Comments on: decoupling IT acquisition processes… http://smart-future.org/2009/03/decoupling-it-acquisition-processes/ ...the future looks bright through my shades... Sun, 11 Dec 2011 03:20:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John Weiler http://smart-future.org/2009/03/decoupling-it-acquisition-processes/comment-page-2/#comment-3114 John Weiler Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:51:56 +0000 http://smart-future.org/?p=125#comment-3114 Next week, DoD and industry thought leaders will be gathering at the Defense IT Acquisition Summit, Nov 12 in Wash DC to lay out the roadmap on how OSD will address the new NDAA directive to establish a separate IT Acquisition process. Secretary Bill Lynn will be kicking off the session with his perspective on how OSD will tackle this long running challenge. For years, the OSD leadership has tried to establish a "one size fits all" approach with the DOD 5000.02, making incremental changes every couple of years. Though designed to be a flexible process, the overseers never really wanted anyone to skip any steps unless signed off by DepSec. My hope is that the new process does not fall prey to the NIH crowd who has prevented real change since 1996. If the rule of law is applied, especially the Clinger Cohen Act, the following success criteria would need to be established; 1) It must leverage real world industry best practices. BTW, the Defense Industrial Complex is not "industry" as defined by CCA. DoD need to learn from the successes and failures of multi-national giants like FedEx, Citigroup, Ford, BofA, GE to name a few who have a history of success. 2) It should take advantage of some of the agency innovative approaches that have delivered, like the AF Solution Assessment Process (ASAP), which completed the entire acquisition cycle in just four months. 3) It must follow OMB A119, that is to leverage existing process standards that have already proven to effective with IT. Not just standards for standards sake. For instance, OSD NII should recognize that the DODAF is a system engineering tool developed in the 80s for, you guessed, Weapon Systems documentation. After 25 years, it still lacks key elements including business view, performance metrics, solution view, and service component specifications. Sometimes, less is more, and maybe we should be looking at the OMB FEA reference models that more closely align with industry best practices. 4) The IT Acquisition process should not become another FFRDC product. Have we not learned from the "full employment act" methods like NESI, LISI, etc. 5) It should, as the DSB recommends, be modular and focused on delivering small, interoperable modules that have well defined interfaces in a services oriented context. 6) Also, as stated in the DSB, it should allow for continued user participation who understands the real trade offs and will likely help us all avoid "perfection" in leu of the 80% solution that can acquire at the "speed of need". 7) And, the real litmus test will be, will the cost of doing the documentation exceed the cost of the solution. If so, it does not work. My two cents. information on the Nov 12 Defense IT Acquisition Summit can be found at the new IT Acquisition Advisory Council web site; www.IT-AAC.org. Cheers Next week, DoD and industry thought leaders will be gathering at the Defense IT Acquisition Summit, Nov 12 in Wash DC to lay out the roadmap on how OSD will address the new NDAA directive to establish a separate IT Acquisition process. Secretary Bill Lynn will be kicking off the session with his perspective on how OSD will tackle this long running challenge. For years, the OSD leadership has tried to establish a “one size fits all” approach with the DOD 5000.02, making incremental changes every couple of years. Though designed to be a flexible process, the overseers never really wanted anyone to skip any steps unless signed off by DepSec.

My hope is that the new process does not fall prey to the NIH crowd who has prevented real change since 1996. If the rule of law is applied, especially the Clinger Cohen Act, the following success criteria would need to be established;
1) It must leverage real world industry best practices. BTW, the Defense Industrial Complex is not “industry” as defined by CCA. DoD need to learn from the successes and failures of multi-national giants like FedEx, Citigroup, Ford, BofA, GE to name a few who have a history of success.
2) It should take advantage of some of the agency innovative approaches that have delivered, like the AF Solution Assessment Process (ASAP), which completed the entire acquisition cycle in just four months.
3) It must follow OMB A119, that is to leverage existing process standards that have already proven to effective with IT. Not just standards for standards sake. For instance, OSD NII should recognize that the DODAF is a system engineering tool developed in the 80s for, you guessed, Weapon Systems documentation. After 25 years, it still lacks key elements including business view, performance metrics, solution view, and service component specifications. Sometimes, less is more, and maybe we should be looking at the OMB FEA reference models that more closely align with industry best practices.
4) The IT Acquisition process should not become another FFRDC product. Have we not learned from the “full employment act” methods like NESI, LISI, etc.
5) It should, as the DSB recommends, be modular and focused on delivering small, interoperable modules that have well defined interfaces in a services oriented context.
6) Also, as stated in the DSB, it should allow for continued user participation who understands the real trade offs and will likely help us all avoid “perfection” in leu of the 80% solution that can acquire at the “speed of need”.
7) And, the real litmus test will be, will the cost of doing the documentation exceed the cost of the solution. If so, it does not work.

My two cents. information on the Nov 12 Defense IT Acquisition Summit can be found at the new IT Acquisition Advisory Council web site; http://www.IT-AAC.org.

Cheers

]]>