Bending the Cost Curve

Big Safari II?

Big Safari II?

I'm not sure. How does "Big Safari I" relate?

http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Safari-Bill-Grimes/dp/1480804568

http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Safari-Bill-Grimes/dp/1480804568

Quick Reaction Capability - I can see that relating. We'll see.

From the book --

- "We sat down and said: Okay, if we're going to do this, the first thing we have to do is have procurement procedures that permit us to designate the contractor."

- General Vandenberg ordered the AFMME to proceed "under the guidance of the ground rules, which enabled development of special projects in the shortest possible time and under the constraints of limited funds, paperwork, and people." There were eight groundrules. One of them was "The funds required to accomplish a project will not be limited to any specific ceiling."

From another book --

- "By law, Big Safari had 'rapid acquisition authority,' which allowed it to bypass much of the bureaucratic molasses that bogs down most military procurement. By dispensing with what its leaders disdained as 'administrivia,' and by working hand-in-glove with defense contractors and the operators ... Big Safari could get innovative new gear into action within months, weeks, and sometimes even days, rather that the years it routinely takes to develop and field most military technology. Big Safari's philosophy was expressed in mottoes ... such as 'Minimum but adequate,' 'Off-the-shelf,' ... 'Modify, don't develop,' and 'Provide the necessary, not the nice to have.'"

My point being, the Air Force already knows exactly how to do what the Pentagon press release says they want to do. They have been doing it for decades. The leaders just have to take the best practices and export them outside of the silo.

H2H

Thanks for the link, H2H. Sounds like an interesting read.

Bending the Cost Curve: "A targeted initiative that can be accomplished within current Air Force budget programs" and "different than past initiatives in that the Air Force is looking at very specific, albeit large, programs": http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123974.

Excerpts:

1. The initiative aims to improve dialogue with industry, “so we can better understand how processes, procedures, and some of the choices we make can inadvertently contribute to rising costs, the stifling of innovation and slow processes."

2. "We think that by gathering data from a range of sources, it should be possible to identify instances where small changes in capability have large impact on cost."

3. “Under our new PlugFest Plus approach, we will put in place a mechanism whereby a vendor could walk away with a contract just a few weeks after an event."

4. “What we’re really after here is a data-driven approach to spending.”

Same old, same old (or as they say in Vietnam, where I am now, "same same, but different"). Formerly, it was "Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV)." The USAF will say that "Bending" and CAIV are not the same, but they are.

Tell tale sighs of same old, same old are any of the following words and phrases in a policy memo:

new

initiative

partner with industry

dialogue

innovate, innovative, innovation

used with success by the private sector

savings

agile

information technology

data

database

data-driven

The more of those you find in a policy memo, the more ineffective the policy will be. Indeed, the issuance of a policy memo is, itself, a sure sign of hooey. That's not to say that the issuer is insincere, but it's either that or they're cluelessly ahistorical.

Just part of the passing show.