00 alt magazine full issue 200204 - usaasc | united...

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-02-4

JULY–AUGUST 2002

Approved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

Also In This Issue: • SHORAD Lessons Learned

• PM, THAAD Case Study

• ACE Program Board Process

Also In This Issue: • SHORAD Lessons Learned

• PM, THAAD Case Study

• ACE Program Board ProcessApproved for public release: Distribution is unlimited

Headquarters Department of the Army

PB-70-02-4

JULY–AUGUST 2002

The Army has a non-negotiable contract with theAmerican people to fight and win our Nation’s wars—decisively. Our ability to do so, the Army’s readiness, islinked directly to the well-being of its people—soldiers,civilians, and their families. That is why revamping ourpersonnel infrastructure is an important part of theArmy’s enormous task of transforming to the ObjectiveForce.

This issue of Army AL&T magazine examines severaltransformation initiatives underway within the person-nel community including manning the Objective Force,man-machine interface, and the Army well-being initia-tive. We also learn more about the workings of the ArmyPersonnel Transformation Task Force.

Clearly, our greatest strength is our people, and thesoldier is at the center. In fact, the events followingSeptember 11, 2001, reinforced this. That is why recruit-ing, training, retaining, equipping, and providing for thesoldier are paramount. GEN Creighton Abrams, whoreconstructed the Army after the ravages of Vietnam,said it best: “The Army is not made of people, the Armyis people. By people I do not mean personnel . . . I meanliving, breathing, serving human beings. They haveneeds and interests and desires. They have spirit andwill, strengths and abilities. They have weaknesses andfaults; and they have means. They are the heart of ourpreparedness . . . and this preparedness—as a nation andas an Army—depends upon the spirit of our soldiers. It isthe spirit that gives the Army . . . life. Without it we can-not succeed.”

Today, America’s soldiers are protecting our interestsaround the globe—from fighting in Afghanistan; tosecuring detainees in Cuba; to training counterterrorismforces in the Philippines, Yemen, and the former SovietRepublic of Georgia. Concurrently, our soldiers are con-tinuing to deter potential adversaries in Southwest Asiaand Korea while upholding U.S. security commitmentsin Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sinai, and elsewhere.

More than 182,000 of ourbrave men and womenare forward-stationed ordeployed in 120 coun-tries—on point for ourNation, protecting andpromoting Americaninterests.

The soldier is theArmy’s ultimate weapon,the crucial and integralcomponent of the suc-cessful employment ofall Army systems. Duringthe Cold War, Army doc-

trine defined three distinct types of forces—heavy, light,and Special Forces. As we build the Objective Force, wehave the opportunity to combine what is best from eachof these.

From the heavy force, we have soldiers who knowhow to combine speed, overwhelming firepower, andcombined arms operations to dominate opponents.From the light force, we have highly versatile soldierswho bring a rapid deployment mentality—rucks packedand ready to deploy worldwide on a few hours notice.From the Special Operations community, we have closecombat specialists who are the best in the world aturban and night operations.

We have the greatest fighting force on Earth. We havethe very best soldiers and they have the finest leaders.Our soldiers have world-class equipment, and they han-dle it with great ease because of their excellent training.We must work hard and work together to keep it thatway.

In testimony to Congress earlier this year, Secretaryof Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “If we are to win thewar on terror, and prepare for the wars of tomorrow, wemust take care of the Department’s greatest asset: ourmen and women in uniform. ‘Smart weapons’ are worth-less to us unless they are in the hands of smart soldiers,sailors, airmen and Marines.”

The Army family has changed during the last decade.Military and civilian personnel are more senior, moreeducated, and more diverse. More spouses work. Ourtransformation of personnel policies and programs mustaddress these changing demographics and the expecta-tions of a 21st century force. It is a tough challenge, butone in which the Army is leading the way.

Claude M. Bolton Jr.

FROM THE ARMYACQUISITION

EXECUTIVETransforming Army Personnel

For The 21st Century

July-August 2002; PB 70-02-4

CLAUDE M. BOLTON JR.Assistant Secretary of the Army

for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology

EDITORIAL BOARDLTG JOHN S. CALDWELL JR.Director, Army Acquisition Corps

LTG PETER M. CUVIELLOChief Information Officer, G-6LTG ROY E. BEAUCHAMP

Deputy Commanding General, AMCMG LAWRENCE R. ADAIR

Assistant DCS, G-1MG LESTER MARTINEZ-LOPEZ

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Medical Research

and Materiel CommandJAMES T. INMAN

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy andProcurement, Office of the ASAALT

WIMPY PYBUSDeputy Assistant Secretary for ILS

Office of the ASAALTDR. A. MICHAEL ANDREWS II

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Research and Technology

Office of the ASAALTDR. MICHAEL O’CONNOR

Director of R&DU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDONALD DAMSTETTER

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Plans, Programs and Resources

Office of the ASAALTHARVEY L. BLEICHER

Executive Secretary, Editorial 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].

Personnel Transformation: Not A Question Of Whether,But How Soon!

LTG John M. Le Moyne and LTC Franklin Childress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Personnel Transformation: The Journey Continues

MG B. Sue Dueitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Implications For Personnel Transformation

MAJ Douglas Ray Campbell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Integrating Personnel And Pay Systems In The 21st Century Army

Paula Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Personnel Transformation: The Dynamics Of Change

COL Ruth B. Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11MANPRINT Perspectives On Personnel Transformation

Dr. Michael Drillings and Dr. Thomas Killion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Selection And Assessment Systems To SupportPersonnel Transformation

Dr. Michael G. Rumsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16How Army Research Institute Surveys Support Army Transformation

Dr. Alma G. Steinberg, Dr. Morris P. Peterson, and Sidney F. Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19The Army’s Well-Being Program

BG James A. Coggin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21The Army Enterprise Personnel Database

LTC(P) Gregory J. Fritz and Dr. Kenneth L. Bedford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23How The Short Range Air Defense Artillery Is ExploitingA Strategic Crisis Point

LTC Scott E. Shifrin and Anita Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27The Summer 2002 ACE Program Review Board Process

Ronald J. Rapka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Program Management Mission Impossible

MAJ Lloyd C. Crosman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Biotechnology For Future Army Applications

Dr. Michael R. Ladisch, Dr. James J. Valdes, and LTC Robert J. Love (USA, Ret.) . . . . . . . . 36Students, Army Engineers Show Ingenuity In Robotics Competition

Martha McCaslin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Managing Software Requirements

MAJ Joseph P. Dupont and MAJ Robert W. Cummins Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

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 specifically requested, photo credits are not given.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��

Personnel transformation will radically change the way personnel work isdone by focusing on the capabilities and flexibility needed to manage thefuture Army force.

Career Development Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52News Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Acquisition Excellence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Speaking Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2 Army AL&T July-August 2002

IntroductionTransformation is the highest

priority in the Army today, eclipsedonly by the war on terrorism. Person-nel transformation, which is the G-1’scontribution, is already impactingvirtually everyone in the Army. Initia-tives are already in place allowingsoldiers to use the Web to verifypersonal data prior to promotionboards, submit assignment prefer-ences, and streamline database man-agement. Army personnel transfor-mation is a huge success based onWeb usage numbers and initial feed-

back. In addition, a once large andvocal population of transformationnaysayers is now very quiet or veryfew in number. Army Chief of Staff(CSA) GEN Eric K. Shinseki’s transfor-mation decisions seem prophetic inthe wake of the September 11, 2001,attacks and only serve to reinforcethe Army’s new mobile strategicrequirements.

The CSA’s vision cites three prior-ities: people, readiness, and transfor-mation. He constantly reminds usthat people are the centerpiece andthat all other actions are in supportof people, our most critical resource.

The CSA manages these competingpriorities in his transformation effortwhile meeting his non-negotiablecontract with the president and theAmerican people—“ . . . to fight andwin our Nation’s wars . . . with addi-tional requirements to be dominantat every point on the spectrum ofconflict and to see first, understandfirst, act first, and finish decisively.”

The Army’s basic and most fun-damental enablers are its people—they are the centerpiece of the Armyand its link to the Nation. A forcecomprised of people from all compo-nents, in the right grades with the

PERSONNEL TRANSFORMATION:NOT A QUESTIONOF WHETHER . . .BUT HOW SOON!

LTG John M. Le Moyne and LTC Franklin Childress

“The current plan is . . . we’ll be waitingon the objective for the Objective Forceto arrive.”

LTG John M. Le Moyne Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1

A force comprised of people from all components,in the right grades with the right skills,with world-class well-being programs,

is the foundation of our ready Army.

July-August 2002 Army AL&T 3

right skills, with world-class well-being programs, is the foundation ofour ready Army. How we acquire,train, develop, distribute, evaluate,promote, sustain, and transition ourpeople represents the human dimen-sion of our transformation. TheArmy’s ability to meet its readinessgoals hinges on its ability to executeall these tasks in a streamlined, effi-cient manner while simultaneouslyreducing the forward-based foot-print. To comply with our contractand lead the Army through its trans-formation, we must execute person-nel transformation.

The Need For Transformation The old adage “strength through

adversity” best describes the atmos-phere within the Office of the DeputyChief of Staff, G-1, in the 7 monthssince the tragic terrorist attack on thePentagon. The events of September11, 2001, and now Operation Endur-ing Freedom have served to dramati-cally reinforce the need to transformour personnel functions by validat-ing needs and shortfalls from com-manders in the field. Although muchwork remains to be done, we areconfident that we have validated thecurrent personnel transformationcourse of action that will completelychange the way we view and executeour personnel systems.

The Operational GapOur current support to the sol-

dier is not strategically, operationally,or tactically responsive. We are un-able to adequately track Active orReserve component personnel dur-ing mobilization or in a theater ofwar. As a result of our current dis-jointed, “stovepiped” systems, werun the risk of making strategic,operational, and tactical decisionsbased on inaccurate and incompletepersonnel information. Our currentsystems are incapable of providingpersonnel information by battlefieldlocation or tracking Active and

Reserve component status changesin a timely manner.

We also lack a single, compre-hensive, authoritative personneldatabase, instead relying on five sep-arate databases that do not crosstalk. We are weighted down withinconsistent, redundant, and compli-cated data processes that updateonly stovepiped layers of individualdatabases. Our current personnelsystem requires manpower-intensivedata input and error reconciliation toalleviate inconsistent updates acrossmultiple databases. The possibility ofhuman error increases with eachmanual input of data. We also lack anadequate communications andinformation infrastructure across allcomponents to provide personnelsystems that can keep up with ourcurrent tactical speed on the battle-field. Commanders’ needs for per-sonnel information far exceed ourcurrent systems’ capabilities.

G-1 Mission, Vision, AndObjectives

The Army vision is about people,readiness, and transformation, with aclear focus on the end state—theObjective Force. Personnel transfor-mation is about having the tools,programs, policies, and systems nec-essary to ensure manning, personnel

readiness, and well-being for theLegacy, Interim, and ObjectiveForces. The objectives of personneltransformation are to enable Armytransformation, increase strategicresponsiveness, enhance reachback,and ensure personnel combat power.Personnel transformation is a criticalenabler to the success of Armytransformation.

To understand the transforma-tion road ahead requires an under-standing and endorsement of theArmy G-1’s mission, vision, andobjectives. The Army G-1 is the singlehuman resources provider for allArmy officers, enlisted personnel, DAcivilians, and contractors. As such,the G-1 is responsible for makingavailable to the entire force the fullspectrum of integrated and unifiedhuman resource programs, policies,and systems. The G-1 executes thismission through a vision focused onmanning the Objective Force andproviding world-class well-beingprograms.

From the G-1’s vision, we devel-oped a restated personnel transfor-mation mission—to transform Armyhuman resources programs, policies,and information technology systemsto enable the manning, personnelreadiness, and well-being of theforce. This restated personnel

Personnel transformationis about having the tools,programs, policies, and systemsnecessary to ensuremanning, personnel readiness,and well-beingfor the Legacy,Interim, and Objective Forces.


transformation mission and focuswill guide the development of sys-tems that will ensure a force that isstrategically responsive at every pointon the spectrum of operationsfocused on maximizing readiness ofthe warfighter. The bottom line isthat personnel transformation is a“strategic enabler” of Army transfor-mation and essential to our Army’score competency of fighting and win-ning America’s wars.

From the personnel transforma-tion mission, we derive a vision of astrategic end state that consists ofthree parts: an almost paperlessinternal personnel environmentwhere information, applications, andcommunications technology vastlyincrease the personnel community’sproductivity and customer service;an external personnel environmentwhere soldiers and staff at all levelscan readily access complete, accu-rate, personnel data and employ thelatest analytical tools to supportdecisionmaking appropriate to theirlevel of clearance; and a cohesivepersonnel force structure and infra-structure where people, systems,hardware, data, and models areseamlessly integrated to enable max-imum network capabilities.

Phased ImplementationWe must advance personnel

transformation in the same contextas Army transformation. Our LegacyForce is the current amalgamation of5 unique databases that do not crosstalk; 320 legacy systems; 1,170 sepa-rate processes (of which many arenever queried); and more than 1,600data elements to describe one sol-dier. In today’s connected society,this is completely unacceptable. Ournear-term objective is to migratefrom the Legacy Force to the InterimForce in all areas as quickly, yet judi-ciously, as possible.

Our transition to an InterimForce is characterized by the transi-tion to the Defense Integrated Mili-

tary Human Resources System(DIMHRS) beginning in February2004, where the Army is the lead forthe DOD transition. DIMHRS, com-bined with the development and pro-liferation of Web-based applications,will enable the Army to transition toand implement Web-based, re-designed, best-business practices.

Our vision for the ObjectiveForce (2015 and beyond) is beingupdated daily with the vast changesin information technology capabili-ties. We envision implementation ofenhanced passive reporting andprocessing capabilities, use of voice-recognition technologies, and theimbedding of essential humanresources functionality in FutureCombat Systems. Our battlefieldfootprint should transition to a“thumbprint” as a result of theseenablers and our focus of reducingworkload in the battlespace.

The Road Ahead Personnel transformation has

focused on five specific areas in theArmy human resources realm to sup-port Army transformation: the per-sonnel transformation initiative,introduced in August 2000; the man-ning the Objective Force initiative,which will shape and train the forcefor transformation to the ObjectiveForce; the MANPRINT (manpowerand personnel integration) initiative,which analyzes man-machine inter-face, will ensure the Army does notprocure weapons and equipmentthat exceed the Army’s ability to pro-vide operators; the Army develop-ment system initiative, which willoverhaul the officer, warrant officer,enlisted, and civilian managementsystems; and the Army well-beinginitiative, which will help balance thework life of soldiers and their familiesto improve morale, readiness, andretention.

To spearhead this personneltransformation initiative, we haveestablished an integration team

headed by MG B. Sue Dueitt, Assis-tant Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,and Director of the Army PersonnelTransformation Task Force. Dueitthas been charged with managing theteam’s daily interactions with thefield to gather critical input andrequirements necessary for inclusionin the final system.

The articles in this issue of ArmyAL&T explain more fully these fiveareas of Army human resources andhow they support our goal of trans-forming the Army’s personnel sys-tems. These indeed are interestingand exciting times to be in the Armyand to be a part of transforming ourpersonnel systems to support theArmy’s transformation. The need forthese changes is even more urgent asa result of the current war on terror-ism. We are on the right path towardachieving our goal, but we need eachand every soldier and leader in theArmy to work alongside us to makethe vision a reality. People are thecenterpiece of our formations, andpeople will make this personneltransformation a success.

LTG JOHN M. LE MOYNE isthe Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff,G-1 (Human Resources.) In hiscurrent position, he is transform-ing the Army’s human resourcessystem to leverage technologicaladvancements enabling moreresponsive and accurate supportto soldiers and commanders.

LTC FRANKLIN CHILDRESS isthe Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff,G-1 (Human Resources) PublicAffairs Officer. He is a graduate ofPresbyterian College and holds amaster’s degree in public admin-istration from Golden GateUniversity.


Introduction“If you don’t know where you need

to go, then any road will get you there”is a wise, old adage. The Army G-1’sintent is that when the rest of theArmy reaches the objective state oftransformation in 2010, the personnelcommunity will already be theretransformed and ready for them.Therefore, the Army Personnel Trans-formation Task Force has laid downthe conceptual framework to serve asan intellectual road map for humanresources transformation. This frame-work supports the Army vision of“People, Readiness, and Transforma-tion” by providing a relevant, reliable,reachable multicomponent humanresources system with streamlinedbusiness processes, Web technology,and a realigned workforce.

Transformation: What It’s NotArmy personnel transformation is

not just the acquisition of a newautomation system. Instead, it willconvert outdated personnel processesand the myriad of “stovepiped” per-sonnel systems developed during theCold War into a coherent, singlehuman resource system to providereal-time, relevant information. Somesoldiers are already experiencing per-sonnel transformation when they logonto their Army Knowledge Online(AKO) account from anywhere in theworld and pull up their official mili-tary personnel file. When they finddocuments missing, they can digitallyscan and electronically transmit themrather than hand carry or mail theminto the Enlisted Records Center. Thiskind of self-service, direct-digitalinterface with personnel headquartersmeans soldiers don’t have to lose valu-able job productivity with a time-consuming trip to their unit’s person-

nel service battalion during dutyhours. Saving time and enhancingArmy productivity are a big part ofwhat Army transformation is about.

Army personnel transformation isnot the same as the Defense Inte-grated Military Human Resources Sys-tem (DIMHRS). DOD is congression-ally mandated and resourced todevelop and implement DIMHRSacross all our military Services.Although DIMHRS is an exciting andimportant part of our transformationplan, it does not cover all the person-nel capabilities needed by the Army’sObjective Force. In FY04, the Army willbe the first Service to begin fieldingDIMHRS, which will use a commercialoff-the-shelf software package calledPeopleSoft 8 to transform numerouspersonnel functions and integrate payfunctions. Army DIMHRS implemen-tation will move us along our journeytoward realizing our goal of providingmodern, world-class, Web-based,paperless personnel operations acrossall Army components—Active,National Guard, and Reserve.

Army personnel transformation isnot about simply automating existingpersonnel and pay processes or mak-ing small incremental improvements.It is not total quality management orcontinuous process improvement.Instead, personnel transformationseeks to radically change the way wedo personnel work by adopting notonly today’s best business practicesand Web technology, but also byfocusing on the capabilities and flexi-bility needed to manage the Armyforce in an uncertain world.

Life-Cycle FunctionsArmy personnel processes are

organized around the eight personnellife-cycle functions. These life-cycle

functions are the core of what the per-sonnel community provides. The needfor these functions will not go away,but how we perform them will dra-matically change.

• Structure. Balance force require-ments with distributable personnelinventory.

• Acquire. Recruit and retain bygrade and skill requirement againstthe current and planned force.

• Distribute. Assign personnelagainst mission priorities in an equi-table manner while considering sol-dier preferences and need for training.

• Develop. Forecast training loadsacross components, and balancecareer development with readiness.

• Deploy. Mobilize, track anddemobilize, and task-organize quicklyacross components.

• Compensate. Execute pay, bene-fits, and allowances.

• Sustain. Process awards, evalua-tions, and routine personnel actions.

• Transition. Move soldiersbetween National guard, Reserve, andActive duty until retirement; executeretiree recall.

Inherent in these functions is theneed to focus on the critical personnelprocesses that ensure combat readi-ness, such as strength account, casu-alty management, and replacementoperations.

To provide the capabilities neededfor our future Army, such as the abilityto “reach back” from the battlespaceto our supporting locations, we mustradically re-engineer how the eightlife-cycle functional processes per-form. (A process can be thought of asactivities designed to produce a speci-fied output, such as the evaluationprocess produces Officer and EnlistedEvaluation Reports.) For example, the

PERSONNEL TRANSFORMATION:THE JOURNEY CONTINUES

MG B. Sue Dueitt


evaluation process redesign mightconsist of using “voice-to-text” tech-nology to electronically transmit dic-tated evaluation information to areachback facility, where the computertranslates, prepares, and routes thereport for review and approval via e-mail within a matter of minutes.Clearly, Army personnel transforma-tion is about innovation and majorchanges to provide future humanresource capabilities to man theArmy’s Objective Force.

Three Major Pillars Most transformation efforts seem

to focus on three elements, or pillars,and personnel transformation is noexception. The three pillars are:

• Re-engineering of functionalprocesses and policies to achieveneeded capabilities,

• Leveraging of new technology toimprove functionalities, and

• Realignment of the organizationstructure and workforce.

Army personnel transformationseeks to define the capabilities neededto support an adaptive, future Armyworkforce that is evolving. First, thosepersonnel capabilities must beachieved through redesign andstreamlining of Army human resourcepolicies and processes. Many of thepersonnel policies and processes willbe imbedded in the computer soft-ware applications.

Second, personnel transformationwill exploit technology like wirelessand digital communications, theWorld Wide Web, and a centralizedpersonnel database for all compo-nents. This technology will improvethe speed, accuracy, and accessibilityof personnel systems. But of para-mount importance is the centralizedpersonnel data against which all per-sonnel functional applications willrun. One database means soldierrecords will no longer be “lost” whensoldiers transfer back and forth fromActive component to the NationalGuard or Reserve.

Third, the size, shape, and skills ofthe personnel community mustchange to better use our civilians and

contract support personnel, alongwith leveraging new technologies andcapabilities. The military and civilianworkforce will have fewer low-leveldata entry personnel and more cus-tomer service representatives.

Future OrganizationsPersonnel units in the future must

be able to respond across the fullspectrum of operations. We must havethe flexibility to modularize and tailorthe force in accordance with the needsof deployed units. The Army’s Interimand Objective Forces will require aresponsible personnel distributionsystem to task-organize “on the fly.” Itis well recognized that when futuredemands are unpredictable, an organ-ization may need to expand or con-tract in response to mission require-ments, and yet still be able to rapidlyassemble the right personnel to dealwith an evolving mission.

Modular personnel organizationshave a standard way of linkingselected professional staff, reconfig-urable process modules, “hunks” ofcodified knowledge, and commoncomputer-system protocols. When adeployment requires a modular per-sonnel cell forward, the personnel unitcan respond flexibly by deploying acustomized cell to feed transactions tothe reachback facility. Just like LEGOmodules are snapped together, cells ofpersonnel units might likewise be puttogether according to establishedrules.

Future Capabilities The Army personnel community

of 2010 could become a collection ofassets, managed as a purposeful,adaptive organization that provides anarray of capabilities. Joint and Armyplanning guidance stresses capabili-ties rather than requirements. Becauseit is impossible to predict the future,we must get better at reacting morequickly with flexible capabilities.Below is a list of capabilities to guideArmy personnel transformation:

• Reachback. Conduct personneland pay operations outside the battle-space, thus reducing footprint.

• Universal Access to Self-Service.Ensure all soldiers and employeeshave access to computers and AKO forreviewing and updating their person-nel and pay records.

• Intelligent Human Resource Soft-ware Applications. Embed “smart”links in the software to aid users. Forinstance, if a soldier inputs a namechange because of marriage, the intel-ligent software will show pop-upscreens with reminders and links foralso changing emergency contacts,insurance beneficiaries, will updates,tax withholding information, etc.

• Unobtrusive Records and Knowl-edge Management. Devise methods to automatically capture and storeunit records, plans, and other docu-ments. When an employee begins to type an operations order, a helpicon will automatically offer sampledocuments.

• Behavior Analysis and Correla-tion. Use online entrance and exitinterviews to track and analyzeemployee behavior. Analyze correla-tions between soldier behavior versustour lengths, compensation, militaryoccupational specialty, promotion,etc., to make better personnel policyjudgments in these areas.

ConclusionThe Army personnel transforma-

tion journey is like that of the Ameri-can pioneers who moved west inwagon trains. Just as those pioneerswere unable to specifically identifytheir homestead locations in advance,we also are unable to specifically iden-tify all of our transformation out-comes at this time. But just like thepioneers, we have no doubt that thedirection we are headed is the rightone.

MG B. SUE DUEITT is theAssistant Army Deputy Chief ofStaff, G-1, and Director of theArmy Personnel TransformationTask Force. She has a Ph.D. inadministration from the Univer-sity of Alabama and is a graduateof the Army War College.


IntroductionIn the Army vision, the Army Chief

of Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki states, “Themagnificence of our moments as anArmy will continue to be delivered byour people.” People are the Army’sgreatest asset and the heart and soul ofits readiness. As the Army transforms,its commitment to take care of the force(soldiers, veterans, retirees, civilians,and their families) remains. As such,the well-being of the force is a daily pur-suit for all commanders, who rely onhuman resource (HR) assets for sup-port. Personnel transformation, like theArmy transformation, will be executedby the HR community. As such, there isa need for significant change in ourDoctrine, Training, Leader Develop-ment, Organization, Materiel and Sol-diers (DTLOMS).

BackgroundTo meet the Army vision, the entire

HR community (the Army G-1, the U.S.Total Army Personnel Command, theAdjutant General School, and personnelorganizations Armywide) establishedthe personnel transformation.

The HR community initially soughtto use a single corporate database,redesign aging processes, and revisevarious structures to perform HR func-tions in support of the force. We knewour core mission would not change. TheArmy would continue to require trainedprofessionals focused on HR functionsbecause commanders cannot do thisalone. What would change are the“how” and “where” the functions areperformed. Vital to this transformationare the tools used for HR work. Theintent was a simple, accessible, accu-rate, reliable, relevant, and timely HRsystem of assets to provide services inthe right place and at the right time.

Concept Of SupportThe role of the HR community is to

man and help sustain the force. The HRcommunity deals with people distribu-tion requirements and conduct of casu-alty and replacement operations; pro-viding personnel and postal services;and coordinating morale, welfare, andrecreation services to help sustain com-bat readiness. How and where we sus-tain must be transformed. For thetransforming Army, HR support focuseson complementing the underlying prin-ciples of the Objective Force: respon-

sive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal,survivable, and sustainable.

To achieve this, HR efforts focusprimarily on two issues: system andstructure. The Defense Integrated Mili-tary Human Resources System(DIMHRS) is a system-of-systems solu-tion. DIMHRS is a database with Web-based applications for viewing,inputting, and managing personneldata. With a link to the Web, we canaccess data anytime, anywhere. Whenwe fully field DIMHRS, our structurewill center on unit of action (UA) S-1and unit of employment (UE) G-1 sec-tions as the HR operators of the Army.The proposed concept under reviewtoday phases out command and controlpersonnel units (personnel groups andbattalions) and replaces them with per-sonnel management centers (PMCs)that will oversee more than 1,000 per-sonnel tasks. PMCs, which augment S-1and G-1 sections, will belong to com-manders from battalion through theaterand will provide support from the homestation or from deployed locationsbased on the commander’s desire. TheS-1/G-1/PMC will employ the system,equipment, and people to provide HRsupport.

DTLOMS ImpactThese changes will significantly

affect DTLOMS and how the HR com-munity prepares for the future. A dis-cussion of recommended DTLOMS revi-sions follows.

Doctrine. Doctrine must reflect theincreased demands on the humanresource system. The bar of quality pre-cision, speed, and accuracy excellenceis raised with demands of the ObjectiveForce. As a result, doctrine must reflectthe change in “how” we sustain. Readi-

ness, reach, passive reports, and a shiftin “where” we support are key aspects.

The Objective Force will workunder a new construct of readinesscalled “train, alert, deploy.” This meanstraining before an alert and not after,and being ready to move out almostimmediately. The HR community’schallenge is to ensure HR support keepsthe force ready at all times. Soldierreadiness checks cannot take hours ordays. HR assets embedded in units givecommanders direct access and input toHR data. Soldiers will also have moreaccess and responsibility for their ownreadiness.

Web-based and wireless technologyenable our reach. Reach reduces thenumber of people who must deploywith the unit to maintain support. Withbetter reach, commanders can tailorsupport according to their particularmission requirements.

The Army is working to ensure thatthe Future Combat Systems (FCS) of theObjective Force interfaces withDIMHRS so that key data, such as per-sonnel strength figures, flow throughthe FCS. The intent is to allow soldiersto log onto DIMHRS via the FCS—inconcert with other technologyenablers—and update their status with-out additional human intervention.(FCS will have the technology to man-age tasks, such as tracking the fact thatcertain people are operating or ridingthe FCS.)

Commanders will rely on their S-1or G-1 sections and PMCs for HR sup-port, analysis, and advice. Coupled withsimple, accessible, and accurate sys-tems and the equipment to run them,these sections could respond to themost demanding support needs fromany location.

IMPLICATIONSFOR PERSONNELTRANSFORMATION

MAJ Douglas Ray Campbell


Training. HR operators will learn touse and manage systems and equip-ment. DIMHRS, for example, is a majorchange from the way business is trans-acted today and will require new train-ing. In addition to personnel functions,DIMHRS includes military pay func-tions that are not a part of the currentpersonnel system. Not only do HRoperators need training on DIMHRS,but also every soldier and leader musthave basic DIMHRS skills as well as anunderstanding of the combat powerleverage the systems can provide tocommanders.

The military occupational specialty(MOS) structure will change as will thetraining for those who already hold anMOS. MOSs in many specialties aremerging. The same is true for the Adju-tant General MOS. They will merge toreflect one system and meet the Army’sdesire for multiskilled soldiers. Thisaffects the TTHS (trainee, transient,holdee, and student) accounts as courselengths change and the volume of sol-diers to train increases. However, train-ing of all new recruits and current sol-diers will be challenged in the school-house. One way to deal with this isthrough distance learning (DL). Thistechnique relies on more technology aswell as smart and efficient teachingtechniques. DL also lets HR operatorsin the field sustain their training.Because HR assets will be unit assets,training must address both the con-cerns of the command as well as thefunctionals.

Leader Development. Trainingmust focus on “how to think” versus“what you think.” This training givesHR operators and leaders skills beyondmere equipment and automation usage.Leaders must have sound tactical andtechnical skills and know how to ana-lyze, think, and act proactively. Theymust possess a warrior ethos thatguides their thinking and professionaladvice. This way, they apply their HRskills in a way that meets functional andunit needs.

HR officers and noncommissionedofficers (NCOs) must be similarly suitedand skilled at all levels from battalion toHQDA. They are the HR experts for thecommander as well as mentors to sub-ordinates within the “HR chain.” A G-1should have the background and skillsto help his brigade S-1s while the

brigade S-1 in turn would do the samefor the battalion S-1.

NCOs and warrant officers will nat-urally rise from the enlisted ranks withinthe structure. The process will differ forofficers. Adjutant General officers willcontinue to provide the core of HR lead-ership, and most will start in branchdetail assignments. Other officers willmigrate to HR work through redesigna-tion. Either way, an important require-ment will involve developing them earlyin jobs such as battalion S-1.

Organization. The focal point willinclude fully manned and trained S-1and G-1 sections and PMCs. Personnelunits will be phased out to assign HRexperts at every command level. Notonly will the S-1 and G-1 sections andPMCs be the focus of support, they willalso become the central place to trainsoldiers and grow HR leaders.

These changes will achieve theArmy’s need for a reduced footprint inthe battlespace through improved con-nectivity and reach techniques. Withthe correct enablers such as Web-basedtechnology, connectivity, digitizedrecords access, passive accountability,and embedded capabilities in FCS, theHR community can reduce presenceand increase support and analysiscapability.

Materiel. Materiel needs requirecurrent or emerging technologies thatwe do not yet use. HR support enablersmust be embedded in or interface withthe FCS. The following are some exam-ples of required capabilities for theObjective Force:

• Passive capability for continuous,real-time reports of manning and casu-alty data;

• Voice-to-text features to report“variable” casualty data;

• A common view of manning andoperations from UA S-1 and UE G-1 toArmy G-1;

• In-transit view of replacementmovement;

• Exchange of critical HR data be-tween combat service support func-tional processes; and

• Tools to mesh course of action andloss projection with operational plansand orders.

The Army is currently developingthe following capabilities as keyenablers to remain in the FCS:

• Personnel module of the CombatService Support Control System,

• Weapons platform crew registra-tion and personnel situation reports ofForce XXI Battle Command Brigade andBelow, and

• Management module - dataexchange of Global Combat SupportSystem-Army.

Soldiers. As simple and reliable aswe need our equipment and system tobe, HR support depends on trained andskilled soldiers. Soldiers with the rightHR training and skills are invaluableassets to the commander and the Armyin general. They must be ready to oper-ate anywhere, anytime, and may requireself-reliance for long periods. They willhave to act quickly and handle muchdata with keen skill in little time.Although they train for war, they servedaily to help keep soldiers ready. Theyare the future HR leaders.

ConclusionFor 226 years, the human dimen-

sion of soldiering has been a crucialingredient for Army readiness. HR sup-port, specifically, will remain crucialduring the 21st century as the Armyundergoes a personnel transformationthat will be more than just a change inhow the HR community does business.Personnel transformation will changethe way the Army does business, andwill be a major paradigm shift—a cul-tural revolution involving the entireforce.

MAJ DOUGLAS RAY CAMP-BELL is the Action Officer for Per-sonnel Transformation at the Adju-tant General School, Soldier Sup-port Institute, Fort Jackson, SC. Hehas a bachelor’s degree from TheState University of New York.


IntroductionMore than a rollout of new soft-

ware and the creation of a commondatabase, the Defense IntegratedMilitary Human Resources System(DIMHRS), which is less than 2 yearsaway, will revolutionize the way theArmy conducts business.

The Army will be the first mili-tary Service to implement DOD’s sin-gle, integrated, Web-based militarypersonnel and pay system. The sys-tem will provide everyone in theArmy with personnel and pay man-agement tools that are more respon-sive and efficient. The target date forthe DIMHRS initial operating capa-bility is the third quarter of 2004.

The World Wide Web haschanged the way we shop, conductresearch, and talk to one another.Capturing the power of the Web forour new military personnel and paysystem will enable us to do things inthe Army that few thought possible.Modernizing the Army with a tech-nologically advanced system such asDIMHRS will mean that soldiers and commanders can be free to dothe business of soldiering. WithDIMHRS, Service members can feelconfident that their personnel andfinance information is correct andthat their families are supported.However, successful implementationwill require a great deal of work and

coordination among the Army, ArmyNational Guard, and Army Reserve,as well as all components of theNavy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

There are many in the Army whoremember how the introduction ofpersonal computers changed theworld. However, it wasn’t until wenetworked those individual systemsthat we began to see how technologycould really transform our lives.DIMHRS will bring the same dra-matic changes to the Army and DOD.Through standardization of data andsystem interoperability, warfightingcommanders will be able to “see” allof their joint assets—Active, NationalGuard, and Reserve. Commanderswill have better personnel planningtools, and soldiers will be able toaccess their files from anywhere, atanytime, via the Web.

SoftwareThe promise of DIMHRS is to

implement new technologies thatwill transform and streamline theArmy’s personnel and pay systems.The greatest challenge to implemen-tation is managing the necessarychange within the Army. In the past,we built new systems that fit ourcurrent business rules and proc-esses. With DIMHRS’ choice of a pure Internet commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software product,PeopleSoft 8, we will have a systemthat already works. We just need tomake sure it will work for us.

ChallengesFor the Army, that challenge is

twofold. We must ensure that theDIMHRS functionality can deliverwhat the Army needs and ensure thatthe Army community trusts that itwill perform every time. The only

A Call To Arms . . .

INTEGRATING PERSONNELAND PAY SYSTEMS

IN THE 21ST CENTURY ARMY

Paula Davis

Capturing the power of the Webfor our new military personneland pay system will enable us

to do things in the Armythat few thought possible.


way we can clear those hurdles is toengage the talent of proponent agen-cies, within all three components, tovalidate that DIMHRS will deliver therequired functionality.

Part of the process will include ashift in the Army’s mindset. To adopta COTS product means changinghow the Army thinks about person-nel and pay business. Getting thedesired result is more important thanhow business has been done in thepast. Using the best practices embed-ded in the DIMHRS COTS choice,PeopleSoft 8, will help streamlinebusiness practices. “There won't be aperfect fit,” said COL Kevin Troller,Deputy, Army DIMHRS Office, “butto best capitalize on the benefits ofthe software, we must adopt businesspractices, not adapt what we cur-rently do.”

DIMHRS will consolidate most ofthe current legacy system capabilitiesinto one single application that isintuitive and simple to use. Thestrength of DIMHRS will also trans-form the human resources commu-nity and make it more responsive tothe needs of its soldiers and theirfamilies.

Desktop access to standardreports and custom query capabili-ties are additional benefits thatDIMHRS provides. Meaningfulinsights from current, accurate datawill support commander decision-making processes at all levels.

Any revolution faces skepticismand a reluctance to change. ForDIMHRS to succeed within the giventimeframes, members of the Armycommunity must be informed thatchange is coming. Additionally, sol-diers and leaders must understandwhy change is necessary and,through teamwork, build a commit-ment for success.

With the selection of PeopleSoft 8as the commercial software forDIMHRS, we will have a system thatis much more efficient and powerfulthan the hundreds of legacy systemsnow employed by the four ArmedServices. PeopleSoft 8 is an enter-prise, Web-based system employed inboth private and public organiza-tions. For example, Ford Motor Co.

has implemented PeopleSoft 8, and97 percent of their functions are self-service via the Web. Additionally,other federal agencies, including theU.S. Coast Guard, have successfullyimplemented PeopleSoft 8. It worksand it works well.

Why should those outside of thepersonnel and pay community care?Because everything we do as an insti-tutional Army starts with the soldier.We must understand that how wecapture and translate facts about sol-diers will ultimately affect how wemobilize, outfit, and promote them.The challenge is to make this systemwork for all DOD military Services.

Changing ProcessesWe are currently changing from a

multitude of duplicative, labor-intensive processes to a system thatknows the rules and guides its users.When the Army integrates personneland pay systems, soldiers will auto-matically get the pay raise from apromotion and the adjustment tobasic allowance for housing whenorders are cut for a permanentchange of station. Reserve membersand their families will benefit fromone personnel and pay system thattracks them regardless of their status.In a multi-Service, multicomponentarena, all Service members deservethe seamless support that integratedprocesses and systems can provide.

The scale of the changes inherentin implementing DIMHRS is hard tooverstate. Hundreds of systems cur-rently employed by the Services willbe replaced. Data must be “cleansed

and validated” and then migrated toa common database. Members of allServices must find common groundfor personnel and pay actions. Anissue-resolution process will addressthe requirements not fitting into thePeopleSoft 8 functionality. DOD’sJoint Requirements and IntegrationOffice is engaged in meeting thatchallenge.

The Navy is the executive agentfor DIMHRS, and the Joint ProgramManagement Office (JPMO) islocated in New Orleans, LA. TheJPMO will work with a soon-to-be-named developer/implementer con-tractor whose job will entail furtheranalysis of the PeopleSoft 8, design-ing and building the system, anddeploying DIMHRS in the field. Suc-cess will hinge on the knowledge andcommitment of subject matterexperts and the support of the mili-tary leadership.

ConclusionThe establishment of the Army

DIMHRS Office and the Army Per-sonnel Transformation Task Force aresigns of commitment by the Army’sleadership. “A transformed Armymust have a human resource systemthat meets the Army’s manning andreadiness needs while deliveringservices necessary for our soldier’swell-being,” said LTG John M. LeMoyne, the Army’s G-1. He added,“DIMHRS will provide the integrated,cross-component, Web-based capa-bilities that we need to build that sys-tem.” The Army must commit thenecessary resources and talents nowto ensure that DIMHRS is success-fully implemented on time. It is a callto arms for all of us to deliver on ourpromise to our soldiers.

PAULA DAVIS is the Director ofthe Army DIMHRS Office. She is agraduate of the Industrial Collegeof the Armed Forces and holds amaster's degree in public adminis-tration from Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity. She can be reached [email protected].

We must understandthat how we capture

and translate factsabout soldiers

will ultimately affecthow we mobilize, outfit,

and promote them.


IntroductionAt the March 2001 Personnel

Leaders Meeting, Army Chief of StaffGEN Eric K. Shinseki described hisvision of Army transformation for theassembled senior leaders. At the con-clusion of the address, Shinseki wasasked what three things he neededmost from the personnel communityto support Army transformation. Itwas an excellent question at thetime—one for which there was no realanswer, but also one that should beused today to frame some importantdynamics of change.

Change PhilosophiesMany of us have read or heard the

philosophies of Jack Welch, formerCEO of General Electric Co. for 20years. In his book Jack: Straight fromthe Gut, he states, “I’ve always be-lieved that when the rate of changeinside an institution becomes slowerthan the rate of change outside, theend is in sight.” Shinseki has also saidto many Army audiences, “If you don’tlike change, you’ll like irrelevanceeven less.”

It is intuitive that transformationinvolves change, but why do so manywant to get credit for transformingwithout substantially changing? Whyis change so hard? In 1513 A.D., politi-cal philosopher Machiavelli is believedto have said, “Nothing is more difficultthan to introduce a new order becausethe innovator has, for enemies, allthose who have done well under theold conditions and lukewarm defend-ers in those who may do well underthe new.”

We can describe many militaryreactions to change as almost schizo-phrenic in nature. On the one hand,we can honesty boast that we havechanged tremendously throughoutour history. You often hear, “Of coursewe can change; we change all thetime; just tell us what you want us tochange and we’ll do it!” Author PeterSenge says in his book The Fifth Disci-pline: The Art and Practice of theLearning Organization, “In a tradi-tional hierarchial organization, . . . allfolks needed was [sic] their ‘marchingorders.’” On the other hand, we areoften quite defensive about change.You hear words to the effect, “Change?

Why change? Change to what? Whychange when we aren’t sure what theObjective Force will look like orrequire?”

One reason we’ve become sodefensive about change is that it’s nor-mally associated with more work andfewer resources. Many senior leadersinvoke change but rarely identify forus what we can stop doing when weincorporate the new good idea. Isn’t ittrue that change is more readilyaccepted when you can see clearlythat work is eliminated, improved, orat least adequately resourced? Trans-formation is as much about what notto do as what to do. You’ve heard itsaid, “To change and to change for thebetter are two different things.”Change needs to ultimately improvethe organization, not just make itdifferent.

Leading ChangeAt the Army War College (AWC),

where we educate future senior lead-ers, we address change managementas an important strategic leader com-petency for the future. Change is asintegral to future strategic leadershipas is any other single operational orconceptual theme. Yet, we see thesame reluctance to change here aselsewhere in the Army. Not surprising,you say, because future senior leadersare simply a product of the environ-ment and culture in which they havethrived. Their separate branches orfunctional areas emphasize, more orless, the institutional doctrinal andconceptual foundations upon which

their contributions to the overall Armyare based. A recent speaker at theAWC described much of the resistanceto change in our military Services asthe result of building communitieswith “tribal representatives operatingtribal machines that can only be inter-preted by tribal representatives.”

In the personnel community (andcorrespondingly in other supportcommunities), should there be re-sistance to change when we can see so clearly that we are not deliveringfull-spectrum support to our full-spectrum force? We ask ourselves,“Why haven’t we had more innovationin our past? Why do we find ourselvesin 2002 with outdated processes andsystems and questions about rele-vance?” No need to dwell on them, butwe should use lessons learned in tack-ling the critical transformation facingus today.

It seems we’ve previously left“change management” to a relativelysmall group of people in our commu-nity and have been entirely too cau-tious about technology and innova-tion. We weren’t able to integrate theentire personnel community withprocesses and systems that workedtop to bottom and back again. Thereare lots of reasons for this—inade-quate resources, decentralizedapproach, etc. We all know the horrificresults: hundreds of stand-alone andunintegrated systems with unintendedconsequences; unreconcilable man-ning statistics and sources; and sys-tems that poorly support mobiliza-tion, deployments, or integration ofour vital Reserve components. To our

PERSONNELTRANSFORMATION:

THE DYNAMICSOF CHANGE

COL Ruth B. Collins


community’s credit, we have put allthat ugliness upfront in our personneltransformation campaign and areconcentrating on resourcing a vital,achievable, future vision.

Change DynamicsHow do change dynamics of our

personnel transformation link to thoseof Army transformation? This leads towhat I believe are good responses tothe question asked of Shinseki lastyear, “What three things do you needmost from the personnel communityin support of Army transformation?”

• Be a committed leader of changeyourself. Take a leading role in produc-ing and managing the desired effectsof Army and personnel transformationand help communicate the strategiesto the rest of the organization. Don’tpersonally take on all the issues, butco-opt and solicit enthusiastic supportfrom those around you. Be guilty ofneither nearsightedness nor farsight-edness in establishing the immediateand long-term requirements for yourpart of the personnel community.Don’t wander without focus or watchothers do the same. Peter Senge, againin his book The Fifth Discipline: TheArt and Practice of the LearningOrganization, reminds us, “Without a pull toward some goal which peopletruly want to achieve, the forces insupport of the status quo can beoverwhelming.”

• Go after the latest technologywith a passion. Realize that com-mercial products offer many solutionsin systems, processes, and practices.The selection of PeopleSoft 8 for theDefense Integrated Military HumanResources System is a great start, butwe can’t sit back and wait 2 to 4 yearsfor that small group of others to plopsolutions in front of us without mak-ing an investment between now andthen. Find technology and processsolutions for what you do every day,and enable the bright, technicallyadvanced soldiers, warrant officers,civilians, and contractors to do thesame. Transformation is in the inge-nuity of our young folks. They arecomputer savvy and can handle thesimultaneous audio, visual, and sen-sory inputs that many of us cannot.

Guide our young folks; empower andresource them to the greatest extentpossible, every day. Fight for imple-mentation of their solutions becauseyou know how truly critical they are toproviding battlefield and institutionalsupport to our fighting men andwomen.

• Be a confidence agent for soldiersthrough the change period. We mustanticipate increased anxiety withinthe force as a result of transformationunknowns. Because of our responsi-bility to support our soldiers, we havethe unique challenge of not only man-aging our own change, but helpingothers understand and find confi-dence in the bigger Army. We are“keepers of the keys” to lifeblood sys-tems that result in pay, reassignments,promotions, services, and the fullrange of Army programs that touchsoldiers, veterans, retirees, families,and others where it counts. They willlook to us through the change periodfor assurances that the Army will stilltake care of them and their families.Our signals will directly impact man-ning and retention.

Change ResistanceIt’s important that we ask our-

selves, “Do we now have enough ofthe right folks at all levels working and‘owning’ personnel transformation?”Also, are we perpetuating that thetragic, untimely loss of former DeputyChief of Staff for Personnel LTG TimMaude on September 11, 2001, is theeffective end of our masterful changeopportunity? I hope not, but weshould face what might be causing usto hold back from supporting neededchanges. Like many of you, I linger onthe personnel lost and the opportuni-ties lost when the former DCSPER andhis office were hit. But I also know thatLTG Maude and all those lost wouldexpect each of us to aggressively fueltheir envisioned changes, which thenew Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1,is so capably leading today.

One last aspect about changeresistance, one that runs head-on withwhat’s valued in our culture: Whenyou change from something popularto something unpopular, even whenyou sense it to be the right thing, it is asignificant dynamic. Changing from

something unpopular to somethingpopular is always easier. For usmilitary personnelists, who for thesepast 8 years tasted the fruits of ourcommand-centric culture, it isextremely difficult to see the uncertainfuture. This is a dynamic for all organi-zations, causing emotions to run highand change barriers to be formidable.We should not take this lightly, butcontinue to explore the future envi-ronment and the transformed place inour Army that values excellence inoperational, yet functional areas.

ConclusionChange cannot occur without

willing and committed followers. All ofus are both leaders and followers inevery aspect of personnel transforma-tion. We must set the conditions andresource “strategies within strategies”to make this complex change occureffectively for the good of our commu-nity, and more importantly, for ourArmy. Personnel transformation, likeArmy transformation, is not a “be all,end all” plan. We have alternatives,vulnerabilities, challenges, andinterim successes and failures. Byunderstanding and focusing on thedynamics of change, we can, as theprofessional and capable team that we are, better execute personneltransformation.

COL RUTH B. COLLINS is aFaculty Member at the U.S. ArmyWar College in the Department ofCommand, Leadership, and Man-agement. She is a subject matterexpert on manning the force andteaches courses on military per-sonnel management and strategicleadership. She is an AdjutantGeneral Corps Officer with 28years service in a wide range ofoperational assignments. Herundergraduate degree is from theUniversity of Kentucky, and shehas an M.A. in human resourcesmanagement from PepperdineUniversity.


IntroductionTomorrow’s battlefield has been

described as a complex environment,filled with new equipment and tech-nologies. If our forces are to domi-nate in this environment, they willdo so as a result of more than justhaving superior equipment. Real bat-tlefield effectiveness is the product ofa good match between the peoplewho operate and maintain theequipment and the equipment itself.Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric K. Shin-seki recognized this relationshipwhen he wrote that the soldierremains the centerpiece of ourformation.

At the heart of the Army visionare well-trained soldiers using state-of-the-art equipment to win wars.The Army’s program to ensure thatsoldier issues are the critical driversin system design, development, andacquisition is called MANPRINT(manpower and personnel integra-tion; generally known as human sys-tems integration or HSI throughoutDOD). The objectives of MANPRINTare as follows:

• Optimize both the quantity andquality of the personnel needed forthe system,

• Design training so that it isappropriate for the capabilities of thesoldier and the conditions under

which the equipment will be oper-ated and maintained, and

• Design systems that are easilyused by soldiers, are safe to operate,cause no unnecessary health prob-lems, and maximize soldiersurvivability.

MANPRINT is the process bywhich acceptable trade-offs aremade among performance, design,and soldier issues. It includes thefollowing seven domains:

• Manpower. Number of militaryand civilian personnel required andpotentially available to operate,maintain, sustain, and provide train-ing for systems.

• Personnel Capabilities.Required cognitive and physicalcapabilities of personnel to train,operate, maintain, and sustainmateriel and information systems.

• Training. Instruction, educa-tion, on-the-job training, or unittraining required to provide per-sonnel and units with their essentialjob skills, knowledge, values, andattitudes.

• Human Factors Engineering.Integration of cognitive and physicalcharacteristics into system defini-tion, design, development, and eval-uation to optimize human-machineperformance.

• System Safety. Design and op-erating characteristics of a system

that minimize the human ormachine errors or failures that cause accidents.

• Health Hazards. Design andoperating characteristics of a systemthat create significant risks of bodilyinjury or death; threats include loudnoise, chemical and biological sub-stances, extreme temperatures, andradiation energy.

• Soldier Survivability. Character-istics of a system that can reducefratricide, detectability, and probabil-ity of attack, as well as minimize sys-tem damage, personal injury, andcognitive and physical fatigue.

The MANPRINT processaddresses trade-offs within andamong these domains. For example,what are the implications within andacross the domains of personnelcapabilities, human factors engineer-ing, and training with regard toincreasing or decreasing the knowl-edge and skill demands associatedwith a particular operator or mainte-nance position? Optimizing the sys-tem from the perspective of a singledomain is insufficient; one mustconsider the interactions and trade-offs among all of the domains. Forexample, in considering the design ofa system interface involving highinformation rates and substantialcomplexity, one could take severalapproaches:

MANPRINTPERSPECTIVES

ON PERSONNELTRANSFORMATIONDr. Michael Drillings and Dr. Thomas Killion


• Limit operators to soldiers hav-ing above-average knowledge, skills,and abilities;

• Develop and implement spe-cialized training programs that sup-port a wide range of soldiers;

• Use intelligent agents and othersoftware processing techniques toplace a greater burden on the sys-tem and reduce the workload of thesoldier;

• Use some combination of theabove.

The approach adopted would bebased on trade-offs involving per-sonnel availability, technical feasibil-ity and complexity, developmentcosts, operations and maintenancecosts, maintenance implications, andother factors. The application ofMANPRINT techniques not onlyresults in more usable systems, butalso improves the operational effec-tiveness of systems.

Strategic Value The Army developed the

MANPRINT process to promote theconsideration of soldier issues atevery stage of the system acquisitionprocess. MANPRINT has been shownto be effective in improving systemperformance and in reducing overalllife-cycle costs. For example, ananalysis of MANPRINT issues in thedevelopment of the Comanche heli-copter found that the application ofMANPRINT would result in a pro-jected cost avoidance of $3.29 billionover the life cycle of the Comanchefleet. The savings will be the result ofmajor design influences in most ofthe Comanche’s systems. For in-stance, the design of the Comancheis optimized for easy maintenance. Aportable, intelligent maintenance aidcontributes to speedy fault identifi-cation and reduction in the rate ofunnecessary parts replacement.Accessibility has been eased for mostmajor components, and the enginemaintenance tool set was reduced

from the typical 100-plus tools toonly 6. These design features andothers reduce the number of mainte-nance personnel, reduce the cost ofmaintenance and parts, and greatlyimprove system availability, whilealso reducing the number of unitsrequired to accomplish missions. TheComanche Program was particularlysignificant in that MANPRINT princi-ples were incorporated from thebeginning, with MANPRINT issuesreceiving significant weight in thesource selection process.

Task/Functional AnalysesThe MANPRINT process employs

task and functional analyses andmodeling to optimize soldier effi-ciency in operating and maintainingsystems. These analyses, matchedwith the relevant personnel attrib-utes and well-planned training, canreduce the manpower requirementsfor a system or system-of-systems.Minimizing soldier risks in terms ofhealth hazards, safety, and soldiersurvivability decreases the potentialfor unnecessary casualties, thusincreasing readiness rates and reduc-ing the total system manpowerrequirements.

Because early design decisionsare so critical to life-cycle costs,MANPRINT must be employed earlyin a system’s development cycle tomaximize out-year operations andsupport savings. Failure to applyMANPRINT concepts to design canresult in systems with inadequateperformance, excessive manpowerand personnel requirements, and sig-nificant health threats. (See “WhyMANPRINT Makes Sense for Stream-lined Acquisition,” J. Hiller and T. Kil-lion, Army RD&A, November-Decem-ber 1995, Page 20.)

The heart of the MANPRINTprocess is its outreach to programmanagers and contractors. With thenecessary education and appro-priate tools and methods, programmanagers better understand theMANPRINT process and how it


contributes to reduced life-cyclecosts, optimizes total system per-formance, and enables warfighters towin on the battlefield.

Army TransformationThe Army’s transformation to

the Objective Force is characterizedby both materiel and personnelchanges. New materiel systems, suchas Future Combat Systems, must notonly meet performance require-ments, but must also meet standardsof personnel affordability. If thefuture Army is characterized by sys-tems that need too many operatorsand maintainers, with too highly spe-cialized skills, where the training istoo long and expensive, the Army willhave failed in its transformation. It isthe role of the MANPRINT Programto address such concerns throughoutthe design process.

The Army transformation’s use ofnew, advanced technologies willrequire soldiers with new skills. Theaccelerated transformation schedulerequires that tentative design deci-sions, made early in the acquisitioncycle, be quickly and effectively eval-uated by the MANPRINT community.Inadequate design decisions, madeearly in the acquisition cycle, can becompensated for later, such asthrough product improvements, butusually with significantly adverseconsequences for the life-cycle costsof the system. Experience has shownthat decisions made early in the lifecycle of a system largely determinetotal life-cycle costs. To improvethose decisions, project managersmust be continually kept up-to-date on new information aboutMANPRINT and how they can beassured that their systems are com-pliant with MANPRINT guidance.

Personnel TransformationTo achieve the ambitious goals of

the Objective Force, our personnelsystems are also undergoing trans-

formation. The Army Deputy Chief ofStaff, G-1, has initiated an effort tophase out “stovepiped,” burdensomepersonnel management and supportsystems and replace them with anintegrated, commercially based, mul-tifunctional system. MANPRINT canand will play a role in these develop-ments in two ways. First, just as it isapplied to weapon systems, theMANPRINT process must be appliedto information systems. The goal is tomake such systems more usable,both for the operators and maintain-ers and for the customers (i.e., lead-ers and soldiers). Minimizing thepersonnel burden associated withoperating and maintaining this inte-grated system can result in signifi-cant life-cycle resource savings.Providing more comprehensive, inte-grated information to decisionmak-ers will result in more effective andefficient personnel management. Inaddition, providing an interface tothe soldier that is easy to understandand use and that requires minimumtraining, decreases access time, andincreases quality of life. This isaccomplished through faster accessto critical information, more rapidresolution of problems, reduced frus-tration, etc.

Second, application ofMANPRINT to the design of Objec-tive Force systems will enable theArmy to more effectively manage thepersonnel requirements associatedwith those systems. Informed designshould allow us to develop systemsthat are optimized for future soldierswith regard to demographic charac-teristics, the knowledge and skillsthey bring to the situation, the train-ing systems available, and so on.Synergistically, improved personnelmanagement and effective systemdesign will facilitate the realization ofan Objective Force that has both themateriel and personnel to achievedominance on the future battlefield.

SummaryMANPRINT puts the soldier at

the center of the design process—equipping the soldier rather thanmanning the equipment. As theArmy undergoes transformation tothe Objective Force, it is as impor-tant as ever to apply thoughtfulMANPRINT processes to the designof our future systems. This includesnot only weapon systems, but alsopersonnel management and supportsystems. MANPRINT, therefore, has adual role in personnel transforma-tion: minimizing the burden onfuture personnel through informedweapon system design, and aiding inthe creation of personnel informa-tion systems with low overhead thateffectively support both leaders andsoldiers.

DR. MICHAEL DRILLINGS is the Deputy Director forMANPRINT in the Office of theArmy Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.He was formerly the Chief, Re-search and Advanced ConceptsOffice, U.S. Army Research Insti-tute for the Behavioral and SocialSciences. He has a Ph.D. in experi-mental psychology from the Uni-versity of Connecticut.

DR. THOMAS KILLION is theDirector for MANPRINT in theOffice of the Army Deputy Chief ofStaff, G-1. He was formerly theU.S. Army Research LaboratoryLiaison to the Office of the DeputyAssistant Secretary of the Army forResearch and Technology and theActing Deputy Director forResearch in that office. He has aPh.D. in experimental psychologyfrom the University of Oregon.


IntroductionThe concept of Army transforma-

tion moves us beyond the idea ofincremental change. Army transfor-mation recognizes emerging andprojected changes in the strategic,technological, and social environ-ment, and generates doctrinal, orga-nizational, and functional conceptsto ensure that the Army can meet thenew challenges associated with thesechanges. The role of soldiers in thistransformation is stated plainly inthe Army vision (2002): “The Army ispeople. Soldiers … are the center-piece of our formation.”

The Army must manage its com-plex personnel needs and personnelsupport systems with the most effec-tive and efficient automated toolsavailable. Just as Army transforma-tion must move beyond incrementalchange to meet the changed environ-ment in which the Army is expectedto operate, so too must personneltransformation move beyond incre-mental change to the existing per-sonnel systems, policies, and proce-dures if these are to meet the require-ments of the Objective Force. Currentsystems are barely sufficient in com-plexity, sophistication, and integra-tion to meet existing needs and will

require a major overhaul to meet theneeds of an information-intensivefuture Army.

While the architecture of futurehuman resource information systemsis critical, the information that is fedinto this architecture is equally criti-cal. The success of personnel trans-formation can be gauged by whetherthe systems put capable and moti-vated soldiers in place to perform thefunctions of the Objective Force. Thisarticle discusses information ele-ments that support the identificationand placement of such soldiers.These information elements will beused to match applicants to organi-zational needs. They support, first,the selection decision—determiningwho is qualified to serve in the Army.Next comes the classification deci-sion—how are soldiers best matchedto jobs to achieve maximum organi-zational benefit? Then, the promo-tion decision—who is best suited toadvance to the next higher organiza-tional level?

Selection And ClassificationEach of these decisions is based

on judgments about what personalattributes are most critical to suc-cessful performance for the position

in question. At the beginning of thepersonnel selection process, theprincipal selection determinant isthe combined score from the cogni-tive aptitude test battery, the ArmedServices Vocational Aptitude Battery(ASVAB). Also taken into account iswhether the individual is a highschool graduate.

Even before the Army transfor-mation vision had taken hold, thepotential benefits of expanding onthese tools for enlisted selection pur-poses was considered. In the 1980sand 1990s, the U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral andSocial Sciences examined a variety ofspatial, psychomotor, and motiva-tional measures as candidates toaugment the ASVAB. The results ledto the administration of a new spatialtest in the ASVAB and the use of amotivational instrument as a screen-ing tool in an ongoing experimentalprogram to expand the recruitingmarket known as GED (General Edu-cational Development) Plus.

Future Selection AndClassification

Now our focus is on the future.We are examining how changes inthe international environment and in

SELECTION ANDASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

TO SUPPORTPERSONNEL

TRANSFORMATION

Dr. Michael G. Rumsey


the Army are likely to lead to changesin the nature of jobs and in success-ful performance in these jobs. Thisrequires researching a variety of writ-ten sources and interviewing expertson future doctrine, equipment, capa-bilities, threats, and other relevantfactors. This information will then beconsolidated and used to identifyknowledge, skill, and behavioralattributes (KSBs) needed for futuresuccess.

An initial exploration of require-ments for future jobs led to the iden-tification of several KSBs needed dur-ing the next several years. Cognitiveaptitude is likely to remain impor-tant, as are specific skills such asreading, oral communication, self-management, and working memory.A number of noncognitive or motiva-tional attributes were also identified,including conscientiousness, emo-tional stability, and need to achieve.

We are building on this earlierwork, focusing on evolving conceptsregarding the Objective Force andtheir impact on soldier jobs. Oncethe research to determine the revisedlist of KSBs is complete, the nextchallenge is how to measure them.Attributes that cannot be measuredcannot be a factor in enlistedselection.

We will identify or develop meas-ures of the most promising attrib-utes, then evaluate the extent towhich they can be used to improveon current selection measures. Theevaluation will ask the question: Howwell do these measures predict per-formance? Because our measures aredesigned to predict performance inObjective Force jobs, we must striveto develop measures that addresssuch performance.

For selection, we can examinejob demands that are fairly common

across military occupational special-ties. For classification, or individualjob matching, we must identifydemands that are differentiallyimportant across jobs or are uniqueto certain jobs or groups of jobs. Theeffort is complicated in a number ofways. First, one needs to identify theObjective Force jobs. Second, oneneeds to determine if these jobs canbe clustered on the basis of commonjob demands so the effort of deter-mining demands in multiple jobs canbe scaled back to a reasonable level.Third, one needs to explore thesejobs at a unit of analysis that willfacilitate cross-job comparisons. Ourfirst effort will involve identificationof two or more groupings of futurejobs that are sufficiently divergent interms of their demands to likelyrequire differing KSB profiles. Then,in a follow-up effort, we will identifymore discrete job groupings to


increase our ability to use differentialclassification.

Promotion DecisionsThe process of identifying the

characteristics of those who shouldbe promoted is similar to the proc-ess of identifying who should beselected. The issue remains: Who isbest qualified to perform a particularjob? In this case, the job is at the nexthigher organizational level. The samequestions are asked: What are the jobdemands now, and how are thesedemands likely to be impacted byfuture changes? Then, the projectedjob demands are used as a basis fordetermining the required KSBs at thenext level. We are nearing completionof a project, known as 21st CenturyNCOs (noncommissioned officers),which is focused on identifying theserequired future attributes and ondeveloping promotion tools based onthem.

From this project, we have iden-tified a variety of KSBs. A number ofthose identified as important for jun-ior enlisted soldiers were also identi-fied as important for NCOs, includ-ing cognitive aptitude, oral commu-nication skill, self-management skill,conscientiousness, emotional stabil-ity, and work motivation. In addition,a number of supervisory skills wereidentified as well as such complexattributes as understanding how tomanage multiple battlefieldfunctions.

Identifying these KSBs was animportant first step, but until theycould be measured, they could notbe useful in guiding promotion deci-sions. A number of diverse measure-ment approaches were pursued, inpart, to provide multiple measures ofthe same attributes and, in part, toaddress the particular challenges ofmeasuring certain KSBs. Measure-ment approaches included self-reports of attitudes and prior per-sonal history, situational and cogni-

tive aptitude measures, andinterviews.

A final step was to determinewhether these attributes actuallycould differentiate between thosewho could perform the NCO require-ments of the 21st century from thosewho could not. Such an evaluationrequired the development of per-formance measures that were sensi-tive to the job requirements of the21st century. The job dimensionsidentified by our future-oriented jobanalyses were translated into ratingscales to be used by supervisors. Theattribute measures have now beenadministered to a large number ofjob incumbents and linked to thesesupervisor ratings.

The findings supported thepotential of these KSB measures forimproving promotion decisions.Work motivation and leadership werefound to have particularly strongrelationships with performance rat-ings. Discussions with sponsor repre-sentatives concerning how thesemeasures might be used in a mod-ernized enlisted promotion systemhave already begun.

ConclusionA critical goal in the develop-

ment of new personnel tools is tomeld them into an integrated assess-ment and development program.Selection and promotion decisionsare not independent—selection pro-vides the pool of applicants fromwhich NCOs are chosen. Nor areassessment and development inde-pendent. The attributes that areidentified for selection and promo-tion are also ones that we want todevelop in our enlisted soldiers.Thus, as we develop our assessmenttools, we are also exploring ways thatthese can be used for developmentalpurposes. These tools will also bedeveloped so that they are compati-ble with the vision of a transformed

automated personnel managementsystem.

Our efforts in developing newenlisted assessment tools are pavingthe way for the envisioned develop-ment of new officer assessment tools.The challenges for future enlistedand officer selections are similar:both need to be based on ObjectiveForce job requirements. The effortsinvolved in identifying the character-istics of Objective Force jobs will helplay the foundation for identifyingKSBs for both enlisted and officerpersonnel. Many of the measuresdeveloped for enlisted assessmentmay have applicability, with perhapssome modifications, for officerassessment. The processes of officerselection and promotion are differentfrom those of enlisted selection andclassification, so the manner inwhich attribute measures are usedfor officer assessment may well differfrom the manner in which they areused for enlisted assessment, but thegoal in either case is the same—toidentify the most qualified individu-als for a particular job.

DR. MICHAEL G. RUMSEY isthe Acting Technical Director ofthe U.S. Army Research Institutefor the Behavioral and Social Sci-ences. He received his doctorate insocial psychology from PurdueUniversity. Rumsey has authoredor co-authored more than 40 pub-lications and presentations in thefields of selection and classifica-tion, performance measurement,test development and validation,and individual differences, includ-ing senior editorship of the 1994Erlbaum book Personnel Selectionand Classification.


Introduction The transformation of the Army

to the Objective Force, and the per-sonnel transformation that supportsit, will involve changes in the waythe Army handles areas such asrecruitment, retention, job assign-ments, training, performance, andreadiness. To fine-tune the evolvingprocess, determine how soldiers areadapting to the changing environ-ment, and ensure success, the Armyneeds a continuous feedback loopbetween the field and Army deci-sionmakers. Attitude and opinionsurveys conducted by the ArmyResearch Institute (ARI) for theBehavioral and Social Sciences are a critical tool in providing this feedback.

This article addresses the advan-tages of using surveys, how surveysuse emerging technologies, and howsurvey results are applied.

Survey AdvantagesAttitude and opinion surveys can

provide valuable information be-cause survey data meet importantcriteria. Surveys can be designed toprovide data that are quantifiable,valid, reliable, objective, compara-ble, replicable, capable of being gen-eralized, and capable of indicatingtrends. As such, surveys provide the

Army with a highly cost-efficientmeans of assessing issues thatimpact soldiers and theirdependents.

Using New Technologies The personnel portion of the

Army’s transformation puts strongemphasis on streamlining and usingthe Web for personnel businessprocesses. In line with this empha-sis, ARI has developed tools for con-ducting automated surveys usingPCs, the Internet, and a Web sitemaintained by Army KnowledgeOnline (AKO). As soon as soldiersgain full access to the Internet anduse AKO regularly, the Army will beable to increase use of the Internetto conduct surveys. Significanteconomies can be realized in termsof both time and money for distribu-tion, administration, and return ofsurveys, as well as for analysis andreporting of results.

Automated surveys will alsodecrease the burden on individualrespondents. Currently, ARI uses theSample Survey of Military Personnel,an omnibus survey, to consolidatetopics identified by proponent agen-cies and activities in the Army intoone survey, thus reducing surveyproliferation. Automating surveyswill reduce the footprint even fur-

ther. For example, the Army will beable to conduct shorter surveysbecause surveys can be designed toautomatically direct individuals pasttopics that are not relevant to them.In addition, the use of automatedsurveys will eliminate scanning ofsurvey response sheets and will facil-itate faster data analyses.

Using Survey ResultsIn the past, Army sponsors or

proponents, special panels, commit-tees, working groups, and seniorArmy leaders used survey findingsfor a variety of purposes. The follow-ing are some examples:

• Supporting requests forimproving retirement benefits,

• Determining policy changesneeded to reduce the number ofcommand declinations,

• Justifying required housingsquare footage,

• Determining the need for dis-semination of information (e.g., forclarification of personnel policies),and

• Determining reasons for join-ing or leaving the Army.

In the future, with respect to theArmy transformation, survey resultswill be used for the following:

HOW ARMYRESEARCH INSTITUTE

SURVEYS SUPPORTARMY TRANSFORMATION

Dr. Alma G. Steinberg, Dr. Morris P. Peterson,and Sidney F. Fisher


• Monitoring current attitudesand perceptions of soldiers and theirfamilies,

• Tracking soldier perceptions ofand reactions to transformationactions and policies,

• Identifying problem areas, and• Providing input for solutions.

Survey areas that ARI will moni-tor relating to the transformation andits impact include morale, motiva-tion, training needs, career goals,satisfaction with job assignments,and assessments of well-being andreadiness.

ConclusionARI surveys can help ensure the

success of the Army’s transformationby providing timely information thatArmy leaders need to make informeddecisions. As the transformationprogresses, surveys will take advan-tage of Web technology. This willresult in surveys that are less time-consuming, more efficient, and eas-ier for respondents to use. And, theywill give soldiers the opportunity to

“tell it like it is” to the chain of com-mand—all the way to the top.

��

• Cost-effective, scientifically sound, timely information;

• A “finger on the pulse” of soldiers;

• Data to assess programs and policies;

• Trend data;

• Data to identify emerging issues;

• Data to monitor impact of unexpected events; and

• A means to determine validity of anecdotal informationor opinions.

Survey areasthat ARI

will monitorrelating to

the transformationand its impact

include morale,motivation,

training needs,career goals,

satisfaction withjob assignments,and assessments

of well-beingand readiness.

DR. ALMA G. STEINBERG isChief, Army Trends Analysis Group,U.S. Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences. Sheholds a B.A. in psychology fromBrooklyn College and an M.A. andPh.D. in psychology from AmericanUniversity.

DR. MORRIS P. PETERSON isChief, Army Personnel SurveyOffice, U.S. Army Research Institutefor the Behavioral and Social Sci-ences. He has a B.S. in journalismfrom Marquette University and aB.S. in both history and educationand an M.A. in English fromMankato State University. Hereceived his doctoral degree fromSouthern Illinois University at Car-bondale, where he specialized incommunications research.

SIDNEY F. FISHER is a Consor-tium Fellow, U.S. Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral andSocial Sciences. She holds a B.A. inEnglish and an M.A. in psychologyfrom George Mason University,where she is currently workingtoward her doctorate.


IntroductionWhile The Army’s Well-Being Pro-

gram encompasses all that we under-stand to be quality of life, it also signifi-cantly expands on that concept by inte-grating existing quality-of-life programsinto a dynamic framework that applies a“systems” perspective. The institutionalneeds of the Army cannot be adequatelyaddressed without fostering self-reliance and meeting the personalneeds and aspirations of its people.Thus, the Well-Being Program providesa standardized, integrated, holisticapproach at the soldier, installation/community, and senior leadershiplevels.

The Army’s Well-Being Program isdesigned to address the physical, mate-rial, mental, and spiritual state of Active,National Guard, and Reserve soldiers;retirees; veterans; Department of theArmy civilians; and the families of allthese groups. The goal is to help every-one prepare for performing and sup-porting the Army’s mission. Beneficia-ries of the new Well-Being Programinclude not only the above-mentionedconstituent groups, but also command-ers and senior leaders for whom it pro-vides an invaluable resource.

For example, under the program’sintegrated system, a military spousewho is moving from Fort Hood, TX, toFort Bragg, NC, will experience seamlessaccess to the same educational andmorale, welfare, and recreation (MWR)programs at the new installation that heor she enjoyed at the previous one. As aresult, the move will be less turbulentbecause, under the integrated system,the programs will have universal stan-dards, supports, and services. Further-more, this system will provide com-manders and sergeants major at theinstallation level the same informationthat the Army Chief of Staff uses tobudget and allocate well-beingresources at HQDA. Thus, the Well-Being Program is designed to be a toolfor every constituent group, whetherone is an Army spouse or a divisioncommander.

Institutional StrengthThe Well-Being Program is intended

to contribute to the Army’s institutionalstrength, the force that binds all mem-bers of the Army community togetherinto a cohesive team. The envisionedend state is an integrated system of

well-being efforts that will aid in meet-ing the personal needs and aspirationsof Army personnel. The system’s ulti-mate objective is to maximize per-formance, readiness, retention, andrecruiting.

The program is designed to bolsterand increase the self-sufficiency andself-reliance of individuals and families.Deployed soldiers who are confident oftheir own self-sufficiency and their fam-ilies’ self-reliance are far better able toconcentrate on successful mission per-formance. Furthermore, soldiers whosestandard of living (i.e., pay, housing,medical care) is equivalent to that of thesociety that they defend are more proneto focus on the intrinsic benefits of self-less service, thereby increasing reten-tion. Citizens who see opportunities inthe Army to fulfill and satisfy their indi-vidual aspirations are more likely toenlist and re-enlist. And, an Army withrecruiting and retention successes andwith soldiers focused on successful exe-cution of their mission is a force that isprepared and ready to fight and win theNation's wars. The readiness of theArmy, therefore, is, as GEN Shinsekistated, “inextricably linked to the well-being of its people.”

Lines Of OperationThe framework for the Army’s Well-

Being Program relates individual needs

with Army functions that are designedto meet those needs. To effectively man-age this framework, well-being needswere identified and categorized withinone of seven lines of operations. Eachline of operation has a desired end statethat is intended to contribute to thepersonal (physical, material, mental,and spiritual) state of Army soldiers,civilians, and their families.

The seven lines of operations are asfollows:

• An operating environment (i.e.,command) that is characterized bysafety, security, and optimum personalreadiness;

• Comparable pay or compensationthat is complemented with training andprograms designed to assist individualsin achieving their personal financialaspirations;

• Quality, affordable housing forboth single soldiers and Army familiesas well as a safe, comfortable workingenvironment that is conducive to mis-sion accomplishment;

• Quality, accessible, and cost-effective health care services that areenhanced by the promotion of healthylifestyles;

• A system that facilitates theattainment of individual educationrequirements and meets the unique

Establishing A Work-Life Balance . . .

THE ARMY'SWELL-BEING

PROGRAM

BG James A. Coggin

“Army readiness is inextricably linked to the well-being of its people. Our success depends on the whole team—soldiers, civilians, and families.”

GEN Eric K. ShinsekiArmy Chief of StaffJune 1999


individual needs of all students from theArmy community perspective;

• Family programs that assist indeveloping self-reliant and resilientArmy families who remain connected tothe Army, are prepared for family chal-lenges, and are able to pursue employ-ment and career development through-out one’s Army career; and

• MWR services and programs thathelp connect soldiers, civilians, andtheir families to the Army and provideaccess to a wide spectrum of individu-ally fulfilling MWR activities.

This framework gives Army mem-bers a holistic understanding that theArmy is pursuing fair, balanced, andequitable compensation benefits; con-sistently providing safe, affordable,excellent housing; ensuring qualityhealth care; enhancing community pro-grams; and expanding on educationaland retirement benefits by developinguniversal standards and metrics to eval-uate and deliver these programs.

Hierarchy Of NeedsIn a “values-based” Army, every-

thing that a soldier does is well-being.This foundation of service is thebedrock on which well-being rests, andon which the Army has developed aframework to manage well-being effortsand programs. The framework relatesindividual needs with Army functionsthat are designed to meet those needs.Individuals fulfill three roles based onan accepted hierarchy of needs: the roleof provider, the role of the Army teammember, and the role of the individual.

The role of a provider is intended tomeet the essential needs affiliated withthe concept “to live.” Programs that pro-vide these basic needs (physical andmaterial needs related to shelter, food,and safety) comprise the essential func-tion of Army well-being.

The role of an Army team membersatisfies the need “to connect” (i.e.,acceptance, social interaction, contribu-tion). Programs that create a uniqueArmy esprit de corps that connect indi-viduals to the Army team comprise thedefining function of Army well-being.

Finally, the role of a person or anindividual meets the need “to grow”mentally and spiritually, to be creativeand productive, and to use and expandone’s capabilities. Programs that aredesigned to assist an individual in grow-

ing comprise the enhancing function ofArmy well-being.

Linking NeedsThe Well-Being Program is designed

to provide a clear link between individ-ual aspirations and the Army’s institu-tional outcomes (performance, readi-ness, retention, and recruiting), all ofwhich are strategically critical to sus-taining a healthy Army for the future.The Army plans to do this by ensuringan effective delivery system for pro-grams, adequate resourcing, and stan-dardization of quality services. Themotivating force is ensuring that theArmy consistently and adequately pro-vides for its people while simultane-ously improving readiness. Helpingindividuals connect to the Army, feelpart of the team, and derive a sense ofbelonging is critical to maintaining thelink between the soldier and his familyand the readiness of the force.

In June 2002, the Army began estab-lishing well-being laboratories at theinstallation/community level as a “proofof principle” to determine if the tenetsdeveloped at the well-being strategiclevel are valid at the installation/com-munity level and to determine how toimplement community well-beingArmywide. It is anticipated that fromthese laboratory sites, analyses will bemade of well-being programs within theuser community to determine functionsthat affect well-being; assessments willbe made of the delivery and receipt ofwell-being products and services; rec-ommendations made to improve theeffectiveness of well-being products,services, and programs; and methodsdetermined for effectively communicat-ing well-being to all constituents.

The long-term goal in establishingthe new lab sites is to produce adetailed plan for implementing well-being programs across the Army thatenhance the current and future well-being of soldiers, civilians, and theirfamilies.

ConclusionThe HQDA Well-Being Office is not

the proponent or manager of well-beingprograms and does not directly allocateresources for these programs. It does,however, provide an integrated systemof standards and metrics that moves theArmy toward the Objective Force. For

instance, an effective well-being pro-gram will ensure that the proponents ofhealth program goals and objectives arein sync with the goals and objectives ofproponents of MWR programs.

Well-being is the human dimensionof Army transformation. As the Armychanges, the needs of its soldiers, civil-ians, and their families will also change.Well-being represents the Army’s res-olute commitment to prepare now tomeet today’s needs as well as futureneeds. The Army’s Well-Being Programis a driving force for a successful trans-formation because it directly impactsthe human dimension of the force andintegrates all quality-of-life programsunder one umbrella. It changes theArmy culture by bringing into balancethe mutually supporting demands andexpectations of our Army and its people.

Well-being will continue to be inex-tricably linked to the capabilities, readi-ness, and preparedness of the Army aswe transform to the Objective Force.The program strives to provide greaterpredictability in the lives of soldiers andtheir families. An effectively designed,executed, and delivered well-being pro-gram means that soldiers and civilianswill not be put in the position of choos-ing between the profession they haveselected and the families they love.

BG JAMES A. COGGIN is anAssistant Division Commander, 2ndInfantry Division, Eighth U.S. Army,Korea. At the time this article waswritten, he was the Director, HumanResources Policy, Office of the ArmyDeputy Chief of Staff, G-1, HQDA.Commissioned an infantry officer, hehas 28 years of service with the U.S.Army including command and staffjobs with the 82nd Airborne Divisionand XVIII Corps. Coggin com-manded the 1st Battalion, 325th Air-borne Infantry Regiment, 82nd Air-borne Division, Fort Bragg, NC, andthe 3rd Training Brigade, FortLeonard Wood, MO. He has a B.S.degree from the U.S. Military Acad-emy and an M.S. degree in opera-tions research from the Georgia Insti-tute of Technology.


IntroductionTimely, accurate, and authoritative

data are essential to the success of theArmy’s personnel transformation.Currently, Army personnel informa-tion resides in dozens of disjointeddatabases. In the future, Army per-sonnel systems will leverage the power

of modern databases and networkconnectivity to minimize the num-ber of databases and maximize theiruse.

The Army Human Resources (HR)System requires accurate data from thetime a recruiter contacts a potentialrecruit, through the term of service, to

the point a soldier transitions to civil-ian life and/or retires. This personnelmanagement structure is depicted inFigure 1. The recruiting mission derivesfrom an accurate inventory of soldiersalready in service, their skills, and theirlocations. Likewise, the operationalemployment of soldiers and logistical

THE ARMY ENTERPRISEPERSONNEL DATABASE

LTC(P) Gregory J. Fritz and Dr. Kenneth L. Bedford

“Army transformation will place increased demands on our human resourcessystems in terms of speed, accuracy, and accessibility. Also, we need betteranalytical and predictive tools for recruiting, distributing, and managing ourmultiskilled soldiers.”

LTG John M. Le MoyneArmy Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1

Figure 1.The soldier life cycle

CIV

ILIA

N L

IFE

Direction/Control/Management/StructureManagement and Force Structuring

AcquireRecruiting and Entrance Processing

SustainPersonnel Management,

Administration, and Recordkeeping

SeparateRelease from Service

TrainRequirements, Reservations,

Reception, and Management

CompensatePay, Medical, and Other Benefits

Distribute/DeployAllocation and Redistribution

of People

TransitionBetween Components


support of soldiers also relies on accu-rate data. Further, the administrationof soldier benefits also requires timelyand accurate data. Thus, it is no exag-geration to emphasize the importanceof timely, accurate personnel datathroughout the soldier’s life cycle andacross the spectrum of Army missionsand functions.

The cornerstones of Army humanresources are the personnel readinessand strength accounting of Army units,yet each supporting system has beendeveloped using installation-levelgroupings of soldiers. This means that soldiers are recruited, trained,assigned, tracked, and separated withimprecise and outdated informationabout the needs of Army units. Thisapproach evolved from a decentralizedpaper-based Army to a decentralizedautomated Army without fully capital-izing on modern technology. Moderndatabases, Web technology, and in-creasing bandwidth enable centraliza-tion and data accuracy far greater thanthe “stovepipe” systems still usedthroughout the Army. These technolo-gies are essential for transforming to aninformation age Army.

The transformed Army will employunits assembled from disparate instal-lations and with greater reliance onReserve components. Personnel trans-formation will enable better visibility ofcomposite units by implementing asingle, unified Army Enterprise Person-nel Database that contains data aboutall soldiers, regardless of component orinstallation, and is Web-based andaccessible by authorized users fromanywhere in the world.

The Army Enterprise PersonnelDatabase will exploit legacy and devel-opmental databases to facilitate theArmy's migration to the Defense Inte-grated Military Human Resources Sys-tem (DIMHRS). Objective Force per-sonnel systems will evolve from thecurrent systems to facilitate soldierself-service and automated workflowfor management review and approvalto ensure accurate and current data.

Current HR SystemsToday, Army personnel data are

spread across hundreds of differentsystems, each designed for a piece ofthe soldier’s life cycle. These systemssupport information-processingrequirements in specialized areas from

recruiting and enlistment to training,separation, and all points in between.Each component—Active, Reserve, andNational Guard—has its own systems,specifically designed to meet the differ-ing statutory and regulatory standardsfor 10 U.S.C., Armed Forces (Title 10)and 32 U.S.C., National Guard (Title32) soldiers. Each of these systems hasits own databases, where each data-base holds much of the same data.Attaining consistency across so manydatabases requires considerable main-tenance of the information and itsinterfaces. Further, attaining consis-tency consumes considerable time andmoney as well as the intangible, butsizeable, opportunity cost of data inac-curacies. Current HR system problemsinclude the following:

• There are a large number of per-sonnel databases with limited interop-erability. Interfaces are typically batchtransactions and result in high errorrates. Latency of input by field to “topof the system” and for movement ofsoldiers between components resultsin poor visibility in a mobilizing Army.In addition, it is costly to maintain themany system interfaces and to updatethem when new systems come onlineor when Congress mandates change.

• There is a need for flexible forcestructure and unit management dataand processes. Processes and struc-tures are “hard-coded.” Army transfor-mation and Objective Force realizationwill drive changes to the force structureand will be dynamic, thus pushing theneed for a data-driven model.

• There are problems integratingReserve components. The transitionand mobilization of soldiers oftenresults in soldiers “disappearing” fromthe databases for weeks or months asthey are deleted from the losing com-ponent, but not immediately added tothe gaining component.

Future Requirements SupportThe Army is already scheduled to

lead DOD in transitioning to DIMHRS.DIMHRS has chosen PeopleSoft 8, acommercial product offering an Inter-net architecture that enables universalaccess to authorized users via a Webbrowser across low bandwidth net-works. Migration to DIMHRS willrequire radical cultural, organizational,and process changes; will force a

change to “position management;” andwill require “clean data” from one“authoritative data source,” with con-sistent business rules.

Business process re-engineering iskey to Army personnel transformation.Data entry, approval, and other func-tions must be decoupled from paperforms and local computers. In a Web-based environment, collecting the rightdata, from the right source, with auto-mated workflow for “point-and-click”approval becomes the new businessmodel. Authoritative data can then beshared across the Army based on needto know, using the principles of aknowledge-based organization. Thekey element to this path forward is aconsolidated Army Enterprise Person-nel Database, where these Web-basedapplications will perform real-timetransactions.

Process re-engineering reducesredundant functionality; enablesmigrating functionality to the Web;enables modularity and flexibility inapplication implementation to supportArmy transformation and the ObjectiveForce; and forces cleansing of theArmy’s personnel data and personnelprocesses as a stepping stone towardDIMHRS implementation.

Architectural ConceptConverging to a single Army Enter-

prise Personnel Database and migrat-ing to Web-based functionality are crit-ical enablers of personnel transforma-tion. The database will provideenterprise data visibility to enableapplications that support the following:

• Functionality across the entiresoldier life cycle;

• Legal requirements (Title 10, Title32);

• Operational requirements such asfuture passive accounting of personnel(e.g., biometric check-in/check-out ofa unit, a building, or a combat vehicle);and

• Operational requirements ofcommanders (single, timely, and accu-rate data source for reports such asstrength accounting, in-transit visibil-ity, casualty reporting).

The enterprise database can, andprobably should, evolve into the singledatabase for most applications acrossthe Army enterprise. With a single


database, there is no question of whosedata is right because there is only oneauthoritative source of data. Privilegesto read and/or write to specific dataelements must be controlled centrally,but the actual application will be mod-ularly decoupled from the database.Thus, one set of forms could call sepa-rate sets of business rules and workflowprocesses to support Title 10 and Title32 requirements.

Implementation HurdlesImplementation hurdles are less

technical than political or cultural hur-dles. While central hosting is a pre-ferred technical option, it raises issuesof local ownership of data andprocesses versus Army ownership.Incorporating decentralized functionaldefinition of the applications to keepthe business process close to the func-tional users will help alleviate thoseconcerns. However, retaining strict

control and central management of thedata model and interfaces is essential.

Implementation of this approachwill use a three-layer model (Figure 2)that is discussed below:

• Presentation Layer. A Web-baseduser interface eliminates the need todeploy code to the desktop or field. Theuser interface delivers content whileproviding navigational and interactivefeatures such as Web forms, security

Figure 2.Three-tiered architecture

Enterprise and Application Integration Toolfor Cross-Database Synchronization

Presentation Layer

Application Layer

Data Layer

WebForms

Title 10Business Rules

Title 32Business Rules

XMLClasses

XMLClasses

Army EnterpriseHuman Resources

Database

DIMHRSDatabase


sign-ons, and reports. Benefits includeflexibility, interoperability, and sub-stantially lower operations and mainte-nance (O&M) costs.

• Application Layer. This layerincludes business logic, workflow, andaccess control. Variables used in theapplication code should be decoupledfrom the actual database design byusing eXtensible Markup Language(XML) to translate the variables to therelational tables. Thus, future changesto the database, or completely switch-ing to a different database (e.g.,DIMHRS), will only require updatingthe XML but not the application code.Benefits include a modular and flexibledevelopment environment that re-duces rule conflicts that could occur ifimplementing inside the database andprovides better visibility into businessrules “as coded,” thus leading to areduced O&M tail.

• Data Layer. This layer entails aclean, authoritative data source that isimplemented centrally. The data modelis driven by business needs and closelyadheres to appropriate data standards.This data model could be derived fromab initio standards or from a com-mercial off-the-shelf product (e.g.,PeopleSoft 8) implementation. Benefitsinclude improved data integrity anddata sharing and substantially lowerdata management costs.

ConclusionThe Army’s migration from the

current disjointed, complex state ofpersonnel systems to a simpler futurestate requires a sound architecture thatfits the Army’s business environmentand anticipates DIMHRS requirements.The essential first step is moving to acentralized Army Enterprise PersonnelDatabase. The benefits of implement-ing this single database include thefollowing:

• Improved data accuracy, consis-tency, and timeliness for personnelreadiness reporting, strength account-ing, and more accurate logisticalsupport;

• Better accounting for movementof soldiers between components;

• Reduced maintenance costsresulting from reducing or eliminatingdata interfaces;

• Reduced opportunity costs frominaccurate or inconsistent data; and

• Clear migration path to DIMHRS.

Among all the initiatives support-ing Army transformation, personneltransformation offers some of thegreatest potential benefits for soldiersand their families. Building the ArmyEnterprise Personnel Database willtransform the Army’s management andsupport of its soldiers and enable theArmy to leverage Web technology andcommercial best practices. LeveragingWeb technology will reinforce suc-cesses like http://www.goarmy.comand http://www.goarmyreserve.comand will transform our personnel sys-tems for the Objective Force.

LTC(P) GREGORY J. FRITZ isthe Director of the InformationManagement Office for the ArmyDeputy Chief of Staff, G-1. He is agraduate of the Army War Collegeand the U.S. Military Academy,holds an M.S. in acquisition man-agement from the Florida Instituteof Technology, and is a member ofthe Army Acquisition Corps.

DR. KENNETH L. BEDFORD isthe Technical Director for Knowl-edge Services, Electronic Data Sys-tems. He is responsible for enter-prise knowledge and humanresource applications, includingthe original Army KnowledgeOnline pilot applications support-ing Officer Personnel ManagementSystem XXI initiatives. Bedfordholds a Ph.D. in physics from theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Buildingthe Army

EnterprisePersonnelDatabase

will transformthe Army’s

managementand support

of its soldiersand enable

the Armyto leverage

Web technologyand commercial

best practices.


IntroductionUnder Andrew Grove’s leadership

as President and CEO, Intel Corp.became the world’s largest computerchip producer, the fifth most admiredcompany in America, and the seventhmost profitable of the Fortune 500companies. Grove’s insights and experi-ences offer a creative new way of deal-ing with the “nightmare moment”every leader dreads—the momentwhen massive change occurs and allbets are off.

The U.S. Army is in the midst ofmassive change as it redefines its rolesand missions and determines how toimplement a strategy to achieve theObjective Force. The Army can drawlessons learned from common busi-ness practices, thereby assisting mili-tary leaders in the transformation to anObjective Force Army. This articleexamines strategic crisis points frombusiness that directly parallel theArmy’s transformation of the roles andmissions of the Short Range AirDefense (SHORAD) weapon system.

The current SHORAD weapon sys-tems consist of the line-of-sight Stingermissile mounted on a High MobilityMultipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (collec-tively called the Avenger), the BradleyFighting Vehicle (collectively calledLinebacker), and the Man-Portable AirDefense System. The mission is to pro-

tect maneuver forces and critical assetsfrom air and missile attack.

Strategic Inflection PointIn his book Only the Paranoid Sur-

vive: How to Exploit the Crisis PointsThat Challenge Every Company andCareer, Grove defines the strategicinflection point as the critical pointwhere transformation must occur. Thishappens when the balance of forcesshifts from the old ways of operatingand doing business and is transformedinto the new process.

Before the strategic inflectionpoint, the organization is simply doingbusiness as usual. But somethingchanges, and a new approach, a newthought process, a new strategy, or anew mode of operation is required orfailure will be imminent. What workedin the past doesn’t work anymore. Thestrategic inflection point is the catalystfor change and is the single factor thatcauses action. When a strategic inflec-tion point occurs, all past rules shiftfast, furiously, and forever. In business,strategic inflection points can be set offby almost anything: intense competi-tion or changes in regulations, technol-ogy, leadership, or funding.

A prime example of a strategicinflection point can be seen when Wal-Mart builds in a small town—every-thing changes. The hometown storecan’t match Wal-Mart’s logistics, com-puterized inventory management,

large volume-based purchases, andcompanywide training programs. Wal-Mart’s customer service, can-do atti-tude, and capability to lower pricescorner the market. The hometownstore’s failure to either recognize oradapt to the change allows for a quicktransformation shift.

Intel’s Inflection PointThe computer industry has

changed significantly throughout thelast 20 years. During the 1980s, high-profile computer companies (IBM,DEC, Sperry Univac, and Wang) soldcomputers as a “company package”that involved proprietary design, chips,computers, operating systems, andapplication software that was marketedand sold by company salespeople. Thiswas an expensive “vertical” purchasewhere the customer got only what aparticular company offered by pur-chasing their proprietary computerpackage. In the mid-1990s, a crisispoint in the industry occurred with theexplosive rise in microprocessingpower, the popularity of personal com-puters, and a dramatic drop in price.This changed the entire structure of thecomputer industry and a new “hori-zontal” industry emerged to such anextent that no one company had thetotal edge on the market. A consumercould “mix and match” microproces-sors, computer manufacturers, oper-ating systems, and any one of many

Lessons Learned From The Business Community . . .

HOW THESHORT RANGE

AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERYIS EXPLOITING

A STRATEGIC CRISIS POINTLTC Scott E. Shifrin and Anita Wood


off-the-shelf software applications atretail or computer stores. The com-puter industry’s transformation fromthe vertical “cradle-to-grave” model tothe new horizontal model took placeover many years in small incrementalsteps. Intel had to adjust to the newmarket paradigm or face extinction.

What happened to cause thischange? In retrospect, Grove identifiesthe strategic inflection point as whenthe Japanese entered the memory pro-duction market and began researchand development of new chips to leadthe world market. In one Japanesecompany, it was reported that thememory development activities alonewere conducted in a large, high-riseproduction building where, on separate

floors, designers researched and devel-oped several new generations of mem-ory. Compare this to the relatively smallamount of memory chip developmentin the United States, with little to noinvestment in research and develop-ment, and it is easy to see why theUnited States was looking over itsshoulder.

U.S. companies could not competeagainst Japanese low-cost, high-qualityproducts. The computer industry wasreliving the tribulations of other U.S.industries (television, automobile, steelmanufacturing, and machinery) thathad felt the impact of a strategic inflec-tion point from aggressive Japanesecompetition. Understandably, manage-ment’s first reaction to a strategic

inflection point is denial. Some U.S.industries were losing the fight and los-ing money because they failed to rec-ognize the Japanese business threat.

This transformation shift in thecomputer industry caused a nightmaremoment for Grove and threatenedIntel’s continued success. Fortunately,Intel’s management recognized theshift before it was too late. Theychanged their legacy production andwere able to adapt. Grove took chargeand hoped the others would follow hislead. He recognized the need to expandhis knowledge base, sponsored severalgrueling management-level debates,and spent hours questioning and lis-tening to employee concerns.

In the end, Grove succeeded andwas in the forefront of the computerindustry by transforming and adaptingIntel’s business from memory chips tomicroprocessors. Intel increasedproduction and marketed its micro-processor as the “brain” for any IBM-compatible computer while concur-rently phasing out its legacy memoryproduction line. Intel’s lessons learnedfrom the strategic inflection point wereas follows: notice the shift, get smart onthe cause of the new shift, strategicallyadapt to the shift, prepare the businessto transform, and provide the resourcesnecessary to make the transformationhappen.

Army’s Inflection PointIn the hands of good leaders, a

strategic inflection point can be an ace.The Army leadership has committeditself to turning this strategic inflectionpoint into a positive force, to win bothin business through the acquisitioncommunity and on the battlefieldthrough the acts of soldiers.

The 1990s were marked by thesuperior strength of the U.S. Army as itcrushed Iraq in the Gulf War. After thewar, reviews were conducted to deter-mine the strengths and weaknesses ofthe operational and technical capabili-ties of the Army and how they might beimproved. It is not likely that an adver-sary will allow months of buildup andpreparation, access to naval ports, andan opportunity to infuse the latestweapons and technology into maneu-ver units prior to conflict.

Figure 1.


The Army was too heavy, had toolong of a logistics tail, and was not agileand mobile enough to react to an un-foreseen crisis around the world in atimely manner. Identification of thesedeficiencies was the beginning of theU.S. Army’s strategic inflection point. Italso marked the beginning of a newera—the Army began infusing ad-vanced technologies into the maneuverforces by developing the digitized divi-sion and began transforming the Armyto the Objective Force. This change forthe Army is a crossroads that can meaneither an opportunity to rise to newheights or signal the beginning of theend as weapon system developersadjust to transformation.

SHORAD Inflection PointIn October 1999, Army Chief of

Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki delivered thenow-famous speech to the Associationof the United States Army (AUSA),unveiling the Army vision for meetingthe Nation’s requirements today and inthe future. The Army is transforminginto a force that is strategically respon-sive and dominant at every point onthe spectrum of conflict. This AUSAspeech was a realization to theSHORAD community that it had totransform and better define its role onthe future battlefield or be left behind.This was the critical and definingmoment for SHORAD (Figure 1). ForSHORAD, it means a strategic inflec-

tion point of huge proportions.SHORAD is in the midst of a majortransformation, attempting to realign,adapt to the new goals and direction ofthe Army, redefine roles and missions,and develop a new and more lethalpath ahead for the Objective Force.

To understand why the strategicinflection point occurred, we mustbegin by looking at the SHORADLegacy Force. The Stinger missile hasperformed admirably during the last 20years—first, with the Afghanis whenthe Soviets invaded Afghanistan, thenduring the Gulf War, and today in thestruggle against terrorism. SHORADmust take action to position itselfagainst an evolving threat withincreased standoff capability, developnew and proactive methods for attack-ing the threat, and be able to quicklyintegrate new technologies when theybecome available.

With competition for fewerresources, funding for the Stinger-based platforms (Avenger and Line-backer) has been rescinded. As a resultof the lack of funding, both the combatdeveloper and the materiel developerrecognized the need to transform themaneuver air defense force. New waysof doing business had to be developedbecause SHORAD had no clear pathahead to protect the Army’s maneuverforces from air and missile attack asthey transform to the Objective Force.

SHORAD Path AheadThe SHORAD transformation

began by re-evaluating the threat to themaneuver force at the unit-of-actionand unit-of-employment levels for theObjective Force timeframe. TheSHORAD force now must concern itselfwith a new and growing threat, includ-ing beyond-line-of-sight targets—unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (bothreconnaissance and combat), cruisemissiles, and the traditional rotary- andfixed-wing aircraft.

In the far term, SHORAD mustevolve to defeat rockets, artillery, andmortars (Figure 2). The air defensemateriel and combat developer com-munities looked hard at future tech-nologies, developing a leap-ahead orevolutionary acquisition approach thatwould provide for drastically improvedcapabilities in the near term, while

Figure 2.


evolving the weapon system as theArmy transforms to defeat threats inthe far term.

Although still evolving as a result ofthe crisis point, the Enhanced Area AirDefense System (EAADS) appears to beable to provide that opportunity andeventually replace most of the Stinger-based force. Consistent with the devel-opment of the Future Combat Systems,the initial capability of EAADS is theSurface Launched Advanced MediumRange Air-to-Air Missile (SL-AMRAAM).This initial system-of-systems capabil-ity includes the launcher; missile;external sensor; and battle manage-ment/command, control, communica-tions, computers, and intelligence. Thiscapability will enhance air defense byproviding a netted and distributedarchitecture that is compatible with the

current SHORAD force and has a mis-sile that is interoperable with the otherServices. The EAADS concept fits wellwith the Army Chief of Staff’s ObjectiveForce tenets—highly deployable, threatovermatch across the entire spectrumof conflict, and force-tailorable basedon mission requirements (Figure 3).

SHORAD Lessons LearnedEAADS will be developed to evolve

in lock step with technology andwarfighter tactics, techniques, and pro-cedures. Although the initial capabilityof EAADS (SL-AMRAAM) is a kineticenergy solution, it will have the abilityto evolve to other more advancedkinetic energy and directed energysolutions as they mature. EAADS is anopen architecture designed to avoidany dead-end solutions. Fighting

through the strategic inflection point isnot a fast or easily achievable process.It must be taken in small incrementalsteps over several years (much likeIntel). It also requires the support ofsenior leaders as they articulate thefuture vision while listening to thecommunity.

ConclusionThe Army’s vision of transforma-

tion is a proactive step. Army leader-ship saw the strategic inflection pointearly enough and took the appropriateaction to counter the expected futurethreat. The SHORAD developmentcommunity is diligently workingtoward the Objective Force goal and isapplying the lessons learned from thebusiness community. Other Armydevelopment programs could very wellbenefit from the lessons learned fromthe SHORAD effort. Countless hours ofdiscussions, budget drills, require-ments analyses, doctrine definition,planning, team building, and otherexercises are paving the road to thenew way of doing business. We areoperating under new guidelines with anew objective. As technology evolves,EAADS is the future for SHORAD.SHORAD has the competitive edge andpath forward as the air defense Objec-tive Force rises to new heights afterpositively responding to the strategiccrisis point.

LTC SCOTT E. SHIFRIN is theProduct Manager, Stinger Missilesand Platforms. He holds a B.B.A.from Texas Tech University and anM.B.A. from Southwest Texas StateUniversity. He is a member of theArmy Acquisition Corps.

ANITA WOOD is a Senior Engi-neer with CAS, Inc. She has a B.S.degree in electrical computer engi-neering from the University ofAlabama in Huntsville and is cur-rently pursuing a master’s degree inmanagement at the Florida Insti-tute of Technology.

Figure 3.


IntroductionThe Acquisition Career Experi-

ence (ACE) Program is intended torecruit college students with multi-disciplined backgrounds for civilianacquisition positions throughout theArmy. It is a chance for students togain invaluable experience while par-ticipating in a paid 2-year part-timeprogram. Selected students have theopportunity to work at numerousArmy organizations throughout thecountry, are assigned a mentor foron-the-job training, and are givenchallenging work assignments. TheACE Program’s pilot year began in thesummer of 2000 when seven studentswere placed in five Army acquisitionorganizations. During the program’ssecond year, in the summer of 2001,55 students were also placed at anumber of Army acquisitionorganizations.

In March 2002, I was selectedfrom the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM)Acquisition Center at Fort Mon-mouth, NJ, to participate in the ACEReview Board process for the pro-gram’s third year, 2002. I was joinedby four other individuals who wereselected from various Army activities,including three civilians and one mil-itary officer. Our challenge was todevelop evaluation criteria, reviewand rate all student application pack-ages, identify best-qualified individu-als, and make recommendations forfuture ACE selection boards. Thisarticle relates our observations and

suggestions regarding both the ACEapplication and the board ratingprocesses.

Evaluation CriteriaAfter reviewing the ACE Pro-

gram’s history, procedures, and poli-cies, we developed evaluation criteriathat would assist us in rating eachstudent’s application. Our evaluationcriteria included grade point average(GPA), employment history, leader-ship roles, recognition and awards,publications, and the extent to whichan individual was “well-rounded.”The evaluation criteria were thenused to rate each candidate’s pack-age, which consisted of a letter ofintroduction from the student, let-ter(s) of recommendation, collegetranscript, and résumé.

Additionally, an overall numericrating was developed with scores

A Personal Observation . . .

THE SUMMER 2002ACE PROGRAM

REVIEW BOARD PROCESS

Ronald J. Rapka


ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 6,with half-point increments (e.g.,assigned scores could be 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,2.5 … up to 6.0). Each rater assignedan overall score per application pack-age. The five scores were averaged toobtain one composite score for eachapplicant. Individual scores assignedto each package were kept hiddenfrom the other raters; therefore, wedid not know what score the otherraters were assigning until the reviewboard session was basically over. Wealso decided in advance that if anyindividual score assigned by a raterdeviated by more than 2 points, thenthose raters would meet to discussthe applicant’s package in an attemptto reconcile the disparity. In our case,this never occurred.

Application RatingsFor several days, we rated 220

student applications from collegesand universities throughout thecountry. Unfortunately, at the time ofthis writing, there are only 75-80positions that are currently fundedfor FY02, and this includes returningACE students from the previous year.Competition was fierce, and thoseselected for the 2002 ACE Programshould be proud of themselvesbecause, unless additional fundingcan be obtained, only about 35 per-cent of the applicants will be chosen.

After application packages werereviewed and rated, a Relative Stand-ing List (RSL) (a ranking of appli-cants’ weighted scores) was estab-lished. Applicants may choose fromseven geographic regions, and a sep-arate RSL was produced for eachregion. (I’m located in the NortheastRegion, and there are 26 slots allottedfor the 2002 ACE Program in thisregion. Among the installationswhere applicants can be assigned are16 slots at Fort Monmouth, NJ; 7 slotsat Picatinny Arsenal, NJ; 2 slots atFort Drum, NY; and 1 slot at Natick,MA.)

RecommendationsAt the conclusion of the board,

we provided the following recom-mendations and guidance to improvethe selection process for future ACEselection boards.

Résumé Package. Applicantsseem unsure of what information toinclude in their résumé package andhow to format the documents. Werecommend that future applicants begiven general guidance in theseareas.

Academics. The board consideredthe applicant’s grades to be impor-tant, but less important than theapplicant being a well-rounded per-son. In addition to highlighting aca-demics in their packages, applicantsshould emphasize any leadershiproles and participation in volunteer,sports, and other extracurricularactivities. Applicants should alsoindicate if they are working full timeto fund their education.

Letters. The faculty letter of rec-ommendation and the applicant’sintroduction letter should be signed.The introduction letter should alsoinclude a sentence or two about thecollege and any unique programs, ifapplicable.

Selectees. Generally, thoseselected were well-rounded individu-als who indicated leadership roles atwork or through other activities, hadstrong grades with correlation tochosen career field and curriculumcontents, participated in extracurric-ular activities such as volunteer work,and were members of academic orprofessional clubs or associations.

Army Acquisition Workforce(AAW) Issues. Field of study for appli-cants should be related to AAW posi-tions. In addition, applicants shouldindicate interest in multiple careerfields, if applicable.

Other Observations. The boardlooked at course curriculum for tech-nical content. Applicants should

highlight latest GPA in their unofficialtranscript(s).

Selection Process Board Guidance. Publishing basic

criteria for rating applicants couldsave considerable time, and theboard could then decide how toapply the criteria. We recommendthat the same general criteria be usedfor each board, rather than eachboard setting its own. Notwithstand-ing the above, the guidance theboard received and the practice ofrating sample applications werehelpful for the board to come toconsensus on how to rate theapplications.

Board Procedures. The boardused a point system, with ratings 2.0through 6.0 (highest). The board usedevaluation criteria that included GPA,extent of training and experience,leadership, volunteer activities,awards, and published works.

Board Support. Acquisition Sup-port Center personnel providedexcellent support to the board. Theapplicant packages were well organ-ized for review. However, to acceler-ate the process in the future, we sug-gest that each applicant’s GPA behighlighted during assembly of thepackages for board review.

For additional information onthe ACE Program, go to http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/Acepage/index.htm,or contact Janice Kurry at (732) 427-1692 or [email protected]. army.mil.

RONALD J. RAPKA is a GroupChief in the CECOM AcquisitionCenter. He has an undergraduatedegree from Seton Hall Universityand an M.B.A. from MonmouthUniversity. He is also a CertifiedPublic Accountant.


IntroductionYour mission, if you choose to

accept it, is to take charge of a strug-gling major Army acquisition programcurrently in program definition andrisk reduction. The project has had seri-ous technical problems, scheduledelays, budget changes, and congres-sional scrutiny. Expect to interface withevery major U.S. aerospace contractorwhile managing nine directorateswithin your project management office(PMO). Does this sound like an appeal-ing job opportunity? Maybe not, butthis is the situation COL PatrickO’Reilly found when he took the ProjectManager, Theater High Altitude AreaDefense (PM, THAAD) charter in July1999. This article explores how one PMtook a challenged program and turnedit around by cultivating a culture ofprogram management best practices.The resulting program’s success was rec-ognized when PM, THAAD won the2000 Army Project Manager of the YearAward. Although THAAD is a large

project, the majority of concepts out-lined could apply to any program,regardless of size.

PM, THAAD’s success cannot beattributed to any single individual orchange. Without the clear understand-ing and steadfast support of theTHAAD Deputy PM and Chief Engi-neer, initiatives to improve THAADwould not have been successful. Itwas a hard-working team that inte-grated program management bestpractices, critical enablers, and moti-vational leadership to turn the pro-gram around. Most important, this

turnaround was accomplished withoutlosing sight of the warfighter.

Management ModelThe first step in turning the pro-

gram around started long before thecharter changed hands. O’Reillyunderstood that he had to do hishomework upfront if he expected asignificant change. He planned toimmediately institute a new culturewith an intentional “shock effect.”First, he had to determine what man-agement model he would leverage todevelop a world-class program office.He decided to use a model from Levers

PROGRAM MANAGEMENTMISSION IMPOSSIBLE

MAJ Lloyd C. Crosman

Figure 1.


of Control by Harvard BusinessSchool’s Robert Simons. The guidingprinciple of the model was that gov-ernment and contractor businessstrategies were the central focus. Thegoal was maximum congruency. Thesestrategies drove the model’s four leversof control: belief systems, boundarysystems, interactive control systems,and diagnostic control systems (Figure 1).

Integrating ProgramManagement Culture

Once a management model wasidentified, it was critical to establish aculture that embraced a variety of newprogram management best practices.A great deal of effort was expended ini-tially to demonstrate that the PM cul-ture would pay dividends. While beingfostered in small groups, change waschampioned by government andindustry senior management. Ulti-mately, changes took root. Mostimportant, best practices were inte-grated and strengthened. Some of theinnovative best practices and enablersthat PM, THAAD successfully inte-grated are discussed in the followingparagraphs.

Extensive CollaborationThe cornerstone of the THAAD

management philosophy is extensivecollaboration with contractors. Thisincluded reorganizing the entire proj-ect through a streamlined integratedproduct team (IPT) structure. This newstructure was enabled by a leadershipattitude that viewed contractors aspartners rather than adversaries.

PM, THAAD has more than 122IPTs with more than 3,000 participants.IPTs are not workgroups—they arecomprised of participants who areempowered to speak for their organi-zations. By the nature of their busi-ness, IPT participants are extremelycollaborative and constantly meet todiscuss and resolve issues. In somecases, government and contractor per-sonnel were specifically collocated tofacilitate information sharing. In fact,one entire product office was movedinto the prime contractor’s facility tofacilitate communication. PM, THAADdiscovered that the “water-cooler con-versation” and familiarity within IPTsgreatly improved the exchange of ideasand, ultimately, the product. The IPTprocess is kept well-oiled by runningquarterly training to “re-green” partici-pants on the principles of IPTs.

Lower level IPTs review, plan, andexecute software metrics, earned value

data, schedules, and engineeringissues. Midlevel IPTs summarize lowerlevel status and integrate segment-level issues. Integrating IPTs (IIPTs)perform the system-level engineeringfunctions of resolving technical issues,reviewing risk management, and inter-facing IPT products. The ProgramManagement Team reviews programstatus, metrics, contract actions, IIPTactions, earned value issues, andmidterm planning. It also resolves finalcost schedule issues.

In addition to cultural commit-ment invested to build the IPT process,contract award fees reinforced the pro-cedure by including criteria thatrequire the contractor to publish IPTagendas 24 hours before meetings andpublish minutes 24 hours after meet-ings. This reinforces culture whileenabling better communication withinindividual teams.

A geographically dispersed IPTstructure cannot be successful withouta mechanism to assist collaboration.For PM, THAAD, the Electronic DataAnd Management System (EDAMS)was the solution. This application is aWeb-based integrated data environ-ment that provides nationwide cover-age. Application functionality does notchange based on the connection. Builtto support the process, EDAMS is

Figure 2�


data-centric with minimal graphics. Itprovides multilevel security to limitaccess to nonauthorized users. EachIPT is responsible for creating its ownWeb site, and data are organized byhow people work. These Web sites areused primarily for workflow andarchiving.

EDAMS also provides a robustExecutive Support System functional-ity, which allows management high-level information on noteworthy met-rics while allowing them to “drilldown” into hundreds of detailedreports. The application is extremelyintuitive, allowing new team membersto contribute immediately rather thanhaving to waste precious time training.In addition to EDAMS, the PMO alsouses an internal Web-based applica-tion for government-only business.Although the transition from a paper-based to electronic culture was diffi-cult, a sensible, intuitive solutionproved to ease the changeover.

A Team Of StakeholdersIn an attempt to fully use the pool

of government talent, the PM ensuredthat stakeholders were informed anddecisively engaged in all phases of theprogram. In one example of thisresource leveraging, the PM coordi-nated with the Defense Contract Man-agement Agency (DCMA) to collocatea program integrator (PI) in the PMO.This facilitated cross talk and allowedthe PM to take advantage of DCMA’sconsiderable influence. Draft Memo-randums Of Understanding (MOUs)were signed between PMO directorsand local DCMA commands to outlineexpectations. One product of theseMOUs is a weekly issue list, publishedby the THAAD DCMA PI, outlining allnationwide THAAD-related DCMAissues. This ultimately increased thePMO’s reach by providing timely visi-bility into subcontractor progressnationwide.

Incentivizing ContractsOne way that a customer encour-

ages commitment and productivityfrom contractors is by incentivizingcontracts. PM, THAAD took this con-cept to a new level. The award fee isbased on a total 15 percent of the con-tract value. Award fees are earned in 6-month contract cycles. The award

emphasis can shift during each 6-month cycle based on where the proj-ect is in development. Areas of em-phasis are announced before the start of a new cycle and are alpha-contracted. The contractor providesself-assessments detailing progress inthe emphasized areas. The govern-ment provides the contractor withmidpoint and final evaluations. Themidpoint evaluation promotes dialogand refocuses stakeholders. The awardfee is based on the last day of theaward period rather than the perform-ance during the entire period. Thisencourages the contractor to strivetoward documented goals for theentire award-fee period.

The THAAD Chief Engineer chairsthe Award Fee Board. This process isunique because two senior contractormanagers are also present as nonvot-ing members. The lead DCMA com-mander and the Army Training andDoctrine Command Systems Managerare also invited to participate on theboard. Performance input is submittedto the board by every IPT. Ultimately,the PM is the determining official.What makes PM, THAAD’s contractapproach so novel is the scope of theaward-fee emphasis and extensive col-laboration with the contractor indetermining and evaluating the award.The identified award-fee emphasisranges from the fundamental impor-tance of missiles hitting the target toencouraging the day-to-day tasks thatinstill program management culture.Finally, stakeholders are involved fromstart to finish, ultimately building acommon vision.

Review/Decision CycleThe next tenet of the THAAD

philosophy is minimizing manage-ment review/decision cycle times. Toaccomplish this, a review cycle wasdeveloped that would allow issues tobubble up from the lowest level IPTs toa senior management decision in lessthan 7 days (Figure 2). A rigorous deci-sionmaking process drives the collabo-rative environment. Tuesdays throughFridays, lower level IPTs address thestatus of their performance and issues,passing irresolvable issues to the nexthighest level. Monday mornings, the PM and directors meet for agovernment-only “PM round table.”

Monday afternoons, the PM meetswith contractor PMs on the ProjectManagement Team to collaborativelyreview and resolve issues. Thursday, agovernment-only “technical roundtable” is held to ensure that govern-ment IPT participants are speaking tothe contractor with one unified voice.This aggressive approach to resolveissues without letting them festerworks for a few very important rea-sons. First, chartered members ofthese meetings must be able to speakand make decisions for their organiza-tions. Second, the nonavailability ofone key person does not stop theprocess; replacements are identifiedwho have the background and author-ity to make decisions. Finally, anextensive teleconferencing capabilitymakes these meetings possible fromalmost any hub in the PM’s extensiveIPT network.

ConclusionThis PM, THAAD case study shows

that sensible implementation of pro-gram management best practices canrevive a struggling program. But to besuccessful, these best practices mustbe integrated to enable and facilitateeach other, and leadership mustchampion them. As with all change,initially, there may be resistance. Therank and file must be educated andmotivated to adopt new ways of doingbusiness that will ultimately improvethe quality of the product for the sol-dier in the field. A positive environ-ment that encourages new ideas andaccepts change will ultimately prevailover the challenges of programmanagement.

MAJ LLOYD C. CROSMAN isthe Acquisition Branch Chief at theCenter for Army Lessons Learned,Fort Leavenworth, KS. He holds abachelor’s degree in business ad-ministration from Hofstra Univer-sity and master’s degrees fromTexas A&M University and CentralMichigan University. In addition,Crosman earned the Project Man-agement Professional (PMP) cre-dential from the Project Manage-ment Institute.


Authors’ Note: Theviews expressed in the fol-lowing article are those ofthe authors and do notnecessarily reflect those ofPurdue University, the U.S.Army Soldier Biological-Chemical Command, orthe National ResearchCouncil.

IntroductionThe September 11,

2001, attacks against theUnited States and thespate of civilian anthrax casualties pro-vided a painful wake-up call to theNation. Clearly, U.S. adversaries do notneed large armies or intercontinentalmissiles to threaten ordinary citizens,and asymmetrical warfare can poten-tially negate traditional militarystrengths. The Army’s challenge is to usescience and technology to consistentlytransform itself with the expandingspectrum of threats.

A recent study by the NationalResearch Council Board on Army Sci-ence and Technology (NRC BAST),Opportunities in Biotechnology forFuture Army Applications, examinedways that biotechnology can increasethe combat effectiveness of future sol-diers and systems. The study identifiedpromising areas of research in sensors,materials, computing and electronics,logistics, and medicine. These pursuitshave become all the more relevant in the months since the study waspublished.

Biotechnology has long been usedto detect, identify, and track disease ori-gins. Two critical roles for biologicaldetection are force protection on thebattlefield and the unambiguous identi-fication of biological samples. This latterrole is sometimes referred to as “bio-forensics” because of its use in legalproceedings.

An example of bioforensics was thesuccessful identification in 1993 of amysterious pathogen that destroyedhuman lung tissue. The lethal pathogen,discovered in New Mexico, was traced toa hantavirus (isolated from striped fieldmice near the Hantaan River in SouthKorea in 1976) using polymerase chainreaction (PCR) technology. PCR usesDNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) to propa-gate, identify, and sequence viral genesfrom a victim’s tissue. Along with other

biotechnology tools, investigators usetechniques similar to PCR to search forthe “biological signature” of anthraxspores contained in letters sent throughthe U.S. mail in recent bioterroristattacks.

Sensor TechnologiesNumerous sensor technologies,

based on immunoassays, nucleic acidassays, and photo-optics, use biotech-nology to detect threats in the air andwater. In the future, these may also beused to monitor soldiers for symptomsof exposure to harmful substances.Biochips as small as postage stamps cannow perform sophisticated chemicaland biological analyses on food prod-ucts. A network of biosensors, perhapsintegrated with field uniforms, mightsomeday augment other sensors andintelligence sources to give command-ers a more complete picture of oppos-ing forces and provide a record of thebattlefield environment.

Differences exist between Armybattlefield detection requirements andcommercial detection systems. To bedeployable, for example, commercialbiosensor systems need to be mademore versatile and less reliant on bio-logical reagents. Battlefield detectionsystems need to be self-contained, pre-cise, and rugged. Other military require-ments, such as miniaturization and net-working of sensors, are not likely to beaddressed without Army investmentand encouragement.

Genomics ResearchThe Human Genome Project and

related private efforts have paved theway for exploiting the vast amount ofinformation coded by genes. Geneexpression monitoring involves extract-ing data from DNA by looking at the up-and down-regulation of genes, assessing

which steps in the body’smetabolic pathways areaffected, and correlatingthis information withhuman characteristics.Genomics research willallow drugs, dosages, andtherapies to be “tailored”to individual soldiers andmay lead to scientific waysto predict behavior.

Toxicogenomics, anarea closely related togenomics, involves study-ing correlations between

gene and protein expression (e.g.,immune response characteristics) andreactions to toxic agents. Genes oftenrespond to toxic insult weeks or evenmonths before the onset of observablepathology and at exposure levels that donot produce overt symptoms.

Toxicogenomics research can pro-vide insight on how to detect anddefend against chemical and biologicalwarfare agents as well as toxic industrialchemicals or pathogens in foreign coun-tries where environmental protectionstandards are not up to those of theUnited States. The NRC study recom-mended that the Army invest in thisarea of military-specific genomicresearch as one way of leveraging com-mercial genomics applications asopportunities appear on the horizon. Inthe far term, the study predicted thatthe Army should lead the way towardopen, disciplined use of genomics data to enhance soldier health andperformance.

But other genomics applicationsneeded by the Army may not be ad-dressed by the biotech industry. Forexample, quick-response vaccine devel-opment and small-scale vaccine pro-duction capabilities are important andclearly define Army biotechnologyrequirements. Commercial marketincentives are lacking for both, but themission (and market) is likely to expandwith homeland defense requirements toprepare for future bioterrorist contin-gencies. Genomics research has openedthe door to new technologies for vac-cine development, and the Army shouldsupport research in such areas as en-gineered viruses, cell-based vaccines,DNA vaccines, and monoclonalantibodies.

BIOTECHNOLOGYFOR FUTURE

ARMY APPLICATIONS

Dr. Michael R. Ladisch, Dr. James J. Valdes, andLTC Robert J. Love (USA, Ret.)


Army InfluenceThe Army will have a difficult time

influencing the course of biotechnologydevelopment. For one thing, commer-cial research and development isfocused on agriculture, medicine, andthe environment, and many importantArmy applications are nonmedical. Also,this emerging industry consists of adiverse assortment of a few large phar-maceutical and agricultural productcompanies and hundreds of smallentrepreneurial ventures. The industryis highly competitive in a myriad of spe-cialty fields, including genomics, bioin-formatics, microfluidics, and nanotech-nology. The dollars spent by the indus-try on drug research and developmentalone far surpass that for all Armyresearch and development, so forgingmultiple partnerships for influence andleverage will be essential for the Army.

BiomaterialsThe NRC BAST study found that

many promising biotechnologies willresult from research in biological hybridmaterials and biologically inspiredmaterials. Biomaterials compatible withthe human body could start the wound-healing processes on the battlefield andaccelerate the repair of bones throughself-replication. Innovative tissue engi-neering, including the use of stem cells,could repair cartilage and replace deador damaged tissue. However, new tech-niques are needed to associate proteinstructure with function and to optimizethe design of proteins through geneticengineering.

ProteinsA growing body of knowledge about

proteins, known as proteomics, is lead-ing the way toward a multitude ofimportant applications. For example,specific proteins that can enable growthof synthetic materials on biological sur-faces may resolve biocompatibilityissues and facilitate the implantation ofsensors, monitors, and other microscaledevices. Other benefits to the Armyinclude protein-based electronic com-ponents, lightweight armor producedfrom structural protein polymers, andcatalytic enzymes for the degradation oftoxic materials.

The focus on proteins has alreadyled to important developments inmolecular electronics for use in elec-tronics, computing, communications,

and power systems. Protein-based com-puter memories provide secure andpractically limitless data storage inharsh field environments. Additionally,there is strong evidence that geneticallyengineered proteins can be used tomake electronics components immuneto radiation weapons.

Biological photovoltaic cells, mim-icking natural photosynthetic processes,may provide soldiers with alternativesto batteries for radios, displays, andother field equipment. Advances in agri-cultural biotechnology that are enablingproduction of multifunctional foods,such as edible vaccines, can potentiallysimplify logistics support for smallunits. However, perhaps even moreimportant to logistics is biologicalresearch underpinning the miniaturiza-tion of systems.

NanotechnologyMany of the top-down advances in

nanotechnology have resulted frombottom-up revelations in molecular andcellular biology. Nanoscale devices con-sisting of cantilevers, pumps, valves,channels, and electronic componentsshow exciting potential to conservepower, integrate external and internalsensor systems, and perform usefulfunctions independently in transparentmodes. Nanoscale structures that mimicbiological functions could be used toassess physiological status (e.g., alert-ness) or responses to battlefield con-taminants or biological threats. Otherdevices might combine biological orsynthetic components with silicon toaccomplish sensing functions not possi-ble by any other means.

Nanotechnology is thought to haveso much potential that the governmentcommitted more than $500 million to aNational Nanotechnology Initiative andthe Army has established a Soldier Nan-otechnology Center where academicand Army scientists can work concur-rently on common applications.

Other facets of biotechnology,including toxicogenomics, molecularelectronics, and biologically inspiredmaterials, are likely to have extraordi-nary impact on future Army operations.However, research is needed in severalkey areas to overcome critical barriers tononmedical developments important tofuture Army applications but lacking incommercial incentives. These includeinvestigations in target threat molecules

for battlefield sensors, improved pro-teins for radiation-resistant electronics,hierarchical design models for advancedcombat materials, and interfaces forimplanted device substructures.

ConclusionPotential adversaries are highly

likely to take advantage of develop-ments in biotechnology to achievedubious ends. As such, the Army mustposition itself to monitor the expandingfields of biotechnology, to influencedevelopments supportive of futureapplications, and to exploit new oppor-tunities as they appear.

The establishment of a new ArmyBiotechnology Center, which was pro-posed after the study was released, willbe a major step toward concentratingresearch and monitoring commercialdevelopments. This new multidiscipli-nary activity will focus on specific areasof biotechnology with important appli-cability to the mission needs of futureArmy forces and with minimal commer-cial interest and investment.

DR. MICHAEL R. LADISCH is aDistinguished Professor in the Agri-cultural and Biological EngineeringDepartment and in the Departmentof Biomedical Engineering andDirector of the Laboratory of Renew-able Resources at Purdue University,West Lafayette, IN. He chaired theBAST committee that wrote the NRCreport Opportunities in Biotechnol-ogy for Future Army Applications. Hehas a B.S. degree from Drexel Univer-sity and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees fromPurdue University, all in chemicalengineering.

DR. JAMES J. VALDES is theArmy’s Scientific Advisor for Biotech-nology and Chief Scientist for theArmy Soldier and Biological Chemi-cal Command. He has a Ph.D. inneuroscience from Texas ChristianUniversity and has completed post-doctoral studies in neurotoxicologyat Johns Hopkins University.

LTC ROBERT J. LOVE (USA, Ret.)is a Study Director on the staff of theNRC. He graduated from the U.S.Military Academy and has an M.S. inelectrical engineering from the Uni-versity of Arizona.


There are some who might say theArmy has just the right ingredients tobuild a robot. And, after 6 intenseweeks, students from Hayfield HighSchool in Alexandria, VA, and civilianengineers at the Army Materiel Com-mand’s (AMC’s) Night Vision and Elec-tronic Sensors Directorate did justthat—they built an original robotcalled Hawk2.

The group sent their robot toFIRST (For Inspiration and Recognitionof Science and Technology) for itsannual robotics competition. FIRST isa nonprofit organization created toinspire an appreciation of science andtechnology in students, their schools,and their communities. Founder DeanKamen said that kids must be shownthat science and technology are funand exciting.

The competition is designed forstudents and their engineering men-tors to battle for honors and recogni-tion that rewards design excellence,competitive play, sportsmanship, andhigh-impact partnerships betweenschools, businesses, and communities.The northeast regional robotics com-petition was held March 7-9, 2002, atVirginia Commonwealth University’sSiegel Center, Richmond, VA. Duringthe competition, the students andengineers made minor adjustments totheir robot and participated in a “zonezeal” mock soccer game that measuredboth the robot’s effectiveness and thestudent’s collaboration and determina-tion. The judges dubbed Hawk2 the

best “picker upper” of all. In fact, it wasenough to get them into the nationalchampionship competition, which washeld April 25-27, 2002, at Walt DisneyWorld’s Epcot Center in Orlando, FL.

The adventure began in January2002 when team sponsors from thenortheast region traveled to NewHampshire to pick up identical robotkits and a standard set of rules. Eachkit, consisting of several boxes filledwith nuts, bolts, electrical wires, andinstructions—everything needed tobuild a robot but the magic of theimagination—presented a challengefrom the beginning.

Next, the students and engineersdivided into teams to brainstorm,design, construct, and test theirmachine. Each person’s job was criticalto the success of the finished robot.The students learned to use sophisti-cated, computer-aided design pro-grams and worked closely with theengineers; however, the students madethe decisions and followed throughwith their ideas. For 2 hours a day for 6weeks, including most Saturdays, theteams put their heads together to makethe robot come to life.

Many of the students working onHawk2 were “hooked” last year whentheir physics teacher, Mike Witte, spon-sored the group. Witte is now workingfor the Night Vision and ElectronicSensors Directorate but continues tolead the project. Other students wereattracted to the project by the enthusi-asm of “veteran” students, doubling the

number of interested students thisyear. Witte stated, “This year’s robot isreally neat! It’s so capable!”

According to Witte, the NightVision and Electronic Sensors Direc-torate is really doing a good thing forstudents. He said that as their teacherlast year, and a volunteer leader thisyear, he has seen a real turnaround insome of the students. Until they signedup for the FIRST competition, most ofthem had never met an engineer, muchless one who worked for the Army. Thisproject has inspired students to enterthe science, math, or engineeringcareer fields. In fact, several of the stu-dents will be working at the directorateduring their summer vacations.

The Night Vision and ElectronicSensors Directorate is the Army’s pre-mier organization for developing tech-nologies that enable soldiers and pilotsto shoot, move, and communicatethrough the night in all kinds ofweather and to locate and neutralizelandmines. Working with the engineersat the lab adds to the experience ofdesigning a robot and could help theseyoung people recognize that scienceand engineering are exciting and fulfill-ing careers they can pursue with theArmy.

MARTHA MCCASLIN is a Pro-gram Integration Specialist andPublic Affairs Representative inAMC's Night Vision and ElectronicSensors Directorate.

STUDENTS,ARMY ENGINEERSSHOW INGENUITY

IN ROBOTICSCOMPETITION

Martha McCaslin

Hawk2robot madeby HayfieldHigh School

studentsand AMC

engineers.


IntroductionThe critical importance

of software in today’s high-tech world cannot be under-estimated. As such, softwaredevelopment teams must bemindful of developing qualitysoftware on time, withinbudgets, and capable ofmeeting the customer’s realneeds. Despite this, however,a study by the StandishGroup in 1994 reported, “Astaggering 31 percent of proj-ects will be canceled beforethey ever get completed, 52.7percent of projects will cost189 percent of their originalestimates and require 222percent more time than origi-nally estimated, and only about 16percent of software projects are com-pleted on time and on budget.”

The Army is certainly notimmune from these results andsometimes is even more susceptible.One reason may be that DOD sys-tems tend to be more complex andhave more diverse requirements. In arecent Army project failure, the origi-nal project estimate was 18-24months for completion at a cost of$22 million. The reality was 4 years,$70-$110 million, and the project wascanceled with no delivery. The pro-gram manager (PM) noted the fol-lowing as some of the reasons for thefailure:

• Extremely high defect countwith poor resolution trend,

• Negative combat developerfeedback on system performance,

• Underestimated magnitude ofthe work, and

• Inadequate monitoring of dailyand weekly requirements.

Inadequate requirements deter-mination is often the cause of theseabysmal results. Requirement errorsare likely to be the most common

type of error and the most expensiveto fix. Thus, proper software require-ments definition is of the utmostimportance.

Team SkillsTo properly manage software

requirements, the development teammust possess the following six criticalskills:

Team Skill 1, Analyzing The Prob-lem. Developers must have a fullunderstanding of the user’s environ-ment, the problem domain. Thisrequires involvement of all stake-holders. Stakeholders can be theusers, who are ultimately the sol-diers; the customers, Army Trainingand Doctrine Command (TRADOC)System Managers (TSMs) who repre-sent the user; materiel developers;and regulatory overseers, such as theDepartment of the Army and DOD.The Army is skilled in analyzing theproblem and aware of its importance.In fact, DoD 5000.2-R states that con-tractors must be chosen partly ontheir appropriate domain experience.Unfortunately, because TSMs repre-sent the user and are considered sub-ject matter experts (SMEs), they areoften mistaken for the actual user.

The concern with this is thatmany SMEs are not aware ofthe real problem. Thus, theydon’t address the require-ments that the actual userneeds.

Team Skill 2, DefiningThe System. User needs andthe problem domain mustbe defined in a vision docu-ment, which is the singlemost important document ina software project. The visiondocument captures userneeds, system features, andother common projectrequirements. It is a livingdocument. It is not thevision provided by theTRADOC commander, which

is a very high level abstraction, docu-mented as future operational capa-bilities or in mission needs state-ments. The vision document isclosely related to the operationalrequirements document (ORD). Butwhat DOD calls requirements isreally a definition of system features,not functional requirements. Thesefeatures can be considered the sys-tem’s nonfunctional requirements,those that deal with quality of service(i.e., reliability, availability, andmaintainability).

Here, the Army is a master. Thework involved up to writing an ORDis vast; the work involved in writingthe ORD is epic. The Army spends agreat deal of time ensuring the rightchoice to fulfill a need is a materielone, and then we properly assign themonumental task of building it to aPM.

Team Skill 3, Understanding UserNeeds. This skill consists of severaltechniques and subskills necessary toelicit the proper requirements fromthe user. The developer must includeall stakeholders to gain the under-standing of the problem domain. Thetechniques are pretty straightfor-ward: interviewing, workshops,

MANAGINGSOFTWARE

REQUIREMENTSMAJ Joseph P. Dupont andMAJ Robert W. Cummins Jr.


brainstorming, storyboarding, role-playing, prototyping, and applyinguse cases—a modern approach tosoftware development. There aresome great techniques, but the Armydoes not benefit from all of thembecause there is little or no training.

Team Skill 4, Managing Scope.This involves staying within budgetand schedule with reasonable flexi-bility. Managing the scope properlymeans keeping requirements in per-spective. For example, the Armyneeds to determine if the feature isreally necessary or if it is just nice tohave. Once a requirements baselineis established, the PM must maketough decisions to keep require-ments “creep” in check. As users andcustomers begin to understand thesolution domain (i.e., what is possi-ble and what is available), they aregoing to want more.

Another important aspect of thisskill is choosing the right develop-mental model: waterfall, spiral, oriterative. Each has value but must beapplied under the right circum-stances. The waterfall model (Figure1) is normally used when a customermust have a full working version on

the first drop. The drawback is thatrequirements must be known upfrontbefore any work begins.

The spiral model (Figure 2) worksbest when time is not of the essenceand there isn’t a clear understandingof the requirements. It becomes atechnique to help flush out therequirements by establishing base-line requirements, analyzing devel-opmental risk, and building proto-types. Users and customers examinethe prototypes and the process startsover. The drawback is that the cus-tomer doesn’t receive a workingproduct very quickly and, quite often,wants the prototype, which is notfully functional.

The iterative model (Figure 3)can be considered the best of bothworlds. It employs the benefits ofboth to achieve a fully functionalproduct for earlier release to the cus-tomer. The drawback here is the useronly gets a subset of the required fea-tures at each release.

Team Skill 5, Refining The SystemDefinition. This skill involves remov-ing ambiguity in each domain. Sim-ply documenting the definition of thedomain will create as many interpre-tations as there are readers. Methodsmust be employed to specify the

requirements in such a mannerso there is only one interpreta-

tion. Some methods toaccomplish this are

through specificationlanguages, such as

the ViennaDevelop-

ment

Method (VDM) and Z (pronounced,Zed), through the Unified ModelingLanguage, pseudocode, finite statemachines, and others. The featuresfound in the ORD are ambiguousrequirements. They get refined in theUser’s Functional Description (UFD)and the Software RequirementsSpecification (SRS).

The Army also does a pretty goodjob in this area. The UFD is the com-bat developer’s first stab at specifyingrequirements and providing addi-tional constraints, whereas the SRS isthe materiel developer’s first stab atalleviating ambiguity.

Team Skill 6, Building The RightSystem. This skill includes a multi-tude of techniques to keep the proj-ect on schedule and to release aproduct that pleases the customer.Such techniques include verifyingrequirements versus validating oper-ation, requirements traceability, con-figuration management (CM), test-ing, and return on investment. Aproduct that pleases the customermay not necessarily be the productthe customer requested. It is impor-tant to provide customers a productthat meets their needs; however,what they ask for and what they actu-ally get may be two different things.

The Jury SaysTo validate some of our theories,

we interviewed four separate PMsand/or project leaders working in theareas of software development, soft-ware acquisition, or software systemsdevelopment. The interviews wereconducted using a questionnaire. AllPMs we interviewed stated that theusers of their system were soldiers(warfighters). They also stated that

Figure 1.Waterfallmodel

their customers were the TSMs, func-tional proponents (schoolhouses), orbattlefield functional area (BFA) sys-tems—further identified as the pri-mary stakeholder. The primary stake-holder provided them with the ORDand approved the delivered function-ality of their system and the systemrequirements. Working groups,attended by the PM, primary stake-holder, and contractors, initially dis-cussed the preliminary design of thesystem in brainstorming sessions.The SRS began to take form duringthese sessions and was given to thecontractor for initial development.Based on input from the PM, the pri-

mary stakeholder established the pri-ority of requirements in the SRS. Thegroup met periodically to reviewrequirements and conduct criticaldesign reviews to see how well theproposed system was meeting thoserequirements.

All PMs agreed that the primarystakeholder did not fully representuser views. They commented thatthey were understaffed and nottrained to properly elicit userrequirements. In reality, most PMswere gathering requirements fromusers when they were training ortesting them on their system. ThePMs then needed to take these

requirements back to the primarystakeholder for approval. Sometimesthis was an easy undertaking, butmost of the time, it required the PMto do a lot of selling of user-providedrequirements.

All PMs identified contractors astheir developers. Once the require-ments were identified, it was up tothe contractor to build the system.The contractor determined theamount of risk associated with sys-tem development and negotiated thebaseline with the PM. The contrac-tors organized, verified, and tracedsystem requirements to ensure thatthe requirements were met. Some


Figure 2.Spiral model


PMs were unfamiliar with the con-tractors’ CM methods, and othersused various CM tools of their own tocontrol and track the baseline. OnePM office actually used an independ-ent contractor to maintain CM.

In developing requirements, thePMs also had to contend with theregulatory overseers. All PMs identi-fied the Office of the Assistant Secre-tary of the Army for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology and otherstaff agencies as overseers. Theseorganizations provided specific guid-ance for the development of softwaresystems. They did not send represen-tatives to any of the working groups,but they were the review authorityand provided the final approval forthe system under development.

Most PMs stated that they usedthe spiral or iterative method in theirdevelopment approach, but couldn’tnecessarily explain those models. Itwas determined that the costlymethod of test, fix, and test again wasbeing used. Users were brought intothe development process duringtraining and testing. Comments werethen provided to the PM, who wentback to the primary stakeholder forapproval, and the process started allover.

Conclusion Users are not brought into the

requirements analysis process; thus,they have no input until the system isbuilt. This causes requirement errorsthat could be avoided by includingthe user earlier in the process.Changes after a system is built costupwards of 50 times more thanchanges early during requirementanalyses. Involving the user earlier inthe analysis process would allow thedeveloper to build to actual require-ments and reduce feature creep andthe “yes, buts.” It is also importantthat workgroups involve all stake-holders in a productive session tohelp define the problem and elicitactual requirements. There are tech-niques to do this in our softwareacquisition process but they are notused. These techniques need to beused, in addition to training throughpractical exercises. Finally, our acqui-sition professionals need more edu-cation specifically on software engi-neering principles. Far too oftenthere is too much reliance on thecontractors’ word with no under-standing of software development.

Figure 3.Iterative model

MAJ JOSEPH P. DUPONT wasa graduate student at the NavalPostgraduate School workingtoward an M.S. in software engi-neering when this article waswritten. He formerly worked in theProgram Executive Office for Com-mand, Control and Communica-tions Systems and as an AssistantProgram Manager in the Office ofWarfighter Information Network-Terrestrial. He is currently attend-ing the Command and GeneralStaff Officers Course at Fort Leav-enworth, KS. He holds a B.S. inelectrical engineering from theUniversity of New Hampshire andcan be reached at [email protected].

MAJ ROBERT W. CUMMINSJR. is a graduate student at theNaval Postgraduate School, work-ing toward an M.S. in softwareengineering. He formerly workedin the Office of the Deputy Chief ofStaff, Information Management,U.S. Army Test and EvaluationCommand. Cummins holds a B.A.in political science from SalisburyUniversity, Salisbury, MD, and canbe reached at [email protected].


Summer is traditionally that time of year when mov-ing vans are on the road and families are relocating—especially military ones. Summertime also brings manyother changes, including the arrival of new people withnew ideas into organizations. This is particularly trueduring our continuing reorganization of the AcquisitionSupport Center. And as I have emphasized in the past,the key element of our mission remains people: the peo-ple who are a part of this organization and the people weserve—acquisition professionals—and ultimately sol-diers in the field.

Summer is also the time of year when schools recessand people graduate and begin new careers. In fact, Irecently had the pleasure of meeting and personally con-gratulating the graduates of the Senior Service CollegeFellowship Program at the University of Texas at Austin. Iwas extremely impressed by the dedication and achieve-ments of these Army acquisition workforce members.Among the benefits of being a member of the acquisitionworkforce is the ability to take advantage of numerousoutstanding education and training opportunities,including continuing education and degree programs.

I encourage you to read the article on the AcquisitionCareer Experience (ACE) Program on Page 31. The ACEProgram is an excellent opportunity for college studentswith multidisciplined backgrounds to work during thesummer in Army acquisition organizations.

Additionally, I want to direct your attention to the“Speaking Out” article on Page 55 of this issue of ArmyAL&T, which provides some very insightful commentsfrom several of our Army Acquisition Corps members.

Finally, I want to thank you for your many profes-sional development questions that have been submittedfor publication in the “Ask The Acquisition Support Cen-ter” article in Army AL&T magazine. Several of them,along with responses, appear on this page. I greatly valueyour suggestions and comments.

COL Mary FullerDirectorAcquisition Support Center

AAsskk TThhee AAccqquuiissiittiioonnSSuuppppoorrtt CCeenntteerr

What is the rationale behind a new directive thatrequires a specific number of academic business creditsbefore an individual can become an Army AcquisitionCorps (AAC) member?

To preserve the professionalism and ensure the multi-functional business acumen of our acquisition workforce,individuals accessed into the AAC are required to have 24semester credit hours (or equivalent) from an accreditedinstitution of higher education. These credits may be fromamong the following business disciplines: accounting,business, finance, contracting, economics, industrial man-agement, law, marketing, organization management, pur-chasing, and quantitative methods. An alternative to thisrequirement is 24 semester credit hours in the individual’sacquisition career field and either 12 semester credit hoursfrom the above disciplines or training in these disciplinesequivalent to 12 semester credit hours.

It is essential that our senior workforce and futureleaders have the tools and skills required to effectivelymanage the acquisition life cycle of our soldier systems.The business education requirement is one means tobroaden our workforce and maintain a sharp businesssense in dealing with the multitude of customers through-out the acquisition process.

I am a military acquisition officer. How do I deter-mine who my career manager is?

To find this information, go to https://www.perscomonline.army.mil/OPfam51/Staff.htm, which listspoints of contact for various topics. Career managers arelisted for regions throughout the country.

I am a Reserve/National Guard member who wasjust activated. Where do I go for acquisition career man-agement guidance?

A reservist who has been activated can call the U.S.Army Reserve Personnel Command at (314) 592-0608 orDSN 892-0608 for acquisition career management infor-mation. National Guard members should go to the AAChome page at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil and click onYour Career Management Team, which will give you a listof options to choose from, including US Army NationalGuard Acquisition Management Branch.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT UPDATE

FROM THE DIRECTORACQUISITION SUPPORTCENTER


SmartForce Now AvailableSmartForce, the world’s largest and most experi-

enced e-learning company, has announced that itsnumerous online courses are now available to the Army,at no cost, through the Army Training Requirements andResources System (ATRRS). Previously limited to busi-nesses, SmartForce courses are now offered to all Activeduty soldiers, Army National Guard and Army Reservemembers, and Army civilian employees. Participants willhave access to more than 1,500 information technology,business skills, and interpersonal skills courses from anylocation in the world, around the clock. Users cannot,however, apply SmartForce courses toward certificationor degrees.

To use SmartForce, get an Army Knowledge Onlineaccount at http://www.us.army.mil and complete anATRRS application at https://www.atrrs.army.mil/channels/elearning/smartforce. Be sure to browsethe SmartForce Course Catalog at https://www.atrrs.army.mil/channels/elearning/smartforce/sfCatalog.pdfto see the courses available to you.

ACE ProgramContinues To Expand

The Acquisition Career Experience (ACE) Program isa paid, 2-year academic/government joint summeremployment program intended to recruit full-timeundergraduate college sophomores and juniors withmultifunctional academic backgrounds into acquisitionpositions throughout the Army acquisition civilian work-force. Selected students have the opportunity to work atnumerous Army organizations, are assigned a mentor foron-the-job training, and are given challenging workassignments.

Acquisition Career Managers (ACMs) from all fiveregions (National Capital Region (NCR), Northeast, Cen-tral, Southern, and Western) aggressively recruited highlymotivated students again in 2002, resulting in more than200 applications. Unfortunately, many of these studentswill be turned away because job opportunities are notyet available. Your organizations can help remedy thissituation by sponsoring participants and providingfinancial support for the summer 2003 program. Firstyear ACE students normally enter the program at the GS-04 level; second year students may be promoted tothe GS-05 level. By sponsoring an ACE student, yourorganization would be responsible for salary and TDYexpenses.

A central selection board was conducted in the NCRthat resulted in the establishment of a Relative StandingList (a ranking of applicants’ weighted scores) for eachregion with students from a wide variety of schools. (The

article on Page 31 of this issue describes the summer2002 review board process.) Selected students have beenslated regionally against available opportunities, andofficial job offers are currently being extended. Somestudents began summer employment this past May.

ACMs from all regions will be conducting mentorworkshops in an effort to guide them through theprocess and share insight and lessons learned from pre-vious years. In addition to the mentor workshops, ACMswill conduct student orientations to assist the ACE stu-dents in understanding their role and responsibilities.

For additional information on the ACE Program, goto the ACE Web site at http://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/acepage/index.htm.

New Program ManagementCareer-Training Track

The Director for Acquisition Career Management,working with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU),approved a new program management career-trainingtrack, which became effective Oct. 1, 2001. This newtrack opens up advanced program management trainingto a larger portion of the acquisition workforce while atthe same time provides additional focused training foracquisition category (ACAT) I/II program managers(PMs) and deputy PMs. The major training changereplaces PMT 302, the Advanced Program ManagementCourse, which is no longer offered.

The new Program Management Level III certificationcourse is the Program Management Office Course (PMT352). This is a hybrid course with an upfront distance-learning portion (PMT 352A) followed by 6 weeks in theclassroom (PMT 352B). The prerequisites for this courseare Fundamentals Of Systems Acquisition Management(ACQ 201) and Program Management Tools (PMT 250).Registration for PMT 352 is similar to other DAU coursesusing the ATRRS Internet Training Application System(AITAS) online registration system(https://www.atrrs.army.mil/channels/aitas/).

In addition, the 10-week Program Manager’s Course(PMT 401), recently offered in its pilot stage, will bemodified and be required for potential ACAT I/IIPMs/deputy PMs (GS-14/15s or equivalent personneldemonstration broadband level, and O-5/O-6s). It is pro-jected to be available in January 2003. The Program Man-ager’s Course is now the prerequisite for the statutorilyrequired Executive Program Manager’s Course (PMT402). The Program Manager’s Course (PMT 401) is notrequired for those who have already taken the AdvancedProgram Management Course (PMT 302).

More information about these courses can be foundon the DAU Web site at www.dau.mil.



FY03 COL/GS-15PM/AC Board Results

The U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’s Acquisi-tion Management Branch recently completed an analysisof the FY03 Colonel (COL)/GS-15 Project Manager (PM)and Acquisition Command (AC) Board results for ArmyAcquisition Corps (AAC) officers and civilians. The fol-lowing paragraphs summarize the results and indicatepossible trends.

Overall ResultsBoard members reviewed the files of 66 AAC mem-

bers (41 Active duty officers and 25 civilians). From thispopulation, the board selected 26 principals for PM andAC assignments. The principals included 24 officers andtwo civilians. Results by year group (YG) for Army offi-cers are as follows:

YG77 YG78 YG79 YG80 YG81 YG82Considered 1 4 5 22 8 1Selected 0 1 1 14 7 1

Who Was Selected?Twenty-three of the Army officers (96 percent)

selected as principals were selected on their first timeconsidered. Both of the civilian selectees were selectedas principals on prior command boards. Twenty-one ofthe Army officers (88 percent) selected are Senior ServiceCollege (SSC) graduates. One of the two civilians selectedis also an SSC graduate. Twenty-three of the officers (96percent) selected served as lieutenant colonel (LTC) PMsor ACs. Of the civilians selected, one previously served asboth a GS-14 product manager and a GS-15 projectmanager. The other civilian had experience as a deputyprogram manager at the GS-15 level.

General ObservationsOfficers are selected for COL PM/AC the first or sec-

ond time considered after completion of SSC and suc-cessful LTC PM/AC assignments. With few exceptions,successful command is defined as at least 67 percent(two out of three) of an officer’s command officer evalua-tion reports rated as above center of mass. Previous pro-gram office experience at the critical acquisition positionlevel continues to be the most important combinationfor civilians to be competitive for PM/AC. However, thereis no evidence that consecutive or repetitive programoffice tours better qualify an individual for PM selection.On the contrary, a very successful product managementtour, coupled with successful performance in a majorheadquarters staff position, is a common formula for PMselection. Contracting officers require extensive con-

tracting training and experience combined with a verysuccessful contracting command assignment. Again,success in a major headquarters staff position enhancesoverall file strength toward selection.

Civilians must continue to stress to their supervisorsand senior raters the importance of writing meaningfulcomments on both performance evaluations and SeniorRater Potential Evaluations. In addition, civilians mustensure that the jobs shown on their Acquisition CareerRecord Brief match those shown on their résumé. Over-all strength of file combined with successful perform-ance in supervisory and managerial positions (e.g.,deputy product manager) enhance chances for selection.

SummaryBecause of the competitiveness for command, it is

essential that AAC members pay close attention to thecomponents of their board file to ensure accurate infor-mation is provided to board members so they can makean informed decision. The trend continues to be forcommand boards to select acquisition professionals witha diverse acquisition background coupled with a suc-cessful LTC/GS-14 PM/AC assignment.

FY03 COL/GS-15 PM/AC SelecteesAll selectees are LTC(P) unless otherwise indicated.

FY03 LTC/GS-14PM/AC Board Results

The U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’s(PERSCOM’s) Acquisition Management Branch (AMB)recently completed an analysis of the FY03 ProductManager (PM)/Acquisition Command (AC) Board resultsand overall command opportunity for Army AcquisitionCorps (AAC) officers and civilians. The selection boardwas held Dec. 6-12, 2001, and the selection list wasreleased April 4, 2002. The following paragraphs summa-rize the results and indicate possible trends.


Barber, Jesse L.Bell, Anthony B. Bliss, Gary L. Cantor, Michael E. Coker, David W. Coppola, Alfred A. Jr.Diego-Allard, Victoria Driessnack, Charles H. Ernst, Adolph H. III (COL)Fritz, Gregory J. Golden, Robert (CIV)Green, Allen L. III Greene, Harold J.

Hodge, Yolanda (CIV)Hogan, Thomas H. Lyford, Mark A. Maddux, Jonathan A. McDaniels, Lloyd E. McQuain, Paul M. Nichols, Camille M. Patterson, William N. Payne, Jerome F. Polcyzynski, Kennith D. Rust, Stephen L. Smith, Michael J. Stone, Jesse M.


Overall ResultsBoard members reviewed the files of 237 AAC mem-

bers. From this population, the board selected 62 princi-pals for PM, AC, or contracting command assignments.The selectees included 60 acquisition officers, 1 medicalservice officer, and 1 civilian. Of the 61 military individu-als chosen, 55 are slated for PM or AC assignments, while6 are slated for contracting command assignments.Overall selection rate was 26 percent. Military selectionrate was 29 percent (61/210), and the civilian selectionrate was 4 percent (1/27). Officer results by year group(YG) are as follows (not inclusive of revalidated or med-ical corps officers): YG87 (1), YG86 (5), YG85 (40), YG84(9), YG83 (5), and YG82 (2).

Who Was Selected?The civilian selectee and 31 of the 55 officers (56 per-

cent) slated for PM or AC assignments served at least 18months as assistant or deputy PMs. In addition, 47 of the55 officers (84 percent) slated for PM or AC assignmentsserved 2 years in program office, major headquartersstaff, and/or executive officer assignments. Five of thesix officers (83 percent) slated to be contracting com-manders had at least 4 years contracting experience ateither the Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Army MaterielCommand, Forces Command, or in the Office of theAssistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logisticsand Technology. Ninety-eight percent of selectees have amaster’s degree, and two officers have a Ph.D. Five offi-cers were not previously selected for resident Commandand Staff College but have completed the nonresidentcourse.

General ObservationsConsistently strong evaluations were common

among selectees. The average number of Officer Evalua-tion Reports (OERs) under the DA Form 67-9 was 3.5 forselectees, 4.0 for alternates, and 3.9 for officers notselected as a principal or an alternate. The average num-ber of above-center-of-mass OERs under the DA Form67-9 was 2.8 for selectees, 2.3 for alternates, and 1.6 forofficers not selected as a principal or an alternate. Theaverage number of center-of-mass OERs under the DAForm 67-9 was 0.7 for selectees, 1.6 for alternates, and2.3 for officers not selected as a principal or an alternate.

The civilians selected as principals and alternateshad very strong comments on their Senior Rater Poten-tial Evaluations (SRPEs). In addition, they had previouslybeen selected for either the Competitive DevelopmentGroup Program, Senior Service College Program, or hadperformed duties as a deputy project/product manager.For military officers, the trend for first-look selectioncontinues as follows:

Look Percent Of Officers1st 742nd 153rd 84th 3

For civilians, the principal and alternates wereselected on their second time considered.

SummaryBefore future PM/AC boards convene, it is impera-

tive for officers to personally “scrub” their Officer RecordBrief and microfiche to ensure accurate information isconveyed to board members. PERSCOM plans for offi-cers to begin checking their files using the Army Knowl-edge Online Web site exclusively. Until that time, officersshould continue to request a copy of their fiche at least180 days prior to the board convening. Traditionally, theboard meets in November each year. The AMB will scrubpackets for officers in the zone of consideration 30-45days prior to the date of the board. If your official photois more than 2 years old, replace it. Prior to taking a newphoto, check the awards, branch, and U.S. insignia onyour uniform. Attention to detail makes a difference.

To be competitive for future selection as a PM orcommander, captains and majors should seek career-broadening experiences. Officers should seek those jobsthat offer experiences in program management, combatdevelopments, testing, and contracting. With a limitednumber of positions in program offices, PERSCOM willcontinue to rotate captains and majors at approximately24-month intervals to ensure a sufficient pool of experi-enced, qualified officers for future PM and commandpositions. Officers who want to be competitive for con-tracting commands should seek contracting officer posi-tions in pre-award, post-award, and contingency con-tracting officer environments.

Civilians should take time to ensure that their appli-cation package is complete and contains all requireddocuments. Special attention should be given to ensur-ing the data contained on the Acquisition Career RecordBrief (ACRB) are accurate. Dates reflected on the ACRBshould match dates shown on the résumé (e.g., dates ofassignments on ACRB should match dates recorded onthe résumé). “Fresh” ACRBs may be obtained fromAcquisition Career Managers (ACMs) and submittedwith application packages. Discrepancies such as miss-ing evaluations should be explained. Remember, theapplication package reflects your career and defines yourtraining, education, and experience to the board. Civil-ians must also stress to their supervisors the importanceof the SRPE. Weak comments or the lack of commentsmay negatively impact the board’s selection decision.Your ACM at PERSCOM is the best source of informationwith respect to board preparation.



Akins, Elton LTC Arn, Mark LTC Bailey, Calvin LTC Blackwell, Bobby LTC Borhauer, Rachel LTC Boyd, Cris LTC Bristow, James LTC Bullington, Johnny LTC Campbell, Scott MAJ(P) Cavalier, Michael LTC Chandler, Michael LTC Chapman, James LTC Clarke, Matthew LTC Colvin, Darryl MAJ(P)

Conklin, Daryl LTC Contreras, Andres LTC Daugherty, Anne LTC Deluca, Ralph LTC Dietrich, Shane MAJ(P)Dopp, David CIVDrake, Steven MAJ(P)Flynn, Karl LTC Gabbert, Jeffrey MAJ(P)Grebe, Joseph LTC Harvey, Christopher LTC Herbert, Linda MAJ(P)Hodge, Tony LTC Holzman, Simon LTC

Horrocks, Brent MAJ(P)Iddins, Jeffrey LTC King, Dion LTC Lee, Stephen Jr. LTC Long, John III LTC Loper, Thomas II LTC Mabry, Mark LTC McKsymick, Eric MAJ(P)McRae, Lawrence LTC Mockensturm, Jeffrey MAJ(P)Modrow, Harold III LTC Munoz, Daniel LTC Norris, James LTC O’Donell, Warren MAJ(P)Olson, Thomas LTC Openshaw, Shane MAJ(P)Ostrowski, Paul LTC

Packard, Charles LTC Potts, Anthony MAJ(P)Ramsey, Andrew LTC Rosso, Daniel LTC Ruiz, Gabriel MAJ(P)Shirley, Randall LTC Silas, Lawrence MAJ(P)Simpson, James LTC Smith, Bobby LTC Smith, Perry LTC Steves, Michael MAJ(P)Stewart, Gregory LTC Surdu, John LTC Tarcza, Kenneth LTC Thurgood, Neil MAJ(P)Tobin, Vincent LTC Wendel, John MAJ(P)

Congratulations to the following FY03 LTC/GS-14PM/AC selectees!


U.S. Army ExperimentalTest Pilot Selection Board

One of the responsibilities of the U.S. Total ArmyPersonnel Command’s (PERSCOM’s) Acquisition Man-agement Branch is to manage the Army’s ExperimentalTest Pilot Program. This 11-month program is open toActive duty Army aviators and is offered at the U.S. NavalTest Pilot School (USNTPS), Patuxent River Naval Air Sta-tion, MD.

The FY02 U.S. Army Experimental Test Pilot TrainingProgram Selection Board, which was held Feb. 19-21,2002, selected the following “best-qualified” commis-sioned and warrant officers to attend the USNTPS:

CPT Brian OrwigCPT Jonathan BulsecoMAJ Doug MillerMAJ Todd DellertMAJ Charles WittgesCW3 Donald HunterCW3(P) Frank LenanderCW3 Terry Duquette

Commissioned officers selected for the program areautomatically awarded Functional Area 51 (Research,Development and Acquisition) and accessed into theArmy Acquisition Corps. Warrant officers selected for theprogram will continue to be managed by PERSCOM’sWarrant Officer Division. There are two classes a year,one beginning in July and the other beginning the fol-lowing January. Selectees may also be required to spend12-18 months at a civilian educational institution pursu-

ing an aeronautical engineering degree prior to enteringUSNTPS.

After successfully completing the USNTPS Program,graduates are assigned to initial utilization tours asexperimental test pilots at the U.S. Army Aviation Tech-nical Test Center, Fort Rucker, AL. Subsequent assign-ments are consistent with the officer’s designated func-tional area specialty and the needs of the Army. Officersin research, development, and acquisition positions mayserve as experimental test pilots or in positions affectingthe type, design, and configuration of Army aircraft.Because of the high-dollar investment in training experi-mental test pilots, the Army closely monitors their sub-sequent assignments and professional development.

This year’s board selection process was highly com-petitive. Anyone interested in applying for considerationby next year’s selection board should review the informa-tion below. Board members will thoroughly review allaspects of an application packet, and the following areparticular focus areas.

Academic BackgroundThe academic program at the USNTPS is extremely

rigorous and challenging, given the simultaneousdemands of academics as well as a flight syllabus andreport writing. Accordingly, applicants should possess astrong background in mathematics, engineering, andother related courses, with above-average grades. Appli-cants should ensure that these courses are annotated onofficial transcripts from the academic institution. If acourse was taken that may qualify for equivalency, sup-porting documentation should be included in thepacket.


At a minimum, warrant officers are required to havecompleted college algebra, calculus, differential equa-tions, and physics (or mechanics). Commissioned offi-cers are required to have a bachelor’s degree in engineer-ing or a hard science. Highly desired courses includestructures, solids, statics, thermo and fluid dynamics,aerodynamics, stability and control theory, andadvanced mathematics.

Overall, the academic performance in all areas, aswell as cumulative grade point average, is consideredwhen assessing an applicant’s ability to complete thestringent academic requirements of the USNTPS Pro-gram. This year’s board revealed that many warrant offi-cer applicants were missing one or more of the requiredcourses. Additionally, many applicants had completedacademic courses in areas that were general in nature orhad no relevancy to the disciplines needed to success-fully complete the USNTPS.

Flight HoursThe minimum flight requirements are 700 hours for

commissioned officers and 1,000 hours for warrant offi-cers. DA Form 759-E, Individual Flight Record and FlightCertification-Army, will be reviewed in detail to deter-mine the scope of the applicant’s flight experience.Emphasis is placed on operational flight hours versustime accrued in a simulator. Pilot-in-command time isweighed heavily as an indicator of aviation experienceand maturity. Ratings as an instructor pilot (IP), instru-ment flight examiner, and maintenance test pilot arealso viewed favorably. Civilian fixed-wing ratings andtraining are viewed favorably as well and should be doc-umented. However, civilian flight hours do not counttoward the minimum flight-hour requirement.

EndorsementsApplicants should include letters of recommenda-

tion from an IP/standardization instructor pilot (SIP)documenting their flying abilities and potential. Appli-cants should ensure that the IP/SIP endorsements arecurrent. Other endorsements may be included withinthe packet and will be given due consideration.

Chain Of CommandApplication packets require endorsements by the

officer’s chain of command through the O-6 level. This isto keep the chain of command informed and will pre-clude conflict with the programming of a candidate forthe required training prior to attending USNTPS. Officersin advanced civil schooling should also use their currentchain of command through the O-6 level. The endorse-ment can be routed through the chain of command on

the application memorandum or be included under sep-arate cover.

Time On StationThis year’s board-selected officers will attend either

USNTPS Class 125 (July 2003 to June 2004) or Class 126(January 2004 to December 2004). Officers are requiredto have at least 1 year time on station per the board mes-sage. This allows the officer to attend the USNTPS in oneof the above classes while fulfilling a minimum of 2 yearstime on station within their current assignment. For nextyear’s board, applicants must have at least 12 monthstime on station by February 2003. Students in advancedcivil schooling are exempt from this requirement.

Next year’s USNTPS board is tentatively scheduledfor February 2003. Interested applicants should reviewthe appropriate MILPER message (to be released aroundOctober 2002) to verify they meet the minimum require-ments. Commissioned officers interested in applying forthe program should contact MAJ Jeff Bochonok at (703)325-2800/DSN 221-2800 or e-mail [email protected]. Warrant officers should contact CW3Kim Young at (703) 325-5251/DSN 221-5251 or [email protected].

FY04 CongressionalFellowship Program

HQDA has announced that the FY04 CongressionalFellowship Program will be conducted August 2003-November 2004. This program offers top Army officersan outstanding opportunity to receive valuable trainingand experience by serving as staff assistants to membersof Congress. Fellows are typically given responsibility fordrafting legislation, arranging congressional hearings,writing speeches and floor statements, and briefing con-gressional members for committee deliberations andfloor debates.

The U.S. Total Army Personnel Command’s(PERSCOM’s ) Acquisition Management Branch (AMB)will convene a review board in September 2002 to nomi-nate Army Acquisition Corps officers for the program.On Dec. 3, 2002, the Army Congressional FellowshipSelection Board will review the list of nominees andmake final selections.

To be eligible for the program, officers must meetthe following criteria:

• Hold the rank of major or lieutenant colonel withno more than 17 years Active federal commissionedservice as of Jan. 1, 2003;



• Be a graduate of Command and General Staff Col-lege (resident or nonresident);

• Be branch qualified at current rank;• Meet height and weight requirements per Army

Regulation (AR) 600-9, The Army Weight Program; • Have no adverse actions pending; • Not be competing for any other sponsored pro-

gram, fellowship, or scholarship;• Be available for a utilization tour immediately fol-

lowing the fellowship; and• Have potential for future military service.

The Congressional Fellowship Program begins withan August-December 2003 HQDA orientation and atten-dance at the Force Integration Course and a variety ofmeetings and seminars. Following the orientationperiod, fellows serve as staff assistants to members ofCongress from January-November 2004. After complet-

ing the program, officers will incur an Active duty Ser-vice obligation of no less than three times the length ofthe fellowship (per AR 350-100) and then serve a 2-yearutilization assignment in a position that requires knowl-edge of congressional activities.

To apply for the FY04 Congressional Fellowship Pro-gram, officers should complete DA Form 4187, PersonnelAction. The form must be approved and signed by theindividual’s field grade supervisor or equivalent and for-warded by Sept. 6, 2002, to PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC-OPB-E (Paula Bettes), 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA22332-0411.

Additional information on the Congressional Fellow-ship Program is available on AMB’s Web site athttp://www.perscom.army.mil/opfam51/ambmain.htmor on the Office, Chief Legislative Liaison Web site athttp://www.hqda.army.mil/ocll.


IMPORTANT NOTICEIf you are an individual who receives Army AL&T

magazine and you have changed your mailingaddress, do not contact the Army AL&T EditorialOffice! We cannot make address changes regardingdistribution of the magazine. Please note the follow-ing procedures if you need to change your mailingaddress:

• Civilian members of the Army acquisition work-force must submit address changes to their CivilianPersonnel Advisory Center (CPAC).

• Active duty military personnel must submitaddress changes to their Military Personnel Office(MILPO).

• Army Reserve personnel must submit addresschanges to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Com-mand (ARPERSCOM) in St. Louis, MO.

• National Guard personnel must submit addresschanges to the Army National Guard AcquisitionCareer Management Branch at [email protected] call DSN 327-7532/9073 or (703) 607-7532/9073.

Your attention to these procedures will ensuretimely mailing of your magazine.

A&TWF NewsletterOnline Only

Starting with the summer 2002 issue, TheA&TWF Newsletter will only be available toreaders through the Army Acquisition Corpshome page. In these times of change and con-solidation, the Acquisition Support Center(ASC) is striving to be smarter about resourceallocation while maintaining our commitmentto you, the acquisition professional. We remaindedicated to bringing you the career develop-ment information you need in a timely mannerso you can effectively manage your career. TheA&TWF Newsletter will still feature the impor-tant career-related information you’ve come toexpect. To access the newsletter, go tohttp://dacm.rdaisa.army.mil/ and click on TheA&TWF Newsletter icon. If you have any ques-tions or feedback, please contact Cindy Stark,an SAIC employee assigned to the ASC, at (703)604-7123, DSN 664-7123, [email protected].


The Certified Quality ManagerHandbook, Second EditionBy Duke Okes and Russell T. WestcottQuality Press, 2001

Reviewed by LTC Kenneth H. Rose (USA, Ret.), PMP, aProject Management Instructor for ESI International resid-ing in Hampton, VA, and former member of the Army Acqui-sition Corps.

Recent project management literature and projectmanagers themselves increasingly recognize a quadrupleconstraint of project management: cost, schedule, tech-nical performance, and quality. Project managers aregenerally well-schooled in the traditional first three.Quality can be a new challenge. The Certified QualityManager Handbook, Second Edition by Duke Okes andRussell T. Westcott provides a complete resource for thebusy project manager looking for substance withoutencumbering detail.

The description above, “without encumberingdetail,” should not be taken negatively. This text is by nomeans a superficial overview. It is exactly what projectmanagers need—a means for developing quality literacythat will enable them to understand, evaluate, and affectthe quality components of their projects.

The Quality Management Division of the AmericanSociety for Quality (ASQ) produced the book as a guidein preparing for the ASQ Certified Quality Managerexamination. It is a rich resource of management-levelquality information that is ideally suited to the needs ofa project manager. It comprises a comprehensive collec-tion of executive summaries across the full spectrum ofthe quality management body of knowledge, includingleadership, strategy development and deployment, qual-ity management tools, customer-focused organizations,supplier performance, management, and training/development.

One note of caution: a project manager should notskim this book and then announce with confidence,“Now I are one.” A project of substantial size wouldprobably benefit from a designated quality manager—aquality professional with expertise and fluency in detailswho can perform the project’s necessary day-to-day,hands-on quality tasks.

The book is organized in a two-tier system of sec-tions (body of knowledge elements) and chapters (com-ponents of each element). Each chapter begins with bul-leted lists describing how the chapter will help thereader and what the chapter will discuss. Each chaptercloses with endnotes and suggestions for further read-ing. Documentation and references are substantialthroughout.

Three sections are of immediate interest to projectmanagers. The leadership section consisting of twochapters appears first and establishes the foundation forfollowing material. Quality begins at the top and suc-ceeds only through top-management support. Theevolving definition of quality recognizes the differencebetween what Dr. Joseph Juran [a writer and lecturer onthe topics of quality planning and control] calls little-q(product quality) and big-Q (organizational processquality). Nowadays, the focus is on big-Q with little-q asa component. The leadership section also addresses thebasics of organization design, organization change,negotiation, conflict resolution, and team building.

The management section includes chapters on prin-ciples, communication, projects, quality systems, andquality models. The discussion of projects will seem a bitthin to experienced project managers. Perhaps this is anarea in which project management professionals mightcontribute to the expertise enhancement of quality pro-fessionals. The discussion of quality systems and modelsshould be illuminating to project managers. Both areessential to understanding and embracing quality as akey element of project success, not just another “thing todo.”

The section on quality tools gets down to nitty-gritty,how-to information that will arm a project manager toact on quality, not merely know about it. It includes theclassic seven tools of quality control as well as the newerseven management and planning tools. All are useful inleading and controlling project performance. The dis-cussion of process management is complete and well-supported by clarifying graphics. The chapter on meas-urement is written for understanding, not show, andclearly describes complex concepts related to statistics,capability, and benchmarking.

Readers should move next to sections on customer-focused organizations and supplier performance asareas of project-related interest. Jan Carlzon’s Moment ofTruth—“any episode in which the customer comes incontact with any aspect of the organization and gets animpression of the quality of its service”—should be aneye-opener for project managers who tend to focusmostly on technical aspects of their project. And, inmany large projects, supplier quality is critical to projectquality and should be the basis for subcontract award,not price alone.

Finally, a perusal of the strategy development/deployment and training/development sections willcomplete the tour of the quality management commu-nity. Both areas will probably be familiar to project man-agers, easing the assimilation of quality contexts.

Project managers cannot and must not do every-thing. They must hire good people and then effectivelydelegate to gets things done well, on time, and within

BOOKS


budget. As mentioned earlier, quality is gaining recogni-tion as a fourth and essential constraint. The CertifiedQuality Manager Handbook, Second Edition provides theinformation necessary to manage this constraint. Itshould be a project manager’s first stop on the personaleducation path and kept close at hand as a guide alongthe project performance trail.

This book is available from the Project ManagementInstitute bookstore at http://www.pmibookstore.org.

The 7 Levels of Change: TheGuide to Innovation in theWorld’s Largest CorporationsBy Rolf Smith The Summit Publishing Group,Arlington, TX, 1997

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

In this era of transformation, what better topic isthere to study and discuss than change?

At first glance, The 7 Levels of Change: The Guide toInnovation in the World’s Largest Corporations appears asnothing more than a compilation of the author’s favoritebriefings, lecture notes, or corporate “war stories” drawnfrom a client list that includes a number of Fortune 500companies. A second look confirms that this book istruly different. For example:

• In the lower left page margins of the book, thereader will find copies of slides that the author hasdeveloped for use in his so-called thinking expeditions.

• Next comes a seven-page overview of the book’smain ideas.

• Each chapter starts with a “mind map” or graphicoutline of that chapter’s contents.

• There is a liberal use of annotations in the marginsprinted to look like handwritten notes or drawings.

Yet another clever idea, which some might dare tocall an innovation, comes in the form of a bright yellowbookmark that is included with the text. On one side,this marker lists strategies for making professionalchange at work; on the other side appears strategies for

personal changes that one might make at home. But thisbook is not just a collection of gimmicks and/or cheapfacilitator tricks.

The author and the book’s many contributors—listedin the acknowledgments section and cited graciouslythroughout—have done a good job at structuring thisguide so that the reader doesn’t have to start at thebeginning and read straight through to understand orapply its lessons. Creative design and editing make thisbook a useful desk-side reference.

The titles of each chapter follow:

• Innovate or Die!• The Magic Number 7• Level 1: Effectiveness – Doing the right things• Level 2: Efficiency – Doing the right things right• Level 3: Improving – Doing things better• Level 4: Cutting – Doing away with things• Level 5: Copying – Doing things other people are

doing• Level 6: Different – Doing things no one else is

doing• Level 7: Impossible – Doing things that can’t be

done• What’s Next?• Getting Ready for Change

In the book’s main body, Smith describes the essenceof each type of change, noting that no one type is anybetter than the others but merely different. In the backmatter, Smith provides plenty of complementary mate-rial in the form of case studies, self-assessment exercises,and reference materials. Of particular interest to thereadership of Army AL&T might be the case study on theU.S. Navy’s SMART Ship Project, USS Yorktown.

The 7 Levels of Change: The Guide to Innovation inthe World’s Largest Corporations is a book for all mem-bers of the Defense acquisition, logistics, and technologycommunities. This book is much more than a think pieceor a treatise from some ivory tower or business schoolprinting press. The 7 Levels of Change: The Guide to Inno-vation in the World’s Largest Corporations contains boththeoretical and practical advice for anyone faced withthe management of organizational change. It is a guide-book that promises to deliver results and, in the opinionof this reviewer, Smith delivers on his promise. It is amust-read for those who wish to master change versushaving change master them.

BOOKS


Besson Awards RecognizeProcurement Excellence

At a recent U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC)conference in Gulfport, MS, Harold F. Kershaw, MAJScott C. Dolloff, and Michael P. Farrell received the 2001Frank S. Besson Award for Procurement Excellence.Sallie H. Flavin, AMC’s Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff forResearch, Development and Acquisition-Acquisition,Contracting and Program Management, presented theawards.

The prestigious Besson Award was established inhonor of GEN Frank S. Besson, the first AMC Comman-der, and his lifelong achievements in acquisition. Theaward recognizes individual excellence in the AMC con-tracting workforce. Selection is based on demonstratedtechnical expertise and development and implementa-tion of innovative procurement-related processes in sup-port of AMC’s mission. Awards are made annually torecognize exceptional achievements by three individualsassigned to AMC—a civilian careerist, a military officer,and an intern.

Harold F. Kershaw, a Price Analyst and ContractPricing Advisor for the Office of the Program Manager,Saudi Arabian National Guard Modernization Program(OPM-SANG) in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is thecivilian careerist recipient of the 2001 Besson Award.Kershaw was recognized for developing the first cost-evaluation model and software for use by the Saudi Ara-bian National Guard to streamline the cost-evaluationprocess and provide a database for proposal evaluations.This monumental development project required Ker-

shaw to conduct a multinational, countrywide compen-sation review to determine labor categories and costs forlabor benchmarks. The model will shorten the reviewprocess from 6 to 3 weeks and dramatically reduce therequired manpower.

Kershaw also worked closely with the Saudi ArabianNational Guard’s Chief Financial Officer and briefed theSaudi Arabian National Guard’s senior leadership on var-ious procedures employed by the OPM-SANG staff tocontrol contract costs. Now with the Defense ContractAudit Agency’s Greater Connecticut Branch Office, Ker-shaw has earned numerous other awards during hismore than 30 years of combined military and civilianservice. He is Level III certified in auditing, holds bothundergraduate and graduate degrees, and is a certifiedpublic accountant.

MAJ Scott C. Dolloff was honored for his effortswhile on special assignment as a Contract Specialist insupport of the Army Airborne Command and ControlSystem (A2C2S) source selection on behalf of the U.S.Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) Acquisi-tion Center, Redstone Arsenal, AL. Among Dolloff’smany contributions to the success of the A2C2S Programwere his expertise and aggressive leadership in thedevelopment of the A2C2S requirements package andsolicitation, and his writing, staffing, and obtainingapproval of both the acquisition plan and source selec-tion plan. These plans were important to the program,and their approval cleared the way for issuance of theRequest For Proposal (RFP).

Dolloff’s tireless efforts and mission focus enabledhim to develop and release the competitive A2C2S RFPin less than 90 days after beginning his assignment.

AWARDS

Pictured (left to right) are Sallie Flavin; Marlene Cruz, Principal Assistant Responsible for Con-tracting (PARC), AMCOM; MAJ Scott C. Dolloff; Harold F. Kershaw; Michael P. Farrell; EdwardElgart, CECOM PARC; and Vick White, OPM-SANG PARC. PARCs make the nominations for theBesson Award.


Dolloff has served in a variety of contracting and pro-gram management positions since becoming a memberof the Army Acquisition Corps in 1990. He is Level IIIcertified in both disciplines, holds undergraduate andadvanced degrees, and is a Certified Professional Con-tract Manager and a member of the National ContractManagement Association (NCMA).

Michael P. Farrell was commended for his work as anAcquisition Intern for the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), Fort Monmouth, NJ.During assignments at both the Fort Monmouth andAlexandria, VA, CECOM Acquisition Centers, Farrelldemonstrated his exceptional skills through successeson projects typically reserved for senior employees. Hispotential was recognized at the outset of his career whenhe received the Department of the Army AchievementMedal for Civilian Service.

Farrell’s work on the All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L) acquisition is just one example of his

ability to work at levels beyond those expected of anintern. His extensive market research and efforts totimely solicit, negotiate, and execute $15.6 million worthof sole-source task orders enabled the successful fieldingof the ASAS-L on schedule. Farrell also made valuablecontributions as a team member on one of the mostcomplex acquisitions being conducted by the Alexandriacenter—the Defense Travel System contract. Farrellholds an undergraduate degree with honors, is Level IIcertified in contracting, is a member of NCMA, and ispursuing an M.B.A. degree.

Each October, AMC requests nominations for theBesson Award. Procedural guidance for the award iscontained in AMC Regulation 672-10 and can beaccessed at http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/rda/rda-ac/besson01/besson-award-01.htm. For additionalinformation, please contact Scott Crosson at (703) 617-0544 or [email protected].

AWARDS

NEWS BRIEFS

Keeping EmergencyResponders Cool

A new personal cooling system for emergencyresponders working in encapsulated protective suits isthe goal of a Cooperative Research and DevelopmentAgreement between the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Cen-ter (Natick) and the Oklahoma City National MemorialInstitute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT). TheMIPT is a nonprofit organization that sponsors researchon equipment, training, and procedures to help firstresponders prevent and respond to terrorism. The insti-tute and an Oklahoma State University team are partner-ing with Natick to improve protective clothing for policeofficers, firefighters, and medical personnel who respondto terrorist incidents. The 3-year, $3 million project willinvolve the design and construction of a personal cool-ing system for work in areas affected by chemical, bio-logical, or nuclear weapons. The objective is a wearablecooling system that will reduce the effects of heat stresson emergency responder performance.

MIPT Director GEN Dennis Reimer (USA, Ret.) saidhe knew about Natick’s facilities for designing and test-ing military protective equipment. After some corre-spondence, he became “convinced” that the facility has

the know-how that can be transferred to the first respon-der community. “We at MIPT are extremely pleased to beassociated with the professionals at Natick, and at ourfirst year-in-progress review, we saw how much we wereable to leverage the experience and expertise of the Sol-dier Systems Center,” Reimer said.

Some commercial personal cooling garments use icepack inserts, which cool unevenly. Under this MIPT Pro-gram, a new technology called adsorptive carbon-basedcooling will be developed to solve these types of prob-lems. “Adsorptive carbon-based cooling is somethingwe’re aware of, but we haven’t done research and devel-opment on it,” said Bill Haskell, Technical ProgramDevelopment Manager for the National Protection Cen-ter at Natick. “This project is investigating a technologythe Army could leverage for future warrior systems.”

The portable, integrated cooling system will includea liquid-circulating garment developed at Natick and willbe powered by a battery for a 1-hour mission. A proto-type cooling system is scheduled to be ready by April2003. Natick is part of the U.S. Army Soldier and Biologi-cal Chemical Command (SBCCOM). For more informa-tion about SBCCOM or the Soldier Systems Center (Nat-ick), go to http://www.sbccom.army.mil.


AMRICD Poster Takes Top HonorsBest poster honors in the In Vitro Toxicology Session of

2002’s Society of Toxicology (SOT) national meeting inNashville, TN, went to Dr. James Dillman III and his co-authors Kriston McGary, James Clark, Catherine Braue, andDr. John Schlager. The winners are all employed in the U.S.Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense’s(AMRICD’s) Applied Pharmacology Branch, and the poster,“Upregulation of Cytokine Release by Sulfur Mustard Expo-sure is Mediated by the p38 MAP Kinase Signaling Path-ways,” was one of more than 30 presented during the ses-sion. Dillman accepted the award on March 18, the openingday of the SOT meeting.

Since 1999, Dillman has worked at AMRICD as aNational Research Council Research Fellow under the men-torship of Schlager. Dillman has focused his research effortson proteomics to define the molecular and cellular conse-quences of chemical warfare agent exposure to identifypotential prophylactic and therapeutic targets for furtherresearch and development.

According to AMRICD Commander COL James A.Romano, “Dr. Dillman is an expert practitioner of pro-teomics, the study of protein properties to obtain an inte-grated view of disease and injury processes. His award,given by the Society of Toxicology, validates the scientificworthiness of his approach. Ultimately, these technologieswill enable us to better identify molecular targets for devel-opment of chemical warfare agent countermeasures. We arevery proud of Dr. Dillman’s accomplishments.”

Dillman received his B.S. in biology from Lebanon Val-ley College of Pennsylvania and his Ph.D. from the Univer-sity of Virginia where he studied molecular motors in thenervous system. Before joining AMRICD, he held a postdoc-toral fellowship in the Department of Neurology at JohnsHopkins University School of Medicine where he studiedthe molecular pathogenesis of stroke and neuronal degen-eration. He has authored or coauthored more than 30 peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and abstracts.

NEWS BRIEFS

ACQUISITION EXCELLENCE

Army Contracting MetricsShow Continued Progress

The FY01 Procurement Statistical Reports and Summaryof Procurement Actions have been published, and the Armyhas completed its annual progress reports. The results willbe posted on the Web athttp://acqnet.saalt.army.mil/acqref/armetrc.htm.

By examining historical data, conducting ratio analyses,and assessing the overall trends, the Army can reach impor-tant conclusions about the health of its contracting missionand the impact of Army acquisition reform. One key meas-

PERSONNEL

O’Connor Takes OverAs COE R&D Director

Dr. Michael J. O’Connor, former Director of the U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center’s(ERDC’s) Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, Vicks-burg, MS, has assumed new duties as the Director ofResearch and Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.He succeeds Dr. Lewis E. Link Jr., who has retired.

O’Connor’s previous positions include Director ofERDC’s Construction Engineering Research Laboratory(CERL), Champaign, IL; Technical Director, CERL; and Chiefof CERL’s Infrastructure Laboratory.

O’Connor is the recipient of numerous honors andawards, including the Army Engineer Association DeFleuryMedal (Silver Order) and the 2000 Equal EmploymentOpportunity Award. He holds bachelor’s and master’sdegrees in industrial engineering and a doctorate inmechanical engineering from the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.

The author of more than 30 technical papers andreports, O’Connor is a member of the Tau Beta Pi NationalEngineering Honor Society and the Honor Society of PhiKappa Phi. In addition, he is a member of the ConstructionResearch Council and the Awards Committee of theConstruction Division of the American Society of CivilEngineers.

urement tool in use since 1995 is the cost-to-purchase met-ric. This metric provides the cost expended (in cents) topurchase one dollar’s worth of supplies or services. Duringthe analysis period from FY95 through FY01, the cost-to-purchase metric decreased from 1.42 cents in FY95 to 1.09cents in FY01, a decrease of 23 percent.

The average annual obligation per person increasedfrom $3.3 million in FY95 to $7.5 million in FY01, anincrease of 227 percent. This metric, the average dollarawarded per person per year, indicates that the averageArmy contracting professional has become significantlymore productive in terms of total output. This productivityincrease is attributed to a variety of factors including signif-icant personnel reductions, process improvements, andacquisition reform initiatives.

A third metric that increased dramatically was the aver-age obligation per contracting action. This metric rose from$14,400 in FY95 to $109,418 in FY01, an increase of morethan 760 percent. This increase reflects the use of govern-ment purchase cards for micropurchase needs, as well asthe continuing emphasis on consolidating contract require-ments where possible and useful.

For additional information, contact Monti Jaggers at(703) 681-7571 or [email protected].


COL William M. GavoraFormer Project ManagerAviation SystemsProgram Executive OfficeAviation

I have been a member of theAAC since its inception andbelieve that the Congress wascorrect when it required the Ser-vices to establish professionalacquisition programs with spe-cific training, education, andexperience standards prior to service in positions desig-nated as critical. By and large, the system has workedwell and as expected. The AAC has made great strides inthe development and utilization of civil servants; how-ever, the main deficiency, in my view, is the lack of acredible plan on the utilization of former civilian PMs[program, project, and product managers].

LTC Scott E. ShifrinProduct ManagerStinger Missiles and PlatformsShort Range Air Defense ProjectOfficeProgram Executive Office (PEO)Air and Missile Defense

My acquisition experienceshave been very rewarding as Iwas blessed with a significantnumber of “grooming” assign-ments working in a variety of dif-ferent PEOs, joint assignments, and at HQDA. I havegained many different perspectives, insights, and experi-ences regarding “the art of acquisition” as viewed fromdifferent organizations and levels of command. Thesedevelopmental acquisition assignments centered onlearning about the acquisition process (the model);understanding the bureaucracy, regulations, and acqui-sition methodology; and how the Army really operates atthe HQDA level. In general, I believe the acquisition

community is taught to operate within the bounds of theregulations and to maintain the “status quo.”

I believe the members of the Army Acquisition Corps(AAC) have a significant opportunity to be at the fore-front of transformation and provide premier leadershipto the Army and make a real difference on the battlefieldand in the lives of the soldiers we support. To accom-plish this, both civilian and military AAC members mustlead from the front and create an atmosphere that toler-ates and promotes new and more efficient ways of doingbusiness. The way we operated in the past is no longergood enough. A majority of today’s programs are time-and resource-constrained and require nontraditionalsolutions, with acquisition leaders who are relentless inchallenging the current process. We must groom ourfuture AAC leaders to become risk takers, bold andaggressive, solving difficult problems using “out-of-the-box” solutions. We must use the Army transformationprocess as the catalyst to seize the initiative and chal-lenge the status quo. We are no different from the regularArmy. We, as a community, are expected to police ourown, set high standards, and provide an atmosphere fornontraditional solutions and problem solving. I wouldnot trade my experiences in the Acquisition Corps, norwould I trade the military experience and leadershipopportunities I gained while part of the Army prior toentering the Acquisition Corps.

MAJ William M. BoruffExecutive OfficerAcquisition Support Center

To date, the Army AcquisitionCorps has been a challengingand rewarding way of life. I wasaccessed in 1995 following 2years of command in the 101stAirborne (Air Assault). My firstassignment was at Fort Bragg,NC, as a Contingency Contract-ing Officer (CCO). I became a CCO team member whoprepared for worldwide deployments within 24 hours

SPEAKING OUT

How would you describeyour experience

in the Army Acquisition Corpsand what suggestions do you have

for improving the program?


notice. Within 10 months I had earned my warrant andwas an active member of one of the three CCO teams.

At about my 1-year point, I was given the opportu-nity to deploy to United States Support Group-Haiti(USSG-Haiti) to serve as the Chief of Contracting. Thiswas an extremely exciting and challenging assignmentworking in a joint contracting environment for a MarineCommander and Deputy Commander. Members of theconstruction team on the ground were Navy Seabees,and our office consisted of Army and Air Force contract-ing officers. The contracting missions on the groundbecame very interesting as we worked through inter-preters to ensure the specifications the customersordered were met to standard. The missions stayed con-stant throughout my 179-day tour from November 1996through April 1997. One of the most interesting experi-ences of this tour was a contract termination. The con-tractor had not met the desired delivery dates andUSSG-Haiti could not get behind on construction tables.In this type of sensitive diplomatic contractor base, thebalance of providing a fair termination to the contractorwhile ensuring USSG-Haiti received fair compensationwas very exciting. I can clearly say that the contractingofficers who had the opportunity to work those negotia-tions learned valuable lessons that have made them bet-ter officers.

Upon completion of my tour at Fort Bragg, Iattended a fully funded master’s program, which is awonderful opportunity for Army Acquisition Corpsmembers. As such, I would encourage interested officersto apply.

My suggestion to improve the Army AcquisitionCorps is for the Army to increase awareness of all thegreat services the Acquisition Corps provides the Armyas a whole. These services range from contingency con-tracting support to the new weapons and other systemsprovided to the field to ensure our Army remains themost elite army in the world. The Army AcquisitionCorps is clearly a force multiplier because of all the pro-fessional support we provide. The bottom line is for theArmy in general to better understand what the ArmyAcquisition Corps provides—outstanding support andsystems!

Mary McHaleAcquisition Proponency OfficerAcquisition Support Center

As a well-known credit cardcompany boasts, “Membershiphas its privileges.” My member-ship in the Army AcquisitionCorps (AAC) has helped meachieve certain personal careerobjectives that I otherwise would

not have been able to secure. As a member of the AAC, Iapplied and was selected for the AAC’s Long Term Train-ing (LTT) Program, which enabled me to complete mymaster’s degree during duty hours. The LTT Programreduced some of the stress associated with working fulltime, attending graduate school, and rearing an activefamily. Since graduating and returning to my currentposition in the Acquisition Support Center, I have beenable to apply what I learned in school. Additionally, theDefense Acquisition University training I have receivedsince the 1991 implementation of the Defense Acquisi-tion Workforce Improvement Act has enabled me tobroaden my knowledge and interest in both my primaryand other acquisition career fields (ACFs). Through par-ticipation in continuous learning activities, I have beenable to maintain currency in my primary ACF, participatein various leadership opportunities, and further developmyself professionally. These activities, coupled with thediverse acquisition assignments that I have beenafforded, have helped me grow into a professional acqui-sition manager who is well-equipped to support the cur-rent and future acquisition challenges of our warfighters.With the privileges of membership come certain obliga-tions. I view these as challenges that I am honored tomeet.

The AAC offers many other career developmentopportunities (education, training, and experience) to itsmilitary and civilian workforce. Initiatives such as theCompetitive Development Group Program help elimi-nate some of the traditional “stovepiped” careerapproaches that civilian workforce members experience.Such broadening opportunities should be considered forexpansion to lower-graded/-paybanded employees.Additionally, the AAC and other Service componentsmust continue to concentrate on attracting, recruiting,and retaining our future acquisition workforce. Collegesand even high schools should be targeted to marketacquisition as an important and rewarding career move.Likewise, midlevel recruitment needs to be refined sothat new applicants with industry experience can be eas-ily assimilated into the Army’s acquisition workforce.

While I have benefited from various opportunitiesoffered by the AAC, I recognize that the AAC is not aboutme personally—it is about how the entire acquisition,technology, and logistics community can best supportthe warfighter through the planning, acquisition, andlifetime support of critical systems, products, and serv-ices. The AAC accomplishes this mission by providing itsworkforce world-class education, training, and experien-tial opportunities.

SPEAKING OUT


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 for Acquisition,Logistics and Technology. The address for the Editorial Office is DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ARMY ALT, 9900 BELVOIR RD, SUITE 101, FORTBELVOIR,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, and acquisition excellence. Acronyms used in manuscripts, photos, illustrations, and captions must be kept to aminimum and must be defined on first reference. Articles submitted to Army AL&T will not be accepted if they have been scheduled for pub-lication 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. Please

ensure that artwork is accessible for editing and not embedded in the manuscript. Photos may be black and white or color. Illustrations must beblack and white and must not contain any shading, screens, or tints. All electronic files 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 photos must be submitted via U.S. mail, Fedex, etc. Photos andillustrations 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

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

cost savings and their reinvestment. Organizations should be prepared to defend these monies if higher headquarters has a higher priority for them. Allarticles are cleared by the Acquisition Support Center.

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 bleicheh@aaesa.

belvoir.army.mil, or via U.S. mail to the address in the first paragraph at the top of this page. All submissions must include the author’s mailingaddress; office phone number (DSN and commercial); and a typed, self-adhesive return address label.