Force under stress: Gen. Griffin: Army procurement in need of sweeping changes.

The Army's procurement apparatus is undergoing a major reorganization designed to anticipate and satisfy equipment requirements.

So says the four-star general who is responsible for supplying troops around the world with everything from helicopter engines to bottled water.

Only, three months into his stint as head of the Army Materiel Command, Gen. Benjamin Griffin says he wants to see AMC become a more responsive organization that not only rapidly delivers supplies to the front lines but also plays a leading role in developing, building and maintaining advanced weapon systems.

Much finger pointing goes on within the Army today as a result of: past buying decisions. The miscalculations that eventually led to shortages of soldier and truck armor in Iraq exemplify the challenges confronting AMC, Griffin tells National Defense.

The Army needs to be able to "anticipate requirements" early enough to be able to fund and produce the necessary equipment, Griffin says.

"The earlier we can identify those requirements, the earlier we can get to work on making sure we identify funding," he adds.

As part of an effort to more closely integrate the Army's procurement priorities with maintenance and support needs, Griffin will oversee the realignment of the service's far-flung acquisition, technology and logistics organizations into so-called "life cycle management commands."

Under the LCMC concept, each AMC subordinate command will be "aligned with acquisition program offices. In October, for example, the Aviation and Missile Command became the Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command, which also encompasses the program executive office for aviation, the PEO for air space and missile defense and the PEO for tactical missiles.

Other AMC subordinate commands also will be realigned with PEOs. The Communications and Electronics Command will be matched up with the PEO for intelligence and electronic warfare, and the PEO for command and control and communications. The Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command will be aligned with the PEO soldier, the PEO for ground combat systems and the PEO for combat support systems. The Joint Munitions Command will be integrated with the PEO for ammunition.

Underlying the changes is the notion that the Army could save billions of dollars in maintenance and support costs if the maintainers have more of a say in the early phases of a system's design and development. "If you can make decisions early on in a program's life cycle, you can make it more sustainable at less cost," Griffin says. "That's what this is all about."

Griffin's predecessor, Gen. Paul Kern, and Army Acquisition Executive Claude Bolton signed off-on the reorganization plans in August.

According to Griffin, the LCMC concept is designed to break up the traditional fiefdoms in the Army's bureaucracy and ensure that weapon systems get the appropriate funding from "cradle to grave." Previously, the PEOs had development and procurement responsibilities for weapon systems, while the AMC subordinate commanders were in charge of maintaining those systems.

While legal issues continue to be worked out, Griffin says that, under the reorganization, the PEOs will retain the accountability for meeting program performance goals and schedules.

"The intent is to bring acquisition and AMC much more in sync than we had been in the past," Griffin says.

Turf rivalries are to be expected, however. Each PEO technically will have two bosses: the AMC life cycle commander and the acquisition executive who reports to the secretary of the Army.

Bolton's military deputy, Lt. Gen. Joseph Yakovak, also would serve as deputy commander of AMC under the new structure. That move would have to be approved by the Defense Department and con firmed by the Senate, Griffin notes.

Although AMC has gone through major reorganizations in the past, this one should be taken all the more seriously, because it will affect how the Army provides for soldiers at war, Griffin asserts.

The realignment feels like dejavu to those who recall that AMC used to manage weapon-system acquisition. "We had deputies for systems acquisition and we eliminated them in an effort to keep the acquisition professionals in a stovepipe," he says. "The thinking was to get the best expertise in a narrow stovepipe. The problem with that thinking is that it isolates them from other things they need to be concerned about."

With the life cycle commands, "we tried to bring them back together while complying with the law," which stipulates that acquisition decisions have to go through acquisition chains, he says.

"There are more reasons to do it than to not do it," Griffin stresses. "Everyone I've talked to is supportive, but, like everything else, you have to work the details ... We are doing the best we can to cut through the bureaucracy. We have to get everybody energized."

Military procurement experts caution, however, that the Army should not rush to reorganize before thoroughly studying the implications of the changes being proposed. Retired Lt. Gen. John S. Caldwell, former chief deputy of Army acquisition and former TACOM commander, says the life-cycle management command concept has merit, because it could allow the Army to allocate resources more effectively. But he warned that the Army should be careful to not allow this reorganization to undermine its "acquisition corps" of military officers, who, by law, must oversee weapon procurements and be accountable for the flow of dollars. In the 1970s, Caldwell recalls, the military services were criticized harshly for lacking procurement expertise and for allowing contractors to "run roughshod." That prompted the creation in the 1980s of a professional acquisition corps.

Caldwell notes that the decision to create life-cycle management commands also may be driven by pressures on the Army to free up general officers from acquisition duties so they can serve in combat missions. In recent years, for example, two of the Army's key PEO posts have been assigned to civilians. "The culture has changed," says Caldwell. "It's not good or bad, just different."