Home' Army Acquisition Logistics and Technology Magazine : Army ALT October-December 2018 Contents the effects of investments on the maturity level of each capability.
This tool also automatically calculated the cost to the program
manager (PM). Since they were competing, there was lots of
discussion about how much money they thought the PM would
be willing to spend. Teams were aware that they were competing
to win a contract; this competition underscored the importance
of strategic discussions on what to invest in, and how.
MEANWHILE, ON THE PM TEAM ...
Meanwhile, the Market Team—made up of five ARDEC employ-
ees acting in the role of a program management office—also
received an email from their director, played by the Control Team.
A more scenario-driven narrative gave them a sense of urgency.
This scenario focused on an anti-access and area denial situa-
tion in which adversaries are able to destroy our GPS technology,
causing a serious problem with navigation and communication.
In the game, participants kept returning to this threat and why
it was so important to make certain moves, because ultimately
they were keeping our Soldiers safe.
We added another variable to the mix. Changes in resources
prompted the director to request the cost to outsource the work
to an engineering services group at ARDEC. He assigned the
team the task of determining if the value ARDEC could provide
was worth the cost.
The PM team knew ARDEC’s capabilities, but had no insight
into the ratings of their enablers. Selecting and ranking ARDEC
capabilities that they believed needed to be used for a threat
analysis provided a basis for comparison with what was in the
To help make a decision, the team created a decision-analysis-and-
resolution tool. Decision analysis and resolution is a structured
approach to evaluating alternative solutions against established
criteria to determine a recommended solution. Some of the crite-
ria the PM team established were correlated to their strategy and
whether the capabilities aligned with their capability prioritization.
THE GAME CONTINUES
The game continued over the course of three days, with two three-
hour sessions on days one and two and a one-hour session on day
three. The driving motivation came from two main forces built
into the game: urgency and competition. In addition to compe-
tition, the anti-access and area denial scenario provided a sense
of urgency and explained the strategy behind the decisions.
By giving the teams the business architecture artifacts, ARDEC
was able to create the right environment for decisions that allow
us to align with the future. Teams aligned their decisions with
where they wanted to go— our strategy for the future—and their
proposals included the business decisions required to back up
the technical ones.
— MS. KATHLEEN R. WALSH
THREAT ANALYSIS STEPS
In the war game scenario, the project management office sought to
outsource work when doing a threat analysis. The two teams evalu-
ated their capabilities to see if they could support the PM and created
a proposal that included the cost to the PM to build up capabilities
that were not at a sufficient capacity to meet the PM’s objective.
WHAT CAPABILITY DO WE HAVE?
The maturity table lets players objectively evaluate the group’s abil-
ity to perform given capabilities—key information for any manager
trying to plan for a project or a leader planning a merger of organi-
zations. (SOURCE: Mandy Spiess, Insignis Consulting Servic es LLC)
of current and
verify source data
used to identify and
classify the threats.
and those of
ranking them in terms
of priorities for each
Decide how best
address the threats
with the most
threats and mitigation
strategy, as well as
training to understand
the identified threats.
Links Archive Army ALT August 2018 Special Edition Army ALT January-March 2019 Navigation Previous Page Next Page