The USAF tech data dilemma—how much tech data to buy and when

Air Force Journal of Logistics, Fall, 2006 by Mike Farmer, Bob Flagg, Guy Fritchman

Buying tech data for new systems has a few land mines to watch for, but it does not have to be the Nightmare on Elm Street it all too often becomes. The nightmare usually starts with a very high price tag, causing a dilemma for program managers (PM). The PMs must make tough choices between meeting short-term acquisition budgets and schedules or providing for best value choices for the life cycle of the system. Years down the road, the nightmare unfolds when the readiness of aging weapon systems depends upon future program managers finding even more money to buy the data. At that point, the data has become essential, but the PMs simply cannot afford it.

Over the years, this issue has been explored by various government experts and key recommendations have been discussed. For example, a recent Government Accountability Office report recommended that PMs must "... emphasize the importance of having rights to the technical data needed to support the management of all logistics contracts." In describing an industry best practice, they found that, "every company visited told us they acquired the technical data necessary to support the equipment," whether they intended to support it in house or not. These companies described the data as, "essential to their own management and oversight functions."

Not only is it a best practice to acquire the data, Air Force PMs have been directed to do so "when needed." A 2003 Joint leadership memo (SAF/IL and AQ policy letters) calls data an essential corporate asset to support our systems and says it must be made available to those who need it.

So how do PMs avoid the nightmare? What actions can PMs take to comply with this guidance? This article explores the tech data dilemma and offers a concise recommendation to navigate the technical data land mines without disaster.

How Do PMs Get Into This Dilemma?

Many examples litter the road of recent procurements where a previous program manager decided not to buy the data or put any provisions in place to buy it later. A newly assigned PM comes along, charged with taking the program to the next level or with making a change in the operating and support strategy, and quickly realizes the desired objective cannot be achieved without the tech data that was not bought previously. "No problem," says the new PM. "I'll just hammer out a deal with the vendor for the needed data." Unfortunately, the sticker price will often be a show stopper. "How can Company XYZ believe its data is worth that much! Who can I talk to?" The answer, in short, is nobody. This scenario has played out in government program offices for longer than anyone would care to admit. A coherent strategy is needed to improve the situation.

It is not enough to blame the previous PMs--their decisions not to buy the data were often based on very reasonable arguments. It was expensive. It was not needed then, or expected to be needed any time soon. The contractor was not interested in releasing its proprietary rights or intellectual property. Budgeting and obtaining the funds then, would have delayed critical progress in the early phases. The projected need date for using the data was years out based on the current operating and support concepts. All of these seemed like real and valid reasons at the time.

Even when PMs buy the data early, it often becomes outdated over the years as the physical configurations for systems evolve. When the data eventually gets pulled off the shelf, a great deal more money is often required to get it up-to-speed with all the current configurations.

The early PMs were not evil, ignorant villains. Instead, they were professional planners, juggling complex combinations of possible program plans. Eliminating the purchase of expensive data removed what was then a low priority, high expense factor. Their decisions immediately improved their big three metrics--cost, schedule, and performance. All three areas probably looked better the instant the purchase of data was removed from the equation. The decisions thus made perfect sense from their perspective. But years later, with new PMs in charge, far removed from those early decisions, the reality can be quite different! Why? Short and simple, things change--new plans emerge; leadership transitions; priorities evolve; Congress redirects funds; some partnerships grow and others die, and specific threats come and go. Real life is a living breathing animal--that isn't a bad thing, it is just reality. This new reality is magnified even further in DoD's new evolutionary acquisition environment. Air Force acquisition programs from the outset will now be designed to change from increment to increment, implementing the time phased requirements of users taking advantage of maturing technology over time. Planned change is the new reality. The real question is not who is to blame, or how did this bind materialize, it is: "How can this dilemma be avoided?"

How Can the Dilemma Be Avoided?

The question policymakers must ask is what can the acquisition community do to reduce the likelihood that this dilemma will affect future systems? What can be changed about the acquisition process to reduce the chance of seeing unreasonably high costs and unacceptably large negative consequences associated with the delayed, late, or nonexistent purchase of tech data?