An Air Force Acquisition Leader Looks Back… and Ahead

Interview With Lt Gen Robert D. McMurry Jr., USAF

Lt. Gen. Robert D. McMurry Jr., then-Commander of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, sat down with Jim Woolsey, President of DAU, to discuss and highlight key insights attained over a diverse and distinguished acquisition management career, as well as the myriad implications of recent initiatives designed to accelerate delivery of Warfighter capability. Before retiring in September 2020, Lt. Gen. McMurry spent more than 35 years as a technical and program management leader. He concluded his Air Force acquisition management career as the AFLCMC Commander, responsible for total life-cycle management for aircraft, engines, munitions, electronic, computer, network, cyber and agile combat support systems, leading more than 28,000 people with a budget of approximately $300 billion. For roughly a year during the latter period, he also was the Acting Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), with additional responsibility for installation and mission support, discovery and development, test and evaluation, life-cycle management services and sustainment of virtually every major Air Force weapon system.

In a wide-ranging conversation, Lt. Gen. McMurry touched upon recent changes in Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force acquisition management policy that continue to support the Warfighter with more rapid delivery of capability: Mid-Tier Acquisition (MTA) and agile software acquisition, to name just two. Diving deeper, he also explored the nuances of these new authorities against the backdrop of the bedrock functional activities and processes critical to successful design, development, delivery, and sustainment of complex weapons systems. Finally, he strongly reinforced the need for a professional workforce, providing views on organizational constructs as well as workforce training, skillsets and tools that will serve to engender a “speed with discipline” culture and increase stakeholder trust in the acquisition management system.

Woolsey: Thank you for joining us. You’ve done a lot of things in your career: engineering and program management, sustainment of operational aircraft and work with new technology and space and electronics. You’ve been all over the map. And then you came to AFLCMC and covered the whole map in terms of life cycle and all kinds of different materiel. So you’ve seen a lot, managed a lot of people, and started applying some of that technology to sustainment with the RSO (Rapid Sustainment Office), which has received a great deal of attention. And sustainment often is neglected in the new technology area, so that’s really a jump forward. And you were rewarded for all that by your promotion to a bigger job for a year. Those 1-year temporary jobs sometimes are the toughest, for you filled in as the commander of the materiel command, and covered a wide range. We really appreciate that you came here to talk about acquisition and all the things happening within DoD. In all that you have seen, what looks different to you today than it did when you first started out?

McMurry: Probably the biggest early change I saw was when DoD decided that we’re going to fund our programs to the independent cost estimate. That pretty radically changed the way the acquisition process was working. We were funded to the 50 percentile, and everybody was spending all their time going back, asking for more money, and explaining themselves. It took a little less risk, but I think we got what we wanted, which was greater predictability. That worked pretty well for a while, and then people were saying that we were a little slow.

I think probably the most powerful change I’ve seen in decades is this middle tier of acquisition authority, and the Section 804 authorities. They are stunning. They drive us to a program decision much faster. They enable you to start a program to move toward a rapid prototype or a fielding activity that is accelerated by its nature. So you skip a lot of that time that we usually have spent in the bureaucratic decision-making process. This has been extremely powerful.

I think that the most radical change we’ve seen recently is this move toward agile software acquisition. It kind of breaks the mold of how we have done it in the past. Our process has been very deterministic: figure out all the requirements, get your full plan, do your cost estimate, work all the way, document everything, and have a whole strategy. The agile software process really focuses on getting a minimum viable product in the field as fast as possible. I think that’s game-changing. But it’s unclear how it scales to bigger systems.

Woolsey: We are set up for programs that start in a really clearly defined way, can run a really long time, and results in a predictable product. When the Soviet Union was our adversary that former approach was real convenient because things didn’t go so fast. And now we have to work faster. You spoke about agile in the context of software. How does agile fit into our need to build hardware faster? How are you experiencing that right now?

McMurry: On software, our gains are pretty obvious. You shift from delivering software every couple of years to a point where one of our teams delivers it 40 times a month. It’s a huge shift. It’s not clear how that scales to hardware systems. I do think it has elements of the old spiral development. Get something in the field now. The power of that approach is not obvious from the beginning, but it becomes obvious as you start doing it, and then you look back, and say, “Wow, of course.” If you can field something rapidly, you build a level of trust with the users that you don’t have when they are waiting for half a decade or longer. Therefore, when you can, you want to field as rapidly as possible. But I don’t know how you apply that to a large system, such as a brand-new bomber or a nuclear submarine. In those cases, I think you may just have to go back and say, look we had a slower approach that delivered a system for a reason. And it has worked well for these larger programs. And we can use it; we don’t have to use the same tool for every problem.

Woolsey: I think that the distinctions are the key. You talk about a long-range bomber and all that. Hondo Geurts (Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition), likes to say in talking about a submarine, “There are the wet parts, and the other parts.” And the wet parts have to build in a dependable long-term way, but the dry parts, can be adjusted, changed, and modified over time. Does that apply to Air Force materiel as well?

McMurry: That’s actually a pretty apt way of looking at it. There are some things that you know will last forever, and they are absolutely safety-critical and mission-critical. There are times when you want to move a little slower. You don’t want to build an inadequate aircraft structure. It’s even clearer that you don’t want a submarine structure that’s inadequate. It has to be effective for the mission and for the long haul. And on those things we get the technical system engineering work done right. But the things that you have the power to iterate and work and that are a little less safety-critical but should evolve—I think those we have to look at how do you work with this minimum viable product concept and get things out. We will get better at that. Right now, the pendulum has swung hard to the agile side. And I think we’ll realize it doesn’t have to be a pendulum. There’s a spectrum of options here. And you can combine those options into a program that uses all of the different methods.

Woolsey: There’s a mindset of doing things in a serial or waterfall way because that is how we’ve always done it. I think all over the enterprise that mindset is changing. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to build agile aircraft carriers or bombers; but the mindset is to get something going now and then adjust as we discover our needs and go forward.

McMurry: There are two things there. One is that you will regress to what you’ve always done. But I also think that we’ve got to get the idea in our head that incremental, rapid delivery doesn’t mean shoddy. It means: Do a small increment very well and get it fielded, get it into operations, and then your sense is that you’re delivering small, but I’m delivering quality.

Woolsey: Dr. Will Roper (Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) often talks about shorter production runs as a way to get things out there faster—and more different kinds of things. He harkens to the golden age of aircraft when it seemed that we were building a new design every few months. And now we seem to be in a pattern of multi-decade programs. Dr. Roper has the idea of doing faster, shorter production runs. What do you see as the challenges and opportunities there?

McMurry: I love the strategy concept of making ourselves less predictable. Showing some variation—I think that’s great. I look back on the century series, though, and note that while every contract was set for a minimum buy, we bought about 15,000. We bought a lot. The idea of some variability, some unpredictability is very attractive. I’m very supportive of that. Right now, I think that our industry partners are saying that they are supportive. It’s not clear to me that their boards of directors will hold to that. This has to be a durable relationship. And it either has to be more profitable, a better deal, or the best deal they can get. And it’s not clear which we’re going to get to. If it’s the best deal they can get, you’re going to have more fights in getting there. And that goes back to the DoD, and Congress, and everybody having to line up and say that’s the way we want to do this.

Woolsey: On the sustainment part, how is the balance working out? Obviously, shorter production runs mean that you have more types to deal with, which is more expensive. But some of the tools we’re developing are making sustainment cheaper. How will that play out if we do shorter production runs? How big of a sustainment problem is it if we have five different types instead of one?

McMurry: Our challenge with supply chain is that we’re dealing in small numbers. In DoD, unless you’re buying boots and uniforms, you have small numbers, not hundreds of thousands. When you’re buying 75 or 100 or 50, getting supplier buy-in on that is a big deal. I think that it’s possible, but not trivial. And you know, it may drive higher costs. But then, again, it goes right back to that commitment that we need to buy the variability. And if we don’t buy-in on variability, we’re going to end up buying the same thing over and over.

Woolsey: The Air Force and all of DoD face a challenge about how to modernize, how to get the new kinds of systems and weapons we will need. Given that the nature of the threat is changing on the one hand, and having to sustain the materiel and systems we have on the other hand, how do you view that balance today and where the tension is and what kind of choices we’re likely to face?

McMurry: I have equated the problem to wing walking. You know, the first rule of wing walking is that you never let go of what you’re holding onto until you’ve got a good hold on whatever is next. And that’s kind of how we’ve approached our modernization. Even in areas where we’ve been willing to take risk, we haven’t been able to make the sale to the decision-makers in Congress. As a result, we’ve actually had a proliferation of systems—and that drives a growth in demand for program management product support.

Woolsey: Do you have anything in mind about how we’ll need to change? We certainly don’t expect to get more manpower. We don’t expect the trends of more programs to change. What kinds of things do you have in mind about how we can change business to make that work?

McMurry: I think that you’ve got to look at two things. One of them is to give people the tools they need to do the job. In my mind, the tools are collaboration tools to be able to meet face-to-face, cut down the time sink of travel, and all the things that were necessary because we couldn’t connect. You must have good communication tools, and well beyond that, a good network to support it.

And then you must train the workforce to raise their competency. You know, one really competent person is usually better than about five who are just trying to figure it out. So we’ve got to raise their skills higher.

I also think that there are some organizational options. The Space and Missile Systems Center, under the tutelage of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, reorganized to shift away from just siloed product lines to where you are in the program’s phase. They call it SMC 2.0. I felt like we should do the same.

Woolsey: In the area of organizational constructs, AFLCMC recently split the fighter and bomber groups into two different directorates. Do you see any other changes on the horizon?

McMurry: It was such a large organization that the split was completely logical and necessary. I think that the next organizational changes will likely be driven by one of the ends of the spectrum. The F-35 fighter jet and how we support that is at the high end. The low end of the spectrum I think includes things like the Defense Innovation Unit, AFWERX innovation community, and this Agility One flying-car concept, RSO-kind of options for tech involvement, venture capital, and small businesses. Those could drive formation of focused organizations around that kind of work. We’ve made minor changes already there—what we’re calling the advanced battle management system or JADC2 (Joint All-Domain Command and Control). I think that those also will drive some adjustments to organizations moving forward.

Woolsey: Like many acquisition organizations, you deal with the dual chain of command where AFLCMC has responsibility for acquiring, sustaining, equipping, and training the force while the program executive officer (PEO) to the Senior Acquisition Executive has a different chain of command very related to what you’re doing. What do you see as the issues there? How is that playing out for the Air Force?

McMurry: I don’t like it; I don’t think it’s necessary. I think policy says it’s necessary at the PEO level. The PEO is not supposed to be a commander, because we really want them program focused I don’t think any young person ought to have a problem answering the question, “Who is your commander?” That said, we’re professionals. So we’re going to make it work, and I think that the concept of unity of purpose has to be embedded through both sides of that dual chain if we’re going to keep it. And we have to recognize the need for cross-flow of information. I need to be able—as the organize, train, and equip person—to make sure that your team, the PEO team, is as competent and well provisioned as it can be to execute that program. Well, that’s easy to say, hard to do, and not all things are equal.

Woolsey: In many of your other interviews and your writing, you’ve talked about an area dear to both our hearts and our responsibilities: the workforce. Certainly, that’s in my wheelhouse as the schoolhouse guy and certainly in yours with such a large command. What do you view as the kinds of skills and thoughts that the workforce needs today? What do they need that’s different perhaps for these transformational times?

McMurry: I look at what we need to be developing in our people’s skillsets, and what I want, in no particular order because they’re all important, is several things. I want them to understand digital design, models-based systems engineering, and how you take that digital process through digital thread, digital twin, all the way from design and design decisions to modeling and readiness for manufacturing. So digital enterprise—I want them to get that.

In artificial intelligence and machine learning, we are way behind. Anywhere we can get skills in those areas I think is a big deal.

I think we need to develop our skills in working and partnering with small business to bring in new technology. And then extending that partnering into venture capital—how we work with our venture capital partners to make these businesses attractive and then easily tailorable and connected to DoD. That’s a totally different domain.

Data engineering and data analytics are keys to systems supportability. The Air Force is really trying to replicate the experience of Delta Airlines that, over a decade, brought data to drive reliability, engineering, and improvement to secure reliable performance from the airline’s fleet.

And finally, training on supervisory soft skills. The root cause of almost all of our manning and personnel problems goes right back to the supervisor. We want our supervisors to be better at recognizing how they impact their people, how they set them up for a career, how they ensure their development, and how they can demand high productivity and still be a good, enjoyable person to be around.

Woolsey: Are there any messages overall, any big themes you would like to leave the workforce with as you close up this chapter of your career?

McMurry: I think as you look at this concept of agility and speed, my advice is: Beware of the waterfall. It catches us all. We have teams that say, “We’re constant delivery. We’re really agile.” Then they build a strategic plan activity that has many steps and doesn’t deliver anything for two years. We tend to regress to what we’ve always done.

I think at the same time as we look toward this agility and speed, we’ve got to recognize that we didn’t get here by accident. Our system was built this way on purpose. It was built this way to avoid big problems we’ve seen before. So we’ve got to realize we have a breadth of tools and opportunities to make these systems work.

We want every single one of our people to be an impact player. And to do that they typically need to be technically savvy. You must have competency in your area. You want to have good communication skills. You want to be able to explain to people why what you do is important, and your analysis and what it means, and you’ve got to be a good team player. When you get that, you get people who contribute, and they’re not the MVP minimum viable product, they’re the MVP most valuable player. And I want every one of my people to realize they can be the most valuable player. I think that DAU should set the culture for the professionals in defense acquisition. I want people to say that the people who have been trained at DAU, who go back and get trained over and over, are highly skilled experts. I think that you have made great strides in that direction, and it’s an ever-improving thing. We want people who look at acquisition professionals to say, it’s magic: They bring clarity of thought, purpose, and understanding of the complexity of our system in a way that creates real solutions faster than we can do it on our own. DAU sets that foundation.

Woolsey: Well, I appreciate both the compliments for the progress that we’ve made and the challenge to do culture, which is the hard thing. We’re certainly working on that, and we’ll continue to do it, because that’s really critical. Supervisors will play an increasingly important role as we give people more options to design their own training and careers. The idea that lifelong learning is what we all need to do is different from getting Level III certified and being done.

McMurry: I think that you continue to embrace the distributed learning laws that previously were at least a competitive advantage but these days are a necessity. You must find a way to educate people where they are with tailored education experiences. I think people appreciate that. If that course really helps the customers get to a better model and solve what seemed an unsolvable problem, they are going to be satisfied. And the most satisfied people will be their supervisor and their supervisor’s supervisor. They’re going say, “Thank God they sent them to DAU—they got the answer!”

Woolsey: Was there anything that we haven’t touched on today that you’d like to talk about before we close?

McMurry: In their acquisition career, our people need to realize how much impact they have. My advice to people is: Don’t overestimate your ability; but never underestimate your impact. The way we conduct ourselves, the way we work with our colleagues, the way we work with our extended DoD team, and the way we work with industry all set the tone for our national defense upfront.

We have very capable defense professionals. I am proud of them every day. I’m proud of their ability to overcome seemingly insolvable issues and move forward, and to do that in a way that preserves future opportunities for everyone. I’m proud to have been part of it—and I will be a part of it in the long game, I’m sure. So thank you.

Woolsey: Well, thank you for your time today. It has been a fascinating conversation. And thank you also for your leadership, and all the roles that you’ve had and your service to the Air Force and our country.

McMurry: Thank you, Jim. I appreciate it. It has been an honor and a privilege.

Read the full issue of

Defense Acquisition magazine

Photo sources:
Department of Defense photos
U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Jacob B. Wrightsman
U.S. Air Force photo by Air Force Airman 1st Class Michael S. Murphy
 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the Department of Defense. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the authors and the magazine.