Home' Army Acquisition Logistics and Technology Magazine : Army ALT January-March 2011 Contents modernizing the army is a difficult task
even when resources aren’t constrained,
said LTG michael a. Vane, Director,
army capabilities Integration center,
u.S. army Training and Doctrine
command (TraDOc). In the cur-
rent fiscal environment, the challenge
is even more apparent.
according to chiarelli, the network is
the army’s no. 1 modernization effort.
“It’s not enough to simply achieve a
variety of separate capabilities working
alongside each other independently,
or worse, in conflict with each other,”
new programs have revolutionized
how we fight, and the innovation con-
tinues, said chiarelli. The significant
challenge that remains is the interoper-
ability of these programs. “Specifically
with regards to the network, we must
achieve a single operating system or an
environment able to accommodate a
variety of plug-and-play technologies,”
Process improvement is essential to
targeting duplicate requirements and
eliminating redundancies. The com-
plexity of acquisition has increased over
time, so it’s important to keep review-
ing acquisition processes, said LTG
William n. Phillips, military Deputy
to the assistant Secretary of the army
for acquisition, Logistics, and Tech-
nology (aSaaLT) and Director, u.S.
army acquisition corps. require-
ments, resources, acquisition, and
sustainment are inherently linked, he
noted. “after 9 years of war, it’s impor-
tant that the army take a holistic look
at its requirements, at what it’s built
over time, and what’s value-added to
the army,” said Phillips.
Pursuing efficiencies has been part of
the ongoing modernization strategy.
The capability Portfolio review (cPr)
process is supporting that effort. Dir-
ected by Secretary of the army john
mchugh, the cPr is a review of all
acquisition program requirements for a
1-year period that began Feb. 22, 2010.
“The intent was to conduct an
armywide, all-component revalida-
tion of requirements for all army
acquisition programs,” said chiarelli.
“The process revalidates requirements
through a wide range of criteria, includ-
ing combatant commander requests,
wartime lessons learned, and potential
for leveraging emerging technologies
a key lesson learned from cPrs is
that requirements should be revisited
often, according to chiarelli. “The
rate of technological change is so great
that you’ve got to be willing to look at
requirements much more frequently
than you’ve done before,” he said.
Phillips advised that cPrs allow the
acquisition community to remain in
line with program executive officers
and program managers, which helps
to eliminate redundancies.
The cPr process has turned out to
be more complicated than originally
thought, according to chiarelli, but its
benefits are well worth it. LTG robert
P. Lennox, Deputy chief of Staff, G-8,
advised that the process enabled the army
to save $1 billion with the elimination of
the non-Line-of-Sight Launch System,
a decision that resulted from a cPr.
The process has been so successful that
the army is trying to expand its scope
to include all army programs. The
army is researching how to do this.
“as we continue to expand the cPr
process, we’re confident we’ll gain a
better understanding of all aspects of
our portfolios. This will undoubtedly
enable us to find greater efficiencies
across the force,” said chiarelli.
Vane said TraDOc is helping the army
“achieve operational adaptability through
force modernization. This requires adap-
tation not only in our warfighting force,
but also the way we approach generating
and sustaining the operational army and
the processes that drive us throughout
the generating force,” he said.
Guidelines for how the army is going
to accomplish this include the army
capstone concept (http://www.
3-0.pdf) and the army Operating
Published in December 2009, the
army capstone concept “provides
a guide to how the army will apply
available resources to overcome
adaptive enemies and accomplish
these challenging missions,” Vane said.
The concept states that operational
adaptability is the key to success in a
complex and uncertain environment.
Published in august 2010, the army
GEN Peter W. Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army, described the Capability Portfolio Review
process and said a key lesson learned is that
requirements should be revisited more often.
(U.S. Army photo courtesy of AUSA.)
Links Archive Army ALT April-June 2011 Navigation Previous Page Next Page