Posted on Dec 15, 2022
EXCLUSIVE: Pentagon not prepared for software updates at the speed of war, report finds -...
6.35K
24
7
7
7
0
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 5
So ... this is MUCH more complicated than presented in the article and goes way beyond "industry best practices". Additionally the author doesn't seem to know about a lot of the cyber acquisition strategies that have been implemented in the last eight years or so.
One problem facing DoD acquisition efforts is that the PMs are often hamstrung by the 'well intentioned' efforts of our elected leaders. In an effort to avoid another $300 toilet seat, they have implemented laws upon laws for the last forty years which required these long, laborious, cumbersome, bloated, etc. processes which tie the hands of much development. Now, not all the laws are bad, but many laws are like entitlements ... once enacted, it is almost impossible to get them taken away.
So, DoD has been chipping away at them to implement operational effectiveness out of the constraints imposed on them. One of these changes that was implemented was the acquisition strategy of "IT Box"* - originally designed for IT acquisition so it wouldn't take years to get IT solutions, during my time at ARCYBER the command started the Army into 'operational acquisition for cyber capabilities'* so that it could take weeks/months to do what took years before.
Still not fast enough, so they were going in the direction of paring the concept they've had for years of reprogramming aircraft early warning sensors (You know .. the thing you hear in the movies that goes "BEEP BEEP BEEP" when an enemy radar locks on) with new threat radar signatures through an organization called the Army Reprogramming Analysis Team (ARAT). Using the concept of rapid reprogramming under ARAT, they expanded ARAT's mission to encompass exactly what the article was discussing - software development/updating at the speed of the battlefield.
I don't know what the acquisition efforts are today, but that was where they were at about eight years ago. They were going towards the "speed of the battlefield", but weren't there yet. However, they were far beyond the way it is depicted in the article.
I can only assume the other Services and DoD as a whole are in a similar situation because every Service acquisition chief steals the good ideas from the other ones.
-----------------------------------------------
* IT Box - https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense/2014/02/how-an-it-box-is-making-it-easier-for-dod-to-do-business/
* Army utilizing IT Box for cyber-related acquisition - https://www.army.mil/article/153996/army_advances_rapid_acquisition_for_cyber_defense
* ARAT-TA - https://www.army.mil/article/193637/army_reprogramming_analysis_team_program_office_25_yrs_beyond
* AR 525-15 (Software Reprogramming for Cyber Electromagnetic Activities): https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r525_15.pdf
One problem facing DoD acquisition efforts is that the PMs are often hamstrung by the 'well intentioned' efforts of our elected leaders. In an effort to avoid another $300 toilet seat, they have implemented laws upon laws for the last forty years which required these long, laborious, cumbersome, bloated, etc. processes which tie the hands of much development. Now, not all the laws are bad, but many laws are like entitlements ... once enacted, it is almost impossible to get them taken away.
So, DoD has been chipping away at them to implement operational effectiveness out of the constraints imposed on them. One of these changes that was implemented was the acquisition strategy of "IT Box"* - originally designed for IT acquisition so it wouldn't take years to get IT solutions, during my time at ARCYBER the command started the Army into 'operational acquisition for cyber capabilities'* so that it could take weeks/months to do what took years before.
Still not fast enough, so they were going in the direction of paring the concept they've had for years of reprogramming aircraft early warning sensors (You know .. the thing you hear in the movies that goes "BEEP BEEP BEEP" when an enemy radar locks on) with new threat radar signatures through an organization called the Army Reprogramming Analysis Team (ARAT). Using the concept of rapid reprogramming under ARAT, they expanded ARAT's mission to encompass exactly what the article was discussing - software development/updating at the speed of the battlefield.
I don't know what the acquisition efforts are today, but that was where they were at about eight years ago. They were going towards the "speed of the battlefield", but weren't there yet. However, they were far beyond the way it is depicted in the article.
I can only assume the other Services and DoD as a whole are in a similar situation because every Service acquisition chief steals the good ideas from the other ones.
-----------------------------------------------
* IT Box - https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense/2014/02/how-an-it-box-is-making-it-easier-for-dod-to-do-business/
* Army utilizing IT Box for cyber-related acquisition - https://www.army.mil/article/153996/army_advances_rapid_acquisition_for_cyber_defense
* ARAT-TA - https://www.army.mil/article/193637/army_reprogramming_analysis_team_program_office_25_yrs_beyond
* AR 525-15 (Software Reprogramming for Cyber Electromagnetic Activities): https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r525_15.pdf
How an ‘IT Box’ is making it easier for DoD to do business | Federal News Network
The Pentagon is implementing most of the recommendations it made in 2010's Section 804 report to Congress. Katrina McFarland, DoD's assistant secretary for acquisition, said initial results of the…
(4)
(0)
Maj Robert Thornton
Thanks COL Randall C.. The technology etc. I beyond me. Even in the hospital environment tech changes happen slowly.
(2)
(0)
I can believe this 100%. Goodness, back in the computer software dinosaur days when I was in, I was involved in develpping a JCS system. The software developers couldn't get the various programs that fed into the system to talk to each other in the two years I was involved with it. I'm sure things have improved some, but not enough.
(4)
(0)
Good post. I will run this by some "geek friends" and let you know if they say differently
(4)
(0)
Read This Next