These studies have repeatedly presented a number of the same issues and recommendations. The April 1994 PAT report entitled Blueprint for Change: Report of the Process Action Team on Military Specifications and Standards is the foundation for DOD’s current milspec reform program. This program is based on essentially the same recommendations contained in earlier reports addressing milspec reform. However, the PAT report goes further than previous efforts, as it includes more details for implementation, and additional steps were taken in June 1994, when DOD issued its implementation plan. For this recommendation, the report identifies six tasks for implementation, such as appointing the Executives by a specified date and developing a separate budget line item for the funding they control; a risk to successful implementation, the concern that adequate resources might be unavailable; a barrier, the failure of past DOD leadership to demonstrate long-term commitment to the milspecs improvement program; benefits, such as helping foster cultural change, and disadvantages, such as creating another DOD power base; estimated costs of about $269 million for the entire milspecs improvement program over 6 fiscal years starting in 1994; and time frames for the tasks. According to OSD officials, the implementation plan is simply the first step in a long-range, iterative process. Program Focuses on Changing the Acquisition Culture

The major focus of the current milspec reform program is on changing DOD’s acquisition culture. The Secretary of Defense, in signing the memorandum to implement the reform program, stated that the current senior leadership is committed to ensuring that acquisition reform changes will be accepted and institutionalized. Currently, the funding and personnel responsible for developing and maintaining milspecs used by DOD are decentralized with OSD providing overall policy and guidance. Specifically, we observed that (1) data on the benefits of implementing the recommended actions were generally not available, (2) opportunities for advancing acquisition reform goals had not been prioritized, and (3) indicators were not adequate to measure progress toward intended goals. DOD officials acknowledged the need for further work in these areas as implementation proceeds. Identifying monetary savings could be critical to achieving acceptance of the reform program by officials throughout the acquisition community. 1. 2. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to implement acquisition reforms, focusing on whether its current program: (1) advances military specifications and standards reform; and (2) gives adequate attention to key issues and concerns.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) DOD's current milspec reform program builds on previous studies; (2) although many of the recommendations are essentially the same as those in earlier reports, the current program goes further than previous efforts because it includes more details for implementation; (3) while the implementation strategy is still being refined, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense stated that the June 1994 implementation plan is the first step in a long-range, iterative process; (4) major buying commands and centers are to present plans by November 1994 that should provide further implementation details; (5) the current milspec reform effort focuses on changing the acquisition culture and contains several actions intended to accomplish this change, including: (a) ensuring long-term, top-management support; (b) providing training to the affected workforce; (c) securing adequate funding and personnel resources; and (d) establishing incentives for desired behavior; (6) these actions have been used successfully by some commercial companies to promote cultural change; (7) to achieve the major cultural change desired, DOD will need acceptance and support of the milspec reform program throughout the military acquisition community, including both DOD's and contractors' offices; (8) achieving this acceptance and support could become more difficult without: (a) improved data on the benefits of implementing the recommended actions; (b) better focus on areas with the greatest opportunities for benefits; and (c) adequate indicators, referred to by DOD as metrics, to measure progress toward intended goals; and (9) DOD officials have acknowledged difficulties in these areas and indicated that actions would be taken to address these shortcomings as program implementation continues.