 Page 2
Dr. John W. Lyons learned is that one must constantly recheck vendors' Director statements looking for changes in the status of equipment. U.S. Army Research Laboratory Use of the World Wide Web is critical in staying informed of Adelphi, MD the Y2K status of commercial products. The millennium computer problem, Second, we accept that every possible Y2K bug is not going or as it is frequently called, the Y2K bug, to be found. Contingency plans are being put into place to presents a variety of challenges for the address potential problems. For example, a piece of our Army Research Lab (ARL). Being a high contingency planning is to ensure we have staff on duty Jan. 1, tech research lab, ARL uses computers 2000, to deal with any problems. and computer software in a variety of Third, no one is in this alone. Sharing information and ways. ARL and its predecessor lessons learned is beneficial to us all. We have benefited by organizations have a long history in computers—from building the Y2K work with vendors done by the U.S. Army the first computer (ENIAC), to creating some of the earliest Communications-Electronics Command as well as work done computer graphics programs, to hosting one of only 13 by other organizations. The various Y2K-related sites on the Internet root domain name servers in the world. World Wide Web provide a source of information and ideas for As we began looking at the Y2K implications at ARL, it addressing various Y2K issues. became obvious that there were a broad range of problems, Fourth, if you don't have a good baseline inventory, you concerns, and potential impacts ranging from none, to minor don't know where you stand. ARL developed a Lotus Notes inconveniences, to the potential shutdown of major systems. inventory tool that allows us to collect data on all our systems As we examined ARL-developed systems, we found software and then manipulate the data in a variety of ways, not only to written as far back as the early 1970s that accounted for year respond to various data calls, but more importantly, to allow 2000 dates and understood that the year 2000 is a leap year. ARL senior management to see the status of our compliance (Every 4 years is a leap year unless the year is evenly divisible efforts along a variety of dimensions. However, the database by 100. This is the rule that most people know; however, the is not just for Y2K points of contact and senior management; rule goes further. If the year is evenly divisible by 400, then it everyone at ARL will have access to the information. Thus, if is a leap year. Thus, the year 2000 is a leap year. Many systems an ARL scientist wants to know if anyone has a particular do not have the 400 rule built in and do not treat the year 2000 machine or software package that is needed, the database will correctly.) By the same token, we found software (mostly provide a source of information to answer the question. . commercial off-the-shelf) that would break on Jan. 1, 2000. The fifth and most painful lesson learned by ARL is that it is ARL has prioritized its Y2K remediation efforts to ensure that still difficult to get people to take the Y2K problem seriously. systems affecting life safety or the warfighter are addressed Many people still view the data collection and remediation as first. Next on the list are systems impacting a large number of "busy work” keeping them from working on their mission. personnel, such as payroll systems. This prioritization effort Changing this viewpoint is a management challenge that is extends to desktop personal computers and peripherals. being met by involving ARL executives, providing clear and ARL has learned several lessons during this process. First, sensible instructions, and minimizing the collection of needless Y2K impacts can occur in areas typically not considered. information so people will not view this as a mindless exercise. Research programs thought not to have any Y2K problems In summary, ARL is attacking the Y2K problem with a variety might have some. Even worse, vendors uncover problems that of tools and skills. Our most important tool is using our were not previously considered, so devices that we thought knowledge of systems to ensure that our most important ones were Y2K compliant suddenly are not. Thus, the first lesson are fixed and that any problems we have Jan. 1, 2000, are only inconveniences and not threats to our mission. Page 3
Project Management: Part 3 addresses organization design. It starts with the premise that projects are founded on temporary Strategic Design and organizations: varied, fluid, and constantly changing. It establishes the matrix as the organization design of choice, Implementation, 3rd Edition and defines a spectrum of five types based on the sharing of control between project and functional managers. It also By David I. Cleland, McGraw-Hill, 1998. defines the work package as the intersection of project and functional interests, and the real focus of any project effort. Reviewed by LTC Kenneth H. Rose (USA, Ret.), a Chapter 9 describes the linear responsibility chart as a Project Manager with the Waste Policy Institute in superior means for displaying and understanding San Antonio, TX, and a former member of the Army individual and collective roles within the organization. This Acquisition Corps. key information is not disclosed by a traditional It is always a welcome event when an old teammate puts organization chart, which focuses on a general framework on a new uniform and re-enters the stadium with new vigor of organization elements. Chapter 10 advises readers that and new ideas. Such is the case with David I. Cleland's understanding roles and authorities is essential because third edition of Project Management: Strategic Design and failures in matrix organizations arise from Implementation. This edition is an updated version of a incompleteness in this area of management. long-honored text that is used extensively in university Part 4, Project Operations, deals with planning, project courses and Fortune 500 corporate training programs. management information systems, control, and The book is well suited for academic and corporate use. termination. It discusses planning models and scheduling Its improved structure makes it an ideal tool and guide for tools, including the work breakdown structure. One self-study as well. Each chapter ends with three common sentence in Chapter 12 almost screams its relevance to elements: a summary, a list of discussion questions, and a those who prepare a project review. “All too often projects user checklist. Each summary includes a “bullet” list of key are characterized by too many data and not enough points in the chapter, which serve a two-way function. relevant information on where the project stands relative to Readers may view the list after completing the chapter to its schedule, cost, and technical performance objectives as codify their understanding, or they may scan the list before well as the project's strategic fit in the parent organization's reading to select or prioritize chapters for study. In this strategies.” The chapter goes on to prescribe principles for new edition, references are made to two related books for effective project management information systems. further illumination: A Field Guide to Project Management Chapter 13 discusses project control and includes several (reviewed in Army RD&A, May-June 1998) and Project lists of questions as a framework. The book does not Management Casebook (reviewed in Army RD&A, July provide the answers; they are found in actual project August 1998). performance. Chapter 14 follows with discussion of reasons Discussion questions stimulate thought and discourse on and strategies for project termination. the theory presented in each chapter. The user checklist Part 5 addresses leadership, communications, and team interactions. addresses application of theory in a practical environment, A useful table presents traits exhibited by often introducing questions with the phrase, “Does your good and poor project leaders, as described by a collection organization ... ?” Both sections aid the reader in bringing of experienced, senior project managers from major to life that which otherwise might exist only as a cold corporations. Attitude, vision, and interpersonal skills are central themes throughout. The concept. chapter The book's 21 chapters are divided into seven parts. Part 1 communications highlights good listening skills and introduces the evolution and foundations of project sensitivity to nonverbal cues as essential. It also discusses management, describing why it is something of universal effective meeting techniques and opportunities that arise interest “whose time has come.” It also concisely discusses from teleconferencing and groupware technology the major functions and life-cycle options of project advancements. Chapter 17, Working With Project Teams, management. describes team building as “one of the most critical It Part 2, The Strategic Context of Projects, describes when leadership qualities” in today's project environment. to use projects within an organization, emphasizing that provides a simple model for analyzing team performance projects are a medium for change and the building blocks and walks the reader through each element. in the design and execution of organizational strategy. A Part 6 addresses the importance of organization culture in solid, informative discussion of stakeholder management project success, and Part 7 provides insights for the future, includes a model linked to the basic functions of project focusing on alternative teams and general trends. management. Discussion includes the novel suggestion In the densely populated field of project management that in some cases, stakeholders constitute a “virtual literature, Project Management: Strategic Design and organization” that can have significant influence on project Implementation stands as a central resource. Its intrinsic execution. The section closes with a discussion of strategic links to other resources provide a degree of value that is not issues, citing studies that show planning, project definition, available in any similar text. It would be well chosen as a and stakeholder management-not technical issues—are basic element for any project management professional's the primary determinants of project success. personal bookshelf. Page 4
• Increasing Project/Product Manager And Acquisition Command Opportunities, Page 28 And General Staff College, Page 38 Beyond The Classroom: The Future For Acquisition Education and Training, Page 43 • Proposed DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project, Page 48 • DOD, OPM Host Public Hearing On Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demo, Page 49 • Acquisition Position Management, Page 51 Civilian, Military, Reserve, National Guard, and Medical Department Acquisition Position Lists, Page 53 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER • Interview With LTG William H. Campbell, DISC4, Page 2 • First Digitized Division Implementation, Page 5 • Army Battle Command System, Page 8 Implementing Force XXI, Page 11 • Joint Tactical Radio System Program, Page 14 Army Enterprise XXI, Page 18 • Taking Digitization To Our Allies, Page 21 • Simulation-Based Acquisition: Real World Examples, Page 25 • Digitized Cooperation With Canada, Page 27 • The Army Materiel Release Process, Page 30 • On-The-Job Sustainment Training For Military Foreign Language Skills, Page 32 Rapid Acquisition At The Army Space Program Office, Page 44
This index is a headline listing of major articles published in Army RD&A during 1998. JANUARY-FEBRUARY Interview With LTG Paul J. Kern, MILDEP to the ASA (RDA) And Director Of The AAC, Page 2 Updating DSMC Courses With Acquisition Reform Initiatives, Page 7 Acquisition Reform Reinvention Lab, Page 10 • New Initiatives, New Challenges For The Army's Acquisition Workforce, Page 13 Acquisition Information Management Service, Page 18 • Joint Technical Architecture—Army Compliance, Page 21 Army Acquisition Career Management Workshop Addresses Current Initiatives, Key Challenges, Page 23 Rebuilding The Economic Base During Operations Joint Endeavor And Joint Guard, Page 27Applying Modeling And Simulation To The Grizzly Program, Page 30 • Video In The Ambulance: Future Battlefield Technology Today, Page 34 • The Time Has Come For Geographic Information Systems, Page 38 • Combat Identification For The Dismounted Soldier: An Acquisition Reform Success, Page 40 MARCH-APRIL • Army Science and Technology: Investing For The Future, Page 2 • Army Science And Technology Accomplishments, Page 4 • DCMC Team Streamlines Bradley Contracting, Page 14 • DCMC Army Commanders, Page 17 • The Force XXI Division AWE, Page 20 • An Update On Modernization Through Spares, Page 22 • From Industry: Leadership In The Age Of Acquisition Reform, Page 26 • Assessment Of AMC's Acquisition Reform Efforts, Page 28 • The Central Technical Support Facility, Page 30 • Five Skills Every Acquisition Professional Should Master, Page 34 • Pitching Procurement In The Newly Independent States, Page 36 • The Foreign Comparative Testing Program, Page 38 Acquisition Of Chemical And Biological Equipment, Page 40 • What Are Those Little Molecules Up To Now?, Page 44 MAY-JUNE • The Army After Next, Page 2 • Collaborative Testing and Evaluation, Page 6 • Life Cycle Cost Drivers From The PM's Perspective, Page 10 • A New Approach To The Army Manufacturing Technology Program, Page 13 • Army Recognizes 53 Engineers And Scientists With R&D Achievement Awards, Page 16 Modeling And Simulation In Support Of Test And Evaluation, Page 29 Process, Page 31 • Pacific Contingency Contracting Officers Working Group, Page 33 • ATC Helps Maryland State Police Crack Down On Aggressive Drivers, Page 35 • The Vehicle Control Unit For The HMMWV, Page 36 • Army Logistics Goes On-Line, Page 38 JULY-AUGUST • A Heavy Division For The 21st Century, Page 2 • Simulation-Based Acquisition: A Good Thing, But How Do We Get There?,Page 4 • U.S. Army Simulation-Based Acquisition Symposium, Page 6 • The Virtual Environment, Page 8 • Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program, Page 11 • Hunter Sensor Suite, Page 14Update On The Corps Eligible And Competitive Development Group Programs, Page 18 Officer, Page 26
• Ground Vehicle Mobility Technology: Electromechanical Suspension, Page 49 Using Miniature-Scale High-Explosion Experiments To Study Weapon Effects, Page 51 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER • Interview With GEN Dennis J. Reimer, Chief Of Staff Of The Army, Page 2 • AMC's Logistics Reform Efforts, Page 7 • Contractors On The Battlefield, Page 10 Supporting Training Systems Through Fixed Price Contracts, Page 12 Contingency Contracting In Support Of Operation Joint Guard, Page 15 Cost As An Independent Variable, Page 19 • ASARDA Recognizes Outstanding R&D Organizations, Page 22 • 21st Army Science Conference Features Best Technical Papers, R&D Achievement Awards, Page 24 Using R&D Technology Programs For Affordability, Page 27 • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Demonstrated Where They're Tested, Page 30 ‘Super User' IMPAC Cards For Contingency Contracting Officers, Page 32 Page 41 Enough?, Page 45 Page 5
• Increasing Project/Product Manager And Acquisition Command Opportunities, Page 28 And General Staff College, Page 38 Beyond The Classroom: The Future For Acquisition Education and Training, Page 43 • Proposed DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project, Page 48 • DOD, OPM Host Public Hearing On Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demo, Page 49 • Acquisition Position Management, Page 51 Civilian, Military, Reserve, National Guard, and Medical Department Acquisition Position Lists, Page 53 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER • Interview With LTG William H. Campbell, DISC4, Page 2 • First Digitized Division Implementation, Page 5 • Army Battle Command System, Page 8 Implementing Force XXI, Page 11 • Joint Tactical Radio System Program, Page 14 Army Enterprise XXI, Page 18 • Taking Digitization To Our Allies, Page 21 • Simulation-Based Acquisition: Real World Examples, Page 25 • Digitized Cooperation With Canada, Page 27 • The Army Materiel Release Process, Page 30 • On-The-Job Sustainment Training For Military Foreign Language Skills, Page 32 Rapid Acquisition At The Army Space Program Office, Page 44
This index is a headline listing of major articles published in Army RD&A during 1998. JANUARY-FEBRUARY Interview With LTG Paul J. Kern, MILDEP to the ASA (RDA) And Director Of The AAC, Page 2 Updating DSMC Courses With Acquisition Reform Initiatives, Page 7 Acquisition Reform Reinvention Lab, Page 10 • New Initiatives, New Challenges For The Army's Acquisition Workforce, Page 13 Acquisition Information Management Service, Page 18 • Joint Technical Architecture—Army Compliance, Page 21 Army Acquisition Career Management Workshop Addresses Current Initiatives, Key Challenges, Page 23 Rebuilding The Economic Base During Operations Joint Endeavor And Joint Guard, Page 27Applying Modeling And Simulation To The Grizzly Program, Page 30 • Video In The Ambulance: Future Battlefield Technology Today, Page 34 • The Time Has Come For Geographic Information Systems, Page 38 • Combat Identification For The Dismounted Soldier: An Acquisition Reform Success, Page 40 MARCH-APRIL • Army Science and Technology: Investing For The Future, Page 2 • Army Science And Technology Accomplishments, Page 4 • DCMC Team Streamlines Bradley Contracting, Page 14 • DCMC Army Commanders, Page 17 • The Force XXI Division AWE, Page 20 • An Update On Modernization Through Spares, Page 22 • From Industry: Leadership In The Age Of Acquisition Reform, Page 26 • Assessment Of AMC's Acquisition Reform Efforts, Page 28 • The Central Technical Support Facility, Page 30 • Five Skills Every Acquisition Professional Should Master, Page 34 • Pitching Procurement In The Newly Independent States, Page 36 • The Foreign Comparative Testing Program, Page 38 Acquisition Of Chemical And Biological Equipment, Page 40 • What Are Those Little Molecules Up To Now?, Page 44 MAY-JUNE • The Army After Next, Page 2 • Collaborative Testing and Evaluation, Page 6 • Life Cycle Cost Drivers From The PM's Perspective, Page 10 • A New Approach To The Army Manufacturing Technology Program, Page 13 • Army Recognizes 53 Engineers And Scientists With R&D Achievement Awards, Page 16 Modeling And Simulation In Support Of Test And Evaluation, Page 29 Process, Page 31 • Pacific Contingency Contracting Officers Working Group, Page 33 • ATC Helps Maryland State Police Crack Down On Aggressive Drivers, Page 35 • The Vehicle Control Unit For The HMMWV, Page 36 • Army Logistics Goes On-Line, Page 38 JULY-AUGUST • A Heavy Division For The 21st Century, Page 2 • Simulation-Based Acquisition: A Good Thing, But How Do We Get There?,Page 4 • U.S. Army Simulation-Based Acquisition Symposium, Page 6 • The Virtual Environment, Page 8 • Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program, Page 11 • Hunter Sensor Suite, Page 14Update On The Corps Eligible And Competitive Development Group Programs, Page 18 Officer, Page 26
• Ground Vehicle Mobility Technology: Electromechanical Suspension, Page 49 Using Miniature-Scale High-Explosion Experiments To Study Weapon Effects, Page 51 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER • Interview With GEN Dennis J. Reimer, Chief Of Staff Of The Army, Page 2 • AMC's Logistics Reform Efforts, Page 7 • Contractors On The Battlefield, Page 10 Supporting Training Systems Through Fixed Price Contracts, Page 12 Contingency Contracting In Support Of Operation Joint Guard, Page 15 Cost As An Independent Variable, Page 19 • ASARDA Recognizes Outstanding R&D Organizations, Page 22 • 21st Army Science Conference Features Best Technical Papers, R&D Achievement Awards, Page 24 Using R&D Technology Programs For Affordability, Page 27 • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Demonstrated Where They're Tested, Page 30 ‘Super User' IMPAC Cards For Contingency Contracting Officers, Page 32 Page 41 Enough?, Page 45 Page 6
WINNING THE FIRST WAR YEAR 2000
Introduction The first war of the Information Age, the year 2000 (Y2K), has proved to be daunting and complex. There is probably no Army program, tactical unit, or installation that has not experienced the impact of Y2K. Telecommunications networks in Bosnia, personal computers in the Pentagon, and weapon systems in the 4th Infantry Division are only a few examples of the hundreds of thousands of information systems and information technology (IT)-controlled devices in the Army that have been assessed and are being fixed to be Y2K compliant. A complete picture of Army computer-based systems is shown in Figure 1. Like most of the world, which is highly
dependent on computer and communica- face agreements, incorporating the appropriate Y2K Federal Acquisition
Regulations language in contracts, and ensuring that test agreements are in place for Army customers at the Defense Information Systems Agency data processing megacenters. Management resolve and persistence will win the Y2K war. In addition, there are three "magic bullets” that can be used to make sure that the Army will be Y2K ready at the dawn of the 21st century. They are as follows: • Well planned and realistic tests; • Searches to find and fix embedded processors; and • Credible contingency plans. To best use these magic bullets, an understanding of the Army's current Y2K situation is important.
458,740 total information systems and information technology (IT)-controlled devices Page 7
ABCCC ABN ACP AFATDS AOE ARFOR ASAS ASLT CP ASOC BB BDE FSO BDE TAC BN TOC BVT CAV CISCO COMSEC CORPS TOC GSM CSSCS CSU/DSU DES DISN DLOS DRB E-FES FA BN FBCB2 FDC FDS FIST FM GCCS GMF HF IDNX IFSAS IMETS JIC JSIPS JSTARS JTE JTFX JTIDS kbps MCS MFCS MLRS MSE RETRANS RJ SAT SC SEN SINCGARS SIPRNET SOF TAB TACFIRE TACP TACSAT TADIL TADIXS TCC TPN TTC UHF
year calculation. Year 2000 is a leap year. In the Gregorian calendar, leap years determined using the following three rules: • Years divisible by 4 are leap years, unless ... • Years also divisible by 100 are not leap years, except .. • Years divisible by 400 are leap years. Therefore, according to the third rule, the year 2000 is a leap year. However, many programmers were unaware of the rules, so some software will interpret year 2000 as having only 365 days instead of 366, which will cause many date-dependent and forwardreferencing systems to fail. A complicating factor for weapon systems is that many devices, components, and subsystems have embedded microprocessors that are subject to the same Y2K problems. A major concern is embedded processors. People have said, “My system processes real-time data measured in nanoseconds, not decades or centuries, so Y2K is not a problem for me.” That's the wrong answer. The real-time system may not function after Dec. 31, 31, 1999, if it has “black boxes” that have non-Y2K-compliant embedded processors. These microprocessors are in subtle places like controllers, uninterrupted power supplies, and preflight equipment. The first step in handling concerns with embedded processors is to determine where the processors are and whether they are date driven. Fixes or workarounds not necessarily difficult after the processors have been found; but finding them may be a real challenge, especially in black boxes built to a performance specification. The Army has nearly 459,000 information systems and IT-controlled devices, but there may be millions of embedded chips in other systems. Page 8
(Fixed Digital Tech Control)
Operational Guidance In an Aug. 7, 1998, memorandum, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen wrote, “I have asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) to develop a Joint Y2K Operational Evaluation Program and ... Starting with their next quarterly reports to me, each of the unified commanders-in-chief will review the status of Y2K implementation within his command and the commands of subordinate components.” GEN Joseph W. Ralston, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently stated, “The goal is to view interlocking systems and data flow normally seen during our wartime or peacetime operations in a simulated Y2K environment ... to ensure our readiness and mission accomplishment will not be hampered by Y2K problems to assure the warfighters that their key mission critical systems will not fail due to Y2K perturbations, as isolated systems or as part of the interconnected systems environment in which
facilitate the discovery and fix of unknown Y2K problems. Although final plans are not yet available, we expect that these tests will be conducted using tailored scenarios and notional databases to avoid corrupting live data.
warfighting and peacekeeping missions are conducted.” Dr. John J. Hamre, Deputy Secretary of Defense, wrote in an Aug. 24, 1998, memorandum, “Each Principal Staff Assistant (PSA) of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) must verify that all functions under his or her purview will continue unaffected by Y2K issues. Plans for Y2K-related endto-end testing of each process within the following areas must be provided to me by the designated OSD PSA ...: Logistics, Personnel, Health/Medical, Communications and Intelligence.”
critical systems will continue to function, verifying that interfaces (including joint ones) between individual and networked systems allow continuous operations, and verifying the effectiveness of contingency plans. System Certification Individual system owners certify systems by following the Certification Checklist in the DOD Y2K Action Plan. Those systems identified as missioncritical require certification at the General Officer or Senior Executive Service level and must include interface agreements. Based on input from system owners, HQDA reported to OSD those mission-critical systems that are yet to be validated as Y2K compliant along with timelines for expected validation of these systems. It is critical that system owners manage compliance closely and meet the projected certification dates.
HQDA Position The HQDA position is that end-to-end testing of mission-critical systems is essential to ensure continued operations during the year 2000 transition. Figure 1 shows the three levels of required testing, and Figure 2 shows the complexity of this undertaking. Individual systems are now being tested by DOD components (military Services and Defense agencies). After these tests are done, system interfaces must be tested among systems in their actual operational environment or in an appropriate laboratory or at a test range. The primary purpose of functional testing is to provide a functional risk assessment of mission-critical systems in the Y2K environment. This will be accomplished by verifying that mission
CINC-Led Evaluations The Army will support CINCs in Y2K operational evaluations in accordance with OSD and JCS guidance. Although the plans are not yet complete, we anticipate testing the interfaces of weapon systems; command, control and communications (C3) systems; and intelligence systems. The participating Army units will be the components of the unified commands. We anticipate testing the components' go-to-war architecture. For example, Figures 3 through 5 show the tactical C3 systems and interfaces we would test at the XVIII Airborne Corps, to include the Power Projection Joint Task Force (JTF) Compound, its data hut, and special circuits. These are excellent examples of the equipment that needs to be tested in the operational end-to-end assessments.
Functional End-To-End Assessments The functional end-to-end assessments in the logistics, personnel, intelligence, communications, and health and medical areas will focus on verifying critical mission threads for both the Active and Reserve forces. The events and facilities supporting these assessments should provide a controlled, repeatable environment to
Army-Led Evaluations The concept for Army-led evaluations is to conduct end-to-end tests of interfaces not tested in other evaluations (e.g., the CINC-led Y2K exercises). We will use a scripted “Time
ensure all critical systems, other major systems, and go-to-war systems in the other category have an accurate record in the database. This will provide visibility to CINCs and components asking about status. They should also ensure all interfaces and mission threads are defined and test plans are in place, and that contingency plans are written for systems in the Army Y2K database.
Ordered Events List" to test critical interfaces and date-related processes. We anticipate leveraging opportunities like revalidating missiles in periodic test shots of in-stock missiles, and comprehensive C3 Y2K tests with soldiers in the CTSF at Fort Hood, TX, in June 1999. This will reduce costs and the impact on personnel tempo. Tactical interfaces or mission threads will be tested end-to-end, end-to-end, (e.g., FIREFINDER Radar to Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) to Battery Computer System (BCS); Airborne Warning and Control Station (AWACS) to Forward Area Air Defense, Command, and Control Intelligence System (FAADC2) via Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS); Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) to Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) to All Source Analysis System (ASAS). These tests will be conducted in laboratories, motor pools, the CTSF, or other facilities where we can set up a test environment of systems like those shown in Figure 6.
LTG WILLIAM H. CAMPBELL is the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers. He holds a B.S. in business administration from Saint Norbert College and an M.B.A. in automated data proc. essing from Texas Technical University. He is a graduate of the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course, the Command and General Staff College, and the Naval War College. CPT SHURMAN L. VINES is the Assistant Executive Officer and Speechwriter for LTG Campbell . He is a distinguished military graduate of Alabama A&M University and holds a B.S. in engineering.
Conclusion Our success in meeting the Y2K challenge is critical to the Army's success at the start of the new millennium. The Army's ability to move, and communicate depends on the effectiveness of its information systems and networks. We know what needs to be done and we know the time constraints. Throughout America's history, our Army has demonstrated the ability to meet any challenge. The Y2K problem will be no different. We have the backing of our senior leadership; have the expertise; and our people have the will to succeed. The key to success will be the function of how well we exercise “due diligence” in managing the remediation processes.
Process Management PEOs and PMs have a crucial role in managing this process. They should personally participate in and approve changes to the Y2K database and use it as a management tool. They must
THE U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND'S CURE FOR THE MILLENNIUM BUG
To do this, MEDCOM has established priorities, timelines, and methods to modify and test the information systems it relies on for quality health care. For the well-being of patients, this is a high priority and critical responsibility that MEDCOM takes seriously.
Introduction Although the U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) is very familiar with such biological bugs as the flu and the common cold, the millennium bug is unlike any other bug Army medics have had to cure. The millennium bug is also known by other names such as the year 2000 problem, or Y2K for short. And unlike biological bugs, the millennium bug infects computers and other electronic equipment that rely on two digits rather than four digits to represent the year. Like other users of information technology in the federal government and industry, medical system programmers wrote code for software programs for many years using the YYMMDD coding convention to identify the year, month, and day. Unfortunately, when Jan. 1, 2000, arrives and the YYMMDD coding convention is used, computers will translate 000101 to mean Jan. 1, 1900, causing errors and unpredictable results. Since the 1960s, the military medical community has steadily become more reliant integrated information technology and automation systems to provide the very best medical care to military personnel and their families. Among the many major automation systems used in MEDCOM are the Composite Health Care System, the Theater Army Medical Management Information System, and the Computer Assisted Processing of Cardiograms. These are used in hospital operations, medical logistics management, and cardiac monitoring. Computer processors are also used extensively in hospitals and other medical facilities to perform routine tasks such as regulating heating and cooling, distributing power. Biomedical devices are used for such tasks as monitoring a patient's vital signs and controlling the flow of intravenous fluids. Many of these devices also contain microprocessors that could be infected with the millennium bug, or interface with other automation devices that could be infected, thereby posing a risk to patients. Directives from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Army Chief of Staff, and The Surgeon General of the Army all mandate that the millennium bug not be allowed to pose a risk to any critical Department of Defense (DOD) function. In response to this mandate, MEDCOM is applying systematic procedures to identify systems that could be infected by the millennium bug and then cure the problem.
Millennium Bug Checkup MEDCOM has thousands of automated medical information systems, medical facility systems, and biomedical devices that rely on computer software and hardware that could be infected by the millennium bug. MEDCOM's strategy for dealing with the millennium bug is to perform a medical checkup comprising three functional areas: Army Automated Information Systems, Army Medical Facilities, and Army Biomedical Equipment. The checkup process follows the fundamental DOD precept of centralized planning and decentralized execution. This methodology affords MEDCOM maximum flexibility and the optimum means to implement solutions.
to replace, repair, or terminate systems to ensure Y2K compliance. Validation Phase activities include testing all systems for Y2K compliance and performing independent verification of all tested systems. Finally, during the Implementation Phase, MEDCOM will deploy renovated systems. TIMPO's guidance applies to all automated medical information systems and network components that are used in military health system facilities. This includes all computer hardware, office automation software, network operating systems, and network components. The critical deadline to inventory and determine the year 2000 compliance of all automated medical information systems was Nov. 30, 1998. The deadline to replace missioncritical, non-Y2K-compliant systems was Dec. 31, 1998. The deadline to replace nonmission-critical, non-Y2K-compliant systems is March 31, 1999. By October 1998, MEDCOM had successfully met its target dates for both the Awareness and Assessment Phases, and the Renovation Phase of the DOD Y2K management strategy was well underway. To assist its customers, TIMPO provides more information at its Y2K Knowledge Center on its website at http://www. timpo.osd.mil/y2k/. In addition to guidance, the TIMPO website provides Y2Kcompliant manufacturers' lists, links to other Y2K websites, links to infrastructure vendors, and links to manufacturers’ websites that offer information about fixes for non-Y2K-compliant equipment.
Information Systems Relative to centralized planning, the management strategy for automated medical information systems is the responsibility of the DOD Health Affairs TriService Infrastructure Management Program Office (TIMPO) located at Fort Sam Houston, TX. According to its May 27, . , 1998, Guide for Assessing Military Health System Infrastructure Year 2000 Compliance, TIMPO follows the standard management strategy of the Department of Defense Year 2000 Management Plan. The DOD five-phase methodology uses the Awareness, Assessment, Renovation, Validation, and Implementation Phases to provide an incremental process for the millennium bug checkup and cure of automated information systems. The purpose of the Awareness Phase is to promote Y2K awareness throughout MEDCOM. As such, during this phase, MEDCOM units inventory all systems, identify all their critical systems, assess each for millennium bug risks, develop strategies to address each risk, prioritize systems for fixing, and develop their contingency plans. The Renovation Phase requires MEDCOM
Medical Facilities MEDCOM operates dozens of hospitals, laboratories, clinics and other medical facilities in CONUS, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Furthermore, MEDCOM operates three major Army installations at Fort Sam Houston, TX; Fort Detrick, MD, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC. Responsibility for centralized planning for the medical facility millennium bug checkup is assigned to the MEDCOM Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation, Environmental, and Facility Management. His guidance for the millennium bug checkup and cure for medical facilities was provided in the April 29, 1998, MEDCOM memorandum, “Guidance for Assessment, Inventory, and Compliance Efforts on Facility Related Devices for Year 2000 (Y2K) Impact.” The responsibilities to execute this guidance and to detect and cure the millennium bug are tasked to the facility director or manager at each hospital, laboratory, clinic, or other medical facility.
Unlike the five-phase approach used for automated medical information systems, the procedure for facility compliance encompasses the following four steps: • Step 1: Inventory facility devices and report the status of Y2K compliance assessment. • Step 2: Estimate the cost to repair or replace non-Y2K-compliant equipment. Step 3: Develop an action plan and obtain funds for repair or replacement of non-Y2K-compliant equipment. Step 4: Meet the completion date for replacement of non-Y2K-compliant equipment. The deadline to complete all four steps of the millennium bug checkup and to replace or repair facilities was Dec. 31, 1998, for mission-critical systems, and March 31, 1999, for nonmission-critical systems. To complete this requirement, commands accessed "toolbox" contracts (time and materials contracts that provide options to be used as needed) by contacting the MEDCOM's Sustainment Division Technical Assistance Team. Additional Y2K facility information was also provided by the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, AL, via its website at http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/omee/ y2k.htm.
obtaining information. USAMMA policy requires commanders to remove all infected biomedical equipment from service before March 31, 1999. To assist in the identification and verification of biomedical equipment that is vulnerable to millennium bug infection, FDA established a website containing valuable information. The FDA Federal Y2K Clearinghouse is accessible at http://www. fda.gov/cdrh/yr2000/year2000.html. The assessment of systems that were vulnerable to millennium bug infection required extraordinary efforts by all MEDCOM organizations. Altogether, MEDCOM examined more than 42,000 automated information systems, 750 facility systems, and 121,000 biomedical devices. Results from the assessment surveys indicated that between 4 and 5 percent of the total devices examined were infected with millennium bug problems that required the replacement of the equipment.
solutions and be prepared to document millennium bug disruptions when they Occur. MEDCOM is striving to make absolutely certain that devices such as anesthesia machines, infusion pumps, and ventilators are free of the millennium bug. The real challenge, however, is to determine if these devices have problems because of embedded computer chips. Another concern is that some manufacturers of medical equipment do not even know whether their devices will malfunction in the early minutes of 2000. As a last line of defense, MEDCOM commanders must rely on Y2K emergency medical response teams. These Y2K “SWAT” teams are there to ensure that vital life-sustaining equipment does not falter, and the transition to 2000 does not include any life-threatening millennium bug disruptions.
Conclusion The millennium bug is a serious concern for MEDCOM and poses a potential disruption to U.S. Army medical activities. However, during the past year, MEDCOM made significant progress in protecting patients and preventing potential disruptions to medical operations. This was achieved through checkup and cure procedures for the millennium bug. Guided by the DOD precept of centralized planning and decentralized execution, several DOD and MEDCOM organizations provided a millennium bug management strategy and are assisting with the checkup of medical information systems, facilities, and biomedical equipment. In addition, MEDCOM commanders are responsible for implementing the cure for any potential problems that are found. By following this approach with total confidence in the ability of its personnel to ensure the best of care, MEDCOM hopes to immunize itself against millennium bug infection and implement a cure for any Y2K illness the MEDCOM might contract.
Millennium Bug Risks In spite of MEDCOM's best efforts, preparation is still needed for a contingency plan in case a system fails on Jan. 1, 2000. For example, a system that MEDCOM tested and renovated could fail or a system that was outside the MEDCOM system but remotely connected could disrupt medical activities. In the face of such risks, MEDCOM must rely on continuity of operations plans (COOP) and contingency planning COOPs provide MEDCOM activities a means to identify known or suspected millennium bug vulnerabilities and develop contingency plans that will overcome mitigate unanticipated disruptions. COOP development is the responsibility of MEDCOM unit commanders. In March 1998, the General Accounting Office provided guidance, GAO/AIMD-10.1.19 “Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning,” to assist commanders. Because of the very nature of medicalrelated issues, medical legal liability poses additional risks for MEDCOM that do not occur in other Army activities. The additional legal costs that could result from millennium bug failures in medical operations also increases the need for MEDCOM to deal with the millennium bug. An article by Warren Reid, “2001: A Legal Odyssey; The Year 2000 Millennium Bug and You (And You Thought OJ's Trial was a Circus.??),” at http://www.year2000. com/legal.html discusses the liability issues resulting from millennium bug disruptions. In developing their COOP and prioritizing risk management actions, MEDCOM commanders at all levels must perform critical path analyses that address liability issues to ensure actions for medical systems are undertaken first. Furthermore, MEDCOM commanders must fully document their support data for alternative
Biomedical Devices Probably the greatest concern to patients and MEDCOM is the millennium bug checkup and cure for biomedical equipment. The U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency (USAMMA) at Fort Detrick, MD, provides centralized planning for the millennium bug checkup and cure for all Army biomedical equipment. In its April 3, 1998, guidance memorandum, “Biomedical Equipment Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance Policy,” USAMMA notes that it uses a fivestage compliance plan to check up and cure the millennium bug. Similar to the five phases used for automated medical information systems, the five stages for biomedical equipment are Assessment, Validation, Reporting, Implementation, and Certification. Execution of the millennium bug checkup is performed by Y2K Biomedical Equipment Compliance Responsible Officers who are appointed by their command. To protect patients, stringent timelines established to validate Y2K compliance of current biomedical equipment. To assist MEDCOM facility personnel in their millennium bug checkup, USAMMA created a centralized database in the Army Medical Department Property Accounting System that contains manufacturers' Y2K compliance responses to potential problems. This corporate approach reduces duplication of effort at local activities and helps prevent confusion in
LTC JAMES B. CROWTHER is the Director for Information Management/Information Technology at Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Fort Detrick, MD. He holds a B.S in business administration from Trinity University, an MBA from the University of Texas at San Antonio, and an M.S. in systems engineering from George Mason University. He is Level III III certified in in program management, and has substantial experience in medical information management Page 9
Introduction The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is used to anticipating and responding to potential threats from a wide variety of man-made and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and blizzards). In 1996, however, USACE identified a threat greater than any disaster experienced to date—the year 2000 (Y2K) date change and its potential impact on all automated information systems. Unlike previous disasters, this one would be worldwide rather than local, and involve infrastructure that is difficult to conceptualize, technically complicated to find, and complex to test. The challenge to USACE was and continues to be ensuring its customers receive uninterrupted service through the turn of the century.
U.S. ARMY
Initial Evaluation Early planning for meeting the Y2K challenge involved identifying susceptible systems and equipment. As the list grew, however, so did our understanding of the complexity of the situation. The myriad systems, connections, and processes we discovered geometrically compounded the problem. Management realized that a detailed strategic plan was needed, as was an immediate effort to increase awareness of the potential risk throughout USACE. Management also realized that the effort could not be extended and would have to be completed by Dec. 31, 1999, to ensure USACE's continued operation on Jan. 1, 2000. Strategic planning revealed that there were two primary areas of threat: facilities and systems now in place, and those being procured. Systems in place included everything USACE had ever built or received from others for operation.
USACE retained a commitment, however, The USACE facilities strategy was concurrent timelines and assigned to the Directorate of Information Management (IM) at USACE Headquarters for overall coordination, in accordance with DOD policy. Each agency's chief information officer is responsible for his or her Y2K effort. The IM Directorate turned to the Civil Works Directorate as the center of expertise for the water resource mission and to the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting as the expert for all procurement efforts.
DOD Guidance The Department of Defense (DOD) initiated parallel efforts by all Services, with a high degree of coordination and information sharing in common areas of concern. DOD directed all elements to be responsible for their current assets and to avoid duplication of effort at individual facilities. DOD devised a five-phase Y2K management plan to ensure consistency and efficiency throughout DOD. These five phases are Awareness, Assessment, Renovation, Validation, and Implementation.
problems. These include construction and operation of locks, dams, and other structures along the navigable waterways of the United States; dredging operations to maintain inland waterways and coastal harbors; and hydropower facilities, water control structures, and reservoirs (USACE is the fifth largest power producer in the United States, selling power from its dams via commercial vendors and area power distribution grids). The responsibility for operating these infrastructure components is assigned to the Civil Works Operations Division, which provides management, supervision, and fiscal oversight to the 8 USACE divisions and 38 districts that actually operate the projects. USACE began the Y2K compliance process for its facilities and business practices by determining the scope of work needed to assess its infrastructure. Feedback from all levels verified the need for consistency in reporting, and highlighted the need to define all terms, particularly "embedded controller" and “Y2K susceptible processes." An embedded controller is any computer chip with code-based or clock-based firmware that produces a time-derived output command to activate any other device. The intent behind use of embedded controllers is to reduce manpower needs and improve efficiency; therefore, these controllers lack human accessible input/output capabilities. A piece of equipment or a system is susceptible to a Y2K problem if its effective operation is dependent on a date or time. For example, if a computer
Strategies With responsibility for facilities on the Army's camps, posts, and stations assigned to the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, USACE narrowed its focus to the facilities USACE operates and maintains (mostly those in the civil water resources arena) and to the USACE procurement infrastructure.
Facilities Strategy Because of the wide geographic distribution of facilities and offices within USACE, a central website (www.usace. army.mil/inet/functions/im/ceimp/y2k. html) was established to ensure access to all guidance. The website provides a forum for comments and lessons learned as the Assessment and Renovation Phases of the management plan progress; a speedy route for upward reporting to DOD, the Department of the Army, and USACE management; and a source of information for customers conducting their own Y2K verification. USACE identified water resources business functions where Y2K could pose
“thinks” a maintenance date is overdue, it can shut down the associated system. Some of the more modern emergency generators and elevators operate in this manner. By focusing on these elements, USACE was able to categorize its process of searching for potential device failures. USACE was also able to identify similar devices in all parts of the country and include them in its periodic maintenance program.
Water Resources Strategies in the USACE water resources mission, however, focused on far more than controllers. Y2K susceptible processes could potentially include any process using electronic devices having clock chips, basic input/output system, software with date-recognition features, data processing capability, or data fields. USACE has located more than 19,500 electronic devices requiring detailed inspection. In addition, approximately 178,200 devices related to information systems and information technology oversight were identified. At the end of September 1998, about 60 percent of all devices were Y2K compliant; 15 percent were in some interim stage of verification or repair; and about 25 percent of the total devices had not yet been checked, but all were scheduled to be compliant by December 1998. Current information on USACE progress can be found on the web page previously cited. Navigation None of the navigation business centers operating the locks and dams on USACE's 12,000 miles of waterways, such as the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, embedded processors for control functions. Lock operation controls are all capable of manual override and manual operation, reducing the risk of impact from the century change. Navigation . facilities have current emergency operating procedures for cases such as power outages, ice storms, and floods. These plans generally call for additional personnel at the site to overcome the emergency conditions and to continue facility services without interruption. These plans were found suitable for the century rollover event without change. Although automatic processors were introduced by management about 15 years ago to reduce the workforce, they can be operated manually, if necessary.
This navigation lock is one of more than 275 owned and/or operated by USACE.
Hydropower USACE also found that its hydropower systems do not use embedded controllers for control functions and are all capable of manual override and manual operation. Connectivity to the power grid and the customer, however, could be a complication since the non-USACE owned systems could include embedded controllers that could fail, causing a disruption of power even though the USACE facility remains online.
We are currently working with the Bonneville Power Administration (a Department of Energy operating unit), the Bureau of Reclamation (a Department of the Interior operating unit), and commercial power distributors to test interconnected systems for Y2K compliance. Systemwide tests are currently being planned as a step to a higher level of assurance.
Greatest Vulnerability Water control systems are potentially USACE's greatest Y2K vulnerability. So far, no mission-critical failure modes have been identified for embedded processors. All controls are capable of manual override and manual operation; however, ensuring the availability of the increased number of trained to accomplish this manual operation will require careful planning.
Typical control panels in a hydroelectric powerhouse. USACE produces about 24 percent of the nation's hydropower.
of the current emergency operations plans as applicable to the century rollover event complemented USACE processes and increased the confidence of minimalto-no customer impacts. USACE has by no means finished its process of preparing for Y2K, but we are confident that when Jan. 1, 2000, dawns, our systems will be ready for the next 8,000 years of operation.
Key Factors Two key factors in USACE's assessment process communication with customers and risk-level judgment. In particular, USACE saw need to communicate with its business partners and customers whose systems—such as power grids, navigation equipment, and water control instrumentation—are connected to its facilities and who use extensions of its systems for product delivery, requiring interface and effective backup systems. Relative to the second factor, risk-level judgment, USACE has evaluated what it believes to be the most important devices first, and saved the controllers in less essential equipment (such as video cassette recorders and photographic equipment) for last. In addition to focusing the evaluation on items of high importance, risk-level judgment also concentrates repair dollars and manpower on the technical attributes of the systems rather than on ways to avoid Y2K litigation. In the end, final implementation of procedures will involve reliability tests for USACE systems as well as interconnected communications and delivery networks. Testing will confirm compliance and identify “eccentricities” of the millennium rollover and leap year.
contracting controls to ensure that noncompliant systems do not get into the USACE inventory. This requires an assortment of measures affecting all types of contracts, including service contracts for architectural and engineering design work, inspections, construction, and small purchases. The first priority was to require compliant devices for designs currently in progress. USACE issued Engineer Technical Letter 1110-3-492 to provide guidance Y2K compliance in specifications and drawings for new facilities. In concert with this action, we directed all all contracting offices to incorporate the new Y2K contract clauses mandating contractor compliance into existing and future contracts. We then issued a construction bulletin providing guidance on acceptance of work and verification of Y2K compliance in all new facilities. This guidance applied to all purchases—from small items using government credit cards to the largest turbine engines and generator units for hydropower plants.
Conclusion What are some of the factors that contributed to USACE's success in dealing with the Y2K problem thus far? First, tailoring the DOD Y2K management plan to USACE's business functions resulted in a series of effective decisions. Second, transmission of accurate data and using the Internet resulted in timely decisions and gave us the ability to see the impact of these decisions and other guidance in a short period of time. Finally, recognition
Procurement Strategy
CECOM Y2K WEAPON SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Myron S. Samuel and SFC Roxie Blackmon
Introduction The U.S. Army's ability to shoot, move, and communicate relies heavily on the mission-critical systems managed by the U.S. Army Communications Electronics Command (CECOM). If the Army's weapon systems computers were to fail at the beginning of the year 2000 (Y2K), Army operations at all levels could be impacted by the incorrect processing of data, corrupted databases, or even by massive system failures. In turn, this impact could result in such problems as weapon systems failures, delays in supply shipments, faulty inventory forecasts, unreliable budget estimates, and erroneous personnel-related information. The Y2K problem could also lead to a degradation of the Army's ability to maintain combat readiness by seriously slowing down or curtailing its ability to sustain the warfighter's vital supplies and information.
important missions. Presently, no one can determine with absolute certainty the impact of this change-of-century event on Army and CECOM mission capabilities. Attacking the Y2K problem is a top priority for every Army and CECOM organization. It should be noted that the Y2K problem is not limited to automated information and weapon systems; the problem includes every entity that relies a microprocessor, i.e., medical equipment, elevators, building entry control systems, street lights, fire suppression systems, and many other systems. For the Army, resolving the Y2K problem is significant management challenge because all mission-critical systems rely on computers to carry out aspects of all operations, and time for completing Y2K fixes is rapidly running out.
dates are recorded, computed, and transmitted in automated information systems. For the past several decades, systems have typically used two digits to represent the year, to conserve electronic data storage, and reduce operating costs (e.g., 97 representing 1997). With this two-digit format, the year 2000 is indistinguishable from the year 1900, and the year 2001 is indistinguishable from the year 1901, and so on. As a result of this ambiguity, systems or application programs that use dates to perform calculations or to sort may generate incorrect results when they are working with years after 1999. seemingly minor problem represents a potential threat to the Army and CECOM in sustaining their
Action Plan In November 1996, recognizing the critical nature of the Y2K problem, the Commanding General, CECOM,
The Y2K Problem
Figure 1. Phase approach to Y2K remediation.
Magnitude Of Y2K Effort The magnitude of the CECOM Y2K management effort can be summarized with a few brief statistics. CECOM manages more than 300 weapon systems representing approximately 890,000 inventory items; more than 1,000 automated information systems representing approximately 31 million lines of code; approximately 140,000 infrastructure items; and in excess of 900 facilities inventory items. As of Sept. 30, 1998, most of the inventoried items have been fixed (Renovation Phase); most of the systems fixed have been validated (Validation Phase); and most of the validated files have been implemented (Implementation Phase). CECOM and the Army must and will ensure that every inventoried item is operable into the next millenium so that the warfighter is guaranteed successful operation of all systems.
Figure 2.
CECOM's approach to resolve its Y2K problem uses the five-phase approach that is being applied throughout the Army, DOD, and most government agencies, as presented in Figure 1. The management process associated with the implementation of the five-phase approach is illustrated in Figure 2. Following the Assessment Phase, a decision was made as to whether systems were Y2K impacted. If an impact was identified, system replacement retirement constituted a resolution to the Y2K problem since the system would be removed from the field prior to year 2000. If the system required remediation, the process would proceed with the Renovation (fixing), Validation, and Implementation Phases. If the system was not impacted by the Y2K problem, validation and certification of this condition would constitute completion of
Conclusion While the magnitude of the numbers of systems and inventory items listed in this article presents a significant management challenge, CECOM expects no problems in meeting Y2K goals and objectives.
established and chartered the Project Manager (PM) for Y2K as the principal CECOM interface with the Department of the Army (DA), the U.S. Army Materiel Command, other project managers, and all CECOM activities worldwide to ensure the integration of all Y2K remediation efforts. The primary focus of the CECOM PM for Y2K is the planning and management oversight of all CECOM efforts. This planning and management strategy is documented in the CECOM Project Year 2000 Change of Century Action Plan, which parallels the DA Year 2000 Action Plan. Through the CECOM action plan, processes and procedures are in place to the successful transition of operations into the next millenium. Other excellent management plans exist for those interested in delving deeper into the subject. One comprehensive source of information can be found in the Department of Defense (DOD) Year 2000 Management Plan, dated June 1998, published by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence). Part of the DOD Year 2000 Management Plan is a General Accounting Office Exposure Draft entitled, “Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning,” dated March 1998. In addition to the previously referenced DOD Year 2000 Management Plan, each military department has its own management or action plan, which is tailored to the needs of the individual Service, e.g., DA and CECOM action plans.
MYRON S. SAMUEL, prior to his retirement, was the CECOM PM for Y2K and Deputy Director for Operations in the CECOM Software Engineering Center. He has a B.S. degree from Northeastern University and a master's in business administration from Fairleigh Dickinson University. SFC ROXIE BLACKMON was a Senior Software Systems Analyst in the CECOM PM for Y2K Office when this article was written. She is now assigned to the Joint Systems Security Division of the Defense Information Systems Agency. She is currently pursuing a degree in information systems.
Page 10
ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND YEAR 2000 QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
of required tasks, compare actual with reported organizational progress, and evaluate the role management plays in attaining Y2K compliance. As opposed to the system-level examinations listed above, management reviews focus on the organization and its management of the conversion process.
Goals The goals of the Army Materiel Command (AMC) Year 2000 (Y2K) Quality Assurance Policy and Implementation Guidelines are to validate the effectiveness of Y2K fix and testing strategies, and ensure data reported to HQ AMC and higher headquarters accurately reflect command progress. Quality assurance policy is intended to provide the necessary structure and guidance to prepare AMC for successful systems implementation efforts. The AMC Y2K Quality Assurance Policy and Implementation Guidelines provide a central information source governing the objectives of the four levels of quality assurance essential to system validation. The document provides a common set of methodologies to each Major Subordinate Command (MSC), Separate Reporting Activity (SRA), and Central Design Agency (CDA), and to HQ AMC. Consistent execution of these methodologies coupled with timely reporting and analysis should result in a thorough examination of AMC Y2K progress. The AMC Y2K Quality Assurance Policy and Implementation Guidelines is an "umbrella" document intended to provide policy governing the execution of the quality assurance process. The appendices are key implementation tools that provide the methodologies and checklists for use during process validation management reviews and spot checks.
system or program management office, Certification Reviews. Facilitated by an independent method of system certification and testing efforts and ensure system test results meet higher headquarters requirements. This level of review boosts the confidence of the first level general officer or Senior Executive Service (SES) officer in the system or program office testing and certification process. Consistent with the testing and certification process above, the focus of the certification review is on individual systems and their interfaces. • Spot Checks. Led by the staff leads, spot checks serve to examine a random or purposive sample of compliant systems based on criteria established in their respective methodologies. The intent of spot checks is to provide headquarterslevel technical and functional reviews of compliant systems. Feedback to the AMC Deputy Commanding General and first level general officers or SES officers provide solid indicators of MSC/SRA/CDA progress and offer significant validation opportunities. While spot checks examine individual compliant systems, they also focus on the capability to support the functional customer's business process. Process Validation Management Reviews. Conducted by the HQ AMC Y2K Project Team, these reviews examine the management of the MSC/SRA/CDA Y2K conversion process. They employ the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) phase exit criteria to validate completion
Conclusion Collectively, quality assurance activities ensure the reliability of core AMC business processes through examination of technical and functional testing of organizational systems. Additionally, these guidelines ensure compliance with and documentation of the Y2K conversion process consistent with OSD, the Department of the Army, and AMC policy. The success of the quality assurance process depends on involvement of senior leadership at every level. Fundamental to achieving the AMC goal of uninterrupted materiel support is the integrity of AMC core business processes, and the effective, continuous operation of supporting command systems. Commanders should continue to set priorities and manage resources accordingly to ensure continuous execution of core processes and their supporting operations. In summary, the quality assurance process is our insurance policy underwriting AMC's capability to provide continuous quality support into and beyond the year 2000.
Process Description Central to these policy guidelines is the development of a comprehensive and detailed quality assurance process. This process consists of four levels: • Testing and Certification. Testing and certification performed at the direction of system and program managers; all systems or families of systems are certified and tested in accordance with the selected certification level. Because of the specific technical and functional knowledge within the
EDGAR F BRASSEUR is both the Deputy Chief of Staff for Corporate Information and the Chief Information Officer at HQ AMC. He is a graduate of the Pittsburgh Automation Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
A Winning
OVERARCHING PARTNERING AGREEMENTS
Introduction Government and industry acquisition participants are increasingly subjected to a continually changing environment, including dramatic reductions in personnel and program funding, business reorganizations and consolidations, and the implementation of a multiplicity of acquisition reform initiatives, the overall objective of which is often summed up in the phrase “better, faster, cheaper.” Because of this changing environment, contracts must be awarded and administered correctly the first time. There are simply no extra dollars or additional time to be “thrown at” contractual problems the way we did in the not too distant past. The question is, “How do we change our culture from the traditional adversarial relationship that often exists throughout the acquisition community to a proactive, team-based environment that significantly enhances the effectiveness of communications between government and industry?” The answer is through the use of the partnering process. Το this end, the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM), the Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (PEO-IEWS), and the Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications Systems (PEO-C3S), collectively known as Team Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (C4IEWS), expanded the scope of the partnering concept to enhance the effectiveness of communications with principal contractors and provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, discussion of problems, and formulation of better ways of conducting business. What Is Partnering? Before overarching partnering agreements (OPAs) can be discussed, the partnering process, which is at the core of OPAs, must be understood. Partnering is mutual commitment between government and industry to work cooperatively as a team to identify and resolve problems, avoid disputes, and facilitate contract performance. It is an informal process that requires the parties to look beyond the strict bounds of the contract to formulate actions that promote their their common goals and objectives. Partnering promotes the creation of a shared vision for success, synergy, and pride in performance. The partnering process is analogous to a three-legged race where the parties know that to successfully reach the finish line, they must cooperate and work as a team. Partnering is not a new concept. It has been used successfully since the early 1980s in construction contracting by both the private sector and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). The U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) expanded the use of the partnering concept into research and development, materiel acquisition, base operations, and engineering and support services contracting. Partnering is also an integral part of the AMC Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program, which focuses on the avoidance of contract disputes before they impact contract performance.
AMC's Partnering Guide In April 1997, AMC published its Partnering for Success Guide, which is designed to promote government and industry communication and teamwork throughout the acquisition process. The guide explains the partnering process in detail, sets forth a four-step model partnering process, and includes an extensive appendix that contains a variety of samples, formats, and answers to commonly asked questions about partnering
significantly reduced. Furthermore, numerous participants in the process have found that their involvement in a partnered contract has significantly increased their morale, professionalism, and job satisfaction. These perceptions are directly attributable to the empowerment and ownership role in the process that is at the heart of the partnering concept. Partnering significantly enhances the effectiveness of communications between government and industry and dramatically facilitates contract performance. Some of these benefits are as follows: • Establishment of mutual goals and objectives in lieu of individual positions or agendas. Replacement of the “us vs. them” mentality of the past with a true "win-win” philosophy and partnership for the future where the parties recognize "we're in this together.” • Elimination of surprises that result in program delays, increased costs, claims, and litigation. Enabling the parties to proactively anticipate, avoid, and expeditiously resolve problems through the development of action plans that identify the problem and its cause. Resolving disputes through a clearly
Benefits Of Partnering The results of AMC, USACE, and private industry using the partnering process have been consistently impressive. Litigation has essentially been eliminated, and claims, cost overruns, and performance delays have been
defined conflict escalation procedure, a three-tiered process that includes the essential participants in the partnership. All of the participants know that they will have a fixed number of days to resolve any issue. If they fail to do so, the issue will be automatically escalated through the second and third organizational levels. This procedure avoids inaction and precludes the festering problems. Most importantly, however, experience has shown that almost all issues successfully resolved the lowest organizational level. Avoiding the expense, delay, and mistrust caused by formal litigation through the implementation of an ADR procedure. • Reduced paperwork and the necessity for “documenting the file.” The reduction in paperwork is facilitated by the “real time" simultaneous review of contractual documentation such as technical data package changes, engineering change proposals and contract data requirements list submissions. Improved employee morale and enhanced professionalism in the workforce through the empowerment of team members.
these contract-specific partnering agreements: the mission statement, including the parties' mutual goals and objectives; the identification of all potential obstacles to the timely and effective completion of the contract; the establishment of a tiered conflict resolution process; and a commitment to use ADR procedures to the greatest extent possible to facilitate the timely resolution of disputes and eliminate the necessity for litigation. The OPA also encourages the parties to examine their existing contracts to determine the feasibility and potential benefit of incorporating a partnering agreement during contract performance. Additionally, it clearly indicates that the OPA shall not be used as a vehicle for the dissemination or exchange of any competition-sensitive, source selection, or proprietary information, or for the premature or unilateral release of acquisition-related information prior to its publication to industry in general. Lastly, the OPA provides the foundation for the parties to continue to discuss partnering-related issues and acquisition reform initiatives on a periodic basis.
about the use of the OPA process by Team C4IEWS: “The Overarching Partnering framework we have employed MAKES A DIFFERENCE! It has facilitated breaking down communications barriers on both the government's and industry's sides and enabled us to better understand common areas of strategic goals, interests and initiatives, while still preserving separate business objectives. Overarching partnering has been an enabling approach to foster, and even expedite, the kinds of cultural change and relationships we need to sustain the revolution in business affairs to which we aspire. Simply put, Overarching Partnering has been a catalyst for leadership to effect change in our cultures and business practices. I fully endorse and committed to Overarching Partnering, as much as we need IPTs (integrated product teams) at the PM's (program, project, and product manager] level, to effectively execute our strategies as well as strengthen our mutual understanding and trust of how best to meet the capabilities needed for our warfighters, today and into the future.”
What Is An OPA? When the partnering process is used in conjunction with an individual contract, one of the essential tools developed during the initial partnering workshop is the partnering agreement. This document, which sets forth the parties' mission statement, mutual goals and objectives, and commitment to the partnering relationship, is the focal point of their relationship and the blueprint for their future success. The essence of the OPA is is the recognition by the government and contractor participants that in an era of constantly diminishing personnel and financial resources, we can no longer afford to continue doing business in the traditional, adversarial ways of the past. Accordingly, in the first paragraph of the OPA, the parties commit to use the partnering process in each of their future contractual efforts. Most important, however, is the overriding objective established by the parties: providing America's warfighters with the most technologically advanced and highest quality supplies and services in a timely manner to promote the swift, safe, and successful accomplishment of their missions. The majority of the OPA focuses on the commitment of the parties to execute individually designed and tailored partnering agreements in conjunction with each new contract award. The OPA also identifies the key partnering tools that must be developed to advance each of
OPA Successes In November 1996, Team C4IEWS and Hughes Aircraft Co. executed the first OPA in the Department of Defense. Team C4IEWS has subsequently entered into additional OPAs with Lockheed Martin Corp.; ITT Defense and Electronics; GTE Government Systems Corp.; Litton Systems, Inc.; Raytheon Systems Co.; Electronic Data Systems Corp.; and Harris Corp. Several other OPAs are presently in process. OPAs are signed by a senior executive of the corporation, usually at the chief executive officer or president level, and by the Commanding General, CECOM, as well as the Program Executive Officers for PEO-IEWS and PEO-C3S. Team C4IEWS' experiences using OPAS have been extraordinarily positive. Not only has this concept provided Team C4IEWS with the opportunity to educate its major contractors how the partnering process works, it also has created a unique environment for Team C4IEWS and the company to explain to each other what makes them “tick." These sessions, as well as the follow-on meetings, also served as forums for discussions about implementing new acquisition-related concepts, government and industry perceptions, biases and motivations, and ideas for the improvement and streamlining of the procurement process. Most importantly, however, the level of trust and meaningful communication amongst the participants has dramatically increased. Edward Bair, Deputy Program Executive Officer, PEO-IEWS, stated the following
Conclusion From Team C4IEWS’ perspective, the establishment of a true partnership with industry through the use of OPAs is precisely the kind of nontraditional “outside the box” thinking that acquisition reform is all about. Adherence to this strategy is imperative for to be able to successfully accomplish our most important mission providing the American warfighter with the most technologically advanced and reliable equipment in a timely manner. NOTE: Copies of the AMC Partnering for Success Guide may be obtained from Stephen Klatsky at (703) 617-2304. Questions about the partnering concept and OPAs should be directed to Mark Sagan at (732) 532-9786.
MARK A. SAGAN is the Deputy Chief Counsel for the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command. He has a B.A. degree from New York University and a Juris Doctorate from New York Law School. He is a member of the New York State bar.
Introduction The need to reduce operations and support (O&S) costs or the total cost of ownership for a system is now a veritable mandate for the program manager (PM). PMs traditionally focus on O&S costs during production, fielding, deployment and later turn responsibility over to the Army Materiel Command during the operational support phase of the life-cycle model. Today's emphasis shifts toward upfront cost-reduction techniques to produce a more efficient, cost-effective product. Such emphasis is essential to develop systems that will be affordable and manageable throughout their life cycle. The Army's Grizzly Program is an example of product development teams emphasizing the use of logistics design influence activities reinforced with modeling and simulation to reduce O&S costs.
REDUCING O&S COSTS THROUGH DESIGN INFLUENCE AND MODELING AND SIMULATION
LTC Donald P. Kotchman, James R. Carravallah, and Wesley L. Glasgow
The Grizzly The Grizzly is an armored, full-tracked vehicle built on an M1 Abrams tank chassis (shown in Figure 1). It provides combat mobility support to the maneuver force by creating breach lanes in enemy complex obstacle systems. It is a unique Army system designed to rapidly eliminate buried mines, reduce antimaneuver structures, defeat antitank ditches, and cut through wire emplacements. Each of these tasks is designed to hasten the safe passage of friendly elements through enemy maneuver barriers. The Grizzly has subsystems built specifically for accomplishing these tasks. The development challenge is of subsystem integration into an affordable (life-cycle costs) platform that is supportable within the envisioned Force XXI environment. A major consideration with this vehicle and its deployment to U.S. Army Engineer battalions is its potential maintenance burden. The Abrams-based system is a “new” platform for engineers, and the limited physical capacity of its two-person crew puts a premium on removing or reducing the maintenance workload. The Grizzly Program's definition and risk reduction phase demonstrated this need. Maintenance on the system proved difficult. Components were big, heavy, difficult to reach, and interfaced in a manner that made problem identification inaccurate and inefficient. The Project Management Officer feared that the advantages the Grizzly brought to mission accomplishment might be overshadowed by unacceptable supportability constraints.
development (IPPD) teams. Logistics personnel participated in all systems engineering decisions with full voting rights. Figure 2 outlines this process.
Because system size, weight and accessibility problems had to be addressed before production, program leadership also focused on reducing or eliminating the vehicle's operational and support burdens during the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. A key aspect of the EMD design strategy mandated examination of logistics support issues and a means to ensure adequate logistics design influence across all product teams. The leadership emphasized the importance of supportability concerns to all integrated product and process
Traditional Process In the traditional process, EMD affords ample opportunity to address program design influence issues. Appropriate contract scope exists to rework the design for producibility while logistics engineers review producibility concepts for supportability. The logistics community typically conducts a logistics demonstration (log demo) to evaluate
supportability on one or more systems updated with all producibility changes. This is conducted before the system undergoes developmental testing to ensure that producibility changes do not alter system performance. Issues from the log demo are then resolved in a final update to the design before initial operational test, where test issues and any residual logistics issues are rolled into full-production configuration. The Grizzly Program, however, does not have the budget or schedule to follow the traditional process. The program can afford only two prototypes for the prelow rate initial production EMD effort, and the schedule does not permit releasing either vehicle for a conventional log demo prior to performance testing. The log demo is not possible until after vehicles undergo initial performance testing. The issue is then, “How should the program address supportability for test without a log demo and with limited asset availability?” The answer is, “Employ upfront intensive
Saved Throughout A System's Life Cycle
Effective Modeling & Simulation Page 11
DEFINING THE OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS FOR THE CRUSADER SYSTEM
Dr. Linda G. Pierce, Walter W. Millspaugh, and William A. Ross
influence system design and define interface requirements for other battlefield systems. This article describes how the U.S. Army is using soldier-in-the-loop experimentation to examine the interaction between system capabilities and battlefield requirements to improve the system acquisition process. Background The Crusader will be the first of the "next generation” artillery systems. Scheduled for fielding in 2005, the Crusader includes a self-propelled howitzer (SPH) and a resupply vehicle (RSV). The SPH components will incorporate the latest in onboard and networked information processing and tactical-technical fire control capabilities. It will fire to a range of 50 kilometers with greater accuracy than current systems, at a maximum rate of fire of 10 to 12 rounds per minute, and a sustained rate of fire of 3 to 6 rounds per minute. It will have an unprecedented capability to mass fires with 4 to 8 rounds impacting simultaneously when fired from a single howitzer. The RSV will dock and automatically rearm the SPH with ammunition and fuel. Both the SPH . and the RSV will match the mobility and speed of supported maneuver systems (Figure 1). The Crusader OCD is a a living document. It was initially developed using manual wargaming among military experts and lessons learned fielding predecessor systems. This conventional approach to OCD
SPH RSV * RANGE: 40-50 km Payload: 130-200 Rounds * Max Rate of Fire: * Automated Rearm 10-12 Rds/Min of SPH in 12 Mins Sustained Rate of Fire: Upload Within 65 Mins 3-6 Rds/Min Mobility Equal to • 4-8 Rounds Simultaneous Maneuver Systems Impact Position Navigation * Mobility Equal to 55 Tons Maneuver Systems Crew: 3-Man • 55 Tons • Crew: 3-Man * Key Performance Parameters
• Post Milestone 1 Work (Dec '94 - Present)
Requirements Have Been Validated
Figure 1. Page 12
development is inadequate since technological advances stimulate revolutionary changes in system design. Fortunately, just as information age technologies influencing tomorrow's battlefields, advances in techniques for conducting distributed interactive simulations (DIS) changing how system performance may be evaluated. It is now possible to create a synthetic theater of war (STOW) that has the flexibility necessary for evaluation of conceptual systems on notional battlefields. The ability of DIS technology to support experimentation is best illustrated through a description of the Crusader Concept Experimentation Program (CEP). This is a multiyear program being conducted by the Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, and the Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Laboratory in support of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command System Manager for Cannon. The OCD functions as the foundation for this research (Figure 2).
Synthetic Theater Of War The baseline OCD is used to generate a number of hypotheses for evaluation in the STOW environment. These hypotheses then drive design of experiments to validate, modify, or expand the OCD so that when the system is fielded, will be accompanied by a doctrinal manual OCD based largely on experience and performance data derived from working with soldiers. The pacing item for the first CEP was the development and implementation of a STOW environment in which soldiers, field equipment, prototype equipment, and models of things not yet developed (in this case, Crusader) could interact in a realistic battlefield scenario. The environment used was an amalgam of hardware and software both proven and developmental, as well as tactical data processing and communications equipment brought by the field artillery unit (Figure 3).
integrate fire support command and control systems onto the synthetic battlefield. To achieve this, a personal computer interface unit (PIU) was developed. The PIU allows fire support tactical data devices to be integrated into the DIS environment and onto the synthetic battlefield. Software converts the tactical data stream to a DIScompatible message that is sent out over the network to other devices or simulations. In this manner, fire supporters use their actual fire support systems in communication with other live and simulated forces.
Constructive Simulations To create the synthetic battlefield environment, J-Link (a developmental version of Janus), the Fire Simulation (FireSim) XXI (formerly Target Acquisition Fire Support Model (TAFSM)), and the Modular SemiAutomated Forces (ModSAF) model, all DIS-compatible, were configured and networked together. Based on the World Modeler, J-Link developed the Naval Postgraduate School. It was used to
Live Simulations In establishing the STOW environment, the first imperative was to
Well Planned And Realistic Tests After each Army system has undergone Y2K testing, there is a high probability, especially if it is a mission-critical system, that it will undergo overall DOD-wide tests. These tests include joint operational evaluations with the CINCs and functional end-to-end tests with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Principal Staff Assistants, specifically in the areas of communications, finance, logistics, personnel, health and medical, and intelligence. The Army's concept for conducting operational evaluations is to develop joint task force scenarios in conjunction with typical combat and combat-support exercises simulated in a Y2K timeframe. The CINC-led command post exercises will be scripted with “time ordered events lists” to test critical interfaces and date-related processes among mission-critical and goto-war systems. The Office of the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers (ODISC4) has the lead for these operational evaluations, partnering with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, which has the lead for operational evaluation planning. The U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Command will provide instrumentation and evaluate data collected on Y2K. To
The Army's mission in conducting these tests is to demonstrate the ability to accomplish critical missions and ensure readiness in a Y2K environment. The Army's goal is to ensure that the warfighter's mission-critical and go-to-war systems will not fail when the millennium rolls over. To achieve this goal, the Army will conduct end-to-end tests of “mission threads." These threads include land combat; fire support; aviation; command, control, communications and computers (C4); combat service support; intelligence; maneuver; and air defense. In the C4 area, the Army will focus on end-to-end tests of the data transport structure. This structure includes major DOD systems such as the Defense Information Systems Network, the Joint Warfighting Information Communications System, the Defense Red Switch Network, the Defense Switch Network, the Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network, and the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network. Information exchanges will be tested on voice, data, imagery, and video. The Army has completed or will schedule a number of other Y2K tests to demonstrate its ability to ensure warfighting capabilities are Y2K ready. Two pri
mary Army Y2K test sites are Fort Bragg, NC, and White Sands Missile Range, NM. At Fort Bragg, a partnership consisting of ODISC4, the U.S. Army CommunicationsElectronics Command, the Forces Command, and contractors performed an initial test in September 1998 on the XVIII Airborne Corps' Joint Task Force C4 infrastructure. Various communications endto-end links were tested. Initial results . showed that there was no loss of voice or data transfer services during the Y2K rollover times. However, in some cases, the dates the systems displayed or printed were incorrect. Several minor date-related problems were identified after the Y2K-compliant software was loaded, but there was no degradation in the overall communications services. Additional tests at Fort Bragg will continue to evaluate communications devices in other deployment scenarios. White Sands Missile Range has conducted and will continue to conduct Y2K tests of its major functions, operations, and infrastructure. This year-long effort is being done in partnership with the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command and numerous other government and contractor experts. The first test, conducted in July 1998, evaluated the optics, radar, telemetry, and associated computers supporting a test flight of a computer-controlled Phantom F-4. Rollover dates were execut
Current Situation In October 1998, 76 percent of Army mission-critical systems were already Y2K compliant. By March 1999 (the completion date set by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)), 98 percent of Army mission-critical systems will be Y2K compliant. Figure 2 shows the Army's mission-critical systems status. The Army has 638 mission-critical systems. These include the major weapon systems and automated information systems that directly affect the Army's go-towar mission and are necessary for commander-in-chief (CINC) deployments and exercises. Examples of mission-critical weapon systems include the Patriot Missile System, the Apache Attack Helicopter, the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System, and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Examples of mission-critical automated information systems include the Army Total Asset Visibility System, the Standard Depot System, the Reserve Component Automation System, and the Global Command and Control System Army.
More than 94 percent of Army weapon systems are Y2K compliant, mainly because many of them do not process dates and do not interface with any digital system. Army automated information systems are more difficult to fix because they have old legacy code that must be rewritten and interface with other systems that must be integrated. The Army has more than 13,900 nonmission-critical systems. A small subset, 581 systems, includes other major weapon systems and automated information systems that are mission essential but not mission critical to the Army. Generally, modeling and simulation systems, budget systems, and manpower accounting systems fall into this category. The remaining nonmission-critical systems are primarily major command (MACOM) and installationunique systems. Lastly, the Army has approximately 153,000 IT-controlled devices that need Y2K fixes. These are personal computers and servers; telecommunication switches and routers; and installation infrastruc
ture devices such as heating and air conditioning systems, building security systems, hazardous material monitoring systems, air traffic control systems, and utility systems. Despite the magnitude and hard work involved in fixing Y2K for the Army, there is a bright side. Because of Y2K, the Army plans to eliminate or replace 3,211 systems, mainly at the MACOM and installation level. A substantial number of personal computers and servers will be upgraded, thus providing our soldiers and civilians with more productive tools to get their jobs done. Army telecommunication switches at posts, camps, and stations will be modernized. This will provide a common, interoperable network on which to host IT infrastructure improvements such as intranets, highspeed data networks, and video. Lastly, life on Army installations will improve with the addition of new security systems, heating and air conditioning systems, and upgraded physical plants. The scope and cost of fixing the Army's current Y2K problem are shown in Figure 3.
at the brigade fire support element (FSE) to facilitate battle tracking and intelligence gathering.
provide the maneuver battle context and, more importantly, generate the fire missions that stimulate the Crusader systems to move, shoot, communicate, and rearm. FireSim XXI is an artillery-oriented combat simulation developed at the Field Artillery School. It has been adapted as a simulation tool for use in the STOW environment. It simulates friendly and enemy artillery forces to include sensors; command, control, and communications; logistics; firing platforms; and munitions. It is both large scale (up to corps level for many applications) and yet highly detailed (individual sensors, weapons, fire direction centers, munitions, and messages). The final piece of the simulation confederation was ModSAF, a highly detailed semiautomated computergenerated forces model that controls systems at the individual platform level. ModSAF was used in the CEP to replicate perfect situational awareness
missions, provided updated fire support status to the POCs and the forward observers, conducted survivability moves, and were rearmed by simulated RSVs in FIRESIM XXI. To complete the loop, impacting artillery rounds were displayed the maneuver battlefield. The experiments were conducted as a series of tactical engagements. Each engagement was initiated with the same force structure, arrayed in the same manner on the battlefield, but was fought based on the day's battle plans. A trained interactor using Soviet tactics played the opposing force. The experimental runs used a defensive Northeast Asia offensive Southwest Asia scenario for their diversity in operational requirements. Battlefield conditions tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) were varied based on the hypotheses and a predetermined schedule of events.
Concept Experimentation Programs In the Crusader experiment, task force commanders were role played by trained interactors who controlled the maneuver battle on J-Link. Task force FSEs were collocated with the J-Link screens to process calls to fire or to initiate planned fires. Fire support requests processed to the appropriate tactical fire control node using the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System. The fire missions were processed at the battalion and calls for fire sent to the Platoon Operations Centers (POCs), where weapons were allocated to the fire mission. POC operators then sent fire mission orders to computer-generated fire units (Crusader SPHs) in FIRESIM XXI, where technical fire control was performed The SPHs executed the
Results The synthetic environment successfully supported field artillerymen in using the Crusader to provide direct support fires for the maneuver task force commander. Each engagement included features that demanded resourcefulness and required the unit to vary its tactics to satisfy the fire support requirements. As the engagements progressed, the battalion performed collective tasks needed to shift priorities of fires, maintain situational awareness, reallocate resources, and sustain operations. Events were catalogued and compared by run to determine the effectiveness of various TTPS and to develop performance trends. Various command and control arrangements implemented including upgraded data processing capabilities at command and control nodes and for redistribution of assets within firing batteries. Findings provided insight into how an artillery battle staff will manage Crusader's information and logistics requirements and highlighted the need for improved situational awareness as well as the need to re-evaluate roles and responsibilities of staffs at all levels of command. The integration of live and constructive fire support simulation provided an economical testbed for evaluating alternative concepts of operation and proved an effective training environment.
technologies to fight, survive, and win faster. Despite diminished resources, great technological strides are being made by using simulations, especially distributed interactive simulations, to support military training and operations, materiel acquisition, and research and development efforts. With simulations, dynamic battlefields can be created and used by field artillerymen to execute realistic battles on notional battlefields using Systems under development. All aspects of METT-T (mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time) available can be quickly and easily varied, and battles can be repeated until research objectives are met. Simulations allow system developers to apply, early on, lessons learned on the synthetic battlefield to system design. The fire support community, the Army Research Laboratory, and the Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Laboratory will continue to collaborate to advance the use of simulations in system acquisitions. Developing the STOW environment and our ability to use it to define and refine operational concepts for integrated system employment supports the acquisition strategy of LTG Kern and the requirements of our warfighters.
operational environment. On future digitized battlefields, teamwork will determine successful system employment and, ultimately, battle outcome. Information systems must be acquired to support collaboration within and between teams, and TTPs for weapon systems must be developed to exploit information system capabilities. A comprehensive team performance measurement system is required. If the measurement system is implemented appropriately, the analyst and the warfighter will have the data needed to evaluate total system performance based mission objectives and operations required for battle execution. A focus on total system performance during system acquisition is possible in the STOW environment.
Future Challenges Problems were encountered in chronologically logging and correlating the data required for analysis. Many activities conducted in the live world were not logged on the DIS network. Some of the tactical communication data were collected through special collection equipment such as the Fire Support Automated Test System and not easily correlated with messages not collected by that system. Major efforts are needed to develop methods for collecting and recording the proper data from the simulations and message collection devices so that the data can be logged and correlated at a central data collection and analysis point. Digital data provide only one piece of the analytical requirements necessary to evaluate the impact of differential TTPs on system performance. There is also a need to improve our ability to evaluate team performance in
DR. LINDA G. PIERCE is Chief of the Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Fort Sill, OK, Field Element. She holds a Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology from Texas Tech University WALTER W. MILLSPAUGH is Chief of the Simulation Management Office in the Depth and Simultaneous Attack Battle Laboratory. He has more than 30 years of systems analysis and simulation experience. WILLIAM A. ROSS (Lieutenant Colonel, retired) is Senior Research Scientist with Raytheon Systems, Inc. He is the Operational Manager for the Crusader System Concept Experimentation Program.
Page 13
FAMILY NIGHT AT PM-NV/RSTA
under Omni contracts I through III, and has delivered 8,497 under Omni contract IV, with 3,049 more scheduled for delivery by FY00. An Omni v contract was awarded in June 1998 for the procurement of an additional 1,610 systems in Program Year 1.
Demonstrations Each of the demonstrations are designed with particular family members in mind. At last year's Family Night, a game of golf played in the dark was used to demonstrate the AN/PVS7D night vision goggles. Outfitted in the helmet-mounted third generation image intensification goggles, and apprehensive about turning out the lights, our teenagers learned maneuver themselves and their golf clubs while adjusting all of their senses to guide the ball toward a hole in one (but more often two, three, or four). Night vision goggles are used by individual soldiers for night operations such as driving, walking, administering first aid, and map reading. PM-NV/RSTA has fielded 140,604 of these goggles
Introduction Acquisition reform. Funding lines. Delivery schedules. Improving Army readiness to keep up with constant technological advances and improvements requires more effort than a fulltime job. Working 40 hours a week might be enough to dirty our hands, but real changes and improvements happen only when engineers, analysts, project managers, and their support staffs roll up their sleeves and rise to the daily challenges of systems procurement. The cooperation among coworkers, the hours spent on the job, and the work that is accomplished create a homeaway-from-home atmosphere where our “extended family members” sometimes spend more time with us than our husbands, wives, and children. The Office of the Project Manager, Night Vision Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (PM-NV/RSTA) sought to bring these two families together on “Family Night,” which is now an annual event. Each year, family activities feature demonstrations of night vision systems normally used in a business or military environment. The PM-NV/RSTA staff members display their accomplishments while family members experience hands-on entertainment, gain an understanding of the jobs being performed, and develop a sense of pride in their own contributions of continued support at home. The ultimate mission of the PM-NV/RSTA, of course, is to guard the lives of U.S. soldiers.
Modular Night Vision Device For the youngest family members, an after-dark Easter egg hunt was arranged using the AN/PVS-14 monocular night vision device for faces too small to see out of both lenses of the PVS-7D goggles. Children raced around several trees in a picnic area using their goggles mainly to find colored eggs, but also to keep from bumping into parents and each other. To date, more than 3,000 AN/PVS-14 devices, also used by the individual soldier for night tasks, have been fielded by PM-NV/RSTA under the Omni IV contract. A total of 25,258 of these systems will be fielded by FY02 under this new contract. Under the new Omni V contract, 5,495 additional systems were awarded for Program Year 1.
Driver's Vision Enhancer For the entire family, a ride around the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) compound in a tactical wheeled vehicle with its lights off demonstrated the Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE). In what felt more like a ride at an amusement park, five video screens in the back of the vehicle displayed for our families the thermal images the driver or soldier uses to operate the vehicle in the dark and in battlefield conditions of degraded effective weapon range of a respective weapon system.
Video Reconnaissance System Finally, for our families to take home with them, we printed family photos with the Lightweight Video Reconnaissance System (LVRS) and Thermal Weapon Sight (TWS). The TWS recorded the image of each family and sent it to the LVRS, which digitized and printed the image. The LVRS is a lightweight, self-contained system that operates in adverse weather and is used by combat units in conjunction with the TWS to transmit images of battlefield conditions to the tactical operations command. PM-NV/RSTA has an LRIP for 2,850 thermal weapon sights and will begin fielding them in the second quarter of FY99. Under the basic thermal Omni contract (excluding the option years) awarded in June 1998, PM-NV/RSTA will procure approximately 3,220 additional TWS systems. The LVRS is currently in full production, with engineering change proposal to reduce the system weight from 15.03 pounds to 8.87 pounds.
Conclusion Family Night has been a tremendous success for PM-NV/RSTA. Families associate faces with names and products with their acronyms. They realize the urgency and importance of what sometimes forces them to keep dinners warm and children up past their bedtimes. Once a year is not too often for reinforcing pride in our work and for showing appreciation to our families for their support. More families attend every year, helping to create an inclusive community where work and family are united by pride in their accomplishments. For more information on any of the systems discussed in this article, please contact Suzanne Schmitz, PM-NV/RSTA Support Secretary, at (703) 704-1362.
FLIR Demonstration The second generation Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) Demonstrator Vehicle displayed the differences between first and second generation images used for target acquisition. Second generation FLIR is a standard thermal sensor that provides the Combined Arms Team (M1A2, M2A3 and M3A3) and the Long Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System (LRAS3) with the ability to detect, recognize and identify targets at significantly greater ranges. The standard thermal sensor, called the B-Kit, can be integrated into host platforms through use of vehicleunique integration components called A-Kits. In the third quarter of FY97, PM-NV/RSTA awarded two 4-year, lowrate initial production (LRIP) contracts to procure 242 thermal imaging systems and 240 commanders independent thermal image viewers for the M1A2, and 260 B-Kits for the M2A3. Additionally, B-Kits for the LRAS3 Program will be exercised as options on these contracts. Compared to first generation FLIRs, second generation FLIRs will have a 55-percent increase in identification and recognition range. This will provide recognition capability at or beyond the maximum
Heads-Up Display Also for the entire family, a simulated view of the ground from an aerial flight at altitude of 1,000 feet demonstrated the Aviator's Night Vision Imaging System/Heads-Up Display (ANVIS/HUD). The ANVIS/HUD collects and displays critical flight information (altitude, airspeed, attitude, torque, compass heading) from aircraft sensors and converts it into visual imagery, allowing the aviator to fly “heads up” without continuously looking down at the instrument panel. Families saw the ground from 1,000 feet with and without the benefit of the ANVIS/HUD, which produces a much clearer image of a the ground that makes night flight safer for the soldier. PM-NV/RSTA has fielded more than 1,417 of these units.
SUZANNE SCHMITZ is a Support Secretary for PM-NV/RSTA. She holds a B.A. degree in English from James Madison University and has pursued postgraduate studies at George Mason University.
Introduction Several articles have recently been published on Modernization Through Spares (MTS) concept of acquisition reform. For example, the May-June 1998 issue of Army RD&A included an article on the program manager's (PM's) perspective on lifecycle cost (LCC) drivers. That article identified a mandate for PMs to implementa systematic program consisting of a mix of upgrades and retrofits. A requirement for an MTS and “other investment means" identified for use in managing the PM's system. Quoting the article, PMs must continuously attempt incorporate aspects of technical [technology] insertion and reduce LCC.” The article stated that the PM can accomplish this by, “Learning to analyze all of the data available on system cost drivers; leveraging resources normally not pursued by PMs; and ... making a commitment to life-cycle investment.'
MODERNIZATION THROUGH SPARES IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Terry L. Mullins and Barry K. Pepper
A Systematic Process This article describes an MTS process that the Industrial Operation (10) Division, System Engineering and Production Directorate (SEPD), U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command has initiated during the past 2 years to achieve operating and support (O&S) cost reductions for program offices. Although stand-alone cost reduction programs at the project office level can result in significant savings, these efforts can achieve even greater savings when integrated into focused investment and cost reduction strategy Armywide.
Integrating MTS And Resources MTS has been applied for years through technology integration; Operating and Support Cost Reductions (OSCR); Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability (RMS); Savings through Value Engineering; Horizontal Technology Integration (HTI), product improvements, etc. The major difference now is that the MTS concept formalizes LCC reduction initiatives into a strategy to ensure cost reductions consideration in all program and system management functions and decisions throughout the system life cycle. The MTS strategy complements and enhances research and development (R&D), test, production, and supportability cost reduction initiatives by leveraging acquisition reform initiatives and practices to
ensure weapon system technology is continuously upgraded. With each spares procurement, an opportunity exists to modernize the item being bought. Command processes must be implemented to ensure these opportunities are examined and not missed. A key point is that the approach does not look at MTS as a separate program, but as an umbrella concept under which multiple cost reduction initiatives fall. The overall objective of the approach is to leverage sources of funding other than program office R&D R dollars to achieve cost reductions to modernize objectives. Figure 1 identifies multiple funding sources and programs that can be used to accomplish the LCC reduction initiatives listed along the left-hand column of the chart. These initiatives
derive from acquisition reform efforts that the Department of Defense has been implementing for the past 4 or 5 years. Life-Cycle Cost Reduction Process IO-SEPD developed and defined a process that provides managers at all levels the visibility needed to make LCC reduction investment decisions. The process in Figure 2 integrates multiple functions and organizations into candidate identification, candidate analysis, candidate selection, and prioritization methodology to provide visibility of high-benefit, highpayoff investments. The operative term in this case is "visibility” of problems, so decisionmakers can decide on a course of action to resolve existing or potential problems.
The process depends on leveraging existing data and information with little or no new identification work being required. The process provides decisionmakers with a list of all problems that exist with an item so that multiple problems can be addressed and mitigated in one upgrade or modernization effort. Another feature includes a prioritization and funding assessment to ensure that investments are made in the most critical areas first. As problems are corrected, items will move up the list in priority so that a program has a continuous, updated investment list of improvements to make. Combining this list with the acquisition strategy, decisionmakers have the basis for an investment strategy that supports a program's proactive cost reduction effort. The process is organized in a series of
logical steps to continuously identify opportunities to improve and modernize weapon systems. The methodology integrates consideration of other modernization opportunities such as technology insertion (TI), HTI, commercial off-the-shelf/nondevelopmental items (COTS/NDI), and performance specification to leverage funding already invested in other programs to improve weapon systems. Step 1. Problem Identification. Step 1 and leverages data and information from existing data sources and personnel to identify problem
areas. Project offices, depots, field units, and industry are the sources for this information. This is a continuous process with each organization defining metrics to identify to identify potential cost reduction candidates at the earliest possible point. This process leverages work being done routinely in each organization to drive an MTS process. A representative set of types of problems that will be identified are shown in the problem set box in Figure 2. It is not all-inclusive and can be tailored as necessary. The key to the problem set is that individuals and
organizations are identified to focus on key areas that will indicate when problems are beginning to develop that will impact LCCs. Step 2. Candidate Validation. In Step 2, data are collected on nominated candidates to ensure that the perceived problem is in fact a valid problem. Logistics data such as recurring procurements, obsolescence status, high-demand items, high-cost items, and high-overhaul requirements are assessed to determine the magnitude of the problem. Once this assessment has been completed, the decision is made
Page 14
Postscript The PATRIOT Air and Missile Defense and the Multiple Launch Rocket System Program Offices are involved in developing in-house programs incorporating various aspects of the process for in sustainment management. The IO Division is providing support to each office on different aspects of data collection and funding of potential projects.
as to whether this is a potential candidate. The result is a list of feasible candidates that are supported by actual logistics data. Step 3. Candidate Acceptance. Step 3 ensures only valid candidates are considered. Here, project office information is collected for each feasible candidate. The objective is to eliminate any candidates inappropriate for expenditure of future funds. Items being phased out of the inventory, already being upgraded, no longer being procured, or that may have shown up in logistics demand data as a result of an initial buy are eliminated from consideration. A list of accepted candidates results from this step. Step 4. Opportunity Set Development. The objective of this step is to capture all problems that exist with a valid candidate, and define improvement or modernization opportunities that can be implemented in a single investment activity. The list of opportunity areas shown across the top of the chart is representative and not intended to be all inclusive. Data from the logistics elements will be used in this step to complete the matrix for item opportunities. The opportunity set is very important to the process since information captured in this step will support development of a detailed economic analysis (EA). By considering all problems with an item, maximum savings that will produce a substantial
saving-to-investment ratio be identified, increasing the chances for funding. There are two paths from Step 4 to Step 5. If a modernization technology has been identified that will correct the opportunities in the matrix, the project can proceed directly to Step 5. If no technology has been identified, a technology or solution search must be conducted. The research, development, and engineering center and industry can be used here to identify potential technology solutions. Step 5. Funding and Schedule Assessment. Once the opportunity set has been filled out, the candidates are screened against a number of funding programs to see if the candidate meets the criteria for submission. The programs listed in the process chart are funded on an annual basis to make O&S improvements to reduce LCCs. RMS was an unfunded program in FY98 but remains on the list to consider depot level items that will achieve cost reductions. Each program has its own distinct set of criteria and submission schedules and each will require a validated EA. The IO-SEPD has built a support capability to assist in deciding on the correct programs to pursue and for developing a validated EA. Step 6. Candidate Prioritization. The last step in the process focuses on prioritizing candidates and identifying the source of funding to be pursued. In
TERRY L. MULLINS is a Senior Engineer with the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL. His responsibilities involve LCC management, OSCR, and engineering production support for Army missile and aviation programs. He has an undergraduate degree in industrial engineering from the University of Alabama. BARRY K. PEPPER is the Chief of the Supportability Technology Directorate, SPARTA, Inc. He has an undergraduate degree from the U.S. Military Academy and a master's degree in systems management from the University of Southern California.
Introduction Army experiments have indicated that there are distinct and measurable benefits to teaming manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to accomplish aviation missions. The U.S. Army Aviation Research, Development, and Engineering Center's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) at Fort Eustis, VA, and the Air Maneuver Battle Lab (AMBL) at Fort Rucker, AL, have been working together to develop the manned-unmanned team concept. The intent of AATD's Airborne MannedUnmanned System Technology (AMUST) Program is to find solutions to the technical challenges associated with teaming UAVs and helicopters. The AMBL is conducting a series of experiments to define and measure teaming benefits and establish manned-unmanned team tactics, techniques, and procedures.
TEAMING AIRBORNE MANNED AND UNMANNED SYSTEMS
Background For several years, the Army has been developing the concept of teaming UAVs with aviation forces. In the early 1990s, AATD began work on a UAV teaming effort. A UAV program called the Autonomous Scout Rotorcraft Testbed (ASRT) was successfully demonstrated in 1996. The ASRT Program demonstrated the UAV's ability to take off, fly a route, detect and track a target, return home, and land under autonomous control. Recently, the Army and Department of Defense have renewed interest in teaming UAVs and manned systems and the AMUST Program was established to assist in this effort.
MAJ Allen L. Peterson and Kristopher F. Kuck
challenges associated with a complex program such as AMUST. Both industry and the Army have done significant early work to pair a single UAV with a single helicopter in the simulation environment. However, little or no actual flight demonstrations of any of these capabilities have been completed. Simulation efforts will continue as the program progresses, but live flight demonstrations will be conducted where appropriate. The AMUST Program Office is developing a detailed roadmap of how to get from where we are today to the fully integrated manned-unmanned team of tomorrow. The AMBL-AMUST team is working closely with the other Services and academia to capitalize on their related development efforts. AMUST will also leverage efforts currently underway by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy to reduce the AMUST development risk. Some of these efforts include developments of cooperative maneuvers with manned platforms, tactical situation assessment, cooperative search area planning, and cooperative planning for multiple vehicles. Also, technology may be transferred from the Army's RPA Program to extend associate capability to the UAV to aid in the dynamic mission
What Is AMUST? The AMUST Program is directed at identifying and developing the technology to team UAVs and helicopters to increase combat effectiveness. The AMUST Program objective is to demonstrate through simulation and flight tests, the control mechanisms, intelligent linkages, and integration architectures to allow a manned unmanned air vehicle system to operate a system of systems to increase the combined arms teams' battlefield effectiveness. Although our initial goal is to team helicopters and UAVs, we hope to apply this effort to the Army's family of ground vehicles and eventually to individual ground soldiers. The AMUST Program is also looking at ways to capitalize technology developed in other programs such as Comanche, Longbow Apache, Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate (RPA), ASRT, and Integrated Flight and Fire/Fuel Controls, and in commercial development efforts.
management areas of communication, navigation, flightpath, and sensor control. Leveraging these efforts will reduce the development risk and cost of the AMUST effort. As the number of UAVs on the battlefield increases, the likelihood of a collision with another manned or unmanned aircraft also increases. As such, we want to develop a collision avoidance system that has little or no impact on aircraft payload or signature and that leverages efforts currently underway by the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Addressing concerns about a collision with another manned unmanned aircraft is necessary to expand acceptance of manned-unmanned teaming. The AMUST effort is working with the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command and the Joint UAV Program Office in the area of sensor interface. We will leverage their sensor technology programs to attain a sensor package and interface that is mission compatible with those aircraft that may be teamed with the UAV.
Technical Challenges There are obviously many technical
Operational Issues If we determine that we can successfully team manned and unmanned aircraft, the question that remains is “What capability
UAV Levels of Interaction
We are focusing the MUM and AMUST efforts on the effects of teaming the manned-unmanned system and the associated improvements in combat effectiveness. As a result of teaming during MUM 3, we expect a 35-percent improvement in operational effectiveness, a 25-percent improvement in operational efficiency, a 25-percent improvement in survivability, and a 50-percent improvement in timelines over a baseline nonteamed system.
Launch and Recovery Flight Control
Conclusion The future of manned-unmanned teaming is limited only by the imagination of the people working on the programs and the funds available to pursue their ideas. Autonomous, cognitive, and possibly armed UAV team members are a distinct possibility in the not too distant future. Many interim steps are needed, however, to realize the benefits of manned-unmanned teaming sooner, and to develop a solid engineering base of teaming experience. The opportunity to exploit the advantages of manned-unmanned teaming is at hand. With government and industry working together, we can provide the combat soldier with a manned-unmanned system of systems that will improve operational effectiveness, operational efficiency, and system survivability.
does that system provide the commander or soldier in the field?” To answer this question, the AMBL designed a series of Manned-Unmanned (MUM) Concept Experimentation Programs to define and quantify the differences in mission performance between scenarios where helicopters and UAVs are employed as individual systems and scenarios where they are teamed as a system of systems. MUM 1 established baseline interoperability data and examined employment alternatives critical to effective platform interfaces, operator performance, and networked performance (digital communications and critical command and control links) the digital battlefield. The results of the MUM 1 simulation indicated that there are distinct and significant tactical advantages in teaming manned and unmanned aerial platforms to conduct tactical reconnaissance. AMBL's report stated that mannedunmanned teaming is a more efficient use of assets and provides an increase in effective reporting, a reduction in mission completion time, and enhances survivability of the systems within the team. The experiment showed that manned-unmanned teaming reduced the time required to complete a tactical reconnaissance mission by more than 10 percent, increased the number of high payoff targets identified and reported by more than 20 percent, and improved the commander's ability to obtain more effective answers to critical information requirements by more than 30 percent. Finally, the experiment showed a decrease in the number of acquisitions and
trackings of the team by enemy systems. MUM 1 established a foundation upon which to build the experimentation focus for the follow-on MUM 2 and MUM 3. The MUM 2 experiment will involve a joint force conducting force projection and early entry operations. An aviation task force (brigade size), as part of a larger 21st century force, will employ aerial platform teams (manned and unmanned) to conduct missions supporting the commander's critical information requirements. A 21st century threat force will be equipped with armored systems, a robust air defense system, and theater-level missile capability. The aviation task force will employ air maneuver reconnaissance teams (manned and unmanned platforms as a team) to maintain a continuous surveillance screen for force protection, and will conduct and area reconnaissance missions preparatory to deep strikes. An additional mission will be conducted to assess battle damage after target engagements by any delivery means (Air Force, cruise missiles, artillery, etc.). A part of the matrix of the current MUM 2 testing is a determination of the effects on workload as we increase the level of interaction. There are currently five levels of interaction with the UAV as prescribed by the Joint UAV Program Office (see accompanying figure). In the MUM 3 experiments and the AMUST effort, we will consider use of additional technology to improve efficiency such automatic target detection and classification functions, other sensors, cognitive decisionmaking, and cooperative mission planning.
MAJ ALLEN L. PETERSON is the AMUST Project Manager at the Aviation Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Fort Eustis, VA. He holds a B.S. degree from the U.S. Military Academy, an M.S. in systems management from the University of Southern California, and is a graduate of the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School and a member of the Army Acquisition Corps. KRISTOPHER F. KUCK is the AMUST Deputy Project Manager at the Aviation Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Fort Eustis, VA. He holds a bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and a master's degree in engineering administration from The George Washington University.
CPC finishes applied to the vehicle. The testing capabilities of the ACTF are used in conjunction with the various terrain profiles available at ATC to simulate the stress environment the system encounters in the field. The high humidity and temperature needed to accelerate the corrosive reaction is provided in an environmental conditioning chamber. The chamber is capable of simulating an atmosphere of 160 degrees Fahrenheit, up to 100percent relative humidity, and 2-milliliter-per-hour water fog condensate. The ATC also provides the necessary laboratory facilities and equipment for identification, analysis, and documentation of corrosion that might occur on the test item. An ACT can be tailored to match the mission profile of almost any ground system. The first ACT to be conducted at ATC involves two Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle 2.5-ton trucks. The two trucks will complete 330 corrosion and endurance cycles, representing 22 years of service life. Each cycle consists of approximately 70 miles of driving, including the corrosive applications, followed by overnight drying and high humidity and high temperature conditioning depending on the desired coupon mass loss rates. The trucks will incorporate a number of state-of-the-art CPC technologies for evaluation during
and implemented in developmental and fielded systems. The ACTF was developed with the technical assistance of TACOM, General Motors, and Ocean City Research Corp. The latter two organizations have vast experience in studying corrosion and performing ACTS.
adjusted to ensure the mass loss rates properly track the target rates. Because target mass loss rates do not exist for most Army equipment, ACT programs are guided by target mass loss rates developed by the commercial industry for their vehicles and systems. The ACTF features a mist booth where a corrosive solution is applied to the top and sides of the test vehicle. This solution has a chemical content and concentration indicative of the atmospheric fallout encountered in the field. Corrosives are applied to the undercarriage and underhood areas of the vehicle via drive-through splash and grit troughs. The splash trough (see accompanying photo) contains a saline solution of the proper makeup and concentration of deicing solutions typically found on roadways. The vehicle is driven or towed through this trough at highway speeds to generate the spray and splash patterns typical of those encountered on primary roadways. The grit trough features a slurry generated from a combination of earth materials (sand, clay, limestone dust, cinders, etc.) and either water or a weak corrosive solution. This poultice represents the abrasives that are worked into the crevices and joints of the vehicle's body and chassis during both on- and off-road driving situations. The exposure to the abrasives provides a good indication of the durability of
Conclusion As a natural extension of ATC's vast performance and endurance test infrastructure, the the ACTF can be beneficial to a wide range of customers by helping them meet the objectives of the U.S. Army's corrosion control and prevention effort.
Testing Capabilities In an ACT, the vehicle undergoes an accelerated weathering process where it is exposed to the same corrosive environments expected to be encountered in the field. This typically involves applying corrosive (saline) solutions to the exterior of the vehicle using spray and splash methods, subjecting the vehicle to the stresses of field operations, and promoting the chemical reaction between the corrosives and materials using high humidity and temperature. While conducting a number of test track and environmental chamber exposure cycles, test personnel monitor and control vehicle corrosion rates based on mass loss of bare metal coupons placed at strategic locations on the system. The actual mass loss rates are compared to target mass loss rates, which are based on years of corrosion data obtained from vehicles operated in their true field environment. The corrosive applications, operating scenario, and exposure to high humidity and high temperature are
Page 15
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE TEAMS
Introduction Proponents often tout integrated product teams (IPTS) as a panacea to solve the ills caused by the need to do more with less. However, successful IPT implementation is impossible without an adequate understanding of team philosophy. Teams are not new to the business world; yet, with a long history and numerous references as "the solution to the future of business,” why are we still in the dark about effective teams? What are the essential factors that determine a real team? Why do some teams fail unmercifully and yet others surmount impossible obstacles to achieve notable success?
inherently promote individuality and search for new ways to improve performance. Managers often view teams as a waste of time spent in unproductive meetings. In addition, individuals often feel personal discomfort in a team setting, submitting their fate to the performance of others. Furthermore, weak organizational performance ethics promote resistance to teams and improper team development. A team hastily thrown together with no clear objective is destined to fail. Team failure reinforces management's slighted view of teams.
significant performance challenge, strong performance ethics, individual performance recognition, and discipline within the team and across the organization. The clarity and consistency of an organization's overall performance standard (performance ethic) represents the single most important factor in generating effective teams. The following definition of a team, from The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization by Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith, is not just a definition, but discipline followed by organizations seeking to enhance performance:
Characteristics Of Teams that share certain characteristics tend to have greater success. These shared characteristics include a
A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.
Why Pursue Teams? era of increased pressure on all organizations, both industry and government, to generate high-level performance just to survive. Competition forces organizations to focus heavily on customer satisfaction, high-quality products, continuous improvement, and innovation. Maximized performance in each of these areas becomes harder for one person to administer. Top management increasingly turns to teams because they strengthen the performance capability of individuals, hierarchies, and management processes. They are practical, and they get results. With proper understanding and some team basics, team development achieves remarkable results. Advocates must curtail internal resistance to teams as organizations shift away from traditional hierarchical organizational structures that
This definition requires neither a leapof-faith nor a retreat from intellectual reasoning to embrace. The definition implies that a small number of people can easily integrate while sharing complementary skills. Common purpose and specific performance goals set the tone, set boundaries, and create team identity. A commitment to a common approach focuses each team member on doing equivalent amounts of real work. Finally, the mutual accountability among team members establishes trust and commitment. The actual development of teams never follows an implementation guideline. Therefore, for an organization to harvest a real team,
it must first foster an environment based on a strong performance ethic. By establishing meaningful, strong performance standards, team members can focus on how the achievement of those goals will contribute to the organization's overall goals.
their skills, it is unlikely the team will succeed. The first team meetings are critical to its success. Members must agree on a set of rules or conduct. For example, they may agree not to allow telephone calls during meetings, require that team information remain confidential, and agree that constructive criticism is necessary. Initially, setting immediate attainable goals or performanceoriented tasks allows the group to bond. Teams spend a lot of time together, especially during the early stages. Teams find a way to spend additional time together, particularly when things do not go as planned.
the responsibility, not by delegating nasty jobs to others on the team. If a team encounters an insurmountable obstacle, it becomes grounded, which leads to discouragement among team members and could disbandment of the team. A team leader views this as an opportunity to confront the issue with a strong performance focus. Gaining a small win or retreating to team basics are possible approaches. In addition, the leader may seek an outside counsel, conduct training, expose the team to new information and different approaches, or possibly reconfigure the team. A A highperformance team can usually deal with obstacles well enough to avoid being stuck; however, if this does occur, the momentum of the team can be lost. If the focus remains team performance, the long-term benefits will outweigh the short-term, yet, unwarranted losses.
Team Performance Curve The "team performance curve” (Figure 1) illustrates the development of teams from the initial foundation of a working group to a high-performing team. A working group relies on the individual performance of each member without without focusing on common purpose goal. Any interaction among members usually takes place only to make decisions that will enable each member to perform better as an individual. If a common purpose, opportunity, or incremental performance goal exists, but is not focused upon, then a pseudo-team exists. This group represents the weakest of all five groups because the sum of the whole totals less than the individual potential. When a group of people possess a common purpose, opportunity, or incremental goal, while constantly improving their performance, a potential team exists. Members increase their performance, but not collective accountability. A real team exists following achievement of collective accountability. Each member accepts mutual accountability for the approach taken by the group. The highest level group is a highperformance team. This team is committed to the success and growth of each member within it. If the team lacks a specific need, a member usually develops the skill necessary to overcome the deficiency. Work is not delegated to people outside the team.
Team Leaders Team leaders deal with obstacles not as barriers, but rather as a means to strengthen the team. A leader strikes a balance between action and patience, knowing when to stand aside and when to contribute. A team leader keeps the purposes, goals, and approach relevant and meaningful. By using positive reinforcement, he or she builds commitment and confidence at both the individual and team levels. The team leader removes all of the obstacles, both within the team and with outsiders. The leader gains respect and trust by taking on a large portion of
Teams And Performance Significant performance challenges represent the most important factor in the success of teams. Empirical evidence suggests a perpetual relationship between an organization's performance ethic and the success of team formation. Organizations with strong performance ethics generally pursue challenges that
Transformation From Individual To Team Performance A team must take risks to move up the performance curve. Members must accept risks and understand the expectations of the team. A sense of urgency paired with clear and concise direction inevitably leads to the development of a real team. Available skills and potential skills, not personalities, comprise the criteria for selecting team members. If leaders draft likable individuals without analyzing
aspirations of the group are not attainable by the sum of individual performances. Even outside a team, dedicated managers make considerable contributions. In considering team formation, the quality, capability, and attitude of each potential member is considered. A group of exceptional managers potentially achieves more as a working group. If skill deficiencies exist, teams often compensate for individual shortfalls and provide support for skill development. The leader of the organization must make a concerted effort to present a clear and compelling team option. In the absence of this effort, the automatic nature of the working group will likely allow it to persist.
Conclusion Managers are increasingly turning to teams because they bolster the achievements of individuals and organizations. The performance of effective teams far exceeds the sum of each member's individual productivity. Teams are practical, and they get results. Ultimately, the success of a team depends on the total unyielding commitment of a small group of people. However, groups can only become effective teams if they define explicit, distinct, measurable goals. If your group lacks the conviction to become an effective team, seek out real teams and learn from them by observing them in action. Discover what works and why, then use this knowledge to begin creating your own effective team.
CLEAR, PERFORMANCE-BASED ASPIRATIONS
promote employee morale. Employees gain pride being associated with an extremely performance-oriented organization, which translates into superior customer service.
are conducive to team creation. The created teams then yield superior results that serve to sustain the organization's general performance ethic. However, teams with weak performance ethics drastically reduce or eliminate significant performance opportunities. Challenges become lost in the noise as turf, politics, business-asusual, and the “not-invented-here” syndrome take precedence. Lost opportunities, in turn, work to weaken performance ethics. Traditionally, companies have focused exclusively on their stockholders, overlooking other stakeholders such as customers and employees. Performance ethic implies that organizations of all types seek benefits for customers, employees, and shareholders (Figure 2). The U.S. taxpayers are, of course, government organizations' shareholders. Performance challenges, associated with team
Teams At The Top Teams are tougher to form at the top; therefore, the critical issue is to determine when aspirations dictate levels of performance attained only by teams. The choice is between the working group and the team. The working group approach avoids the risk of failing at a quantum leap. Teams can lead neglect of individual responsibilities because more time is required. In addition, a failed attempt at team formation at the top could breed team skepticism throughout the organization. The team approach, however, offers significant performance results over the working group. A team is required if the collective
STEVE HAMMONDS is the Engineering Division Chief in the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System Project Office, Huntsville, AL. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Tennessee Technological University, an M.S. in engineering from Southeastern Institute of Technology, and an M.B.A. from Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University. He is a member of Beta Gamma Sigma.
REVIEWING THE ARMY'S MINE, COUNTERMINE, NONLETHAL WEAPONS, AND DEMINING PROGRAMS
(two-way) command and control capabilities. Since 1996, the United States has been committed to aggressively pursuing an international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel landmines (APLs). On Sept. 17, 1997, the president announced that the United States would withdraw from the Ottawa Process because the treaty did not meet our national security concerns. Furthermore, the president outlined steps the United States would take on its own to help rid the world of landmines. One step directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop alternatives so that use of all “pure” APLs can be ended by 2003 (2006 in Korea). Of particular note, the president's APL policy retains the use of a “mixed” antitank/antipersonnel self-destruct system. As a result, the Army has initiated two new programs. The first new program is called the Remote Area Denial Artillery Munition (RADAM). This initiative will retrofit the Remote Anti-Armor Munition (RAAM) projectile into a mixed munition system with RAAM and Area Denial Artillery Munition (ADAM) submunitions. This will be accomplished by downloading the ADAM and RAAM projectiles and uploading their submunitions into the existing RAAM projectile body. The hybrid projectile will be a single mixed artillery round for 155 mm howitzers. This effort was started in September 1997, but Congress had not approved the new work. On June 26, 1998, RADAM research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funding was released and the program resumed. The RADAM RDT&E effort will specify the design and remanufacturing processes and the full-rate production effort that will convert the existing RAAM and ADAM inventory. The first RADAM projectiles will be fielded by the third quarter of FY01. The second new program is a twotrack Anti-Personnel Landmine Alternative (APLA) acquisition. The Secretary of the Army was directed to develop alternatives for APLs, particularly in Korea, while the longterm effort (2010 and beyond) was tasked to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Army's program is the Non-Self Destruct Alternative (NSD-A). The Army solicited technical papers from industry and then paid 12 contractors to submit full proposals for the NSD-A. All the proposals were required to offer methods to prevent target activation of lethal alternatives. Verification by the
Brian M. Green and John M. Gallagher
Presented below is a synopsis of the first semiannual review.
Introduction The Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASARDA) LTG Paul J. Kern has begun semiannual reviews of the Army's Mine, Countermine, Non-Lethal Weapons (NLWs), and Humanitarian Demining (HD) Programs. Attendees at these reviews include the senior leadership from the Office of the ASARDA, other members of the Army's RD&A community, the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, representatives from the Training and Doctrine Command, the Marine Corps, and program managers and policy representatives for the subject areas.
Mines The next generation of antiarmor munitions, the Wide Area Munition (WAM), is currently in low-rate production. The WAM uses acoustic sensors to detect heavy- and lighttracked vehicles, determines a firing solution, launches a payload that scans for an infrared signature, and fires an explosively formed penetrator. The WAM basic system will support early entry operations by light forces and will enter full-rate production in 1999. A product improvement will be redeployable and will have enhanced
operator of a hostile intrusion into the minefield must be accomplished before a lethal fire command can be initiated. Award of NSD-A contracts is on hold until FY99 funding is received.
capabilities provided by the M1-based Grizzly obstacle breaching vehicle. Some countermine efforts still do not approved requirements funding. These include minefield and breached lane marking, lane marking, magnetic mine countermeasures, and on-route neutralization.
technology areas that are low tech and easily transferable to foreign nations with unskilled labor. Major areas of emphasis of the program are detection of landmines, clearance and neutralization, individual demining tools, and mine awareness and training. The Army is the lead Service for the research and development effort. The HD Program has resulted in deployment of several materiel systems for field evaluation in various countries. These include miniature mine detectors, a miniature mine flail, the Berm Processing Assembly, and supersonic air spade. The HD Program has also resulted in development of the Demining Support System that enables countries to train their personnel in all facets of demining operations. Mine awareness comic books have been produced in several languages to aid countries in educating their citizens on the dangers of landmines.
Countermine The Army's experience in Somalia and Bosnia revealed a landmine threat that has grown more durable, more available, and more difficult to detect. Countering this threat remains a significant technical challenge, but sustaining the technical effort has been hampered by the cyclical nature of the interest in countermine research and development. The current countermine capability includes the battalion countermine sets for the M1 tank, which include the tracked-width mine blades, trackedwidth mine rollers, and the improved dogbone assembly (rolling antimagnetic mine actuating device). These items were fielded and effective during the Gulf War. The Army's current breaching capability is the Mine Clearing Line Charge. Other fielded systems include the AN/PSS-12 Hand Held Metal Detector and the Launched Grapnel Hook. Countermine contingency items include the Mine Rake for the Combat Engineer Vehicle and the recently procured Interim Vehicle Mounted Mine Detection System (IVMMD). The IVMMD IVMMD adds a significant improvement in capability over the current means used for route clearance. The IVMMD provides ballistic and mine blast-protected platforms to detect and mark metalcased antitank mines and proof the route. The IVMMD can detect mines at 12 to 15 kilometers per hour, a 30-fold increase over the current capability. The lead detection vehicle will be teleoperated as part of a planned product improvement. Relative to countermine research and development, the Stand-Off Minefield Detection System Programs provide leap-ahead technology in mine detection. The Hand Held Stand-Off Mine Detection System has the ability to detect low-metal content and nonmetallic APLs. The Ground StandOff Minefield Detection System constitutes the Vehicle-Mounted Mine Detection Program. This system will detect low-metal content and nonmetallic antitank mines with lower false-alarm rates and improved confidence. Both are multisensor systems and will incorporate automatic target recognition. The Army also will have improved clearance and breaching
NonLethal Weapons The Army has the lead for 11 product lines of NLWs and these programs are managed by the Close Combat Armaments Center at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. These programs leverage weapon systems already in the inventory. The end result will be nonlethal means of incapacitating individuals, breaking up formations of hostile personnel, and less than lethal protection of area security missions. The NLW effort will provide enabling technologies for the non-self destruct APLA mentioned earlier. Some of the NLWs on the horizon are as follows: • The Non-Lethal Crowd Dispersing Round, which includes an M203 grenade launcher with a payload of 24 rubber balls for crowd control. • The Modular Crowd Control Munition, which uses Claymore mine dispensers to disperse stinging rubber balls over an area. • The Bounding Non-Lethal Munition, which uses the bounding APL approach to deliver malodorous substances, riot control agents, and entanglement nets. A contingency stock of NLWs has now been established to support Operations Restore Democracy (Haiti) and Joint Endeavor (Bosnia). The stock includes 40 mm rubber ball munitions and 40 mm foam baton munitions, 12-gauge flash/bang munitions, and 12-gauge beanbags. The future concept for fielding NLWs will employ a “company set” of weapons that are palletized, rapidly deployable, and stockpiled forward within a theater of operations.
Conclusion These programs differ in their requirements, infrastructures and methods of execution. They are being conducted in a politically charged environment that requires versatile planning and management, and compliance with national policy. These programs are intended to help reverse the proliferation of landmines, to detect all mines in all environments, and to employ less than lethal capabilities on the battlefield; yet, they must ensure the safety and security of our soldiers who are deployed throughout the world.
BRIAN M. GREEN is a Project Management Engineer in the Countermine Division of the Office of the Project Manager for Mines, Countermine, and Demolitions at Fort Belvoir, VA. He is a Reserve Marine Corps officer and has an undergraduate degree from the U.S. Naval Academy. JOHN M. GALLAGHER is a Senior Engineer with Camber Corp., Springfield, VA He is a retired Army officer who bas undergraduate degree from the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY, and a master's degree from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
Humanitarian Demining Congress initiated this DOD program in 1995 to respond to the worldwide concern over the proliferation of landmines. The HD Program concentrates mine detection and neutralization technologies that can be shared internationally. The HD Program is complimentary to the Army's countermine program and invests in Page 16
Dr. John W. Lyons learned is that one must constantly recheck vendors' Director statements looking for changes in the status of equipment. U.S. Army Research Laboratory Use of the World Wide Web is critical in staying informed of Adelphi, MD the Y2K status of commercial products. The millennium computer problem, Second, we accept that every possible Y2K bug is not going or as it is frequently called, the Y2K bug, to be found. Contingency plans are being put into place to presents a variety of challenges for the address potential problems. For example, a piece of our Army Research Lab (ARL). Being a high contingency planning is to ensure we have staff on duty Jan. 1, tech research lab, ARL uses computers 2000, to deal with any problems. and computer software in a variety of Third, no one is in this alone. Sharing information and ways. ARL and its predecessor lessons learned is beneficial to us all. We have benefited by organizations have a long history in computers—from building the Y2K work with vendors done by the U.S. Army the first computer (ENIAC), to creating some of the earliest Communications-Electronics Command as well as work done computer graphics programs, to hosting one of only 13 by other organizations. The various Y2K-related sites on the Internet root domain name servers in the world. World Wide Web provide a source of information and ideas for As we began looking at the Y2K implications at ARL, it addressing various Y2K issues. became obvious that there were a broad range of problems, Fourth, if you don't have a good baseline inventory, you concerns, and potential impacts ranging from none, to minor don't know where you stand. ARL developed a Lotus Notes inconveniences, to the potential shutdown of major systems. inventory tool that allows us to collect data on all our systems As we examined ARL-developed systems, we found software and then manipulate the data in a variety of ways, not only to written as far back as the early 1970s that accounted for year respond to various data calls, but more importantly, to allow 2000 dates and understood that the year 2000 is a leap year. ARL senior management to see the status of our compliance (Every 4 years is a leap year unless the year is evenly divisible efforts along a variety of dimensions. However, the database by 100. This is the rule that most people know; however, the is not just for Y2K points of contact and senior management; rule goes further. If the year is evenly divisible by 400, then it everyone at ARL will have access to the information. Thus, if is a leap year. Thus, the year 2000 is a leap year. Many systems an ARL scientist wants to know if anyone has a particular do not have the 400 rule built in and do not treat the year 2000 machine or software package that is needed, the database will correctly.) By the same token, we found software (mostly provide a source of information to answer the question. . commercial off-the-shelf) that would break on Jan. 1, 2000. The fifth and most painful lesson learned by ARL is that it is ARL has prioritized its Y2K remediation efforts to ensure that still difficult to get people to take the Y2K problem seriously. systems affecting life safety or the warfighter are addressed Many people still view the data collection and remediation as first. Next on the list are systems impacting a large number of "busy work” keeping them from working on their mission. personnel, such as payroll systems. This prioritization effort Changing this viewpoint is a management challenge that is extends to desktop personal computers and peripherals. being met by involving ARL executives, providing clear and ARL has learned several lessons during this process. First, sensible instructions, and minimizing the collection of needless Y2K impacts can occur in areas typically not considered. information so people will not view this as a mindless exercise. Research programs thought not to have any Y2K problems In summary, ARL is attacking the Y2K problem with a variety might have some. Even worse, vendors uncover problems that of tools and skills. Our most important tool is using our were not previously considered, so devices that we thought knowledge of systems to ensure that our most important ones were Y2K compliant suddenly are not. Thus, the first lesson are fixed and that any problems we have Jan. 1, 2000, are only inconveniences and not threats to our mission. |
Since 1990, job and wage research has shown that as the price of computer technology plummets,
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketajaman Inc.
