a 2011 interview says that he had appointed himself player-coach (his phrase) on a number of troubled projects. That caught my eye: I had to read further.
And of course he's right: if the Marines had waited 14 years for major solutions, like the mine resistant reconnaissance vehicle developed for Iraq, it would have never arrived in time.Math decisions are easier than thoughtful decisions based on strategy and what's best for [the mission]
[To his professional acquisition team]: You're telling me it will take 14 years to get the requirements right, develop this thing [a new amphibious vehicle], source select, test, and then field initial capability? You're crazy!
In the book, "A Firey Peace in a Cold War: Bernard Schriever and the ultimate Weapon", by Neil Sheehan, General Schriever's acquisition methods are explained in a great tale of the Cold War.
His idea is to put system engineering on the front burner, work quickly with prototypes, develop high risk ideas with multiple concurrent solutions, drive hard for the initial operating capability, and don't let better defeat good. In other words, don't let strategy, or strategic purpose starve innovation. Be prepared to accept opportunity as perhaps a better way.
Perhaps, Schriever was the original agilist!
Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
Read my contribution to the Flashblog