16 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

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

Sur le même sujet

  • Boeing awarded $9.8B contract for Saudi F-15 support

    12 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Boeing awarded $9.8B contract for Saudi F-15 support

    By Ed Adamczyk Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Boeing Co. was awarded a $9.8 billion contract to support F-15 fighter planes of the Royal Saudi Air Force, the U.S. Defense Department announced. The deal covers modernization and sustainment of the Saudi fleet of nearly 130 aircraft over the next five years, the Pentagon said on Tuesday. The package of upgrades includes hardware, software, interface design, development, integration, test, installation of future modifications and enhancements to the F-15 Saudi weapon system. The contract also includes an option for an additional five years beyond the inital November 2025 time period. The F-15 was first put into service as a tactical fighter plane in 1978, and is in use by the air forces of the United States, Japan, Israel, Singapore and Qatar. The newest aircraft of the Royal Saudi Air Force are the F-15SA variant, which come with wing-mounted weapons-carrying packages allowing the plane to carry and launch a wider array of new weapons configurations. The Advanced Missile and Bomb Ejection Racks, or AMBER, allow the plane to carry up to 22 AIM-120 missiles, nearly double the capability of previous F-15s. The F-15QA variant to be used by the Qatar Emiri Air Force, regarded as the most advanced current version of the plane, is based on the Saudi design. Earlier this week, the Pentagon awarded two contracts totaling $734.8 million for infrastructure and equipment for the QEAF. The larger of the two deals is a $657.2 million contract for parts and training for Qatar's F-15 program, beginning with the arrival of the first F-15QAs in 2021. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2020/11/11/Boeing-awarded-98B-contract-for-Saudi-F-15-support/2971605119323/

  • Lockheed: F-35A Cost To Drop Below $80 Million Per Fighter In 2023

    30 janvier 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Lockheed: F-35A Cost To Drop Below $80 Million Per Fighter In 2023

    By: Ben Werner Lockheed Martin is committed to producing the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter for $80 million each by next year and further reducing the overall program costs as part of the next production contract negotiations with the Department of Defense, the company said on Tuesday In 2022, Lockheed Martin officials expect to negotiate the next multiyear F-35 contract with the Joint Program Office. The goal is to use the steady cash flow from a multiyear contract to drive down further the production costs once the contract kicks in. As part of a pitch for multiyear contract, Lockheed Martin officials say such a deal will lower the F-35A price to less than $80 million per fighter, Marillyn Hewson, chief executive of Lockheed Martin, told analysts during a conference call today discussing the company's 2018 year-end results and expectations for 2019. “That's our target, to continue to drive the unit cost down,” Hewson said. “And we won't stop there, we will always be looking at ways that we can take the cost down in the program as it continues to mature and grows.” Currently, the F-35A, the standard take-off and landing variant primarily used by the U.S. Air Force and foreign partners, has a price tag of $89.2 million. The F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant used by the Marine Corps and some foreign partners currently cost $115.5 million each, and the F-35C carrier variant used by the Navy cost $107.7 million per fighter, according to Lockheed Martin. As production increases, the price per F-35 is expected to decrease due to efficiencies in the production process and the ability to lock in lower prices for large quantities of raw materials and components. Lockheed Martin plans to deliver 131 fighters this year, compared to the 91 F-35 fighters delivered in 2018. Within two years, company officials expect to deliver more than 161 fighters per year. However, with F-35 production is closing in on what's considered the full capacity for the program of record, Hewson said the company could build more. Increasing the production rate would require coordination with the JPO, the supply chain and international customers, but Hewson said the company could handle increased demand. Germany, Switzerland and Finland are currently considering buying the F-35, Hewson said. Already the U.S. and 12 other countries are either part of the program of record or committed to purchasing F-35 fighters, according to Lockheed Martin. “We could certainly go to a higher rate if the demand were such that we needed to do that,” Hewson said. Other segments of Lockheed Martin's weapons systems portfolio are also expected to perform well in 2019. The company's Missiles and Fire Control business are expected to record a profit of between $1.3 billion and $1.4 billion in the year. The Rotary and Mission Systems business is expected to record a profit of about $1.3 billion for the year, Bruce Tanner, Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer, said during the call. After the call, the U.S. Department of State's Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced it approved the sale of two Aegis Weapon Systems, two Multi-Mission Signal Processors and two Command and Control Processor refreshes to Japan. Lockheed Martin's Rotary and Mission Systems division is the prime contractor for the Aegis Weapon System and Multi-Mission Signal Processor portion of the $2.1-billion total buy. Japan selected Lockheed Martin in July to outfit its Aegis Ashore system but needed State Department approval before finalizing the deal. In September, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force successfully tested its sea-based Aegis ballistic missile defense capability with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. Japan currently has four Aegis-equipped destroyers and is in the process of building two more. The following is the State Department notice it approved a proposed Aegis Weapon System sale to Japan. AEGIS Weapon Systems Transmittal No: 19-08 WASHINGTON, January 29, 2019 – The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Japan of two (2) AEGIS Weapon Systems (AWS), two (2) Multi-Mission Signal Processors (MMSP) and two (2) Command and Control Processor (C2P) Refreshes and related equipment for an estimated cost of $2.150 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today. The Government of Japan has requested to buy two (2) AEGIS Weapon Systems (AWS), two (2) Multi-Mission Signal Processors (MMSP) and two (2) Command and Control Processor (C2P) Refreshes. Also included is radio navigation equipment, naval ordnance, two (2) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Systems, Global Command and Control System-Maritime (GCCS-M) hardware, and two (2) Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), U.S. Government and contractor representatives' technical, engineering and logistics support services, installation support material, training, construction services for six (6) vertical launch system launcher module enclosures, communications equipment and associated spares, classified and unclassified publications and software, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $2.150 billion. This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia-Pacific region. It is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Japan in developing and maintaining a strong and effective self-defense capability. This proposed sale will provide the Government of Japan with an enhanced capability against increasingly sophisticated ballistic missile threats and create an expanded, layered defense of its homeland. Japan, which already has the AEGIS in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing this system into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region. The prime contractor for the Aegis Weapon System and Multi-Mission Signal Processors will be Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems, Washington, DC. The Command and Control Processor Refresh will be provided by General Dynamics, Falls Church, VA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Japan involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews, support, and oversight for approximately eight years. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded. All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov. https://news.usni.org/2019/01/29/40708

  • New small arms course launches to prepare Army Reserve for combat, increase survivability

    10 juillet 2019 | International, Autre défense

    New small arms course launches to prepare Army Reserve for combat, increase survivability

    By: Kyle Rempfer A new Army Reserve small arms trainer course that teaches gunnery and range operations to soldiers has been launched at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Still in its pilot program phase, the course is intended to field weapons subject matter experts at the unit level and increase weapons proficiency among the Reserve force, according to the 88th Readiness Division. The new course lasts 12 days and prepares troops to train their fellow reservists as well as develop year-round training calendars for their home units. The Army Reserve Small Arms Trainer Course focuses on six common weapons: the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, MK19 grenade launcher, M240B machine gun, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, M4 carbine/M16 rifle and the Beretta M9. The effort is also part of Army Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. Charles Luckey's larger push to make his component a more combat-ready force through efforts like Task Force Cold Steel — a series of mounted and ground crew-served weapons qualification events. “This is about building the most capable combat-ready and lethal federal reserve force in the history of the United States,” Luckey said at a Cold Steel training event in February. “This is about building the capacity, the capability, the bench strength of America's Army Reserve to train itself.” At the new course, instructors will teach preliminary marksmanship instruction on each weapon and their optics, as well as teach maintenance for each system. The course will also teach soldiers how to operate weapons ranges and how to procure ammunition through classroom instruction, simulations training and live-fire qualification. “This course is a true train-the-trainers program,” Master Sgt. Howard Griffith, course manager, said in an Army news article. “We take select soldiers from around the entire Army Reserve and provide them with the knowledge and skills to return to their units and educate their fellow soldiers.” An increase in weapons proficiency correlates with an increase in survivability in combat, which ultimately helps win battles, the news article states. The pilot program was designed by instructors from the Army Reserve Competitive Marksmanship Program and will be taught by instructors from Task Force Cold Steel. The Army National Guard and the active-duty force have had similar weapons proficiency courses for many years, and the Reserve component's own version was overdue. If successful, the long-term desire is to keep the new trainer course permanently at Fort McCoy. The installation has state-of-the-art ranges available for year-round training and is conveniently located in the center of the United States, making it easily accessed by vehicle, rail or air, according to the Army. To learn how your unit can take advantage of the Small Arms Trainer Course, contact Task Force Cold Steel at 608-388-4645 or email usarmy.usarc.84-tng-cmd.list.ocs-fy18-s3@mail.mil. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/07/09/new-small-arms-course-launches-to-prepare-army-reserve-for-combat-increase-survivability/

Toutes les nouvelles