Macron va t-il faire de la France la cliente de lancement du DHC-515 canadien ? - avionslegendaires.net

On the same subject

• 

  May 29, 2024 | International, Security

  New Research Warns About Weak Offboarding Management and Insider Risks

  With over 80,000 tech employees laid off in early 2024, effective offboarding is more challenging than ever.

• 

  January 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Does the Pentagon need a chief management officer?

  By: Jerry McGinn Ms. Lisa Hershman, an accomplished former CEO who has been serving in the Department of Defense for over two years, received Senate confirmation by unanimous consent to become the DoD chief management officer shortly before Christmas. At the same time, however, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act required two studies from the DoD that openly posit eliminating the CMO function altogether. What gives? The mixed signals coming out of these discordant events underscore the fact that the theory behind the current CMO function (and similar efforts over the past two decades) does not match the reality of the business structure of the DoD. The solution that will ultimately work best for the DoD is one that truly takes a business-based approach to DoD business operations. The CMO function is the latest in a long-running series of efforts since the early 2000s to reform the business of defense. The essential idea has been to bring the best commercial business practices into DoD business operations through organizational and legislative changes. While the rationale for these respective initiatives is unassailable, they have struggled in execution. The CMO and its predecessor organizations, for example, have focused on the acquisition or certification of DoD business systems. These efforts, however, have largely devolved into bureaucratic battles over resources and authorities, pitting the business-focused organization against the formidable military departments and the “fourth estate.” Whatever the outcome, the business-focused organization ends up being seen as weak and ineffective. Why is that? Having worked for years in and around these respective efforts in both government and industry roles, I have come to the conclusion that these well-meaning initiatives are just the wrong type of solution. This is largely because their respective organizations, often despite strong leadership and empowered by various degrees of legislative authority, have not had the bureaucratic throw-weight to succeed in Pentagon battles with the services and the fourth estate. The solution to this challenge, however, is not to further tinker with the CMO's authority or to create a larger or different CMO organization. Part of the solution is to recognize that while the DoD is not a business, it is in many ways a businesslike organization. There are no profit and loss, or P&L, centers in the DoD, but the military departments frankly function in much the same way as a P&L line of business. The services are directly responsible for training and equipping their soldiers, sailors and airmen just as P&L leaders are responsible for delivering products and solutions on time and profitably. Likewise, fourth estate entities such as the defense agencies and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have direct responsibility over their respective functions. Harnessing the power and authority of these organizations through the training and enabling of good business practices is a much more natural fit for the DoD. Devolving responsibility in and of itself is not the answer, however. The other part of the solution is accountability. Commercial businesses do not have a CMO function. Instead, well-run businesses are led by strong executives who are responsible and accountable for delivering results to their employees and shareholders. Those that succeed are rewarded, while those that fail are replaced. The same goes for the DoD. DoD leadership should focus on establishing business-reform objectives for each major DoD organization, and then holding leaders of these respective organizations accountable to the achievement of measurable business goals. This should be driven by the secretary and the deputy, and enabled by a much smaller CMO function. Secretary Mark Esper appears to be headed in that direction in his recent memo on 2020 DoD reform efforts, which focuses the CMO's efforts on the fourth estate and makes the services directly responsible “to establish and execute aggressive reform plans.” That is the right approach. In short, the DoD does not need a management organization to oversee the business of defense; it needs to enable its leaders to utilize business best practices, and then hold these leaders accountable for results. Jerry McGinn is the executive director of the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. He previously served as the senior career official in the Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy at the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/15/does-the-pentagon-need-a-chief-management-officer

• 

  August 14, 2020 | International, Land

  AM General CEO on acquisition by a private equity firm

  WASHINGTON ― KPS Capital Partners is acquiring Humvee-maker AM General, the private equity firm announced last month, marking a new chapter for the South Bend, Indiana-based vehicle maker. AM General President and CEO Andy Hove will continue to lead the company, and KPS Partner Jay Bernstein said the firm would continue to build on the ubiquitous Humvee, leveraging the company's “research, technology, innovation and new product development, as well as its heritage and iconic brand name.” The Humvee appears to have some growth ahead. For one, U.S. Army budget documents call for $1.5 billion through 2025 to pay for modernization of its fleet of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles and their up-armored variant. That can include replacing major components, applying new technologies or replacing vehicles entirely. After the Army reaches its procurement objective for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, made by Oshkosh, it will have an enduring requirement for 54,800 Humvees. Otherwise, AM General ― which has advertised both its Brutus 155mm and Hawkeye 105mm mobile howitzers ― is expected to participate in the Army's mobile howitzer shoot-off evaluation at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, next year. Meanwhile, the Army is expected to complete a new tactical wheeled vehicle strategy in fiscal 2021, which has thus far received congressional support, per the House and Senate versions of the annual defense policy bill. Hove, who has said KPS will continue to execute AM General's existing strategy, spoke with Defense News on Aug. 6. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity. Private equity firm KPS Capital Partners is in the process of acquiring AM General. At this preliminary stage, what would you say are KPS' plans and vision for the company? I think [KPS partner] Jay Bernstein represented it in his quote in the announcement that they feel really good about the capabilities of AM General and the strategy we've been executing. We've discussed with them where we can go. They're confident in our business and the growth prospects of AM General. They feel good about and stand behind our strategy, and we're going to work together with them. Will the company focus more on the Humvee, or do you see it becoming more flexible? What is the future for the Humvee? Who are its customers these days? To say we're only focused on the Humvee today would not be a correct premise. We've made investments across the board, in base automotive systems, and then automotive systems that have a particular special use. Our core focus is in solving very complex mobility challenges for customers. So the Humvee has a great future. I would offer that you turn to not what I say about what the Army will do but what the Army says they're going to do on the Humvee fleet, which is to steadily and systematically manage a very large fleet by systematic replacement of that fleet and recapitalization of that fleet going forward. They've been buying new-built Humvees to replace old Humvees over the last four years at a pretty heavy clip and have announced their intention to continue to do that going forward. We're obviously going to focus on the Humvee because there's significant demand. It is today the world's leading military 4x4 in its class, and we build more of them than any other military vehicle manufacturer in the world, and especially more than anybody in our weight class. That won't be the only thing we invest in. You can see our investments in the Hawkeye, which brings game-changing breakthrough technology [in relation to] how artillery systems are moved around and employed on the battlefield, together with a whole other range of implementing technologies such as autonomous navigation, off-board power and those kind of things. The U.S. Defense Department is an important customer, but a considerable portion of our businesses is global business, so we take a global view of how we solve mobility challenges for our customers around the globe. The Army recently issued a request for information about replacing heavy trucks. Is that a potential opportunity? We certainly feel like we have something to offer, a range of things to offer there, and that RFI's only been out for a couple of weeks. We'll will certainly take a closer look at that. We're also taking a look at the JLTV competition they announced back in February. Defense News recently characterized AM General as “largely stagnant” since losing the competition for the JLTV in 2015 to Oshkosh. Do you want to push back at all to talk about AM General's time under McAndrew & Forbes? The JLTV decision was 2015, and the four years since the announcement on the JLTV competition we've built more military vehicles than Oshkosh or any other military vehicle manufacturer by a long shot, and sold them to more customers around the globe than anyone else. I think that's far from being stagnant. There are a lot of adjectives you can apply to the company. “Stagnant” would not be the one I would apply. Private equity firms will typically set up companies they buy for faster growth, and then potentially that'll lead to a future sale. Do you think that's something that might happen here, and what do you predict? Is there any indication of time horizons for KPS? KPS has made a lot of smart investments, they have a pattern, but they're not going to be pigeonholed into a particular time frame for a next-step strategy. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2020/08/13/am-general-ceo-on-acquisition-by-a-private-equity-firm/