Tailoring starts here

The Major System Acquisition Manual was signed on 1 Nov and recently posted on the Acquisition Directorate’ s site and the Coast Guard Directives site.

Please make the time to read the final version. Many of us had a chance to see drafts as it went through the concurrent clearance process. Some of the input from project managers was considered but not included. The final version also has some changes that were made to ensure alignment with the recently passed Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.

If I were king, the manual wouldn’t be 468 pages.  It would be shorter, and the guidebook would be a guidebook, not more manual. There’d be a greater focus on principles and less on prescriptive rules. But I’m not king, so let’s talk about how this fits into our reality.

I realize there’s a “more is better” perspective in the MSAM, and I’m a “less is more” kind of a guy.   I’m not knocking the folks who wrote the manual.  I know it’s challenging to create a process and policies that cover the acquisition of ships, aircraft, small boats, command and control systems, and COTS implementations like CG-LIMS. The folks who wrote the policy did the best they could to create a “one size that can be tailored for all” manual. It’s what we have to work with.

The MSAM is the rulebook we have to follow. Let me rephrase that: The MSAM is the rulebook we have to use as the starting point to tailor. We’ve got understand the book so we can credibly tailor it to come up with a plan that demonstrates basic common sense and sound system engineering.

Tailor. The most important word in the MSAM is “tailor.” No project has yet gone through all the hoops in our MSAM process from start to finish. The projects that are succeeding are the ones that have found ways to tailor.   We’ll continue to learn from the work the NAIS and IOC projects are doing to tailor so they can field capability.  My guess is that once we have a track record with the MSAM, we’ll find that project success is directly proportional to the amount of tailoring.

You are the cavalry. Nobody’s going to tailor for us. The folks who wrote the policy don’t have a good idea how to tailor it to deliver CG-LIMS. I’ve asked and continue to welcome their input and wisdom.

We have the knowledge. We have the smarts in the project office, sponsor shop, tech authorities, and user community to tailor.  As we were finishing the draft RFP for the “whole enchilada in segments” contract, it was clear to all of us that we’ve got to find a way to reduce the quantity and overlap of CDRLs so we can actually deliver a system. I appreciate the work that’s going into streamlining the SOW. We’re fortunate to have folks on the team who also have experience with the DHS-wide effort to tailor the SELC for COTS implementations. We can figure out how to tailor the MSAM to deliver.

We’re fleshing out alternative acquisition strategies now, and we’ll soon be completing the tailoring plan to deliver the preferred one. We have the people who can turn a sensible plan into a sensible plan that follows a tailored MSAM.

Within the first week of arriving, someone looked at all the docs and said, “Wow, a lot of these look like they could be appendixes to a Project Management Plan.” That’s the kind of thinking I want to encourage. It’s also the kind of tailoring I think we are empowered to do. I realize each tailoring comes with the burden to convince someone that it makes sense.  We’ve got to pick our battles and make sure we focus energy where it will have the greatest impact on delivering quickly.

I’ll probably be smarter and may have smarter things to say once I’ve actually read the final version. I’ve read drafts, I’ve banged my head against the wall when changes recommended by PM’s weren’t made, but I have not read through the final version that was just released.

If anyone would like to chime in with your thoughts on the MSAM feel free to comment.