Where Do We Go From Here?

Elizabeth Lederer

During 2008 and 2009, a working group from the military Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), industry, and academia performed an assessment of Department of Defense (DoD) product support, and identified eight major areas for improvement. The DoD Senior Steering Group endorsed the consortium’s report, which subsequently was published in November 2009. One of the recommendations of the Product Support Assessment report was the development of a new Product Support Business Model (PSBM), which included the new Product Support Manager (PSM) role.

The PSBM was characterized as a game changer that would help to align and synchronize “operational, acquisition, and sustainment communities … to deliver required and affordable warfighter outcomes.” The PSM was seen as “crucial to the delivery of not only system-level, but also portfolio- and enterprise-level capabilities across the spectrum of defense resources.”

Elevating the PSM Role

At the time of the Product Support Assessment report, each of the military Services had personnel serving as lead logisticians, with various Service function titles: Assistant Program Manager for Logistics, Deputy Program Manager for Logistics, System Sustainment Manager, etc. These personnel typically came from the life-cycle logistics (LCL) career field but did not consistently demonstrate the needed leadership and technical competencies.

In order to build on the existing lead logistician role, the need to elevate the PSM was identified as part of the goal to improve the achievement of desired product support outcomes. Draft language to public law was introduced via Section 805 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law 111-84) in October 2009. It tasked DoD “to issue comprehensive guidance on life-cycle management and the development and implementation of product support strategies for major weapon system” and established the requirement for PSMs: “The Secretary of Defense shall require that each major weapon system be supported by a product support manager… .” (Figure 1, on page 10).

It’s the Law!

The FY 2010 NDAA language was subsequently codified into statute (10 U.S.C. Section 2337). This
section is titled “Life-Cycle Management and Product Support,” and tasks the Secretary of Defense to “issue and maintain comprehensive guidance on life-cycle management and the development and implementation of product support strategies for major weapon systems” and to “require that each major weapon system be supported by a product support manager.” Nine specific responsibilities for the PSM were called out, with a 10th being added in Section 803 of the FY 2014 NDAA.

Amplifying Guidance

In addition to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2337, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD[AT&L]), also released Decision-Type Memorandum (DTM) 10-015 titled “Requirements for Life Cycle Management and Product Support” in October 2010. Its goal was to implement and institutionalize the requirements of Section 805, with the intention of incorporating these policy requirements into various other DoD instructions. The DTM was slated to expire on April 4, 2011, but was continued by several subsequent extensions. (Note: The issuance of the Interim DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02 in November 2013 officially rescinded DTM 10-015.)

The DTM articulated additional requirements regarding the PSM, as well as important amplifying information regarding the role’s implementation. Major requirements were:

• Component Acquisition Executives (CAEs) shall identify and assign a PSM within every ACAT (Acquisition Category) I and ACAT II program, prior to but no later than program initiation and to former ACAT I/II programs that are post- initial operating capability (IOC) or no longer have program managers (PMs) reporting to CAEs.
• The position of PSM shall be performed by a properly qualified military Service member or full-time employee of the DoD. (Note: Subsequently captured in Title 10 U.S.C. 1706, “Government performance of certain acquisition functions.”)
• The PSM will be designated as a key leadership position (KLP) for all Major Defense Acquisition Programs and major weapon systems and designated a critical acquisition position (CAP) for all other major weapon systems.
• The PSM will be an integral part of the program management team and will report directly to the PM.

Additional PSM resources developed in the 2010–2014 timeframe as a result of the November 2009 Product Support Assessment, including the Product Support Business Model (PSBM) tool, are listed in the sidebar on the next page. The special issue of the Defense AT&L magazine in March–April 2012 included multiple articles on PSM implementation such as “The Product Support Manager: A Catalyst for Life Cycle Management and Product Support Success” and “Professionally Developing World-Class Product Support Managers.”

Mandatory Training Requirement

In support of the 10 U.S.C. Section 2337 requirement, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness (ODASD[L&MR]), acting in the role as LCL Functional Leader, tasked the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to develop an executive-level course to specifically train PSMs in February 2014. This 2-week course, originally titled LOG 365, “Executive Product Support Manager Course,” was developed to fulfill assignment-specific training requirements. Subsequently renumbered LOG 465, the memo stated that the course is mandatory for all assigned DoD PSMs for all ACAT I, ACAT II programs, former ACAT I/II programs that are post-IOC or no longer have a PM reporting to a CAE. And, while not mandatory, ACAT III program PSMs may attend if endorsed by their senior executive. The ODASD(L&MR) memo was superseded by memo in February 2016. It clarified that the course was also mandatory for PSMs of ACAT IA Major Automated Information Systems programs and for defense acquisition workforce members who have been prequalified by the LCL PSM KLP Joint Qualification Board.

Service representatives consistently stated that the guidance at that time was not sufficiently clear regarding product support and the implementation of PSMs.

The LOG 465 Executive PSM Course is offered quarterly at DAU’s Fort Belvoir, Virginia campus. It includes a wide range of DoD, Service and industry guest speakers, as well as executive-level case studies that challenge PSMs with real-world sustainment scenarios. Students develop and defend creative and comprehensive solutions within their dedicated cohorts.

LOG 465 has been widely praised by the PSMs, and has been granted three graduate credit hours in product support management or business management by the American Council on Education (ACE).

Government Accountability Office Studies

Study Number 1—2014
Four years after enactment of the PSM law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) performed an audit to examine (a) the steps that the DoD and the military Services had taken to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and (b) the extent to which DoD has evaluated how PSMs are affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions. Their findings were mixed.

They noted that:

• The military Services had assigned PSMs to almost all (98 percent) of their major weapon systems.
• DoD and all of the Services have taken some steps to develop a comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train and support future PSMs, but at that time there was no plan to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path.
• DoD’s PSM implementation guidance was not centralized and product support personnel “may be hindered in their ability to easily access and implement such guidance.”
• DoD guidance lacked detail and contains a potentially unclear provision, and personnel may confuse the responsibilities of PMs and PSMs.
• The Army had not yet adequately clarified the roles and responsibilities of certain product support personnel who support PSMs for the sustainment portion of the life cycle.

GAO noted the second and third items listed above because Interim DoDI 5000.02 did not discuss PSMs at the same level of detail as the DTM 10-015, stating specifically that the responsibilities of PSMs were not listed in the new guidance. They clarified that the new instruction discusses the roles and responsibilities of the PM at length, but only alludes to the responsibilities of PSMs, citing Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C. Service representatives consistently stated that the guidance at that time was not sufficiently clear regarding product support and the implementation of PSMs.

As a result of the GAO report, ODASD(L&MR) released a memo in May 2015, titled “Product Support Manager Career Development Roadmap” (Figure 2, next page).

Additionally, Army officials worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of sustainment personnel in order to enable PSMs to effectively perform their duties while simultaneously providing sustainment support to the Army’s weapon systems’ life cycles.

It should be noted, however, that the PSM assignment and reporting requirements from DTM 10-015 ultimately were not incorporated into either DoDI 5000.02 or the July 2017 revision of DoDI 5000.66. This information resides in Appendix D of the PSM Guidebook–PSM Training, Certification and Experience Requirements. As a guidebook, this information remains guidance, rather mandatory/policy. In essence, the requirements outlined in the original DTM have never been ensconced into DoD policy.

Participants from all the Services gave examples where they couldn't address all PSM functions due to lack of resources--often because constrained resources were applied to solve current acquisition issues.

GAO executed its audit via seven focus groups with PSMs from all the Services. They found that enabling factors for PSMs included teamwork and collaboration, early implementation of the PSM position, and organizational support and emphasis on sustainment. The PSMs specifically noted that the information and training provided by DAU were “excellent,” and that DoD’s annual PSM conference was a helpful forum for networking with other PSMs. The PSMs stated that they were generally able to perform their PSM duties, but they identified major challenges relating to resource constraints, competing priorities, and differing approaches to institutionalizing the PSM position as hindrances to their ability to influence sustainment-related decisions.

GAO also noted that DoD and the Army had implemented two of the five recommendations in their 2014 study. They remarked upon DoD’s comprehensive PSM career path and associated development and training guidance, and the Army’s revised guidance to clarify the Army-wide roles and responsibilities for the sustainment portion of the life cycle of major weapon systems. They also stated that additional steps were still needed to implement the remaining three recommendations:

• DoD has not fully implemented GAO’s recommendations to systematically collect and evaluate information on the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions.
• DoD has not issued clear, comprehensive, centralized guidance regarding the roles and responsibilities of PSMs.
• The Army has not fully implemented a recommendation aimed at ensuring that PSMs have visibility over sustainment funding.

While no official recommendations were made as an outcome of the 2017 report, GAO did note that these three items above, if fully implemented, “could further institutionalize the role of PSMs and thereby help to increase their influence on sustainment-related decisions.”

What’s Next?

The recent organizational change from Office of the USD(AT&L) to the new Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment likely will add emphasis to the importance of sustainment and related product support efforts—including focus on the logistics workforce in general and the PSM in particular. Furthermore, the Section 809 Panel, created in FY 2016, is tasked with finding ways to streamline and improve the defense acquisition process.

In order to cover every aspect needed to improve the defense acquisition process, the Section 809 Panel is broken up into teams that analyze specific topics. Team Ten is addressing the workforce and considering “statutory and regulatory reform that would foster a culture of authority and accountability in the acquisition process, enable the workforce to serve the mission free of unnecessary obstacles.” In the coming months, the panel will partner with Congress, the DoD and industry in support of further efforts to streamline acquisition to better enable DoD to meet its strategic warfighting goals. This will include the workforce issues being tackled by Team Ten, which will, presumably, include critical PSM issues. As the “catalyst for life cycle management responsibly” (as stated by the former ODASD[L&MR]), better enabling this key member of the workforce would be a true force multiplier.

Listening to PSMs

While no official action items were identified from the 2017 GAO study, the three most significant challenges identified by the PSM community are worthy of more focused attention. As Learning Director, former PSM and instructor responsible for LOG 465, DAU’s Executive PSM Course, I have shared the classroom with more than 200 PSMs over the last few years, and the comments below are deeply resonant.

Resource Constraints: PSMs stated that funding and personnel resource constraints hindered their ability to influence sustainment-related decisions during weapon system development. Participants from all the Services gave examples where they couldn’t address all PSM functions due to lack of resources—often because constrained resources were applied to solve current acquisition issues. While resource constraints during the acquisition process affect everybody, it is still too easy to trade-off investments in design improvement or in analytical tools that could better inform the decision-making process. We must be better at making the needed investments in our collective future.

Competing Priorities: PSMs told the GAO that PMs did not strongly emphasize the sustainment portion of a program’s life cycle, because it was focusing on performance in the near-term—even though DoDI 5000.01 clearly states that “The PM shall be the single point of accountability for accomplishing program objectives for total life-cycle systems management, including sustainment.” The PSMs noted that this is because a program’s success is not measured by sustainment. Again and again, PSMs state that program management often has a near-term focus when managing a program. PMs are in the job for 3 or 4 years and then move on. As a result, decisions are made to meet short-term goals. This makes it very difficult for PSMs to successfully advocate for long-term sustainment considerations and justify the value of this approach. While DoD has taken some actions to improve these longstanding systemic issues, feedback from PSMs indicate that these problems persist.

Differing Approaches to Implementing PSMs: The PSM position has been implemented in a wide variety of ways, based on differing understandings of PSMs’ roles and responsibilities. Some PSMs were moved into these positions but were still responsible for other related, but different, logistics’ responsibilities. Other PSMs talked about their responsibility for a portfolio of programs, such that they were challenged to provide adequate oversight for all of them. Another common theme that was shared is that PMs often do not understand the PSM’s roles and responsibilities. Additional training of the PMs was recommended, as was continued advocacy by the PSM community, and more centralized communication of PSMs’ implementation guidance. This communication should include factors previously addressed in the rescinded DTM 10-015, such as the enabling requirement that the PSM report directly to the PM. It has been proven that a direct reporting construct helps promote healthy and open relationships, build stronger bonds of trust, and more clearly articulate the PM’s support of sustainment efforts.

Recommendations

In this era of acquisition streamlining and the Section 809 panel, we must think boldly. To truly empower this indispensable member of our workforce, permit me to posit a list of potentially transformative recommendations. These opinions are my own, and not necessarily those of either DoD or DAU:

• Incorporate PSM implementing and assignment information that currently resides in the PSM Guidebook into the next update to DoDI 5000.66. This should include the previous PSM-to-PM direct reporting requirement.
• Perform a thorough resource analyses of PSM assignments in accordance with approved DoD and Service manpower requirements development processes to determine the need to add/reallocate PSMs. As part of the analysis, assess duties PSMs may be performing in addition to statutory requirements and help determine appropriate tasking. There may be areas (such as Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness [FIAR] endeavors for example) which may be placing a disproportionate burden on the PSM community.
• Determine if the right skills are being applied relative to life-cycle requirements. Are there sufficient numbers of PSMs assigned during the early stages of systems life cycle, for example, with the requisite design interface and logistics engineering experience? Are there an adequate number of PSMs in the Operating and Support phase with sustainment contracting and sustaining engineering experience? Also determine whether PSM subspecialty certifications under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) would be prudent in these and other critical areas.
• Determine whether PSMs have sufficient budget visibility and accountability. This includes funding for logistics products (i.e., technical data, training, maintenance plans, etc.), as well as analytical tools and program-specific subject-matter expert support.
• Consider extending DAWIA Level I life cycle logistics certification training requirements (LOG 100 Life Cycle Logistics Fundamentals, LOG 102 System Sustainment Management Fundamentals, and LOG 103 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability) to the Systems Engineering, PM, Contracting, Business Cost Estimating and Financial Management career field members assigned to ACAT level I/II programs.
• Develop sustainment baselines based on Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs) as executed in accordance with DoDI 5000.02 and Service-level requirements. Track, report and review these baselines as well as improvement plans at the CAE or other appropriate Milestone Decision Authority level.
• Expand upon and strengthen the senior logistics roles currently captured within the program executive offices and/or commanders of systems, logistics, or materiel commands. Ensure that those leaders with logistics management and oversight responsibility for programs and PSMs within their organization’s portfolio are fully empowered and accountable to attain program sustainment milestones and system sustainment requirements. This includes reviewing/approval/tracking of Life Cycle Sustainment Plans/Capability Support Plans/ILA baselines to ensure proactive design influence activities and fielded hardware, software, and life-cycle support effectiveness, and serving as their PSM community’s functional lead.

Conclusion

PSMs provide a potent and critical means for helping ensure that DoD delivers affordable readiness to our warfighters. The PSM is entering a new phase, and after 8 years, can no longer be considered “new.” A renewed focus on streamlining processes and eliminating obstacles is needed in order to “foster a culture of authority and accountability” in the PSM community. DoD can unleash the power of our PSMs by providing them the resources, tools and authorities they need to be successful. And PSMs need to be emboldened to fight for long-term sustainment considerations. PSMs are mandated by law; let’s continue to work to maximize their potential, while developing, fielding and sustaining capable, affordable, supportable and available weapon systems in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.

Read the full issue of

Defense AT&L 

Lederer is Logistics Learning Director at the Defense Acquisition University.

The author can be contacted at [email protected].