REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Transforming Department of Defense's Core Business Processes for Revolutionary Change
Oe.fense ! :J~l:Jsi 'n~,ss~ B.oa.. r~ ; ' ------
Report FY 1 5 -0 1
Transforming the Department of Defense’s Core Business Processes for Revolutionary Change
1 2 PREFACE
This report is a product of the Defense Business Board (DBB). Recommendations by the DBB are offered as advice to the Department of Defense (DoD) and do not represent DoD policy.
The DBB was established by the Secretary of Defense in 2002 to provide the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Defense with independent advice and recommendations on how “best business practices” from the private sector’s corporate management perspective might be applied to the overall management of DoD. The DBB’s members are corporate leaders and managers with demonstrated executive-level management and governance expertise. They possess a proven record of sound judgment in leading or governing large, complex corporations and are experienced in creating reliable solutions to complex management issues guided by best business practices.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.50(d), established the DBB. The DBB members are unpaid special government employees appointed by the Secretary of Defense.
Transforming DoD’s Core Business Processes Report FY15-01 for Revolutionary Change 3 4 DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD 1155 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1155
DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD
February 9, 2015
The Honorable Ashton B. Carter The Honorable Robert O. Work 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301
Dear Secretary Carter and Deputy Secretary Work,
The Defense Business Board (DBB) is pleased to submit its report of findings and relevant and actionable recommendations to help transform the Department of Defense’s six core business processes.
On October 15, 2014, Deputy Secretary Work, asked the DBB to form a Task Group to review the Department of Defense’s (“the Department”) six core business processes: human resource management, healthcare management, financial management, acquisition and procurement, logistics and supply, and real property management; and supporting information technology (IT).
The objective of the study was to provide actionable recommendations on private sector best business practices that the Department could adopt and implement in order to modernize its business processes and supporting systems to create an agile enterprise shared services organization with improved efficiency and sustained system security. See Section A for a copy of the Terms of Reference outlining the scope and deliverables for the Task Group.
The study had two focal points. The first focal point was data collection and analysis. A critical element of the Task Group’s approach was the receipt of data from the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer that was collected and analyzed across the six core business processes within the Department (Army, Air Force, Department of the Navy, and the Fourth Estate). The data for the Combatant Commands was embedded in all the six core business processes. The focus of the data collection and analysis was on the workforce
5 labor and costs (FY 2013 actuals) within each agency, across the business functions, as depicted in Section B, page 19 (slide 3) of the executive summary. This was the first time the Department used this methodology, aimed at targeting productivity gains in order to identify cost savings that could be used for Military Services’ modernization and readiness efforts during a dire budget environment.
The second focal point was change management and strategic communications. The workforce is the fundamental enabler to successfully achieve productivity gains through business process re-design, innovation, and technology. The very top senior leader must have a clear vision that is aligned with a strategy and widely communicated. Every employee must understand the intent, purpose, and effects of organizational change in order to feel as though they are a part of the process and embrace new ways of doing business. Given the Department’s uniqueness, external communications is equally as important as internal communications, especially in gaining Congressional support.
Ms. Roxanne Decyk and Mr. Kenny Klepper served as the Task Group Co-Chairs. The other Task Group members were Mr. Phillip Odeen and Mr. Emil Michael. Ms. Kelsey Keating served as the staff analyst and Colonel Leslie Caballero, U.S. Army, served as the military representative.
The Task Group’s draft findings and recommendations were presented to the DBB for deliberation at their January 22, 2015 quarterly meeting where the DBB voted to approve the recommendations. See Section B for an executive summary of the study with findings and recommendations and Section C for a copy of the complete study which was approved by the DBB.
In addition to drawing on their own expertise, the Task Group interviewed over 85 individuals from government, think tanks, and private industry, including current and recent Department senior military and civilian leaders. See Appendix D for list of interviews. The Task Group also reviewed reports on the Department’s business operations and best practices from industry, academia, think tanks, and Federal agencies.
The Department is operating in an uncertain world under a declining and unpredictable budget. There are many potential threats to the country’s national security. To effectively respond to global crises, the Department must have a stable and appropriately-sized budget. By rapidly adopting and implementing the DBB’s recommendations, a potential savings of $75-150 billion in the next five years could be realized. Recommendations
6 for productivity gains were identified in four areas: 1) Contract Spend Optimization; 2) Labor Optimization; 3) IT Modernization; and 4) Business Process Re-engineering. The greatest contributions to the savings are contract optimization and labor optimization. Early mobilization is the single biggest lever – every billion saved in 2016 is worth five billion in fiscal years 2016 to 2020 due to the compounding effect.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert Stein, Roxanne Decyk, Kenny Klepper, DBB Chair Task Group Co-Chair Task Group Co-Chair
7 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Terms of Reference...... 11 Executive Summary...... 15 Complete Study...... 45 Appendix A – Information Documents...... 86 »» Business Process Re-design...... 87 »» Reference Architecture...... 88 »» Cost-conscious Culture...... 89 Appendix B – Case Studies...... 90 »» Internal Revenue Service...... 91 »» Logistics Support Agency...... 93 »» Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System...... 95 »» Expeditionary Combat Support System...... 98 »» IBM...... 101 »» PepsiCo...... 103 »» Hewlett Packard...... 108 »» Lockheed Martin...... 110 Appendix C – Footnotes and References...... 112 Appendix D – List of Interviews...... 117 Task Group Biographies...... 125 List of Acronyms...... 131 Bibliography...... 135 Defense Business Board Members……………………...... …………………….….....141
9 10 Terms of Reference
11 12 DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 1010 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1010 OCT 1 5 ZOH
MEMORANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD
SUBJECT: Terms of Reference- "Transforming Department of Defense Core Business Processes for Revolutionary Change"
The Department of Defense (DoD) spends about $1 OOB annually on core business processes (i.e., human resource management, healthcare management, financial management, acquisition and procurement, logistics and supply, and real property management) that support our mission. Private sector businesses, particularly large global corporations with business process challenges analogous to those of DoD, have experienced significant cost savings through the implementation of process redesigns and agile reference architectmes. While DoD has improved its core processes and the supporting information technology (IT) hardware and software over the last decade, the Department still lags behind the commercial sector. The application of commercial sector lessons learned, combined with modern, commercially-derived IT approaches, may enable the Department to save money and resources while improving mission performance.
My goal is to modernize our business processes and supporting systems and create an agile enterprise shared services organization in order to reduce costs, maximize return on investment, and improve performance while ensuring we maintain system security. To ensure our efforts leverage best practices, I am establishing a Task Group under the Defense Business Board (DBB) to review and recommend changes to the Department's current plans for enterprise modernization. The task group's recommendations should be specific and actionable in order to enable the creation of an agile enterprise shared services organization. The Task Group should:
• Identify how private sector enterprises create a cost conscious culture and propose how DoD might do the same. Your analysis should include how private sector enterprises consolidate TT "utilities" to create efficient and agile organizational performance. Consider the use of third parties to evaluate and recommend ways to best reconfigure all or part of DoD's supporting business processes and their associated IT. Consider ways a vender analysis work product might be used to derive needed financial and transaction data for application to DoD. • Consider a conceptual roadmap that will support a staged modernization of an OSD Principal Staff Assistant organization. Recommend how best to enable the construction and operation of the new technology "stack" to support redesigned business processes. • Recommend an approach for the Department to establish a means (such as a cash flow model) to identify and quantify the economic value of modernization on a productivity basis. Propose how enterprise modernization can best be structured to bring innovation and agility to the "end user" community to gain additional efficiencies. I II I I 050011861-14
13 • Make recommendations to the DoD Enterprise Roadmap to address shared approaches to IT services and all of the above. • Consider utilizing the results and analyses of previous studies relevant to this analysis.
The DBB will provide its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense, informed by the Task Group's work, no later than its January 2015 quarterly meeting. The Offices of the Deputy Chief Management Officer; Chief Information Officer; and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will serve as DoD liaisons for this project and provide technical assistance as needed. The Joint Chiefs of Staff will also support, as required.
In accordance with DoD policy, Ms. Roxanne Decyk and Messrs. Kenny Klepper, Philip Odeen, and Emil Michael are appointed as members of the Task Group, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 31 09, to serve as special and government employee members for the life of this study. Ms. Decyk is also designated as the chair of the Task Group. These four individuals are also currently appointed as members of the DBB.
As a subcommittee of the DBB, and pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, and other appropriate federal statutes and regulations, this Task Group shall not work independently of the Board's charter and shall report its recommendations to the full DBB for public deliberation a·nd approval. The Task Group does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board, nor can it report directly to any federal representative. The members of the Task Group are subject to 18 U.S.C § 208, which governs conflicts of interest.
cc: Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Deputy Chief Management Officer Department of Defense Chief Information Officer
2
14 Executive Summary
15 16 0 0::
17 0 to the in players due granting forward be Every key "masters") FY20 billion ... early - going thought must the these propose are we contractors lever tion FY16 to $125 We than from (keeping over 2017 ant. innova savings billion biggest 5 obsolescence the and l and money saving import to services single to is worth 2016 knowledge more agility is hnology the in c lot path is effect te educing a r 2016 enabler ng achieve clear i in contributors and a legacy to organization bonuses" institutional years see spend saved the mobilizati'on five ficant powerful greatest i compounding y can ention are l a ret the addressed retirements billion next Ear Retaining within We as Sign " We The • • • • • •
18 0 ve i act workforce cost cludes In . s e baseline baseline Rat e t 013k , 1 Sl348 omposi C ce ervi S $1.38 $20.68 116k $1.38 $1.88 $4.28 & es t Ra $0.78 $8.38 $1.18 S3.18 345k $43.28 $16.98 $12.98 Benefits ge 3 rin F g in $2.18 $0.58 $1.48 $8.58 $4.28 216k $26.88 PERS $10.18 IV ound C r on to due 337k based $4.98 $1.68 $1.18 $8.88 $43.48 Sl4.88 Sl2.28 add ERS not ILP M may and cost) S 1 ER VP I Numbers C . for only ate r (workforce personnel Totals burdened y tary li ull F mi Note:
19 0
~ lo.. 0 Ill 3: CIJ Ill CIJ Ill -CIJ C.u 0 0 CIJ lo.. c. c. s::: >< O'iii =CIJ·- ·- Ill E CIJ ~-s 8() CIJlo.. ,c_ > 0
20 0 the of year similar fund industries the savings 0%) of per reinvested usual' and show <1 needs ( be as productivity part a gain 4-8% sector as can FY16-20 of potential goal modernize portion to 'business implies Private A The gains gain gains over department commonly warfighter • • • % 180 10 realistic gain ) I I productivity a % 150 8 gain is FY16-20 FY16-20 % from 7 DoD P95 annual ' over gain 100 '"" 5% % gain gain for 75 % 4-8 4 savings 'tllUI 21 0 FTE & $ Are Savings %Total Savings 670 231 1 Category 6 Case 206 1 by 59S 143 Savings 1 Base & 207 170 the SS 143 I 45 Where Expenditures/Workforce Goods Svcs Billions FY16-20 $ MILPERS IT CIVPERS CTR CTR Total 22 0 GS spend spend in and ranging ranging ranging ower savings l ngs savings savings levels i 1 at 1 1 retirement l G$ adoption sav gain gain gain contracted 1 rements contncted Year i o early n Year Year i i ret lower of Year time time time personne 16% 9% 3% of at % retirement 2S ial savings i savings spend it over over over i productivity productivity productivity % in initial initial backfill backfill adoption early 5 backfilled -5% on an an an ed i Year rationa % i % it 2%-5% % 3%-5% 1 trit t annual annual annual evels 100 10 Modest lim limited Asp Modest l contracted Greater a Implies Implies Implies and and from from from and • • • 7 gs ms ngs tl i % 'f. % <% 4% 6 J~ 1~ IIIII. Jf it»t. 14% 1.9% 2~ 2~ 22% 26" 3• sav sav Yc Y. · ~ tal 3 9 3 • .s 9 5 • o ~ T !2!!! IZJ 11!1 rn [ill Ill m I I I _ iS t t % 1 2 s 3 11 7"A. 42 21 u 36 · 13 1 .2 5~ 3"-' f6'% 2020 2020 2020 31% 2 J 9 B 1 1 8 3 '% . % 11 A ~ 2 .Iii 5 6 6 . 1 1 2 31 35 {$BJ ($ (!.B) 21 b% 3".4 3 1~ 2~ 20 2019 2019 .26% s · . ti 0 Y . s 212 :! ~ ti J 4 l.6 1 28 1 ?K. 21 11 l"k S"k f S~· ~o ~~ '10 S% 8% 11'14 154 2017 2011 2011 d ad ad re t t I 1 J 2 2 0 5 3 5 Base Moderate _ Aggres-sive 2 i3 !> 2.22 11 12 9% 3% ~ Z016 2016 2016 16% .. .. Es.t.ome Es.tome Esuma I I I 1ot 14 V 'V F FVt4 F lever Lever Lever gain gain CJaln ty by by by from trom from w · - ro m m gs gs gs ~ ~ tn V.O V\n on teme. ll productMt\' productl uv sa sa oroductWttv b ~ilon t'lilOI'I l tttl l ebrema ebrema otal otal otal e "- 1' 1' ~ A ~ A A ff T T Cor'l 23 0 x4 oup ) s t Gr auatk an 1 at (Ops ombat g, Group n C i ke w comb i ings r Wing ade ers) ce ) ai i Str W r ng r face + B r r rie sold er Force Fo su rcraft r t i rie ir a S Ca ir A , Armv car 1 1 A I am e (1 = "" figh sub only) (-36 years T "'" (--4.325 ~ 83 5 ~ -35 years F • ~ ~~~~ ~..-~~ ~..-..-. ~.-.-. ,.._,.._,.._._ ,.._,.._,.._._ over full 5 OR for billion Mill'lag~m~nt $125 ~f(t 8 Carrier of Amw Group activities lOU...... » » » Navy ...... UI Strike Deployments Mar 10 below scenario ( N ~. the (il"+f:!l.' i1 OR fund (OM savings ~ l ~ 20l Wlta At I)R · f' , could ~tl USN ttt rtt Uan \ · ) · i t <(tiJ Moderate Army ~niJn~t,, A · J 50 Brigades 1-1enrv ~tJt<•« I ' I ~nd (A t; + ft'jj~rt~ tttft'~tt r~tt~rt ft'tt~ t trt trttrtt tttt~tft' "l>ill v+ OUI...,.! . Do } 24 e l 0 % sca gold 45 cts '' of ra te contract end es categories from nearly sp of categories represents TopS cont mi unneeded gains imina include: 56.18 el ~. 88 te iations . t spend labor econo $4 vers I targeted m ego fe.g., .OB imina le n ro l FY16-20 of Value f gain B 52.98 (e ntract n nts to fragmentation io recommendations d co t ivity value. ac vendor on Annual spen =====:::;-:~ and us demand ~ t g P equireme contr categories ro r in product t ize g l Optimizat e capture s ons rigo savings i fied ces i ng"\ i es onal at ona to i ces c ces r % i i i ti 5 productivity g lati Se 25 0 .. l a y lt !e.g b and . the in ng a:p and i x i c C n fy move i u include: m with 3n, personnel re crease backfill ed dancy be r n billio i process n dent savings i u + 'HUm tary and i d to and il and levers re for each total attrition SSO managing retirements limited m res . es Optimizing FYlG-20 , Year 69 for can and .. 1 uctu d taffing layers r i 6 ty s 6 i M from st tructur P ~ p. s Log R Proc p al l civilian-contractor recommendations: I n USG Footprint 5 pyram redesigned purposes • [ U g ize n complex 000," excessive savings and 4 tim asi gains F labor of hl! p or HR HC F t other labor o n I attrition the incre for 3 • • '-' organizatio processes organizationa areas and ssary ze managedattrition te be annual i up .- & staff) f d 2 ew l i iew lua ocesses o core nece r u P n practices reed f co CTR span; reduce u As Optim Eva Rev Rev ' I 1 - - - 8-13% - - Government 0 Impact 000 • Best 400 200 600 Business 10 MajOI' s r y ol' productivity f 9% 5 - 2 3 e.s 2 33 = . t)c 32 l3 retirement in in e _] l nuol' ' : PI':!C years • o t Z7 esses 26 C 8 5 t3 es 2 5 2 thousands) t4' 014 B Eligib or I . 26 298 average roc 15 P 1 ----; in ing 2 C t ix next 1 go S S'f>ans , DoD -' 3 yr I 1 nd billion people a n i over ' mplemen (# ' I through ! " "@rs, I 1 a.y igible L 01 l 17 , - E 4 eligible DoD 8 • l FY1 1 taffing a 7 1..320 2.672 Findings -S Tot now $23-53 Report I rty = stics DBB nce igible i e % El g ope Retirement na -e 0 r absorbed S m~ CIV MIL HR Lo Fi P Health AcQuisitions • Management Baseline % • 10 26 0 , in scale , ) . g and . nges and to and strategy e a , orce contracts ( s f ch savings savings workforce vity to i work etirements saving r planning track Renegotiate ----- tracl< contracts .iiiiiiiiiiiiii~~ Align ack 5 i r product methodology t Renegotiate optimization aligned contracts Create early ~ 'l '15 Dec Dec - - , s ts k ntracts odel Apr Apr . 1 o m c t mar high category s deploy ch ireme cos in ocesses and or u r en j large toolkit Deploy b p up productivity . req es, initiatives ma y s i productivity ze v m- it i Optimization nization Rapidly atives e a i c t ior i i ------r r each n Modify Botto P p Deploy i org activit 11 n i - - Optim - FY16 FY16 of in + in ist spans l effort gh , i r high h initiatives on fo i ion Value Value short categories contracts at s) targeted Design r zat iz i ty acts initiatives l i r define $58 m workload i $58 aye ----- , l ior . - ona r value Prioritize i g p IdentifY . cont opt and '15 e productivity rat Develop and ( Mar'15 Mar - - DoD Feb or Feb - f r build ogy l and and fo each s Productivity: cross cross team and up up teams vity m i Optimization:- a for ves i aybooks l te ovement p r methodo at train i train Stand Stand nit mp product process teams the DoD Establish Establish i i the ------Contract Workforce 27 - 0 Depu n Estate -·- t i ct . rage e l c tl rs h t 4 e -- se ra i t eve l n d Contra Functional Managers offic oss sponsors Program Military and stakeholders l r co support experts , ac expert ogram wou pr category for --·- time • . ~ ~ A ., rt e.g., pa managers DoD Teams officers) each ( --a --·· Options • ..---1 ~' /' - Part-time / ______·.___.____ / . _ ~ · ' · -- -, me e 1 l the onths r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ved ntracts l m ocesses eop fo of r Estate p full-t 9 vo co e " m n t and a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I iz x p 4' i e s s tea 4-5 -Team d nex yze n l FTE on r ---·- hav ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20-50 d l have t s a ana ation ove op p across t time d d iz categories l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ based e u wou De h t full teams 12 wo wou ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ spend Optim cess 50 category 1 B D E C A ocated ro contract - h ll act p team team r 5 a h h to -·-·--·- egotiate eac d n p om Military n n U re Eac Eac Each i a category Cont fr Top Category Category Category Category Category (example) Full-time • • • --- -' Optimization s - ~ Logistic ~ & ----- Chain ~- - Contract .. Management Supply ~ HR 28 0 and ing across teams category process each savin!JS models full-time in program renegotiat for and business begin contracts Validate contracts tools, program each 3-S ates, in in optimization other , training templ (e.g. take contracts) or contract contracts value size, methodology intensive Estate) playbooks, on "' ' the 4 cross-DoD effort 100+ capture re-baseli.ne renegotiate Pilot and based Create Conduct 13 and to or to Implement Top • Ocpts implement Begin cancel actions terms contracts to functions of high Military span .. set teams the implement contract (e.g program and cross would teams resources s full-time prioritized Contract team train contracts organizations Create Ensure Create complexity • • methodology Pilot Optimization and priority the Full-time up teams Prioritize contracts Stand 29 0 , r n l : d of g i cases ow l vity Tota cente i g edes 26 alization r ct n targete 5 n i systems u o r at data $1 rrent ti n fo od u i a r h r C n ocess g nvestment r im o n ERP i productivity i g p p o ou el i n r at ( ng IT include: at i th g nd n and ic a easi e in r mi DoD h ngs d nc i ean appl 8 i l u ents Overage recommendations levers sav m m m clo strengt m FY16-20 fro fro Cost on rough er i and in and from h t -t ngs ngs require g i i gs n n g ams i improvement o ces r productivity n sav sav l i r Cost dation i sav og % % % l oads r 26 l consolidat p + 25 7. 30 k r oritrz - - effectiveness. resou $ % 40%+ 5 Overage ri - practices T 25-40 20 and conso p ROI I 1 wo 30 Baseline - - 15 - - and Billion S Cost Best • 4 1 cesses. d o potential r n p a Optimization and the every cora DoD of in Ops ix the s IT e. of th represents in touches 5% business IT Warfighter overall aspect d d Functions ....______.... lnclu n o i . from Core billion zat i 8 H 31 9 Six not - Modern and e the used r the d ess $ and successful n n to a processes si gains in $5 Findings not u B rces tructu u s Oev se n spent nfra Reso Networks I S Insufficient dedicated delivering effectively automating Spend modernizing business implementations Systems Defe IT IT IT Baseline IT % 30 0 d .an f- • l set n key to o i se Core to across s ons data l i Support ng efforts i ensure data ons i us to ity Consolidat ocat l l and goals big mode mastering re nsights Agi i Center processes ervic~s Technology ve metrics Center oning i expectat allow i -s Centers and Data s pools, intended i provide modernization to and h th business track i ac ons: w prov data ro business Services and predict shared Action and manage a App Data nformation sh savings iance I t and l additional Innovation as and ndati large cloud and e to records, de ces i Establ fund commercial comp i Track enterprise mm and l ecommended - - R service Servic~s targets organization data al analytics Serv pools Manage Prov Establish Use A Shared : eco ion • R • • • 15 zat i with Modern tech IT basic ogy l Network often COBOL with (new e.chno * maintain T support make es be entities i IT quality, and different to to to separates shing i ormation often into systems agenc pool Inf want nts oo i unachievable. dimin the ·o staff · standards, strategies, . expensive is independent legacy don't -01 structures resource and organization constra are across stent " code FY12 i consolidation transparency secure aff business gs: t n s Report Accelerate i mprovements spread security incons Increasingly IT Curr~nt graduates and and Capita l legacy reporting lack programmers) i Industry Computing OBB oud See • • • • Find l * C 31 0 - n o l i - ct ta i ives ru h ngs [1] i dig arc document dest l trusted sav a of t ic n Services to excellence and s digi ' with of management cost to es on i pdf i s: electro r and Print e l ng opportunity i ence print and l pape center r outsource to capabilit (25-50%) d forms from searchab or n pape excel (Omposit ummet a l savings Managed y to p y : ll of c sh i i to l grate i po Scan M Update services - - - 20-30% interna management partner Establ storage guarantees center Consolidate Move Exploit • • • Recommendation • 16 l automate i print ) 2 : ma 1 poor , 1 on : i output of 1 ( print lt manual u tios vendors internal office ra res y automat l management the many massive cost are employee eliminate/ (copy/fax/print) process to records and retention/destruction across that ce Consolidate zed/Unmanaged i facilities i sub-optimized and for eliminate / dev stent : tion use i i iance s l print ronment low i ng i - Multiple Incons forms systems env acquis and comp policies Decentral Unmanaged Reduce • • • • • Find 32 0 ct " to ultra inta be ces ness ld cost i i legacy open o se for i for , to e, l as bus of the pract rm e lower d erpr accelerate ture remain l sing th tools enterprise nt production "run e a Bui itec with best and a and platfo trategy on the . i s DoD .le foundation ced w " : arch and e n risk l systems change ne ce dry modernization ng service. enab through a i adaptive ng migrat s enha provide you ti cloud to to decommissioned a is educe Services e foun r l i- accelerated to centers skills y lt ll d Ex and by ecture u sliared legacy data process whi it ally ally modern Mu "coexisten a clo ic ic a a a ish interfacing l as migrates new tecture arch alized i gradua ness e i l nes irtu stab business bus E li data supported Adopt with Adopt Adopt v competency dramat data dramat approach. arch change and sca source Shared • • • • Recommendations 17 l ia - on i - y new at concentrate and ll l of nanc - large fi: and so i - resistance int of ng l of i projects where and s a metrics i ack l e-po l successfu Migration ntllct lures process i to exist co risk fa ing territoria s change in been due technical projects no ence and ll ; business have major performance results waste obsolescence exce l to views ies n data ementation r l of legacy io dization stent r i data s at t technology for tical operational, imp Reduce ic ns oyed l co multiplie reporting transparency truth technolog Poor Pocke Past In dep appl analy Considerable standa scale Siloed Substantia Findings: • • • • • • • 33 s 0 I ise , r sub e pment a time plans. t se · to lo s. e end agility l process enterp a best oversight domain the ewarded h to r year cyc rovement deve i and y ac t n and e i i accelera logy v end and on (DBC) i imp n i Factory r , l mult for i skills Academy" business io and c ideas fo " " vat Prioritize on n i ns ty and techno centers no ity" big mance il io forced risk ili product in r Cou reduct ty, i in erprise Ag and t re redesign ess and cesses. Applicat en SO% adopt perfo opportunity and Champ ro reduce roc e. p p esponsib by i. r Business ocess ess Each r competency productiv ," zation c business p sub se. ti Process vation in process ild with Pro 20. ecognized. ori oals " / r i design any Bu g with e.fen Inno business re pr ) m 80 ld ness , f dramatically i ce. h incrementally, i gers o BC business for bo it k to the Business D " process e w bus t staffed ed serv business hybrid sh on thrn i what ris ices era the improvement te l t abl gn t ocesses i 18 · r 0% ocus 3 shared goals acce experts, comp change centers Crea Create Es prac p business performance Establish Establish Don't F Al with • • • Recommendations: • • • e has than ic ed been be major sub gn have i o a qualified Serv t ) imit - l has s excellence" ted longer des er and ra n i of re design ently need military int and r Depts have and process cele ; of c cal cur a and tuency leveraged iti i d performance grams cr n pockets are frames effort be h a " lack Military ( ure pro re ig edesign . t successful collaboratio re to on a r const business h i , l ng on na time i at i a mo to Agencies : ti iz Hill at in l need ed iz an ations Train expanded t l personnel ir Agency acle s orically t ch process l t i for too and obs demonS1rated departments optim components expected "tribal" Capito regu modern requ Defense His Few wh Subs • • Findings • • • 34 VI 0 0 ::< QJ u 0 u 0 u A ..c:>·- I oloJ ll.. ·- QJ 3: VI .::e.-a VI VI QJ VI cuv >..... · - ll.. ll.. tU 0 0 ~t c..c: ~~ cu c. 0 VI 1: ·-VI<(c. ·-o!J>- :J ::::s ll.. CD u 0 QJoioJ >< u QJ~ aJc. "'.... uc. -5<( QJ I ll.. 1: VI 0 cu ~§ ·~ 1: "'..... ·-' -fUoioJ·- u tU .!!!l 1: ·- ll.. ~ .B o!JO'I ~:J ru._ ru"C tiDO E~ _,c..cu ..... ~> c~ 0'1 QJ -1 35 0 ders i Prov Dat.l Data prise Model r oud l legacy Models Asia C Ente Data legacy Master Architecture Management Management Federated e l Synchronization p i to ,j Deployments Mult --~· " _- .. - Models - Enterprise ~ Cloud • 1' • Published Frameworl< - I ders i .... DoD ion - -:_-~·- e. .. - Prov ....__ • Predictive .. & • ~ oud .. - l OUNDRY Extended • Enterpris ·- C CLOUD Applicat F ~ ~ Europe ~ e -~4_•_ ~ l p ...-- i -- 20 - Mult Analytics Process - ~eb - . j\ s Store e s _ - ~-.;:_~- il ~ Data App Mob , ;.___~- - Busine Big 1 1 ders i ov r P America oud l C e l p i t l North Mu 36 0 : that change by change authority not, confirms dimensions efficient, will enforcement culture but and improvements fundamental communicated more project decades of by for decision-making tical reward over i widely 17% process cr tool clear processes stakeholders [2] with and few and about with 21 a levels ngs to i experience enabling only strategy all business potential supported supportive sav at leadership an structure with ned full and i be the top r are change f sector, correlated eve the i aligned , streaml ghly ach must i private workforce governance , accountability h consistent solutions and deliver vision is the organization in Strong, Clear mechanisms Defined Engaged Effective - success envisioned projects Large Even effective themselves Technical • • • Innovation 37 0 to to s ture and . 1on metrics is and at leaders Cul l Under A re ernally, Behavioral " retains ves, altenng t leading i articulated, effectiveness, ex continued l and project Strategy role structure Service management established reinforced to object authorities and established, , external key y clearly l , and are Cons1der FYll-01, and " is are for change Roles, scope identifies lmplementmg commit powerful DoD ganizationa Transformation : r case internal Report o governance in policy and communicated Change project top DEPSECDEF ness timetable DBB i dership Savings nd nd ccountabilities transformation. tenure Bus Lea of confirmed. communicated communications a experts, Change support widely visible The The a a appropriate Secretaries See DoD • • • • • Recommendations: Process 22 a for is an ship r tenure on ocess i in for r among top p agencies s notable diffused, from i vis leade or non short visible are a~thority and ltures Business non- some difficult the qua mllitary change y defense DoD change l bcu no or different l of agenda Implement su sine and the and Sustained given has reme strategy of very t structures in committed, the management Core on-making including , i is , ex oD , DoD decades Depts is civilian and successfu sector -D fragmented te decis i change both change trans programs private Desp Military institutionalized leadership leaders success, A transparent challenging driving of change Governance clear often Consistent environment. of environment for • • • • Findings: Support Design 38 0 to east s l l and ty es change f to to i by . and cal affected i (cont.) commit develop actively channe wins" , expertise reward polic of t s trends l n to and ick and goals techn ons change commun ebrating u i DoD l eve of "q l ce ves Set experience i . thin user i all communlcatlon Strategy ons attrition w i em provide early l at h ety. programs a r t object manageme i r management cluding fo populations and n engage communicat i s: anx natu percept frequent ange vertical) leaders ce h r way and d change c gaps - improve l incentive n user/employee and ccess, a of Change affected u to ange s two strategies Transformation ng on i h manage skills performance for c negative es workfo ons i sh i ng i der interna i i icize exist l vely d [ l DoD 23 supportive success use reduce pub Bui Defuse Recruit Establ Identify Identify Act focus transparent strateg organizations champ Cons (horizontal targets training a • • • • • • Recommendation • • Process r and for ture experts l fn cynical cs, cu i are a wide Implement ned i civilian Business supply external successful of ant programs, stakeholde components t y tra l they ll dynam successful ack performance performance efforts l l practices short and created and across and of n th i i Core and few strategic partia change has - w l workforces use of stent i zationa change enced are ng, s: i i i change-resis unsuccessfu itary l d critica . xper Design mapp projects, mi recognition relations measures management incons major in Legacy E together There general and organ an communications, • • Support • Finding 39 0 l on l and as on to of to (cont.) and based rmati artificia Sigma echniques map t influencing nsfo influence to Six studies develop and / mission-critica ra relationships, factors nd T a ase and each c suppliers, purpose, processes LEAN management Strategy dicap CBP them develop as for in s: stakeholder to and practices success han n improvement i l on and use educate i shared ning third-party t change revise i hat l business cies, t a li and to tra unions them critica stakeholders detailed nd strategies po DoD l ze e a core i ng Change critica i efficiency ify Transformation terna an l transparency, specific includ integrate p improvements Revital Reset Ident Identify successes strategies other describe appropriate constraints ex communicate, across collaboration Create comm e DoD R • • • • • 24 a Process t l ers i of and l and barr difficu Systems by terna sector nd In change a ed efforts l protocols ness examples i , Implement s e.g., Business scale ders represent Bus l public - some control change can the ulation and are large in Service, Core stakeho reg often l , there gs: government- icies trans-DoD influence, n l i successful to to the externa programs politics, Po Modernization Revenue But- Design • • Find Support 40 Q state7 or f 69 stakeholders - future 61 ,_ ical pp it " , " ideal cr DOD the thE and is in * efficiencies esses plan What oc - Pr obstacles workforce ss ne * Change Busi with permanent external transition processes Major 25 for and program strategy projects creates during actice..s business Pr that metrics internal Transformation talent Best l g core and n retirement efficiency i eadership l of me.nt r critica Process J through early communication ' mp l tatemen~ '"' of visible s existing wins , restructuring ent 1 objectives redesign retain break of , 4-0 and 1 to to Business ¥ quick F vision two-way t Managem r on targets Core Rc:po ementation l Capital OBB Acceleration Strategies Clear Oynam'ic Organizational Committed Bold Powerful Focus Fundamental Incentives Imp See Hurna.n ~ ' • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 0 / f ons i "- mance icat r ve i y and eg ~ t change e perfo t ncent and strategy i e and stra commun begin taliz and oD savings i ons savings engage. i D way workforu: ~ scenario d rev Deploy and in r an strategies aclc. ons two o i r engagement planning Renegotia track fy t i contracts Align communications dent management tools Establish I communicat champ Create channels Create • • 'lS • • fill Dec - ng r and for and fo moderate y Apr management t lls enci i and u il ski and nfl ing deploy i n red i iatives nd targets t gets expens a trai toolkit . Deploy l tar achieve ini th requ accountab FY16 partnersh.ips i productivity Optimization ona w fic i accountability i Rapidly t to i l Assign change Assess Assig1 gaps execution add outcomes Create strategies .spec the • • • 26 in e critica v from identified confirmed re- ed and u t es FY16 l on and i teamed ea s i r es bigh and i v c in agreed r achie t initiatives obstac vision contracts and Struct me ans l essons maps p l ice strategy agreed to sses r e ope grounded cated case Value i c es cce s rat n transforr!1ation Design value Prioritize t o su Create change ness cyJpran i est or 'lS li ~~B i ojec il r ncorpo pr m Bus Po P commun and Stakeholde I - • • • • • Mar - Feb required and and OBC team management up team~ up leadership ies mobilization ect OM, Optimization: t j i governance FY15 train structure EXC pro train Stand O Stand nt and i in gn i Confirm ppo Ass A accountabil office Contract • • Rapid I 42 0 x4 oup ) r G anack 1 . Ops ( Group Combat J wing ke ._ ._ combatants .. i rs Wing tr e i ce. air ) S d r t Wings fa alt r Bngade e r sol Farce er rri rc .su i i r Force 5 a 25 rs Ca Ai Arrny 3 vJ carr :l 1 l a I l 3& ub, Air = s (t on = (- -= (---4 Team fighter ye ...... _._,.._ .... 83 5 years F-35 • ~ ...... _._,.._ ...... over full 5 OR for billion mll:nt gll: ~il'l~ r« $125 fo 27 Carrier of Army Group activities ZOU ...... ! ! ! ! Navy ...... ilfdl' Deployments Strike ~ 10 below "-5, N scenario C t: r the , r! r <.: ;~ OR fund tost" savings 01~ 2 Wlt. 43 44 COMPLETE STUDY WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD ON JANUARY 22, 2015 45 46 0 0:: ~ 0 co l/) l/) w z l/) ::) { co w l/) z w u... w 0 47 0 Members ir) Group rocesses P 2 Chair) - (Co (Co-Cha Practices Task Overview Business Odeen " Decyk hil and Recommendations Recommendations Core Klepper "P Michael and and Reference Management Roxanne Kenny Philip Emil of Group Analysis ndings ndings i i Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. F Agenda -F - - - - - Change Members Data Approach Appendices Terms Task • • • • • • • 48 0 ) " ing to the ard in players due grant forw s r be on Every i key ly . "masters . e FY20 bill . ear h going thought must ese t r 6- n th propose 1 are o we Y i contracto e leve F to $125 W gs ovat in than from (keeping over illion nn 2017 i sav b biggest 5 obsolescence the and portant. 3 and money saving im to services ogy l single to is worth o 2016 knowledge more h agility is l cing hn the in ion u t s na lot pat ec i effect t eve a za red hi 2016 ng ni enabler itutio ac clear in contributors gacy and a le to nst orga bonuses" i years see spending saved the mobilization five powerful greatest compoundi are can a retention the as addressed retirements billion next Retaining Early within The " Significant We We • • • • • • 49 and and systems OSD an innovation economic of for: organization supporting process service ces i accelerate and to serv on i shared modernization business 4 o a shared for recommendations int processes structures practices staged organizat Recommendations for model study best communities utilities" enterprise business " flow T I assistant user dustry optimization our Provide agile roadmap in previous organizational cash l end staff an l se i to ty li performance principa Leveraging Leveraging Modernizing Enterpr Enterprise agi Conceptua Consolidating Creating • • • • • • • • 50 0 and senior lines reports academia, Deputy DoD core and six redesign from sector, the studies data process private Tasking the across current/recent DoD - of per and past costs business agencies 5 and on analysis practices" labor industry Federal DoD (DEPSECDEF) leaders of literature and business private recommendations conducted tecture l DoD, civilian Defense 85+ and "best arch baseline relevant of a and actionable tanks, business think of enterprise Secretary Created military Make Reviewed Researched Interviewed • • • • • 51 e iv ct a force es rk o w cost ndud f . ne ne i i es l el at R e bas base it s o 1348 mp LOBk S o C ce i rv e 6B S . & 20 $1.38 $1.38 $1.88 $4.28 $1.98 s S 116k e t Ra 2B . nefits 5k e 1.18 4 B $3.18 $0.78 $ $8.38 3 S43 Sl2.98 Sl6.98 e g n ri F 8 6 1 ng 8B . 6k PERS 1 V I $2.18 $0.58 $1.48 $8.58 $4.28 S26 2 $10. oundi C r o on t ed due as d b 1.18 3.48 7k ad 4 $4.98 $1.68 $8.88 s H2.28 Sl4.88 t 1 l3 PERS o L n I y M d ma n s a r e RS E cost) mb P I Nu CIV . r v l fo n e o t el ra n n o workforce ned ( rs de pe ur b ry otals ta ty l T u F mili : te No 52 ""...... 0 Ill " 53 l and gain , annua 0 2 sector by ) ge n a ' h 15 c processes innovation productivity improvement technology driven assumes Private ercent p 0 oductivity ' l r 1 a p u n r n a bo _ La Gains ge ' 5 ra Practices" __ ave ( iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii' 8 p 'i 0 a riR Best i tu " med l s s a r g le n ler i tel a manufac output a i . ng optic ll i es nt l ~ r in ! e t ores r s ring e st sa and l g on ufactur wholes es ce who s actu Productivity p i es n in sa e tic i actu m tor ous erv o cept ma ne s mlll c s h hant hant x change t hole g a uppl n ft manuf rc rc (e w i s en c..s gr g manuf y i s ma der Industry tio r o s d t o s me me st d e g or ant ll i e n tronic ie pr ipm s rapid r a an h cva e c c g u d an es c il- n o i e n l ar r Stati i se o nt c stor r er i e eq oo r l e e ducin er ry, ma u r l g f e agen m pt t o a i r c c r most na r i abo ons sundr p a ipm nd nt l c equipm enta n f r ti and ' e ent u he a tio other and r o s n a q p r of the me i ta d e ubs sc r io ng pplianc i em .s p t s i e ent i ills c d ect a , a an r manu and l a p m m l r e d es den e p munic g ort opp o equ r with ruggist es ng t Bureau n l Jnd p h t i an i 2000-2010 d eel ng s othe and s t ga a and e r lls sh s .S. ra com c_ d cs i duc ci l i p i i r ehic r U ment suppli ctur a n a m e and : t v tran ca an a ute on and f on o i r r er r p m and e less oftn o a ic Hour, t t l t o ric e ploy ctr b her r wn avel de anu UR ffic ir ec e ot ec rugs om om a l l ron D M Em M E I Tr C C C Ot O El Sem La Pe Pho E Fab Industries Vi W SO 54 0 the stries ngs of year i similar tivity fund al' du e c u h s in t sav of per reinvested u l 0 and e 2 ze show <10%) needs i tia ( b - as produ y n part l 6 er e a 4-8% t sector t an gain ess c as FY1 of po in ns n modern vate i i goal portion he ri ommon 'bus implies P A T ga ga gains over department c warfigh to • • • n i 180 10% realistic ga 9 0 2 I - productivity a % 150 8 gain is FY16 om FY16-20 % 125 fr i gain DoD annual over gain % ~avtngs 5 gain ty for vi 75 % avings 4-8% 4 gain s CumulatiVe producti 60 % 3 ( I ( / 0 Billions, Annual No gain gain 'I Cumulative 55 0 FTE & $ Are Savings %Total Savings Category 670 by 231 1 10 Case 206 1 Savings 3 & 4 595 1 1 Base 70 207 1 the 55 143 1 45 Expenditures/Workforce Where Svcs Goods l Billions FYlG-20 $ MILPERS IT Tota CIVPERS CTR CTR 56 0 d S n nd G pe pe s s d e~t er s in ranging ranging ranging savings n m d . el ed savings savings e ow 1 t gs l re s a c ev J t ct n 1 1 t l i a a v ra gain gain gain 5 ret t l a ntr a doption G s y Year o t r ne emen 1 c r e con n n Year Year arl i t o % n e n i s i % f re r low time time time s e 16 o 3% 9 Year t g p d of a n n tireme % i l ings o e l ll i r ed t av pen ll over over over p y sav s s fi o productivity productivity productivity rl 1 initial initial initial ackfi ackfi k a % c r b b e ad 5% 5% 5% ted a t 5 r c - - - e ba an an an on st e a ed i Y es e rational25 t ted s r t l % l t i i 0 3% ri 1% 2% % eat n es od od t m m sp i ies 0 annual annual annual l eve 10 1 A co at Gr l M M li li Implies Impl Imp from from from and and and • • • 11 s S tt o l n nus l l h % " " v v f% ~ 2'$:1. 4 4'% 6% 4% I av a 2.'}" 2"" 19'% 1 18% 1 "' ""' 3-.~ 25 1 s sa s y., Y. •/. tal 4 9 3 s s 8 • 23 23 To Total !2!!! ua lEI ll'!J rn m I I I 20 3 % '1& 1 % 1 4 3 , 1 r 22 26 0 36 1 1 ~[ill ~% .42 l 2020 2020 2 .: .<1% 16% 1 3 5 % 5 6 6 c ij 1 1 1 lts '2 21 3% 3 31 (1J3) ($.8) (W) 2 J% 3 5% 2 15% 26'% 2019 2019 2019 s g ~ '4 0 7 ? 6 18 ~ % ~ J 2 2 5 avmgs 1 4 s 16 1 1 2 28 1 sv~ 3. 4 Sawngs Savm S 12 20 2018 2018 '20 21% nnual 11 ~~ lifiUiJI 3 ~22 Z 2 5 3 :) 1 'I 4 o 7% ,o 11 20 2 0H 0H Case 13 Annual A s~~ 2' Jl 5% f 8% 15'% 20 2 2 d d ed t ate 9te 6 6 6 1 1 1 5 1 :.! 2 2 3 o l.! $ Base Moderate ;j 1 Aggressive -5 t3 2 0 01 0 12 3% .9% /6% 2 2 2 .. ' .. EsJJma EstJm EslJm I I I n n n i Y14 Y14 Y14 al ai F F F Lever Lever Lever- ~Ja g Q m ty o om om ity r by by by fr fr v f ti l ctiv~ ctf\lf l'l1 m n gs gs s. ~ l duc tn b't YknQS v o l l l r a rodu 'E(l)e terne produ U g sav ll. p eb ous ota ota ell'eme e {,p T Coraac Attrition ~{, ~ AWlllon AWIIIOil COTISCIS. T T T % % Conlrec % Savings Savings Savings % i R rr R rr R 57 0 p k x4 u o r s) t t G n .attac s a ba up p 1 at o m O r ( g, s G n Co i e ...... omb ng ... e ) i k ng c i d r w r i r W i t ers ga i a ) e S c ate ft d ri r l + a B r W e o r urf s ri For e Force e s r ._ rcr r i 5 ri my i a S r 2 Ca A , Ar yl m car ,3 1 l ght 1 1 Ai i n 4 ea ·36 (1 = sub =- - o ( years -= ( T ... 83 5 3 5 F 3 ft' r __ years F- ll ~ ,.._,.._,.._,.._ ,.._,.._,.._,.._ ,.._._._ ,.._._._ ,.._._._ ._ ove u ..... 5 f on i OR t n " for bill n-. s ;m~g., M tie er i i $125 kHU 2 tiv ny 1 Carr of An Group ac · U oyments l 2:0 • • • • • • • • • » Navy • • • • • • • • • Dep Strike M~rdl 10 below A.S, cenario N C • ~ s s s the H i• C;.n 58 0 r , ly r in scale ea d smalle ~ rategy and t an and rce kforce to to s , r contracts (e.g., s ) savings e changes ty savings wo ion i acts ing s r to at tiat t t workfo anning d l iz n sav e t p track rack Renegotiate k hodology ----~ -- im t t co Align gne tirements i 5 l rac 15 t opt contrac a Crea me re productiv Renego ' '1 l e scenario s Dec Dec t ks ry - - required tracts mod pr y , n mar it A Apr iv co catego iremen cost deploy r high d bench duct jo arge in an . l requ ions -up toolkit Deploy processes ma s, vs m pro initiatives zat FY15 ives i productivity to ty t Optimization i t ce i Rapidly a ivitie or ti each i Bo Pr Modify i ------n n in - - - act organ Optimize i i Deploy pr moderate 13 FY16 FY16 in in of ves i es t i -~ at is spans i effort gh high i it , gor ign h FY16 in Value te for on ion i Value oad es t tiatives ;hortl ty contracts ca i1e tize argeted i kl D f t i v zat y i ini 5B l it de $5B cti lue wor $ ------+- or u the layers) i - va Prior ona i pr Identify optimiz< and contracts .g., rod '15 '15 :- p rat Develop and (e mobilization ion Mar Mar - - D Feb Feb izat for -Do uild r ogy and and b l t fo y d Productivity: team each achieve cross cross it up up teams r an Optim hodo Rapid t fo sh sh i i e eams l l t uctiv train b b playbooks m d iatives train a a t t e Stand Stand it eams mprovemen n the t th i process i Es Es pro DoD ------Contract Workforce 59 s 0 ge a t in ct ~nd r 5 e c e a th s ts Estate tr eve ti l ss y on ~ffl~~~ sponsors Managers Program Functional o~·;,~~· 4'" Stakeholder ld am c or r upport exper , g s s acro exper e e og r ) wou r r e at p rs c fo tim ag e • . c h t ~ A A D ams r time c an .. ffi a a - __, ,./ ... _ Te o e (e.g., m p Do t .... / Options • / ,, Par . ----~- . ...____ s s '·-. • s e · ... t h // _ e e _ t s ' e e l n / ,·-- s ac th tim - - e - tr r f ved op ll l mo fo o d o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ on roc Estat fu pe 9 v c e p ' n a an i iz am 4" ix e es ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 4-5 te z i d r next n s e n FTE o -Team ha ve ss 20-50 aly an o i av n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d s ego p a h t t cro over s ul a p zat time to a c y o e ld r ll based u uld ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w D imi ct u o o f the t go end ed ra w w e t t team e 14 ess t sp Op ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ at itary ca l t c 150 on i tia le o roc ry B E c - eam h o ac ll o p team t c 5 a o time a h t m M ntr e c ch - p o op nd a ateg ro Ea Each E U f T a c C reneg in • • • (examp Full ~ategory 0 Category Category Category • ~ategory Optimization ics t Logis & Chain Contract Supply h!J!Dijfi#)~bhh£1§rH§s1L i:I;13Mt\14u!M 60 0 and teams category me each business savings ull-ti models f in program r renegotiating fo and each in begin Validate contracts contracts tools, program 3-5 ng lates, in ) optimization ini ts other , contracts tra temp {e.g. take contrac or 100+ contract value size, methodology intensive Estate) playbooks, on " Top 1 the 4 cross-DoD effort capture re-bascline Create renegotiate Pilot based Conduct and 15 to and or to process Implement across • lement ons i Depts imp t cancel Begin actions nct terms contracts u to f itary l of high Mi set span mplemen teams the i conuact (e.g., program ld rces u and cross on wo i teams resou prioritized full-time zations exity i l ams Contract te train contracts Ensure comp organ Create Create methodology and Optimizat Pilot priority the Full-time up teams contracts Stand Prioritize 61 h Q g u l ro a h u t d l n nd a d ta a e an x and est m mi m api b n nc e a e mi C n ty t r i d o y tio L il i I ere t a p f zation i era i M d e l r Re-engineering Ag / r uman li e s o Optimization r H att ements ' cc r se eeded r i i a labor d ns zed n CTR r o u i f / o n e n d p c a al rational V h 9 u n eq Cente layers t er r 6 e r a t e services - contracts CI e n ntr Process z n 1 o e Spend i t tur t o e 6 i ize ce ze ze a es l and . al ent e c ernization cation c p r i p tec Optimization* m i oy mi vat aged p i mi ements e l l u i i r n p h to i h ." tion ocesses act c no u p r r r et n Mod A A Ad Set Spans Opt Opt p ma p r Dep Ra Norma Data I a DOD abor • • • • • • • • • • • Contract l Business IT the n i 1 4 2 3 ) % Recommendations 10 cesses o r (> P s s s te ne i ma 16 s ti Bus e r o ts aj $8 M r fo s e nveslmen c f i l' re o r act y Ft ont an C f process, est I o l I -3 I I I B of 3-5 g net n by nti Spans art s and on , ti s mpleme r I " e y La 01. savings - assump 4 1 FY ngs affing. St rt avi - s po e Re es B h ement T DB g : a e e · n Se ot Cumulative N * Ma 62 n l ia Q tio * nc d sses a d n by ion n n e d d e S Fi p at n p • s roce , / z s an nd p n pe a months n w o Human HR • rty mi i vary o n o t d ransforma all d i e s i n l t t o 24 r i d spend s i F spend i i t an a t - s n ope l i spend , u Opti pen si a cs u hc i i s ac q Pr i 12 cs t i c u l l p spe nt cq years - q A across anc R c A HR im gist IT + me n hea Rea H A ogist process i ement e 3 lo f of of L F ver contract r r and , o - of of of term le ootprint % % % % F 5 % % % % ghest oce ocu ocu m ow i a 6 6 73 r l 1 22 Pr Pr Procurement F 4S -S3 - 6S -62 - Key H Med te fin ss ; r Business ------labor Modernize fo Optimize " long 4 0, Short 1 2 3 proce Recommendations 00 the n = i different % 8 end S2 s 11 4 spend 100 Sp T Processes I Mil has 0 0 17 optimization Business es c jor i d v Ma r n oods r for se g fo vspe i TR ices C CTR C t process • • 0 Prac t es B ng i levers Each ement l mp "I , 1 ~0 14 ' FY -. Findings . _..._ e Report c tics 8 08 --~ roperty ogos inan .-.-~ - AcqUisnoon l HR P Health F Baseline .,...------~-1: ... . See t- Capital 63 % ct e l es a i a 45 s d l sc s 5 gor : contr "go of e de Top spend categories of represents nearly from cate ies at ntract eeded n gains o s clu 6.18 d ed 5 n nn i n mi I r c i u nom .88 o l o i e e b spen $4 rget at , eco I . la ta otiation nat g 9B i n . i g ent FY16-20 Value e. levers 2 ract e of ( 53.08 S im commendation ga l rom 1 I nt f ts r n o (e re t y ragm co f d en do t n ivit m value. Annual c on e end ve categories ra man ir and t sp u n de g s ent roduct co n n req i p ze OptimJzation m al avings i g es io capture s l n d at gorous e s ic n i a e s ) i v age r rat ices ices ice ices r to c eg n ng") ifi e a on e rv rv rv rv u productivity essio 5% S i f e e e e r ope gr ng t end l 2 S ati S S S ri s a a l ro contract practices - cs c m M m e n P n p Ag sp i Mod Red Mo R Increa i ee t a t on o o ort ni r r li e in p p p p h 10 spend - - - - - Contracts in s t g p gis rog aci up up up u S Oth S S S En Lo P F Tec 015. • Be Top 2 8 6, 1 1 Optimization an J is of s of r. * and ed the budget % on l es ffice SO% act c of a of 39 billion O six DoD nu % % e present 1 th the spend and Contr Goods Over an Servi proC€!sses spend - re annual contracted contracts 65 Spend agement e 89 r 5178 an % - % breakdown Co M x 61 134 i S Processes I Chief 78 k pend I utv S $46 Value o s e et l g O 14 % :-Tr: d 0 u 2 47 the -: 587 B I I 1 or Annua Contract e = c d M Findings ffi n 0% contract a O M e OM S 10 JOOM H50 Z OM oD cted nel S SS S Spend - D M a lin H n - - r - r O Goods : t e - e c n h se r 0M SSM S2S from u JOOM SM Perso Potential And Services Co Ot o < S > S S5 SZSM S 5JOM Ba Baseline * 64 , Q . d nel y n n (e.g b a in s ng and i x and ove i c fy m s. ons: i on u ease the erso ces m r i i with r d ancy p re r nt be backfill ill ng ro d e i include: nc re ave avings b p i n g l d s i s ary dat u . l + d t and na ch n n li to tirements ng s and ed i 50 a r ea FY16-20 tota attrition $ re ma limited m re s es d taffi r Lever , u contracto Year S n can e ' for ct Optimizing . a y tur n- c d taffing la ned ru tor c ty ia s int i g M r st tru P og ve si vil s l i i ex L Pro R from rami l a SG c rposes l recomme p n U 61-69 py S 6 o attrition rede pu . m C 8 IJ ze g i Footp r i ona ngs i i o at pp in t co excess er m " i ses . C and gains 4 t th F lab of sav iza p eas or HR F H o aniz r 00 n s o e ces r Labor g a 0 a h attrition nc t i fo 3 • 8 ces or rg re i pro the o and a e p managed ze aff} t be i n u * t annual i w & s d m 2 ew e ecessary l i i i uce of core t ract n R ans u alua eed n T sses p 13% e fr co sp u red As C Op Ev Rev Rev - 1 8 - - - - Government - Proc 0 0 00 Best Impact 000 • 4 20 600 ess n i 19 11 11 11 II Bus r s r ) y ,Yo s 5 productivity M 29% - r 2 2 and 33 33 fo = 3 in us . retirement in es ices t years tho "' ible ::::t 27 4 26 ~ g 5 n 1 i 4 i 13 Prac 2 1 El 26E 29E e averag@ rocess 448 st l 1,0 P ~ e p B 2 D x i i next S r ng DoD peo r i y e II 1 ( ' n i billion ov ' ement l -- ' gs I through ible mp g "I i l l. E oD -0 eligible D 8 72 • L4 l 1 Findin 7 634 FY 1,320 2,6 s t r e ol' n Tota now r t o i s n t i c ty e $23-53 lin ble Repo I s r Co c ti h = 8 gi t n i l ui 8 is of pe R a L % 0 El V g I o I Retirement n R ea r o ase ns CT C M ee Fi L P H H Acq 00 S B • % 1 pa absorbed • S 65 ) [ . f r l : on o e gn i t i t cases a ow and ity z l t v B Tota i cen i l t g edes a .2 r n targeted 5 n i vity systems en men 1 r o i ss at i data $ rr fo n oduct u i at r h r vest C n oc e g m r n i o n u ERP i i g p p t o o el i n g r t i d product : d h t n n ca ge nin a i IT a e ra migra DoD gs h e ts an n in ppl d ncreas e ecommendations a 8 i l u include en Ov r o l savi engt m m m r gh c u st FY16-20 fro fro d rm vers o Cost n on r e i and in from a t h gs Le t -t a n ngs require d g i i t ms ion n ngs g a i o ces r productivity n improvement sav sav l soli i rces i Cos dat u n i sav % % % l oads rog eness. l itiz so co %+ ne v + p i 40 so 30 0 l I or - - re d $7.2B % n 4 5-25 on ri Overage n se pract i - 1 25 20 a co 30 p RO IT work ll Ba i 15 - effecti B S Cost Best • 20 ce eu~ nan potential e~oec e t pr ts Optimization n i and the a o:or.. every er t Opsand DoD M in of esen •x th~ s 80 IT pr figh of :he r re n a t verall % d touches business 5 IT W o aspect e: Functions ~ tndud · ) n • o i from Core billion llions 1 i zat l 8 i 3 H $b sfu Six ern in ( d not o and the used the re ess $ d M and n succes to tu n s processes si c gains in $5-9 a zing Findings not u u ks i ely r r B rce t ev u iv D se end n ems spent t nfras p Reso Netwo I $ Insufficient dedicated delivering effect automating S business modern implementations T T T Sys Defe I I I T I Baseline • • % 66 d n - a f • l set key o t on i port se g Core to n dat across li s ons data l i Sup ng efforts ensure data nso o o usi t C ion ocat ghts lity l t and i goals r e big a s mode masteri t gi re d z n i A i ng i Cen processes rn Technology metrics Center de expectations tende allow Centers and Data siness pools, in s: provide to mo u on and th b track i ion i t w provision data business and Services predictive shared-services ional ngs Act and i ce manage a d n Approach ud nova Data nformation sh d a n sav ddit I n and li I a as a large ded k clo an n o sh cs zation ac t i i es i r me records, ces Establi commercial comp ic i fund T om enterprise and l - - Rec service Manage Establ targets organ al data analyt Serv Serv pools Provide Use A Shared on: i Recommendation • • • • zat 21 erni d with Mo n i tech gy IT basic o ta l o es n i ew n Network t often ity, . i COBOL l with (n ech " mai ;upport T make es be ent qua IT and ng on to different i i to . . at to separates ievable es ve i h i often nish into systems i agenc i pool ac Inform want n D ation o u dim the O iz staff M standards strateg expens uctures is egacy l independent t 0l, tr e don't - n d resource ness and organ g s o i are constraints across : c " FY12 t n ansparency consolidation n r y t secure bus c port uting rre staff d ogrammers) Re Accelerate ck r n nconsi ste reporti lega la p improvements security spread graduates and a Cu Capita l i Industry Increasingly IT Comp OBB d u ee o S • • • • Findings l C • 67 0 n to o l - ve; tal of i i ] 1 ch ig [ struct r ces d i a de ty i savings of tal i center outsource Serv g i and d fs or nt management with cost i d ectronic to es l i p %) e Pr it nt l e 0 i s: and l i opportun 5 n pr and paper o to capab (25- om internally d management fr searchab forms paper excellence composition an Managed savings partner to te plummetjng tees of sh % i to ence n grate l i oit ted l policy Upda M Scan s xp stabl services - ru - - storage: Move E E t 20-30 guara excel document center Consolidate • • • Recommendati • 22 l automate print of print manua ternal tio; vendors m office ra result -----·-·--- cess management ee o (copy/fax/ zed i the many loy pr massive ilities costly c are emp fa and optim eliminate/ to records and - retention/destruction across that ce i Consolidate print 2) ems on sub : t on eliminate i for i 1 environment I stent dev ralized/unmanaged : , use i t e 1 sys ple c : and ies i Low (1 ic - forms mail print) pol poor Mult Decen Unmanaged Redu Incons output acquisit automat compliance • • • • • Findings 68 0 y d ll o t a ua ture th de nes r while i i c es l li ally t e w s t ult rad pen d r g , l on cost upporte i o ness igra s o se i see d i fo matic for ( , and m archi n a uct of an r bus roach t on ure d lower i ols zed ata ct atio single, data to li d d with prod to change e the app enterpr t competency ntac a nd i i an nizat u on the r ld rtua un ve i ces i i i strategy i r fo ed t v " ugh s: erate egacy " t arch l l ness" Bu y a i a r apt r be d d mode e as remain on prac l thro n ce. migrat i enterprise oud i acce bus l to provide t g c stence Services ou e i n a - f skills i m i acce to best r enable c t th serv and ex DoD l y e egacy k r ll nd to l process rfa co a systems modern a Mu " e and c te ris cloud a a a g sh platfo ngle n i i e n t t t tectu i s data shared c i ness change t e i l a a mm op w amati new d 6) bus by ne redu Exis Establi you Adop Adop A 2 decommissioned dr as a arch enhanced CeJlters source sca eco Shared • • • R . 23 - on i - t ge new a concentrate and d stance r l of i ully n a - l f financial a cs f i es iso - r o d l here of n a a cess projects w a cting n i es metr l is r ack ocess l st a r i u suc Migration rito p il to nic ex ngle-point confl risk fa i ance ter s change in m been r o ness due tech projects i escence n e ts l , and l l ; bus su hav on major ogy perfo i l ona e waste re i obso ews l i excellence at l to v ncy z a data r l i ab hno i on of legacy i ogies ng rd l istent data ca s are i i tec o der a for mplementation plie t operat i i Reduce i gs: icat d oyed y t l l r h l l hn ns nsp n oed a st ale i c a pp n il oo ocket c r eport r t te mu trut P Pa P Incons Co a dep a s stan S Substant n d Fi • • • • • • • 69 s t t 0 . , rise ss n sub e ed men ity me nt l i e d i a t rsight plans r op . st e to ate l r e e ag end r l proc enterp as a wa e b ov domai vem these y" l e yc to ) re y nd c ro deve i a y ach em p t n e and i i s acce n m DBC v siness r end and actory ills o ( i i u F r k , l mult fo on ct i s b i Acad dea hnology and i fo " " vati ty nters Prioritize gn ni ty ig and tec . ce no i ity ons ounc b l si , i il risk i d cation produ in t e C i rtu rprise reduct nforced ty l i i p d s ncy Ag an mp te s iv n esses e re red nsib t do a ppo duce ct App en SO% a performance ne d. ocess and Cha roc pe s . re r y o s p ze n p espo b i i.e ach r Busi om o ocess n i E " r c s: produ zation oce ss h e business i gn p sob cally ntally, s e i Pr in h 0. process y als, ild in wit ss Process it . me o u " /2 s recog desi an B g w efen nnovat s e ne 0 s I bus r priorit m D ramat d 8 l ness , et d ed i d usi incre g or th of BC roces f b ce bo i sines aff to the Business D " p t nk w bus u i s ed es service. hybri b h sh sh sh s on t man i i i wnat ces ris e l l l r i erate the improvement t es l t ness b b i c a a h gn ange t t t eate nters i 24 i roc 0% ocus 3 shared goals acce experts, comp ce ch Cr Crea pra perfo Es bus p Es Estab Don't F Al w commendation e • • R • • • fied en ce i has than be i ve llence" be ted n i major to er sub ha ig ed qu al a m n ) i ng l has y s tary exce ig I eed lo des er-Serv and ance erat ili n n of d re ocess nt des m o m s i and r i s r rentl Depts have l r an p ccel d m ; fo ful a of ency r s ket cu ra tica an tu leveraged tary i g i i r pe t o ness il ces c and poc are effort frames be " re Lack si pr M cies ( n e n . suc re collaborat to o are redesign cons bu high nel , ng ti im t$ l s on natu i t ated a mo to ns n Age ti i za i es i Hill in e str rson cally l za l need tio i " i red a Tra expanded roc l pe i Agency al s m ch p i l ngs: i t d odern trib oo or equ f t op obstac demon an departments expected componen Substant " Capito m regu r Defense Histor Few wh • Findi • • • • 70 0 0 ::?: u 0 0 0 A I VI VI ...Ill >...... 0 0 0.. ... VI IU Vl u... Ill a. c: ·-VI<(a. :l al "'N C: VI 0 Ill ... c: "'..... ·-.... .!!!> c: :2-2> ... ..,-c... :l bl)0 _,Ill o...... 71 () ders i n l s a io t Prov s l zat Da Data d i r prise Mode r ou e ron l t chitecture legacy Mode Asia r C En Data legacy Maste Management e Management Federated l Synch p e A i to s ult Deployment - M ... " -=--- Models Enterpri Cloud - Published Fram~~o!~ - ] 1 ·-- - ders DoD -- ~- W.,.,.~,,.;;, .. ""'I D Provi Predictive ~ U ~Mini & • _ oud OUNDRY Extended .. Enterprise l ~pplicatiol1 CLO - F _ C Europe -~ e l p i _..__.. lt -- 26 rocess - _ P Analytics Mu Web -- Store - ~l - pp o Data -- -·- Busi11e~s Big --- - .. ' ders i ca Prov d Ameri ou l C e l rth p i o ll N Mu 72 change by , change authority not, confirms efficient will enforcement project but culture and improvements fundamental communicated more decades of by critical for decision-making reward over widely 17% few process tool a clear processes stakeholders [2] with and to and ing about with 27 levels experience enabl only strategy all business adership potential supported supportive savings at le an structure with correlated full and the lity be top are sector, eve i their highly aligned , streamlined is ach must private workforce governance , accountabi consistent solutions and deliver vision the organization change ar fined in success Cle mechanisms Effective De Engaged Strong, rge - - - - - that dimensions: effective envisioned projects La Even themselves Technical • • • Innovation 73 " and ng i Starts authority business governance " mak key - is the change keholder senior substitutes in change Governance form sta Structure decision or recognized - engaged leader and y l relevant leaders support advisors widely Clear visib to deputies with highest th Management ) i onal understood i & no w to and y l project - Governance funct 28 the competent wide expertise , y as communications l appointed and directly actively ll manager and members we Change high ll evel, l as a of council reports in decisions project throughout for resources, or es l Leadership (budget for team ru leaders highest Leadership ittee leaders manager human the small available omm at experienced c resources , resolution Strong accountability business" Strong needs project Practices " me accountability i level functional ader riority eadership Le management management, L P High Full-t Adequate dispute and committee Senior Strong Clear with Best • • • • • • • • • 74 0 case and Key and stakeholders and l vision milestones are ternal the strategy in swiftly and s ' externa supported Key metrics and cated critical i addressed recognized; to key is organization execution. and of commun identified with responsibilities defines y sion early l i frequently V evels Accountability l their 29 stakeholders and aligned all Accountability rewarded applied change at identified leadership consistent organization Clear and for clearly are e and external change, actively understand done; defined ted cas th Defined i Defined for ca w be i tools gets change d & celebrated l throughout clearly cate vision i frequently are powerful shou a the commun must resisting is by measured widely, commun champions ntly performance Vision crafts is to gets successes orted for change rly r fo stakeholders supp Ea Pay Leader Need Individuals Vision consiste Change Accountability What • Clear • • • • • • • • 75 0 y, l es, l of are ru in tative zed i and i s frequent, feedback as is to quant decision recognition recogn partnership priority eagues workforce practice ll a and are and co y and l - are work responds - on lestones, i i keholders stakeholders and engaged me" m a and stakeholders St technical for and aborat and cused" qualitative Champions it ll engaged cs n and -fo i i co listens mapped and redesigning with structure e 30 in on, an c i metr ebrated. ployee l workforce "what's measured, for ce on - k "em functional is identified, leadership - project engaged - and sticking" - Wor l affected enforcement evant communicat l vely ca way i 'are i ; - re and with act crit community two ty rewarded experience is i with stakeholders through depends user collaboration and Engaged are communications reward cations messages i oyee to ate l i of if explicit commun external emp and aboration test ll ser mpact progress, made BeneAts Key U I Transparency appropr consistent co Successes Commun the to Success • • • • • • • 76 0 y . l " to rts nge of a d wide ble cated and i i t e key s r , Ch r an i expe rmation r u v and al for lt cs ted r i is and la nsfo Cu cy suppo Unde tains li elations es nued cu i i r i commun tra ished metr " A re to 32) l l , po , , cture , art Behavio e de cont Strategy r 01 y i tru and l - s Service shed sl estab management ading to s: authorit d e le e l tenu ectives bli externa i ernally 'l r j t clear a a FYll m (see ion es, effectiveness, ob ole l F t ex is ns, ing esta l r r es E hang ementing r o i at l c i t Ro identifies i com te re ul Transformation ced nd l CD r il ona a a p a i cated case E nd i Imp icat i es Repo governance e eaders iate i scope, l l e PS " sh Change E pr der ess einfo i top r powerf D DBB e DoD mm d sin d pro ader mmun mmun oject oject r r h e o n nternally i i Bu p p L timetab The T organizat accountab an ap an co co See confirmed. Secretar Savings: Cons c e DoD • • • • • R Process 31 a ng i -- the v , th often i ms, n es i for DoD dr is bo private or an nci eadership ty or l on of i rs f i in ffused r om ent among i s r i r progra age d lt f v enging ned i non ll Business success. agenda leade visible are autho nagement fficu tures tenure e i and l l cha ranspa d qua top zed ng change ma fferent s Susta i i defense -t i Implement li tted, ly i d of short on ategy notab subcu nd sine r me itary ona n l a i nge i Core he st of very t he structures or change comm m t s cha , i r , extre and some l s fo DoD decades iven Depts i and institut - g s: te stent decision-mak r i environment. i ge an no r tary ili change s trans ili v f rocess i eadership ncluding A fragmented secto successfu o chan environment clea c Cons Governance l p i ha M Desp DoD Support Finding • • • • Design 77 0 of or f 8 3 . p I A, x VCJCS Secretaries Defense pendi p A ; Under Structure DoD n i Process e __ g .,. Chan l a " ject avior h eam Be T CDEF ng & Leader i E 32 r ent Business ated Pro PS n SECDEF Senior Governance E DCMO/CIO D Implem sig anage : M gs -- De in v Core Sa ' f l o de e o r u --- -- M t i------ul C ng i A of : ource · , 1 nclud i Res 0 , body --- e - metncs c --- . Depts ll ght ffi i Y Possible O F resolution I m rt overs a estones DBC il po governing gr e m o Secretaries R ojeci Transformation DEXCOM r Pr Military p dtspute 88 e g 0 goals, all r Highest e an the h Se Ove C Under *" ' 78 0 e ng i ts ng ng i us to ini d st east t a i l oc to arge i ls reduc r se t t op e i and y l ex y f n es to d change it " l i (cont.) n b s n a o g i an affecte u in ic use deve comm s n tin chan w l , y expert polic of cat l h a i r s trends ck l hange omm ve and i goa tec c ons c n eb ti i DoD l success e . qu eve n ac of " l i ves ce Set id d cat i i r v ll g Strategy user ns agement ttritio a o commun n ence ect un r n i and a i wa t with p early tio at l re l) a them. obj d ma s management : ons ca ur for to i i an nclud rcep exper comm engage i der requen es nat pe f i ea vert l ams hange ety. d i way and r d gaps change c mprove ve oyee n - i cess, l l ti s a populat c Change og formance an ns rateg of r anx r to t ill d l Transformation su p two s k tio ega emp ve ent manage s pe r i es change h n / ons i t ze i ve y s za ar r l nterna i onta fy fy de i li force i ni uit iz lici ve d po k affecte user i l nti nti DoD r nsp n 33 ncent Act for tra sup strateg orga o champ Cons (hor pub i Bui Defuse Estab Recr Ide Ide wo a Recommendations • • • • • • • • Process n i l a r a f and o er r l nt l fo gethe s- on der gen l i experts t ce to created i nt n stant iste n s, i i , d tary Implement cessfu pply ic li Business c i ne has res su externa - ts m su ai ormance orma s, r f tices ncons stakeho f c recogn t t i i grams or r , c nd e e e d compone dynam e ro ally per r a and p eff ns i j l id prac short p a ateg an w r change an n Core na ul i pro nt f and few st part ili ange l of io they ces k : g, and of nicatio nced ch civ change ns- are l l e in ac nd r r l rie e a ca ca r tio u uccess i i oss a t lt r l i he e Design successfu majo ac organizat cr commu cu cyn r uns use measures mapp manageme Legacy Expe workfor with T Support Findings • • • 79 l on l i d CBP ca i on l to an tica s, i educate nto ques crit i i specific of cr successes (cont.) aborat ficia - i hip ll ased gma encing b op on l cate, art Si co u , i i echn ons map t them tl i ss ix i ers in at l describe and deve li /S ose, m der l agement re op to grate n l urp ces ty and i commun supp r em Strategy p processes LEAN : ma ct inte dicap d th pa to deve e n in e ra d - an r stakeho l ders and h p n d appropr iate se g l studies a ha ness p i r improvement a , i ang n h and s ed s as eac ni thi u il ch rev ons i , i l b cies keho that case a ency li a for to tra ctors i t un ic deta s s t as fa po DoD i nts g l i ze core a ie Change in effic cr li fy na parency i nfluence Transformation a use i stra it oss nt ns ategies ateg ter n ansformation r r r tr dentify nclud mprovements tra st other s success ac ex and co and Create i i Rev Reset I Ide T DoD Recommendations • • • • • 34 a Process l the a n to d of and an s ers l i es exter l Revenue rr l to a by ba ts sector change nt cult protoco examp e Implement l ffor , ffi Intern Business e i d Systems ., public ons i some represe controlled e.g at ge-sca ange and e the r and r ness h on i a an a c i l n c i l Core regul ofte n ders zat Bus l i : , , DoD there ams - r ence, itics u l fl rans successfu t stakeho government- Service, po prog in Modern Policies But- Design Findings • • Support 80 0 r state? o f 1-69 stakeholders 6 future pp. /' * ideal critical DOD the the and n i is * ses es efficiencies oc plan what r P - ss workforce ine S' Bu * Change with jor permanent a transition M processes 3S ects for j s program ness strategy pro i tice creates c during a ip Pr bus t s metrics that Be Transformation talent dersh ng core i and retirement efficiency lea of y l ment e l critical p Process ear ' m I '' , of visible ent statement wins existing 1 restructuring 0 objectives .., redesign retain 4 of 1 and Y to F Business quick Managem two-way communication vision l on targets, Report Core Capita OBB an m Powerful Bold Dynamic Fundamental Focus Incentives Implementation Acceleration Committed Organizational Clear See Hu '* ' • • • • • • • • • • • 81 s t Dep key top tary re i chial l t a Mi paro who practices oss nt re r c a consisten efo b geme of cies na suppliers n e i ears come m ma y e e nistrative ffic pts i e rc yst n s including: S-7 must i De , dm rkfo o A and tary w ment ocess t r ili ng incentives equires p i r M p d and pi ivilian an Depar - the c ness i e s e s n l v o obstacles th change bu s sto 36 too of nt i across relationships cale ds core ra t -s els ee educe th r n i w o - arge cons t l s policies s hann - n Congressional ip nts o identified es i , r n c management ue standing it ders and - onsh i add atio ng lea pretH - c at i l r s ini n const re ong n l l rmance inter tra enio - ng s e atio address rfo l r di - sor of pe hip i regulations gu commu ts practices 0 to s re 1 of ure res ter e t ngstan tle PM ongressiona o policies, Superv leader Be int L Use Ten O C ll ------nternal and External I - - Strategies • 82 0 to in will $1258+ redirected introduce be achieve and can priorities can that recommendations 37 that initiatives money these warfighter - of existing programs years critical 5 adoption over accelerate Rapid complementary savings 83 0 0:: 84 0 0:: <{ 0 co l/) l/) w z l/) "'M ::) co w l/) z w u.... w 0 85 0 0:: ~ 0 co l/) l/) w z 0 l/) .... ::) ( co w l/) z w u.... w 0 86 0 ity re . ex l End al a es d - u to aptu iti skill s an c to v an i comp t - m c e nd create a g of a hese ures ce management t t e nction End t l e du and uc savings fu ded k chan re tr k sca - areas ty ime force s ad t ma ng er umen ili i to ac i fy e from of e r tep i c l n Transformation lu onal s ca do o t eas a s a i ent t gs cyc gn i e h at mies y y id s te and n in n-va improves i is it a iz nc no overlapp to pr no muc accountab work ent sav cre processes rede ements Proces eco ze r d ment i nter of li nclude: organ date ed ons i i e t i dunda me et l an %+ i r t age re s ca art r rove i ona y i 30 p d d the rl duct practices - n a e governance as step de over a leve r imp Review Rat E Adopt Automate Conso Centralize - - - - 20 - Levers Business - - • recommendations: Best for 41 re-design IV' 52 ,...... I'J' \ L It ~ in of s is core 20% support nes six DoD usi Process the embedded b processes budget the Over t men and n t ent n i n age e a m n e h r m agement t ) C n ageme Ma y n l dge age ons i Ma n ll ce i bu Procu r Ma 453 587 u ~b t al Ma & Supp t Findings n low so o n Tools F erty & (in Business T o l I i Re s t a i care i n tic h Prop a ss ageme nc re l a n r alt ne i co cquis ea ogis s the L Ma Hum R He Fin A u b O Six Baseline 87 0 it end-state to agile an Alerdnc& Realonlnc: · 42 delivers transformation ~ ttui'vfl, the ~ · FI!(I{IUCi !) @® Y,~!Oit I t .!) tlOIII'/ enables Architecture and Reference 88 re 0 of t tu l e ess r and in cu y ts t i mo : of ivity ms ; en bus opmen t a ous g i gs m el c n rea rics in for t ve ions) di nd ns on oduc o dev i n a r r evant t Sav leverage l co me i p productiv fu e mot o e r t- the f mp savings of t l i DoD," enterprise ro e h ange ear redesign p l se n cos the i , of ig ch recogn lead vity a i-y h i absorb t ng " t l the ge i g ormanc to of ng and i n Culture to tions to mu schedu ons duc A ts trat han s l evi perf " i t C ro schedule cora p ign ends ch al ge means s ona r a 01, r r i t s: i targe de t a o - e potentially gh i t l i n obstacles champ th u demons for on redes understand ab process , io of l Yll ti add i t " F' with r thro za ement ial is Behav a i r bonus, nsation drivers ava case . ys nc l m l case achieve eas i process eti " r nce o ar process ess mpe use t fina ona Report ana zation opt se i t productivity in i t Conside co ma lly ize r ish "base op l t pr . l i oy to r DBB l bus mmend cess nsac Hd e e 43 o onuses ecommendations Se c Bu Libera Deve Estab Dep Ente tra th detailed gains b r (perfo link prior modern pro Implementing workforce e • • • • • R • • h and it ons not s i ve w the i at gs l ons be i are of n than u t i s g ded r cs increases ve i reg rocesse sav case neffecr i y ldom p to a area i it t peiformance rewa is v se decora staffin metr and ess vilian , stricti s i n . t ren c ce in ther es re are nd ca rh i o hrough oyee a linked . an e.g. e l t l cur · ( ic bus l w and be But ts productiv ed d in!O po for mor gn flo l form emp n require r on i cy nefi tio contractors pe ward ash performance ent be personne ment c re t redesi adopte to m theory for mance. t ations r y of l i gs: l n sparen be rect b i tary e t t i n cause l n rd einves nd nh inked those tra t development depart compensa are compensat ca Government l l perfo promotions) r management be lack Departmenta Mi Regu w • • • Findin • • 89 0 0:: 90 l g n ss n o ates from na i ki 2 im at er r mation l ma g r and usine nt a est i b on nte i l I info program systems ate ng Engine accounts i a intern r ments; t decis cre ag ent : annua schedule Model Da th and t i ddress an ace and a w and t agem i to-day require pl t taxpaye on n - i to t m ) re cos Maturity 3 ma management gy day ub Accoun l to s dual enges ] in i strat r te rt lity ll i 3 i iv [ projec BMS to n ra b itll leve i t ( t taxpayers w ppo s cha y ome ind ty t u i Us IRS s d rit r to to ms financial Capa adm financial tu o t an sk Cus a t intended es red uests y ed i secu the c l R move m due s q tax svste itions I managing IRS on to T ng re gh me i I equ i t i r vision t nd servi quis H tomat needed us oject 995) project a CMM ect r d 1 s ac e n ing j zed au i ion p o i T th an nger I rn ice nd ing pro at nformat o BMS e zat l i key fu ached r \ since om rm l ir ( expand r re d cycles 45 pract no Modernization f able modernized fo mod li n d ructure an RS i Federal I of ng deveJop List ng Study: delive re and n esses ri severa e ue moderni ment on n n re p for ve i processing o ully of isi Risk sev l tems f 2012, ocessi infrast e c n~move x s mo r Congress del level reve weak prove e gh p ta - r i top de number r er tools ber dev t o Sy H fo 1m g 12. gh a ily m and phase c la i n s on 0 ' l ffort s Case h i vides success to 2 da and t ses e anding mo a tia r t o a cost t and Was to Septe ed pro ts ces GAO ini d software ll n ; o yea e i ines systems ped r the O deliver l alloca p ts s on he m ' i g cornerstone dollar g lan. t a d g n p n s i n d and ce i design needed , it Bu fisca an 2 oping I) ur systems s develo ocessing l - ove ovin · E procedures, i ciendes r r in ) , pr ve op p p . 2 l billion i eso IRS y emained memed m m 2011 es CMM ng l r { effi CAD De I I Address i nditure i r k BMS process y ic • • • l pe : Deve Mult CADE mple BM5 po Early : wee 2007 J ex Start I tax l meline : justif - - - - i to and Scope Goa Cost: busmess management T - - - Background • 91 n te as nt ra i atio rk them po ope wo ll to to external i to w h not it ble demonstr be i w hold a ld and vis began and fix wou ers i S to ) took dors IR n database. outcome rnally deadlines, ve suppl ems l BMS ( the b ve the i inte the trust and leaders before - pro .for Declared for me : i t key build seen (cont.) goals nding iority competit senior ng to u i over : f not pr as " t set d t a RS employees an I no workforce . dentify to vision i pliers eques project 46 r Modernization ings responsibility t the on ation to the goals iz e "sup r mee of an took used and tems ve challenge environment: s i org strategy foc s inspi Study: and r' IT Sy Congress d power communications ven n zation ct i s and i transformation to a execut were ass je l a Office ical C to and stakeholders to rt other pro ines went fd organ s Case vision ve engage IRS a Wor the with Bu metric-dr each meetings ppliers tment hnology a i to a and of at the su ssioner adership i as Tec in of le learned ef way comm i vited of art Worked a fingers of Ch "now" Comm p Executive In it - - - - orizontal eadership L Find H stakeholders ownership Style Collaborated Operate Implemented ------Lessons Why • • 92 the the clude in data current hours, to of running the applications 24 business LOGSA ; maintaining on of LIW). managed over ( and terabyte and line 8 needed take experts, 2 this programs concepts outsource when Warehouse owning, of and doing manage edge data completely of to Lontralliny ng i the buying, nd out and benefits a to used cutt in n Information get techniques from the 47 access come adopt icenses using l totally divest to to acquisitio Logistics at was to to described the and from gly quicker better ement n run hardware Le someone LOGSA efficiency ir to and center, with and requ much week is convinci resistan wanted lity allowed DoD, i data per ag required and rimary P learned than sector OGSA days : L associated worked : l uverLurne a it ivate u Outsourcing Pr T seven services day-to-day Scope educated costs Go provfding market Hardware - - - - - Background Lessons Why • • • 93 0 y l and ; contract, costs he t r approximate i of repa agreement from ed t opuses service the upda (cont.) associated decreased and under and fulfilling ls l fa iewed not Outsourcing expenses 48 lOGSA rev for of ations 014 ic 2 emergencies monthly Dec Value appl routinely s, penalized is OCSA. Study: ing l the , workforce The r be includes s to de sav part it an m and fee, m o e cost er C ic Case y t id u p changes M" services e 50% O serv transform h $1 learned prov t ng i the wi to to w eved rate e i i e l M erv nt Manag Flat Ach Ab service $2 which I : e c - - - - Lessons our S i' • 94 es in Force Mar Air [6] I and S employees ndependent l i Navy, sonnel , r on RS resource i an Navy H pe H6.1B ill se i m Army to rom DIM : f 4 orce, . F 3 terpr Guard op es ces r l i t i n $L7B e A ma and over i Serv deve the and rom est f to by four Acquisition ll ose cost Reserve a d r ocessed , r system te p for contract ollowed HR DIMHRS ment ch and f costs i y ) Active 4 o ons ttemp l i [ TS wh a B 281M for ycle 49 $ dep (CO ver ement , funct a ce f l i l $1.2 lifec l n e and to o systems imp i she serv Study: M to of rsonne the awarded d r pe egacy l opment first $380 estimated off l oD ementat l , l ve a D be reco i and mp de from i to Case 2008 ) one re [7] Implementation separate 2003, ned ERP payroll ( nged n er nes 80 i commerc a rees b ra l i ember ne ng softwa p i c i ERP l system, e ret Mar ace a l i D d urce ann it l n Army so a and Septem One Comb p largest By Rep In ground ------Scope: Goal: Cost: ack - - - B • 95 t.:) ng, ng i e System t app maki l - [9] force Force Over separa l ansformation en l ecision op Tr d l tota Total , Mul a ve ss oject. pr as de late ine {8] ution o l t Corps the too Bus y so $1B r Michael it d re fo ess orce the an F emented and ue es l r Marine e roc i ADM i estimate r (cont.) i iss ttl mp shed li n p i orit i d A commun l i the r years Acquisition Scaff tio an p be g 0 too ive si uded , of i l n 1 y - user i estab s set nc i us Nav t om acqu effect and r longer , after f and in Chief y ense completion l nue f t tha y i munity no t s nr us li l an De l Army t 50 MHRS was i I s }oi cont i e com DIMHRS w of D year d th program to taneo che l menta he rocesse 10 t am user ps p l the of r mu te opment d o i l th r allow s t DIMHRS i Co il oed an led s Secretary l w to d eve s t rman d ne con oject i i r an p ded he Study: mine i lt t t cance down Cha Mar c u disciplined p ) occurred 1998 Deputy es de ns t by ke ts the , assume " deter in DoD over co the r Implementation break to jec ht fo tion lacked ro 2009 ig DoD estima p (cont. s not , ween t 2010. isaster r Case loca t and y g cation 2005, d i (BTAI i Began t l "d n ERP i d be cos ove .1 ca e: 2009 i program n i nal stic S l i o apabili ebruary i R failed systems e c September October May F Agency commun compet H Called eal r m - - it - i eadership nteraction Geograph L Un DlM Funct I T and and - Background Why • • 96 0 ts i im the l on and decjsive the sets focus scope make smooth to and often ' for e l information together " managed ows l creep' al out - work and change (cont.) to conversations responsib technology, Acquisition must mastery and garbage than frank and requirements silos difficult schedules, " data ) and and longevity be 10 51 in rather [ h DIMHRS and stop ' it can w to accountable candid lestones, i rules' " lize m Polltics. i achieved "garbage- transparency: cleansing Culture the set be people : stab Study: sions champion d i Requires l to have not a : o Data have : H dec Implementation Must oversight: prevents : Must Need lowed : l Must a and Case : process, costs. ERP s management i learned rship: conversion management what Change Governance Congressional business interfaces Leade Requirements Data Risk Execution of contract comprehensive ------Lessons • 97 of n i re 28 o o . t sing , ways i m and $5 ar es mandated cost ctices l der l o cs ovations ate e i t o o r es r t g Pra inn pe of n we gist efficient l o es i o mated princip st ha i 2008 t es re c l l to l p in es i Be mo radica oba l number goal g sector cial $38 compan princ e ed t new, t the duce offi ncluding a i ifi om 500 h r iv to , f t i no pr intro w manage ew r iness unspec fore thods g ven Acquisition ortune ped tter l F re st bus an e me siness pro managemen be g He u co n th d o d l b . t ; tions ace with o l e an their and ra ECSS in ep n i es allowi r does mated v ope i i from d nesses lines i l n n baseJ with systems on est de i rect i i bus tio ector, wou i s d zatio 52 gu i the D ) gram nizat at Complying that PR trans vate other Do i th changes pro B Study: rga l & ( organ computer o of pr d ess l e an of the scale terna th system tion - i ported [11) in e of in seam how neering 2] g re s i r approve r o d nd ce a [1 t ive l s a t Case an k no acquis in te hundreds ran GAO yea logistics ve h e l i Reeng or t ful 2 it 8 eport effec th r titu 1 r w r eaps l 0 networ fu Reengineering 20 ins rated 1 ess n legisla 004 i in over in systems overhau 20 Process 2 success merge However, proven d us n e chain to i b : ll e a e the y y-integ Oct l r l g quantum has iently l ness ce an i c ir several in $1.18 g fu med sparate Process i i us : he : from t successfully supp growth. do ensu and d effi Can BPR Be by B l A A a ------Timeline Scope: Go Cost - - - - Background Business • 98 0 to , to tem s the willing sy to to oversee changes for [13] Practices not contributed to procurement ] Best and also change business refused the [15 succeed to S) of implement champion T tasks to to users ownership no igated (CO - turnover - day of it will - ECSS needed outset m Acquisition igh it [16] lack for or H Force (cont.) the . with day-to the-shelf at and changes Air - order ip off practices avoided the their in processes rsh risks organizational ECSS [14] 53 needed completion the been Complying leade within to business & and ce business r have processes commercial ement performing l identified Fo ernal of knowledge Study: of what change int l imp Air large inception of ts to objective a I to possibly ways business on from senior clear new Reengineering Case a ement could l mitigation early institutiona l existing resistance within of r imp led leadership i i lacked a ndfu delays Process of the F oss l mi a it Force nadequate I y to alter costly accommodate Cultural program not properly implementation lack h Air - - - W Business The • 99 to l a n to o fications i i t Practices learned mod opera 19] ( g y 0 n Best l bligated 5 e o pi n o i v i 1 lessons kee icat - cess n l i x e over 527M ga dup y$ ging to gement l Acquisition were " na han and e c ] r ma (cont.) 17 with ge eport the [ from r n , m a cha r nfusion g ve o i approximate co t crash costly pr ECSS " ec s to l 54 t to is eff the eadership r l n Complying ng ed i fo l y mistakes l of & r ry nterna a es i e sa r ck d es tu la software same Study: l amounti nec requiremen own uc r define so l was the st its a re s i ) we ce at 18 n [ contract, a program th Reengineering Case failure repeat l commercia rn nts of to ize ove l ng conducted i g me gina costs governance i g re Learned not n or o stabi Process cause ple equi i St.r r t Force l the r - i Mu Must Root A to ensure Customiz program - - - - - Lessons Business • 100 0 r , of senio to ue eduction l process r on through " i use ng data va i at and mation the and binat r ip , tter gain c m i be gh services. rt co common accounting " d can pa transfo rf ves i of throu processes for and on dr efficiency ' hyb i a te shared in 1,900 r si i o option as gained SDMs ng finance ad over Outsourcing common " 100% erequ rci be r g u th p i ns organizat the as l i w tso a a i ] IBM can and u is ch defined o an y adopting , sust 20 - [ mu that ; tudy, essent ces S performin and that as are an fits ervi s n es ith s l of is ss efficienc io CFO w benefits t (SDMs) 121] ed l ination Services lysi bene s enab on hich no l i Study: ba w shar address and , ments fied That ana the Glo of ip i ata comb to h funct d 0 m s rt models e contro r rove rm associated p Shared fo ers l and 201 quant data syst e im and l h owne Case a of suppo hybrid ivery i finance l ss n costs IBM enab i rial , t udy ds ce e of pants ency de in ocesses i ves, i h r ro i performance t financ ] st p ic p SOM t some ce mate ver " i i Value n se [23 effic le om change ing ri more dr par or standar fr rp ns execut ty, s serv or 22) 50 io flexib common key ili 1 g The nte 3 commo % A at E A - of main data in nce ab erienced r l SO • • • : p Increas nd na worked sca and ope of SDMs Over Fi Fi Ex Three The use it - - - - - Benchmarking the outsourcing Scope Goal: - - - Background Why • • 101 as be e s d es h l i re a t u serve % h o process . h , r mo sed s 84 e suc n del , operations t u on s o i higher a n t ow e are compan implemented m a o h t i t revealed t nc at en r and onal m i tha ies ervice fina costs ope s process at ple time, l versus d ent m he n i t costs a and oba improvements mpan l nm of group found o g a11d t co n a n report ing, nvor g pe i by two e ftna1ce rt personnel r n i process ed des o th l i i adoptio oss r b Outsourcing r he efficiency w repo t and cat performance, se i payroll ac revealed l SDM ena ri n i owe (cont.) on . s 24] e i l i [ and h ogy app and erp and l t T es ys g i el n ower, Class l n e d i nance m with d fi % l andards ower t ana l l techno mo e s IBM rage conjunct 29 atfor l u % th Wor ocesses. p e r process in 56 ng compan co r i p n data 60 n n i a e accounting Services o n d i eve th t n l i yed as common i to a mo ourc nology g lo associated w solution h s h n reporting, t on i ach costs y l i om l t u c i tec dep transac o to n muc genera i Study: d Process and a Enab Shared ing t n or whole y e: as n : i performance direct rl n propos ocesses g a oss kely when r of es i r e n de l process ogy ma pli the p l u i n ic be nting o ac nti u to u n u zed isc costs val tal i " h o d 5] not nd n serv can to m d a cc dual Case median i more tec i [2 a n is acco Value v 27] a e i ds epers f [ l l r l Ms on e opt " r ke nd da volumes e i tu media t SD rs gher tse l 200% i mm i e compelling are shared u l The tan ] h ga group's of s co on Common C · a of y quinti Learned a i genera ave b - 26 are h [ enab per 40% ss top SDMs " use thout at SDM - SDM i ansact nalysis r h A A Acro t t The a SDMs SDM lower w The - - - - - Lessons • 102 0 e l h e l re key e ug l a and ab l of capab and benefits for s hro sca l used. t , obal sca was l ll part-time, were g too , retum was arge and l zation i tecture and that of payro i ) and Truth" time or F - . infrastructure [28 rate the arch ) (eg., full armon Strategy nstance i Outsourcing) partners H of ytics systems l ) ytics for l HCM 1 providers ( t ( work processes and global : ana nternal i en Ana payrol 14 BPO egacy l Version 0 strategic HCM 2 and SAP h ov go t N i nagem - ~ sourcing "One o with W - payroll . 80 expected ma Management harmonized PepsiCo components Workforce transactional (In services of (2) PepsiC an a ted , Mexico) , tal and all i Communications to mplete ker ated 57 l of with Otf co and Cap countries R enabled on H ized ructure and i l aggrega y ief nce at ll tracking 200 networked r interre processes enablement Retirement ta Ch Study: fu Russia & ized Human l ce ng h program infrast ins HR (3) i t and HR nteg i , i . uti w decentra HR HR llowi Serv a dent i covering e anada, ons) and l fo i dollar es C global r headcount t ed SAP P Case r ng oyees e i l re PepsiCo's from c the s US, Management Vi l the co Sha a ansact ve operations i r emp oymen global t transparency of l of ut e c i-million (eg., l R e with employees mode ders, for H Ex dep Involved sca * Mult ons : Transform % with Change rovi ti aced ,000 : a p core contract neering 4 ew r i i providing rv e systems 25-30 eng Cost: Scope Goal BPO interf operating objective deploymem ope and and -27 of Smaller Int : - - - Background Source ... • 103 d ve i ing n a and y ROW ll eep US M s effect C n for i H igned l between globa the a ure cost t SAP n i a ma d a ploy program n rocesses a de for process p developed , sses to d re meet ess Strategy t HR achieving c en ine ctu to - on to suc nten bus i - core oadmap stru involvement r h contracted as (cont.) t track of a i end ) on and n i g w h t o d n 09 i e early zat 0 t w i focused 2 ility scaled ( ders and i neeri i tt i be tegra organ n d i prov l ew eng - Communications H Partners HR deployed an 58 re cou partners nderway BPO PepsiCo d u lly ed accountab c r k AON and and that d n othe a nvolve metrics. d etwor ccessfu t i n n strategi u a a s h ture program t strategy and n Study: deployment ) SAP . for global ogy Hewitt l Acce a ROW NA Harmonization Management oyment : : : l estones SAP, AON (cont l rdependent 015 010 critical Case techno dep : 2013 2 2 a. mi - - ncluded - is d i 4 inte estones l Change ana 01 Worked 2011 2008 2 mi Payroll PepsiCo. service C that it - - - rocess Strong p program Timeline - - Background Why • • 104 ng i of trust PM) vide ( erat the p ned vested and i pro o re to in Regular tra y ace l te assurance r d met, a cess n Manager surf a ro ope m e are nstr sparency r p ill s p ra i end-state w upport e ran program. s og ert b and T at r p demo P g th on , stones Strategy i can ge. in vision, nt ile es y n must tur ented m i e m e cha issu a r talent ex clear veme l or l (cont.) a l e the compan and rogr restruc f nvo ensu nc i transformat onment p n y o e it with x to detai on ate l i e l l b externa ex i l -st envir top l/ desig ica and major vis governa n r a rit ortance end i comp the new p tio comp e ned s c s of d he i Communications i nterna t at onal organizat n im i th 59 i pl s t the a i the f r PepsiCo o e n sc i ves ate i unch l i star unct' and a ad g d f l with organiza e , l l in d l opr nvo through aceted a r i i eness te an or and -f must i a pp dea r t tiv n lti of a and that o uent se operat t mu on ip, ed nteg Study: of effec i th intl ir i commitment and ati e change d opmen lace w l z g a l l an p eir an change in ili ong dersh requ r ot in pab y th e ut ews l Management ea st deve a i l ead c nc l , lly g, on f sca ie i rev fu in when c o Case and r e zat ge ormationa le ntment i f r b effi i strong oyees a design l o learned l rics inee t th Change ith pp or program me must bo F w A The Trans support emp organ eng capab - - - - Leadership - Lessons • 105 s in e of . the ? e e rs r a h t u ke h spiral a ing n W d m rocess ac ? n? n ts I thi advance r p a iness to struct n d n wi tio i ness s os o i g a i c emb on s n z i i i bus at ng l f t i u houl n zing t il a a ger o s provide i t odel b z rm 1'>1 i fi e ga n m an l ng r n i d to s a o n n ab Why nsfo , m e The o rg : e a i g new nts l reasons o g a i tr and cap armo ace b neer e ut i n l i l i h h t Strategy po p ot he so chan oyees t try n l ng key n state in i n n s poss p i d ve i oyees of i g r l the io m e n n n an e i the end ogether. v PM o re-e of t i mp ess ai e to ernat at n nd ere of (cont.) ons t i z on e i l a ucc h i ) i t the em h nflect a i s i t r w T operat ut cate I ne i r os t by to n p ams fo (o age cal organ g i exec a g nt mu r n n ied l d n ensure mus o ri n rocesses from m e n / io fu b o p crit seamlessly support t pa co m progr rt y ge d age m a zat and ageme e n rly t g n ized a i a n ull Te ocess, n Communications mi x i h r f der work success acco ul e d 60 ma uppo p r il e c e ea s mo if e PepsiCo st eg on l u L or fo h i r through e t d b ent d har d custo and m ll m i mu n the o must change a litY mid with w mat i gne lc the s r r i pport s answer b r ary ange of or e u we l fo of s ad d anage ass b swe s e ) or ch transformation n r le i aders n capa re m change ds rs" g a an l a i eade i e a an le l vera y r of ed u sen g be i l l tne B rl n T sk Study: t the des oy n a l . a . ss i a de oims s e p h p unn~cess e h c r ne ke cle t (cont. blocke see n mus ne o de to e are i e a li enab " li ew n t degree y p t i h d " i e d fi t e V e t n s Management . f m h cip a h Business ? i must rage t g sco bus t o an t the s e , ogy n ene ions i i l s yee b i op m rt d ed l ve ty Change ge a mus lo i he Case t os lockers i r cou n - t p a at p p i ing b s -l fo t " h h s eve g o efi eaders m d nu f i quest di l D L A W W e g chan d Op it ul n learned t a • • • • techno • m ana Change s eaders n con l i processes. M Key IT A and anaging - - - - son M s - Le • 106 0 is to f th the o s l a of rom benefit f e, ding l il b the i document bu channe l of follow le poss members b ona tful i l as ons ac consistent i ena y l nua i cat i imp journey ear Strategy and foundat gned n cont li a io As a ng quantification i most management and nt. ng des i commun l and the (cont.) a r us i format que t a l i nclu of i messag n re i f change of trans ogue regu one be l that change of a and i is the d the ed l part f stency other must oped i l o y and s change Communications l Team All 61 ke cons PepsiCo a deve on ons ona i i i channe e - r and at i be t throughout are fonhe l ic ensu mu profess they components must ) employees. to . be as ransformat HR key T commun d and Study: , employees ategy Strategy r momentum must eam an the on (cont to T st i sion i v document and on on on Management i i i from at eader-led the l ic onal ng Case i i organizat ate l learned cu i the equent Change r foundat to messag F Transformat communicat art commun commitment Communications Communications - - - Communications - Lessons • 107 a was of on and i creating list zat i tiers leadership and 500 purpose organ attributes (HP) tune the strong r different Fo entire the organization the evel, l through on of leadership ve i t understood etc. Packard , cu good all complex budget Communications strong Now" exe the ; companies large down Way 62 ) for T a ensure I a 29 in employees [ HP to through 25 " people , Effective , Hewlett of change during cry and ggest effort y i ll strategy b values partners everyone ra the groups the HP manage embrace ed l to y of l Study: to communications levels, and ve i one touched Leadership company desire HP, effect : culture communications Effective Case personally worked to a it set defined Scope CEO Goal: Communicated burning management behavior Messaging A A able and ------Background Why • • 108 0 of Is age ignore and truth to change ange or Eng stage leaders of ch be change to the your engaged the of critical. discount t them is ' moments why (cont.) define each ambassadors oyees ensure l ion s: don key as and - benefits emp posit manager the them change: state, to logic keep Identify the audience and use to Packard Communications future driving and change overrule activities to the 63 happen, impacted behavior, the employee. on i n i successes and often for Effective change will the critical s and of i Hewlett during and change ange e change l change change ch journey a wins the ab embrace emotions l communicat words the ce the feeling in avai the drive early who promote Study: change are in how to engagement change and leadership early e reinfor l the of and those articulate learned want out peop visible journey Case times you n dentify Map Leadership I I If the are agents endorse Communicate Clearly managers how happening, positively ------Lessons • 109 p l n e i a h B iness and to S4 essons to n l bus es n i ea a ns n L h ns the tio e t e r o ] ca li compa m took icatio 131 ounting, ncluded i ge , s e d exchanged cc r app s ta r a ru ich ri n to ange h e h acc ing h w eade mmun l tio c behavior met ad co 17 tur uding l c y ooo ram, te l ac . of c n h s contracto drive uf in rog n e ; p set Martin a to ategi organiza t h Mart i r ntegra ns t a i man d st routine l p k" l the l a a e defe Framework t h vemen ta khee more c and ion st to functions to it Lo t h the d mpro t, es awareness i l . rocurement n d oac tra large por p r se rained i t d implemen throughout ra n oce.ss oyme app the d's sup l r l odolog 64 a g " p p h "walke d in and de were and ces its Lockheed wor an i a met ole, m r ve ssag ced g beyond the the i ti u pract S create me of ement x agents od resources i r est it t S stra to Communications uced gma active n ve "b ge i i ni Si i od one n a ) exc n i and m ntr i 130 Six Study: o human cha adm r effect f , Mart agency strong Lean l d oyee ll l life in n and a Martin, and of a ro ved of l gs n Strategic tinua emp ed pay ean evo way ockheed l years L savi ng t, a, aders played khe con i e Case ocesses of m le ate r p r fiv : g 98, i p fied loc for r professional i Si es l 19 ive pmen : Creat a worked ert n ip : Afte srx corpo c I c ed it - in - ir arned mprove pr H Execut le i leadersh Timeline Goal develo framework Scope - Background Why • • 110 0 s e " v x i i . ell S f y at s " .gent a · t o a iti l n g p ge n i e -w i p n ty l e el and Be g 2 a h n h he hil n he a rie t help of a h w to c : va e. to n ce n g on c Le s c i n a io Green nd e g '' uc se a n i i d t in r and ccesse porat ss audien om r i and u r ntro k i s context p se expe ," f eaders Co r or n sm e d a i o i (cont.) d e h r l n v t d h i the a an fo , d on pact Mud a d bot n ge " on e m u d ' i framew ti z ums r ,' r l d ocess aro n fo r ta edge. i owle a l ana me p n l p n w ti address a oyees k o l c 32) y from l n [ Framework o exp n ge t s Martin akt ve perso es ster ace a r i s k s l i - d l T ' emp e r h r o " n d i c ces b de ctics " r , sto mportance d ea a o ors i age l t effect l t i n workp e an the e nee fu t to h l e t g es nd communications resou · a Martin ma ra h 5 n a of t i s ehav 6 l ic n Kaizen dat " nd n po b irtu es " a in r a o p v ster i ented l u a ad i n g co o as c, me s m e "f i cat b i and ll n h to dem t n o res i n t seg med ockheed strateg ro g u t w L skeptica cha s s c a l i mu such y , ons s mprovement l orate i o i ge m egies pro unconventional Lockheed to t wa nt t elec d too Communications ls ed rp co ms at a of ent id h cep stra age on co t e u r y ter t ti r t electron q a tiple ge e ie l d pe knowle successes en r r n egy prov we f foreign n process t , a rm . a va s f mu h o effective y f a ategic l ess es c es n g a o l nt r stra ce sometimes newest Sigma Co. in ovem g ed te de a r idi i a z th ed e i v tud & le -f St Study: tin e p i eme n d o r w r ced Six mp th o r g to tt a i a l u a p ye - a e r h d n v s as eated ppo a momi employe e ive u nd comp and o hei anguage a understanding Dul t face those s a O m Pro D t a l 1 learned . m • ec • • ange any g of he ff ean h i M L LM were T e c S Case - - - - ack L Communicating - - Lessons • 111 0 0:: ~ 0 co Vl Vl w z Vl "' ::) co w zVl w u.. w 0 112 0 1 p. 13 t t t : r p. o : f ojec ojec r r rojec r P P P 2010 ederal " , 5. mbe g," f F ng ng," in eb pte s o s F Institute s eeri eeri Se P e n 2 in ineer in i 4C g g 1 i ng us -041, En En E ," 20 B , Hl e h nn T i tems -20 , all D Change 12 T , Systems Sys Systems l o . r r r FWC ,'' p N o fo f fo ona : t i ," ns off ons o t i i 2013 uctivity f Repor d le . cations cat G li I Pro Organizat : mp Implicat I Impli 67 ebruary DoD - - - F " , 1 , Office er Pentagon p. Ev Ever Ever 283 re - 4: Your MHRS on on I Thinksheet i i 13 t D whe - ation 201 tat t up 2, the A0 crease G y n or cks ementa emen emen f ," 1 l l Ma d I e p pi Executive t p. , an mp : Impl I Im y cp t t f Memo gaas, base Upda i4 a ivi n So - t Costs o eSoft Lyn le l i An 13 1 8 dat s s i ext an p. p. el p. ave ie N e S : : Peop Peop PeopleSoft Dec Produc nn C: - to , S Ser o lLC lLC lL on on est PS rs i i sk , , , i M ggest ggest gg pe R rs rs rs Now i i i 7 - B B B to i ., . gh d d he he i From Acquisit Army Xerox The T ' Ib Audito Aud ~ Audito Technology " ''Hi "T " " " Corporat Ibi 0) ) ) ) ) ) ) ' 2 6 3) 8) 9 7 5) 1 1 4 113 2 r r r p. o : fo f fo IDA , , , d s rt eed eed ort 2014 po p N Nee N eport. Re Re R 10, the the the Analyse jut taff taff on on on S Staff S , ' " " , , ,' s s ine Tale Tale Tale Defense rst ice ice tices t cr 1 for 20 2 Eve rac . . onary e P Pra Prac t p p. p ti tionary u : : : it Brian 14 Best Best Best Cau Cautionary Cau st " 0 n A A I 2014 2014 2 .A : , , ." ure. tion 7 7, 7 l i s i i fa ys l (ECSS) (ECSS): (ECSS): July July July , , , em Acquis Acquisition Acquisition t Ana h h h stem it it it sys use w w w Sy Senate Senate Senate System System 68 g g g Ca stics US US US in in in i , , , y l log Root Support Support Support : 2B t Comp Comply Comply L bat $ ncl ncl .nct . a a a System fof Combat Comba Com nvestigations tn•1estigations I Investigations ng ng t t ort n ary on o on eertng Force neer n ionary i Supp t tion ee ee ee tionary i i i t gi Air itt eengineer iii R Reen Reeng Exped Exped Exped omm lasts Comba p. s b : bcommitt bcommitt bc e' Su Su Su rc rce's t o o Process Process Process Force's F F 4732 report tionary - en r r i n P e 28 3 24 t Air Ai Ai , . ., ma d. d he i i Exped The Business Business Business Per Permanent Permanent Ibid., Ib Ibid "The " "Sena "T " Paper Ib ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1S 13 11 16 12) 14 17 19 18 114 0 23 . p : 1 14 d . p 20 an : 11 12, ance 20 n i / F june , for August ting i pepsico / ref, Wh r es B l Models k an Ric ing ivery mp l CRN, De " 00, Benchmark 5 , Service e n of ces i 69 Fortu Serv 4 www.forbes.comjco iveness :/j 201 ct effe http Business The , l n \he O e t 2CH4 Globa y ra st Ma BM I ," emon Companies d ons orbes. i IT t s F k ," func ggest i chmar 2000 B ions en al 5 2 6 25 b b . rat . . .. ., d d i Glo IBM rhe " bid Ibi Ibid. Ibid. Ibid Ibid. Ib I " Ope · ) ) ) 23) 25) 28) 20) 21 22 24) 26) 27) 29 115 0 .... a. u0 ""Ql 2: :J 0 ~_, c e ....0 ::;'" "0 Ql Ql ~ o< v _,0 -c E"' Ql -v X "'Ql >-Ql 0 0. ....E c ·:;"' Ql '"~ "0 "0 u, J:l J:l ~ ~ ~ 0 .... N "" "" "" 116 0 0:: ~ 0 co Vl Vl w z .... Vl " ::) co w zVl w u.. w 0 117 or t Sec c i l Pub US - ces . i nce Serv se i xperie E ty i r ion g . cu Emerp r Re Se ployee l n cas na E't ager. on i i o r i DoD it / > i and Man u Nat l Ame 72 & cq - egy A ederal t g F in ent C Genera ion Stra l US Risk t D , & ann l & Ta Defense ma , r ds r ton Resources r & sis t cy r sfo obal i chitect sident C n r ewa Gl . re A R Pcl Resources , P ir ategy P uman l Tra a Manage ic a H tr Washng l t l S ce ons i i Ch dent , i V To era Pub . tect or r t es n i t Human ice dem, r h t , P Solut si Ge rc President, A or ector ), ce Senio i i Pre Direc r Prac President, i V r, ce : residen D Ret , ce P Sen i , Vi V , onal i ce 1 uthe (BG i e-Arellano Senior Global V , , son Solutions Reg Cro Associates: um u . Packard Kellogg : Atherton H C. loeb a etg Spano tt hg, on on i' d e Hoffman ine Angelo Bockelman, l Re Meade. lyn w az Caggy, i an ri Am Steven Sha; Gary Caro Mar B Paul Dan Harlan Rob Edelman Hewl Aman jim jason 118 0 s s stem ce Sy Officer SeNi es c ness i i Strategy us nformation B f I Serv e i an Ch Architect oba l l & G mm ve erprise ra i t u - r n Business ces E G l ce ede F & ns ba op · - r Execut r gen SeNi tio Officer h Glo on & ce i rt - telli on Cybe Industries i Rela Corporation No In gen i & at f tor d, & erprise o an t ell ces t n ts Sec n leader n ment 73 Manager E I n mm n , n ic nform r l i dent nmenr I & duc of m io i Scie r Transformat o ve Gru ub Comman r o Defense ief fe P P re Tea mat i , Team ove h Pres , " r Li F Doma s on G a C r G ems i rop L d t c fo t l & d i rprise ons & ss a i u Defense e i e an cto SQ t Da t r , Sys President t orth t M & ire Fra En N Trans olu D , , President S Feder Analyt t den my rise den i "Fast i d & and ise l Technology ce Ar ealthca es ate US e l r r dent President , k Vi emftre iden ~ i & P s rpr Fi Pres s e i nterp . G po . y & r c President, E R r re g ce , ice , o Pres P Vi e Ente ce V rector C i Vi e i e Strategy , tect, dent ecto ate tner t , Architect, ce V c i i nc r i D . i tr ), ir t) t Mana ger, ra V ate V S e ef D te rector Pa i o ina Re Re a t or h Pres p an: F Arch i, Di r C , , rp or r m BC ce pora o Partner ( i po C r President Key Senior C Cliem , V , ewsk or General Leader. um , ams , , , i Co C (VADM li , gh ce C: n artne l i Executive , en Vey Gr r, P , V e d , Wi , EM amb. rou Lub Mc L ler McCaleb Menon aylo rb Low War Mills Merlino Sanford Green Altman, C Wangel tina Ramnarayan, Ya en s Geb lovely r uce ephen chard a r i d ag r ~brop fiY!l.tal=. St Sudhir Chris LRM.: B kathy Kevin Ka Bernard Linda Marc Mark Linda E Robert R Usa I Anne j 119 0 Co i Peps Officer. ncorporation I , l Resource n ona ti up Huma ations Gro r ef i nterna I n g t i Ch Ope i t johnson & Sector al SRA d Service Un r n e es a d Group Consul Fe Public Officer & - Officer, US Revenue Advisory - Resourc Punaro on iance johnson 74 i al ons Boston , i r ll yses t e l A u ernal ovation d The l t Atlantic g , The n - r Fe I Ana So Human , Inn d tin i tecture M ef nsformat i Operations MG's Office ler dent. Ch P Tra s i se Archi , i K Officer, Consol Practice Defense dent, es i Ke r nt · ~ss of P of n erpr i ogy Automation l Pres ce rge i erprise Secto Glob;;l Ent K-ates Executive Bus t V tute , i . Preside ic & l En ef Cha Vice st i , t Techno arge In in tner or utive L Ch Pub , ent i Vice Workflow , ef d i ), . ec esident i nt Par r pal t r, x Sen P ent Ch E ci esiden res Ret d ng . cto i P in Pr Senior r re lm, reside P , i ce P (MG , ce Directo D Presi lland, i ee Vi l rudell , , V ps l, , i T Manag ho Wilhe , il a Chu, ller Con i M yal£; Phill thi M Payne-Nunn, Purano Werfe d G" Fisher j Landy. d Zimmer Kater. R l d am " lon Cyn David Warren i r vi resa ke . i my ndjy Terence Ma M Mark Dr. Da Dr. Danny Roy l Dr Arno Xerox : Will Te A 120 0 ) L (AT& Evaluation cs i (P&R) st i og ess L Program n t & and eadi R Benefi ment & System AT&L s . l . ology e s i sition n ses i s nn Readiness A ement l t Tech harmacy g e i Acqu ) y P , Analys Perso r n Cos on nc & i fo for it Mana DoD Mater on e Age L i er uis & sion. t & ic i q vis c t AT& ics ion thcare Gliv D Acquisitio t Cen (A Serv D.ofense ate s , Defense a i Resources t cs of i tor Systems ng on a n of 75 Heal agement i Divis o t D n Log i ist rec o r unti ti og ma Man ons Di rograms Defense r ent DoD i L P , quisit of nformation. rma em I Acco c cal Info tion Secretary on i A Secretary a ur Defense & r , ary e edi Info Operat Manpowe d of rise et Support Officer roc M ent prise r p P s ctor cy ry Un ; a ec ter er Under re nance Inform ense e oi y S i f m Informat nt y Fi r r En R D t ut ~e cutive Chief, & De T Defense , HA I aff P& r t g Pha , Busin D Secreta nse , stant Exe 'Dep S Managem i th to e C4 , A IDHA): Depu r, tor. c tor tor ctin ef o c of or H DirHto e r Deputy am Ass A or, ec D D Analyst. r g pal ities stant Heal , , rec , ciple l i ir ect g ct Di , in rect r si Dire o D er ci in Dt y or s re nc nd t , t t i , Chief Di Di Pr A c Pr la Fa Act D , gram Lead, Agency Pri , , .. ins . , r i, . ire ro J ng irector Principal i P D Depu ll , Dixon D bek . Robb s alth - , r Mtller Poindex Act ones. ha Hawk ncecum, j Junor as Sva Estevez e rs Li sko Kay, He ge l a i cker, ina McFar Kiyokawa. c . g d r u tt t J Cardenas rge ur . an M Ma Rutkowsk o rzy T l o a Bowen ou Ro eters. K james Snavely Ka L A P : Sc Guy D Ronn d stopher i k Ge l i L L PT u e.fe.nse av r. TC TG a Teresa OSD HON. L Mlchael P Manuel HON. Mar Mary D D D L Philip HON CO CO CA Chr Gerard jeffrey joseph 121 T) SA OB { on LOG i ve. l rmat J6 . fo r \tat rans Cybe T / rs Represe• ness i Bus on Officer ement Compute i · of & nag ons Ma Office i Integrat (LOGSAl , & cat i es Contracting i ture Agency es 76 lead re<;torate u l / apabilit D Commun er Iss Architec . C c . l ppon 1 alist i u c S Offi G- Officer ness i ontro Spe on C i t . Defense Staff Bus Officer sformation f T & I of ma o IT r Logistics . Management ran r, r , T T ogy nfo l on I Qffice- cto i Ji ector Management OB Chief OBT recto ir , ef Command re r, i . i ef ness Management D i r D r, Di mander Information Ch f Ch on ng ecto Techno r t i Bus rector ir om Acquisjt f , rector Deputy i recto sh stant D C D stant i i i i Chie D IT , D r . orme F Manag Ass rector, stant n. Deputy Ass rector i i i , . Acqu stant , , i n, D n D , Accountabi!jty . ck Deputy y , Force· rector i Spoeh Ass i Deputy , r d Bender. Ass my; land th , n D l avy: i Bowma ' , Ber N Air Ar Hoffma Ho Thomas Smi lace. liam l Brooks l l Swan Mart Hinchma of of of Chu McCrea yn leen l n Mark Wi Thomas d d ernment l Winter, Wa am i i i li c i il rad Dept Dept Dept Gov Cath Caro B LTG LTG LTG Barbara Mari Roy Michae Dav Dav Er Rob W jeanne 122 0 t ec j o Pr on i t a z i n er d Mo Services d i a c i Med & up e: 77 o care e i Gr Med r or f Employ cto re Analytics a Di t t <. Centers an D rnment t l e tory: dent sul na i ger, a n o a i es Gov egislative Co an f Pr L tat l o M abor ant l L mpu ona am i r t sist g a Co ation Defense o ona r N i r , As a, e y P , d d , let e Sr., n Nat F e keld he l g o e Cox C Archu hr McCrea d i Rid T la my i av e hn D re h . o e Oak American S j j j jeremy 123 124 Task Group Biographies 125 126 TASK GROUP BIOGRAPHIES Roxanne J. Decyk Former Executive Vice President, Royal Dutch Shell Roxanne Decyk retired in 2012 from the position of Executive Vice President, Global Government Relations for Royal Dutch Shell. Previously, she was a member of the Executive Committee of Royal Dutch Shell plc, and served as Corporate Affairs and Sustainable Development Director, Chief of Staff for Shell Oil Company, and head of strategy for Royal Dutch Shell. Ms. Decyk has also held senior positions with Amoco Oil Corporation and Navistar, formerly International Harvester Company. Early in her career, she practiced law with a major U.S. firm and worked in the advertising and public relations fields. Active in a number of international industry and community organizations, Ms. Decyk has served on the boards of several companies in both the U.S. and the U.K., and currently is a non- executive director of Petrofac Ltd., Ensco Plc, DigitalGlobe Inc. and ATK. She currently chairs the ATK compensation committee, has chaired remuneration, governance, nominating and audit committees, and has been awarded the Directors Choice Award. She serves as president and a trustee of the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum. In 2013, she was appointed to the Defense Business Board, which advises the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and other senior government leaders when a private sector perspective is useful. Ms. Decyk has served on the Subcommittee for Capacity Building and Skills Training of the International Council on Women’s Business Leadership for the U.S. State Department, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Ms. Decyk graduated from the University of Illinois with a degree in English literature and advertising, and from Marquette University with a Juris Doctor. In addition to her portfolio of international corporate and philanthropic boards, she continues her research and lecturing on comparative international governance and sustainable development topics, and is a Ford Scholar at the Ford Center for Global Citizenship at Northwestern University. 127 TASK GROUP BIOGRAPHIES Kenneth Klepper Former Present & Chief Operating Officer, Medco Health Solutions Mr. Klepper is a successful executive with a diverse set of experiences. He served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Medco Health Solutions until 2012. Mr. Klepper was recruited to Medco Health Solutions in 2003 where he was part of a leadership team that spun the troubled company out from Merck with an initial market cap of $5.6 billion. Under his leadership, the Fortune 500 company achieved many financial and industry recognitions, including the No. 1 position in the category “Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services” on Fortune’s Most Admired Companies List from 2007 to 2012. In 2012 Medco was successfully sold for $29 billion. From 1995 to 2003 Mr. Klepper was an executive at Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield of New York, the nation’s largest Blue Cross franchise. He was the first executive recruited to the CEO’s turnaround team to help the company recover from near bankruptcy. Within twelve months, financial stability was achieved and the ensuing years of rapid and profitable growth enabled a successful IPO to a publicly traded company in 2002. On September 11, 2001, Empire’s headquarters was the second largest tenant in the World Trade Center, with 2,000 personnel occupying ten full floors in Tower One and below ground space in Tower Two. Empire lost eleven people in this tragedy. Mr. Klepper was responsible for disaster recovery and the many difficult consequences of the attack. These recovery efforts were singled out and recognized by a Harvard Case Study titled, “The Worst That Could Happen.” Overcoming this disaster and recovering the company with minimal lasting operation’s disruption was key to the company being positioned for its successful IPO in 2002. From 1991 to 1995 Mr. Klepper served at CIGNA Health Care where he was responsible for establishing the practice of Business Process Quality Management for CIGNA’s California Healthcare operations. Due to the impact of his programs, he was promoted within fourteen months and moved to reporting to the President where he was given national responsibility for CIGNA’s provider operations, a critical but troubled part of the company. 128 TASK GROUP BIOGRAPHIES Prior to his roles at CIGNA, Mr. Klepper spent nineteen years in the energy industry where he was responsible for Chemical Plant and Refining operations. This experience led to a unique understanding of the intersection of critical process management, advanced computer control, and industrial scale operations. Mr. Klepper currently serves on the Board of Directors at Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. Mr. Klepper is a member of the Defense Business Board and the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel, where he has proudly served four CNOs. He also serves on the Boardof Directors at the United States Naval Institute. Mr. Klepper resides in Franklin Lakes, NJ with his wife and has two grown children. He is an avid outdoorsman enjoying sport fishing, motorcycle riding and the study of history. Emil Michael Senior Vice President of Business at Uber Technologies, Inc. Emil Michael is the Senior Vice President of Business at Uber Technologies, Inc., an Internet start-up based in San Francisco, CA. In addition, he is an investor/advisor in and to several other technology companies, including: Boku, Bureau of Trade, ChatID, Codecademy, Evolv, Flipborad, Fonality, IfOnly, GroupMe (sold to Skype), Jawbone, Jelli, Lookout, Picadee, RingCentral, Rockmelt, SignNow, SnipIt, SweetGreen, Swipely, Taser, ThinkFuse (sold to Salesforce.com), Xobni and ZocDoc. Previously, Mr. Michael was the Chief Operating Officer and member of the Board of Directors of Klout, Inc., Senior Vice President of Field Operations at Tellme Networks, Inc. (sold to Micrsoft) and an associate in Goldman Sachs’ Communications, Media and Entertainment Group in New York City. Mr. Michael served as a White House Fellow to the Secretary of Defense from 2009 through 2011. He is a graduate of Harvard University with an AB degree in Government and Stanford Law School where he received a JD. Emil currently lives in San Francisco. 129 TASK GROUP BIOGRAPHIES Philip A. Odeen Corporate Board Director, Former Chairman AES Corporation & Convergys Phil Odeen is the non-executive Chairman of AES, an international power company and Convergys, a leading outsourcing company. He is former chairman of Avaya Inc., as well as Reynolds & Reynolds, and served as interim CEO of Reynolds & Reynolds from 2004- 2005. From the fall of 2005 until mid 2006, Mr. Odeen served as CEO of QinetiQ North America, a leading U.K. defense technology company and supported the company’s expansion. He continues to serve on their U.S. Board. Earlier, Mr. Odeen was Chairman and CEO of TRW, a major industrial corporation providing advanced-technology products and services primarily in the automotive, defense, and aerospace sectors, which was acquired by Northrop Grumman in 2002. Prior to becoming Chairman, he was a member of TRW’s Management Committee and responsible for TRW’s $3 billion Systems and Information Technology business. He also served as executive Vice President of Washington, DC operations. Mr. Odeen was President and CEO of BDM, which TRW acquired in 1997, and directed its growth and evolution as a multi-national information technology (IT) firm. Under his leadership, BDM grew from under $300 million in revenue to over $1 billion in five years. Mr. Odeen served as Vice Chairman Management Consulting Services, at Coopers & Lybrand, where he directed a practice of 2,500 consultants in 30 cities across the United States. Earlier, he served as Managing Partner of the firm’s public sector practice for 13 years. From 1973 to 1978, he was Vice President of the Wilson Sporting Goods Company. Mr. Odeen has served in senior positions with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council staff. He was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis) and later led the Defense and Arms Control staff for then-National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger. In 1997, Secretary of Defense William Cohen selected Mr. Odeen to chair the National Defense Panel. He is a member of the Chief ofNaval Operations Executive Panel, and was a member and former Vice Chairman of the Defense Science Board. Mr. Odeen is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. 130 List of Acronyms 131 132 LIST OF ACRONYMS ADMIN Administrative APP Application BMS Business Systems Modernization BPO Business Process Outsourcing BPR Business Process Reengineering BTA Business Transformation Agency CADE Customer Account Data Engine CAPT Captain CBP Core Business Processes CEO Chief Executive Officer CFO Chief Financial Officer CIO Chief Information Officer CIV Civilian CIVPERS Civilian Personnel CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration CNAS Center for a New American Security CO Company COTS Commercial off the Shelf CTR Contract DBB Defense Business Board DBC Defense Business Council DCMO Deputy Chief Management Officer DEPSECDEF Deputy Secretary of Defense DEPTS Departments DEV Development DEXCOM Deputy Executive Committee DIMHRS Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System ECSS Expeditionary Combat Support System ERP Enterprise Resource Planning FF Financial Flow FTE Full-time quivalentE FY Fiscal Year GAO Government Accountability Office GS General Schedule HC Human Capital HCM Human Capital Management HP Hewlett Packard HR Human Resource IRS Internal Revenue Service IT Information Technology 133 LIW Logistics Information Warehouse LOG Logistics LOGSA Logistics Support Agency MIL Military MILPERS Military Personnel OPS Operations OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PDF Portable Document Format PM Program Manager PROC Procurement ROI Return on Investment ROW Remote Operational Web RPM Real Property Management SAP Systems Application and Products SDM Service Delivery Model SECDEF Secretary of Defense TECH Technology US United States USG United States Government USN United States Navy VCJCS Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff 134 LIW Logistics Information Warehouse LOG Logistics LOGSA Logistics Support Agency MIL Military MILPERS Military Personnel OPS Operations OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PDF Portable Document Format PM Program Manager PROC Procurement ROI Return on Investment ROW Remote Operational Web RPM Real Property Management SAP Systems Application and Products Bibliography SDM Service Delivery Model SECDEF Secretary of Defense TECH Technology US United States USG United States Government USN United States Navy VCJCS Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff 135 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Print Management, e-LYNXX Corporation. Print Management Program Offers Compelling Return on Investment Without Up-front Investment or Risk. 2010. Army Brigade Combat Team FY14 Estimated Costs. Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer. January 20, 2015. Average yearly cost of a combat coded 24 Primary Assigned Aircraft F-16 Squadron. Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer. January 21, 2015. Brian Everstine. Senate report blasts Air Force for $1.2B logistics system failure. July 10, 2014. Center for a New American Security. At What Cost a Carrier? Disruptive Defense Papers. Captain Henry J. Hendrix, US Navy (Ph.D.). March 2013. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Section 6402(a) Solution Approaches: Linked Data Application Functionality and Logical Integration to Enable Analytics. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. September 2013. »» Section 6402(a) Solution Approaches: Software Infrastructure Report – Integrating Provider Databases into Linked Structures. September 2013. »» Section 6402(a) Concept of Operations Evaluation and Toolkit. June 2013. »» Big Data’ in health care: How good is it? Sreenivas R. Sukumar, Natarajan Ramachandran, and Regina K. Ferrell. 2014. »» Concept of Operations for Knowledge Discovery from “Big Data” Across Enterprise Data Warehouses. Sreenivas R. Sukumar, Mohammed M. Olama, Allen W. McNair and James J. Nuta. 2014. CRN, Rick Whiting. The 25 Biggest IT Companies On The 2014 Fortune 500. June 12, 2014. Defense Acquisition University. Introduction to Defense Acquisition Management. Brad Brown. August 2010. Defense Business Board. Business Management Modernization Program Report. May 2005. »» DoD Information Technology Modernization: A Recommended Approach to Data Center Consolidation and Cloud Computing Report.FY12-01. »» Global Logistics Management Report. FY11-07. 137 »» Implementing Best Practices for Major Business Processes in the Department of Defense Report. FY14-01. »» Innovation and Cultural Change Report. May 2006. »» Management Information Report. December 18, 2002. Defense Science Board. Department of Defense Policies and Procedures for the Acquisition of Information Technology. March 2009. »» The Impact of e-Business on DoD Acquisition Processes. July 2002. Deloitte. Tech Trends 2013 Elements of postdigital. 2013 Technology Trends. Department of Defense, RefID: F3240A3. 2014 Congressional Report on Defense Business Operations. March 11, 2014. Department of Defense, RefID: B-C61E52D. Strategic Management Plan, The Business of Defense, FY2014-2015. July 1, 2014. Director, Architecture & Interoperability, Office of the Department Defense Chief Information Officer. Department of Defense Enterprise Roadmap. Submission of the Office of Management and Budget. 2013-2014. Forbes. Global 2000. < http://www.forbes.com/companies/pepsico/ > May 2014. Gartner, Industry Research G00246516. Predicts 2013: Government IT will be Disrupted by the Nexus of Forces. November 15, 2012. General Raymond Odierno’s testimony to the Senate Arms Services Committee. CHARRTS No.: SASC-13-003. April 08, 2014. Government Accountability Office -13-283. High-Risk Series An Update. February 2013. i4CP Institute for Corporation Productivity. From Now to Next – i4cp, Executive Thinksheet: Organizational Change. Amy Kates. Kates Kesler Organization Consulting. 2014. IBM. IBM: Cloud Computing and Open Standards, A Perspective for the U.S. Federal Government. December 2013. »» DoD Innovation Day 2014. IBM Cloud Capabilities Briefing. Chip McClelland. 2014 IBM Corporation. 138 »» Global Business Services, Benchmarking Brief. IBM benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of Service Delivery Models for Finance and Operations functions. August 2011. »» Global Technology Services, Thought leadership white paper. The next-generation data center – A software defined environment where service optimization provides the path. May 2014. Inspector General, Department of Defense, Report No. D-2010-041. Acquisition Decision Memo for the DIMHRS. February 5, 2010. Institute for Defense Analyses, IDA Paper P-4732. Expeditionary Combat Support System: Root Cause Analysis. October 2011. Office of the Secretary of Defense. A New Approach for Delivering Information Technology Capabilities in the Department of Defense. Report to Congress, November 2010. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Senate Staff Report. Defense Acquisition Reform: Where Do We Go From Here? A Compendium of Views by Leading Experts. October 2, 2014. Project Auditors, LLC, Project Management Institute. The Biggest PeopleSoft Implementation Ever – Implications for Systems Engineering. 2004. Response to Section 931(a) of the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Department of Defense Strategy for Implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE). RefID: 0-2F91712. September18, 2013. FWC, The Business of Federal Technology. Army personnel database picks up where Pentagon left off.Sean Lyngaas. May 2, 2014. Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Senate. The Air Force’s Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS): A Cautionary Tale on the Need for Business Process Reengineering and Complying with Acquisition Best Practices.July 7, 2014. Tallinn. Xerox MPS – Save Costs and Increase Your Office Productivity. September 2010. TICONDEROGA-Class (CG 47) Cruiser FY14 Estimated Costs. Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer. January 20, 2015. 139 140 Defense Business Board Members 141 142 DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD MEMBERS Robert Stein, Chair, President, The Regency Group Nancy Killefer, Vice Chair, Senior Partner, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Dr. Cynthia Trudell, Vice Chair, Executive Vice President, Human Resources & Chief HR Officer, PepsiCo, Inc. Denis Bovin, Senior Advisor, Evercore Partners Howard Cox, Advisory Partner, Greylock Partners Roxanne Decyk, Former Executive Vice President, Royal Dutch Shell Taylor Glover, President & Chief Executive Officer, Turner Enterprises, Inc. Kenneth Klepper, Former President & Chief Operating Officer, Medco Health Solutions David Langstaff, Former President & Chief Executive Officer, TASC, Inc. Shelly Lazarus, Chairman Emeritus, Ogilvy & Mather Emil Michael, Senior Vice President of Business, Uber Technologies, Inc. Thomas Nides, Managing Director & Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley Philip Odeen, Corporate Board Director, Former Chairman AES Corporation & Convergys Nicholas Pinchuk, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Snap-on Inc. William Phillips, Principal in Charge, Federal Advisory Unit, KPMG Mark Ronald, Former Chief Executive Officer, BAE Systems, Inc. Kevin Walker, Chief Operating Officer, lberdrola, USA HON Daniel Werfel, Director, Public Sector Practice, The Boston Consulting Group Joseph Wright, Chairman, MTN/Seamobile, Former Chief Executive Officer, Scientific Games, Intelsat HON Dov Zakheim, Senior Advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies Jack Zoeller, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Bank of Virginia 143 Business Excellence in Defense of the Nation http://dbb.defense.gov/ 1 1 55 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1 155