IA andLOGSEC, both in sup-port of the CID’s role inIA and LOGSEC as wellas all logistics opera-tions for the Army.

Agent-BasedModeling

Agent-Based Mod-eling (ABM) is anemerging modelingtechnology for enhanc-

ing inference about complex prob-lems. ABM complements deductionand induction as a method of testingwhat American philosopher CharlesS. Peirce called abductions (creativereasoning in uncertainty for whichwe have little or no probabilistic sup-port). Abductive reasoning enhancesthe processes of discovery and incor-porating theories and explanationsabout relationships for which we ini-tially have only scant proof.

This new modeling techniqueencourages visualization of complexrelationships and agent interaction.Agents are software manifestations ofobjects (animate or inanimate) usedto represent the components of aproblem domain. These agents aretypically imbued with constraints(rules) to govern their behavior in anenvironment, and characteristicsthat may include movement, self-awareness, and processing capabili-ties such as learning and memory.Agents typically act on our behalf orsometimes on the behalf of them-selves or others.

Using agent-based modeling,analysts and investigators candevelop novel strategies for protect-ing and delivering both information-rich logistics support and the moreconventional physical objects suchas “beans and bullets.” ABM sup-ports transportation planning andoperational deployment as wellbecause complex scheduling prob-lems lend themselves nicely to anagent-based modeling environment.(See agent-based modeling resourcesat http://www.cna.org/isaac/ for

DISTRIBUTION-BASEDLOGISTICS

OPERATIONSLTC Carl W. Hunt


more background on these impor-tant new modeling techniques.)

Generally, ABM is an excellentstarting point to uncover meaningfuland often nonlinear relationshipsamong diverse objects in circum-stances where planners are not cer-tain where to begin their planningand development efforts. While notexplicitly incorporated into the Armyacquisition and logistics commu-nity’s modeling and broad-reachingsimulation effort called Simulationand Modeling for Acquisition,Requirements and Training (SMART),ABM clearly has a role in both strate-gic and tactical applications of logis-tics operations.

Roles And ResearchThe CID applies distinct efforts

toward protecting and enforcingArmy information assurance andlogistics operations. Two essentialCID units in these efforts are compo-nents of the 701st Military Police(MP) Group headquartered at FortBelvoir, VA. The Computer CrimeInvestigative Unit (CCIU) is theArmy’s leading IA enforcementagency and is responsible for investi-gating felony intrusions of all Armyinformation technology assets. TheMajor Procurement Fraud Unit, alsoa 701st MP Group asset, currentlyinvestigates criminal activity associ-ated with the production and deliv-ery of Army materials from manufac-turer to points of embarkation. Gar-rison and deployed CID elementstake up LOGSEC responsibilitiesfrom the points of embarkationthrough theater delivery of logistics.Likewise, local and regional CIDcomputer crime coordinators sup-port the CID and CCIU in the IAarena.

The CID began its ABM researchwith the introduction of the AgentBased Evidence Marshaling (ABEM)model. This model visually reflectsthe results of interactions among allagents to which a complex crime isonly partially visible. Through theseinteractions, relevant agents build

time-space vectors of their existencefrom the time they were first involvedin the crime (either as witnesses orsupporting objects otherwise associ-ated in the crime).

The agents share informationand learn to infer the importance ofother agents’ time-space vectors totheir own, producing a global visuali-zation of the crime. This results inemergent, self-organized databasescapable of producing and testinghypotheses about their existence inthe overall environment of the crime.This work has been extended inprojects supported by the DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agencyand the Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD).

In the ABEM model, each agenthas only incomplete local knowledgeabout the crime. By allowing theseagents to interact and build a self-organizing database, the knowl-edge about the crime dynamicallyemerges in a time-space relationship.The agents communicate with eachother by means of tuples (a message-passing schema). (See http://www.msiac.dmso.mil/journal/hunt23.html for more information about theABEM model.)

In August 2001, the CID begancollaborating with the Krasnow Insti-tute for Advanced Studies at GMUand Bios Group Inc. to extend theABEM work by building an agent-based model of network intrusions insupport of an OSD advanced concepttechnology demonstration. This col-laboration, known as Advanced Net-work Intrusion Defense, will involvestudying the feasibility of using ABM.The CID-GMU collaboration will cre-ate agent-based representations ofthe major players in a network intru-sion activity.

The objects and their interac-tions studied in this model includecomputer intruders (e.g., hackers);network assets (routers, switches,and host computers); computerusers; law enforcement officials; andthe legal/policy environment. A pro-posal under consideration is a sce-

nario involving a logistics distribu-tion event, further demonstrating theimportant intersections of IA andLOGSEC.

Future research in this area mayalso embrace agent-based modelingof fraud cases to study the complexrelationships of various animate andinanimate objects associated withsuch crime. Such a model could aidindividuals in visualizing the people,surroundings, equipment, and sup-porting documents as agents capableof interacting to produce novelbehaviors. This will enhance discov-ery of important relationships. Thesefuture agents could interact on theirown behalf to build associations thatchart the environment of the crime,much as the ABEM model tracksrelationships of witnesses to inani-mate objects empowered to act ontheir own behalf.

SummaryThe CID plays an important role

in securing logistics distribution forthe Army as well as enforcing federallaws that protect information assur-ance. Because IA and LOGSEC areintegral components of successfuldistribution-based logistics opera-tions, the CID’s force protection con-tributions are essential to thoseemerging logistics processes envi-sioned in the Army transformation.The CID is studying the role of inno-vative modeling and simulation sup-port to IA and LOGSEC. This initialresearch is expected to support thetransformation of Army logisticsoperations, thus resulting in effectiveand reliable tools for all commandersto enhance their force-protectioncapabilities.

LTC CARL W. HUNT is Com-mander of the U.S. Army CriminalInvestigation Command’s Com-puter Crime Investigative Unit. Hereceived his Ph.D. in informationtechnology from George MasonUniversity and can be contacted [email protected].


IntroductionThe abundance of knowledge-

management (KM) tools coming ontothe market provide structure andknowledge repositories for identifying,organizing, and disseminating infor-mation. However, KM is not onlyabout the tools. In fact, individualswho rely solely on the tools may not besuccessful in implementing KM. Fur-thermore, KM tools frequently requirea substantial upfront investment aswell as costly and recurring mainte-nance. Not only is there more toknowledge management than just thetools, but there are also less costly waysto implement an effective KM Program.

HQ, U.S. Army, Pacific (USARPAC)implemented a highly effective KMprogram that is transforming USARPACinto a knowledge-based organization atminimal cost. Our strategy emphasizesbusiness process and tool reuse, whichincreases effectiveness by using what isfamiliar, and contributes to minimizingcost by reducing the need for new toolsand training.

One KM challenge facingUSARPAC is the organization’s dis-persed nature, which today spans 16time zones and consists of Active andReserve Army forces in Japan, Hawaii,and Alaska, and Reserve forces inWashington, Guam, and AmericanSamoa. Therefore, while our currentKM effort is focused at USARPAC, it isdesigned to enable knowledge sharingwith major subordinate commands(MSCs) and Army KM and other Ser-vice components.

USARPAC ApproachKM is a critical enabler as we

undergo the Army transformation.USARPAC defined the return on invest-ment for KM as improved productquality and workplace morale. Our goal

is to “empower the USARPAC workforceto actively leverage our IntellectualCapital as a critical enabler for ArmyTransformation and Joint Vision 2020,and to become an effective Knowledge-based organization.”

Recognizing that KM is over-whelmingly more about people andprocesses than about technology, wehave focused our program on businessprocesses, particularly those that sup-port our core priority missions. Wecontracted with the U.S. Army Infor-mation Systems Engineering Com-mand (USAISEC) KM group to facilitatea series of focused meetings, or char-rettes. To achieve KM buy-in, weincluded staff members from all levelsand functional areas in defining thetop program priorities and solicitedinput from senior leaders, subject mat-ter experts, action officers, informationofficers, system administrators, andadministrative personnel. The char-rettes gathered input on the currentand desired state of knowledge sharingin USARPAC by posing questions onknowledge culture, sources, accessibil-ity, and responsibility, as well as tools,policies, business practices, and issues.Participants were invited to define howto transition to a learning organization.Through discussion and consolidation,we identified seven top priorities thatincluded issues that both apply to theKM Program and that will effectivelycomplement and augment our KM ini-tiative.

USARPAC KM ImplementationUSARPAC’s KM implementation is

an ongoing process that includesincorporating knowledge managementinto new and existing programs, modi-fying business practices to improveefficiency and increase process reuse,and deploying additional tools to sup-port business practices. A significant

key to our success is the strong supportfrom our senior leaders.

To incorporate KM into the organi-zation structure, USAISEC analyzed thenetwork information infrastructure toensure that it would support the re-quired information flow and ensurethat planned upgrades would continueto support KM implementation. Theanalysis addressed the local infrastruc-ture and wide area networks. Thiseffort included the Common UserInstallation Transport Networkupgrades to ensure that our architec-ture was optimized to support the KMimplementation and information flow.The analysis took a total systemsapproach, including the DOD Informa-tion Technology Security Certificationand Accreditation Process, training,and user support.

The charrettes helped USARPACknowledge workers identify those prac-tices and processes with the mostimpact on our core priority missions.Key processes included resource man-agement, strategic planning, suspensetracking, and training. A review ofthese key processes revealed redun-dancies, inefficiencies, and opportuni-ties for process reuse. Many of theprocesses were streamlined andimproved by using automation and byturning tacit knowledge into guidelinesand checklists for routine and repeti-tive tasks.

After evaluating the businessprocess requirements and achievingwidespread buy-in, we identified KMtools suited to our needs. Some of our tool selection criteria include low cost, user friendliness, portability,and reusability. Because workflowprocesses are a large part of KMimprovements, the Workflow Manage-ment System (WMS) tool, based onMicrosoft Outlook, was selected tomeet our requirements. In fact, theOffice 2000 suite, which minimizes ouracquisition costs and training require-ments, is already our standard. Toimplement and customize individualviews of the USARPAC portal, weselected Microsoft Digital Dashboard 2portal framework, in compliance withthe Defense Collaborative Tool Suite.

USARPAC KM is an evolvingprocess that can be modified based onchanging roles and missions. OurInformation Management (IM) Panel isalso evolving to support KM imple-

USARPAC KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT

EFFORTS

Libby Christensen and Maria Sadd


mentation, advancement, and contin-ued buy-in. Several best practicesapproaches, including the IM Panel,are discussed below.

Best PracticesProgram Integration. KM impacts

all aspects of our organization; there-fore, we incorporate KM into any newor upgraded system. The previouslymentioned example is the infrastruc-ture analysis, where the upgrade wasevaluated with KM requirements inmind. Another example is theUSARPAC command and control func-tional matrix, which provides informa-tion on the level of interaction thatmust be supported between commandelements.

The IM Panel. The IM Panel waspreviously chartered to support theClinger-Cohen Act objectives for man-aging the information technologyacquisition process, and for establish-ing goals and performance measures toimprove the efficiency and effective-ness of agency operations. USARPACstaff principals are represented on theIM Panel and raise, review, and discussIM issues to disseminate informationon initiatives and to solicit ideas fromtheir respective staffs. Their activitiessupport the top program prioritiesidentified during the charrettes. The IMPanel adopted the KM goal to trans-form USARPAC to a knowledge-basedorganization.

A significant IM Panel objective isto transition the USARPAC into aknowledge-management organization.This cultural impact is often over-looked when implementing KMbecause of the tendency to focus onnew technologies. Because few usethese technologies, this can easily leadto a KM Program failure. By communi-cating and representing their func-tional area staff, panel members main-tain interest and participation in theKM Program, promote process owner-ship, and maintain buy-in across theorganization.

The IM Panel reviewed issues iden-tified in the KM charrettes andaddressed them. After assessing theineffective use of e-mail (“pushing”information such as blood drives andsocial events that are more appropri-ately “pulled”) and the forwarding oflarge and unnecessary files, the IMPanel disseminated guidelines for e-mail users. Another issue they con-sidered is the Army Knowledge Man-

agement Strategic Plan objective toincorporate KM into individual per-formance plans. The panel tackledproblems such as measuring theeffectiveness of KM practices. In theprocess, the IM Panel determined thata modification to individual jobdescriptions is not needed to add KMto individual performance plans.

A third example demonstrates cul-tural impact. The USARPAC seniorleader proposed sharing and viewingcalendar information. When the IMPanel members polled their staffs, theydiscovered that people were unwillingto share detailed calendar information.The panel modified the proposedobjective to allow only individual avail-ability information to be shared. Thus,headquarters buy-in became possible,and the KM objective was met.

Assessed Environment. The KMeffort focuses on USARPAC. However,we recognize that for KM to be effec-tive, knowledge sharing must occuroutside the organization as well aswithin. Our assessed environmentincluded higher headquarters and jointcommands including the Departmentof the Army, U.S. Pacific Command,Marine Forces Pacific, U.S. PacificFleet, and Pacific Air Forces. We incor-porated plans for interoperability andalso came away with implementationideas such as reuse of the Digital Dash-board portal frameworks, Digital Dash-board library, conference room sched-uling software, and Workflow Manage-ment System.

Internally, the assessed environ-ment reflects the fact that differentfunctions have different knowledgeneeds. The charrettes were organizedto ensure that KM requirements weregathered from individual knowledgeworkers across all functional areas ofthe organization. The IM Panel en-sures that those knowledge workerscontinue to be involved in KM’sevolution.

Modeling. We selected four of thekey business processes identified dur-ing the charrettes and developed mod-els of the existing processes, as well asproposed target processes. This en-abled us to develop metrics and deter-mine whether changing the targetprocesses would produce the antici-pated return on investment, developand validate requirements for appro-priate KM tools, and support Clinger-Cohen Act objectives.

Future ProspectsUSARPAC encourages our MSCs to

use the KM modules by ensuring thatour program continues to evolve withinteroperability as a critical objective.Interoperability is facilitated by select-ing standards-based technologies.XML (eXtensible Markup Language) isone software technology that showspromise as a means to seamlesslyexchange information between differ-ent applications and databases.USARPAC envisions that files andobjects such as Digital Dashboardmodules will be ported between exter-nal communities of interest using thistechnology.

We will continue to foster the suc-cess of our KM Program, evolving ourKM strategy and objectives to meet ourArmy transformation requirements.Our long-term goals focus on extend-ing effective knowledge sharing withthe joint community and maintainingawareness of the KM Programs, bothwithin and outside the command. Asour KM Program, organizational cul-ture, and technologies mature, we willcontinue to remain on point in thePacific.

LIBBY CHRISTENSEN is a Sys-tems Engineer with the Infrastruc-ture Systems Engineering Direc-torate, U.S. Army Information Sys-tems Engineering Command atFort Huachuca, AZ. She and othermembers of the USAISEC Knowl-edge Management Group provideengineering support to USARPACas it plans and implements its KMProgram. She can be contacted [email protected].

MARIA SADD is Chief, Infor-mation Technology Plans and Pro-grams Division for the DeputyChief of Staff for InformationManagement and for the 516thSignal Brigade, Fort Shafter, HI.She and her staff are spearheadingthe planning, beta testing, andimplementation of USARPAC’s KMProgram. She can be reached [email protected].


The Army Flow Model (AFM) is anHQDA knowledge management systemthat provides the Army staff with thecapability to analyze and assess actualor notional policy decisions over time.The AFM’s primary purpose is to pro-vide an effective and efficient means toassess the feasibility, supportability,and affordability of current, pro-grammed, and hypothetical HQDA ini-tiatives, and their impact on forcereadiness over time. The AFM accom-plishes this by transforming and inte-grating raw data into knowledge to aidsenior decisionmakers in assessing pol-icy decisions. The AFM provides anintegrated cross-functional view of theArmy and consists of an integrateddatabase, a suite of functional models,and data output. The AFM is anInternet-based system that is easilyaccessed via the Web.

The AFM is built from an inte-grated database of approved data out-puts collected from the functionalareas of the Army. These data areprocessed and placed into a data ware-house of historical, current, and pro-grammed information. The AFM sys-tem architecture allows it to easily inte-grate data from outside systems. Thecapability to accept and integrate datafrom legacy systems is one of the AFM’sstrongest assets. This system flexibilityprovides information dominancethrough the ease of linking and miningdata.

The AFM maintains a suite of func-tional models in its integrated data-base. These functional models addressforce structure, logistics, personnel,stationing, and the budget. Thesemodels apply HQDA business rules tothe integrated data to produce analyti-cal intelligence from raw data. Eachmodel is linked via the database toensure that output and analysis areconsistent across the system. A sum-mary of each of the functional modelsfollows.

The Force Structure Model’s pri-mary function is to maintain the his-torical, current, and projected HQDA-

approved locked force structure. Thesedata form the baseline for force-structure assessments and the otherfunctional models. Logistics and Per-sonnel Model data are integrated toform a complete header file for theForce Structure Model across the Pro-gram Objective Memorandum years.

The Logistics Model’s primaryfunction is to project equipment distri-butions over a 10-year period and pro-vide equipment on-hand readiness cal-culations at both the line item numberand unit identification code levels. TheLogistics Model identifies equipmentshortfalls, provides equipment costs,and produces the HQDA Total ArmyEquipment Distribution Plan. TheLogistics Model also maintains histori-cal, current, and future readiness pro-jections and distributions.

The Personnel Model is designedto project trained strength across theforce structure. This model allocatesprojected strength by distributionmanagement level and at unit level bymilitary occupational specialty andgrade. The model applies rotation,promotion, reclassification, conver-sion, separation, and accession policiesand trends to the enlisted populationfor distribution across the force struc-ture. The Personnel Model also main-tains historical and current assignedprojections.

The Stationing Model is used toassess stationing impact as a result offorce structure and stationing changes.This model provides an installationview of the units, equipment, and per-sonnel located at the base for all com-ponents. The stationing model alsomaintains historical and current dataon installation readiness.

The Budget Model provides costsfor equipment acquisitions andstandup and shortage costs for equip-ment, and calculates destination costsassociated with relocating resources.

Data in the AFM are viewed via theInternet. The AFM consists of a seriesof graphical user interfaces that pro-duce tabular and graphical data repre-

sentations. The AFM can also be cus-tomized so that specialized views andWeb pages can be created for the ana-lyst to support specific studies.

The AFM directly supports numer-ous HQDA policy assessments. TheAFM’s ability to provide integrated datafrom across the functional areas offorce structure, logistics, personnel,stationing, and budgeting make it thecornerstone from which the Armystudies are based. The ability to inte-grate vast quantities of data and pro-vide quick turnaround answers hasgreatly increased the accuracy andtimeliness of the Army’s critical assess-ments. These proven capabilities havemade the AFM the Army’s analyticalmodel of choice.

The Army Flow Model is designedto be fully compatible with the currentsystems in use by the Army. The systemprovides on-screen tools that allowanalysts to manipulate data directlyfrom the model. However, data can betransferred directly to Microsoft Officeapplications for integration into brief-ing slides and action reports. Datamanagement flexibility is a key capa-bility of the AFM. The functional pro-ponent for the AFM is the Director ofForce Management, Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Operationsand Plans. The technical proponent forthe AFM is the Director of InformationSystems for Command, Control, Com-munications, and Computers (DISC4).

MAJ JOHN MCKITRICK is theProject Officer for the AFM andthe Data Sharing Initiative, ChiefTechnology Office, ODISC4. Hereceived his master’s degree in sys-tems management from theFlorida Institute of Technologyand can be reached at [email protected].

ARMY FLOW MODELMAJ John McKitrick


IntroductionThe 2001 Army Acquisition Work-

shop, largely devoted to topicsrelated to the Army’s transformation,was held Aug. 6-9, 2001, in Atlanta,GA. More than 280 acquisition pro-fessionals attended the workshop,which annually provides a forum forthe senior Army acquisition leader-ship to communicate directly withand present new guidance to pro-gram executive officers (PEOs); proj-ect, product, and program managers(PMs); deputies for systems acquisi-tion; Defense Contract ManagementAgency (DCMA) commanders; andother acquisition commanders (ACs).

MG Daniel G. Mongeon, U.S.Army Forces Command’s(FORSCOM’s) Deputy Chief of Stafffor Logistics (DCSLOG), the local co-host of the workshop, welcomedattendees and introduced then ArmyAcquisition Corps Director and Mili-tary Deputy to the Assistant Secre-tary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology (ASAALT)LTG Paul J. Kern. Kern, who hasreceived his fourth star and is nowCommanding General of the ArmyMateriel Command (AMC), intro-duced his successor, MG John S.Caldwell Jr., then Commanding Gen-

eral of the Army Tank-automotiveand Armaments Command. Kernoutlined the Army’s future challengesand discussed Secretary of the ArmyThomas E. White’s transformationobjectives and commitment to investin people, ensure readiness, andadopt sound business practices. Kernstressed the need to think in terms ofnetworks and systems-of-systems,and determine how to fit all thepieces together. To achieve transfor-mation, he concluded, the Armymust accept the challenge of, quicklyadapt to, and be pioneers of change.

PerspectivesCOL(P) James R. Moran, Vice

President of the Defense AcquisitionUniversity (DAU) and Commandantof the Defense Systems Manage-ment College, discussed significantchanges at DAU. DAU has tradition-ally focused on resident training, butrecently expanded its mission toinclude distance learning. DAU isreorganizing to enhance responsive-ness, provide a full-service capability,support the Army Acquisition andTechnology Workforce, and increasestudent productivity and morale.

LTG John M. Riggs, Director ofthe Objective Force Task Force, stated

that the Objective Force encom-passes a complete Army transforma-tion that includes warfighting con-cepts, training and leader develop-ment approaches, organizationaldesigns, and requirements for agilesoldiers capable of performing eche-lons above their own. Riggs said theArmy must “see first, understandfirst, act first, and finish decisively.”To accomplish this, he said the Armyneeds advanced command, control,communications, computers, intelli-gence, surveillance, and reconnais-sance; improved precision muni-tions; advanced mobile fire deliverysystems; improved warning ofnuclear, chemical, and biologicalhazards; advanced unmanned airand ground systems; and the integra-tion of lighter, more effective armor.

Riggs was followed by a paneldiscussion on “Standards for the 21stCentury,” moderated by AMC Assis-tant DCS for Research, Developmentand Acquisition (RD&A) for Scienceand Technology/Science AdvisorRenata F. Price. The panel discussedhow the Army and industry couldwork together to ensure that 21stcentury commercial standardsaddress Army transformation re-quirements. Panel members werePandu Rao, Director of Engineering

Annual Army Acquisition Workshop . . .

THE ARMYTRANSFORMATION:

SUCCESS TODAY,VICTORY TOMORROW

Cynthia D. Hermes

LTG John M. Riggs, Director of theObjective Force Task Force


Business Group, U.S. Army Tank-automotive and ArmamentsCommand, Warren, MI; ThomasW. Rabaut, President and ChiefExecutive Officer, UnitedDefense Limited Partnership;James W. Zwickey, Director ofDefense Contracts at OshkoshTruck Corp.; Kenneth Dabundo,Senior Manager of Materials,Process, and Standards Engi-neering for Boeing Corp.; TimBrooke, Manager of TechnicalCommittee Operations for theAmerican Society for Testing andMaterials; and Matthew Williams,Director of Standardization for Aero-space Industries Association.

LTG Charles S. Mahan Jr., ArmyDCSLOG, discussed the DCSLOG’stransformation charter to enhancestrategic responsiveness, meetdeployment timelines, reduce thelogistics footprint, and transform theinstitutional Army by reducing totalobligation authority. He concludedsaying, “At the end of the day, it’s allabout getting the right equipmentwith the right capabilities into thehands of our soldiers.”

Following Mahan’s presentation,awards were presented honoring thePMs and ACs of the year. (See articleon Page 25.)

LTC Thomas Hogan, Chief of theU.S. Total Army Personnel Com-mand’s Acquisition ManagementBranch, provided an update on thenew Officer Evaluation Reports anddiscussed the Command Select ListProgram, PM/AC Board membership,and the low number of civilians com-peting for PM positions.

MG Robert E. Armbruster,Deputy for Systems Managementand Horizontal Technology Integra-tion in the Office of the ASAALT, pro-vided a recapitalization update.Attendees were urged to read theHQDA policy on recapitalization,meet with their supporting commod-ity commands, and understand theirrole in the recapitalization process.Armbruster added that aggressiverecapitalization will reduce near-term operational risk, ensure combat

overmatch, and extend the serv-ice life of existing warfightingsystems.

MG James R. Snider, AMC’sDCS for RD&A, outlined theMateriel Release Tracking Sys-tem, which manages and tracksthe status of all materiel releaseactivities and provides report-generating capability and auto-matic e-mail notification ofupcoming and missed “get-well”dates.

MG William L. Bond, Direc-tor of Force Development in theOffice of the Army Deputy Chief ofStaff for Programs (ODCSPRO),discussed ODCSPRO’s goal todevelop, integrate, and synchronizeprograms to support the Army vision.ODCSCPRO assists in the transfor-mation process by fielding revolu-tionary new capabilities, respondingto immediate capability shortfalls,and maintaining and improvingexisting capabilities. Bond said thatnew technology is key in providingrobust, interoperable land forces.

COL(P) Jeffrey A. Sorenson, thenAssistant Deputy for Systems Man-agement and Horizontal Technol-ogy Integration in the Office of theASAALT (now a brigadier general andthe PEO, Smart Munitions (TacticalMissiles)), discussed the importanceof the Quadrennial Defense Review.He added that the Secretary ofDefense believes it is critical to trans-form entire DOD organizations,equipment, and concepts to meet21st century national militarystrategies.

Dr. Walter F. Morrison, Director,Research and Laboratory Manage-ment in the Office of the DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army forResearch and Technology, discussedfuture science and technology (S&T)initiatives. Challenges for the S&Tcommunity include increasingresources to enable the ObjectiveForce; maturing technology to expe-dite systems development; buildingthe Future Combat Systems in this

LTG Charles S.Mahan Jr., ArmyDCSLOG

MG Robert E. Armbruster, Deputy forSystems Management and HorizontalTechnology Integration, Office of theASAALT

MG William L. Bond, Director of ForceDevelopment, ODCSPRO


decade; and increasing momentumfor the Objective Force Warrior,unmanned combat-armed rotor-craft, and the Institute for SoldierNanotechnologies.

COL R. David Ogg Jr., PM,Brigade Combat Team (BCT), andDon Howe, PM, GM GDLS DefenseGroup LLC, the final formal speakerson the first day of the workshop, dis-cussed BCT government and Defenseintegrated product teams. Specifi-cally, Ogg spoke on the BCT’s mis-sion and management challenges,and Howe addressed the organiza-tional structure of GM GDLS.

Additional BriefingsJ. Stephen Koons, FORSCOM

Assistant DCSLOG, began the sec-ond day of briefings with a discus-sion of logistics challenges and the

DCSLOG’s mission to provide world-class support for FORSCOM’s power-projection Army.

MG John Marcello, CommandingGeneral of the Army Test and Evalua-tion Command (ATEC), discussed theATEC Web-based Test and EvaluationManagement System and the ATECDecision Support System (ADSS)-Web, which provides test and evalua-tion (T&E) status on more than 350systems, detailed system descrip-tions, and the capability to reviewT&E data. Angie Craddock, ATEC’sInformation Technology PM, alsoprovided an overview of ADSS-Weband suggested that everyone registerat the site.

LTG Peter M. Cuviello, Director ofInformation Systems for Command,Control, Communications, and Com-puters, discussed transformationfrom an information perspective. Hesaid there are numerous securityimplications in a computer-enabledworld. Although Web-based systemsare more capable, they are also morevulnerable to attack, he noted. TheArmy must control access, demandsecurity in purchased software, anddevelop security architects. He alsostressed that knowledge manage-ment has significant importance inglobal operations; thus, the goal ofArmy knowledge management is to

have world-class, network-centricaccess to knowledge, systems, andservices interoperable within thejoint environment. By July 2002, theArmy will be conducting the majorityof its internal business via ArmyKnowledge Online (AKO), and allpersonnel will operate from an AKOaccount.

Allan M. Resnick, DCS for Com-bat Developments at the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command(TRADOC), discussed TRADOC’smission in training soldiers for war,establishing standards and re-quirements, and commandinginstallations.

BG Edward M. Harrington,DCMA Director, discussed DCMA’sstrategic, operational, and tacticalmissions. He also provided anoverview of industrial intelligence

LTG Peter M. Cuviello,Director of Information Systems forCommand,Control,Communications,and Computers

LTG Roy E.Beauchamp,AMC Deputy CommandingGeneral

BG Edward M. Harrington, DCMADirector

MG John Marcello, CommandingGeneral, ATEC


and contingency and operationaldeployment. A key transformationissue for DCMA is to supportwarfighter readiness. He closed bystating that throughout the acquisi-tion process, DCMA’s primary focusis the customer.

COL(P) James A. Kelley,FORSCOM Assistant Deputy Chief ofStaff for Operations, provided aFORSCOM perspective on Armyacquisition testing, fielding, training,and operations. FORSCOM, henoted, must accomplish its missionwith a strategy that balances testing,modernization, and training require-ments. He also outlined FORSCOM’s5-year plan and the strategy forimplementing and maintaining it.

COL Frank C. Davis III, DeputyDirector of the Acquisition CareerManagement Office, discussed acqui-sition career management and thegoal of enhancing the professionaldevelopment of Functional Area 51officers under the Officer PersonnelManagement System for the 21stCentury (OPMS XXI). Davis also dis-cussed transitioning the MaterielAcquisition Management Course atFort Lee, VA, to the Army Acqui-sition Qualification Course; theintermediate-level education con-cept; advanced civil schooling; andacquisition branch qualification.

Donald L. Damstetter, ActingDeputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Plans, Programs and Policy,provided specific Program ObjectiveMemorandum FY03-07 guidance anddiscussed challenges such as thegrowing requirements for light forcedevelopment, unit set fielding, recap-italization versus modernization, andthe Objective Force.

Keith Charles, then Acting Direc-tor, Acquisition Education, Training,and Career Development, Office ofthe Deputy Under Secretary ofDefense for Acquisition Reform, pro-vided an update on the Acquisition2005 Task Force and described vari-ous hiring authorities available tomanagers. He urged attendees to

read The Acquisition ManagersRecruiting, Hiring and Reten-tion Handbook, written incoordination with the UnderSecretary of Defense for Per-sonnel Readiness and availableonline at www.acq.osd.mil/yourfuture. Charles saidthe quickest way for supervi-sors to obtain the authority tohire and adequately compen-sate employees is to enter theCivilian Acquisition WorkforcePersonnel DemonstrationProject.

Closing RemarksLTG Roy E. Beauchamp, AMC

Deputy Commanding General, con-cluded the formal workshop sayingthat information is now a capitalasset, and our lives are about tochange in ways that none of us canforesee. As a result, we must viewchange as a friend who works for ourbenefit.

Kern thanked everyone for par-ticipating, noting that the next fewyears will be exciting because neverbefore has the Army simultaneouslydownsized, maintained its readiness,and transformed itself. He also saidthat we should be proud that ourArmy is the one that the rest of theworld still tries to emulate.

Note: Elective sessions were heldfollowing the formal workshop. Top-ics were Media Training Workshop;Conditional Materiel Release/TotalPackage Fielding/Unit Set Fielding;Technological Solutions for theFuture; Center for Acquisition LessonsLearned; Environmental QualityRequirements for Army Weapon Sys-tems; Activity-Based Costing; Opera-tional Requirements Documents andKey Performance Parameters; U.S.Military Academy Partnership; PMPredictive Staffing Model; EmbeddedDiagnostics and Horizontal Technol-ogy Integration; and Training WithIndustry at the Logistics ManagementInstitute. Additionally, an executivesession was held at FORSCOM forPEOs and senior acquisition leaders.Topics included Civilian Placementof PMs-IPT Report Out, Threat Brief,and Organizing for the 21st Century.To request detailed information onthe elective sessions, contact JoanSable, PEO/PM Support Manager,Army Acquisition Executive SupportAgency, at (703) 805-4357/DSN 655-4357 or [email protected].

CYNTHIA D. HERMES is Man-aging Editor of Army AL&T maga-zine. She has more than 21 yearsof federal government service.

COL(P) James A. Kelley, FORSCOMAssistant Deputy Chief of Staff forOperations

Donald L. Damstetter,Acting Deputy AssistantSecretary of the Armyfor Plans,Programsand Policy


IntroductionAwards recognizing outstanding

achievements of the Army’s projectand product managers (PMs) of theyear and two acquisition command-ers (ACs) of the year were presentedAug. 7, 2001, at the annual ArmyAcquisition Workshop in Atlanta, GA.The awards were presented by LTGPaul J. Kern, then Military Deputy tothe Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Acquisition, Logistics and Tech-nology and Director of the ArmyAcquisition Corps (now with hisfourth star and Commanding Generalof the Army Materiel Command).

Project Manager Of The YearCOL Patrick J. O’Reilly, Project

Manager, Theater High Altitude AreaDefense (PM, THAAD), received theProject Manager of the Year Award forFY00. He was cited for managingactivities and leading the THAADProgram through the successful Mile-stone II Defense Acquisition BoardReview in June 2000. Within 5 weeks,the $3.8 billion THAAD engineeringand manufacturing design contractwas signed. O’Reilly developed theinnovative contract award fee struc-ture, providing the contractor withincentives for early and successfulflight tests and the government witha means to recover the costs ofunsuccessful flights. O’Reilly alsoimplemented numerous cost-reduction initiatives, avoiding orsaving more than $10 billion

throughout the program’s life cycle.One initiative involved O’Reilly andhis team partnering with the automo-tive racing industry to incorporaterevolutionary pit-stop technologiesinto the THAAD design. This effortreduces maintenance diagnostics andrepair times from hours to seconds,resulting in dramatically reducedmaintenance costs.

Product Manager Of The YearLTC Edward L. Mullin, Prod-

uct Manager, PATRIOT AdvancedCapability-3 (PM, PAC-3) MissileProgram, received the Product Man-ager of the Year Award for FY00.Under Mullin’s leadership, the PAC-3Program achieved an unprecedentedseven consecutive hit-to-kill inter-cepts in developmental testing with-out a single failure—a 100-percentsuccess rate. These hit-to-kill inter-cepts, often compared to “hitting abullet with a bullet,” were conductedagainst threat-representative theaterballistic missile and cruise missiletargets. Mullin was also cited forspearheading a three-pronged effortto reduce the average unit procure-ment cost of the PAC-3 missile by asmuch as 40 percent, saving the gov-ernment $1.5 billion in procurementcosts. Through his innovative and rig-orous ground test program involvinga combination of digital simulationsand hardware-in-the-loop testing atthe system component level, Mullinset the standard for simulation-basedacquisition and significantly reduced

the number of live flight tests re-quired and, consequently, overallprogram costs.

ACs Of The YearCOL William N. Phillips and LTC

George P. Slagle were each recipientsof an Acquisition Commander of theYear Award for FY00.

Phillips was recognized for hisachievements as Commander,Defense Contract Management(DCM)-San Francisco, responsible formanaging more than 5,000 contractsvalued at more than $21 billion andinvolving more than 800 contractors.Phillips was cited for demonstratingsignificant fiscal achievements byimplementing a streamlined processto track canceling funds. As a result,his command saved $38.1 millionduring the fiscal year—all “harddollars” returned to the Services.Because of Phillips’ outstanding lead-ership, DCM-San Francisco wastransformed from one of the poorestcommands to one of the best in theagency. By initiating sweepingreforms in organization, processcontrol, and managerial oversight,Phillips overhauled his command. Hedid this while while maintaining andsignificantly improving missionaccomplishment and support to thecustomer. This enabled DCM-SanFrancisco to be commonly used as abenchmark by other commands toassess their performance.

PMs AND ACQUISITIONCOMMANDERS

OF THE YEAR HONOREDHeather J. Kohler


Slagle was recognized for hiscontributions as the AcquisitionCommander, National Training Cen-ter (NTC). He is responsible for thesurveillance and contract manage-ment of 1,200 contractor employeesfor NTC’s 10-year base operationscontract; the $182 million logisticssupport contract; and the adminis-tration of more than $100 million insupply, service, and constructioncontracts. Slagle was instrumental insupporting the NTC commandgroup’s $256 million budgetaryexpenditures for FY00. Slagle wascited for successfully transitioning

the Directorate of Contracting intothe newest U.S. Army Forces Com-mand acquisition command struc-ture. His adept reorganization andempowerment of his acquisitionworkforce resulted in his command’sability to lead and support NTC’scustomers.

Charter PresentationsAt the conclusion of the awards

presentation, Kern presented aDeputy for Systems Acquisition(DSA) Charter to COL(P) Paul S. Izzo,DSA, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command.

HEATHER J. KOHLER, anemployee of Science ApplicationsInternational Corp. (SAIC), pro-vides contract support to theAcquisition Career ManagementOffice. She has a master’s degree inpublic administration fromGeorge Mason University and abachelor’s degree in politicalscience from the University ofConnecticut, Storrs, CT.

Shown on the left in each photo is LTG Paul J. Kern, then Military Deputy to the Assis-tant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology and Director of theArmy Acquisition Corps (now with his fourth star and Commanding General of the ArmyMateriel Command).

COL Patrick J. O’Reilly, PM, THAAD, accepts theProject Manager Of The Year Award.

LTC Edward L. Mullin, PM, PAC-3, accepts theProduct Manager Of The Year Award.

COL William N. Phillips, Commander, DCM-San Francisco, receives an AcquisitionCommander Of The Year Award.

LTC George P. Slagle, AC, National TrainingCenter, receives an Acquisition Comman-der Of The Year Award.

COL(P) Paul S. Izzo, DSA, U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Command,receives a Deputy for Systems AcquisitionCharter.


IntroductionArmy transformation challenges all

mission areas, and air defense artilleryis no exception. In preparing for anever-escalating and proliferating threatconsisting of both “air-breathing” andmissile (ballistic and cruise) carrierscapable of transporting weapons ofmass destruction (WMD), DOD isdeveloping a comprehensive and inte-grated array of Defense systemsdesigned to protect the United States,its deployed elements, and allied forces.These systems include land-, sea-, andair-based assets and counter-specificthreat vulnerabilities in all phases. Tra-ditional development programs pro-duce complete systems for integrationinto the existing force. We must nowconsider an alternative acquisitionapproach for air and missile defense(AMD) modernization that is moreresponsive to the Army’s immediateneeds than today’s system-centricprocess.

BackgroundThe Army’s systematic, multitiered

approach to all land-based AMD is invarious stages of development, produc-tion, and fielding. The Army currentlyoperates short range air defense(SHORAD) against air-breathing threatsin the forward area, including Stinger-missile-based weapons platform, theSentinel radar, and battle managementvia Forward Area Air Defense Commandand Control (FAAD C2).

More stressing, longer-range targetsare addressed by the Army’s “lower-tier”PATRIOT missile system. PATRIOT isself-contained and includes an acquisi-tion/track-fixed azimuth radar, missileson a mobile launcher, and organic com-mand and control equipment. Designedin the 1980s, PATRIOT provides primaryair defense against air-breathing threatsfor fixed assets. However, because ofnumerous equipment upgrades (mostnotably the fielding of the PATRIOTAdvanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile),the system is now effective against allclasses of the modern AMD threat.PAC-3 was designed specifically for hit-to-kill lethality against sophisticatedthreat missiles.

The most stressing and longestrange ballistic missiles will be counteredby Theater High Altitude Air Defense

(THAAD), the Army’s “upper-tier” sys-tem currently in engineering and manu-facturing development. THAAD is alsoconfigured with a powerful fixed-azimuth acquisition and track radar, ahit-to-kill missile and mobile launcher,and a tactical operations center (TOC).

SHORAD and upper- and lower-tiersystems share a common architecture.Each system requires sensors for acqui-sition and fire control, “shooters” (mis-sile/launcher combinations) for lethaldestruction of the target, and battlemanagement assets such as TOCs todirect the engagement. A significantgoal in developing the Army’s AMDinvolves seamlessly integrating all avail-able sensors, shooters, and TOCs withina deployable architecture. The resultingengagements will integrate the best dataavailable from any source and the mostcost and operationally effective inter-ceptor. Common AMD componentsare desirable. Why perpetuate separateTOCs (and military occupational spe-cialties) when a common and config-urable hardware and software approachcould result in a single AMD TOC?

Missiles that can perform effectivelyagainst today’s sophisticated threat areinherently expensive. This expense isdue to demanding performanceenvelopes and the advanced onboardsensor, guidance, and processor tech-nologies required to overcome the limitsof ground-based guidance systems.Expending a PAC-3 missile against anunsophisticated, inexpensive, butWMD-capable large caliber rocket is notcost-effective. For this reason, the Armyrequires a low-cost, lethal defense

against such short-range threats. Leap-ahead technology shooters such asdirected energy or kinetic energy pro-jectiles are an integral part of the futureAMD architecture.

Lower-Tier ModernizationModernizing the Army’s lower tier

provides the framework for the “system-of-systems” integration of SHORAD,lower tier, and THAAD. The systemfunctionality and capabilities necessaryto achieve an integrated and cost-effective AMD are resident in the Army’sMedium Extended Air Defense System(MEADS) operational requirementsdocument (ORD). MEADS will providethe required mobility and deployability,be tailorable to the mission, and provide360-degree protection against all lower-tier ballistic and cruise missile threatsand all air-breathing targets. The Armyrequires that MEADS be fully interoper-able in the joint and combined AMDarchitecture. These capabilities areachieved with a “netted and distributed”system design that eliminates any site-or battery-centered dependencies. Thesystem architecture is designed to becapable of what the Air Defense Artillery(ADA) School has dubbed “plug andfight” functionality. Similar to moderncomputer peripherals, the system is tai-lorable to the mission by “plugging in”the necessary mix of sensors, shooters,and TOCs. Once fully netted and distrib-uted, the AMD task force can be flexibleand reconfigurable such that no singlepoint failures result from the loss of anysingle asset. If a sensor or TOC is dis-

MODERNIZINGAIR AND MISSILE

DEFENSE

COL Richard P. De Fatta


abled, another similar asset replaces itseamlessly.

Current Approach To achieve the objective, lower-tier

modernization could follow variousacquisition paths. The current ap-proach involves a full-up, concurrentsystem development that replacesPATRIOT ground equipment upon field-ing. This is the basic construct of theMEADS trinational cooperative devel-opment program involving the UnitedStates, Germany, and Italy. MEADSresulted from an unprecedented agree-ment on an international commonoperational requirement (ICOR) thatcombined three separate but similarnational requirements. Concurrent,full-system development is mostacceptable to all three nations. Ger-many intends to completely replaceNATO Hawk while Italy is acquiringMEADS as a new capability. Thisapproach is also highly desirablebecause all participating nations sharedevelopment costs.

Because all three nations mustagree to make changes, the ICOR isfixed and not subject to the typical pro-grammatic turmoil that results fromrequirement changes. However, threeseparate national funding processesalso result in little flexibility to make anychanges in the acquisition strategy. Afull-up system development is expectedto result in MEADS fielding in 2010 orlater. However, critical ADA systemenhancements are required before 2010to support Army transformationinitiatives.

Full system MEADS developmentfocuses (to varying degrees) on develop-ing all components that are guided bysystem engineering priorities. All com-ponents and system engineering ele-ments mature at the necessary rate toarrive simultaneously at a final systemconfiguration. Given sufficient funding,this approach can result in achievingfull performance as rapidly as possible.However, because resources must focusacross development activities andaddress the most difficult areas first,there is little flexibility to “spin off” indi-vidual system capabilities at the earliestopportunity. In this traditional process,the materiel developer does not need towork or expend resources early on thetechnical no-brainers (that may result inenhancing capabilities immediately)

unless system developments are on thecritical path to full performance.

Alternative Approach An alternative approach is to block

upgrade, in phases, the existing AMDsystems by considering the most press-ing operational needs and relative tech-nology maturity first. This “spiral devel-opment” approach is described in theDOD 5000 guidance that governs majoracquisitions. In the case of lower-tierupgrades, this approach is enabled bythe success of the lower-tier missile.PAC-3 provides lethal, effective, hit-to-kill performance against medium-rangeballistic and cruise missiles. The missileitself, typically the “long pole” in a mis-sile system development program,requires only minor modification forsystem integration.

Phase 1 should address the rapiddeployment vision of Army transforma-tion and the overall need to relievedemand on strategic airlift. This firststep results in fielding a lightweightmissile launcher to accommodate thePAC-3 missile and replaces the currentPATRIOT launcher with a MEADS-compliant common launcher. Phase 1also produces a prototype MEADS X-band fire control radar (FCR) andmatures ground-based laser technologyfor integration into a mobile platform.Phase 1 also marks the beginning of thecommon hardware and software devel-opment for the objective Army AMDTOC.

Phase 2 provides a MEADS FCR anda MEADS TOC replacing the PATRIOTradar and engagement control station.Minor missile modifications are incor-porated to accommodate the revisedsystem configuration. Laser technologyis demonstrated on a mobile platform.A prototype long-range surveillancesensor is developed.

Phase 3 results in fielding a com-mon Army AMD TOC hardware andsoftware package to implement anAMD-wide netted and distributed sys-tem integrated into the Joint Single Inte-grated Air Picture architecture. A long-range surveillance sensor is fieldedalong with the laser platform. Allcomponents undergo final systemintegration.

This phased approach introducesincreasing capabilities as they maturerather than waiting for an entirely newsystem to complete development. The

phased approach effectively evolves thevarious AMD elements into a tailorable,integrated configuration. The MEADSORD is not changed; the acquisitionstrategy to satisfy that requirement ismodified. This approach would also setthe stage for a new way to acquire andorganize future AMD developments.Now is the time to evolve the acquisi-tion organizations as well. Instead ofsystem project managers (PMs), systemcomponent PMs would develop productlines—sensors, shooters, TOCs—thatwould ensure interoperability across the product lines. New technologyenhancements and systematic upgradescould be introduced without theparochialism of individual systemproponents.

ConclusionCritics will undoubtedly respond

from a system engineering standpointand would be right to express concern.Given current organizational structuresand today’s independent system designapproaches, simply reorganizing devel-opments immediately along productlines would be impossible. However,the ADA vision involves a fully nettedand distributed, plug-and-fight capable,task-force approach to AMD. Accom-plishing this requires common systemarchitectures, technologies, and compo-nents to ensure vertical and horizontalinteroperability. Future modernizationis likely to occur selectively across theforce rather than on an individual basis.System engineering is critical but mustbe focused at the system-of-systemslevel.

COL RICHARD P. DE FATTA isthe Chief of Staff to the AssistantSecretary of the Army for Acquisi-tion, Logistics and Technology(ASAALT). At the time he wrote thisarticle, he was a U.S. Army WarCollege fellow at the University ofTexas in Austin. He also served pre-viously as MEADS Product Man-ager. He has a B.S. in engineeringfrom the U.S. Military Academy,an M.S. in systems managementfrom the Florida Institute of Tech-nology, and an M.S. in laser physicsfrom the Air Force Institute ofTechnology.


The 2001 Army Small BusinessInnovation Research (SBIR) Phase IIQuality Awards ceremony was heldAug. 21, 2001, at the Pentagon. Dr.Kenneth J. Oscar, Acting AssistantSecretary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology, hosted theceremony. Assisting Oscar with thepresentations was Dr. Robert S.Rohde, Deputy Director for Labora-tory Management, Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Research and Technology.

Established in 1994, the QualityAwards Program recognizes SBIRPhase II (research and development(R&D)) efforts that exemplify theSBIR goal of bringing innovativetechnologies and products to themarketplace. Army SBIR Phase IIcompanies whose projects concludein a given fiscal year are eligible tocompete for that year’s qualityawards. Award winners are selectedbased on originality and innovationof research; relevance of the researchto the Army and its mission; andcommercialization potential of theresearch, reflecting the primary goalof bringing technology and productsto the marketplace.

Quality awards are presented toeach winning SBIR company and toits sponsoring Army organization’stechnical director, technical monitor,SBIR coordinator, and contractingofficer.

The dual-use SBIR Program tapsinto the creativity of the small busi-ness community to help meet gov-ernment R&D objectives. Participat-ing companies develop technologies,products, processes, and servicesthat they can commercialize throughsales to private industry or the gov-ernment. “Our Nation’s 25 millionsmall businesses make indispensablecontributions to America’s economicstrength and success. They accountfor 35 percent of federal contract dol-lars and provide 55 percent of inno-vations,” stated Oscar. “The men andwomen of America’s small businessescreate a wellspring of new technol-ogy, new products, and more effec-tive business processes,” he added.

The Army is transforming to amore responsive, deployable, andsustainable force while maintainingits high levels of lethality, survivabil-ity, and versatility. This new force,called the Objective Force (OF), isintended to meet the full spectrum ofpresent and future Army missions.The cornerstone of the OF capabilityand the transformation is the FutureCombat Systems (FCS) Program. Thisreconfigurable, adaptive “system-of-systems” will provide a commonbaseline capability that increases theArmy’s ability to conduct network-and collaboration-centric warfare.The Army is working to develop anddemonstrate first-generation FCSand its enabling technologies withinthis decade. This transformation hashad, and will continue to have, amajor impact on the Army scienceand technology community, includ-ing the Army SBIR Program. During2000, the Army SBIR Program wasaligned with OF and FCS technologycategories, a process that will beongoing as OF and FCS needs evolve.

During 2001, there were 110 eligi-ble Phase II projects. Through anonline nomination system, technicalmonitors from the sponsoring Armylaboratories and centers nominatedtheir respective projects. The ArmyResearch Office-Washington, DC,compiled the 25 top-ranked nomina-tions and forwarded them to theQuality Awards Selection Committee,which is comprised of Army and

industry experts who used an onlineevaluation system to select the mostexceptional Phase II projects. Dr. A.Michael Andrews II, Deputy AssistantSecretary of the Army for Researchand Technology, approved five proj-ects for the 2001 awards.

2001 Quality Award WinnersRecipients of the 2001 Army SBIR

Phase II Quality Awards and theirachievements are as follows:

Ormet Circuits Inc., Carlsbad,CA. As Army weapon and supportsystems have become increasinglydependent on electronics, suscepti-bility of electronics to electromag-netic interference (EMI) has becomea major readiness issue. Electronicdevices have become smaller andfaster and are being forced closer andcloser together. Consequently, Ormetdeveloped a unique, cost-effective,and state-of-the-art shieldingprocess. ORganic-METallic materialscan be screen-printed on bare boardsto provide 80 decibels of EMI shield-ing, or they can be spray-coated overdielectrics on populated boards toprovide 30 to 40 decibels of shielding.This enabling technology may becritical to ensuring the survivabilityof FCS command and controlsystems.

Accepting the award for OrmetCircuits Inc. was the company’s Pres-ident and Chief Operating OfficerPradeep Gandhi. Also receivingawards for this project were Dr.

2001 ARMYSBIR PHASE IIQUALITYAWARDSDr. Kenneth A. Bannisterand James R. Myers


Michael J. Lavan, Director of theAdvanced Technology Directorate atthe U.S. Army Space and MissileDefense Command; Mark D. Brown,Technical Monitor; Dr. Douglas M.Deason, SBIR Coordinator, and LarryG. Ridgeway, Contracting Officer.

TPL Inc., Albuquerque, NM.Newly developed propellants areextremely corrosive and consumegun components at an acceleratedrate as ammunition is being de-veloped with higher velocities andlethalities. TPL Inc. developed a process to explosively cladthermochemical-resistant refrac-tory metals to the bores of variouscaliber gun tubes and fabricated twotantalum-clad test barrels from25mm Bushmaster barrels. Testingdemonstrated an increase in barrellife of more than 400 percent. Thistechnology not only dramaticallyincreases barrel service life, but itallows development of new, higher-performance ammunition for greaterrange and accuracy, with far fewersustainment requirements, and morelethal rapid-fire weapon systems.

Accepting the award for TPL Inc.was Robert F. Lowey, Senior Engineerand Barrel Armor Program Manager,and Thomas E. Kelly III, Vice Presi-dent of Marketing. Also receivingawards for this technology were Dr.C.I. (Jim) Chang, Director of the U.S.Army Research Office; Dr. David M.Stepp, Technical Monitor; Dr. Ellen G.Segan, SBIR Coordinator; andKathryn C. Terry, Contracting Officer.

Lynntech Inc., College Station,TX. Fuel cells offer lighter, more pow-erful energy sources than those cur-rently available and will extend mis-sion time, reduce weight, and dra-matically decrease the logisticsburden of present batteries.Monopolar fuel cells represent thesimplest possible fuel-cell powersupply. With methanol as the fuel,Lynntech Inc. developed cells thatare capable of delivering a largeamount of electrical energy from aneasily handled, pourable liquid fuel.These fuel cells have great potentialto serve as small primary energysources for the Land Warrior Program

and can also power a diverse range ofportable electronics for much longerthan current battery technology.

Accepting the award forLynntech Inc. was the company’sElectrochemical Energy ConversionManager Alan Cisar. Also receivingawards for this project were Dr.Robert W. Whalin, Director of the U.S.Army Research Laboratory; Dr. DerynD. Chu, Technical Monitor; DeanHudson, SBIR Coordinator; and LeeA. Hess, Contracting Officer.

Remcom Inc., State College, PA.Realistic analyses of radio-wavechannels are required to assess com-munication networks and systemsenvisioned for FCS. Remcom Inc.developed a software tool that com-bines site-specific, physics-basedradio propagation models for pre-dicting wave characteristics inindoor, urban, and rural environ-ments with a powerful, easy-to-usegraphical user interface. The site-specific models accurately predictthe negative interactions of radiocommunication signals with thephysical environment, particularly indense urban areas where strongshadowing and multipath interfer-ence effects occur. Using this infor-mation, deployed tactical units canbuild ad hoc and effective wirelesscommunication systems to optimizecommunications coverage.

Accepting the award for RemcomInc. was Dr. Raymond J. Luebbers,President, and Joseph W. Schuster,Director of Propagation SoftwareDevelopment. Also receiving awardsfor this project were Dr. C.I. (Jim)Chang, Director of the U.S. ArmyResearch Office; Dr. James Harvey,Technical Monitor; Dr. Ellen G.Segan, SBIR Coordinator; andKathryn C. Terry, Contracting Officer.

eMagin Corp., Hopewell Junc-tion, NY. The Army needs depend-able microdisplays to providemounted and dismounted soldiersexpanded situational awareness tomaintain high levels of lethality, sur-vivability, and versatility for the OF.eMagin developed a high-resolution,active matrix organic, light-emittingdiode (OLED) microdisplay for incor-

poration into military helmet-mounted displays. These OLEDmicrodisplays provide high bright-ness and resolution, a wide tempera-ture operating range, shock resist-ance, and wide viewing angles, whichallow ease of viewing for long periodsof time. These microdisplays can bedirectly interfaced to unattendedsensors or to computer videos, pro-viding simple connectivity with low-power consumption.

Accepting the award for eMaginCorp. was Vice President of Microdis-play Product Development Olivier F.Prache. Also receiving awards for thisproject were Dr. Louis C. Marquet,Director, Research Development andEngineering Center, U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Com-mand; David A. Fellowes, TechnicalMonitor; Suzanne J. Weeks, SBIRCoordinator; and Ronald W. Backes,Contracting Officer.

ConclusionThe small business community

plays a vital role in the readiness andeffectiveness of our Armed Forces. Itscreativity and innovative spirit willallow tomorrow’s warfighters to suc-cessfully overcome challenges theymay encounter on the battlefield.The SBIR Program fosters innovativethinking and benefits the Army, theprivate sector, and our nationaleconomy.

DR. KENNETH A. BANNISTERis the Army SBIR Program Man-ager at the Army ResearchOffice–Washington. He has 32years of service with the Depart-ment of Defense.

JAMES R. MYERS is an Analystwith BRTRC Inc. and supports theArmy Research Office in executingthe Chemical and BiologicalDefense SBIR, SBIR, and SmallBusiness Technology TransferPrograms.


IntroductionThe tradition continues. Year

Group (YG) 2002 became the latestparticipants to be inducted into theCompetitive Development Group(CDG) Program during the annualCDG orientation hosted by theAcquisition Career ManagementOffice (ACMO) and held Aug. 21-22,2001, in Springfield, VA. In addition, acommencement ceremony was heldhonoring YG98 graduates.

As in years past, this orientationprovided new members an opportu-nity to learn how participation in theCDG Program can help make themmore competitive, broaden their per-spectives, and increase their profes-sionalism. In addition, it providedmembers of all year groups theopportunity to hear from colleaguesfirsthand about their individual expe-riences in the CDG Program.

The following 20 individuals inYG02 were inaugurated into the 3-year career development program:Janet Ballard, Sam Collier, Mark Cry-derman, Barbara Falling, DanielFeatherston, Janet Fletcher, EricGoodman, Kenneth Hiltunen, JaniceIsbell, Thuan Khong, Abraham Kim,Jacqualyn Kowallik, Mark McCoy,Gary McPherson, Marvin Nichols,Ray Sellers, Millie Smith, John Tray-lor, Robert Voltz, and Roger Yocom.Highlights from the orientationfollow.

Opening RemarksCDG Manager Maria Holmes

opened the orientation by congratu-lating YG02 members. Being a CDGmember, she said, is not a right but aprivilege. She introduced COL FrankC. Davis III, then ACMO Director andDeputy Director for AcquisitionCareer Management, for welcomingcomments. (Davis is scheduled toretire Jan 31, 2002.) Davis sharedsome of his perceptions about theprogram. He said this is an excellenttime to enter the CDG Programbecause during the next 4-5 years,the acquisition workforce will lose atremendous number of senior man-agers to attrition. There will be

opportunities for eye-opening train-ing experiences at sites such as theNational Training Center, and CDGparticipants will be able to witnesscurrent initiatives such as the Armytransformation.

Davis was followed by LarryIsrael, Chief, Personnel ManagementDivision at the Army AcquisitionExecutive Support Agency (AAESA);and LTC Thomas Hogan, Chief, U.S.Total Army Personnel Command’sAcquisition Management Branch, forbriefings about their agencies. Israeloutlined AAESA’s mission statement,strategic plan, and organizationalstructure, and gave insight on whatfunctions the agency performs toassist CDG members. Hogan’s focus

was on the kinds of support hisagency provides CDG members. Hehighlighted areas such as careermanagement counseling, boardapplication review and scrub, andIndividual Development Plan (IDP)assistance.

Other AAESA personnel gave apresentation on personnel actions,travel, and permanent change ofstation (PCS) status. Carolyn D.Creamer, Human Relations Specialistin AAESA’s Personnel ManagementDivision, addressed issues such assupport provided by both the CivilianPersonnel Advisory Center and theCivilian Personnel Operations Cen-ter, requests for personnel action,timekeeping, locator cards, and

YG02 CDG inductees are shown with COL Frank C. Davis III, who is on the far left, andLTG(P) Paul J. Kern (now with his fourth star), who is on the far right.

Developing Leaders For The 21st Century . . .

CDG ORIENTATIONHELD FOR YG02

Sandra R. Marks


awards. Junius Wright, Budget Offi-cer, and Mary Sutton, Budget Ana-lyst, both from AAESA’s ResourceManagement (RM) Division, high-lighted the numerous functions thatthe RM Division performs as theACMO’s business office. Theyemphasized that the RM Divisionprovides resource support for theCDG Program by advising the ACMOon funding issues and processing allfund certifications for travel ordersand training.

Regional Directors’ BriefingNew to this year’s orientation was

a briefing by each of the threeregional directors: Sandra Long,Regional Director for the NationalCapital, Central, and OCONUSregions; Maxine H. Maples, RegionalDirector for the Southern and West-ern regions; and Kelly L. Terry,Regional Director for the Northeastand Central regions. Their purposewas to profile key points of contactand summarize ongoing regionalprograms and initiatives within theircustomer support offices. In addi-tion, Long, Maples, and Terry empha-sized their role and the importanceof Acquisition Career ManagementAdvocates to the CDG Program inproviding advice and guidance andidentifying and approving develop-mental assignments.

Sharing CDG Experiences YG01 member David Duda and

YG98 graduates Samuel Jones andAmelia Hatchett took the podium to

share some of their CDG experiences.Duda discussed his Training WithIndustry assignment with the Aero-space Industries Association (AIA).He outlined AIA’s organizationalstructure and the working relation-ships established between AIA andother federal agencies, and he dis-cussed some of AIA’s ongoing initia-tives. Duda concluded with a sum-mary of the assignments he pilotedduring the 1-year program.

Samuel Jones, Product Manager(PM), Combat Training Instrumenta-tion Systems, highlighted what heviews as necessary for selection to aPM position and what the key attrib-utes are for success as a PM. Jonesemphasized the need to be flexiblewhen accepting developmentalassignments and the need to obtainan advanced degree as key enablersto PM selection. In addition, he sug-

gested that one maintain a well-developed Acquisition Career RecordBrief and not underestimate thevalue of a Senior Rater Potential Eval-uation. Jones credits his success as aPM to being visible and being able tomanage funding, connect to thewarfighter, document activities, con-trol e-mail, challenge the status quo,reward people, and think positively.

Amelia Hatchett, YG98, discussedher promotion experience and whataided her career advancement. Sheunderscored the importance of stay-ing focused on one’s career path.That career path, she added, shouldinclude formal training, training tocomplete your IDP, career training inboth your core area and relatedareas, long-term training opportuni-ties, and developmental assignments.Career advancement, Hatchett said,is a combination of personal, techni-cal, and social expertise, as well asone’s skill set. Among the careeressentials Hatchett advocates arehaving the proper attitude, maintain-ing networks, working well with oth-ers, having good work habits, holdinghigh ethical standards, being awareof unwritten rules, having technicalcompetence, involving management,and establishing a good managementstyle and reputation. She urged new-comers to take on the challenge ofnew assignments and to step out andask for work.

Larry Israel Luncheon speaker Pamela Creek

YG98 CDG graduates are shown with COL Frank C. Davis III, who is on the far left.


Panel DiscussionCOL Davis led a group comprised

of five YG98 graduates and a currentYG01 member in a discussion of cur-rent issues relevant to the CDG Pro-gram. Panelists were YG01 memberDavid Duda and YG98 graduatesDoug Packard, Amelia Hatchett,Samuel Jones, and Kevin Maisel.YG98 graduate Maria Holmes servedas moderator. The panel fieldedquestions from the audience. Topicsincluded what options were availableto those experiencing a less-than-fulfilling developmental assignment,sponsors and mentors, Contribution-based Compensation and AppraisalSystem (CCAS) forms and currentguidance on pay pools and awards,and CDG demographic profiling andselection rates. In addition, the panelbroached the subject of the newlymandated policy that will require allCDG members, starting with YG03, toapply to a PM Board.

Working LunchPamela Creek, who served as

Director of Human Resources for theDefense Logistics Agency before herretirement from federal governmentservice in 2000, presented a briefingtitled “The Leadership Journey—TheImportance and Value of Leadershipin the Public Service.” Creek usedinformation she gathered from anumber of key individuals in the fieldof leadership development and inter-views with current and retired SeniorExecutive Service (SES) members toassess leadership and managementtoday. Creek focused on what authorand leadership guru Warren Bennishas stated is “the crisis of leadershipin our institutions and governmenttoday.” Creek says we are not ade-quately developing people to take onleadership positions vacated pre-dominantly by attrition. In thesetimes of “choice, chaos, and change,”Creek says we need people of charac-ter and capability who can leadchange. She proposes several prereq-uisites to develop leaders: acceptingchallenging assignments, enduring

hardships, and learning from others.Creek views the CDG Program as awonderful opportunity to have a fullrange of experiences that will prepareone for future leadership positions.What someone gains from the CDGProgram, Creek says, depends on theindividual. She urged CDG membersto take full advantage of opportuni-ties presented them.

AcqDemo Project TrainingA training session on the DOD

Civilian Acquisition Workforce Per-sonnel Demonstration (AcqDemo)Project was conducted to help famil-iarize YG02 members with its variouscomponents. Jerry Lee, a Senior Ana-lyst with Science Applications Inter-national Corp. (SAIC), who supportsthe ACMO relative to implementa-tion of the AcqDemo project, wasassisted by three fellow SAIC employ-ees who also support the ACMOimplementation of the demo project:Jael Latham, Analyst, also based inthe ACMO; and Program AnalystAndy Bacon and Senior AnalystDarryl R. Burgan, both based in theDOD Civilian Acquisition WorkforcePersonnel Demonstration ProjectOffice. They discussed topics such astransitioning into and converting outof the AcqDemo Project; understand-ing CCAS, the evaluation system usedin the demo project; assessments;and pay pools. Ample time was allot-ted to answer questions from theYG02 members, many of whom werebeing exposed to the AcqDemo Pro-ject for the first time.

YG02 Induction“You represent the future of our

acquisition career force,” guestspeaker LTG(P) Paul J. Kern said as hecongratulated YG02 members ontheir induction into the program dur-ing a dinner in their honor. (At thetime of the orientation, Kern was theMilitary Deputy to the Assistant Sec-retary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology and ArmyAcquisition Corps Director. He nowhas his fourth star and is Command-

ing General, Army Materiel Com-mand.) Kern addressed the chal-lenges that lie ahead in supportingthe pace of technology as the Armymoves forward in the 21st century.“We have a real need today for all ofyou,” he added. The emergence ofnew concepts, the uncertainty of howwe’re going to use the equipment,and creating policies to support thisequipment will test the future acqui-sition workforce, Kern said. Recruit-ing was another important topicKern addressed. It will be imperative,Kern said, that we have a group ofpeople capable and prepared for thechallenges that lie ahead.

YG98 GraduationThe CDG orientation culminated

with Mary Thomas, a former DeputyDirector of the ACMO, addressingYG98 graduates at a ceremoniousdinner honoring their completion ofthe 3-year program. The theme was“Facing The Future From Within,”and Thomas spoke about having thecourage to take risks and face possi-ble failure in our constantly changingand competitive environment. We’renot always going to meet expecta-tions, Thomas reminds us, and it’sthrough failure that we learn aboutour strengths and weaknesses. Sheadded that it is important to takeadvantage of opportunities that willhelp us grow and strengthen ourskills. Thomas talked about havingpassion for one’s job. If you findsomething you care about and thatmakes you happy, Thomas says, it’sso much more worthwhile. Even afterthe CDG Program, Thomas says, tak-ing advantage of opportunities willhelp you find those things that reallyhelp you succeed.

SANDRA R. MARKS, anemployee of SAIC, provides con-tract support to the staff of ArmyAL&T magazine. She has a B.S. injournalism from the University ofMaryland, College Park.


“Congratulations and welcome tothe FY01 Competitive DevelopmentGroup!” Those were the first words Iheard at the Competitive Develop-ment Group (CDG) Orientation justover 1 year ago as I began this presti-gious program. Time flies whenyou’re having fun, doing so manynew things, and learning so much.

I’ve been asked on several occa-sions what prompted me to apply.Having worked in the contractingfield for nearly 18 years, I startedcatching myself repeatedly sayingthat although the program and con-tractor names changed, the problemswere the same. During the last sev-eral years, the traveling Army road-shows were laying the foundation fora paradigm shift in acquisition,encouraging the pursuit of new andinnovative acquisition approachesthat leveraged commercial industrialpractices from both the technical andbusiness perspectives to get productsinto the field quicker and more eco-nomically. A computer on every deskchanged the way we worked. Long-standing policies and procedureswere being replaced at lightningspeed by new guidelines that encour-aged independent thinking and risktaking, and novel solutions were fastreplacing the old ways. The time wasnow ripe, and I aspired to rekindle an

old flame of applying my commercialindustry practices to governmentwork; the only question was how tostart. When the first Army AcquisitionCorps CDG Program announcementcame out in 1996, I saw a new oppor-tunity to try different things, to re-invent and re-energize myself, just asthe Army was starting its transforma-tion, and so I applied.

My disappointment in not beingselected was soon lost in work and Itook solace that nearly 750 otherssuffered the same fate. That first CDGwas indeed stellar; as of today nearly76 percent of that class has been pro-moted into leadership positions, andit continues to leave its marks on theacquisition community.

I continued to take the DefenseAcquisition Workforce ImprovementAct (DAWIA)-mandated 80 hours oftraining to maintain currency in thecontracting and acquisition fields,but DAWIA and something inside ofme wanted more. The train of acqui-sition reform was now racing by andI needed to do all I could to grab thecaboose and hang on for dear life orbe left stranded on the tracks, knap-sack on my back, being a “hobo”until retirement. So grab on I did andI applied a second time for the CDGProgram. Anyone who has appliedrecognizes the onerous application

process, but don’t let a little paper-work hold you back. The applicationprocess is being simplified, and theprogram is more user-friendly thanever before.

What was the difference betweenmy first application and my second?In the 4 years between applications, Iaccepted new contracting assign-ments with difficult problems. Even-tually, some very challenging workwith short suspenses and high visi-bility came my way and I successfullyexecuted them. While office manage-ment was “powering down” and“empowering” employees, naturalworking groups, integrated productand process teams, focus groups, andquality circles started to emerge, withtopics often outside the contractingarena. I volunteered for and activelyparticipated in many of these groupsas they tackled issues such as per-sonnel evaluation revamping and jobdescriptions, office environments,acquisition streamlining initiatives,base closures, and major commandrestructuring. Still desiring to main-tain a balance between work andplay, I continued my more pleasura-ble volunteer work with the CivilianWelfare Fund, organizing health fairs,travel programs both in the UnitedStates and abroad, and working withour Post Restaurant Committee. Icaptured all of this on my CDG appli-cation. The next big step was tounderstand the selection process.

Fortunately, the AcquisitionCareer Management Office (ACMO)offered group and individual reviewsessions on the CDG applicationprocess. I took advantage of theseopportunities. The ACMO reviewedmy Acquisition Career Record Briefand Individual Development Plan(IDP) and offered career counselingand constructive criticism on presen-tation style. The CDG applicationprocess is similar to the military’sOfficer Evaluation Report process. Ifyou have the opportunity, talk tosome of your military co-workers tosee how their Senior Rater PotentialEvaluations are written and how theyare evaluated for promotion. You’llget lots of good pointers on what is

A Personal Perspective . . .

NEW CHALLENGESAND LESSONS LEARNED

FROM THE CDGPROGRAM

Beverly Wasniewski


and isn’t important and, at the sametime, gain more insight on the CDGprocess. Also talk to other CDGmembers; they are always ready toshare their own experiences and offersome good advice.

“Does the program really meetyour goals and expectations?” isanother frequently asked question.The CDG Program helped me todefine and focus on my goals andthen provided the work environ-ments and opportunities to achievethem. I now know what track mylocomotive is on, where my transferstations are, and which station is myfinal destination. I’m no longer hang-ing off the caboose; I’m on a careerpath that puts me in charge of thistrain.

My developmental rotationalassignments were designed to meetmy specific goals. I’m fortunate towork at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, hometo the Army Armament Research,Development and Engineering Cen-ter (ARDEC) base operations; theProgram Executive Office for GroundCombat and Support Systems (PEO,GCSS); Army Tank-automotive andArmaments Command tenet activi-ties; PEO, GCSS and ARDEC programmanagement offices; and many proj-ect offices. These offices offer the fullspectrum of acquisition and life-cycle experiences. For those con-cerned about mobility agreements,look for installations with a broadspectrum of offices and develop yourIDP around the variety of office loca-tions. You’ll thereby gain the experi-ences while minimizing the chanceof family disruption caused by physi-cal relocation. Consider too theadvantages of the IDP and the mobil-ity agreement. The CDG Programoffers the opportunity to have thegovernment fund moves and train-ing, and to work in locations you’vebeen longing to visit, thought youmight want to transfer to, or evenconsidered for eventual retirement.There’s lots of work to be done outthere, and you may be just the onewho can do it!

I’m learning acquisition from theend to the beginning; no, I don’tmean beginning to end. I startedgovernment service working as anIndustrial Specialist for the DefenseLogistics Agency in the Defense Con-tract Administration Services Man-agement Area, Springfield, NJ. I trav-eled throughout northern New Jerseyvisiting contractor facilities to ensurethat the products they were manu-facturing for our servicemen and ser-vicewomen would be delivered ontime, in the right quantities, andwithin the stated price.

Transferring into the contractingarena, I became a Contract Adminis-trator in the same office handlingpost-award contract issues such asequitable adjustments, deliveryschedule revisions, and Defense pri-ority and allocation system issues.When I transferred to Picatinny Arse-nal as a Contract Specialist and thenContracting Officer, I wrote the con-tracts that I previously administered.But pieces of my acquisition puzzlewere still missing: requirements gen-eration, funding, logistics, and orga-nizational management. My currentdevelopmental rotational assign-ments were tailored to fill in thesemissing pieces. I completed my firstrotation working with PEO,GCSS inthe program management office withassignments dealing with horizontaltechnology integration, transitionpolicy for ammunition, the industrialbase, and recapitalization.

Now in my second rotation, I’mlearning the multidisciplined skills,political sensitivities, internationaldiplomacy, and jack-of-all-traderesponsibilities of the Deputy for theJoint Program Manager for theLW155mm Howitzer. One of mynewly acquired skills is as publicist,preparing and disseminating thenewsletter and daily and weeklyreports. I’ll shortly rotate into a newassignment within this office, con-centrating on my alternate careerprogram in logistics. Once I’ve com-pleted the CDG Program, I’ll haveworked in almost all aspects of theacquisition process and will have a

better appreciation for the difficultieseach organization encounters alongthe way to a fielded system.

What are my suggestions forthose of you considering the CDGProgram as a way to enhance youracquisition career? Seek out newactivities and continuously improveyourself. Even new languages andbelly dancing can help you gain abetter understanding of yourself andstimulate new ideas that can beapplied to other daily activities!Embrace the computer environment,and become skillful in a variety ofsoftware programs (a challenge stillfacing me). Take on tasks you’venever done before; you may findthem enjoyable and they may leadyou in different and unexpecteddirections.

I decided long ago never to beafraid of trying something new orsetting my sights on more lofty goals.As I was told by a local travel guide inMaui, HI, when traveling along thefamed Road to Hana, “Most peoplemiss the boat,” he said. “It’s not arriv-ing in Hana that’s exciting; it’s thejourney on the road itself that’s thethrill.” So too is the CDG Program;graduation is not the ultimate desti-nation but the new experiences andthe journey of discovery that is thethrill. This program is molding thefuture leaders and managers for thetransformed Army and you can be apart of it!

BEVERLY WASNIEWSKI, amember of CDG YG01, was anAcquisition Management Special-ist working in the Joint ProgramManagement Office for theLW155mm Howitzer when shewrote this article. She has amaster’s degree in contracts andacquisition management from theFlorida Institute of Technology.


IntroductionAs evidenced in the Gulf War,

U.S. soldiers confronting an adver-sary owning chemical and biologicalweapons could face an attack bythese weapons. Biological warfare(BW) has a long history, dating backto attempts by the Romans to foultheir enemies’ water supplies, andrepresents an important asymmetri-cal strategic threat to U.S. militaryforces and civilian populations.Unlike other weapons of mass effect,pathogenic viruses and bacteria andinfectious proteins such as prions(the presumed causative factor inmad cow disease) are self-replicating;hence, the effects of many BW agentsare amplified by secondary infection.Rapid, sensitive, and accurate detec-tion and identification is therefore apriority in developing sensor tech-nology that will meet the operationalrequirements of the future Army.

This article describes the Army’sapplication of advanced biotechnol-ogy to devise new molecules that rec-ognize BW agents, with an emphasison how these molecules will providethe means to develop more specificand sensitive sensors to detect BWagents. It also addresses logisticsissues such as cost-efficient manu-facturing processes and improve-ments in total process quality assur-ance/quality control (QA/QC) in thelife-cycle management of criticalreagents. As used in this article, theterm reagent refers to the engineeredantibodies that specifically bind witheach target BW agent.

Lessons From NatureThe tremendous complexity of

most living things, including BWagents, provides a rich supply ofunique molecules that can be used asdistinctive signatures for an organ-

ism or class of organisms. Somesensors under development usesequences in the genetic code of anorganism (the “genome”) as thesource of these unique signatures.Other sensors, including many thatare now fielded, use a kind of recog-nition between two molecules that islike a lock and key. The most com-monly used of these interactions isthe attachment of an antibody to itstarget molecule.

Given the diversity of livingthings on Earth and the enormousvariety of unique molecules thatcomprise them, scientists havelooked to nature for examples ofeffective biological recognition mole-cules (BRMs) derived from naturalprocesses. The immune system ofmammals is one such example; theycan produce between 100 millionand 1 billion different antibodies.Antibodies are BRMs, each of whichbinds to a small molecular shape dif-ferent from any other. Animalsexposed to a foreign microbe (immu-nized) produce an abundance ofantibodies specific for the invadingorganism.

Antibodies from immunized ani-mals have been isolated and boundto fiber optics, silicon chips, andother nonbiological surfaces tocreate “biosensors,” hybrid devicesthat detect target molecules by com-

NEXT-GENERATION MATERIALSFOR BIOLOGICAL

WEAPON DETECTIONRoy Thompson, Dr. Cheng J. Cao, Dr. Kevin P. O’Connell,

Dr. Akbar S. Khan, and Dr. James J. Valdes

Given the diversity of living things on Earthand the enormous variety of unique molecules

that comprise them, scientists have looked to naturefor examples of effective biological recognition

molecules derived from natural processes.


bining biological molecules such asBRMs with electronic or opticalmicrosensors. The binding of the tar-get molecule to the sensor-boundBRM creates a measurable physicalchange that registers as a signal inthe sensor device, but only if thepresence of the target molecule isrecognized by its specific binding tothe immobilized BRM. Our workfocuses on next-generation BRMs—molecules beyond conventional anti-bodies—and includes both mole-cules derived from biotic (naturalbiological) and biomimetic (synthet-ics that mimic biological molecules)approaches.

Current SolutionsIt is important to stress that

BRMs (in this case, antibodies) are atthe heart of all currently fielded BWagent detection systems; without theantibodies, there is no BW agentdetection. Two technologies are usedto produce antibodies for biologicaldefense. The “polyclonal” methodproduces a mixture of antibodiesthat is harvested from the bloodserum of animals repeatedly injected(immunized) with a “disarmed” BWagent. The “monoclonal” methodproduces individual antibodies, eachproduced by cells in culture flasks.

The Joint Program Office forBiologial Defense (JPO-BD), throughits Critical Reagent Program, is theagency responsible for acquiringantibodies that recognize BW agents,ensuring their quality, and providingthem to the vendors that producebiosensors. In this way, the JPO-BDsupports several sensor platformsthat incorporate antibody-basedbiosensors, including the Joint Bio-logical Integrated Detection System,the Joint Biological Point DetectionSystem, and Portal Shield. This workalso ensures that the required quan-tity and quality of antibodies areavailable to meet fielding require-ments and support continuedresearch, development, test, andevaluation efforts.

The U.S. Army Soldier and Bio-logical Chemical Command’s Edge-wood Chemical Biological Center(ECBC), Aberdeen Proving Ground,MD, is the home of JPO-BD’s CriticalReagent Repository (CRR) for anti-bodies. The CRR includes sophisti-cated storage facilities and validationlabs and maintains a highly detailedtracking database of all antibodiesbeing used in DOD biologicaldefense efforts. ECBC staff scientists,in addition to maintaining the repos-itory, are developing new BRMs andnew applications to supplement andpossibly replace currently fieldedreagents.

Recombinant AntibodiesThere is considerable lot-to-lot

variability in the current productionof antibodies. This is especially truefor polyclonal antibodies because theindividual response of each animalto an agent can vary dramatically.The process of producing antibodiesin animals or in a mammalian cellculture is also time-consuming,which limits the capacity for “just-in-time” or surge production in time ofconflict.

A recent advance in antibodyproduction technology is the cloningof antibody genes from mammaliancells in large quantities, or “libraries”of genes. These genes have beenintroduced into bacteria, and theresulting population of bacteria canbe rapidly sorted to obtain thosemaking antibodies that have thedesired qualities of specificity for aBW target and sensitivity for itsdetection. This technology has beenproven capable of producing anti-bodies for BW agent detection thatare of excellent quality and greateruniformity from lot to lot; therefore,their inclusion in fielded bioassayswill result in greater reliability.Recombinant antibodies are alsofaster and less expensive to produceand acquire in quantity; therefore,establishing a process for their pro-duction can improve the maintain-

ability and supportability of fieldedbiodetection systems. A number ofthese valuable reagents are currentlyunder development at ECBC, and wehave begun to explore this tech-nology for eventual sourcing of sev-eral defense-critical antibodies forbiodetection.

Recombinant PeptidesWhole antibodies are relatively

large, as molecules go. However, thatportion of the antibody that actuallyinteracts with the target is relativelysmall—perhaps 1 percent of the anti-body actually contacts the targetmolecule. Most of the rest interactswith the animal’s immune system, afunction that is not required for usein detecting a BW agent. Portions ofthe antibody that specifically bindthe target are at the ends of the two“arms” of the molecule, and theirsmallness has prompted scientists toask, “Can only those short pieces ofantibody protein, or peptides, substi-tute as BRMs for the whole anti-body?”

Just as libraries of antibody geneshave been cloned and sorted, recom-binant genetic technologies haveenabled scientists to create and sortcollections of genes that encodeshort proteins, or peptides, findingthose that bind to a molecule ofinterest. A library composed of tensof millions of random peptidesequences can be rapidly screenedagainst a specific threat agent toidentify a peptide that mimics theactivity of a whole antibody. Also, likethe recombinant antibodies, pep-tides can be made in bacterial cellsand be harvested from fermenta-tions, or they can be produced inlarge quantities entirely by chemicalsynthesis. These peptide libraries arecalled “combinatorial” because of therandomness of the peptide-encodinggenes.

An additional advantage ofscreening for peptide mimics is thatthe search is not limited to immuno-genic binding sites. Recombinant


antibodies are often made usinggenes cloned from animals. Animalswill not make antibodies effectivelyagainst some molecules, partly as aprotection against attacking theirown bodies. Peptides, however, canbe selected for binding to othermolecular features of the threat agentthat do not elicit an immunogenicresponse, thus allowing for a poten-tially greater diversity of BRMs to bediscovered.

Improved LogisticsThe search for recombinant anti-

bodies and peptides that mimicwhole antibodies offers several tech-nical and logistic advantages in pro-duction and QA/QC issues comparedto conventional methods of produc-tion in animals and mammalian cellculture. First, the combinatoriallibraries, once formed, can be rapidlyscreened and candidate moleculesselected for further test and develop-ment within 1 to 2 weeks of the start.Conventional antibody development,as noted previously, is much moretime-consuming. Second, thelibraries present an efficient meansfor rapidly identifying reagents thatrecognize emerging threat agents forwhich no current antibody exists, orfor live pathogens that are too lethalto effectively use animal inocula-tions. Third, recombinant antibodiesand peptides are smaller than wholeantibodies and therefore more stableoutside controlled environments.Smaller molecules afford greater con-trol in orienting and immobilizingthe molecules on a sensor platform(e.g., microchips) with greater assur-ance that the active binding site isfully exposed to sample media.Fourth, once an antibody fragmentor peptide has been identified withstrong binding properties, the mole-cule can be further engineered bydirected mutation or specific aminoacid substitution to “fine tune” itsspecificity or affinity for the targetagents. Finally, recombinant antibod-

ies and peptides can be produced inlarge quantities within rigidly con-trolled manufacturing processes thatyield cost savings from economies ofscale while achieving higher levels ofQA/QC between different productionlots.

The Army’s RoleECBC’s Process Engineering

Facility (PEF) is DOD’s sole scale-upPEF dedicated to the research, devel-opment, and validation of manufac-turing processes for producing bio-logical materials. The PEF staffemphasizes cooperation betweenbasic molecular biology research sci-entists and the bioprocess engineersresponsible for production andpurification of antibodies and otherproducts. The molecular biology lab-oratory in which recombinant anti-bodies and peptides are cloned is thesame building in which they are pro-duced, tested to meet QA/QCrequirements, and stored in the CRR,thus ensuring a continuous transi-tion of basic research and develop-ment (R&D) into advanced develop-ment and final production. Thus,DOD benefits by having the logisticadvantage of housing a repository ofBW detection materials within afacility with strong R&D and end-stage production capabilities.

ConclusionMolecular engineering of recom-

binant antibodies and peptides pro-vides unique opportunities forimproving the production of currentreagents, developing new reagents,and reducing the life-cycle costsassociated with reagent productionand continuous process improve-ments. Life-cycle management ofcritical reagents used to detect andidentify biological agents extendsfrom the support of basic R&D ofnew or better reagents; to the scale-up production, testing, and valida-tion of the reagents in field trials; tosustained production of quality

reagents to the tri-Service usercommunity.

ROY THOMPSON is a ResearchBiologist at ECBC. He received hisgraduate training in neuroscienceat Texas Christian University andJohns Hopkins University, and ispursuing an M.B.A. in technologyprogram management at the Uni-versity of Phoenix.

DR. CHENG J. CAO is a SeniorScientist at GEO-CENTERS Inc.,supporting the company’s pro-grams with ECBC’s MolecularEngineering Team. She holds aPh.D. in toxicology from BeijingMedical University and has per-formed postdoctoral researchunder grants from the NationalInstitutes of Health at the Univer-sity of Maryland School ofMedicine.

DR. KEVIN P. O’CONNELL is aResearch Microbiologist at ECBC.He holds a B.S. in life sciencesfrom the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology and M.S. and Ph.D.degrees in bacteriology from theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison.

DR. AKBAR S. KHAN is aResearch Molecular Biologist atECBC. He holds a B.S. in biochem-istry and molecular biology fromMcMaster University and M.S. andPh.D. degrees in molecular biologyfrom the University of Oklahoma-Norman.

DR. JAMES J. VALDES is theChief Scientist, Biological Sciencesand Scientific Advisor for Biotech-nology at ECBC. He holds a Ph.D.in neuroscience from Texas Christ-ian University and has performedpostdoctoral research in neurotox-icology at Johns Hopkins MedicalInstitutions. He is the author ofmore than 80 peer-reviewedpublications.


IntroductionSince 1975, the Assis-

tant Secretary of the Armyfor Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology (ASAALT)(formerly the ASA forResearch, Developmentand Acquisition) has pre-sented annual Researchand Development Organi-zation (RDO) of the YearAwards to Army organiza-tions in recognition ofoutstanding technical andmanagerial programs implementedduring the preceding fiscal year. Specifi-cally, RDO awards recognize the bestresearch and development (R&D) pro-grams and best-managed organizationsthat enhance the capability and readi-ness of Army operational forces and thenational defense and welfare of theUnited States.

RDO laboratories play a key role inexecuting the Army vision and the ArmyTransformation Campaign Plan (TCP).The Army TCP will result in an ObjectiveForce that is strategically responsive andcapable of dominating at every point onthe spectrum of operations. The objec-tive of the TCP is an Army that isresponsive, deployable, agile, versatile,lethal, survivable, and sustainable. TheArmy labs have stepped forward to meetthe Army transformation objectives andoperational challenges.

The Objective Force will capitalizeon advances in science and technology(S&T) that will enable the operationalforce to be equipped with significantlyadvanced systems such as the FutureCombat Systems (FCS), thus allowinggreater responsiveness with overmatch-ing combat power. The labs’ technicalprograms are obviously very importantto the readiness of the Army and to thesafety and capabilities of the soldier.Army labs are challenged to remain onthe cutting edge of S&T and to innovatein both the management and technicalarenas to support the Army transforma-tion. The Army’s R&D organizations willcontinue to provide the Army the tech-nical advantage in support of our non-negotiable contract with the Americanpeople—fighting and winning ourNation’s wars, when called.

Awards CeremonyAt an awards ceremony at the Pen-

tagon Oct. 4, 2001, LTG Paul J. Kern,

then Military Deputy to the ASAALT(now with his fourth star and Com-manding General, U.S. Army MaterielCommand), on behalf of then ActingASAALT Dr. Kenneth J. Oscar, presentedthe annual awards to selected R&Dorganizations for FY00 achievements.The labs that were honored demon-strated a commitment to excellenceboth in their technical programs and inthe management of their organizations.

The 2001 RDO Award recipientswere selected by an evaluation commit-tee chaired by Dr. Walter F. Morrison,Director for Research and LaboratoryManagement, Office of the ASAALT, andcomposed of highly qualified membersfrom the Army and DOD S&T commu-nities. The committee evaluated bothwritten nominations from each organi-zation’s major command and verbalpresentations from each organization’sdirector. Organization rankings werebased on accomplishments andimpacts; organizational vision, strategy,and plans; resource management; andcontinuous improvement.

Based on the review of accomplish-ments, the evaluation committeeselected two 2001 RDO of the YearAward recipients, one in the Large Labo-ratory Category (600 employees ormore) and one in the Small LaboratoryCategory (less than 600 employees).

Additionally, the evaluation com-mittee selected two organizations (onelarge and one small) for Army 2001 RDOExcellence Awards in recognition ofFY00 research accomplishments.

Large Lab RDO Of The YearThe winner of the 2001 RDO of the

Year Award in the Large Laboratory Cat-egory was the U.S. Army Aviation andMissile Research, Development andEngineering Center (AMRDEC), Red-stone Arsenal, AL.

AMRDEC’s mission isto provide technical serv-ices to a variety of cus-tomers and to conduct sci-entific R&D in the disci-plines that support theircustomers. AMRDEC’spersonnel are among theworld’s premier aviationand missile technologists.AMRDEC has repeatedlyproven its abilities bydemonstrating affordablesolutions to overcome crit-

ical technical barriers in customerprograms.

During FY00, AMRDEC focused onenhancing the capabilities of the U.S.Army to make the pre-eminentwarfighting force in the world evenmore lethal, survivable, flexible, deploy-able, and affordable while reducing itslogistical footprint. AMRDEC had manyoutstanding accomplishments duringthe year. Most noteworthy was develop-ment of the Counter Active ProtectionSystem (CAPS), which defeats threatarmor equipped with active protectionsystems. The application of CAPS tech-nology restores the lethality of the U.S.antiarmor inventory and saves billionsof dollars.

AMRDEC was also recognized forits outstanding milestone in achievingthe Carnegie Mellon University SoftwareEngineering Institute “Capability Matu-rity Level 4” certification for softwareengineering processes. AMRDEC is theonly Army organization to achieve aCapability Maturity Level 4 certificationand is one of only five governmentorganizations to reach this level. Thisachievement will help ensure reliableand robust software for the soldier, pro-duced in less time and at lower cost.

Also noteworthy was AMRDEC’sS&T Personnel Demonstration, whichhas proven successful in recruiting,retention, and career development ofthe workforce. In addition, the S&T Per-sonnel Demo resulted in reduced griev-ances and accelerated action approvalsand decisions.

Small Lab RDO Of The YearThe recipient of the 2001 RDO of

the Year Award in the Small LaboratoryCategory was the U.S. Army Natick Sol-dier Systems Center, Natick, MA.

The center’s mission is to conductresearch, development, testing, andevaluation to maximize the soldier’s

ARMY CITESOUTSTANDING

R&D ORGANIZATIONSJoseph E. Flesch


survivability, sustainability,mobility, combat effective-ness, and quality of life bytreating the soldier as a sys-tem. By applying cutting-edgetechnology, state-of-the-artequipment and facilities,partnerships with the privatesector (industry and acade-mia), and a disciplined andinclusive customer focus, thecenter made significantadvances in developingindividual-warrior-relatedtechnologies and warrior sys-tems. The center’s 28 patentsand invention disclosures inFY00 indicate that center per-sonnel are innovative andfocused on technology that isboth revolutionary and rele-vant to the military.

Among the center’s notable FY00accomplishments was the MilitaryOperations on Urbanized Terrain(MOUT) Advanced Concept TechnologyDemonstration (ACTD). This projectevaluates advanced technologies to pro-vide operational dominance in MOUTto Army and U.S. Marine Corps forces. Italso integrates technology; training; andtactics, techniques, and procedures, andhas produced operational capabilitiesused by Army and Marine Corps units.

The center was judged outstandingfor the implementation of its 5-yearhuman resources (HR) strategic plandealing with manpower assessment,hiring, training and skills, retention, andimproved HR processes. The centeraggressively pursues outreach programsas part of its overall workforce recruit-ment strategy. This includes partner-ships with Historically Black Collegesand Universities (HBCUs), recruitingpromising candidates under the DACareer Related Experience in Scienceand Technology Program scholarship,and advertising scientific and engineer-ing opportunities at the center.

During FY00, the center also transi-tioned an impressive number of high-payoff technologies and products tomultiple customers. These include theMOUT ACTD, Interceptor Body Armorand Small Arms Protective Insert, Near-Infrared Modifier Technology, and theInteragency Emergency Communica-tions System.

Large Lab ExcellenceThe recipient of the 2001 RDO

Award for Excellence in the Large Labo-ratory Category was the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers Engineer R&D Cen-ter (ERDC), Waterways Experiment Sta-tion, Vicksburg, MS.

ERDC is one of the most diverseengineering and scientific researchorganizations in the world, combiningall Corps of Engineers R&D operationsinto one organization. ERDC providesquality R&D solutions to the Army andto the Nation. Research at ERDC resultsin products related to mapping and ter-rain analysis; infrastructure design, con-struction, operations, and maintenance;structural engineering; cold regions andice engineering; and coastal andhydraulics engineering.

ERDC’s major FY00 accomplish-ments included excellence in modelingvehicle-specific seismic signatures. Thisproject resulted in development ofstate-of-the-art physics models for vehi-cle/ground interaction and 3-D seismicpropagation that enable ground sensorsto identify and target vehicles. Thisbreakthrough technology directly sup-ports futuristic tactical sensor systemsincluding the Raptor Intelligent CombatOutpost, antipersonnel landmine alter-natives, and advanced sensor networksenvisioned for the FCS and ObjectiveForce. ERDC was also recognized fortechnical excellence for its tele-engineering concept that providesdeployed engineers rapid access to sub-ject matter experts, knowledge data-bases, and private-sector and academic

expertise. ERDC was alsocited for its excellent out-reach programs, especiallywith HBCUs.

Small Lab ExcellenceThe recipient of the 2001

RDO Award for Excellence inthe Small Laboratory Cate-gory was the U.S. ArmyResearch Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sci-ences (ARI), Alexandria, VA.

ARI’s mission is to maxi-mize individual and unit per-formance and readiness tomeet the full range of world-wide Army requirementsthrough advances in thebehavioral and social sci-ences. ARI is the primary

Army laboratory that investigates thehuman dimension of warfighting.

ARI’s technical accomplishmentsincluded development and implemen-tation of the innovative Think Like aCommander training. Think Like aCommander is a Command and Gen-eral Staff College (CGSC) effort designedto improve battlefield thinking skillsthrough deliberate practice of expertpatterns of thought in a variety of con-flict situations. This training was a coor-dinated development effort with theU.S. Army Training and Doctrine Com-mand (TRADOC) and CGSC. This repre-sents a shift from procedural training tocognitive skill development. ARIadapted the learning theory of ThinkLike a Commander for use in otherTRADOC schools and developed aleader’s guide on how to implement thistype of training. These activities directlysupport the Army’s transformation tothe FCS and Objective Force.

ARI was also recognized for itsexcellent exploitation of information-age technology and the World Wide Webto enhance access to ARI’s products andongoing research, and for providingquick and innovative methods for inter-active data collection.

JOSEPH E. FLESCH is a Princi-pal Project Analyst with GRC Inter-national, an AT&T company. Hewrote this article while on a con-tract assignment in the Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy for Research and Technology,Office of the ASAALT.

Army RDO Award ceremony attendees shown left to right are Dr.James Houston, Director, ERDC; Dr. Walter F. Morrison, Director forResearch and Laboratory Management, Office of the ASAALT; PhilipBrandler, Director, Natick Soldier Systems Center; Dr. William C.McCorkle, Director, AMRDEC; LTG Paul J. Kern, then Military Deputyto the ASAALT (now with his fourth star and Commanding General,U.S. Army Materiel Command); and Dr. Edgar Johnson, Director, ARI.


IntroductionAs the Army enters the 21st cen-

tury, life-cycle management becomesincreasingly valuable in guiding themateriel acquisition process. In amemorandum signed by the ArmyAcquisition Executive (AAE) onMarch 20, 2000, senior Army leaderswere reminded that, “The focus oflife cycle management is to develop,field and sustain high qualitywarfighting systems at the lowesttotal cost.” Many factors contributeto this daunting task, particu-larly because most of the deci-sions involve multiple variablessimultaneously.

Fortunately, the logistics analysiscommunity has many tools and tech-niques that help acquisition man-agers address the task of loweringtotal cost. By using the tools de-scribed below early in the develop-ment cycle, acquisition managerscan decide—based on the impact ontotal cost—whether a system compo-nent should be repaired or replacedand whether organic or contractorsupport should be employed formaintenance or supply.

Acquisition managers can fieldsystems with spares packages thatachieve a required readiness rate atthe lowest possible cost. They canidentify the true cost drivers offielded systems to determine whichones provide the highest expectedtotal cost reduction if they are re-duced or eliminated. The tools andtechniques to address the AAE’s goalsare not new; most have been avail-able for years. However, they need tobe applied, and the following foursituations are examples of wherethese logistical tools can be used.

Situation No. 1A system with 175 line replace-

able units (LRUs) and 400 shopreplaceable units (SRUs) is beingdeveloped. A total of 900 end itemsthat will operate 2,000 hours per yearand have a reliability of 1,200 hoursmean-time-between-failure will befielded. To respond to the AAE’s

goals, which LRUs and SRUs shouldbe repaired and which should be dis-carded upon failure? Which shouldbe repaired by the contractor? Theseissues have significant impact ontotal cost.

A decision to minimize total costmust be made, but that decisiondepends on the cost of each LRU andSRU. In addition, managers mustconsider the cost of developing,procuring, and maintaining testequipment for any LRU or SRU thatwill be repaired. Other cost-relatedfactors include the time required toreturn a failed component to therepair site as well as the time neces-sary to make the repair.

The task of minimizing total costcan be impossible unless a modelsuch as the Computerized Opti-mization Model for Predicting andAnalyzing Support Structures(COMPASS) is used. This model canprovide the maintenance conceptthat minimizes total cost by consid-ering in combination the cost of theLRUs/SRUs, the number of maintain-ers and their location, the sparesrequired at each location, the cus-tomer wait time, the cost of testequipment, the cost of alternativerepair options such as contractorrepair, and many other factors. This

model also allows for conductingsensitivities in these areas, providingmore insight to the developer. Gath-ering good data to run this modelcan be a time-consuming effort, butthe result can meet the AAE’s goalsand create significant cost savings.

Situation No. 2The same system will be fielded

using the maintenance conceptdeveloped from COMPASS. Assum-ing a 90-percent Operational Avail-ability (Ao) goal for the system,which LRUs and SRUs should bestocked to minimize total cost? Howmany of each should be stocked?Managers must consider how oftenLRUs or SRUs will fail and how long itwill take to repair and return them tostock.

Other options include direct ven-dor delivery or premium servicedelivery of repaired components.One factor that may have an impacthere involves the good componentsthat are removed and sent on forunnecessary repair, usually referredto as the No-Evidence-of-Failure(NEOF) rate. But the SelectedEssential-Item Stock for AvailabilityMethod (SESAME) model can beused to identify the mix of sparesthat provide the required readiness at

LOGISTICSANALYSIS:

A KEYTO LIFE-CYCLEMANAGEMENT

Dick McGauley


the least total cost. This model con-siders these and other factors incombination to minimize the totalcost. SESAME is also useful in identi-fying the incremental cost of achiev-ing a particular Ao goal.

A graph of cost versus Ao wasgenerated for an Army program asprovisioning was being determined,using SESAME. That graph showedthat the cost of achieving a 93-percent Ao was less than $50,000,whereas the cost of achieving therequired 97-percent Ao escalated tomore than $200,000. That was anexcellent example of where cost as anindependent variable (CAIV) analysiscould be conducted by both thecombat and materiel developers todetermine how much, in an effort tobalance minimizing total cost withthe performance required by thewarfighter, a 4-point increase in Ao isworth to the Army.

Is SESAME being used by acqui-sition managers to help minimizetotal cost? Although SESAME isrequired by AR 700-18, Provisioningof U.S. Army Equipment, to be usedfor initial provisioning, a 1998 ArmyAudit Agency Report showed only 7of the 35 systems studied usedSESAME to compute the initialspares packages. The project man-agers for the remaining 28 systemsmay have expended more funds thannecessary to provision their systems.

Situation No. 3Several LRUs of a fielded system

have high NEOF rates. Which LRUsshould be targeted for reduction orelimination of that rate? Should themost expensive LRU or the one withthe highest rate be targeted? In addi-tion to cost and frequency, the fol-lowing factors should be considered:the number of fielded systems andtheir yearly usage, the customer waittime, transportation costs, remainingyears of useful life, the cost of devel-oping and maintaining a screeningcapability, and the number of main-tenance locations where screeningcan take place.

These data are available in vari-ous Army databases. Only when fac-tors are accounted for in combina-tion can acquisition managers decidewhich LRU is the best candidate forNEOF rate reduction or elimination.The candidate may be the one withthe lower rate or one with the lowestunit cost. A spreadsheet analysis canhelp focus the decision on the cor-rect LRU. This analysis identifies thecosts of eliminating the NEOF andthe savings achieved. A wrong deci-sion can actually result in a highertotal cost.

Situation No. 4For developmental systems that

replace fielded systems, acquisitionmanagers must focus on those com-ponents that drive total cost for thereplaced system. This evaluationcannot be performed by merely iden-tifying the components with thehighest replacement costs and theneliminating or improving those com-ponents. All factors driving opera-tions and support component costsmust be evaluated, including associ-ated costs to repair, store, and ship.For fielded systems, this type ofanalysis can provide significantopportunities for reducing totalcosts.

Acquisition managers can use avariety of Army databases to get ahistory of supply and maintenanceactivities for all the components ofthe fielded system. The componentscan be separated according towhether they are unique or common,and reparable or consumable. Dataon credits given to the field for bothserviceable and unserviceablereturns can be factored into the com-ponent’s total cost. This informationcan then be used to generate an ini-tial list of ranked cost drivers.

For each component on the list,an assessment can be made as tohow reliability can be improved, thecost of that improvement, and thesavings from reductions in mainte-nance, spares, supply pipeline, andother costs. Acquisition managers

can then determine the net cost sav-ings for a reliability improvement, re-rank the original list according to thisnet savings, and optimize the totalcost reduction program.

Logistics analysis can also reducetotal cost by helping to determinewhether components already in“long supply” are being repaired orwhether consumable componentsare being repaired instead of beingdiscarded. Logistical analysis canalso be used to determine whethercomponents are being repaired for ahigher cost than if they were simplyrequisitioned.

ConclusionThese four examples show that

logistical analysis can help acquisi-tion managers reduce total costs. Insome cases, the analysis requiresmodels such as COMPASS orSESAME. In other cases, spreadsheetanalyses and data obtained from var-ious Army databases can help acqui-sition managers identify courses ofaction to efficiently reduce total cost.

Logistics analysis is a crucialcapability that all acquisition man-agers must take advantage of to meetthe AAE’s stated goals. The goodnews is that tools and techniques areavailable now.

DICK MCGAULEY is an Opera-tions Research Analyst in theLogistics Analysis Division of theArmy Materiel Systems AnalysisActivity, Aberdeen ProvingGround, MD. He has a B.A. inmathematics from Saint AnselmCollege, an M.S. in statistics fromthe University of Delaware, and anM.A. in management from CentralMichigan University.


IntroductionOngoing comprehensive organi-

zational and process changes in theDepartment of the Army (DA) havesignificantly affected operations inthe Office of the Assistant Secretaryof the Army for Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology (OASAALT). Secre-tary of the Army Thomas E. White'srealignment initiatives seek tostreamline HQDA by increasing effi-ciency without sacrificing opera-tional effectiveness. The realignmentaffects the OASAALT in three areas:through closer integration with otherDA staff elements; through changesin OASAALT's composition, func-tions, and staff; and through thereorganization of direct-reportingprogram executive offices (PEOs) andtheir subordinate program, project,and product managers (PMs).

DA Staff RealignmentA more unified approach to staff

operations results from the ArmySecretariat and Army Staff realign-ment within functional areas. Theassistant secretaries of the Army arealigned with deputy chiefs of staff toprovide advice and assistance withintheir functional areas, and realign-

ment effectively integrates the criti-cal functions of both staff elementsand eliminates redundancies.

The ASAALT retains a militarydeputy for acquisition. Of special sig-nificance under the HQDA realign-ment is that integrated logistics sup-port (ILS), or "acquisition logistics"functions, transfer from the Office ofthe Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics(ODCSLOG) (G-4) to the ASAALTstaff. The DCSLOG provides ILS andsustainment advice and assistance tothe ASAALT. Much of the ASAALTstaff, functional, and physical reorga-nization reflects and enhances theintegration of logistics and sustain-ment into the weapon system devel-opment process.

OASAALT Staff ChangesThe ASAALT gains a Principal

Deputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy (PDASA) for enhanced staffoversight and functional continuity,and the Army Science Board contin-ues under ASAALT's purview. In addi-tion to duties as senior military assis-tant to the ASAALT, the ASAALT Chiefof Staff oversees consolidated admin-istrative functions of both the currentASAALT and the DCSLOG.

The staff is further beingrealigned along more direct func-tional lines. The only staff elementthat remains intact is the Office ofthe Deputy Assistant Secretary of theArmy (ODASA) for Research andTechnology. Newly realigned ele-ments are the ODASA for Plans, Pro-grams, and Resources (ODASAPP&R)and the ODASA for Policy andProcurement (ODASAP&P). Anothernew staff element, the ODASA forDefense Exports and Cooperation(ODASADE&C), was transferredintact from an abolished DA staff ele-ment, the Office of the Deputy UnderSecretary of the Army for Interna-tional Affairs (Security Cooperation).The Office of the Deputy for SystemsManagement and Horizontal Tech-nology Integration (HTI) (henceforthin this article referred to as Deputyfor Systems) is reorganized to reflectalignment with the Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Programs(ODCSPRO) (G8) and the Office ofthe Deputy Chief of Staff for Opera-tions (G3), and is joined on the staffby the newly established Office of theDeputy for ILS with a similar func-tional alignment.

HQDA REORGANIZATIONIMPACTS OASAALT OPERATIONS

COL Richard P. De Fatta

"Change is the law of lifeand those who look

only to the past or presentare certain to miss the future."

—John F. Kennedy


Plans, Programs, AndResources

The new ODASAPP&R stream-lines oversight and control of thedirectorate that supports the ASAALTby working closely with the ArmyDCSPRO-Force Development and theAssistant Secretary of the Army(Financial Management and Comp-troller) to plan, program, budget, andexecute Army research, develop-ment, and acquisition efforts. TheODASAPP&R also leads the planning,programming, and execution of theArmy's research, development, testand evaluation (RDT&E) and pro-curement appropriations totalingmore than $17 billion annually. TheDASAPP&R retains responsibility toco-chair the Equipping ProgramEvaluation Group that directs theArmy's long-term RDT&E and acqui-sition strategy. The ODASAPP&R alsoretains the Army Cost ReductionPrograms Directorate to coordinateCost Reduction Program initiativesArmywide.

The office for acquisition report-ing will also fall under the purview ofthe ODASAPP&R. This office providessynergistic management oversightand technical advice relative to theexecution, review, analysis, andreporting of the Army's major acqui-sition programs. It also serves as thelead for the quarterly Defense Acqui-sition Executive Summary reviewprocess for Acquisition Category Iprograms and the ConsolidatedAcquisition Reporting System, and itprovides the Executive Secretary forthe Acquisition Review Council.

Policy And ProcurementThe new ODASAP&P will be the

key ASAALT organization element fortotal life-cycle acquisition and pro-curement policy and initiatives. Itwill also support all activities inter-facing with Congress and the Officeof the Secretary of Defense on con-tracting and acquisition policy issues

and represent the Army on variousDefense integrated product teams.

The DASAP&P develops andcoordinates Army input into DoD5000-series regulations, directives,and implementation instructions.The DASAP&P also oversees theArmy's investment strategy (SupplyManagement Army-Operational Sup-port Cost Reduction and Total Own-ership Cost Reduction) and is thefocal point for the Investment CycleModel for Planning, Integrating,Acquiring, and Resourcing Invest-ment Strategies. Consolidation ofArmy acquisition and acquisitionreform policy efforts greatly en-hances support of the goal to re-duce overhead costs and accelerateweapon systems acquisition cycles.In addition, this consolidation moreclosely ties together acquisition pol-icy, contracting policy, and acquisi-tion reforms to unify and acceleratethe decisionmaking process andstreamline the flow of information. Italso provides a single focal point foraddressing the broad policy andinnovations of the life-cycle objec-tives of Army systems.

The ODASAP&P develops andpromulgates contracting policy andprocedures. As such, it is the officeprimarily responsible for all mattersrelated to the Federal AcquisitionRegulation and its implementation.The DASAP&P also chairs the ArmyContract Adjustment Board and isthe focal point for industrial baseissues such as production and basesupport investments, underusedplant capacity, and arsenal andammunition plant issues.

Defense Exports AndCoordination

The ODASADE&C has policyoversight for the Army's worldwideforeign military sales, armamentscooperation, foreign disclosure, tech-nology transfer, and direct commer-cial sales activity, including muni-tions case processing. This realign-

ment enhances both the Army'sinternational defense sales and inter-national cooperative research anddevelopment processes by moreeffectively harmonizing the activitiesof the acquisition PEOs, the Scienceand Technology Executive, and theArmy's international engagementand cooperation efforts.

Deputy For SystemsThe Deputy for Systems

reorganization streamlines internaloperations and improves functionalalignment with the DCSPRO (G8) and a newly reorganized PEO/PMstructure. The new organizationminimizes the amount of cross-directorate coordination frequentlynecessary today. The Deputy for Sys-tems reorganization includes sixhardware divisions (Maneuver Sys-tems; Aviation and Intelligence, Elec-tronic Warfare and Sensors Systems;Munition Systems; Combat SupportSystems; Force Protection Systems;and Command, Control, Communi-cations, and Computers (C4) Sys-tems) and an Integration Division.Each of the hardware divisions hasDA systems coordinators (DASCs)responsible for all acquisition-relatedactions for their respective systems.The Integration Division coordinatesacross divisions and performs HTIfunctions. The Deputy for Systemsabsorbs systems acquisition func-tions from the Director of Informa-tion Systems for Command, Control,Communications, and Computers(DISC4)/Chief Information Officer(CIO) (C4 Division) and from theArmy Materiel Command (AMC)Combat Support Systems Division.The directorate also assumes man-agement oversight for the Army'schemical and biological defenseacquisition programs.

C4 Staff IntegrationOther new developments include

the transfer of DISC4/CIO oversightresponsibilities for their PEOs/PMs


to the ASAALT, and establishment ofa new C4 Division under the Deputyfor Systems and a CIO support cell.The C4 Division consists of two sub-ordinate branches providing DASCfunctions for the oversight and pro-gram tracking for PEO, Command,Control and Communications-Tactical and Enterprise Infostructure,respectively.

Although direct oversight ofDISC4/CIO PEOs/PMs is transferredfrom the DISC4/CIO, the Army CIOretains oversight for all C4/informa-tion technology (IT) systems (asdefined by the Clinger-Cohen Act of1996) and serves as the principaladvisor to the Secretary of the Armyand the ASAALT on all informationsystems. The Army CIO develops,maintains, and facilitates the imple-mentation of sound and integratedC4/IT systems architectures, andmonitors and evaluates the perform-ance of information system pro-grams. The Deputy for Systems isaugmented with a CIO support cellto accomplish these CIO responsibil-ities across all information systemsand also provides the coordinatingstaff between the Army CIO and theASAALT. The cell's mission includesconducting CIO assessments; prepar-ing CIO certification packages;preparing command, control, com-munications, computers and intelli-gence support plans; and coordinat-ing with the Assistant Secretary OfDefense for Command, Control,Communications and Intelligence onmatters related to the acquisition ofnational security systems and ITsystems.

Army Contracting AgencyA field operating agency has

been established to consolidate andprovide oversight for Army contract-ing activities. The U.S. Army Con-tracting Agency will assume centralcontrol of regional installation, con-tingency contracting, and standardi-zation and oversight for specialty

contracting offices. Development ofthe final construct continues, but thecurrent concept calls for two con-tracting regions in CONUS—an East-ern Region and a Western Region.These regions will focus on regionalutilities, A-76 contracting, and serv-ices contracting. There will also be acommercial contracting center andan IT contracting activity. Eachinstallation will have a contractingoffice. The size of this office willdepend on the installation's uniquerequirements for items such as one-of-a-kind buys, safety, and emer-gency procurement. This conceptaccelerates the Army toward efficien-cies by eliminating redundancy, andit focuses scarce resources on corecompetencies and standardizedprocesses.

Acquisition Support CenterThe former Acquisition Career

Management Office (ACMO) andArmy Acquisition Executive SupportAgency (AAESA) are being consoli-dated to form the Acquisition Sup-port Center (ASC). This reorganiza-tion combines related functionsunder a single management struc-ture. The ASC will be the acquisition,contracting, and logistics personnelproponent. In addition, the ASC willmanage military and civilian profes-sional development programs. TheASC will also perform the myriad oftasks previously assigned to theDirector for Acquisition Career Man-agement in addition to personnelpolicy, acquisition force structureand position management, andmatrix management support for thePEOs.

PEO/PM ReorganizationThe ASAALT realigned the

PEO/PM structure along commoditylines to effectively provide a singlelife-cycle manager for all Army sys-tems. AMC deputies for systemsacquisition were abolished, and all oftheir assigned acquisition program

offices now report, either directly orthrough a PEO, to the ASAALT/ArmyAcquisition Executive. Further, thePEOs that formerly reported directlyto the DISC4 no longer do so. Inaddition to numerous PEO/PMrealignments, two new PEOs (PEO,Soldier as a System and PEO, Ammu-nition) were chartered to align andconsolidate programs and manage-ment functions for critical Armycommodities. Each PEO will estab-lish a GS-16 level deputy for scienceand technology (S&T). This positionis specifically aimed at assisting inthe management of S&T initiativesand improving the transition of basictechnology into Army systems.

TimelineNo organization makes sweeping

changes in haste, and ASAALT is noexception. For example, the PEO/PMreorganization was effective on anoperational control basis Oct. 26,2001. This change and the remainderof the realignment entails meticulousplanning, and transition details arenumerous. All changes require allo-cation of sufficient execution timewithout negatively impacting theOASAALT's most important resource,its professional and dedicated work-force. The OASAALT is dedicated toexecuting the reorganization in themost expeditious manner and withthe least impact to mission andpersonnel.

COL RICHARD P. DE FATTA isthe Chief of Staff to the AssistantSecretary of the Army for Acquisi-tion, Logistics and Technology. Hehas a B.S. in engineering from theU.S. Military Academy, an M.S. insystems management from theFlorida Institute of Technology,and an M.S. in laser physics from the Air Force Institute ofTechnology.


IntroductionMost acquisition programs

undergo two design iterations: Engi-neering Manufacturing and Develop-ment (EMD) and Low-Rate InitialProduction (LRIP). EMD addressesdifficult technical issues and themanufacturing approach prior to theproduction phase. LRIP is often usedto test the final design in develop-mental and operational tests andconstruct the manufacturing facilitiesand procedures prior to committingto full-rate production. Prototypesdeveloped during EMD are often onlyused during EMD because they rarelybecome the final design and are notusually fielded.

Prototypes are usually rough, lim-ited reliability models and are oftenof little value as the program pro-gresses. However, innovation andacquisition streamlining sometimescreate an opportunity to have a singleprogram design phase; hence, EMDdesign is the final design and theEMD prototypes may become highlyuseful. This is the case with the LongRange Advanced Scout SurveillanceSystem (LRAS3).

The LRAS3 Program resulted in13 EMD assets for system and soft-ware development, developmentaland environmental testing, and initialoperational test and evaluation.Because the acquisition strategy didnot include an LRIP phase and wasfiscally constrained, eight of the EMDprototypes were refurbished andfielded as training base assets at theU.S. Army Armor Center (USAARMC).This was necessary to meet theArmy’s procurement objective of 638systems. However, one of those magi-cal acquisition rarities occurred: theprogram’s production phase came inunder budget because of commercialand military off-the-shelf practices, a

competitive multiyear contract, andan aggressive risk-management plan.This allowed the product office tofund all 638 systems without havingto refurbish and field the EMD sys-tems. These eight EMD assets be-came program office assets used fordemonstrations, follow-on testing,and design and testing of preplannedproduct improvements.

Events in June 2000, however,caused the LRAS3 team to embark ona different development path. Anincredible opportunity for these sys-tems arose when the CommandingGeneral of the 1st Armored Divisionrequested assistance in filling a criti-cal shortfall in Task Force (TF) Fal-con’s Brigade Reconnaissance Troop’s(BRT’s) long-range night-vision capa-bility in Kosovo. The shortfall arosewhen a Canadian Army sensor sys-tem was redeployed to Canada. InSeptember 2000, the Office of theDeputy Chief of Staff for Operationsapproved the urgent need to fieldthree EMD LRAS3s prototypes toKosovo in support of TF Falcon. Thefollowing paragraphs describe howthese leftover models became criticaloperational “diamonds in the rough”and details the process to loan proto-types in Operation Extended Vision.

LRAS3The LRAS3 consists of a second

generation forward looking infrared(FLIR) with long-range optics, an eye-safe laser rangefinder, a day videocamera, and a Global Positioning Sys-tem (GPS) with attitude determina-tion. The LRAS3 allows scouts todetect long-range targets and deter-mine the 10-digit grid coordinate ofany target within range. The LRAS3will be fielded to all mechanizedinfantry and armor battalion scoutplatoons, BRTs, and Interim Brigade

Combat Team (IBCT) reconnaissancesquadrons. The system can operate inthe dismounted configuration or canbe mounted on the M1025 ScoutHigh Mobility Multipurpose WheeledVehicle (HMMWV) or InterimArmored Vehicle. The LRAS3 Programis currently in its first production yearwith a goal of 60 systems.

ChallengesThe biggest challenge was time.

In 4 weeks, the team had to obtain anurgent-need materiel release, designand manufacture a new vehicle inte-gration kit, update the training sup-port package, and ship the LRAS3soverseas.

TF Falcon’s BRT is equipped withthe M1114 (Up-Armor) HMMWV. Thecurrent vehicle integration kit isdesigned for the M1025 HMMWV andis incompatible with the M1114. Theprime contractor and the U.S. ArmyCommunications-Electronics Com-mand’s (CECOM’s) Night Vision andElectronic Sensors Directoratedesigned, developed, and hand-builtthree new integration kits over a 3-week period. This work was moni-tored by the Product Manager (PM),FLIR and the Project Manager, LightTactical Vehicles to ensure that theinstallation of the integration kit pro-vided a safe operational environmentfor the scout and did not degrade theballistic characteristics of the M1114.

Because the LRAS3 contains traceamounts of compressed helium andcompressed methane, the system is considered hazardous material(HAZMAT). Although HAZMAT hasclearly defined standards, properpaperwork procedures could not beagreed upon. Bureaucracy was at itsfinest as the paperwork was routinelyrejected based on who happened tobe reviewing it. Frustration was high

Finding Diamonds In The Rough ...

OPERATION EXTENDED VISIONLTC Camille M. Nichols, MAJ Dana Goulette, and MAJ Mac Haszard


and time was running out on beingable to ship the assets before theKosovo elections.

TrainingUpon arrival in Kosovo, three

noncommissioned officers fromUSAARMC conducted the 5-day newequipment training (NET). Instruc-tion involved hands-on small groupinstruction with a 5-to-1 student toteacher ratio. Training topics includedpreventive maintenance checks andservices, sight operation, mounting/dismounting the sight for vehicularoperations, dismounted LRAS3 oper-ations, far target location, and videorecording. Training was conductedboth during daylight hours and dur-ing periods of limited visibility. Theteam trained nine soldiers from theBRT and six soldiers from two battal-ion scout platoons. A follow-on visitto Kosovo was conducted in earlyDecember 2000 to oversee the unitrotation and the system’s transition toa replacement BRT.

Supporting LRAS3Supporting the deployed LRAS3s

in Kosovo was a major concern as wehanded-off the unit. The LRAS3 Pro-gram is logistically on track, butbecause the system is scheduled to besupported through interim contractorsupport (ICS) until FY03, the directsupport level maintenance proce-dures have not yet been fully final-ized. Additionally, test equipment isunavailable, and the Army has notrained LRAS3 maintainers.

Because of the system’s low den-sity and the LRAS3’s solid mainte-nance record, it was not economicallysound to require that a field servicerepresentative (FSR) be stationed fulltime in Kosovo. The systems are beingmaintained by a part-time FSR whoworks for the prime contractor inGermany. With U.S. Army, Europeassistance, we were able to emplace asystem that allows the FSR to deploy,on short notice, into a hazardousduty zone to fix broken systems. Pro-gram offices need to be sensitive toTF Falcon’s particular requirementsconcerning who is allowed to enterKosovo, what military equipment andtraining they must have, and the per-son’s conduct.

Additional DeploymentsThe feedback from the troops in

Kosovo was encouraging. The troopswere impressed with the system’scapabilities and performance. Thissuccess further fueled the productoffice’s commitment to pursue twoadditional LRAS3 deployments, oneto Fort Hood, TX, and one to FortLewis, WA. Additionally, two systemswere sent to the 4th Infantry Divisionin January 2001 for use in the Divi-sion Capstone Exercise and twosystems were sent to the IBCT inMarch 2001.

These additional deploymentswere conducted like the Kosovodeployment. USAARMC personnelconducted the NET, and the systemsare supported by an FSR from theprime contractor’s facility in McKin-ney, TX. The additional deploymentsalso served as valuable rehearsals forthe LRAS3 initial fielding in October2001. The team was able to incorpo-rate lessons learned from the Kosovodeployment, had the benefit of addi-tional technical manual reviews, andwas able to incorporate membersfrom the CECOM NET team that con-ducted initial field training.

ConclusionEvery system fielding is compli-

cated and often requires months oreven years of in-depth planning.Therefore, any deployment of EMDassets prior to establishing the sus-tainment and maintenance structure,coupled with a high-tempo, real-world operation, is an extremely riskyendeavor. In Kosovo, two LRAS3shave rolled over and one LRAS3 sus-tained depot-level damage when itwas knocked from its vehicle mount.The support system put in place wasable to address the depot repair inKosovo, but the LRAS3s involved inrollovers had to be evacuated to theprime contractor facility for repair.These unpredictable and unfortunateevents put a significant strain onavailable EMD spares, but have notdiminished the team’s commitmentto support the Kosovo mission to thefullest.

PM, 2nd GEN FLIR was directedfor Kosovo deployment, but voluntar-ily took on the burden of two addi-

tional deployments. The feedbackfrom all three deployments has vastlyimproved the LRAS3 Program. It hasallowed us to improve training qual-ity, the NET trainers, and the techni-cal manuals. We are gaining valuablereliability and maintainability datathat assist us in developing the ICSplan. USAARMC is using tacticalfeedback to develop new scout tac-tics, techniques, and procedures(TTPs).

The most important programmanagement benefit is the ability togive soldiers a thermal imaging capa-bility second to none. The selection ofthe First Digitized Division and theIBCT as recipients for the remainingEMD systems was deliberate. Theseare the first units to receive the LRAS3and are the units that are transform-ing the Army into the objective force.Affording them this early opportunityto use these sights and develop theirTTPs will contribute to a smoothertransformation.

LTC CAMILLE M. NICHOLSwas the PM, 2nd GEN FLIR at FortBelvoir, VA, at the time this articlewas written. She has a Ph.D. inengineering management fromThe George Washington Universityand is attending the IndustrialCollege of the Armed Forces.

MAJ DANA GOULETTE, aninfantryman, is the Assistant Prod-uct Manager for the LRAS3 in the2nd GEN FLIR Product Office atFort Belvoir, VA. He has a B.S. inmechanical engineering from theU.S. Military Academy and anM.S. in operations research fromthe Naval Postgraduate School.

MAJ MAC HASZARD is SystemManager, Scout in the Directorateof Force Development at the U.S.Army Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY.He has a B.S. in agriculture sciencefrom Western Kentucky Universityand is Level III certified in pro-gram management.


Paul J. Hoeper, former AssistantSecretary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology, says that oneof the greatest threats to our Nation’ssecurity is that “we are failing to createenough scientists, engineers, andmathematicians to maintain super-power status in the information age.” Arecently released government report,The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000,supports him. According to the report,more than 80 percent of America’shigh-school seniors are not performingat the prescribed proficiency level inscience, and that science poses thesame challenge to every demographicgroup.

Hoeper believes that young peoplemust cement their interest in sciencein the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.“We must interest them at the begin-ning of the pipeline, at a crucial stagein their educational development,” hesaid. That is why he is a strong propo-nent of the Army’s involvement in theNortheast Junior Solar Sprint (JSS) Pro-gram. JSS is an exemplary program formiddle-school students to design,build, and race small model cars thatare powered entirely by solar energy.The program, started by the Depart-ment of Energy, is presided over in theNortheastern United States by theNortheast Sustainable Energy Associa-tion (NESEA), with Army sponsorship.

Working in teams, participatingstudents are provided with a standardmotor and solar panel. The chassis,wheels, and transmission are madefrom any other materials. With guid-ance from teachers, parents, and men-tors, these young people are encour-aged to use math, science, and tech-nology principles along with theircreativity to design cars that can wincompetitions. Awards are given forspeed, innovation, craftsmanship, andtechnical merit.

Because the Army’s transformationand continued land combat pre-eminence is largely dependent onadvancements in science and technol-ogy, Hoeper hopes that some of the

America’s Science Challenge . . .

The JuniorSolar Sprint Program

Participants at the Northeast Regional JSS competition in Turners Falls, MA.


young people he mentors will grow upto be Army scientists. He said, “TheArmy helps to sponsor JSS because it isan exciting program that builds enthu-siasm for science at a time when manyof these children are forming theirimpressions of what they want to be.”While acknowledging that Americaneeds scientists, Hoeper also said thatmany occupations—chemists,astronomers, doctors, engineers, and

botanists—need a strong foundation inscience.

GEN Eric K. Shinseki, the Army’sChief of Staff, wants personnel to beinvolved in the community. One excel-lent way to accomplish this goal is forArmy personnel to act as science andtechnology mentors in the classroom.

The photos on this page weretaken at the Washington, DC, race inJune 2001. The winners were among 73

teams that competed in the seventhannual Northeast Regional JSS Compe-tition in Turners Falls, MA.

For more information on theJunior Solar Sprint Program or to starta race in your area, please contactChris Mason, Director Northeast JSS [email protected] or (413) 774-6051(ext 21).

Washington, DC, JSS race participants (shown in truck) left to right are Patrick Hoeper,Victor Zhu, and Dashiell Kirk. Standing in front, left to right, are Paul J. Hoeper, formerAssistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; Charlie Garlow,Washington, DC, Regional JSS Program Coordinator and an official with the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency; and Dr. Tom Killion, a representative from the Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology.

Army SGM Jerry Asher shown with one ofthe Washington, DC, JSS race participants .

Washington, DC, JSS race participants (left to right) DashiellKirk, Patrick Hoeper, and Victor Zhu display one of their solar-powered cars.

Army SGM Jerry Asher shown with two Washington, DC, JSS raceparticipants.


Ask The ACMOMany of us have worked hard to become certified

in two or more acquisition career fields, but this infor-mation is never conveyed to Program Manager (PM)Selection Board members. I was told 3 years ago thatthis oversight was going to be fixed “next year,” but theboard checklist letter I just received indicates that,again, Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) certification isnot included on board Officer Record Briefs (ORBs).How can a board select “best-qualified” individualswithout this important piece of information? If we arenot going to use this information, we should do awaywith the entire certification process because it is awaste of time and money. Why are AAC certificationlevels not included on LTC/GS-14 PM board ORBs?

The certification information does not appear onboard ORBs because the Total Officer Personnel Man-agement Information System II (TOPMIS II) was notdesigned to put it there. Because AAC officers competeagainst other officers (Army Pre-Officer Personnel Man-agement System for the 21st Century (OPMS XXI) andFunctional Area 48 in OPMS XXI), we do not display adata field. There is only one type of board ORB—there isno difference between promotion- and command-boardORBs. Those of us in the Acquisition Career Manage-ment Office (ACMO) are not sure who told you certifica-tion data would appear on board ORBs, but researchdata indicate that there was never a plan to do so. How-ever, a change was made to include AAC certification onnonboard ORBs.

The certification policy was not designed, nor imple-mented, to be a discriminator for promotion or selectionfor command. The Defense Acquisition WorkforceImprovement Act requires that the Secretary of Defenseestablish education, training, and experience require-ments for all acquisition positions based on the com-plexity level of the duties carried out in the position. Thecertification program, under the direction of the ACMO,is designed to provide the AAC with a common level ofknowledge to meet the requirements and mission of theAAC, depending on position and grade.

Certification alone does not determine an AACmember’s education, training, and experience. The ele-ments that determine the education, training, and expe-rience of an officer or civilian are formal/informalschooling, formal/informal training, and job experienceas documented via the Officer Evaluation Report (OER)and civilian evaluation system. Certification is a formaldocumentation of education, training, and experience—all of which are seen through the normal board process.

By the time you read this letter, COL Mary Fuller willhave taken over as the new Director of the AcquisitionCareer Management Office (ACMO). I would like to takethis opportunity to formally welcome her.

COL Fuller served formerly as Project Manager forthe Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense ElevatedNetted Sensor System in Huntsville, AL. She comes tothe ACMO with more than 24 years of Active militaryservice. An article about COL Fuller appears on .

I am very fortunate and very proud to have served asthe Director of the Acquisition Career ManagementOffice. It was a great and challenging year. This is anexciting time to be in the acquisition workforce—a timeof change and refocus. Acquisition is a multifacetedprocess that requires the skills of many to ensure thebest possible systems are developed and fielded to oursoldiers. The combined talents and dedication of all par-ticipants are necessary if we are to achieve the goals andobjectives set forth in the Army Transformation Cam-paign Plan and the Objective Force concept.

I am pleased to congratulate the Acquisition Educa-tion, Training and Experience Board selectees. (See arti-cle on Page 53 of this magazine.) I would also like todirect your attention to the “Ask The ACMO” article,which includes responses to some of the most fre-quently asked questions submitted to the ACMO.Finally, I want to mention the article on the AcquisitionCareer Experience Program on Page 51. This is an excel-lent opportunity for college students with multidisci-plined backgrounds to seek summer employment inArmy acquisition organizations.

Again, it was a pleasure serving you. I wish each andevery one of you the best in this new year.

COL Frank C. Davis IIIDirectorAcquisition CareerManagement Office

FROM THE DIRECTORACQUISITION CAREERMANAGEMENT OFFICE

CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE


In particular, for lieutenant colonel command posi-tions, if a selected officer is not currently certified for aspecific position, that officer can meet certificationrequirements via one of two methods. First, becauseselections are typically made 18 months prior to the offi-cer assuming the command position, the officer canreceive the required schooling and/or training duringthat 18-month period. Second, an officer has up to 18 months (in most cases) to meet the certificationrequirements (if they exist) once in the position. Bothoptions provide sufficient time to meet certificationrequirements.

The bottom line is that ORBs and OERs communi-cate to the board an officer’s manner of performance,level of experience, and key education and training.These are the selection discriminators, not one’s certifica-tion level.

In January 2000, I was approved for the School ofChoice Long-Term Training Program and attendedgraduate courses from May 2000 through April 2001.The information on the Army Acquisition Corps Website at that time, which is very different now, statedthat funds for books were not allowed; therefore, Ibought my own books. I know that was in the past, andI am grateful to have had my tuition paid. However, Iam curious why I had to pay for my books, and nowthe Acquisition Education, Training and ExperienceBoard provides an allowance of $100 per course forbooks.

Simply put, the ACMO had the resources followingyour participation so we provided the book allowance.However, the FY02 budget may not allow us to pay forbooks when the next board meets. This may seem unfair,but the allowance is one of those things that ebbs andflows because it is based on the budget. Some peoplehave argued that the allowance potentially takes awayresources to fund someone else’s tuition, but we try toavoid that by running the budget, funding to the cut line,and doing the math. Then, if we have only partialresources to fund the next person in line, we defer themuntil the next budget cycle and use the money to fundother requests.

Note: All Ask The ACMO questions must be submit-ted via the Army Acquisition Corps home page athttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil. Point toComments/Feedback at the top right of the page andsend your submission to the ACMO Director or to oneof the three listed Regional Directors. Please do notsend your questions to Army AL&T magazine.


Participants Sought For2002 ACE Program

The intent of the Acquisition Career Experience (ACE)Program, a paid 2-year joint academic and governmentsummer employment opportunity, is to recruit college stu-dents with multidisciplined backgrounds for Army acquisi-tion positions. The Acquisition Career Management Office(ACMO) sponsored the first ACE pilot program in March2000 as a partnership between the U.S. Army Materiel Com-mand and James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA.Because of the success of the initial pilot effort, the pro-gram has been expanded to all acquisition regions and nowincludes students enrolled in colleges and universitiesthroughout the United States.

The ACE Program is a win-win strategy for everyoneinvolved. Students are placed in various Army acquisitionorganizations and teamed with a mentor to collaborate onchallenging projects. Students work with their mentors tolearn about specific acquisition issues and challenges. Theprogram provides a valuable learning and work experiencefor the students and helps to cultivate the next generationof Army acquisition professionals.

If you know of a college student who would like toapply, please refer them to the ACE Web site athttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/acepage/index.htm for infor-mation on eligibility requirements, how to apply, and pointsof contact for specific geographical locations. Applicationsfor the Year Group 2002 ACE Program must be received nolater than Feb. 22, 2002.

The ACMO encourages each acquisition organization toparticipate in the ACE Program by sponsoring positions forstudents in addition to those funded by the ACMO. If youare interested in participating in this valuable program,please contact one of the Regional Directors below:

National Capital and Central Regions(Washington, DC; Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; RockIsland, IL)Sandy LongTelephone: (703) 805-1064/DSN 655-1064e-mail: [email protected]

Northeast and Central Regions(Fort Monmouth and Picatinny Arsenal, NJ; Natick, MA;Detroit, MI)Kelly L. TerryTelephone: (732) 532-1406/DSN 992-1406e-mail: [email protected]

Southern and Western Regions(Huntsville, AL; White Sands Missile Range, NM)Maxine MaplesTelephone: (256) 955-2764/DSN 645-2764e-mail: [email protected]



Fuller Takes Over AsACMO Director

COL Mary Fuller, former Project Manager for the JointLand Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted SensorSystem, Huntsville, AL, recently assumed new duties as theDirector of the Acquisition Career Management Office(ACMO).

Fuller has more than 24 years of Active military serviceand has served in a number of key positions, includingassignments as Product Manager, Army Small ComputerProgram, Fort Monmouth, NJ; and Chief of the OperationsDivision, Experimentation Center, Test and Experimenta-tion Command, Fort Hunter Liggett, CA.

She holds a B.S. degree from Miami University, Oxford,OH, and an M.A. degree from Webster University, St. Louis,MO. Her military schooling includes the Women Officer Ori-entation Course, Airborne School, Signal Officer Basic andAdvanced Courses, Army Command and General Staff Col-lege, the Joint and Combined Staff Officer School, theMateriel Acquisition Management Course, the AdvancedProgram Management Course, and the Senior Service Col-lege Fellowship Program at the University of Texas, Austin.

Listed among her awards and decorations are theLegion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, ArmyMeritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal,Army Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award,National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces ReservistMedal, Army Service Ribbon, two Overseas Service Ribbons,and the Army Parachutist Badge.

DAU Policy ChangeDuring FY01, the Defense Acquisition University (DAU)

created a new type of course—a “hybrid” course. DAUhybrid courses are made up of two parts, Part A and Part B.With the exception of correspondence course LOG 201,Intermediate Acquisition Logistics, Part A is presented viathe DAU Virtual Campus (https://dau.fedworld.gov) andPart B is presented onsite in an actual classroom. Each stu-dent must successfully complete Part A before attendingPart B. Both parts must be successfully completed beforethe student will receive credit for completion of the course.Certificates are not issued upon completion of Part A only.

Previous DAU policy required students to complete PartB within 45 days following completion of Part A. If the stu-dent did not complete Part B within 45 days, the studenthad to retake Part A. This 45-day rule caused some difficul-ties for students who completed Part A and then had tocancel Part B. As such, this policy has been changed. Stu-dents can now complete Part B within 62 days after com-pleting Part A. This will hopefully decrease the number ofstudents having to retake Part A. Students are still encour-aged to complete Parts A and B in a relatively short periodof time. Students should still make every attempt to com-plete both parts as scheduled.

For additional information on DAU hybrid courses,contact Randy Williams in the Acquisition Career Manage-ment Office at (703) 604-7107, DSN 664-7107, [email protected].

Acquisition Education, TrainingAnd Experience (AETE) Board

In keeping with the Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) phi-losophy that a balance of training, education, and experi-ence is required for career development, the AETE Boardmeets biannually to consider eligible Acquisition and Tech-nology Workforce (A&TWF) members for various education,training, and career-broadening opportunities. The AETEBoard is comprised of AAC members and is conducted bythe U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’s AcquisitionManagement Branch. AETE Board members review applica-tions from those military and civilian members of theA&TWF seeking opportunities announced in the AETE Cat-alog. Application instructions for the AETE Board are pro-vided in the announcement or may be obtained by viewingthe AETE Catalog at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil (click onthe catalog’s icon on the right side of the screen). Selectionsare made based on the applicant’s package.

Because requirements for opportunities may differbetween civilian and military A&TWF members, carefulattention must be given to any special requirements listedfor certain training opportunities in the catalog. For exam-ple, the AETE Board reviews and approves civilian applica-tions for the Naval Postgraduate School and School ofChoice Program; however, military officers pursuing full-time educational programs are governed by AR 621-1,Training of Military Personnel at Civilian Institutions. Appli-cation and selection procedures for AAC officers are avail-able at http://www.perscom.army.mil/Opfam51/ambmain.htm (click on ACS on the left side of the screen).

Similarly, civilians must apply to the AETE Board to beconsidered for the Senior Service College (SSC) FellowshipProgram at the University of Texas. In contrast, a Depart-ment of the Army board automatically considers militaryofficers for SSC based on their individual year group.

With two exceptions, both military and civilian mem-bers of the A&TWF may apply for opportunities listed in theAAC-sponsored Leadership Training section of the AETECatalog. Civilian AAC members grade GS-14 and above (orequivalent personnel demonstration broadband level) mayapply through the AETE Board for the Program for Manage-ment Development. Military officers (lieutenant coloneland colonel) may also apply to the AETE Board; however,they must meet the additional requirement of beingselected from among those officers on the Command SelectList. The Advanced Management Program is available onlyto civilian AAC members grade GS-15 and above (or equiva-lent personnel demonstration broadband level). Both ofthese programs are offered through the Harvard BusinessSchool.

To qualify for AAC funding, applicants must currentlyserve in an acquisition position and meet the positionrequirements.


AETE Board ResultsThe Acquisition Career Management Office is pleased to announce results from the Acquisition Education, Train-

ing and Experience (AETE) Board, which met in August 2001 to review applications for training and educationalopportunities. Listed below are the personnel selected and their AETE opportunity. Unless otherwise indicated, all arecivilian employees.

Name Requested OpportunityAidala, Sally St. Ambrose UniversityAllen, Carey Florida Institute of TechnologyAmbrose, Joyce Florida Institute of TechnologyBaroni, Brian Naval Postgraduate School—Distance LearningBattle-Blue, Detra Florida Institute of TechnologyBorgardts, Allen (LTC) Harvard—Program for Senior Executive FellowsBoyd, Gary University of Texas FellowshipBrooks, Gene Radford UniversityDahm, Bruce Webster UniversityDowns, Karen University of Alabama-HuntsvilleDukes, Beatrice (LTC) UVA/Darden—Leadership for Extraordinary PerformanceFlanagan, Robert Keller Graduate School of ManagementGabbert, Jeffry (MAJ) Harvard—Program for Management DevelopmentGrasso, Robert Florida Institute of TechnologyGrubb, Susan (LTC) Harvard—Program for Senior Executive FellowsHarris, Thomas Naval Postgraduate School—Distance LearningHurst, Peggy Eller Graduate SchoolLaBar, Bruce UVA/Darden—Leadership for Extraordinary PerformanceMatheny, Linda UVA/Darden—Leadership for Extraordinary PerformanceMcLaurin, Glenda Florida Institute of TechnologyPeterman, Cindy St. Ambrose UniversityPride, Shirley Florida Institute of TechnologyProuhet, Meleta University of Alabama-Huntsville Ramsey, Andrew (LTC) OPM—Management Development Seminar, Leading OrganizationsSanchez, Joan Troy StateSimpson, James (MAJ) Harvard—Program for Senior Executive FellowsSutton, James Harvard—Advanced Management ProgramTellez, Hortensia Troy StateThomas, Darlene Florida Institute of TechnologyThurgood, Leon (MAJ) Harvard—Program for Management DevelopmentWalker, Virginia Florida Institute of TechnologyWilliams, Yancy (LTC) Dartmouth—Gateway to Business ManagementYoung, Lester Naval Postgraduate School—Distance Learning

The above AETE opportunities are funded entirely by the Army Acquisition Corps. To learn when the next AETEBoard convenes as well as the suspense date for applications, go to http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil.



Being DigitalBy Nicholas Negroponte Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1995

Reviewed by LTC John Lesko (U.S. Army Reserve), a Deci-sion Coach and Group Facilitator for Anteon Corp. Lesko is amember of the Army Acquisition Corps and a frequent con-tributor to Army AL&T. He can be contacted [email protected].

“Computing is not about computers any more. It isabout living. The giant central computer, the so-calledmainframe, has been almost universally replaced by per-sonal computers. We have seen computers move out ofgiant air-conditioned rooms into closets, then ontodesktops, and now into our laps and pockets. But this isnot the end.” With this introduction, Nicholas Negro-ponte (Founding Director of MIT’s Media Lab) begins toexplain the wonders of today’s multimedia, bit-basedtechnologies. To which this reviewer adds, “No, comput-ing is not about computers anymore. Rather, it isincreasingly about working effectively, efficiently, andcollaboratively to deliver new, or to sustain current,capabilities for use along the spectrum of security mis-sions, ranging from multinational peacekeeping to jointwarfighting.”

Being Digital may appear to the pedestrian reader asnothing more than a compilation of Negroponte’s 18favorite essays from Wired magazine; however, it is thisand more. The author and editors have done a good jobof structuring the book into three main parts. The book’stable of contents follows:

Part One—Bits Are Bits:• The DNA of Information … • Debunking Bandwidth• Bitcasting• The Bit Police• Commingled Bits• The Bit Business

Part Two—Interface:• Where People and Bits Meet• Graphical Persona• 20/20 VR [virtual reality]• Looking and Feeling• Can We Talk About This?• Less Is More

Part Three—Digital Life:• The Post-Information Age• Prime Time Is My Time• Good Connections• Hard Fun• Digital Fables and Foibles• The New E-xpressionists

In these three parts, Negroponte describes theevolution of CD-ROMs, multimedia, hypermedia, high-definition television (HDTV), and more. The section oninterfaces offers a history on visual interfaces, graphics,VR, holograms, teleconferencing hardware, the mouseand touch-sensitive interfaces, and speech recognition.Finally, Negroponte provides an epilogue entitled An Ageof Optimism, in which he shares his vision of the futureand how one might live in it.

Although this book often delves into the intricaciesof binary code, data compression techniques, and theadvantages of asynchronous meetings, readers are wellserved by numerous examples, illustrations, andmetaphors that make the book an easy read. This is par-ticularly helpful because the rate of change that occurswith these complex technologies can quickly overwhelmthe average cybercitizen/soldier.

Being Digital serves as a guidebook for anyone whowants to understand technological forces that are shap-ing our bit-based world. Where it falls short, however, isin discussing the impact these technologies will have ontransforming data to information, information to knowl-edge, and knowledge to wisdom. Being Digital is heavyon data management and information-based insightsand light on integrating these concepts into a largercomprehensible whole.

As the military embraces new technologies that fun-damentally change the way it wages war, perhaps thebest defense will be a networked offense. Members ofthe Defense community will continue to wrestle withdecisions and trade-offs surrounding today’s revolutionin military affairs. Missions are likely to be created, re-examined, realigned, and/or eliminated. Bureaucraticbattles will inevitably be won, lost, or fought to a draw.National strategy will evolve because it must changewith the times. Decisionmakers must be both wired andadept at working with vast amounts of information intoday’s knowledge-based world. This aggressive, offen-sive strategy will most likely be shaped by acquisitionprofessionals being digital.

BOOKS


First, Break All the RulesBy Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman Simon & Schuster, New York, 1999

Reviewed by LTC John Lesko (U.S. Army Reserve), a Deci-sion Coach and Group Facilitator with Anteon Corp. Lesko isa member of the Army Acquisition Corps and a frequentcontributor to Army AL&T. He can be contacted [email protected].

What do the world’s greatest managers do differentlythan your average manager? According to Marcus Buck-ingham and Curt Coffman, both from the Gallup Organi-zation’s Workplace Management Practice Office, “Beforethey do anything else, they first break all the rules ofconventional [management] wisdom.” For example,world-class managers:

• Do not believe that people can achieve anythingthey set their minds to,

• Do not try to help people overcome their weak-nesses,

• Disregard the Golden Rule—playing favorites whenit suits the organization’s needs,

• And most of all, they have the ability to find, focus,and keep talented employees.

Most folks know of the Gallup Organization for itspublic opinion polls and surveys. Within the GallupOrganization is a research and consulting arm that hascollected and analyzed data from more than 80,000managers in more than 400 organizations (including for-profit and nonprofit companies and governmental agen-cies). The authors suggest that this is the largest suchstudy undertaken in the field of management science.First, Break All the Rules summarizes this multiyear studyand is rich with both data and anecdotal evidence thatillustrate best-business practices.

So how might a program manager and/or acquisi-tion executive apply what’s in this book? The authorssuggest that, “Measuring the strength of a workplace canbe simplified to twelve questions. The twelve questionsdon’t capture everything you may want to know aboutyour workplace, but they do capture the most informa-tion and the most important information. They measurethe core elements needed to attract, focus, and keep themost talented employees.”

Questions were scored on a one to five scale with a“1” equaling strongly disagree and a “5” equalingstrongly agree. Organizations that scored highest onthese questions experienced higher levels of perform-

ance as measured in sales, profitability, and employeeretention.

The following are the 12 strength-measuringquestions:

1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to

do my work right?3. At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do

best every day?4. In the last seven days, have I received recognition

or praise for doing good work?5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to

care about me as a person?6. Is there someone at work who encourages my

development?7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make

me feel my job is important?9. Are my co-workers committed to doing quality

work?10. Do I have a best friend at work?11. In the last six months, has someone at work

talked to me about my progress?12. This last year, have I had opportunities at work to

learn and grow?

At first glance, this reviewer thought, “This is tooeasy. These questions are common sense and too sim-ple.” But the more I read and thought about the researchfindings, the more I began to understand the signifi-cance of these questions and how one’s answers serve asa litmus test for managerial excellence.

Buckingham and Coffman propose that world-classperformers must master these managerial issues in asequential fashion. There is a Maslow-type hierarchywithin these 12 questions. That is, first an organizationalleader must successfully score high marks on questions1 and 2. To start, work expectations must be clearlyunderstood and resources made available to all. Then,the answers to questions 3 to 6 reveal an individualemployee’s self-esteem and sense of worth to an organi-zation. Next come issues associated with establishing asense of belonging (questions 7-10). And finally, ques-tions 11 and 12 explore the opportunities for individualand organizational growth and learning.

Generally speaking, high-performing groups had thebest employee morale and company loyalty. It is interest-ing to note that high scorers many times were located atthe business unit or subdivision level of an organization.In other words, excellence was most likely to be foundwithin a specific profit center, within a small team,

BOOKS


within a single store, and/or within a specific geographicsegment of a larger organization.

So what can the Army’s acquisition professionalslearn from First, Break All the Rules? In this reviewer’sopinion, there are two key lessons to learn and apply toour day-to-day work. First, we would be well-served toperiodically ask our colleagues the 12 questions listedabove. This will keep individuals focused on their tasksand on building a cooperative work environment. Andsecond, we should benchmark government practicesagainst internal models of excellence as well as externalbusiness organizations. There’s plenty to learn from so-called “best-of-breed” or “best-of-class” competitions.

First, Break All the Rules presents a useful measuringstick that links employee opinion and performance tomanagerial practice. Program managers, acquisitionexecutives, and others should read and apply the funda-mentals of this book as they develop, purchase, and/orsustain our warfighting and peacekeeping systems.

The New Dynamic ProjectManagement: Winning Throughthe Competitive AdvantageBy Deborah S. Kezsbom, Ph.D.,and Katherine A. EdwardJohn Wiley & Sons Inc., 2001

Reviewed by LTC Kenneth H. Rose (USA, Ret.), PMP, ASQCertified Quality Manager, a Project Management Instruc-tor for ESI International residing in Hampton, VA, and for-mer member of the Army Acquisition Corps.

Throw away your project management handbooks.Throw away your so-called “bibles” of project manage-ment. The New Dynamic Project Management: WinningThrough the Competitive Advantage by Deborah S. Kezs-bom and Katherine A. Edward is the only project man-agement book you’ll ever need.

Now, the opinion just expressed is a bit overstated.But in these times of promotional hype, a little excess is warranted. The bottom line is that Kezsbom andEdward’s book is a unique contribution in its com-pleteness and clarity, and offers a stand-alone re-source of considerable value to project managementprofessionals.

The current volume is an update of a 1989 editionmade better by new content and new organization. Itincludes a new chapter dedicated to quality manage-ment. This is appropriate because the authors describein their first pages the quadruple constraint of projectmanagement, which adds quality to the traditional three

elements of time, cost, and technical performance. Theauthors describe an integrated program of quality plan-ning, assurance, and control. They discuss the philoso-phy and approach of quality gurus Crosby, Deming, andJuran, adding more current views from David Garvin ofthe Harvard Business School.

A new chapter on procurement and contractingaddresses an area that has gained new importance toproject managers. The chapter on project managementinformation systems has been redesigned to recognizethe prevalence of Web-based technologies in today’stools.

The book begins with a view of the contemporaryproject management environment. The authors pointout that the project manager’s role has evolved toinclude more boundary spanning. The project managerhas become “… a common focal point [who] brings thecritical elements of a project together and facilitates allthat needs to be done, by those who are experts at doingit, to offset the likelihood of failure” (italics in original).They reinforce the long-standing axiom that projects failon people matters, not technical matters, with a list of 25potential sources of project failure collected during 40years of experience. Communication, priorities, team-work, and conflict are all included; technical acumen isnot.

The authors then march the reader down a progres-sive path of enlightenment, beginning with projectorganization. The thoroughness of the chapter on qualityis duplicated throughout the journey. That feature is thestandout difference between this and other texts thatlecture on a superficial level or point to other sources forcomplete information. Although the book is heavily doc-umented with citations and references for further study,everything the reader needs to get to work may be foundbetween the covers of this singular book.

Planning, scheduling, and controlling all get the fulltreatment, as expected. The discussion on earned valuemanagement is exceptional, even though it uses the tra-ditional acronyms—BCWS (budgeted cost of workscheduled), BCWP (budgeted cost of work performed),etc. —that only recently have been simplified to moreuser-friendly terms. The authors also give appropriateattention to the precedence diagramming method(where linked boxes show the sequence in which tasksare to be performed) as the successor to PERT [programevaluation and review technique] and CPM [critical pathmethod]. A discussion of methods for controlling projectcosts, changes, and risks rounds out the presentation ofthese traditional nuts and bolts of project management.

Leadership, conflict resolution, communication, andteamwork are all covered in an integrated manner thatlinks them together and to the other material in the

BOOKS


book. As always, the authors prescribe very practicalapproaches that can make a reader better able to exe-cute project management responsibilities, not just bebetter informed. The sections on negotiation and listen-ing may be especially valuable in today’s rich mixture ofinternal and external stakeholders who can influenceproject success.

Throughout, Kezsbom and Edward augment theirpresentation with case studies, exercises, and appen-dices that demonstrate, clarify, and otherwise add foodfor thought.

In truth, The New Dynamic Project Management maynot be the only book you need on project management.But it is certainly a one-of-a-kind resource, one thatyou—apprentice, journeyman, or master—should not bewithout.

BOOKS

The following poem was written by arecently retired Army civilian employee at theU.S. Army Developmental Test Command,Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. His farewell e-mail to his many friends and associates indi-cated that service to soldiers through develop-mental testing was a big part of his life duringhis 33-year federal career.

RReemmeemmbbeerriinngg TThhee RRaannggeessThe guard at the gate with his M16

The 105 firing and the rifling ring’s screamKnocked about by the big mortar’s blast

Razor wire around “bugs and gas”Carry your mask, wear your pass

In steel bombproof we huddleAwaiting bang of grenadeAgainst bar-armor bustle

Stay inside until we hearThe whistle blow all-clear

Serving the 155 with broken ramCrew sweating in summer sun

Loading big rounds by hand‘til the test is done

Cordite and nitro’s acrid smellNasty stuff, headaches from Hell

Abrams tank and strong young backsSwinging hammers and changing tracks

Servicing the Abrams always a dreadWhen trying to park in an M60 shed

Spine taking a beatingCross-country by jeep

Or on the Huey’sHard bench seat

Airdrop test load floating downFrom high above we hear the soundThe singing of the snapping shroudThen crashing load in dusty cloud

Firing 25 millimeter on the runAnd the deadly 120—a smoothbore gun

PATRIOT missile’s soldier crewBig, rawboned boys, tried and true

Dothan “International” AirportRed clay roads to Rucker’s Fort

On TDY when Mamma diedNext, Fort Huachuca and C4I

Alaskan winter and biting coldIn the lower 48 far below

Sultry swamp and mighty mosquitoDesert heat and dust storms blow

Wasatch Range and high-mountain snow

Block and tackle, crane and cradleTanks and towbars, boom-sling and cable

Brothers and sisters, ready and able

Civilian and soldier, side-by-sideServing our nation, testing with pride.

RRiicchhaarrdd JJ.. CCoosskkii


LTG John S. Caldwell Jr., former Commanding Gen-eral (CG) of the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Arma-ments Command, has assumed new duties as MilitaryDeputy (MILDEP) to the Assistant Secretary of the Armyfor Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASAALT) andDirector, Army Acquisition Corps. He succeeds LTG PaulJ. Kern, who has received his fourth star and taken overas CG, Army Materiel Command (AMC).

With more than 30 years of Active military service,Caldwell has served previous tours as AMC’s DeputyChief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition(RD&A); Director, Army Digitization Office, Office of theChief of Staff of the Army; Assistant Deputy for SystemsManagement, Office of the Assistant Secretary of theArmy for RD&A; and Military Assistant, Major Weapons

Systems Acquisition, Office of the Under Secretary ofDefense (Acquisition Reform).

Caldwell has an M.S. degree in mechanical engineer-ing from Georgia Institute of Technology and a B.S.degree from West Point. In addition, he has attended theIndustrial College of the Armed Forces and the U.S.Army Command and General Staff College, and hascompleted the Armor Officer Basic and AdvancedCourses.

Listed among Caldwell’s military honors are the Sil-ver Star, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legionof Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC), the Bronze StarMedal, the Meritorious Service Medal with OLC, the AirMedal, the Army Commendation Medal with OLC, theArmy Achievement Medal, and the Ranger Tab.

PERSONNEL

ACQUISITION EXCELLENCE

The Army spends almost as much on the acquisitionof services as it does on equipment. In fact, the FY 2000Army Contracting Summary data indicate that servicesaccount for 36 percent of total contract actions and 30percent of contract dollars. As a result, increased empha-sis has been placed on the acquisition of services. Toexcel in service acquisition, the Army is focusing onperformance-based service acquisition and better train-ing for the acquisition workforce.

The importance of the Army’s performance-basedservice acquisition (PBSA) strategy was emphasized inJune 2000. At that time, the Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Army for Procurement (DASA(P)) directed the majorcommands (MACOMs) and the Principal AssistantsResponsible for Contracting (PARCs) to accomplish 50percent PBSA service acquisitions by 2005 and ensurethat the core contracting workforce complete PBSAtraining by the end of 2001. In November 2000, the Act-ing DASA(P) directed that the MACOMs develop one ormore Centers of Excellence in Service Contracting to actas a clearinghouse by soliciting, identifying, consolidat-ing, organizing, and disseminating best practices in serv-ice contracting.

Effective Oct. 1, 2001, the Army Federal AcquisitionRegulation was changed to require that all solicitations

for services be performance-based and price-fixed.One-time deviations with adequate written justificationmay be granted by the PARCs up to $1 million, by theHead of Contracting Activity up to $10 million, and bythe DASA(P) for more than $10 million. In addition, DDForm 350, Individual Contract Action Report, was revisedto collect PBSA information. DD 350 instructions indi-cate that for a contract action to be classified as PBSA,the contract value must exceed $100,000. For consis-tency, the Army’s stated PBSA goal of a minimum 50 per-cent of dollars and actions by 2005 is based on a$100,000 threshold, and the PBSA usage metrics arebased on DD Form 350 criteria.

In summary, the increasing significance of servicecontracting has prompted increased emphasis onperformance-based service contracts which, if properlyimplemented, should result in reduced prices andimproved Army performance. However, moving to thesetypes of contracts will not be easy. The success of usingperformance-based contracts will depend on the extentto which the Army provides the necessary training, guid-ance, and tools to the acquisition workforce and estab-lishes metrics to monitor the results of the use of thesecontracts.

Caldwell Takes Over As ASAALT MILDEPAnd Army Acquisition Corps Director

Service Acquisitions


ARMY AL&T WRITER’S GUIDELINEShttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/

Army AL&T is a bimonthly professional development magazine published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,Logistics and Technology). The address for the Editorial Office is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY AL&T, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FTBELVOIR VA 22060-5567. Phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the editorial staff are as follows:

Harvey L. Bleicher, Editor-in-Chief [email protected] (703)805-1035/DSN 655-1035Debbie Fischer-Belous, Executive Editor [email protected] (703)805-1038/DSN 655-1038Cynthia Hermes, Managing Editor [email protected] (703)805-1034/DSN 655-1034 Sandra R. Marks, Contract Support [email protected] (703)805-1007/DSN 655-1007Joe Stribling, Contract Support [email protected] (703)805-1036/DSN 655-1036

Datafax: (703)805-4218/DSN 655-4218

PurposeTo instruct members of the AL&T community about relevant processes, procedures, techniques, and management philosophy and to dissemi-

nate other information pertinent to the professional development of the Army Acquisition and Technology Workforce (A&TWF).

Subject MatterSubjects may include, but are not restricted to, professional development of the Army’s A&TWF, AL&T program accomplishments, technology

developments, policy guidance, information technology, and acquisition reform initiatives. Acronyms used in manuscripts, photos, illustrations, andcaptions must be kept to a minimum and must be defined on first reference. Articles submitted to Army AL&T will not be accepted if they havebeen scheduled for publication in other magazines.

Length of ArticlesArticles should be approximately 8 double-spaced typed pages, using a 20-line page, and must not exceed 1,600 words. Articles exceeding

1,600 words will not be accepted. Do not submit articles in a layout format or articles containing footnotes, endnotes, or acknowledgement lists ofindividuals.

Photos and IllustrationsA maximum of 3 photos or illustrations, or a combination of both, may accompany each article in a separate file from the manuscript. Photos

may be black and white or color. Illustrations must be black and white and must not contain any shading, screens, or tints. All electronicfiles of photos must have a resolution of at least 300 dpi (JPEG or TIFF). If they do not meet this requirement, glossy prints of all photosmust be submitted via U.S. mail, Fedex, etc. Photos and illustrations will not be returned unless requested.

Biographical SketchInclude a short biographical sketch of the author/s that includes educational background and current position.

ClearanceAll articles must be cleared by the author’s security/OPSEC office and public affairs office prior to submission. The cover letter accom-

panying the article must state that these clearances have been obtained and that the article has command approval for open publication.Offices and individuals submitting articles that report Army cost savings must be prepared to quickly provide detailed documentation upon request

that verifies the cost savings and shows where the savings were reinvested. Organizations should be prepared to defend these monies in the event thathigher headquarters have a higher priority use for these savings. All Army AL&T articles are cleared by the Army Acquisition Career ManagementOffice.

Submission DatesIssue Author’s DeadlineJanuary-February 15 OctoberMarch-April 15 DecemberMay-June 15 FebruaryJuly-August 15 AprilSeptember-October 15 JuneNovember-December 15 August

Submission ProceduresArticle manuscripts (in MS Word) and illustrations/photos (300 dpi JPEG or TIFF) may be submitted via e-mail to

[email protected], or via U.S. mail to the address in the first paragraph at the top of this page. All submissions must include theauthor’s mailing address; office phone number (DSN and commercial); and a typed, self-adhesive return address label.


This index is a headline listing of major articles pub-lished in Army AL&T during 2001.

JANUARY-FEBRUARY(Army Recapitalization)

• Recapitalization: A Key Element Of The ArmyTransformation

• Recapitalization And Unit Set Fielding• The Paladin Enterprise Model Of Recapitalization• Abrams Modernization: Keeping The Best Ahead Of

The Rest• Partnering With Private Enterprise On Army Posts• Army Recognizes Outstanding R&D Organizations• A Way To Train Digitally Proficient Soldiers• Additional NPS Graduate Programs Offered In

Huntsville• Contingency Contracting In Kosovo: Starting From

Scratch• YPG Spotlights Virtual Proving Ground Technology• Breaking The Acquisition Paradigm: CECOM Acqui-

sition Center Pilots Army’s E-Auctions• Cost Analysis Strategy Assessment: The Complete

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Tool• Servicewomen Establish Technological Beachhead

Against Sexism• Transitioning From Fielding To Steady-State

Sustainment

MARCH-APRIL(Joint Programs and Interoperability)

• Achieving Interoperability Through InternationalCooperative Programs

• The Joint Tactical Radio System• The Single Integrated Air Picture• The Single Manager For Conventional Ammunition • Joint Unmanned Ground Vehicles• Javelin Weapon System: From Legacy To Objective

Force

• The U.S. Army Fire Fighting Training SystemsProgram

• 2000 Army Small Business Innovation ResearchPhase II Quality Awards

• Yuma Routinely Tests Armored Vehicles And Direct-Fire Munitions

• Integrated Combat Command And Control SoftwareUpdate Process

• The U.S./German Environmental TechnologyExchange

• Creative Solutions To Meet DOD’s Maritime SupportNeeds

• Addressing Soldier Needs Through InnovativePartnerships

• Simulations: Changing The Paradigm For Opera-tional Testing

MAY-JUNE(Simulation and Modeling for

Acquisition, Requirements and Training)• SMART: A Historical Perspective• Implementing SMART Within PEO, Tactical Missiles• A SMART Implementation For Ground-To-Ground

Combat Identification• SMART Applications For The UH-60M Program• Using Advanced Collaborative Environments In

Developing Army Materiel• A ‘SMART’ Capability For Acquiring Army Weapon

Systems And Platforms• The Virtual Proving Ground• Future Combat Systems: A Big Idea• Acquisition Systems Management Curriculum

Development• Floyd And Wally’s Operational Test And Evaluation

Top 10 Lessons Learned• Army Acquisition Career Management Workshop

2001• 22nd Army Science Conference Features R&D

Achievement Awards And Best Papers Awards

2001 INDEXOF ARTICLES


• Field Pack-Up Units Provide Increased Mobility• The Alternative Technologies And Approaches

Program• Army-Sponsored Scientists Win Nobel Prize• Innovations In The Bradley Program• Natural Environment Workshop Highlights Severe

Climate Testing• The Countermine Capability Set• Safer Disposal Of U.S. Chemical Weapon Stockpile• The Commercially Based Tactical Truck

JULY-AUGUST(Acquisition Career Management)

• The Army Acquisition Career Management Office• The Roles And Missions Of PERSCOM’s Acquisition

Management Branch• AAESA’s Role In Acquisition Career Management• Regional Customer Support Offices• DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel

Demonstration Project• Planning Your Acquisition Career• Acquisition Education, Training and Experience

Opportunities• Writing An Effective Senior Rater Potential

Evaluation• The Competitive Development Group Program• AAC Partners With Army Lessons Learned Center• Army S&T Laboratory Personnel Demonstrations• Picatinny Arsenal’s Model For Intern Recruitment• AMRDEC Personnel Demonstration Project• New Initiatives For Developing A Multiskilled AMC

Workforce• UT Austin’s Senior Service College Fellowship

Program• The Acquisition Career Experience Program• Achieving Quality In Distance Learning• New Directions For Advanced Gun Tubes• Built-In Vehicle Diagnostics Systems• Missiles As The Fulcrum Of War• Fuel Cells: An Enabling Technology For Future Army

Vehicles

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER(Transforming the Army)

• Interview With GEN John M. Keane, Army Vice Chiefof Staff

• The Army’s Personnel Transformation• Enabling The Objective Force• Unit Set Fielding

• The Role Of Ground Combat Systems In The Army’sTransformation

• AMC’s Role In The Army’s Transformation• Aviation’s Contribution To The Transformation

Effort• Next-Generation Sensors For The Objective Force• SMART 2001 Conferees Emphasize Collaboration• DOD 2001 Procurement Conference• Secretary Of The Army Awards Presented For Con-

tracting Excellence• Non-Lethal Capabilities Of The Future• Acquisition Career Record Brief• Building The Joint Simulation System• Army Tuition Assistance Program• New Refrigerants For Army Environmental Control

Units• Meeting Soldier Needs Through Acquisition

Logistics• The Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Ele-

vated Netted Sensor System• Institute For Advanced Technology

NOVEMBER-DECEMBER(Objective Force)

• The Army’s Metaphoric Stock Split• Objective Force Systems• Transforming Institutional Training And Leader

Development• Knowledge Dominance• AMC Integration For The Objective Force• Warfighting Doctrine Development• C4ISR Architectures• Combat Support And Combat Service Support

Transformation• The Virtual Proving Ground• The AAC Annual Training With Industry Orientation

Workshop• Threat Materiel Solutions For Army Acquisition• The FY02 Army Posture Statement• Improving Digital Terrain With Artificial Intelligence• Intelligent Agents: Tools For The Command Post

And Commander• The Developmental Firing Range At Wallops Island• Lessons Learned From The GMLRS IPT Process• The Airdrop Certification Process• Assessing Effects Of Live Fire On The Enhanced

M1A2 Tank• New Medical Technology For The Injured Soldier• Rapid Detection Of Infectious Disease Outbreaks

PERIODICALSARMY AL&T

ISSN 0892-8657

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ARMY ALT

9900 BELVOIR RD SUITE 101

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5567