Sign In



DAU Releases FY2019 Training Schedulestring;#/News/DAU-Releases-FY2019-Training-ScheduleDAU Releases FY2019 Training Schedule2018-04-20T16:00:00Z Schedule Release_20180420.jpg, Schedule Release_20180420.jpg Schedule Release_20180420.jpg<div class="ExternalClass6DD1678A595B46B096778EC99D792A4C"><p>FORT BELVOIR, VA, April 20 – Defense Acquisition Workforce (DAU) released its <strong><a href="">FY19 Training Schedule</a></strong>. In previous years, the schedule was not available to the Defense Acquisition Workforce until May or June.</p> <p>This early release helps improve access to seats for high-demand courses and allows students and career managers to better plan for the future. It also increases the use of the cost effective location module, reducing travel expenses. In FY2019, DAU will offer over 47,000 classroom seats.</p> <p>The following table represents the distribution of the 47,239 classroom seats by career field:</p> <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="width:208px;"><strong>Career Field</strong></td> <td style="width:208px;"><strong>Total Number of Seats</strong></td> <td style="width:208px;"><strong>% of Total</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Business</td> <td style="width:208px;">3,100</td> <td style="width:208px;">7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Contracting</td> <td style="width:208px;">14,026</td> <td style="width:208px;">30%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Engineering & Technology</td> <td style="width:208px;">8,825</td> <td style="width:208px;">19%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Logistics</td> <td style="width:208px;">3,971</td> <td style="width:208px;">8%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Program Management</td> <td style="width:208px;">16,801</td> <td style="width:208px;">36%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Requirements</td> <td style="width:208px;">348</td> <td style="width:208px;">1%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;">Other</td> <td style="width:208px;">168</td> <td style="width:208px;">0%</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:208px;"><strong>TOTAL</strong></td> <td style="width:208px;"><strong>47,239</strong></td> <td style="width:208px;"><strong>100%</strong></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Questions related to DAU’s training schedule may be sent to Lisa Johnson, DAU’s Center Director for Scheduling & Student Services (<strong><a class="ak-cke-href" href=""></a></strong>).</p></div>string;#/News/DAU-Releases-FY2019-Training-Schedule
Army DCO using streamlined acquisition, data analytics to defend cyberspacestring;#/News/Army-DCO-using-streamlined-acquisition,-data-analytics-to-defend-cyberspaceArmy DCO using streamlined acquisition, data analytics to defend cyberspace2018-04-19T12:00:00Z news.jpg, news.jpg news.jpg<div class="ExternalClass1D85F7DE018544D6A3808A8FDACB574A"><h1>Army DCO using streamlined acquisition, data analytics to defend cyberspace</h1> By: Patience Wait, Federal News Radio<br> <br> The end goal of streamlining DoD’s acquisition systems is always, first and foremost, about providing the warfighters as much capability as possible.<br> <br> This premise is just as true in cyberspace. The Army’s new framework for a rapid process to acquire cyber defensive tools is a good example.<br> <br> Lt. Col. Scott Helmore, the product manager for Army Defensive Cyberspace Operations, told Federal News Radio that his office had just completed an eight-day acquisition to add new analytic capability to its Big Data Platform (BDP) — from identifying the need to delivering the capability to the cyberwarriors. (<a href="" target="_blank">read more</a>)<br> <br> <br> <em>The photo in the header shows Staff Sgt. Wendell Myler, a cyber warfare operations journeyman assigned to the 175th Cyberspace Operations Group of the Maryland Air National Guard monitors live cyber attacks on the operations floor of the 27th Cyberspace Squadron, known as the Hunter's Den, at Warfield Air National Guard Base, Middle River, Md., June 3, 2017. (U.S. Air Force photo by J.M. Eddins Jr.)</em><br></div>string;#/News/Army-DCO-using-streamlined-acquisition,-data-analytics-to-defend-cyberspace



Treating the Side Effects of Process the Side Effects of Process2018-05-01T16:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClassC8E7A63B2ADB49F1BBA1EB7228FB2AD7">When I arrived to my program management office (PMO) 9 years ago, my colleagues and I frequently met in the office of the chief engineer (CE) to troubleshoot problems. It often went something like this:<br> <br> Me: “Aircraft XYZ is broken, needs a temporary repair, and one-time flight. We’ve created the repair procedures and are ready to provide them to maintenance. What’s next? Who needs to approve them?”<br> <br> CE: “What did we do last time? Did we do a risk assessment? Did we have the program manager sign it? Did we coordinate with the operator?”<br> Me: “I don’t remember. I’ll research it.”<br> <br> Next, I would seek a colleague who would describe his experience. Of course, it differed from what I had intended. We would huddle again in the CE’s office and decide whether to repeat the previous process or do something different.<br> <br> The result was always the same: The airplane was returned to safe flight with appropriate approvals, but we killed hours trying to determine the approval process—something we had accomplished many times but not often enough to have memorized it.<br> <br> Finally, after several years of déjà vu, the CE and I took the time to write an organizational process. We printed all regulations, sequestered ourselves offsite, mapped the flow on a whiteboard, and authored the rubber-on-the-road process document. The result provided clear guidance to engineers and enabled consistent execution.<br> <br> <strong>Processes Spread ...Along With Side Effects</strong><br> Similar situations occur across all Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition. We need useful process documents to instruct, enable repeatability, incorporate lessons learned, and make us efficient. However, as I have gained experience as a creator, implementer, enforcer and leader, I have discovered processes also have significant negative side effects. Just as a physician must beware of potential side effects when prescribing medicine, we leaders must beware of potential side effects when prescribing processes.<br> My aim herein is to share three side effects that I have personally experienced. I propose that leaders adopt and communicate new principles to reframe the mindset of our acquisition workforce.<br> <br> <strong><img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/May-Jun2018/2_figure1.png" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:650px;height:639px;" />Side Effect Number 1: Distraction</strong><br> A few months ago, another government agency agreed to lend our PMO an aircraft for testing. This partnership would save taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.<br> This was a unique situation and our organizational processes did not prescribe exactly what needed to be done for airworthiness, test or liability. Our engineering team dove deep into the details, resulting in an excellent, several-page-long justification on how we would execute in compliance with affected regulations.<br> <br> Unfortunately, the critical thinking about the test, which was not a trivial undertaking, was limited to a couple paragraphs. We had spent the majority of our time and brainpower on ensuring compliance with regulations, and not on ensuring a safe and technically adequate test. Our concern about compliance distracted us from our primary role.<br> We need to ensure that our mindset has a role for processes, but only a role in service to our DoD acquisition mission. Perfect process execution does not equate to mission success. Our mission is not to acquire and sustain process artifacts. Our mission is to deliver capabilities—a warfighter’s edge. Every process, form, coordination and approval requires time and money. The expense must be worthwhile. Often we limit our concerns to liability and regulatory noncompliance. We rarely think and talk of limited time as our threat.<br> <br> Consequently, every acquisition organization should be graded on mission accomplishment—not process compliance. An inspection should focus on whether we met our commitments to the warfighter. Did we appropriately equip them? If not, why not? Did we tailor existing processes? If we didn’t have the authority, did we raise the issue to the right decision level?<br> <br> Over the years, I have become more intentional about communicating how processes contribute to fulfilling our mission. I no longer begin trainings, e-mails, or process documents with a long list of prescribing regulations. Rather, I explain how the process enables us to successfully equip warfighters. If our workforce doesn’t believe in the purpose of the process, they will likely undermine it with passivity or slander.<br> <br> Another communication tool I use is a circle-of-importance chart (Figure 1). The chart clarifies to my team where I expect full compliance, where we can evaluate compliance case by case, and where I want them to maximize tailoring. Acquisition processes always will need to cover enormous breadth. It is the leader’s responsibility to orient their people to which processes are most valuable to the mission and which are not.<br> <br> <strong>Side Effect Number 2: Disbelief</strong><br> In preparing for my unit’s compliance inspection this fall, I tried to keep count of the Service, Major Command, and Center-level regulations that a PMO’s engineering workforce must follow. These are documents that say directly or indirectly “The program manager (PM), in coordination with the CE, shall … .” I gave up counting at 54 process documents, totaling 1,638 pages. I had not started counting DoD-level regulations, military standards, or any guides and templates.<br> <br> I honestly try my best to keep up—periodically checking multiple websites, downloading documents, printing and building binders, reading and highlighting, and distributing to my team. Frankly, though, it is tiring and unrealistic. I will never have enough staff to fully implement it. Recently I saw that a competency model had indicated we were staffed at 40 percent of the requirement level. I am in disbelief.<br> <br> We must embrace the fact that we are all regulators who influence the size of the government. If we complain at home about big government bureaucracy but want to enlarge our processes at work, we contradict ourselves.<br> <br> Processes should be value-added, minimum, clear, realistic, resourced, up-to-date, and at the right level. This is very hard and takes a long time! Each process I’ve authored has taken at least a year and involved numerous offsite meetings and peer reviews. <ul> <li>Value-added: This will help us execute our mission and equip our talented workforce.</li> <li>Minimum: The document is short enough that people actually will read it. It is not redundant.</li> <li>Clear: We can actually understand what the process is telling us to do. It is not ambiguous.</li> <li>Realistic: The process actually can be accomplished.</li> <li>Resourced: We have the resources to execute the process. We will follow through and hold ourselves accountable.</li> <li>Up-to-date: The process is relevant and accurate. The people and organizations exist.</li> <li>At the right level: The process is prescribed at the correct organizational level. We have not prescribed anything that can be figured out by lower levels.</li> </ul> Committing to these characteristics should result in less regulations and leaders who reward performance for simplification, elimination, and streamlining. As I’ve updated my process documents, I’ve counted words to ensure reduction. (And the instructions are undoubtedly improving.) Right now is the perfect time and opportunity for process killers. President Trump’s Executive Order 13771 requires any new regulation be accompanied with the elimination of two existing regulations. Every person in acquisition needs to embrace this guidance—not just senior leaders. Former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall used to say that we must “have the courage to challenge bad policy.” Now is the time to do so!<br> <br> A good litmus test is to change our terminology. Instead of calling my instructions “processes,” I occasionally call them what they really are: regulations. No one ever says “I’m a regulation person.” The negative connotation forces me to think harder about its necessity and scope. Am I confident this needs regulated?<br> <br> We also need to communicate the values that guided the construction of the process. Without them, people will be less equipped to conduct smart tailoring. Is there another way to implement the values? I have developed charts at the beginning of my training sessions to communicate the guiding values. If you want to deviate from the process, you need to tell me how you will still satisfy the values.<br> <br> <strong>Side Effect Number 3: Division</strong><br> When I assumed the role of CE, I became responsible for all processes leading to safe, suitable, secure and effective products for my customers. I read military Service regulations, processes, delegation letters, and position descriptions to facilitate understanding my responsibilities.<br> <br> One major frustration was reading a document describing the authority and importance of a CE, and another document directing external approvals for every configuration change, regardless of size. (Furthermore, I would be frequently inspected.) Was I being trusted by leadership or not? Did I have autonomy or not?<br> <br> Process documents and external dependencies often send mixed messages of responsibility and trust. Too easily they lead to “us vs. them” attitudes within our own teams.<br> The nature of DoD acquisition requires a matrixed and multilevel work environment. However, external dependencies and authorities can easily have negative impacts on speed, unity and creativity. External authorities can leave PMOs with the impression they only care about their discipline. On the other side, PMO staffs can develop brain-dead behaviors, such as passing the buck, because “it’s someone else’s job.” In either case, our mission suffers.<br> <br> We should maintain high expectations of our professionals. Processes should start with expectations of trust and competence and show where there is freedom to act. Processes should provide enough framework for our talented people to understand their responsibility and succeed (Figure 2). Processes should get instructions right for the majority and expect core values and principles to guide the rest. We should prize competence over compliance. We should aim for professionals who know their craft and can smartly advise decision makers on tailoring. We should reduce external dependencies and increase empowerment and trust. We should increase training and communication.<br> <br> Admittedly, this is hard. People will disappoint us. Our natural reaction will be to write a process document. It may work in the short term, but it won’t in the long. We have to resist solving people problems with processes. If someone is not acting with competence, discipline and professionalism, we need tough supervisory work—not a new process or external dependency for everyone.<br> <br> <strong><img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/May-Jun2018/2_figure2.png" /><br> Commit to Treatment</strong><br> DoD acquisition is complicated and requires trained professionals. We are entrusted by taxpayers and warfighters. We need to deliver effective warfighting equipment. We need to avoid costly mistakes. We need to provide consistent and competent assurances. There is no doubt we need processes.<br> However, we must beware that processes often have unintended side effects: distracting us from our mission, creating disbelief in each other and the system, and dividing our teams. We must be vigilant to treat these side effects. Leaders must be willing to sacrifice personal comfort, adopt new principles about processes, and frequently communicate these principles to the acquisition workforce. If people can adopt a new mindset about processes, the change has the potential to be bigger than execution—it can be cultural. <hr />Bailey is a chief engineer in the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.<br> <br> The author can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href=""></a>.</div>string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Treating-the-Side-Effects-of-Process
Faster, Greater Value and Cheaper—Is It Real?, Greater Value and Cheaper—Is It Real?2018-05-01T16:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass0022BEB0E2BA4654A9AA8586A76D79F0">Yes, it’s real! But only if we adopt a paradigm shift and give the acquisition workforce the tools and resources to make it happen. Let me explain.<br> While talk of acquisition reform in Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition is not new, a significant change in the paradigm for acquiring software reliant systems is being piloted in DoD. This change, when adopted more globally, will affect processes, policies, and job functions of the entire acquisition process—including requirements, testing, and budgeting. It is predicated on a shift from the current sequentially phased, product maturity model to a fully automated and repeatable, continuous integration and delivery model. One of the better known methods that embodies this shift is known as Agile Development, which is enabled by seamless Information Technology (IT) Operations of cloud-based computing resources in both the Development and Operations environments (hereafter referred to as DevOps).<br> <br> What is it? Wikipedia defines DevOps as: “a software engineering culture and practice that aims at unifying software development (Dev) and software operations (Ops). The main characteristic of the DevOps movement is to strongly advocate automation and monitoring at all steps of software construction, from integration, testing, releasing to deployment and infrastructure management. DevOps aims at short development cycles, increased deployment frequency, more dependable releases, in close alignment with business objectives.”<br> <br> As indicated in the definition, DevOps is not only a practice but also a culture. Organizational culture change is often difficult because behaviors and attitudes of an organization become ingrained after years of operations. Changing these normalized behaviors and attitudes will likely be one of DoD’s biggest challenges when this model is implemented on a larger scale. Another key word in the definition is automation, which is part of a technology wave that is realizing new and faster approaches to fielding capability.<br> <br> As background, Agile DevOps is a particular methodology and should not be confused with the generic term Agile software development that initially was developed in 2001 by a group of 17 software engineers and describes a set of 12 software development principles that are known as the Agile Manifesto. These principles address items such as early and continuous delivery of valuable software, welcoming new requirements, simplicity, customer satisfaction by delivering valuable software, and more.<br> <br> Several Agile-based approaches have been adopted, but the Agile DevOps distinction is its close bond between developers and operators and its fast release cadence, all enabled by leveraging cloud-native IT operations. Some programs have implemented a “Water-Scrum-Fall” approach, where Agile sprints (short development cycles) are integrated into a waterfall development method. Waterfall is based on the sequential development cycle of analyze, design, develop, test and field. Waterfall attempts to address all the requirements for that design baseline before testing and fielding the software. This Water-Scrum-Fall method is not consistent with the DevOps approach primarily because of the lengthier release frequency, treatment of requirements and testing approach. Agile Dev­Ops will be the basis of the following discussion to achieve faster, greater value and cheaper programs.<br> <br> Use of a faster and more effective software methodology has significant implications for DoD. Software is embedded in just about everything we use, including our cars, phones and household appliances. According to the March 5, 2009, NASA Study on Flight Software Complexity, the system functionality delivered by software in modern fighter aircraft grew from 8 percent in 1960 and to 80 percent in 2000 with the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet. This trend is accelerating and is enabled by advances in microprocessors that use less space and power while providing significantly greater computing performance. Other technologies such as cloud computing, test automation, mobile computing, and machine learning also contribute to this increased demand for software. Since many of these commercial technologies are readily available in the open market, potential adversaries are actively leveraging them as evidenced by multiple and continuing cyber-attacks.<br> <br> Before discussing the imperative to move to a new model that enables faster and high-value capabilities, we should consider the issues associated with long development and fielding cycles. Many of these are not new; DoD has emphasized reducing cycle times for many years—but with mixed results. The pace of technology advancement is so rapid that any long development effort risks producing an obsolete system before it is first deployed. Long development efforts enable our potential adversaries to deploy counter capabilities inside our acquisition cycles, potentially jeopardizing our technological edge and mission success. Long cycle times also suggest we cannot react quickly to changes in threats or exploit new opportunities without even longer extension of the cycle time. Finally, long fielding cycles are expensive and delay user feedback on system utility and value. Lacking rapid feedback, it is very difficult to make necessary corrections without another big investment of scarce resources.<br> <br> <strong>Faster</strong><br> A deliberate process of requirements generation and validation that attempts to address capability needs fully prior to initial fielding results in cycle times measured in years (and longer for complex systems such as fighter aircraft). Users devote significant effort to analyzing capability needs and then translating those needs into requirements documents that are vetted throughout the specific military Service and Joint Staff. Testing often is very expensive and time consuming, so testers desire a stable system design that is representative of production prior to initial operational testing. The phased acquisition process establishes a series of gate reviews (e.g., Milestone Reviews, Decision Reviews, Design Reviews) that often slow the cycle, based on progress toward greater product maturity within cost, schedule, and performance boundaries. Our contracting process can take years to award a competitive contract and often must then delay further work until a protest is resolved. So how can an approach like Agile DevOps speed up this cycle without losing the process rigor of the phased approach?<br> <br> A key tenet in today’s environment is that rapidly fielding technology and software capability is critical to success. We have seen how software is disrupting industries like taxi service (Uber), movies (NetFlix), and hotels (Airbnb). Many businesses know that rapid fielding gives them a competitive edge when they are the first to market, providing customers with features that can attract new sales and drive growth. Companies like Capital One, Target, Walmart, Nordstrom, Facebook, Adobe, Sony Pictures Entertainment, and Fidelity Worldwide Investment have adopted this continuous integration, continuous delivery model with great success. Amazon releases new software to the website every few seconds (see Jon Jenkins on YouTube at Velocity 2011). Commercial companies invest hundreds of billions of dollars each year on new IT, and it will be difficult for DoD and our private suppliers to keep pace without new and more flexible processes.<br> <br> DoD also needs the rapid fielding of capabilities to counter new threats, replace hard-to-maintain legacy systems, and keep pace with asymmetric adversaries such as cyber-attackers. DoD is attempting to pilot this DevOps model with the help of organizations like the Defense Digital Service and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. Those two new organizations bring commercial business and technology domain expertise to assist the transition to commercial technology and methods. The recent Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act directed DoD to implement Agile pilot programs within each military Service.<br> <br> Programs like the Air Force Air Operations Center (AOC) Pathfinder pilot have formed and started this effort. One of the early pilot software applications, the Tanker Planning Tool, was fielding very quickly and received great feedback from users. This new software application streamlined aerial refuel­ing tanker operations, saving 350,000 pounds of fuel and about 140 man-hours per week. The AOC Pathfinder team has partnered with the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to document lessons learned, best practices and policy recommendations to enable greater use of the approach. This partnership is helping DAU build new courseware and performance learning content to enable the workforce’s consideration of this model as part of its acquisition strategy. It also enables the identification of statutory and policy obstacles that may need revision.<br> <br> <strong>Greater Value</strong><br> Delivering value with smaller releases of software is an important part of this new model. While it’s not intuitively expected that a smaller release of software with less functionality could provide greater value than a much larger software program, consider the learning and iteration made possible by getting the software to the user quickly. Even in a failed first release, the rapid feedback and learning will enable subsequent success as the software is iterated to meet user needs. Industry data on requirements generation and waterfall acquisition confirms that building to specified and static requirements results in building features that create no gains or perhaps even negative or lost user value to the user in 66 percent of the cases, afflicting the user’s organization with software that hinders rather than helps mission success.<br> <br> Consider the following from the February 2017 Government Accountability Office Report 17-317: “Although the executive branch has undertaken numerous initiatives to better manage the more than $80 billion that is annually invested in information technology (IT), federal IT investments too frequently fail or incur cost overruns and schedule slippages while contributing little to mission-related outcomes. Agencies continue to have IT projects that perform poorly. Such projects have often used a ‘big bang’ approach—that is, projects are broadly scoped and aim to deliver functionality several years after initiation. According to the Defense Science Board, this approach is often too long, ineffective, and unaccommodating of the rapid evolution of IT.”<br> <br> The value obtained from Agile DevOps comes from small pieces of total system utility. These narrow slices of capability attempt to solve the user’s biggest problems and provide the greatest use. Using DevOps, the challenge is to provide these priority features quickly and then build out the rest of the pain points in a prioritized and iterative fashion. By comparison, Agile DevOps can solve the most pressing needs and provide the most useful capability before a waterfall development program completes the initial requirements analysis and system design phases. This iterative feedback after the quick releases gives all parties insight to the point when enough value is deployed, avoiding development of useless functionality and saving money and time.<br> <br> <strong>Cheaper</strong><br> It’s difficult to compare the costs of Agile DevOps to the waterfall method, but several important cost concepts are relevant. Agile DevOps does not track software development in terms of the traditional metrics of cost, schedule and performance. Rather, metrics such as value to user, throughput (measured by release cadence and backlog velocity), capacity (number of teams needed to keep up with user’s prioritized backlog); and quality (change failure rate). If we accept the Agile principle of welcoming new requirements, then a frozen baseline to gauge program performance does not work.<br> <br> A second consideration of cost involves automation. Agile software development leverages automation and built-in quality methods to ensure the product is always mature and deployable, even while changing. Automated developer and test tools are essential to enable this model. In approaches like test-driven development, testing begins at the start, not the end, in the project life cycle. Automated testing helps to eliminate error backlogs and deploy products more quickly and with better results. Automation is absolutely critical because end-to-end testing must be conducted repeatedly and iteratively to ensure quality of each viable software product. Note that cybersecurity can be enhanced with automated cyber scans and the inherited security attributes from the cloud computing environments that support the development environments.<br> <br> We can reasonably expect that automation will cost less than human labor. Through technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy and robotics, human labor is no longer needed for many tasks and thus will shift to other roles. Reducing the need to pay for human labor and for human errors will cut costs. For example, some of the selling points of driverless cars include fewer accidents, more efficient use of space and energy, and lower costs than owning, maintaining, and insuring one’s personal vehicle. Larry Ellison, Oracle’s chief technology officer, said during a keynote address at the 2017 Oracle Open World conference, “but the shock is, you have to be willing to pay much less” while discussing Oracle’s new fully autonomous database that requires no human labor to run, upgrade, patch or tune the software. And consider this recent news headline: “After Humans Fail, Drone Spots Lost Hunter in 20 Minutes” (John Johnson, Newser.Com, Dec. 19, 2017). The article discussed how a nightlong search for a lost hunter involving helicopters and extensive human foot patrols proved fruitless. The next day, a relatively new type of drone with automated sensors located the lost hunter within 20 minutes. Rescuers on foot then found him and escorted him back to safety.<br> <br> <strong>Conclusion </strong><br> The future is here when it comes to faster, more responsive, and high-value programs. However, a transition to the Agile DevOps model and other new approaches will not be easy for DoD. In addition to “unlearning” the old way of doing acquisition and adopting new processes, a big culture change is most definitely in order. Culture change is difficult and does not happen overnight. The good news is there seems to be wide consensus that change is needed and that DoD is starting to take reform actions.<br> Several agencies have recently announced new initiatives to accelerate fielding and streamline acquisition cycles. Innovation is becoming more than a buzzword as DoD teams experiment with new techniques to accelerate the delivery of value to the warfighter. We should remember, though, that all the new technology and methods are great, but people will be the key to success. The workforce will need rapid and relevant training, automation and software infrastructure resources, and leadership support to enable this change. Momentum is building, if we can only keep it rolling! <hr />Schultz is a professor of Program Management at the Defense Acquisition University’s Fort Belvoir, Virginia, campus.<br> <br> The author can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href=""></a>.<br> The author thanks Lt Col Jeremiah Sanders, Air Operations Center Program Manager, for his contributions to this article.</div>string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Faster,-Greater-Value-and-Cheaper—Is-It-Real



Colorado Technical University Patriot Scholarship Technical University Patriot Scholarship2018-02-20T05:00:00Z, Patriot Scholarship logo.jpg<div class="ExternalClass5C8FA1FB74E44950A01BC20DBBAD6CD7">Applications for Colorado Technical University’s Patriot Scholarship open on March 1, 2018. As of January 2018, CTU has awarded 500 scholarships, totaling $8.5 million! This scholarship was created to give back to those whose lives have been changed due to injuries sustained serving in the U.S. military and their families. Service members, veterans, their spouses, college-ready dependents, and caregivers are eligible for the scholarship. Apply today: <a href=""></a><br> <br> <img src="/partnerships/PublishingImages/CTU%20Patriot%20Scholarship%20Digital%20Flyer%20V1.jpg" alt="" style="width:800px;height:1035px;" /></div>string;#/partnerships/blog/Colorado-Technical-University-Patriot-Scholarship
The Excelsior College School of Public Service offers a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Excelsior College School of Public Service offers a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Emergency Management.2018-02-09T17:00:00Z, Security graphic.jpg<div class="ExternalClass5AFBF188D49E4576A9B7F1F71514DD6A"><strong>Considering a degree in homeland security and emergency management?</strong><br> <br> The Excelsior College School of Public Service offers a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Emergency Management.<br> <br> There are over a dozen categories of critical infrastructure, including sectors such as power (generation, transmission, consumption), banking, food supply, transportation, and medicine. If any of these interdependent systems are disrupted or fail, then the rest of our complex society may be severely impacted. Disruption stems from natural events like floods and earthquakes, accidents like train derailments and faulty sensors that lead to electrical transformer explosions, and malicious acts like sabotage and terrorism. Protecting critical infrastructure requires preparedness, response, disaster mitigation, and recovery.<br> <br> Excelsior College’s BS in Homeland Security and Emergency Management program provides courses that address details of each component in a complex society. These building blocks, taken together, provide the graduate with a broader understanding of the whole system, the interconnections of critical infrastructure sectors, and how we try and protect our society. Required courses include: <ul> <li>Introduction to Homeland Security,</li> <li>Emergency Management,</li> <li>Domestic Terrorism,</li> <li>Security Planning and Assessment, and</li> <li>Infrastructure Security and Policy.</li> </ul> <br> Additional course work is available in the emphasis areas of agency management, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, emergency response health management, or in an open emphasis selected by the student and academic advisor. <br> <br> To learn more about this degree program, visit <a href="">Excelsior College School of Public Service</a><br> <br> To learn more about DAU’s partnership with Excelsior, visit: <a href=""></a> or call 844-843-9296. If you are a veteran or active duty military, call 844-843-9299. Mention you are a member of the Defense Acquisition Workforce to ensure you receive partnership discounts and other benefits. Life Happens. Keep Learning.</div>string;#/partnerships/blog/Excelsior-College-School-of Public-Policy



New MIL-STD-881D Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Itemsstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/New-MIL-STD-881D-Work-Breakdown-Structures-for-Defense-Materiel-ItemsNew MIL-STD-881D Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items2018-04-18T12:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/New-MIL-STD-881D-Work-Breakdown-Structures-for-Defense-Materiel-Items
New GAO Reports on Defense Business Systems and Workforce Cost Comparisonsstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/New-GAO-Reports-on-Defense-Business-Systems-and-Workforce-Cost-ComparisonsNew GAO Reports on Defense Business Systems and Workforce Cost Comparisons2018-04-17T12:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/New-GAO-Reports-on-Defense-Business-Systems-and-Workforce-Cost-Comparisons
DAU Launches New Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Job Support Toolstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/DAU-Launches-New-Performance-Based-Logistics-(PBL)-Job-Support-ToolDAU Launches New Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Job Support Tool2018-04-16T16:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/DAU-Launches-New-Performance-Based-Logistics-(PBL)-Job-Support-Tool
Latest Issue of Defense AT&L Magazine Now Available!string;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Latest-Issue-of-Defense-ATandL-Magazine-Now-AvailableLatest Issue of Defense AT&L Magazine Now Available!2018-04-13T16:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Latest-Issue-of-Defense-ATandL-Magazine-Now-Available



Lunch and Learn - Please Tailor Your Acquisition Strategy and Learn - Please Tailor Your Acquisition Strategy2018-04-25T16:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Please-Tailor-Your-Acquisition-Strategy
Lunch and Learn - Why Fair and Reasonable & How to Determine the Fair and Reasonable Range and Learn - Why Fair and Reasonable & How to Determine the Fair and Reasonable Range2018-05-02T16:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Why-Fair-and-Reasonable-and-How-to-Determine-the-Fair-and-Reasonable-Range
Lunch and Learn - Writing Performance-Based Requirements and Learn - Writing Performance-Based Requirements2018-05-09T16:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Writing-Performance-Based-Requirements
Section 809 Panel Meeting - May 2018 809 Panel Meeting - May 20182018-05-22T12:00:00Zstring;#/events/Section-809-Panel-Meeting---May-2018
Lunch and Learn - Digital Engineering and Learn - Digital Engineering2018-05-23T16:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Digital-Engineering
Lunch and Learn - Cybersecurity as it applies to the Survivability Key Performance Parameter and Learn - Cybersecurity as it applies to the Survivability Key Performance Parameter2018-06-06T16:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Cybersecurity-as-it-applies-to-the-Survivability-Key-Performance-Parameter