Army Modernization: Steps Needed to Ensure Army Futures Command Fully Applies Leading Practices
Fast Facts
To keep its technological edge, the Army has started to modernize its equipment, such as long-range precision weapons and next-generation combat vehicles. It created the Army Futures Command to improve the process.
Historically, the Army has struggled to get new equipment on time and on budget. While the Army is following many of our leading practices, one exception is that it intends to move new technologies into weapons systems before testing in a realistic environment. Moving forward without this testing can delay delivery and increase costs as development continues.
We made recommendations to help the Army realize its modernization goals.
An Army missile
Highlights
What GAO Found
Since 2017, when the Army announced its initiative to update its forces and equipment with improved capabilities—known as modernization—it has
prioritized six broad areas of capability needs as shown in the table below;
established and assigned eight cross-functional teams to pilot how to address these needs;
established the Army Futures Command as the focal point for modernization efforts, with a four-star general to oversee it; and
realigned over $1 billion in science and technology funding to support modernization efforts within the $7.5 billion expected to be spent over the next 5 years.
Description of Army's Six Prioritized Capability Needs
|
Army priority |
Description of priority |
|
Long-Range Precision Fires |
Capabilities, including munitions that restore Army dominance in range, lethality, and target acquisition. |
|
Next Generation Combat Vehicle |
Manned and unmanned combat vehicles with modern firepower, protection, mobility, and power generation. |
|
Future Vertical Lift |
Manned and unmanned platforms capable of attack, lift, and reconnaissance missions on modern and future battlefields. |
|
Army Network |
A mobile system of hardware, software, and infrastructure that can be used to fight cohesively in any environment where the electromagnetic spectrum is denied or degraded. |
|
Air and Missile Defense |
Capabilities that ensure future combat formations are protected from modern and advanced air and missile threats. |
|
Soldier Lethality |
Capabilities, equipment, and training for all fundamentals of combat—shooting, moving, communicating, protecting, and sustaining. This includes an expansion of simulated training. |
Source: GAO review of Army documentation. I GAO-19-132
To date, the Army has generally applied leading practices identified by GAO to its modernization efforts. For example, the cross-functional team pilots generally applied leading practices for determining requirements and technology development and for establishing effective teams. Similarly, as the Army began the process of establishing the Army Futures Command, it has started to apply the leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations by establishing a clearly defined mission and providing a clear consistent rationale for the command. However, GAO identified other areas where the Army has not fully applied leading practices to its modernization efforts including the following:
Under the modernization effort, the Army plans to begin weapon systems development at a lower level of maturity than what is recommended by leading practices. GAO has raised concerns about this type of practice for almost two decades for other Army acquisitions, because proceeding into weapon systems development at earlier stages of technology maturity raises the risk that the resulting systems could experience cost increases, delivery delays, or failure to deliver desired capabilities. Taking this approach for acquisitions under the modernization effort raises similar concerns for the Army's six prioritized capability needs.
The Army has not developed a plan for capturing the lessons learned from the cross-functional team pilots, and therefore may miss an opportunity to leverage the experience of these teams in applying leading practices.
Why GAO Did This Study
In order for the Army to maintain its technological edge over potential adversaries, it plans to invest in near- and long-term modernization efforts. However, the Army has struggled with modernization initiatives in the past. For example, the Future Combat System was canceled after a cost of $21 billion and delivery of few new capabilities.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to report on the Army's modernization strategy. This report assesses (1) the status of the Army's near- and long-term modernization efforts; and (2) the extent to which the Army has applied leading practices to these efforts. GAO reviewed Army directives, procedures, and policies; and compared the Army's efforts with leading practices for requirements and technology development, effective cross-functional teams, and mergers and organizational transformations.
Recommendations
GAO is making four recommendations, including that the Army follow leading practices for maturing technologies to a higher level than currently planned and develop a plan to capture lessons learned from the cross-functional teams. DOD concurred with all the recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of the Army |
Priority Rec.
The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command applies leading practices as they relate to technology development, particularly that of demonstrating technology in an operational environment prior to starting system development. (Recommendation 1) |
The Army agreed with this recommendation. Army officials acknowledged the importance of the recommendation and said they have taken actions to identify and remove infeasible or immature technologies consistent with leading practices for acquisition. However, in February 2023, Army officials stated that implementation of this recommendation can only be achieved with advanced component development and prototype funding, which the Army Futures Command no longer manages. In 2022, the Secretary of the Army tasked the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology with oversight of Army research and development, including associated resourcing decisions. We acknowledge that circumstances have changed since the report was issued in January 2019 but note that the Army Futures Command can still partially address the recommendation by providing a list of technologies that are at, or past, system development and by identifying the technology readiness level they achieved prior to entering system development. In February 2024, we met with AFC and ASA(ALT) officials to discuss the status of this recommendation and the documentary evidence required to support closure. We narrowed the scope of the programs requested at Technology Readiness Level 7 and system development into a more manageable data set. AFC and ASA(ALT) officials are working together to provide the listing of programs we requested. The Army has agreed to provide this information by January 2025. To fully implement this recommendation, the Army will need to demonstrate that the technologies it is developing are matured in accordance with leading practices. By doing so, the Army will be better able to reduce the risk that technologies will not operate as intended or desired. This recommendation remains open.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command takes steps to incorporate the experiences of the cross-functional teams in applying leading practices for effective cross-functional teams. (Recommendation 2) |
The Army concurred with this recommendation. In response to the recommendation, as of June 2020, Army Futures Command had established the roles and responsibilities of cross-functional teams within the command, and embedded a program analyst in its operations to document, analyze, disseminate, and incorporate best practices on an ongoing basis. These actions will allow the command to institutionalize the beneficial practices used by cross-functional teams during the pilot phase to improve the requirements development process in support of Army Futures Command's mission.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command executes a process for identifying and incorporating lessons learned from cross-functional team pilots into the new command. (Recommendation 3) |
The Army concurred with this recommendation. In response to the recommendation, as of June 2020, to ensure lessons learned are collected not only from the teams, but the entire organization, Army Futures Command had embedded a program analyst in its operations to document, analyze, disseminate, and incorporate lessons learned on an ongoing basis. The command noted that its history program contributes to the goal of capturing lessons learned by building the institutional memory of the command and teams. These actions will allow Army Futures Command to institutionalize the beneficial practices used by cross-functional teams during the pilot phase to improve the requirements development process in support of the command's mission.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of Army Futures Command fully applies leading practices for mergers and organizational transformations as roles, responsibilities, policies and procedures are finalized for the new command. (Recommendation 4) |
The Army concurred with this recommendation. In response, in February 2023, Army Futures Command (AFC) officials noted that the current Commanding General confirmed the roles, responsibilities, policies and procedures of the command as defined in previously released documentation. This documentation includes the April 2021 terms of reference that established expectations and responsibilities for the functioning of the command headquarters, a May 2022 memoranda on Army modernization roles and responsibilities, and a July 2022 operations order for AFC that prioritized and synchronized efforts across the command. We reviewed the documents and determined that they satisfied the intent of the recommendation.
|