Perspectives from a Retired Teacher of Defense Acquisition

Abstract

It comes as no surprise to those involved in the development of warfighting equipment that defense acquisition is multi-faceted, requiring intensive management and involving three systems: the Joint Capabilities Identification and Development System (JCIDS), which establishes requirements; the Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution (PPBE) System, which provides the funding; and the Defense Acquisition System (DAS), which executes the acquisition. Unfortunately, these three systems do not interoperate seamlessly. As if this is not enough of a challenge, frequently the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Congress change the rules by which acquisition must be accomplished (Dillard, 2003). When we collectively ask ourselves about the state of defense acquisition, most would acknowledge that there is a longstanding and ongoing trend of acquisition programs failing to achieve acquisition program baseline (APB) goals. This has been thoroughly documented by Government Accountability Office (GAO) formerly the General Accounting Office reports. The four practices described in this paper (that is, Technology Readiness Assessment, Manufacturing Readiness Assessment, Knowledge Management, and Reliability Growth) all appear to be defense acquisition best practices that put acquisition developmental programs on the right track to achieve improved program outcomes.