4. All official Army acquisition (Materiel Development) programs require an acquisition program baseline (APB). What are the primary APB components and what assessment tools, systems, or laws do decision makers use to measure a program’s progress (or lack thereof)?
5. Do the prioritizations outlined in the 2013 Manning Guidance agree with the imperatives of the 2013 ASPG? Why or why not?
I only want to order those two specific questions
|Subject||Law and governance||Pages||2||Style||APA|
Managing Army Change Paper
- All official Army acquisition (Materiel Development) programs require an acquisition program baseline (APB). What are the primary APB components and what assessment tools, systems, or laws do decision makers use to measure a program’s progress (or lack thereof)?
The primary components of an APB include the Key Performance Parameters, the Milestone Decision Authority, the Key System Attributes, the Configuration Baseline, and the Technical Baseline. The Department of Defense requires each acquisition program to abide by the appropriate APB before approving the program. There are two laws used by the DoD to assess the progress of each acquisition program, which are 10 USC 2220 and 10 USC 2435 (Cornell University Law School, 2015, web). The execution of each performance parameter within an acquisition program must follow the above laws in order for the various phases of the program to be implemented. The decision makers at the DoD use the capability needs assessment document to assess the progress of each acquisition program. This document is usually a part of the APB and matches the goals specified within the APB. Any parts of the project that are different from the goals specified within the APB are in violation of 10 USC 2220, that is, the law that relates to individual goals within a project.
The DoD pays special attention to projects that do not follow the timetable outlined in the APB, with officials reviewing such programs to determine if they are still viable. The assessment of delayed projects is usually based on 10 USC 2435, which is used to measure the success of the core parts of the project. Code 10 USC 2435 is usually used to measure a project’s adherence to the core milestones specified within the set limits of the project. Most DoD projects have a standard upper limit of 10 percent above the amount that was budgeted for, while projects that exceed this limit are usually put under review.
- Do the prioritizations outlined in the 2013 Manning Guidance agree with the imperatives of the 2013 ASPG? Why or why not?
Many of the prioritizations of the 2013 Manning Guidance are aligned with the imperatives specified within the 2013 ASPG. However, some imperatives differ with the prioritizations to some extent. One of the similarities between the two documents is that both documents are keen to improve the leadership pool within the army by developing leaders at all levels within the Army. The two documents emphasize the importance of nurturing leaders that will ensure the success of the US Army over the long run. The two documents also emphasize the training of the personnel within the volunteer Army in order to raise the standards of professionalism within volunteer Army units and improve the support services within such units. The two documents recognize the importance of the volunteers as a crucial part of the army. The improvements within the volunteer army will ensure that the Army has highly skilled personnel to fight and win the nation’s future wars.
However, the two documents differ in that the 2013 ASPG does not dwell on the deployment of Army units, while the Manning Guidance is fully dedicated to the deployment of Army units in multiple combat situations. The Manning Guidance is also keen on the safekeeping of data and information relating to personnel within the Army, while the ASPG does not cover this area. The ASPG proposes the reduction of personnel in most Army units, while the Manning Guidance proposes that the Army has enough personnel to meet the country’s security needs. The disparity in the methods of personnel management proposed within the two documents may pose challenges to Army leaders during implementation as the two documents propose opposite changes.