Hope all is well. The time is really flying by and my days are packed with activity. Trying to get prototypical equipment into theater, continuation of testing assets and liaison with CONUS elements really takes up the majority of the daytime and nighttime hours. I was fortunate this past Sunday and was able to run in a 5K Special Olympic Run. We probably had about 500 participants and the weather cooperated. It was about 80F at the start. Also, I’m inserting a picture of the inside of the Al Faw Palace. This is the former residence of Saddam Hussein and is currently housing many elements of the Multi-National Coalition-Iraq including the Headquarters component. As you can see, the US has added a couple decorative features to the rotunda area of the palace.
Al Faw Palace Rotunda with US Flag
This week, I will attempt to focus on two main pitfalls I see to date with respect to making progress towards getting in-theater capabilities from technology demonstration to operational assessment. In this submission I will further amplify a topic I’ve discussed in the past, i.e. getting a notional concept of an operational issue to validation of a mission need. I also will lay out timelines of two issues that were confirmed mission needs and they will show how the bureaucracy can affect even those in a wartime environment. The one metric I do not have to complete the picture of the extended timeline you will see for the mission need is the value added to the definition and exit criteria developed and refined by the members of the requirements definition organization. So let me highlight to you the process I described about 3 weeks ago.
While this process seems trivial and at first glance one would believe it should not be a significant aspect of the program, I can tell you from experience, that having a champion to facilitate the movement of the capability gap through the chain is a driver relative to getting hardware into the operator’s hands. This was exemplified in two different circumstances involving the Joint Urgent Operational Needs process. Please see the slides below, they highlight actual timeframes involved and the timeline goals (i.e. is 41 days from submission to identification of a funding source) for the all JUONS. For various reasons I have blacked out the organizations involved and I do not intend to imply that anyone didn’t do their job, but I did want to highlight the distinctions between rapid acquisition theory and actual practice.
As I have done for the past several submissions, in closing I want to highlight a fallen soldier, sailor, Marine or airman that paid the ultimate price in supporting the OIF warfighting cause.
A hometown girl, Tracy Alger grew up in New Auburn, WI, went to the local High School and then studied graphic design at the University of Wisconsin near her home.
After college, she worked as a graphic artist and also a certified nursing assistant at a nursing home. Aside from school, Tracy had a singular passion – barrel racing. She and her horse Tango were known in rodeo circles around the state. Her skill and commitment earned her a place on the River Falls, WI rodeo team and she even served as president of the Wisconsin Girls Barrel Racing Association.
Tracy would certainly have had a promising future regardless of her career choice; however, in the wake of the attacks on September 11th, she had an enduring desire to serve her country. It’s not too surprising that a talented young lady like Tracy Alger would volunteer for the National Guard. Her sister and brother-in-law served in the Air Force and her mother was also a National Guard member. Her mother said, “Serving her country was what she wanted.”
Respectfully,
Rob
