Typically, as part of Equipment Supply Line Connection project, dispatchers get started by creating a Project Initiation Document – the top-level project planning document. In it, you bring together all of the information needed to get your project started, and communicate that key information to the DoD project stakeholders. With a well-put-together Project Initiation Document, you can let everyone understand where the project is heading from the outset.

A Project Initiation Document is a guide to development of contract procurement quote determination, clearly laying out the justification for a project to involve multiple supply line connections, what its objectives will be, and how the project will be organised. This helps ensure that everyone knows what is going on right from the outset. The amount of detail included for kick starting DoD resource sourcing strategies should be sufficient for highlighting the basic purpose of the Fleet Types & Size Deployment project and to determine, in principle, the overall feasibility of the project objectives and plan resulting from the consideration of supply route condition-based performance metrics & measures.

The Project Initiation Document is supported by many detailed template supply line connections case approaches that may not be entirely completed by the time that the Project Initiation Document is prepared. A solid Project Initiation Document does the following: 1) Define & justify project and its scope 2) Defines the roles and responsibilities of project installation participants. 3) Gives DoD the information required to be productive and effective right from the start.

When DoD tasks dispatchers with the preparation of Fleet equipment part Type & Size Deployment reports, contract quotes between multiple installations should be double-checked to determine when the report is due, where in DoD it is dispatched & what work order schedule format dispatchers should use in preparing the report.

The origin of supply line connections problems must be immediately identified, using a specific set of steps, with associated tools, to find the primary cause of the problem, so that installations can: 1) Determine what happened. 2) Determine why it happened. 3) Figure out what to do to reduce the likelihood that it will happen again

Also double-check the required reference item from the supply line connections assessments in the report & follow the procedures outlined referencing installation requirements for the proper preparation of the report submission prior to force structure adjustments made to meet surge contingency scenario operations.

Work order schedules may be dispatched to help determine the proper disposition of files & records maintained by multiple installations requirements by other DoD directives for dispatch of specific files & records maintained by installations.

When practical, reports work order control case files should be maintained for each type of supply line connections and should contain the following information about the report:

1) A copy of work order schedule case details authorising the Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment report

2) Instructions for the preparation & submission of report to be dispatched to DoD along with appropriate record disposal practise & procedures

3) Any correspondence or other matter pertinent to the work order schedule materiel sourcing case file

To order new work order schedule contract quotes for an installation mission requirement addressing Fleet equipment part Type & Size Deployment, or to replace those that have become changed due to new mission directives for updated force structure requirements for tasking units involved in meeting the challenges of surge contingency scenarios, all DoD needs do is notify dispatchers in writing.

The method of letting dispatchers know what DoD requires varies with the mission activity as well as the Type & Size of the Fleet equipment parts deployment supply route based on the relative composition & degree of condition & performance-based metrics & measures.

Work order schedules for Fleet equipment part Type & Size Deployment address Top 10 key factors involving overall force structure readiness:

1) Order, Requisition & Dispatch of Fleet equipment part Type & Size Deployment

2) Sourcing & scheduling priorities for material adjustments to Equipment Parts Changes

3) Deployment, Issues, & Receipts for quantity deficits in Supply Route Condition Indices

4) Determination of the optimal temporal deployment of Fleet equipment parts Types & Sizes

5) Frequency distribution of contract quotes for competing Fleet equipment parts Routing Patterns

6) Authority to suspend a contract quote frequency for rejected equipment supply route service by product grade

7) Automatic filing of tenders for action by Fleet equipment parts Type & Size Deployment patterns

8) Providing routing work order schedule information involving deployment constraints

9) Point-of-deployment capacity & receiving capabilities for equipment parts status alerts

10) Cost-based, work order schedule- specific modes & reporting conditions for contract quotes

Work order schedule programmes provide standard methods of issuing mission force structure directives by all DoD activities & installations in DoD. Contract quote system for supply line connections details consist of Definition, Criteria & Responsibility in addition to Preparation & Maintenance of work order schedule mission directives for Fleet equipment part Type & Size deployment.

In general, supply line connections periods are issued in work order schedules when changes are made to one or more of the following Top 10 dispatcher process components:

1) Regulates or is essential to effective Fleet equipment parts Type & Size Deployment administration

2) Establishes Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment policy

3) Delegates Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment authority or assigns responsibility

4) Assigns an Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment organisational structure

5) Assigns a Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment mission, function, or task

6) Initiates a Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment course of action

7) Governs Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment Contract quote conduct

8) Establishes a Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment reporting requirement

9) Changes, supersedes, or cancels existing Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment directives

10) Establishes a Fleet Type & Size equipment parts Deployment procedure, technique, standard, guide, or method of performing duty, function, or operation.

Work order schedule projects are a well-established approach to controlling the introduction of new initiatives or organisational changes within DoD. Fleet equipment part Type & Size Deployment episodes are finite in length, usually one-time pieces of work involving a number of supply line connection activities that must be completed within a given time frame determined by contract quotes, and often on a fixed budget unique to each installation.

Common examples of projects are the provision of factors related to deficits in equipment part supply line connections leading to DoD Registration with dispatchers for introduction of new substitute resources to be strategically sourced--usually related to the installation of a new piece of infrastructure, or creation of new tools for contract quote determination.

While the very simplest supply line connections projects can be administered easily by applying common sense & just getting on with things, projects that are more complex need a great deal of planning by dispatchers & stand to benefit from a formal, disciplined approach.

From making sure that supply line connections activities will actually meet the specified quotes requested by multiple installations, to devising work order schedule periods, developing systems for reporting progress & detailing the parameters of fleet equipment parts deployment requests--– all of these issues require responsible consideration & effort.

The following examples will show what installations can expect when dispatchers compose template supply line connections updates for quotes between installation. No supply line connections case directive can stay on the shelf for a long time without needing to be changed. Changes will be determined by dispatchers as redesigned template supply line connections that need to be inserted in place of the outdated pages that require you to enter or delete information by hand. Most status updates contain a list of effective pages. Part of dispatchers responsibilities is to make sure publications are complete by checking each page number against the list. When new pages are dispatched as part of a change, a new list of effective pages is included and must be verified after entering the changes in the contract procurement quote system.

The best method for examining the Fleet Types & Sizes Deployment template supply line connections dispatched to installations over the contract quote systems depends on the supply line connections updates and the complexity of the route condition-based performance metrics & measures. The most common method used by dispatchers is a formal determination of the resource sourcing strategies developed for DoD. Whatever method is employed, however, the Fleet Types & Sizes Deployment statement for DoD should be reduced to a single template supply line connections and dispatched to DoD as soon as possible. The Fleet Types & Sizes Deployment statement should be dated and should properly identify how the statement relates to changes in force structure for meeting surge contingency scenarios If necessary.

Dispatchers may be required certify that the statement is an accurate summary of the contract quote system processes realised by multiple installations, or verbatim supply line connections status update statements made by each installation. To make sure all relevant information is obtained when examining the route condition-based performance metrics & measures, dispatchers should use the appointing supply line connections status update order and requirements.

If at any time during the investigation it should appear, from the evidence presented in dispatcher reports, that DoD might consider it advisable to enlarge, restrict, or otherwise modify the scope of the inquiry or to change in any respect any instruction provided, The supply line connection statement submitted consists of the following items: 1) A preliminary statement 2) Findings of fact 3) Opinion 4) Recommendations 5) Enclosures

Dispatcher findings of fact must be as specific as possible as to times, places, installations, and events. Each fact is made a separate finding in a supply line connections statement. Each fact must be supported by route Condition Indices Metrics & Measures of Fleet Type & Size Deployment, statement of the installation documentary evidence, or real evidence attached to the investigative report as an enclosure. Also, each enclosure on which the status update fact is based must be referenced. The purpose of the preliminary supply line connections case statement is to let DoD know that all reasonably available status update evidence was collected and dispatcher requirements have been met.

The preliminary statement should refer to the appointing order and set forth the following information: 1) The state of the Fleet Types & Sizes Deployment investigation 2) Classification of dispatcher duties 3) Reasons for delay difficulties encountered by the investigation relating installation requirements to findings of fact determined by supply line connections quote status update For example, dispatchers may not state: “Performance Upgrade Work Order Metrics/Measures determined in the supply line connections indicate a requirement for Fleet equipment status update factors to be dispatched to Installation X,” without a supporting enclosure. Dispatchers may, however, have DoD execute a statement such as “Performance Upgrade Work Order Metrics/Measures determined in the supply line connections indicate a requirement for Fleet equipment status update factors to be dispatched to Installation X.” Include this statement as an enclosure and, in the findings of fact, state: “Performance Upgrade Work Order Metrics/Measures determined in the supply line connections indicate a requirement for Fleet equipment status update factors to be dispatched to Installation X,” referencing enclosure [X].

In some Fleet Type & Size installation deployment reports, it may not be necessary for dispatchers to document a discrepancy in the preliminary statement. In other situations, it maybe impossible to find a particular fact. If, in the opinion of DoD, the evidence does not support any particular fact, this difficulty should be properly noted in the preliminary statement as follows: “The evidence gathered in the forms of enclosures [x] and [y] of the supply line connection status update statement does not support a finding of fact as to the . . . and, hence, none is expressed.”

Usually, conflicts in evidence or the absence of it will not prevent dispatchers from making a finding of fact in separate intersections detailng "Performance Upgrade Work Order Metrics/Measures determined in the supply line connections indicate a requirement for Fleet equipment status update factors to be dispatched to Installation X". The first enclosure is either the supply line connections case appointing order and any modifications or confirmation of an appointing order.

Dispatchers should include any requests for extensions of time as enclosures, granting or denying such requests for DoD resource sourcing strategies to facilitate changes to force structure for meeting the requirements of surge contingency scenarios and the list of enclosures is a suggested place for ensuring compliance of the template supply line connections statement with that section.

Enclosures are listed in the order referenced in the investigative Fleet Types & Sizes Deployment reports. Dispatchers must separately number and completely identify each enclosure. Make each supply line connections statement, affidavit, transcript of testimony, photograph, map, chart, document, or other exhibit a separate enclosure. If dispatcher observations provide the basis for any finding of fact, a template supply line connections status update case must be developed detailing those observations should be attached as an enclosure.

In some cases conflict in evidence or the presence of a new Fleet Type & Size Deployment asset on the supply line connections, prevent dispatchers from making an initial finding of fact for the Deployment of a different Fleet Type & Size Deployment to meet the mission requirements of a modern force structure for a surge contingency scenario involving the fleet. Dispatchers will properly identify all new Fleet Types & Sizes involved in the deployment incident under supply line connections investigation with a complete installation register to update the mission package kit.

Since Equipment Repair/Upgrade Simulations like the one described in this report were designed for the purpose of training novice dispatchers, they must be given an opportunity to review their contracting strategies for schedule events after simulations so they can be debriefed by the Deputy on what might have gone wrong & where/how there is room for subsequent improvement to be built upon for the next mission requirement scenario. After the simulation, each novice dispatcher should review and itemise their contracting history, and also the contracting chart characterising his or her contracting strategy.    

Although this particular Equipment Repair/Upgrade simulation appears to be trivial, establishing successful contracts & realising return on capital  is a non-trivial task. Good contracting practise meeting mission requirements involves accurate reading of the equipment condition required to meet mission requirements, careful strategy execution & ability to adapt to unexpected changes in mission requirements. As established in previous reports, a controlled experiment can indeed help us to isolate important factors involved in contracting and identify solid dispatch patterns to employ for realisation of winning strategies. 
 
Contracting Charts for dispatchers are composed of three important time series: 1) Expected contract price quotes to be generated by schedule design; 2) Observed contract price quotes; 3) Position balances of contract quotes.
 
In some equipment repair/upgrade simulations, many connections are obvious; e.g., the contracting  chart for one of the best-performing novice dispatchers apparently follows the trend hinted at by both the schedule event disclosure &  price of meeting mission requirements. In some other cases, completely wrong interpretations of schedule events could happen, and in the extreme case, some novice dispatchers might even choose enter into contract positions arbitrarily, disregarding important mission requirements trends.  
    
While experienced dispatchers constitute the fundamental part of meeting mission requirements in this equipment repair/upgrade simulation, most “Operational Noise”, on the other hand, is generated by the speculation of novice dispatchers. In this simulation, we start by constructing a ‘classic novice strategy’ to establish goals of novice dispatchers in meeting mission requirements & proceed from that starting point. However, to prevent novice dispatchers from destroying important trends generated by both suppliers & end-users in mobile operations we will limit price range parameters, controlling how aggressive experienced dispatchers should be in combating “Operational Noise.”
   
In most of our equipment repair/upgrade simulations, we will simply set contract status increment parameters & after the price is randomly decided, novice dispatchers will choose to take extreme contract positions with equal probability.    

Since novice dispatchers may be constrained by a given position status limit, our initial equipment repair/upgrade simulations will randomly decide how much remaining position status it would devote to the new contract. As speculators, novice dispatchers are required to exit all positions at the expiration of schedule events with automatic programming put in place to gradually exit position status determination when event ‘contract status return on capital’ schedule expiration draws near. 
  
The multi-agent model we present  is relatively general and can be used in a wide variety of mission requirement scenarios. As long as dispatchers can generate a list of schedule events that follow equipment repair/upgrade specifications, the Multi-agent model could then generate the desired mission requirements.
   
The challenge for dispatchers is clear: How do we know whether the generated contracting strategies are what should be expected from the designed mission requirements scenario? This is not a straightforward task since the scenario we plan to execute might not have real-world counterpart in mobile operations. Without benchmarking contract status, establishing credibility of equipment repair/upgrade simulations would not be easy. Of course, if the generated contracting strategies are lined up with mission requirements scenarios & carefully reviewed by dispatchers, we probably could create valid assessments qualitatively.  
       
 
However, this technique would not be feasible if we plan for large-scale and frequent mission requirements determination overtaking supplier capacity. Therefore, we require a method that is both quantitative & automated. As a solution to the problem, dispatchers have deployed procedures for determining utility of event schedules:
 
1) Define the schedule event of interest and identify schedule event time series windows. In the case of simple mission requirements, the schedule event of interest & its occurrence is straightforward to define.
 
2) Measure ‘contract status return on capital’ over the schedule event window. Standard Contract status return on capital could be obtained by simply assuming constant mean return models. In the mission requirements setting, it refers to the mean price of equipment contracts from the beginning of the requirements determination horizon to just before the beginning of the schedule event window.
 
3) Define a null hypothesis and perform quantitative tests over multiple sample instances. For all events, the null hypothesis can be defined as ‘contract status return on capital’ = 0. As for the alternative hypothesis, it can be defined as ‘contract status return on capital’ > 0 for positive events, ‘contract status return on capital’ < 0 for negative events, & ‘contract status return on capital’ for neutral events-- or no event.
    
To validate that our multi-agent model indeed creates contracts designed to meet mission requirements in response to recent schedule events, dispatchers created a special mission requirements scenario with only one schedule event. For establishing successful contracts, we include defined levels of suppliers, end-users for mobile operations & no novice dispatcher to avoid introducing unnecessary noise into processes. To collect enough sample points, the same scenario is executed multiple times in sequential series. 

Following the above procedures, we test the null hypothesis with several ‘contract status return on capital’ series. For both positive & negative cases, tests employed by dispatchers imply that strong negative ‘contract status return on capital’ are significant. For no-schedule event cases, our tests indicate that no ‘contract status return on capital’  is detected in the schedule event window.  
     
Compared to the case of validating schedule event occurrence, validating the strength of schedule events is much more difficult. This is because the absolute level of response that should be triggered by schedule events cannot be determined in straightforward manner. Therefore, instead of trying to validate the absolute response strength, we choose to validate the relative response strengths. The objective of this is to ensure that higher impact levels indeed generate larger mission requirement responses when compared to events with lower levels.  
   
To establish this, dispatchers simply performed comparisons between adjacent schedule event strength levels. With this validation, we are at least assured of the consistency in mission requirement responses throughout repair/upgrade simulations.   
   
In this memo, we have presented the efforts of a brigade of dispatchers towards building an agent-based equipment repair/upgrade simulations based on novel models of contracting strategies. Mission Requirement scenarios will progress in subsequent reports though higher-level descriptions of user-defined schedule events. 

Our primary goal in creating disparate schedule events is not to create new contract pricing models. Instead, we have focused on how to construct a highly realistic equipment repair/upgrade simulator to better define dispatcher behaviour in issuing contracts. The results of describing underpinnings of operational factors will be used to improve mission requirement scenario instincts of novice dispatchers. 

Ultimately, our platform model for equipment repair/upgrade simulation might one day be used in benchmarking real interest of defence bosses in embracing important contracting standards as they begin to make mission requirements decisions on how to build solid event schedules with suppliers, on secure platforms designed to utilise new ability for us to monitor dispatcher activity.

TASK #1: Identify Equipment Change Document Specs Information Input

This Dispatcher Action Case Study describes the process by which Test Design Specs affected by a supplier design change identifies how Equipment Change Work Orders impacted Product Logistics, representing viable Fleet Equipment Parts Contract Value & specifies sets of authorised Work Order Schedules. Current DoD manuals do not contain definitions for "Total Asset Visibility" – defined as access to complete & accurate information on item location in DoD supplier identification Systems

TASK #2: Update Technical Repair Jobs

This Dispatcher Action Case Study describes the process by which dispatchers update Technical Design Specs Overflow Stations Repair Job Activities for contract configuration based on a notifications of equipment changes in condition & performance metrics. Capable Repair/Upgrade Work Order Routing Schedules have assisted Decisions central to determining which benefits & costs matter to meet supplier Schedules. Current DoD systems are fragmented, functionally constraining, technically outdated & unable to support tracking of items throughout equipment service life & across multiple supply lines using unique identifier codes.


TASK #3: Update Dispatch Training Materials

This dispatcher action case study describes the process of updating Design Specs Material training manuals based on a notification of an equipment change. Accurate Sourcing Tickets for Procurement Quotes have Catalogued Fleet Equipment sustainability impacts. Current DoD Logistics systems do not exchange supplier information directly between services, instead operating through translation process lacking item lot & serial numbers.  DoD has proposed new contract processes to send/receive/share information, but this goal is yet to be completed.


TASK #4: Update Dispatcher Operational Sequencing Systems

This dispatcher use case study describes sequencing system update notification process to create accurate & complete Operational Sequencing Systems for design specs with validated installation communications with suppliers to select Condition/Performance measurement indicators for contracts. DoD has yet to design requisitions containing specific instructions/exceptions detailing what lots of equipment should be pulled from depots while the great majority of communication processes are outdated & inadequate for utilisation of new sourcing ticket administration.


TASK #5: Update Maintenance/Upgrade System Specs

This dispatcher use case study describes Planned Maintenance System processes based on equipment change notification using Interoperable Work Order Routing Dispatch for Design Specs to better predict operational impacts over Fleet Equipment service life. DoD has outdated Feedback mechanisms for contracts not clearly defined in operational Manual instructions which increases processing time & lacks supplier visibility because no confirmation requisition/order is received or completed.


TASK #6: Update Dispatch Supply Line Connections

This dispatcher use case study describes Repair Job interface update Design Specs process based on equipment change notification. Reliable Fleet Equipment Condition Metrics have the potential to attach contract quote values to all Supplier Episode connections. DoD uses different information exchange formats for communications between installations & additional instructions must be issued for standardisation of processes for uncompleted requisitions.


TASK #7: Update Equipment Specs Configurations

This dispatcher use case study describes the process of updating Configuration Design Specs of Equipment affected by Repair Job Actions to realise Testable Measures of Fleet Equipment Performance  Discounting contract  benefits & costs can be utilised to obtain current work order Routing values. DoD is still dependent on manual processes used to check & make corrections to supplier information & are not clear, concise, consistent, accurate, up-to-date & accessible, increasing cost & time required to transform & translate information on items appearing to be identical. Also manual assessments of storage capacity at depots often results in overestimates, increasing costs & risk to mission performance.



TASK #8: Distribute Technical Specs Information to Equipment upgrade jobs

This dispatcher use case study describes Design Specs update process to include current versions of repair job based on an equipment change. Evaluation & Sustainment of Fleet Parts Service Life help determine net present value of each Work Order justification. Current DoD systems do not account for supplier items shipped from depots to other locations & items are dropped from records during transit w/o receipt confirmation from destination, resulting in contract accountability & visibility gaps.



TASK #9: Deliver Technical Specs during Equipment Acquisition

This dispatcher use case study describes the process by which equipment Design specs are delivered during equipment acquisition & transferred along with applicable design configuration documentation. Reusable Sourcing Ticket Design for contract quotes is used to assess performance cost/price demand for Force Structure requirements. Current DoD systems lack capability for generating supplier performance metrics such as verification of accuracy rates comparing physical levels of items to presence of accountable records.


TASK #10: Register Equipment Specs Content in Advanced Dispatcher Centre System.

This dispatch use case study describes the process of registering equipment Design specs content for future direction assessments. Assessments of equipment parts Deployment Status are used to recommend updates based upon present equipment supplier values. DoD does not exchange contract information between services with any efficiency & fails to differentiate between items intended purpose if items & ownership details,  assigning different lot numbers following maintenance but keeping previous number on record.

1. Cost Impacts:

Successes include performance requirements & review to baseline design to report earned value to achieve cost accountability. Life of programme strategy executed to achieve cost savings by leveraging qualification testing. Fundamental updates are issued & expected to be adopted coming at cost problems & time consumption to integrate into finished product. Changes in standardised requirements undo/override customised capabilities create need to operate cross-programme & cross-functional aspects in addition to detailed impact assessments.

2. Fiscal Requirements:

Programme cuts, contracting issues, design misinterpretations & testing issues can set back timelines of work effort. Funding for requirements changes is rare & must account for process improvements across system partners. Direction of Funding priorities & single administration structure must drive common services. Implementing tailored procurement to accelerate product delivery to user with minimal risk is currently pre-decisional & not yet an approved strategy. Contracting strategy requires tailoring required documents for proposal review/contract decision, initially limiting supplier for task orders for follow-on efforts to advance project

3. Contract Information:

Improving contract reliability requirements in the context of complex product is currently not tied to operationally relevant timeframe would result in more confidence in programme success. Procurement actions underway with proposal received, working through contract award issues in order to stay on schedule. Product functions as form-fit-function replacements are where they need to be from reliable, build & affordability perspective. Gaining consensus on how to maximise information available to inform scope of operational testing is work in progress.

4. Product Prototypes:

Breaking out products into separate programmes provides clarity to unit cost, schedule & performance parameters, keeping investment decisions at appropriate decision-making levels. Adding product orders helps keep costs down & when product orders decrease, supplier base is challenged. Deep dives are required to evaluate opportunities to break out parts of build line. Establishing system requirements, function & allocated baselines are important part of programme progression. Prototyping & test activity provides information to inform system design process & risk reduction to support fielding of critical capabilities. Innovative, streamlined & agile procurement approach delivers operational capability driven by technology from prototype.

5. Testing Capability:

Programme schedule risk due to budget reductions & compressed test timelines to meet requirements. Schedule & budget to not allow for significant correction of testing deficiencies Tailored milestone documentation finding appropriate balance of value-added efforts, statuary compliance & oversight mechanisms useful to ability to execute mission. New procurement approaches utilise reviews focusing on affordability & cost/capability trade-offs, representing good model to leverage for future programmes. Deficiency Reviews align prioritisation of trouble reports with potential to pose risks to measures of effectiveness or suitability & correct cost/schedule parameters.

6. Schedule Events:

Schedule margins help to balance discovery driving delays with opportunity to accelerate, putting emphasis on applying execution standards. Insight into system build costs involving poor quality, indirect costs & schedule helps establish best incentive arrangements for contracts. Reducing build times & costs to meet delivery needs sets baseline for future lots, benefiting from economic orders of quantity & breakout of components. Cost drivers of maintenance are identified using business case reviews to identify optimum sources of product repair. Transparent, events-based approaches enable decisions to move forward based more on technical readiness compared to schedule, avoiding compromise of performance requirements.

7. Process Quality:

Reviews conducted to identify areas where urgency drove delivery of systems prior to completing testing information contributing to reliability issues, demonstration of operating life & improve quality of process. Programme opportunities for supplier competition include all builds, operation of fielded product, system engineering & test support. Monitoring of cost, schedule & performance highlights funding shifts, disruption due to unplanned activities.

8. Build Reviews:

Build process improvements are tempered by inefficiencies impacting execution & costs when build quantities ramp up. Without bundling, requirements can be levied on programme without funding, causing planned capabilities to become out of scope. Concerns in review process & approval of procurement milestones & contracting documents include serial processes, documentation prior to decision point & duration of reviews.

9. Contract Structure:

Complex coordination & maturation of processes executed in fixed price contract structures introduces risk of using preferred control approach. Programme Schedule experiences cost growth because of prototype build cost underestimation & complex information assurance requirements. Requirements are reasonably allocated between platforms to maximise performance & minimise costs of programme.

10. Phase Targets:

Expiration of funding creates periodic carryover situation without deliberate rephasing resulting in disbursement rates below target goals, causing deferred requirements. Programme incorporates of remedies for initial approach errors, imprecise contract language, process information associated with deliverables & incomplete metrics definitions

Starting SES is exciting -- and Overwhelming.  I've started more projects than I'd care to admit. In my experience, it's a little bit like scuba diving without a flashlight where you are only able to see a few feet in front of you -- you don't know what's up ahead until it's upon you. However, the longer you are SES, the better you can navigate through the water.

As I've scuba dived without a Flashlight before, I decided to take the time & boil down 10 of my goals. Consider these tips "stuff” to implement.  Let's get to the Tips.

1. Don’t try to control every contract Every single piece of DoD equipment does not need all your attention right now. Go build your to-do-list and stop doing busy work that makes you feel like you are accomplishing something.

2. Read -- a lot.

Even if you think you don't have enough time. And not just DoD reports, either. There is lots of material out there that might not seem at first if it applies to being SES, but be creative!  Read anything that will be of benefit.

3. People say there is a fine line between dedicated & completely overdoing it.

Screw the line. Bust right over it. You need to cross that line continually, so never let anyone tell you that you are too into your idea. I'm completely & overwhelmingly into equipment logistics & sustainment -- and it's OK. What are you planning on totally overdoing?

4. Get up earlier.

Yes, you can, and you should. I don't care if you are not a morning person. That's an excuse lazy people use. Waking up at 3AM when it’s dark outside & making a pot of coffee everyday can be life changing. Get more shit done before 9AM than most other people do all day.

5. Don't listen to “Nightmare Scenarios.

People love to throw around how lots of new SESs don’t cut it. Don't listen to that -- it's an excuse to make you think about giving up. If that number is even correct, it's because most people don't commit, they don't follow through to the end or they are not good at planning out their goals. 

6. Do something you like.

Don't start contracts you won't want to do in ten years. These things have unbelievable staying power because of Sustainment operations.  Because if you are successful, you'll still be doing this for a long time.

7. You are not going to know everything.

In fact, you probably won't know anything about day-to-day contract operations when you first start. Start anyway. Plan on figuring some of it out "on the job."

8. You are going to suck at dealing with everyone at once.

It's OK, we all do at first. However, this is one task you must get better about. Find a good assistant right away. It will give you some great training, with little downside.

9. Never partner with someone because it's convenient.

Partner with someone because it makes you stronger. The wrong partner will drive you crazy, make you hate your work and end up causing more problems than you can solve. 

10. Finish what you start.

Nearly every SES suffers from similar sets of problems: we like to start things more than we like to finish them. In other words, if you are a good SES, you'll have a lot of great ideas. Most of them would probably work out well and make you look good. However, that doesn't mean you should pursue all of them. Pick one and go with it until you succeed or Fail & have to move onto the next one. Split up your tasks to determine what your priority tasks are & focus on doing more of them. And yes, you do a lot of high priority tasks, even if you don't realise it. Just do more of them. 

Finally………… Like scuba diving without a Flashlight, SES can be a little intimidating. But hopefully at least one of the above tips will help you navigate through the water a little easier with more confidence. If you are just getting started with being SES, just remember this: keep diving. You will thank yourself in the Future. 

Do you have any additional tips you'd like to add? Or maybe something you'd like to expand upon? Leave your comments below and let's continue the conversation.

If you think your comments could help other DoD workers, share it! You never know whose potential you might unlock.