DOD watchdog lists top 10 challenges for 2017

A fascinating list from the IG.  Not everything on the list is what I would expect from the IG but I am glad to see eevrything on the list.  The 130 page report can be downloaded here: http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/2017_Oversight%20Plan_Final_Signed_508.pdf

Here is the summary of the "Management Challenges" (which I find an interesting way to phrase these).

1.    Countering Global Strategic Challenges

a.    Global Threats From China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea

b.    Interagency cooperation

2.    Countering Terrorist Treat

a.    Developing Security Forces

b.    Insider Threats

3.    Enabling Effective Acquisition and Contract Management

a.    Linking requirements to military plans

b.    Contract management oversight

c.    Illegal Technical Transfer

4.    Increasing Cyber Security and Cyber Capabilities

a.    Offensive and Defense Operations

b.    Technology Platforms/Infrastructure

5.    Improving Financial Management

a.    Financial auditability

b.    Eliminating improper payment

6.    Protecting Key Defense Infrastructure

a.    Installations, Energy, Environment

b.    Space

c.    Defense Industrial and Technology Base

7.    Developing Full Spectrum Total Force Capabilities

a.    Posture and Structure of the force/Building a diverse force despite Capabilities Despite Budget Pressures

b.    Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, Radiological, and Explosive Issues

8.    Building and Maintaining Force Readiness

a. Equipment Accountability and Reset

b. Suicide Prevention

c. Healthcare – Cost, Fraud, Access to Care

d. Talent Management, Force of the Future

9.    Ensuring Ethical

a.    Accountability, Integrity, Whistleblower Issues

b.    Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

10.    Promoting Continuity and Effective Transition Management

c.     Leadership Changes

d.    Planning and Internal Controls

efense

DOD watchdog lists top 10 challenges for 2017

https://fcw.com/articles/2016/12/20/dod-oig-top-10.aspx

• By Sean D. Carberry
• Dec 20, 2016

 

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General has released its 2017 Oversight Plan that outlines 10 areas of focus, including cyber.

"Increasing Cyber Security and Cyber Capabilities" is one of the DOD's performance and management challenges the watchdog will audit in 2017, along with other areas such as acquisition, countering the terrorist threat and force readiness.

"The DOD OIG identified these challenges based on our oversight work, research, and judgment; oversight work done by other components within the DOD; input from DOD leaders; and oversight projects by the Government Accountability Office," the report states. "While we solicited input from the DOD, we identified these challenges independently."

"The DOD continues to face significant challenges in protecting and securing its networks, systems, and infrastructure from cyber threats and in increasing its overall cyber capabilities," according to OIG, despite some strategic progress from Cyber Command.

The report reiterates what top Pentagon officials have been saying throughout 2016:  cyber threats to the DOD continue to increase, and nation states such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are investing heavily in "sophisticated campaigns to penetrate and compromise DOD's networks."

Last week, the DOD OIG released a summary report of 21 audits conducted between Aug. 1, 2015, and Jul. 31, 2016. That report made 61 specific recommendations the DOD needs to take to improve cybersecurity. Those recommendations were added to 138 outstanding items from previous audits.

The coming year will bring more than 12 tech-related audits covering the defense of DOD networks, developing cyber capabilities and infrastructure, cyber offensive and defensive operations, and building and retaining the cyber workforce.

The audits will drill down on specific topics such as implementation of the Joint Information Environment, physical access controls, security controls over contractor systems, insider threat programs and cyber threat indicator sharing.

The Oversight Plan states that DOD continues to face challenges "in developing or acquiring unique cyber capabilities to conduct defensive and offensive operations."

The report also says that DOD does not have "an effective cloud computing implementation strategy or process to collect data and measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the DOD cloud initiative."

The DOD did not have any comment on the OIG Oversight Plan.

About the Author

Sean Carberry is an FCW staff writer covering defense, cybersecurity and intelligence. Prior to joining FCW, he was Kabul Correspondent for NPR, and also served as an international producer for NPR covering the war in Libya and the Arab Spring. He has reported from more than two-dozen countries including Iraq, Yemen, DRC, and South Sudan. In addition to numerous public radio programs, he has reported for Reuters, PBS NewsHour, The Diplomat, and The Atlantic.

Carberry earned a Master of Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School, and has a B.A. in Urban Studies from Lehigh University.

Special Ops Nominee Wants Review of SOCOM Initiatives

Excerpt:

While there’s no indication that Lumpkin would work block McRaven in any significant way, his comments do show that if nominated, his office wouldn’t simply rubber stamp the significant changes McRaven is proposing.

Question:  Has there ever been a time when ASD SO/LIC has been a "rubber stamp" for SOCOM initiatives?

The control over personnel management is not only critically important to USSOCOM but it is to all services.

Asked if the head of SOCOM should have greater control over personnel management decisions for the nation’s special operators, Michael Lumpkin said that he would prefer that “additional coordination and study should be done within the Department to fully understand the impact of this proposal” before it be given the green light.

I know it is cliché to say that we must move to a system of industrial personnel management to one of talent talent management.  However, I think that is one of our strategic military weaknesses especially in terms of addresses the complex requirements and threats of the 21st Century.  I do not think our personnel management system has evolved much since I did a year in purgatory in 2002-2003 but we have to find a way to do it better.  It may be counterintuitive but I think that one of the problems is with our readiness system.  One of the easiest metrics for measuring readiness is personnel fills – that units have the right number of people at the right grade levels with the right skills.  Combine that with other traditional personnel management "techniques" such as moving people every X number of years as well as the checklist requirement of having certain jobs and schools to be competitive for promotion and we have a system that takes precedence over being able to put military personnel in the right jobs in the right places for the right length of time to achieve the effects we want to achieve in terms of national security and military objectives.  I know it is hard enough to manage to the readiness and promotion requirement standards and would probably doubly hard to move to a talent management system.  But we really do not have a personnel management system today.  We have unit and regulatory requirements management system and if we are unable to move to a talent management system we ought to stop lying to ourselves and rename the personnel management system because in such a system people (and talent) do not come first.

And I think the operations in Libya and Somalia last week reinforce these statements:

And while Lumpkin said that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) — which has given the president wide authority to use military force to conduct counter-terror operations since it was enacted 2001 — should remain in place, he would prefer that military action be governed under the traditional Title 10 authorities.

Title 10 is “a preferred way to do things when we can. And I think we should strive to make Title 10 the principle method of conducting these operations,” he said. 

Special Ops Nominee Wants Review of SOCOM Initiatives

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131011/DEFREG02/310110015/

Oct. 11, 2013 - 03:20PM   |  

By PAUL McLEARY   |   

• World News
• Americas

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s nominee to become the next civilian head of the country’s special operations forces gently pushed back against a proposal by Adm. William McRaven — head of the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) — in his written responses submitted to lawmakers for his nomination hearing on Oct. 10.

Asked if the head of SOCOM should have greater control over personnel management decisions for the nation’s special operators, Michael Lumpkin said that he would prefer that “additional coordination and study should be done within the Department to fully understand the impact of this proposal” before it be given the green light.

Lumpkin, a former Navy SEAL with operational experience in Latin America and the Middle East, has been nominated to succeed Michael Sheehan as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SO/LIC).

While the line might not sound like much, the proposed change would for the first time give the SOCOM commander a role in deciding on promotions, assignments, retention, and training of special operations forces.

SOCOM, unlike the other combatant commands, doesn’t actually control troops. Instead, the command is only responsible for the equipping and training of special operators who then deploy under the operational control of the global combatant commanders they are assigned to.

But since assuming his position in 2011, McRaven has made a big push to claim more control over the force, and has launched a controversial campaign he dubbed the “Global SOF Network” which would allow him to coordinate intelligence sharing among his operators once they are assigned to work for a combatant command.

The proposal has met with some pushback from Capitol Hill, with the House Armed Services Committee cutting the $10 million SOCOM request to establish a Washington office in its fiscal year 2014 markup bill. The committee also slashed the $15 million requested to create regional SOF coordination centers in Colombia and Hawaii.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131011/DEFREG02/310110015/