Board recommends new strategy for complex Defense programs

Such an approach, in which multiple complex systems are integrated and linked by a network, would help the Pentagon meet the demands of 21st century warfare, according to a report by the Defense Science Board.

Philip Coyle, senior adviser with the Center for Defense Information, a security policy research organization in Washington, agreed with that strategy. But the board's choice of the Future Combat Systems program as a model "is goofy," he said. "It's not a good example, as FCS is way over budget and way behind schedule."

In March, the Government Accountability Office reported that the number of lines of software code needed to run the program -- intended to link manned and unmanned ground and air vehicles, sensor systems and military commanders through a complex network -- had tripled to 95.1 million since 2003. The report also said it was unclear "when or if" the Army could build, develop or demonstrate the network needed to stitch together all the FCS components.

Coyle, who served as assistant secretary of Defense and director of Defense's operational test and evaluation directorate from 1994 to 2001, said the department should not try to integrate too many disparate functions into one system. For example, a household system of systems linking an alarm clock with a microwave oven and phone lines could be cobbled together, he said, but if the goal merely was to make cooking breakfast easier, then that approach would be too complicated.

The Defense Science Board's report suggested that the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., serve as the institutional systems integrator for Defense. Coyle said this could be a stretch for the command, which focuses on joint training for all four services and joint development of future warfighting concepts and capabilities.

The report, prepared by a task force headed by Jacques Gansler, who served as undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics from November 1997 until January 2001, also recommended that Defense establish a joint system-of-systems management infrastructure with clear lines of responsibility, authority and funding. Much of the overall responsibility would be given to the acquisition chief.

For example, the assistant secretary of Defense for networks and information integration, currently John Grimes, would report directly to the under secretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. Currently, the assistant secretary serves as the principal staff assistant and adviser to the secretary of Defense for networks and information technology.

The advisory board suggested that Defense hire an independent systems architecture and engineering firm to support the overall systems of system effort.

In addition, the report encouraged the department to develop a cadre of sophisticated acquisition officials to guide development of complex architectures and systems. The advisory board noted that these contracting officials must have adequate funding, even if that means a cutback in weapons budgets.

Failure to change how it manages complex systems will leave Defense stuck in a 20th century way of doing business, the report concluded.