Six degrees of integration: Part I.

The Defense Acquisition University is preparing to launch three new 400-level courses that will enhance its existing series of acquisition (ACQ series) courses: ACQ450-Leading People in the Acquisition Environment; ACQ451-Integrated Acquisition for Decision Makers; and ACQ452-Forging Stakeholder Relationships.

In the fall of 2004, DAU faculty surveyed a representative population of senior acquisition professionals from all DAWIA career fields. Respondents were asked to identify acquisition skill areas that required additional training (beyond Level III certification) and identify topics that would entice them to attend a post-level III course. The designs of the three new ACQ series courses were based on the survey responses and the following three assumptions:

* Mid-career acquisition professionals (and their supervisors) need training that goes beyond that required for career field certification and looks at senior-level success factors for defense acquisitions.

* Needed training should be 400-level courses delivered in a live, face-to-face venue over a three- to four-day period.

* Attendance would be demand-driven based on continuous learning needs and requirements, not mandated.

The authors designed the curriculum for one of these new courses, ACQ451-Integrated Acquisition for Decision Makers, and marshaled it through pilot offerings for faculty and participants. The preparation started from a clean sheet of paper. Since it was not a DAWIA certification course, the learning objectives were not driven by a functional proponent group within the DAWIA apparatus. Our starting position was merely the belief (based on survey responses) that many of the problems plaguing large, high-cost acquisitions were rooted in a lack of effective integration. Survey respondents believed that several barriers--some cultural and traditional, some programmatic and technical--prevented effective integration. Beyond these core guiding principles, the DAU course designers had free rein.

When most of us see or hear a term like "integrated acquisition," we immediately think of functional integration through IPTs--integrated product teams. In early discussions, we concluded that integration in the defense acquisition environment is a much broader construct. We call the course structure that emerged from over a year of study and experimentation "Six Degrees of Integration" (a play on psychologist Stanley Milgram's "six degrees of separation"). The course structure addresses both barriers and solutions to effective integration along six distinct dimensions, as illustrated in the sidebar.

Feedback from two successful pilot offerings confirms that the course construct is valid and useful, and it helped the authors make numerous refinements and enhancements. This article describes the first part of the course and two degrees of integration; Part II, in the next issue of Defense AT & L, will describe the second part of the course and the remaining four degrees of integration.

Integration Overview

We wanted the six degrees of integration to emerge as a conceptual framework out of class reflection and discussion. We believed that it would emerge in a natural way and that course participants would feel more ownership of their learning if the framework was generated by them rather than prescribed by us. To accomplish this, we spend 30 minutes in class brainstorming a classroom definition of integration. Participants are asked: "Suppose a program manager tells you that her program is 'effectively integrated.' What might she mean by that statement?"

Participants in the pilot offerings generated lengthy lists of alternate meanings, of which the following are representative:

* She uses integrated product teams.

* He keeps his user informed.

* She has support of her leadership.

* He refrains from creating budget or schedule "surprises."

* She collaborates with program offices of interfacing systems.

We have found that in both pilots, participant brainstorming lists could be easily mapped into our six degrees of integration or to one of the other two new courses. For example, "interfacing with Congress" was generated in both brainstorming sessions. We acknowledged that congressional relations is a critical success factor for defense acquisitions and that it can be viewed as an integration issue, but in partitioning material across our three new courses, we chose to present it as a problem of stakeholder relations, not integration.

We conclude the brainstorming session by showing the partitioning of subject areas among the three new courses. We explain that, in general,

* ACQ450 (Acquisition Leadership) examines ways to lead up, down, and across.

* ACQ452 (Acquisition Stakeholders) evaluates methods and skills necessary to identify, assess, and promote the building of stakeholder relationships.

* ACQ451 (Acquisition Integration) examines people, processes, and products that are neither controlling nor controlled, but with which we must interface, interoperate, synchronize, or collaborate.

"Big A" Integration

The term "Big A" acquisition is relatively new, but the concept is quite old. It refers to the three interlocking processes through which the Department of Defense defines its requirements, budgets for capabilities, and acquires systems with the needed capabilities. The three processes are requirements generation; planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE); and acquisition.

During the first month of course design, we concluded that a fourth essential process was missing: the science and technology system that identifies and matures promising new technologies. Some felt S & T was a sub-process under acquisition, but for instructional purposes we depict it as a separate fourth process (we point out that this construction is not anchored in current DoD policy).

Participants engage in a number of classroom exercises aimed at strengthening their ability to identify and exploit Big A integration barriers and opportunities including:

Where Are You?

Participants, working in table groups, are given the diagram of Big A processes shown above and are asked to identify which process they work in and which bridges to other Big A processes they work on. By bridges, we mean either a formal interaction (e.g. the Acquisition Decision Memorandum that bridges PPBE with the acquisition system), or an informal bridge (e-mail correspondence between a program office and the requiring organization). Participants draw and label the bridges and indicate whether the bridge is one-way or bidirectional. Each table group briefs out its members' locations and bridges within the Big A construct.

Strategies for Improved Integration?

Participants, again working in table groups, brainstorm ideas for improving Big A integration at two levels: a policy level, such as the policy changes recommended by the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel of 2006; and a personal level (e.g, something they can do when they return to their offices to improve Big A integration there).

Functional Specialty Integration

We wanted to discuss effective collaboration between functional specialties (finance, logistics, testing, contracting, etc.) within a program office but realized that IPTs are already covered in various DAWIA certification courses.

We aimed for functional specialty integration beyond IPTs. First, we used a case study, "Comprehensive Fleet Assessment Module," which highlights some thorny collaboration issues among members of a program office. Discussion of the case goes beyond IPTs to analyze how high-performance teams, directed toward a common goal, can be shaped from multiple functional specialties. Second is an activity we call "speed dating"--collaboration exercises in which participants ask questions of another functional specialty, answer questions about their own specialty, and explain jargon terms within their specialty that are commonly misunderstood. (For example, one participant in the test and evaluation field explained the distinction between "operationally effective" and "operationally suitable" to a contracting officer, and the contracting officer reciprocated by explaining the concept of "termination liability.")

Finally, we give participants a real document, a half-page definition of "Sense and Respond Logistics." The document was written by logisticians for a general acquisition audience. However, the use of jargon leaves most readers adrift. Here is the first sentence: "Sense and Respond Logistics is a transformational network-centric concept that enables Joint effects-based operations and provides precise, agile support."

A general audience understands neither the phrase "transformational network-centric concept" nor "effects-based operations," and the remainder of the text does little to clarify. Participants work in multifunctional table groups rewriting for clarity, thereby gaining an appreciation that functional integration depends a lot on using jargon-free language when communicating across functional specialties.

Roman is professor of acquisition management at DAU, where he specializes in information technology and software. Possehl is professor of systems engineering management in the Defense Systems Management College-School of Program Managers (DSMC-SPM). Stein is currently the lead instructional system designer for DSMCSPM and the DAU action officer for Council on Occupational Education (COE) accreditation. Forman is professor of acquisition management at DAU, managing the development of executive curriculum.

RELATED ARTICLE: SIX DEGREES OF ACQUISITION INTEGRATION

1. "Big A" Integration. Integrate the business processes and decision systems, (e.g. requirements generation and procurement).

2. Functional Specialty Integration. Integrate professional specialists on an acquisition team (e.g., logisticians and testers).

3. Life Cycle Integration. Integrate decision criteria to account for both near- and long-term consequences within and across programs.

4. System of Systems Integration. Integrate separate acquisitions to ensure current and future interoperation.

5. Joint Integration. Integrate requirements across military services to support the Services with a single joint acquisition.

6. International Integration. Integrate U.S. requirements with those of our allies to support multiple nations with a single acquisition.