|Innovations in Program Management Training||https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/Lists/Blog/DispForm.aspx?ID=171||Innovations in Program Management Training||2020-04-30T16:00:00Z||https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner.jpg, https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner.jpg
https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner.jpg||<div class="ExternalClass9E7CAAD4ACE448C99091B7ED209B3623">From its earliest days, the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) has offered a capstone program management course. Over the years, this course has evolved from lectures by subject-matter-expert faculty to a more interactive, team-based learning curriculum. Recent changes have been made to improve the sequencing and integration of key course themes, add more “hands on” learning exercises, strengthen the focus on program leadership, and provide more follow-up support to graduates as they return to the workplace. Let’s look at the PMT 401 Program Manager’s Course and highlights of the curriculum and delivery approaches now used in this course.
<h3><img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article1_image1.jpg" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:364px;height:291px;" />Critical Thinking</h3>
A major goal of PMT 401 is to hone students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills (see the goals in the sidebar). Program management is full of complex challenges and dilemmas requiring effective analysis and timely decisions. Individual decisions are based on how you think and process information. Critical thinking improves your decision-making abilities by raising your awareness about the influences on your thinking. While our students already have experience in analysis and decision making, we focus on practical skills to improve the quality of their thinking. We have observed that the more our learners understand how and why they think a certain way, the better they become at evaluating and improving their judgment in the acquisition environment.<br>
Every aspect of the PMT 401 curriculum presents opportunities for critical thinking and decision making accompanied by time for reflection and feedback. This is illustrated in the following review of our case studies, simulations, and experiential exercises.
The PMT 401 course initially was based on the Harvard case study and analysis methodology and included more than 80 defense acquisition case studies written by DAU students and faculty. These case studies provide an opportunity to explore how program managers think and make decisions in a variety of acquisition scenarios. Our focus on real dilemmas facilitates a deeper understanding of management and leadership challenges in the acquisition environment. It also prompts students to reflect on how and why they think and make decisions on their own programs and to share best practices with the class. Case studies remain an important part of the PMT 401 curriculum, but we have cut in half the number of case discussions. We found that while the case method is still applicable, there is a limit to its effectiveness as a prevailing methodology. We also have carefully scheduled the sequence of cases to provide increasing skill development of our key frameworks and learning objectives. This takes the form of a “learn, practice, and apply” evolution where students become increasingly proficient in using the skill or framework as the course continues. As an example, students learn a framework and process for stakeholder management on an acquisition program starting in Week One. They practice using the framework in later case studies and then must apply the framework in our final simulation exercise and in their 90-day transition plans.
As the number of case studies has decreased, the number of simulations and experiential exercises has increased. This has given a more “hands on” flavor to the PMT 401 experience. In addition to analyzing a written case study, students are required to “be” managers in live-action scenarios. These exercises typically are very engaging, competitive, and fast paced. We have integrated simulations throughout the course to replicate real-life scenarios that help students demonstrate their leadership skills and strategies in negotiating, communicating, and implementing solutions in different situations. These simulations provide firsthand benefits and consequences that result from their thinking, actions, and decisions. They also offer insight into how their peers work, think and act—insight that is invaluable in leading teams in the acquisition environment.<br>
Everest and Judgment in a Crisis are two computer-based simulations from Harvard Business Publishing that are used in our curriculum. In the Everest leadership and team simulation, teams of students compete to reach the summit of Mount Everest. During the 6 simulated climbing days, participants face different individual and team challenges. We use this simulation as an “ice breaker” to allow our new student teams to practice critical thinking and decision making as well as group dynamics and leadership. Judgment in a Crisis is an organizational behavior simulation used in the critical thinking session to have students practice their thinking and response to a managerial crisis situation in order to gain a better understanding of several factors that impair judgment and decision making.<br>
Our newest simulation is Harborco, a multi-role, multi-issue exercise designed to teach principles of coalition building and negotiation. The scenario features a consortium of developer, industry, and shipping concerns interested in building and operating a deep-water port. The negotiations include environmental, labor, economic, and government oversight issues. The simulation was developed by the Harvard Program on Negotiation.<br>
Our most extensive exercise is the 2-day “tiger team” analysis of a simulated Program Executive Office that includes a family of unmanned aerial vehicles in different development stages. This simulation was created by two DAU faculty members (John Driessnack and Patrick Barker) to give students “hands-on” leadership experience in a more strategic portfolio management scenario. The simulation is based on real-world issues faced by current acquisition programs with a goal of helping students use the key frameworks and tools taught in PMT 401 to address these challenges. The simulation includes leadership roles where many students work on problems similar to those they will face back in their jobs, after which they brief a senior acquisition executive who acts as the service acquisition executive in this exercise. The simulation includes reflection periods and a debriefing where each student gets feedback on the student’s contribution and personal skill development.
<h3><img alt="A student outbriefing at a PMT 401 class graduation event last November." src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article1_image2.jpg" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:688px;height:404px;" />Experiential Exercises</h3>
Successful problem solving and decision making are at the heart of all effective teams. The exercises used in both small and large group settings require team members to analyze information, negotiate, and collaborate with one another. These activities encourage individuals and teams to develop their creative thinking, leadership, and communication skills, while building group cooperation and consensus.<br>
One of the most impactful experiential exercises in PMT 401 is our peer feedback process. In the early PMT 401 offerings, faculty “graded” student contributions and provided individual feedback. This was discontinued in favor of a team or peer feedback process. The framework for this process is Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI), which was developed by the Center for Creative Leadership. The SBI model is designed to elicit clearer and more direct feedback from a broader group of students and faculty members. Instead of feedback like “great comment you made in class this morning,” a student might say, “When our discussion in the C-130 case seemed to wander off topic (Situation), you linked specific student comments as an example of stakeholder management (Behavior), which proved to be a key learning outcome from the case discussion (Impact).” After the SBI process is explained and demonstrated early in the course, we use existing student teams and faculty facilitators to provide feedback to each other. Use of the SBI process not only produces better feedback to students during the course, but it becomes a process students can take back to their workplace and use with members of their real-world project teams.<br>
Our media workshop ranks as the most popular experiential exercise in our course. Each student is interviewed in a print, Skype and taped format. These interactions provide realistic acquisition scenarios with faculty role-playing as media interviewers. To ensure that candid feedback and observations are received, video recordings are immediately reviewed with student groups who experienced the same scenario and with public affairs experts. One student commented, “My favorite part of the course. Being able to see yourself on camera, receive critiques and develop confidence in your ability to navigate the media was invaluable. Well organized and realistic.”<br>
A recent addition is each student’s personal transition plan exercise to apply what they learned when they are back on the job. A simple template is provided for students to list their near-term goals along with 30-, 60- and 90-day action steps to accomplish the personal and organizational goals. Students discuss their plans with their team and faculty advisor to help clarify and improve their product. Faculty advisors then are asked to follow up with students 3 to 6 months after graduation to check on their progress and provide any help if needed. Examples of student comments include “excellent forcing function” and “it made me think of what my priorities would be and how to achieve them.”<br>
In addition to traditional analytical methods of problem solving, we now emphasize the more creative approach of design thinking. The focus of design thinking is human centered problem solving, innovative solutions, and early prototyping. After a session introducing key concepts in design thinking, each student group is chartered to work on a real world problem currently impacting one of their workplaces. This includes interviewing a broad range of workforce members affected by this problem. Student groups work on their projects during the last part of the PMT 401 course, then present their prototype solutions as part of their graduation exercise (see photo of student outbriefing).
Acquisition programs require effective management of budget, schedule and risk, as well as leadership skills. Program leaders must clearly communicate their visions and plans, set high standards, and motivate, and guide team members to achieve positive acquisition outcomes. As PMT 401 has evolved, the curriculum has expanded from a primary focus on program cost, schedule and performance to a broader acquisition leadership emphasis. This shift was driven primarily by our students. In fact, they demanded it whenever we asked them what they most wanted to learn.<br>
Once we got their message, we went to work to revise our curriculum. But rather than teach leadership, we chose to refocus our case studies and class exercises on the leadership issues and lessons inherent in each management dilemma. We just needed to make them a priority, and the success is now evident from recent student evaluations:<br>
“First DAU course to really emphasize the leadership aspects and first leadership course which provided practical tools and frameworks.”<br>
“The utility of the course overall to enhance my ability to lead in an acquisition environment—which I think is the purpose of the course—is outstanding.”
A key factor in the success of PMT 401 is the collaborative residential program that was designed for these senior acquisition leaders. As a change to its earlier history, the course has fewer lectures, guest speakers, and even case studies—and more interactive seminars, small group discussions, and one-on-one coaching from faculty and student peers. This decentralized approach to interaction in small groups was designed to promote greater skill building and behavior change.<br>
While we use a variety of educational methods and update them frequently, it is the collaborative learning climate that really makes PMT 401 effective. Faculty members encourage student peer teaching and facilitate this reciprocal teaching in all learning activities. As the course continues, the faculty and students gradually merge into a learning community. This is evidenced by student comments from our most recent PMT 401 class:<br>
“I learned much more about myself and vastly improved my acquisition knowledge … primarily by learning from others.”<br>
“I have been blown away by the level of learning, teamwork and development that I have received in this course. I have made additional professional colleagues that I know I can reach out to in the future, and, for me, those connections are immeasurable.”<br>
“The true beauty of the course was the interaction with other senior acquisition professionals. Seeing and hearing how others would address an issue was invaluable. This is something that could never be done virtually.”<br>
The in-person relationship development between students and faculty in PMT 401 is unlike any other course we have experienced either at DAU or in academia. It is not uncommon for direct communication to continue between students and faculty for months or even years after their course was completed.<br>
This community building also pays great dividends for DAU’s other initiatives, such as mission assistance and executive coaching. Most of our workplace support (mission assistance) projects come directly from graduates of our 400-level executive courses, especially PMT 401. When students have developed strong bonds with our faculty, we are the first place they go when acquisition support of any kind is needed.
The current construct of PMT 401 enables the faculty to rapidly prototype new content, methodology, and sequencing of learning events. Over the past year, the team has researched, piloted, and refined several learning activities to ensure that the course is relevant to acquisition professionals now and in their immediate future. After each course offering, the faculty and staff review and evaluate student feedback and faculty observations of each learning event. DAU’s capstone Program Manager’s Course must anticipate and make adjustments quickly while maintaining a constant pace of development to better serve the talented acquisition professionals who will lead our largest and most complex acquisition programs.
<hr />Gadeken and DeLeon are professors at the Defense Acquisition University at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Both have taught in the PMT 401 Program Manager’s course for more than 10 years.<br>
The authors can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:Owen.Gadeken@dau.edu">Owen.Gadeken@dau.edu</a> and <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:Bobbie.DeLeon@dau.edu">Bobbie.DeLeon@dau.edu</a>.</div>||string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Innovations-in-Program-Management-Training|
|Today’s Complexities Demand More Chefs, Fewer Cooks!||https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/Lists/Blog/DispForm.aspx?ID=173||Today’s Complexities Demand More Chefs, Fewer Cooks!||2020-04-27T16:00:00Z||https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner03.jpg, https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner03.jpg
https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner03.jpg||<div class="ExternalClassE426DAED719B404AA78A0ED579CEBCDF">If you’re a cook, you had better become a chef! Do you know the difference? A cook can follow a recipe and prepare a nice meal, but a chef can take a variety of wide-ranging ingredients, understand how they complement each other, and create a gourmet feast. Have you ever watched “Chopped” on the Food Network? Each chef contestant is given a basket of eclectic ingredients and a challenging schedule to fix an epicurean dish that their customers, the judges, will fawn over. Sound familiar? We live in an increasingly complex acquisition world where just following a Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02 recipe will not suffice to provide your customer, the Warfighter, with the “dish” needed for success. For example, if you were to have taken the Defense Acquisition University’s Intermediate Systems Acquisition course 10 years ago, you would have been shown a single, phased-approach model, the Defense Acquisition Management System (Figure 1).<br>
<img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article3_figure1.jpg" style="width:765px;height:350px;margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;" /><br>
Five years later, with a recognition that software is developed and procured differently than hardware, DoDI 5000.02’s refresh would have exposed you to six different models, a combination of hardware and software-dominant paths. An appreciation that the break between phases is not a smooth process led to the revamping of the hardware model, as well (Figure 2).<br>
<img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article3_figure2.jpg" /><br>
Today, our acquisition world’s complexity has expanded even more, recognizing that different situations require different urgencies, tools, and solutions. This has resulted in the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, whose latest draft includes the 2019 DoDI 5000.02 process as only one of the six potential paths to acquiring the best Warfighter solution (Figure 3).<br>
<img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article3_figure3.jpg" style="float:left;width:759px;height:534px;" /><br>
You need to become a chef! Gone are the days of being able to simply follow the prescribed Milestone A, B, C recipe. But how to make the change? First, you need to understand the circumstances presented to you. What is the “speed of relevance” for your program? How flexible and/or stable are the requirements? Have you established an enduring conversation with your customer to discuss requirements options? Then you will need to apply a thorough understanding of the major ingredients that will spell success or failure for any program. What are they? Let me suggest the following as a start.
Where does your effort fit into the new Adaptive Acquisition Framework? Are you trying to exploit some new innovative technology and provide the Warfighter with residual operational capabilities? Explore the Middle-Tier Acquisition (MTA) Rapid Prototyping path. Is there some proven technology, perhaps exploiting a commercial use, that you can produce quickly and field within 5 years? If so, then, MTA’s Rapid Fielding path might be right for you. Is software the major acquisition product, perhaps an upgrade to a command and control product? Why not follow the Software Acquisition path? Of course, there is nothing evil about the traditional Major Capability Acquisition path, which can and should be tailored to meet your specific needs. But it is crucial that you understand the requirements and benefits, along with the risks, of taking these different acquisition pathways, and then choose the pathway most appropriate for your program.
Congress recently expanded some tools for finding and getting the right defense industry contractor on-board for our programs. Beyond traditional contracting vehicles based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation, Other Transactions (OTs), and Commercial Solutions Openings (CSOs) have provided some great additional options. Are they right for your program? Does your program meet the Three Ps of OTs—purpose, prototype, and participation? Many of your colleagues have embraced these contract vehicles, as evidenced by a rapid increase in OT use over the past several years. However, beware of statements that imply one contract vehicle is superior to all others. Some dishes need salt, and some need sugar. Just because both flavorings are white granular substances doesn’t mean it is appropriate to use them interchangeably. A good understanding of contract strategy differences can mean the difference between success and failure. If risk is too high and you’ve demanded a fixed price contract, industry proposals will reflect that. In such a case, you can likely gain flexibility and save money using a cost-reimbursable vehicle. You can often save time using an OT, but not always. The experts say that if you’re using OTs for the sole purpose of saving time, don’t! Always remember the reason you choose a particular contracting vehicle is to properly incentivize the contractor to provide your end users with the product they need, when they need it.
How will you get the money to run your program? Beyond the traditional Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) system that requires 2 years of foresight for acquiring funds, are there other sources of more immediate funding? Are you aware that the DoD has a Rapid Prototyping Fund administered by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering? Could that bridge the 2-year gap between a great technological opportunity now and establishing your long-term funding line through PPBE? If you can go faster via additional funds, have you explored getting on your service’s Unfunded Requirements List or pursued Reprogramming Requests? You need a thorough grasp of all of your options to get the required money, in the right appropriations, at the right time. Depending on your total budget, you will have a variety of reporting and accountability requirements. Have you accounted for those in your timelines? Can they be waived, when appropriate? Understanding your program deeply enough to predict the funds needed, in the appropriations category needed, will allow your team to ensure the money is available in time.
<h3>System Engineering, Metrics, and Risk/Opportunity Management</h3>
What is your path to getting the technical solution to work? Are you prototyping the hard stuff first—i.e., “the quickest path to failure,” as Dr. Bruce Jette, the Army’s Acquisition Executive would say. One of the most important system engineering tasks is to develop and maintain a rigorous risk and opportunity management plan. With today’s need for products to be delivered at the speed of relevance, it is essential that your team thoroughly recognizes the risks facing the proposed solution. How can those risks be mitigated? Will they be assumed, transferred, controlled, or avoided? And don’t forget about opportunities. Are any available that would increase speed or performance? What resources are needed to enable pursuit of those opportunities?<br>
This risk/opportunity management plan is not to be built and put on a shelf, but to serve as a steady guide as the product matures. If your product is software, do you understand the Risk Management Framework and how to best exploit its virtues to improve your software product? Is agile software development the right methodology for getting your software matured and in the users’ hands? If not, why not? A good strategy for developing the technical solution for the warfighter’s requirement is essential to your program’s success.
Employing a collaborative effort with the warfighter and tester, have you established a test and evaluation plan to ensure that your product meets that customer’s needs? What type of testing does your product and chosen acquisition path demand? A program manager’s worst nightmare is to contract for a product and successfully execute that product, only for the warfighter or tester to find it inadequate. If you follow a rapid prototyping pathway, you should engage in a test-learn-fix-test approach with multiple user test points in a series of small, targeted events, while maximizing modeling and simulation to increase your speed. A Test and Evaluation Master Plan will be required for the traditional Major Capability Acquisition approach; however, you should tailor it to increase testing’s influence on your development efforts. Like many of the functional offices, these vital activities can appear to program managers as impediments. However, they serve a vital role. Engaging with them early and developing a common understanding of schedule and technical requirements can foster an environment of mutual support toward the common goal of getting war-winning technology faster into the hands of the warfighters. Still, you also need to ensure that it stays in their hands. So, it is crucial that you track sustainment and producibility, starting early in the design process.
<h3><img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article3_figure4.jpg" style="float:left;width:772px;height:247px;" />Sustainment and Producibility</h3>
One of the potential pitfalls of the rapid prototyping path could be the neglect of production and sustainment costs in the effort to ensure that the product reaches residual operational capability within the 5-year window dictated by Congress. Studies have shown that, by the time the Preliminary Design Review is conducted, approximately 80 percent of the program’s life-cycle cost (LCC) is determined, even though only a small percentage of the program’s cumulative costs has been spent. This early design work is the place where the team has the best opportunity to impact LCC. By the time of the Critical Design Review, the LCC commitment is approximately 90 percent (Figure 4).<br>
Production, logistics, and other considerations must be exhaustively understood and prioritized early or your program could easily become unaffordable. Prototyping emphasizes an experimental philosophy in order to get innovative technology to work. Without a strong program manager emphasis, there is little incentive to focus on future LCC drivers—i.e., production, operations, and support. Also, award fee contracts, which allow for profit margins to be influenced subjectively, and to include consideration of items such as affordability and sustainability, are highly discouraged. This may dissuade the government/contractor team from paying much heed to these longer-term factors. Like a chef who has visualized the flavor and presentation of the final dish early in the cooking process, your team must emphasize sustainment and producibility early in the design process to ensure that the final product is technologically superior, producible, and affordably sustainable.<br>
As a former senior manager of manufacturing at one of our industry partners, which produced the interiors of the canceled VH-71 Presidential Helicopter, I can testify how early design decisions can subvert manufacturing’s ability to produce an affordable product.<br>
Yes, a number of other factors must be decided on, managed, and tracked in order to produce a successful product for our warriors. Your team cannot forget to ensure the myriad other elements—such as environment, safety, and occupational health, spectrum certification, airworthiness, unique identifiers, energy policy, etc.—that must all be addressed for the program to succeed. However, the thorough understanding and vetting the above six major ingredients will allow you to master the complexities of today’s acquisition world. With that mastery, you will no longer feel the need to open up the DoDI 5000.02 cookbook to find the recipe for creating a good product. Instead, when you open up the basket of ingredients that the requirements and acquisition community has handed you, you’ll be able to create a gourmet, masterful acquisition strategy. Bon Appétit!
<hr />Riel is professor of Acquisition Management at the Defense Acquisition University in Kettering, Ohio. He formerly had a 20-year career with the U.S. Air Force, including work with industry.<br>
The author can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:David.RIel@dau.edu">David.RIel@dau.edu</a>.</div>||string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Today’s-Complexities-Demand-More-Chefs,-Fewer-Cooks!|
|Adapting DAU to Change for the Warfighter||https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/Lists/Blog/DispForm.aspx?ID=174||Adapting DAU to Change for the Warfighter||2020-04-20T16:00:00Z||https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner04.jpg, https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner04.jpg
https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner04.jpg||<div class="ExternalClassFA1105F820004FC6B0FB3EF69E39250D">Learning is a lifelong adventure, and it takes personal commitment. Adult learners increasingly return to the education arena for a plethora of personal, financial, and social reasons. Adult learners are defined as those over the age of 25. Andragogy is the methodology applied to adult learning.<br>
Andragogy is the study of adult learning. Andragogy is important because the theory supports the needs of a student population that is no longer the traditional audience of fresh high-school graduates. Classrooms at the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) are populated by a mixture of prior or active-duty military, recently graduated adult and young learners, and adult learners returning to the workforce or reinventing themselves by entering a new career field.<br>
Adult learners are self-directed with three generally accepted perspectives: humanistic, transformational, and emancipatory. However, workforce changes resulting from economical, societal, and global alterations allow the adult learners to gain additional education credentials. Adult learners want skill-oriented education. In 1995, less than 40 percent of employer training was remedial. Therefore, corporations have been spending money for adult education that provides for the highest financial returns from their financial investment. Institutions responded with various learning opportunities such as credential tracks, certification, and incentive badging. These learning tracks focus on one segment of a larger topic, such as Adult Learning Theories and Education, in the larger career track of Higher Education.<br>
Adult learners bring to the classroom a wealth of knowledge based on lived experiences, lessons learned, best practices, and cultural behaviors. They add value to the class by expanding the knowledge through stories and experiences shared with other participants. Education institutions realize the impact of these experiences and consider these lessons through Prior Learning Assessments (PLAs). PLAs can take the form of an exam, a written exercise, or a hands-on demonstration that the knowledge meets the acceptable level of existing standards. Accredited universities provide college credit for this nonformula, informal, and workplace learning.<br>
How does andragogy help us understand adult learners? Studies proved that the art of teaching children differed greatly from the art of teaching adults. Adult learners may return to the educational environment with apprehension and anxiety. Some adults return after many years away from the classroom. Some adults experience online learning for the first time when returning to the workforce. As facilitators of adult learners, we need to understand what they need in order to cultivate the learning event. For instance, facilitators need to set a cooperative climate for learning—a safe learning environment. This includes identifying the needs and interests of the learners. One way to ensure that these criteria are met is through the student introductions. During the introductions, the facilitator may ask the students to specify their expectations for the learning event. Keeping the expectations visible throughout the week(s), enables the participants to see that their expectations are met.<br>
Meeting the expectations of a variety of learners can take any form and aids in changing a class from a lecture to an active learning experience. Active learning enables the students to enhance their current skills, improve their critical thinking skills, and gain new knowledge efficiently. This type of active learning demands a different type of presentation and does not involve lecture and rote memory exercises and exams. Therefore, traditional lectures are not always suitable and knowledge checks take unique forms such as capstones and knowledge assessment games. As we move from instructors to professors to consultants and facilitators, we need to expand our portfolio of experiences to didactic and problem-based learning techniques and practices.<br>
In the past, the DAU focused on providing the career-oriented Defense Acquisition Workforce Initiative Act (DAWIA) certification curriculum for the Department of Defense workforce. However, as technology, demand for flexible courses, and the target audience’s needs changed, the DAU responded by adjusting curriculum design and development. The university has focused on changing how the professors deliver training. For these and other reasons, the DAU has continued to revisit certification curriculum in an effort to reduce the time spent in the classroom and concentrate on immediate results for better performance in the workplace.<br>
The reduced material allows the professors to engage more with the customers through Mission Assistance. During these events, the professors act as consultants rather than as traditional professors. Mission Assistance, unlike resident courses, should be client-centric and address the needs expressed by the client. In these situations, the consultant must be flexible and accept that the audience may not be the usual new hires or young learners who need to be lectured. They may be seasoned employees who want a refresh or quick on-demand learning experience to bring them up to date on regulations, policies, or procedures. Participants should not be considered as “students,” per se, but instead as knowledgeable partners with valuable stories and experiences that can be shared for the benefit of others. Mission Assistance events help foster lasting relationships at a high level while closing the learners’ knowledge gaps. Mission Assistance opportunities are compatible for adult learners, because they provide for self-directed, knowledge sharing, and skill-based training. Employers, for their part, realize an immediate return on their expectations.<br>
In response to technological changes, the DAU encourages professors, course managers, and learning directors to seek instances in which technology can supplement or replace instructor-led courses. Resident courses converted to virtual instructor-led courses allow the learners to attend training at a time and place that is most convenient for them and their employers. Another instance where the DAU strives to keep pace with adult learning trends while appealing to the younger learner is in learning tracks similar to the certification programs of public institutions. The DAU has kept pace with technology by developing an iPhone and Android DAU smart application. Faculty, staff, and students can access their DAU assets from any smart device.<br>
The DAU, like any university or training institution, must maintain a competitive edge, and this requires buy-in from the top to the bottom and vice versa. The institution must remain flexible and solicit creative ways to entice learners back into the education arena. Changes in delivery methods and varying opportunities help to ensure that the DAU can provide an equitable learning environment. Preparing the workforce to support the warfighter is our goal. In order to accomplish this goal, we must intimately know and understand our audience so we can offer accessible and sustainable training events. We also must reduce barriers to learning opportunities by stretching our use of technology.
<hr />Bublak is the Learning Director for Contracting in the Foundational Learning Directorate of the Defense Acquisition University at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.<br>
The author can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:Diane.Bublak@dau.edu">Diane.Bublak@dau.edu</a>.</div>||string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Adapting-DAU-to-Change-for-the-Warfighter|
|Did Our Budget Go Up or Down?||https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/Lists/Blog/DispForm.aspx?ID=175||Did Our Budget Go Up or Down?||2020-04-13T16:00:00Z||https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner05.jpg, https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner05.jpg
https://wwwad.dauext.dau.mil/library/defense-atl/PublishingImages/DefAcq_Mar-April_2020_banner05.jpg||<div class="ExternalClass32DB32A625E342FCA8A83629DD03ED31">A few years ago, the Director of the National Security Space Integration Office was briefing a room full of senior leaders in the Department of Defense (DoD), including the Executive Agent for Space and the Under Secretary of the Air Force, on the state of the space budget. He reported that the space budget was going up. The Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation (the predecessor to Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation or “CAPE”) took exception and said, “No, your budget isn’t going up … it’s going down!” Caught off guard, the director said that he would look into it and quickly moved on to the next slide in his briefing.<br>
Back in his office after the briefing, the director summoned his budget analysts (i.e., the authors of this article) and said: “If that ever happens to me again, you’re fired! Don’t ever give me wrong data.”<br>
After retreating to our cubicles to assess the situation, we realized that our figures were in fact correct. But, we found that CAPE’s figures also were correct. How could that be?<br>
The answer was, both sets of figures were correct—depending on the point of view. We painstakingly put together some charts to show how both sets of figures were correct, even though they appeared to point to different trends.<br>
We took some deep breaths, then went back into the director’s office to show him the analysis. After some initial skepticism, he acknowledged the validity of our data and the explanation for the difference between his position and CAPE’s. Feeling relieved—and vindicated—we made it a point to be ready for any future similar encounters by building what we call a “Five Arrows Budget Analysis” every time we compared one budget position to another. So, what is the Five Arrows Budget Analysis?<br>
<img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2020/DEFACQ_Mar-Apr2020_article5_figure1.jpg" style="margin:3px;float:left;width:317px;height:300px;" />Consider this hypothetical example for space programs: The President’s Budget (PB) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 requested $10 billion, and programmed (i.e., intended) $12 billion for FY 2020. The PB for FY 2020 showed that $9 billion was appropriated for FY 2019, and requested $11 billion for FY 2020. Setting the budget profiles in a grid for ease of comparison, we get the chart shown in figure 1.<br>
The budget comparisons we report on our Five-Arrows Chart are:<br>
<strong>Arrow 1: </strong>How much we requested for last year versus how much we programmed for this year. This conveys that our intent was to expand or accelerate our space programs.<br>
<strong>Arrow 2: </strong>How much we requested last year versus how much we actually received (i.e., appropriated). This indicates how well we justified our budget request to Congress, and how much Congress supports our space programs.<br>
<strong>Arrow 3:</strong> How much we requested for last year versus how much we are requesting this year. This reflects our revised plans after taking into account congressional support and restrictions, as well as another year of program executions including fact-of-life perturbations.<br>
<strong>Arrow 4: </strong>How much we programmed for this year versus how much we actually requested. This indicates how much our planned program was revised given the current level of congressional support and program changes.<br>
<strong>Arrow 5:</strong> How much we actually received (i.e., how much was appropriated) last year versus how much we requested this year. This indicates how much support we hope to receive from Congress after factoring in their level of support in the previous year and how much additional support we need as we deal with program changes in the past year.<br>
Notice that there can be large differences in budget changes depending upon which arrows we examine. In some cases, one arrow might be very positive (representing a budget increase), while another arrow might be very negative (representing a budget cut). In this example, the budget change could be described as being as much as a $2 billion (22 percent) increase, or a $1 billion (10 percent) decrease.<br>
Our boss was reporting a $1 billion Arrow 3 increase in the budget, while the Director of CAPE was reporting a $1 billion Arrow 4 decrease. Both were right, but from different points of view.<br>
So, which arrow is the “best” one to use? The answer is, as you might expect, “It depends.” It depends upon your audience’s frame of reference, and the message you are trying to convey to them. For example, if you are trying to show you are attempting to build on the programs that Congress approved and funded last year, then you probably would want to focus on Arrow 5. The budget changes represented by Arrow 5 are influenced by the budget changes (either positive or negative) imposed by Congress. If Congress cut your budget and caused schedule delays, then your budget requests now will be driven by the new de facto schedule. The amount requested in the current PB would reflect that new budget requirement.<br>
Or, if you are trying to explain the impacts to your programs as a result of programmatic changes since last year, then you probably would want to focus on Arrow 4 since those budget changes were probably driven at least in part by program execution issues and congressional marks. You would want to compare what you had programmed last year to what you are now requesting after taking into account all programmatic changes (including congressional marks) since last year.<br>
The Principal Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Space periodically publishes a “Space Budget Brainbook” that features our Five-Arrows analysis of the space budget. Included for each arrow are the programs that positively or negatively contributed to the changes. This makes it easy to see specifically which programs changed and by how much. In some cases, a decrease in budget is the result of a delay in schedule. But, there are instances where a budget decrease is good and expected. For example, a few years ago the procurement budget for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) showed a sharp decrease. But that was not a bad news story—it was a good news story. The Air Force finished procurement of the EELVs that it needed, so naturally there would be no need to continue funding EELV at historic levels. The drop in EELV’s budget did not mean something was lost. In this case, it meant something positive happened.<br>
For completeness, in addition to the Five-Arrows analysis, we also include an Arrow 6 analysis that compares the budget for a range of years in one budget position to the same range of years in a different budget position. Typically, we use the common years in the Five Year Defense Program for both budget positions. In the scenario above, we would use FY 2020–FY 2023 as the range of years when comparing PB 2019 to PB 2020.<br>
We produce the Space Budget Brainbook for every PB, Program Objective Memorandum and Budget Estimate Submission as they are published. Then, we are always prepared to recognize—and explain—different characterizations of what happened to the space budget.<br>
Every year we are asked, “Did the space budget go up or down?” Our reply is always to ask, “Which comparison are you making?” This is not meant to confound anyone. We want to answer the correct question, which is not always obvious. After determining which Arrow analysis is being requested, we use CAPE’s database and their Major Force Program for Space (MFP-12) list of programs to come up with the numbers. Any time another office comes up with different numbers our first questions are, “Are you using the MFP-12 list of programs?” and “What database did you use to get your numbers?” After ensuring that we are using a common set of budget data, any differences in the numbers are generally attributable to using different Arrow comparisons.<br>
We have found the Five-Arrows analysis of budget positions to be useful throughout the year as we have discussions about our budgets both internally and externally. For example, we used this analysis when we met with congressional staffers and the Office of Management and Budget. This analysis enabled us to quickly focus on the exact budget comparisons of concern. We believe every office in DoD that needs to track, analyze, or report on its budgets would benefit from using a similar technique. If you would like more information about this topic, feel free to contact the authors at the e-mail addresses below.
<hr />Cho and Jenkins are budget analysts who developed the Five-Arrows technique of analyzing and reporting budget changes as well as software tools to aid the analysis for the Principal Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Space. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. Government. This presentation consists of SAIC general capabilities information that does not include controlled technical data as defined by the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) Part 120.10 or Export Administration Regulations (EAR) Part 734.7-11.<br>
The authors can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a> and <a class="ak-cke-href" href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>.</div>||string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Did-Our-Budget--Go-Up-or-Down|