Implementing the Adaptive Acquisition Framework
Is this an effective way to empower, simplify, and tailor the AAF?
ASA(ALT) recently updated their core acquisition regulation on the Army Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework. In our review of it, we worry the Army didn’t go far enough in streamlining the acquisition processes as envisioned in implementing the AAF.
“The Adaptive Acquisition Framework is the most transformational acquisition policy change the department has seen in decades.”
- Ellen Lord, Former Defense Acquisition Executive
The first major takeaway is that roughly 17 senior officials must certify various elements to approve initiation of an acquisition program. That doesn’t include the dozens of subordinate organizations involved in the many processes, documents, and reviews. Among the 71 pages are references to dozens of other mandatory policies across DoD and the Army that takes four pages to list them all. That’s life in DoD.
The new regulation reiterates the AAF tenets from DODD 5000.01 but buries them on page 8 and rearranges them in a different order using different words (see below). More importantly, the new regulation does not reflect these tenets through the remainder of the policy as it instead leans heavy towards a complex, centralized, and structured approach.
Simplify acquisition policy.
Empower PMs.
Support and utilize data driven analytics.
Employ active risk management.
Emphasize sustainment and program protection early in the acquisition life cycle.
Tailor acquisition approaches. Decision authorities are empowered to tailor program strategies and oversight by phasing the content, timing, and scope of decision reviews and decision levels based on the unique characteristics of the capability being acquired, including complexity, risk, and urgency.
Army Modernization Approach
This update stands in contrast to the Army’s push to leverage these rapid acquisition pathways (middle tier and software acquisition) for many of its most important programs - most to great success with deliveries occurring this year. The below programs form the core of the Army’s modernization plan, and all are using streamlined approaches from the Middle Tier or Software acquisition pathways.
The approach of adding more bureaucracy to the acquisition process is also poorly timed as the Army Futures Commander recently stressed the importance of rapidly fielding new capabilities. Army Acquisition Executive Doug Bush has even reiterated that the key to acquisition speed is having working prototypes for users to provide feedback on which the Middle Tier and Software Acquisition pathways are pre-tailored to support.
“Physical prototypes have allowed us to get input earlier from soldiers, which has proven critical to many of our recent success stories. So, we’re working to continue that approach into almost all of our new programs.” Doug Bush
Key Issues with the Update
Army SAE Approves Every Program
2-6.d.: “Selection of pathway. The Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) approves the pathway for every Army acquisition program (unless responsibility is delegated).”
Let’s keep in mind that the acquisition pathway is the core of a program’s acquisition strategy. While there are six pathways established in the AAF, they are tailorable. Regardless of size, risk, or complexity of the program, the Army’s Acquisition Executive must approve the pathway used for each program. While this is logical for the largest ACAT I programs, it is much more advisable (and other military services have already done it) to delegate decision authority on ACAT III and IV programs to the PEOs.
Overcomplicating Use of Multiple Pathways
2-6.e.: “Use of multiple pathways. PMs may leverage a combination of acquisition pathways to provide value not otherwise available through use of a single pathway. (1) The AAE must approve changing the pathway for an entire program as well as the use of a new pathway to manage a portion of a program. (2) If use of multiple pathways is approved by the AAE, the Army acquisition personnel working with the program must comply with statutory and regulatory reporting, documentation, and oversight rules for each pathway selected. This can result in the PM for one program submitting two (or more) sets of reports, having two (or more) cost positions and having more than one oversight organization.
This is misguided and doesn’t reflect how acquisition processes will need to adapt to software centricity to major platforms. The core tenet of the AAF is “tailoring in” what makes sense for the program to meet the required capability gaps. If an Army program has a mix of hardware and software where it makes sense to have large block upgrades for the hardware, and rapid, iterative software releases, it should tailor its acquisition strategy to execute it that way. Yet under the current policy, it requires establishing two programs managed differently with potentially double the reporting, documentation, and oversight. Software will be central to nearly all future acquisition programs. Army PMs would be wise to stick with one pathway and “tailor in” elements of others as needed.
Similarly, a program could explore a rapid prototype or rapid fielding of an initial capability while in parallel developing a more stable, long-term system. Yet the bureaucratic burdens placed on program offices compound the risks to the program. This is in some cases intentional as some OSD organizations and Congressional staff are outright hostile to the Middle Tier of Acquisition pathway and seek to sabotage it with MDAP size or worse burdens for rapid prototyping and fielding of capabilities.
Potentially Baselines Urgent, Middle Tier, and Software Programs
“2-16.a. APB applicability. A traditional baseline is required for MCA pathway programs … DBS pathway programs …. Army acquisition programs following the UCA, MTA, and SWP pathways are not required by statute or policy to have a traditional baseline. The designated DA/MDA may optionally require [one for them].”
“2-16.c. Non-traditional baselines. Like traditional baselines, non-traditional baselines include cost, schedule, and performance information. Unlike the traditional baseline, non-traditional baselines also contain pathway-specific content like transition plans, software delivery metrics, or operational risks.”
For context, Acquisition Program Baselines (APBs) are when DoD spends potentially years in the early phases of a program to define detailed requirements; estimate the lifecycle costs and schedule to develop, produce, operate, and sustain the system; and detailed strategies. APBs then lock down the program under the estimated cost, schedule, and performance and serve as the primary measure of the program’s health and progress over the next 5-10+ years. Exceeding cost baselines, missing schedule milestones, or inability to meet all key performance parameters drives additional reviews and oversight.
While APBs may be helpful for large MDAP programs, they are antithetical to rapid and dynamic programs using the urgent, rapid, or software acquisition pathways. Yet the Army doctrine allows decision authorities to either impose the legacy APBs on these novel pathways or use a “non-traditional baseline” which adds more elements to hold the program manager accountable. These rapid and agile programs should not be constrained with a rigorous baseline. They are designed to rapidly deliver and iterate on capabilities in close coordination with users to explore novel solutions.
Imposes Multiple Levels of Review Inevitably Delaying Execution
The number of different review panels and processes that an aspiring program must go through is daunting. It hearkens back to a 2015 GAO report (when AT&L was still intact) that showed it could take over two years to get an approval decision. This is not congruent with the Army’s goals of faster delivery speed and earlier soldier engagement.
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started. The secret of getting started is breaking your complex overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks and starting on the first one.”
Mark Twain
2-18. Review Forums include:
(authors added) OSD-level reviews (e.g. MTA Advisory Board)
Army Overarching Integrated Product Teams (AOIPTs).
Pathway Decision. With a DASM-level pre-meeting.
Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARCs).
Army Configuration Steering Boards (CSBs).
Sustainment Reviews.
Acquisition In-Process Reviews.
Annual Acquisition Program Reviews.
Acquisition Shaping Panel (ASP).
Any others identified by the PEO or AAE
Pathway specific reviews (e.g. SEPs, PDRs, CDRs, ITRAs).
Other boards like the Army Uniform Board.
PMs should plan on spending significant time in the Pentagon. SAEs should expect that their PMs will be less focused on risk management, exploring new innovative solutions, refining execution processes or on managing the team. They will instead be focusing on navigating the gauntlet of many organizational processes and reviews across the Army enterprise.
In Review
Three key AAF tenets are: Simplify, Empower, and Tailor.
ASA/ALT’s 70-page policy with references to dozens of additional policies along with organizational specific policies. Is that simplifying acquisition policy?
All acquisition programs, no matter how small, must be initiated by the AAE following many reviews of requirements and draft strategies. Throughout the program’s lifecycle is an endless array of approvals, certifications, reporting, and reviews. Is that empowering the program managers to manage their programs?
Making any change to existing processes requires extensive approvals and exhausting justifications. Is this the intent of tailoring?
Of course, the OSD-level Adaptive Acquisition Framework itself is also losing its way with a mass proliferation of functional policies and hundred-page guidebooks that PMs and program office staff have to muddle through to understand what is going to trip them up as they request approvals. The Middle Tier of Acquisition pathway still requires an onerous OSD-level review and approval for larger programs…and is continuing to add requirements to the pathway that dilute its original intent. Joint Staff is exploring ways to inject archaic JCIDS processes on MTA’s requirements approach that statutorily exempts them.
The new AAF pathways for rapid and software acquisitions must embrace the simplify, empower, and tailor tenets to enable the speed and agility required for modern warfare.
Defense Tech and Acquisition is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.