GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Defense acquisition chief requires program managers to sign tenure agreements

• 55487
  

  Inadequate acquistion planning to include both the technical and contractual aspects contribute heavily to budget overruns; plus poor administration. Prime contractors "Buy In" into a program award recognizing inconsistencies or ommissions. In addition, in-house changed requirements and budget also contribute to inflated costs.

  Rick Horn Posted July 31, 2008 4:59 PM
• 49414
  

  On most mid-sized to large AF programs that have a lot of piddly sub-programs, about 90% of the piddly PMs are 1st and 2nd Lts. who were trained as engineers, have no knowledge of acquisition, and who hate program management. The overall program director is usually a full bird. This alone accounts for the high turnover because the junior blue-suiters bail after 2-3 years, and their colonels either make the cut to general officer or retire to become over-priced contractors.

  You'll find civilian PMs and civilian directors only on the little programs, and these folks rot in place because movement to another program office - or worse yet - to another idiotic acquistion "wing" (whoever heard of numbered wings in acquisition before this administration got voted in???), is impossible.

  You don't need tenure agreements. You need to keep the uniformed military out of acquisition and put them back onto the flightline where they belong. Acquisition belongs to trained civil servants.

  Engineer Posted April 24, 2008 8:57 PM
• 49380
  

  Many times, I have seen that people take the easy route to solve a problem. For example, if PM turnover is causing the failure of programs; solution, make the PMs sign tenure agreements. Maybe it will work, maybe we will lose good PMs or future good PMs. It seems obvious that looking at why there is such a high turnover in PMs and addressing the root cause would be a more effective solution. Also, if you know you are going to have a high turnover, what processes should you put in place to mitigate the problem (e.g. Relevant documentation not the abundant documentation that is required on most programs which may have been appropriate 20 yrs ago but is mostly irrelevant for minimizing the effect of high turnover.

  Arthur Walters Posted April 24, 2008 1:55 PM
• 49289
  

  It is quite clear that within the DoD there is plenty of incompetence. In fact it seems to be that incompetence is a requirement of the Job. My wife worked for the BLM and found much the same thing. I used to tell her that I wanted to get a government job so I would never have to work again. She was upset by my heckling. Then one day after many hundreds of applications to federal jobs I was offered a position with DoD. It was at this time I found that the people at the top talk change but when change happens they do their best to stop it.

  We all have seen the many initiatives blow through the government, most to no avail. The reason there is no change is because the "leadership" is excited to talk change and in fact make feeble attempts to use the initiative to make change but they will not allow the change. Any change that would remove power, dominion or authority from them is not good in their minds.

  As new employee I started off with a meeting from the highest authority in my agency down to my team leader. All of them had the intent to empower me. The fact of the matter was they were setting me up to fail. I was given every thing I needed to succeed. Once on the path to success I was quickly and almost fatally impaled with my empowerment. It was quickly explained to me that if it looks like you are succeeding then they will kick you to the curb and look for another escape goat. Do not succeed and you are set for life. I have changed agencies twice and the same sentiment exists in each. I have almost been beat down to compliance. I have gone through the acquisition certification for three career fields and the same problems exist in each.

  The only way to change is to quickly and quietly retire all SES, GS 14, 15 and hire competent business minded people; those who will look to stop all fraud, waste and abuse. It would be best if we could cancel one program a year in the DoD every year. This would force each PM to ménage things properly.

  We should not tie PM success to the project they are managing. All PM should manage the program for a minimum of 7 years. The PM should be able to make significant changes to the budget by ether decreasing or increasing the budget without issue and suggest discontinuing a program when the success of the project is at risk.

  With out these changes the culture and success of DoD will not change.

  John Tobler Posted April 23, 2008 1:21 PM
• 49183
  

  I will venture to say that the inbred DoD one agency careerist who has worked his/her way up the promotion ladder through merit, and knows the agency's programs from the ground up, inside and out, is better suited to managing a program at said agency than Joe MBA/MPA who knows management theory but cannot apply it to real world problems. Johnny Inbred has experienced just about every scenario, has accummulated capital/goodwill to expend when necessry, and knows the strengths/weaknesses of those he has worked with over the years. I have seen too many MBA/DLAMPs/Federal Executive Institute types screw up a program, then scamper off to another agency when they could not take the heat. Their resume may be impressive, but in many cases they are all sizzle and no steak. Unfortunately the Government is full of such people.

  Engineer Posted April 22, 2008 4:25 PM
• 49152
  

  This insures that there isn't any finger pointing asto who's fault it is which is Civil Service 101

  Dan ketter Posted April 22, 2008 11:53 AM
• 49151
  

  Can anyone take this 'initiative' seriously? Requiring these one agency (i.e., DoD) careerists to stay within the confines of their rampantly inbred DoD one agency careers??

  Let us not forget that the preposterous near 100% levels of self-serving inbreeding in the higher GS grades even via surmised external recruitments brought the DoD acquisition and financial management community the status quo.

  And many of these DoD one agency careerist 'managers' have the audacity to cite DAWIA as weak excuse for their preposterously insular hiring practices and outcomes. P-L-E-A-S-E! The fact of the matter is that the operative word within the "Defense Acquisition Workforce IMPROVEMENT Act" is, was, and will forever be "IMPROVEMENT!"

  And irrefutable history shows that DAWIA was foisted onto DOD by congressional intervention in the 1980s due to the then unchecked and rampant ineptitude, incompetence and malfeasance that was ingrained within the rampantly inbred DoD acquisition and financial management community. Some things, I guess, never change. But let's face up to the truth. This 100% US taxpayer funded community's organizational culture represents nothing more than a common, base order and insular "we take care of our own (at the US taxpayer's expense)/don't rock the boat/go-along-to-get-along" workplace that is 'led' by DoD one agency careerists FOR DoD one agency careerists. Any organization, much less a public sector organization, which maintains near 100% levels of rampant inbreeding (e.g., hirinfg only and merely DoD GS or DOD recently retired active duty or DOD contractor even with surmized external to DoD recruitments in the higher GS grades) manifestly and indefensibly speaks for itself. No one is fooling anyone here.

  Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. Posted April 22, 2008 11:45 AM
• 49138
  

  It has been many years since a program manager could just do a good job at program managing. For quite some time the job has really been spin doctoring the real status, project or self salesmanship, money hunting and a never ending effort to get money, appear to have money and to be knowledgeable or in control of a program vice being at the mercy of industry, politics, their next career opportunity. Too many people who want to do well and have skills that might actually work are beat up and demoralized in their encounters with the ever changing gauntlet. After all, it isn't just the PMs that change, but their own upper management, policy, procedures and administration preferences. Talk about thankless jobs!

  ralph Posted April 22, 2008 11:08 AM
• 49079
  

  The contracting field has been requiring GS14s and above to sign tenure agreements for years. It is required by DAWIA for critical acquisition positions. And in my experience, some people are reluctant to sign them.

  Jennifer Posted April 22, 2008 6:51 AM
• 49069
  

  Way to address a symptom instead of the root cause...

  Einstein Posted April 21, 2008 10:00 PM