A General Stares Down a Monster

LTG Susan Lawrence
Army CIO/G-6

Interesting article in the Army Times about Army network modernization.  I say interesting because it reports that Lieutenant General Susan Lawrence, the Army's CIO/G-6, has "grand plans" and wants to make "wholesale changes in the service's network."   Army Times staff writer Michael Hoffman describes Lawrence as "tired of her service languishing in old technology and handcuffed by an acquisitions system that leaves the Army way behind the commercial sector."

In the "money" paragraph, Hoffman quotes Lawrence giving a heads-up to industry.  Speaking of the current network, she challenges--

“Get us something else fast. It is cumbersome. It is hard to use. We have to protect our identity and make sure our information is secure but we have to do it a little bit better than we have today. Those were designed in 2002. It’s time we move on to new technology and I think you guys got it so you’re gonna see something from me very shortly,” Lawrence said at the Association of the U.S. Army breakfast July 14 in Arlington, Va."

Once more speaking of the still loosely federated network "enterprise," she said--

“We can’t have an enterprise with 50 quarterbacks and 50 playbooks on the battlefield." 

Well, great.  A lot of us are in favor of what she's talking about.  We really want to see this happen.  But here's why I thought the article was really interesting.  In order for Lt. Gen. Lawrence to get what she wants, she's going to have to tame this monster--

The Department of Defense's Integrated Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System

Good luck, General!

They Shouldn't Let Him Touch it with a Ten-Foot Pole

General Cartwright

"Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright has commissioned a broad independent review to help the Pentagon more rapidly develop and buy urgently needed military equipment."  So begins a piece over at InsideDefense.Com, about how the Vice Chief is taking a hard look at "new ways to execute the joint requirements process" to replace the slow, bureaucratic" system known as JCIDS.  The Small Wars Journal also has a link to the piece, but theirs is accompanied by this headline:  Top Commanders Bemoan JCIDS.

JCIDS is shorthand for the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System.

They taught us at the Army Force Management School (AFMS) that General Cartwright is considered the "father of JCIDS."

If you've ever seen this Pentagon chart, which I wrote about recently, you know a little something about JCIDS already ...

JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE

JCIDS, along with the Defense Acquisition System and the DOD's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution framework, is the process through which we get capabilities into the hands of our warfighters seven to ten years after they ask for them.

It's a system bemoaned by the military's top commanders.  It's the subject of a 4-week course at the AFMS.   Some of the instructors have had to go through the course multiple times before they could teach it.

General Cartwright is the father of it - the JCIDS part.

Again, it is a system that is bemoaned by top commanders - hence, the referenced article about General Cartwright looking at fixing it.

Look at the (JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE) chart again and ask yourself this question:  would you trust the man who gave you that to be able to fix it?

Now does that 10-foot pole make sense?

Why Are We Still Doing This?

So, the Army is sending me to this professional development class to learn about the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System and the Acquisition Life Cycle.  Inspired by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the JCIDS is how the US military plans for and fields new capabilities.  I learned today that it takes about five years from concept to fielded capability, and that this is an improvement over the previous system.  The acquisition thing is a creature of Congress and the military bureaucracies.  Improvement, I'm betting, is not even in its lexicon.

Back in August, I heard General Pete Chiarelli, the Army's Vice Chief of Staff lament the fact that our enemies can field their capabilities a lot faster than we can.  The enemy doesn't have to abide by so many bureaucratic rules.  He doesn't have to worry about environmental policies or ensuring that minority contractors are treated fairly.  Our five year cycle is only three to him.

Now, tell me again why these two quick wars, Afghanistan and Iraq,are still not won going on ten years now?