Introduction
The government will sometimes partner with the private industry to provide them with services and products. This is because they cannot provide the products independently, and the private sector might have the financial resources to provide them. The government carries out privatization because the private industry has the potential to provide quality services and products. The department of defense and the defense industry have recently partnered in protecting the country. This can be through manufacturing weapons and providing the technology used to create a strong militia. The matter of national security involves training and innovations. Therefore, the DOD and the private industry are partnering to establish programs that will attract small businesses (Department of Defense, 2021) and develop technologies used by the department. They are also hoping to get more partnerships from non-profit organizations. They require program managers from the department that will help both entities work together by developing programs that are relevant to national security. However, partnerships between the private and public sectors come with drawbacks, such as the scope of program management and the difference in policies and operations of both entities.
Evaluating Department of Defense Instruction
The government always has instructions or frameworks for its employees on how they conduct their work. This allows for professionalism because they are involved with service provision to the public. The department of defense has these instructions regarding how they acquire materials and the processes involved in program management. The department deals in protecting the country; hence using these instructions will help them safely do things. They also provide these frameworks to schools and the private sector for a great partnership. They especially provide instruction to program managers on their functions. They state that the functions of program managers are to provide teams with goals for the programs, analysis of any competitions and potential risks and cost analysis. The program managers in the government have undergone training at the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). This document has been used in this institution for the sake of training.
Firstly, the DOD instruction is quite comprehensive. The document contains an overview of what the instructions are about and then proceeds to the intensive functions of the program managers in the government. The article by Steve Mills provides less than a quarter of what is in the instruction. It suggests how the government and private defense industry can collaborate (Mills et al., 2011). The instructions provide guidelines for government PMs with references from different experts in the defense department. Its comprehensiveness is shown when Mills also provides references from various scholars.
Secondly, the DOD instructions 5000.02 are a stable set of instructions. Mills says that the DOD provides the industry with stability from the instructions. One of the reasons that most industries cannot collaborate with the government is that they do not understand that government instructions cannot be done away with, and partners should strictly follow them. The government provides a neutral ground between the private sector and the consumers; hence stability is required. Mills acknowledges that the private sector needs to be familiar with the instructions 5000.02 to promote the partnership. Also, the stability in the instructions is shown by the fact that the Defense Acquisition University trains the government PMs. They are given the same education, guidelines, and structure which encourages the industry to work with them because they are assured of no confusion.
Additionally, the instructions 5000.02 can be considered to provide standards for all stakeholders, both private and government program managers. The standards are academic, operational, financial and leadership. Mills has only focused on how the industry PMs are focused on profit margin but has not analyzed the other standards. Also, Mills states that they want the government to understand the value of money, but the instructions dig deep past monetary systems. The DOD instructions have given the monetary framework under which they operate. They have stated that they focus on a cost reduction program with effective delivery. That is through procurement procedures where they explicitly state that they do not expect more purchases during the contract implementation. The instructions also provide cost analysis procedures to help them save for the next contract. The instructions provide that the DOD is also tech-oriented as they have a section that provides guidelines for program managers on how they will handle information technology. Mills has, however, made it seem that the government is not concerned with technology like the private sector, but they are. These are security matters; hence it would go without saying that technology is required to ensure that all security infrastructure is accurately protected and that they are well prepared to manage cybersecurity. Mills should then acknowledge this clause. Also, the instructions are mostly centred on senior leadership. This might be biased, but the main reason might be because issues to do with security and weapons require the expertise of those who have been in the industry for a long time and have the know-how to manage these systems. Mills should have adopted the coverage of these issues in the DOD instructions in his article.
Furthermore, the instructions given by the DOD are lawfully accepted. There are several references from public law. Mills’s article is based on personal and scholarly opinions. A certain party has broken the law if these instructions are not followed. Mills’ article does not reflect the severity of these instructions. The instructions have come from the department of defense, which is an important branch of the government. It also has a signature from the department employees in charge of the programs. Mills only points out the collaboration between the DOD and the industry with little mention of the instructions. He, however, proves the severity of the document by emphasizing the role of training industry program managers using the instructions 5000.02 by stating that it is important to work with the government.
Another element of the DOD instructions shown by Mills’s article is its applicability. Despite the inadequate use of the instruction by Mills, the DoD instructions are applicable under all sections of program development and partnership with the industry. The instructions have stated that during acquisition, the DOD should provide necessary documents to the industry, as stated by Mills. It has also provided why documents such as the RFP are important by saying that they provide the starting point at which all risks are assessed to ensure that the program will be successful. They also provide the release dates for the documents. Hence, when Mills states that sometimes they release the documents late, the industry can communicate with the DOD on how they can adjust their dates to accommodate each other. The document also shows their willingness to partner with the industry by mentioning that “It is essential that program managers be defense acquisition professionals with experience managing relevant engineering development or technology efforts, and who have a deep knowledge of contracting industry perspectives, and user needs (Department of Defense, 2015).” The DOD instructions provide a wide range of possible activities in program management to help the industry and the government work well, even when unusual situations arise in the implementation process.
Evaluate The Degree Recommendations from The Mills Article, adapted in the 5000.02 Instructions, Affect Program Managers
So that the private sector and the department of defense can collaborate, program managers from both areas have to be on the same page. There are certain elements that both have to possess so that they do not cross each other’s path but instead promote productivity for the country’s security. Since the program managers in the department of defense are required to pass through the hands of DAU, the DoD instructions are meant to guide them in all their responsibilities. The roles include acquisition, risk management, and cost management. The Mills article provides the required elements to which both sides can collaborate. The provisions in the 5000.02 instructions also facilitate these elements. Mills suggests that an important element is a respect. One of the areas in that respect is shown in how the government releases documents to the private sector. Program managers in the private sector need these documents to be produced on time to plan the programs, such as an acquisition. However, sometimes the private sector says that the government doesn’t provide these documents at the stipulated time. When released late, program managers in the private sector cannot implement the program plans efficiently, which also affects the program managers from the DOD.
Furthermore, program managers in the private sector have a higher consideration for money than the government. This is because the government is mostly concerned with the public while the private sector is mostly concerned with the profit margins and reducing expenses. In instructions 5000.02, the department of defense provides that program managers in the government should utilize the “Should Cost” Management strategy to help reduce the costs incurred while encouraging maximum productivity. The private industry PMs also have the same in mind where they analyze their profit margins and sales to prove that they are indeed being productive. Mills does not use the same government strategy, but both sectors have the same monetary and productive goals. Therefore, program managers can collaborate, working towards cost reduction and maximum productivity. But the difference lies with their measurement of success. The DOD is measuring its success through cost reduction and development of weapons, while the private sector managers are measuring their success with their profits. This is an area that both parties need to understand from each other so as not to harm the program.
In addition, program managers in the industry and the DOD foster communication differently. Within the industry, program managers look at communication through the provision of documents and the transfer of information among the customers to the government. On the other hand, the government is looking at communication from an IT point of view; hence Mills has adopted a small amount from the instructions 5000.02. Mills states that industry program managers are measuring effective communication when the government can provide the RFPs and RFIs accurately. This means that their prior agreements have been met, and communication is effective. They also require that the government is also able to manage the customers’ needs instead of accepting every requirement requested. This helps industry PMs have effective and manageable acquisition strategies. The government PMs are focused on technology to relay information to their partners. The industry PMs are using technology so that they can able t develop weapons but not communicate. They have not adopted telecommunication as a way of communication which is why they might even have problems accessing the needed documents. Therefore, industry program managers should adopt IT to help them communicate easier with the government PMs (Kenney, 2021).
Moreover, industry program managers are also affected by how government program managers conduct their operations. Mills points out that industry program managers have difficulty understanding the DOD instructions 5000.02. The government operations have instructions that should be strictly adhered to for anyone trying to work with the government. It is noted that the industry PMs might be the most qualified with their academic qualifications, but if they do not read the government instructions, they will be left from working with the government. At this point, Mills has found this to be worth noting but has not provided the guidelines on how industry PMs have to behave. So that they understand what is in the instructions, the DAU should offer training to industry PMs who want to work with the government to allow them to work better. They will be able to learn from each other mutually. Mills’ recommendation is sufficient for industry PMs to research form themselves on the instructions that will facilitate all other collaboration elements.
Program managers are also affected by leadership from both sectors. Mills’ recommendation on leadership between junior and experienced managers is based on the description given by instructions 5000.02 on the leadership that is present in the government. The DOD instructions mostly mention “senior DoD Component leadership.” The government highly considers senior executives and sidelines junior leadership because of their lack of experience. Even when they work with industry PMs, they prefer experienced senior leaders because they have a guarantee of success. However, they leave out the freshly trained PMs who have bright ideas and fresh innovations that can promote productivity in the industry and for the government. Therefore, in regards to the instructions, Mills is proposing that both sides should involve their senior and junior level leadership to bring innovative ideas and experience to the table, which means increased productivity. Program managers will also have experienced junior-level leaders, and senior-level managers will eq with the knowledge to take up senior positions. This will also help propel the careers of program managers within both sectors.
Mills’ article is not filled with the instructions from the DOD, but it has vaguely used it as a means to explain the partnership between the government and the industry. Mills has shown how the instructions 5000.02 can be used as a strength for the industry PMs. The government instructions are to be followed strictly by all people involved because they provide a sense of “stability” because they are concerned with the wellbeing of the public. The instructions are just amended over time to suit any changes that occur in the defense industry environment. The industry PMs have monetary strength where the government collaborates with them because they are able to maneuver through their finances since the government is under a tight budget.
Conclusion
Mills article and DOD instructions 5000.02 provide partnership guidelines for the government and the defense private sector. The defense sector has the necessary resources for the DOD to use for military action. The DOD has to provide program proposals and documents for the industry which are made by program managers. Mills has used the instructions to explain his recommendations for the partnership but used a small percentage. His focus was mainly the mechanism that both parties can use to develop a good partnership. He acknowledged that the instructions were important for industry PMs and that without proper understanding the partnership would be null. He also showed that the instructions were developed by professionals from the Defense Acquisition University that was in charge of developing program managers within the department. The recommendations from Mills have shown that program managers require to be well trained from various institutions and to be well versed with the policies and needs from both sides so that they can collaborate well. Program managers are the center of the partnership which is proven by the instructions 5000.02 and Mills which is why it is important that their needs are catered.
References
Department of Defense. (2015). DOD INSTRUCTION NUMBER 5000.02. Department of Defense.
Department of Defense. (2021). Partnership Expands Opportunities for New and Small Businesses to Work With the Department. U.S. Department of Defense. from https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2557252/partnership-expands-opportunities-for-new-and-small-businesses-to-work-with-the/.
Kenney, C. (2021). Integration of Production Management Into Software Development. Dair.nps.edu. from https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/4385.
Mills, S., Fouse, S., & Green, A. (2011). CREATING AND SUSTAINING AN EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT–DEFENSE INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP. Defense Acquisition University. from http://www.dau.mil.
write