<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Post 1 &#8211; defense IT acquisition challenges&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smart-future.org/2009/02/defense_it1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smart-future.org/2009/02/defense_it1/</link>
	<description>...the future looks bright through my shades...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:34:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Weiler</title>
		<link>http://smart-future.org/2009/02/defense_it1/comment-page-3/#comment-3115</link>
		<dc:creator>John Weiler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smart-future.org/?p=17#comment-3115</guid>
		<description>Having reviewed every GAO report on failed IT Acquisitions, every DSB report and many wonderful reports from the public service community (IAC/ACT, BENS.org, CSIS.org, Markle Foundation, IT-AAC), it appears to me that the problems are obvious and that most efforts to address these gaps are stymied by a bureaucracy that is more interested in protecting rice bowls that improving outcomes.  I notice Chris Gunderson blog on Measures of Effectiveness.  This is key to changing a culture that is more focused on process compliance than outcomes.  My friends at SAF/AQ tell me that the acquisition community is not vested in success, and hides behind their processes as this is what they are measured by.  Those who take short cuts are hammered by the OSD policy wonks who care little about delivering solutions in a timely manner.   

We also must change our supplier incentives, especially the major defense contractors who are motivated to maximize butts in seats vs COTS based solutions.  The award fees must include drive timely COTS solution deliver and reduced customization.  When looking at our &quot;capability based acquisitions&quot;, they end up being time and material because we don&#039;t know how to specify the &quot;outcomes&quot; with rigorous SLAs.    

Though I am proud to part of the grass roots effort that put a bright light on our failed IT Acquisitions, I am fast becoming very Machiavellian because of all the rice bowls.   Just look at the 2008 NDAA Sec 803 that called out for a technology clearinghouse.  Did our DOD leadership bother to look around to see if something already existed. The answer is no, and as a result, nothing was accomplished yet every was given an &quot;award&quot;.  

Dr. Ash Carter and Bill Lynn are two people I have great faith in.  They are making important leadership changes and open to new ideas outside the five sided wind tunnel.     We can only hope and pray that the civil servants will recognize the dire situation we are facing, and step outside their comfort zone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having reviewed every GAO report on failed IT Acquisitions, every DSB report and many wonderful reports from the public service community (IAC/ACT, BENS.org, CSIS.org, Markle Foundation, IT-AAC), it appears to me that the problems are obvious and that most efforts to address these gaps are stymied by a bureaucracy that is more interested in protecting rice bowls that improving outcomes.  I notice Chris Gunderson blog on Measures of Effectiveness.  This is key to changing a culture that is more focused on process compliance than outcomes.  My friends at SAF/AQ tell me that the acquisition community is not vested in success, and hides behind their processes as this is what they are measured by.  Those who take short cuts are hammered by the OSD policy wonks who care little about delivering solutions in a timely manner.   </p>
<p>We also must change our supplier incentives, especially the major defense contractors who are motivated to maximize butts in seats vs COTS based solutions.  The award fees must include drive timely COTS solution deliver and reduced customization.  When looking at our &#8220;capability based acquisitions&#8221;, they end up being time and material because we don&#8217;t know how to specify the &#8220;outcomes&#8221; with rigorous SLAs.    </p>
<p>Though I am proud to part of the grass roots effort that put a bright light on our failed IT Acquisitions, I am fast becoming very Machiavellian because of all the rice bowls.   Just look at the 2008 NDAA Sec 803 that called out for a technology clearinghouse.  Did our DOD leadership bother to look around to see if something already existed. The answer is no, and as a result, nothing was accomplished yet every was given an &#8220;award&#8221;.  </p>
<p>Dr. Ash Carter and Bill Lynn are two people I have great faith in.  They are making important leadership changes and open to new ideas outside the five sided wind tunnel.     We can only hope and pray that the civil servants will recognize the dire situation we are facing, and step outside their comfort zone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
