For the Community,
In response to Anning's point, I've mentioned to the ASMC Community monitor that I wanted to trigger a discussion of real learning and felt the shotgun approach the first time out was necessary, but would like to set up a separate community to pass along some of my knowledge and experience and have an exchange of real experiences with other members, basically through a question. Thinking of a community name I like "The Contrarian" because so much of what is necessary to learn is not really taught in any class or no one wants to talk about them as to how they really work or could be revised to work/work better.
Not to get any responses to you now, here is what I propose as an initial short list of question topics. Was thinking about the following question order, about ten days apart:
(101) Continuing Resolutions – Why Are the Impacts Overstated? (our current question)
(102) Reprogrammings – Why Do We Bother?
(103) Anti-Deficiency Act – Is It Really Necessary?
(204) Multiyear Contracting – Why Isn't It Standard Practice?
(305) Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) – Or You Get What You Pay For?
If any of you have some suggestions, please forward.
I also was thinking about the question numbering sequence. A single running series but with 101 etc. for basic knowledge (freshman), 201 for advanced (senior), and 301 for really hard stuff (graduate).
I'm a believer that WE are the change and I'm tired of bogus answers from our political and senior leaders. They'd rather whine about the current process and rules than get stuff done. My attitude here is that unless it's one of the commandments, you can change it. Especially if it's only a "policy." Over the years I've proposed changes and written legislation. I helped drive Congress to raise the expense/investment unit cost threshold (because many of these types of items were in my appropriations) from $5,000 (when I started) to $250,000 (when I retired). And, after losing $300 million one year to Congress in a rescission, I proposed and got Navy, then OSD, then Congress to agree to a third exception to the "full funding" policy (which is still not included in the DoD FMR) for equipment installation funding because the deliveries and installation schedules often fell outside the original appropriation, three-year availability. (While the installation costs became funded lead-time away, it immediately freed-up $1 billion in cash, which was basically used to fund LHD-6, USS Bon Homme Richard. Not bad for a budget clerk!)
I'm taking this approach on our website because I've mentioned to the ASMC leaders (I usually personally know the presidents having worked with them at some point in my career) that ASMC magazine articles are too straight and lack a "contrarian" discussion element about how they really work or how they can be revised to be useful. I also mentioned there's no "letters to the editor" page in the magazine so readers/members can comment in respond to issues about the reality of certain articles or any inaccuracies.
So, here's hoping to see if members really want to learn.
Just a thought, if enough of you participate in this community, maybe we can get a session at the PDI on the importance and need for analysts to think analytically.
John O. King