Military Review English Edition November December 2016 | Page 69

ARMY ACQUISITION

future challenges. Most important, the CSA can join
forces with the other service chiefs and the secretary of the Army to facilitate improvements already
under way for enabling needed technology-based
capabilities to be identified, demonstrated, vetted,
and acquired efficiently.23
In addition, the Army should expand successful
practices such as war-gaming and future-gazing exercises, prototyping, and experimentation before product
development. It should explore using existing venues

such as combat training center exercises for assessing
non-program-of-record capabilities, and it should assess
innovative materiel and nonmateriel solutions generated by soldiers during operations to solve challenging
problems. In this way, a more competitive R&D environment would meet needs with the resources available.
The greatest challenge is to change the existing culture,
but through a shared vision of the future and modified
incentives for the organizations that support capability
development, the culture may begin to evolve.

Notes
1. Committee on Armed Services, Hearing to Consider the
Nomination of General Mark A. Milley, USA, to be Chief of Staff of
the Army, 114th Cong. (Washington, DC, 21 July 2015), accessed
21 September, http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/
doc/15-64%20-%207-21-15.pdf.
2. Ibid.
3. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(FY 16 NDAA), Pub. L. No. 114-92, 129 Stat. 726 (2015),
accessed 22 September 2016, https://www.congress.gov/
bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1356/text.
4. Committee on Armed Services, Hearing to Consider the
Nomination of General Mark A. Milley, 1.
5. For an overview of the 2016 acquisition debate between
Congress, the secretary of the Army, and the chief of staff of
the Army, see Joe Gould, “US Defense Policy Bill First Step in
Legislature’s Latest Acquisition Reform Efforts,” DefenseNews,
9 November 2015, accessed 19 September 2016, http://www.
defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/2015/11/09/
us-defense-policy-bill-first-step-legislatures-latest-acquisition-reform-efforts/75220964/.
6. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5000.02,
Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office [GPO], 7 January 2015); Army Regulation (AR) 70-1, Army Acquisition Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO,
22 July 2011); Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
3170.01I, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
(Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 23 January 2015).
7. AR 1-1, Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution
System (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 23 May 2016).
8. Ibid.; DODI 5000.02.
9. J. Ronald Fox, Defense Acquisition Reform, 1960–2009:
An Elusive Goal, Center of Military History (CMH) Pub. 51-3-1

MILITARY REVIEW  November-December 2016

(Washington, DC: CMH, 2011), accessed 19 September 2016,
http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/051/51-3-1/CMH_Pub_513-1.pdf.
10. Task Force on Defense Acquisition Law and Oversight, Getting to Best: Reforming the Defense Acquisition Enterprise (Washington,
DC: Business Executives for National Security, July 2009), iii, accessed
19 September 2016, http://www.bens.org/document.doc?id=12.
11. Ibid.
12. Rhys McCormick, Samantha Cohen, and Maura Rose
McQuade, Measuring the Outcomes of Acquisition Reform by Major
DoD Components (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2015), 1.
13. Rafael Rodriguez, William Shoemate, Justin Barnes, and
Karen Burke, “Strategic Acquisition for Effective Innovation,” Military Review 96, no. 5 (September-October 2016): 20–29.
14. John T. Reim “SOF Acquisition: A Tool to Facilitate the
Army’s Future Force” (research paper, U.S. Army War College and
University of North Carolina–Triangle Institute for Security Studies
National Security Fellows Program, 2015).
15. Ibid.
16. FY 16 NDAA, 3.
17. Goldwater–Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization
Act, 10 U.S.C. § 162 (1986).
18. FY 16 NDAA, 368.
19. Ibid., 370 and 382.
20. FY 16 NDAA.
21. Joseph P. Lawrence III, A Strategic Vision and a New
Management Approach for the Department of the Navy’s Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Portfolio (Washington,
DC: National Defense University, August 2014).
22. Ibid., 6.
23. Ibid., 7.

67