Feral Jundi

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

PMC 2.0: Innovation Prizes For Private Military Companies

Filed under: Bounties,Building Snowmobiles,Industry Talk,Letter Of Marque,PMC 2.0 — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:04 AM

“I’m worth a million in prizes..” Iggy Pop

*****

     Wow, I really liked this article at the Economist and I wanted to share.  It kind of shows how desperate private industry and governments are for really good ideas.  And as everyone here knows, I am all about new ideas or ‘building snowmobiles’ and I try to promote that process as much as I can.

    But imagine adding incentive to the ‘building snowmobiles’ theme?  That is what makes innovation prizes such an interesting and potentially lethal concept for our industry and the war effort. Perhaps I should consider raising prize money for the best construction of a Letter of Marque concept for modern warfare use?  How about an innovation prize for low cost, high return warfare ideas?  Really open it up to the public, or just offer the contests within the boundaries of an organization. How about an innovation prize for new types of war or business strategies? Or how about for a company logo? To really put it out there, how about using mobile cash as a means to reward locals as a means of gaining ideas for COIN and reconstruction in Afghanistan?

    Companies could also offer innovation prizes to those who can come up with the best cost saving ideas, or to new directions in business?  There are many complex problems a company could try to solve by putting it out there for their employees to solve through a prize system.  It is just one more way to create that unique situation that would allow for your employees to create something important to the company or ‘people will support what they help to create’.

    Now the one thing that is most valuable and truly the prize, is business success or victory in war. A company would be smart to not only offer prizes for innovations, but to reward their company as a whole by increasing salaries because they are more profitable. Or offer the benefit in one way or another, which would reward your employees for participating in this innovation prize concept in the first place.

    The articles below indicate that this is a major theme throughout the world, and it sounds like most of the experts agree that it works.  For companies reading this, InnoCentive is the company that the Economist identified as a platform for innovation prizes.  Or you could just start your our prize initiatives. If the US government is jumping all over this stuff with their Challenge.gov site, then our industry could probably stand to benefit from it as well. I would even post it here on the blog if it was open to the industry and public?

    As for the problem solvers out there, there are plenty of prizes to go after if you have some big ideas.  Thousands of dollars are available and it sounds like these prizes are only increasing in size and number.  Just check out the chart below. –Matt

And the winner is…

Challenge.gov looking for great ideas

For Corporations (from InnoCentive website)

—————————————————————-

And the winner is…

Offering a cash prize to encourage innovation is all the rage. Sometimes it works rather well

Aug 5th 2010

A CURIOUS cabal gathered recently in a converted warehouse in San Francisco for a private conference. Among them were some of the world’s leading experts in fields ranging from astrophysics and nanotechnology to health and energy. Also attending were entrepreneurs and captains of industry, including Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, and Ratan Tata, the head of India’s Tata Group. They were brought together to dream up more challenges for the X Prize Foundation, a charitable group which rewards innovation with cash. On July 29th a new challenge was announced: a $1.4m prize for anyone who can come up with a faster way to clean oil spills from the ocean.

The foundation began with the Ansari X Prize: $10m to the first private-sector group able to fly a reusable spacecraft 100km (62 miles) into space twice within two weeks. It was won in 2004 by a team led by Burt Rutan, a pioneering aerospace engineer, and Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft. Other prizes have followed, including the $10m Progressive Automotive X Prize, for green cars that are capable of achieving at least 100mpg, or its equivalent. Peter Diamandis, the entrepreneur who runs the foundation, says he has become convinced that “focused and talented teams in pursuit of a prize and acclaim can change the world.”

(more…)

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Industry Talk: Legislation Would Federalize Private Guards Who Protect US Government Buildings

Filed under: Government Work,Industry Talk,Legal News — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:43 AM

“Again, it’s because you can fire a bad contractor, but you can’t fire the government. I think TSA stands for Thousands Standing Around.” -John Stossel

****

     Interesting move, but I have this picture in my head of TSA-like guards standing post at these buildings. Whatever forces that cause TSA folks to do a poor job, will also impact these federalized private guards. A lack of leadership, a lack of funding, a lack of motivation to do well, and a feeling of being part of a government machine that has numerous loopholes that allow bad employees to continue working.

     It would not surprise me if this move will cost more as well.  With federal employees, you have a lot of benefits the government has to pay for.  I would love for these guys to get good pay, and great benefits, but if these legislators start going over the cost of such a thing, I think they might get some sticker shock. Especially when they look at the retirement costs or medical insurance costs.

     Politically speaking, this has all the trappings of government just trying to get bigger.  Candidates who are running on anti-big government platforms will have plenty of ammunition if this type of stuff passes.  Especially if it costs more than what is currently going on and if the unions are involved.

     Now I do like the ‘nationwide training and certification standards for private guards’ concept.  That makes sense, and it also makes sense to ‘hire contract oversight staffers to monitor the firms employing private guards’.  Both of those actions will pay real dividends. But I would still like to see private industry do this stuff, because once government takes it over it just seems to get even worse. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Legislation would federalize private guards who protect U.S. government buildings

By Ed O’KeefeTuesday, September 14, 2010

Private security guards protecting the nation’s federal buildings might one day earn a government paycheck and could face new national training and certification standards if legislation introduced Monday advances in the coming months.

The proposals unveiled by members of the House Homeland Security Committee come more than a year after government auditors embarrassed the beleaguered Federal Protective Service by penetrating 10 major federal facilities with materials to construct a bomb. The FPS provides security for about 1.5 million federal workers at 9,000 federal facilities with a mix of about 800 full-time federal inspectors and 15,000 private security guards.

The legislation would require the FPS to hire 550 new federal inspectors, a figure that is “really not enough,” but all that the agency can handle right now, said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). The new hires should help the agency move toward federalizing most, if not all, of its private guards, she said.

(more…)

Publications: COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency Contracting Guidance

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:34 AM

     Here it is.  Feel free to pass this around or go to the links below, and pass that around.  Lots of good commonsense stuff in there.  My only point to make with this publication is that prime contractors should definitely use this document as well, just so that we are all playing off the same sheet of music. –Matt

——————————————————————

COMISAF/CDR USFOR-A

For the Commanders, Contracting Personnel, Military Personnel, and Civilians of NATO ISAF and US Forces-Afghanistan

SUBJECT: COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency (COIN) Contracting GuidanceDownload Official Release

The scale of our contracting efforts in Afghanistan represents both an opportunity and a danger. With proper oversight, contracting can spur economic development and support the Afghan government’s and ISAF’s campaign objectives. If, however, we spend large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, it is likely that some of those funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks, and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan.

In view of these points, contracting has to be “Commander’s business.” Indeed, I expect Commanders to consider the effects of our contract spending and understand who benefits from it. We must use intelligence to inform our contracting and ensure those with whom we contract work for the best interests of the Afghan people. We must be better buyers and buy from better people. Consistent with NATO and national contracting laws and regulations, we must:

Understand the role of contracting in COIN. Purchases we make for construction, goods, and services can bolster economic growth, stability, and Afghan goodwill toward their government and ISAF. Contracts with Afghan firms that procure Afghan goods and services generate employment and assist in the development of a sustainable economy. However, if we contract with powerbrokers who exclude those outside their narrow patronage networks or are perceived as funneling resources to one community at the expense of another, the effect on Afghan perceptions and our mission will be negative. Thus, we must incorporate COIN Contracting topics into training for Commanders.

(more…)

Monday, September 13, 2010

Afghanistan: US Trying To Track Missing Weapons Issued To Afghan Police

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Logistics — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:31 AM

“He gets it done,” Maj. Fred Tanner, 1st Squadron operations officer, said of Kahn. “He has 500 guys on the Afghan government payroll but he can call on about 1,500.”

Ginty said Kahn spends some of the money he makes on supplying his men.

“It’s frustrating when the contractors have these big forts and no issues with weapons and manning, and the government forces are withering on the vine,” Ginty said, adding that police logistical problems don’t help recruitment efforts.

The answer is for the U.S. military to partner with the ANP at provincial level or higher to make sure staff is getting equipment out to units in the field, he said. 

*****

     Nothing new here either.  Of course these weapons were sold by Afghan government officials.  What else could have happened to them?  Like they magically disappeared into thin air or Afghan gremlins took them from armories or from sleeping soldiers? Ha! I guarantee that these weapons are in the hands of the Taliban or PSC’s, because we actually trusted that the Afghans could be responsible with this stuff. It also makes me sick to think that US and Coalition forces have probably been killed by these weapons.

    You know, there are so many ways out there for us to insert some accountability into this system. For one, we can actually be in charge of the weapons, and not the Afghans.  Or whomever in the Afghan government is tasked with weapons procurement and management of the logistics system is, we put a mentor right next too him as part of the conditions of this ‘weapons and equipment gift package’.  We are giving them these weapons for free and it should be within our right to watch over the whole process.  Trust, but verify.

    Probably the best part of this whole article though was the mention of how well Afghan contractor companies are able to equip and arm their security contractors.  I chuckled, because of course private industry is better at watching this stuff than government. The CEO only benefits if his contractors do well on the contract and out performs the enemy and the company’s competitors. To do well and maintain their lead in the industry, they need capable and well paid men, functional weapons, plenty of ammunition and good equipment/vehicles/uniforms–the same things that governments need and should care about.

     I wouldn’t doubt that these companies probably bought some of these black market weapons for contracts. Why wouldn’t they? I would rather see a private company get them who at least can provide services to our side, than have the Taliban get them and kill troops. Too bad the Afghan government could care less about taking care of their own troops and defeating the Taliban, and more about lining their pockets. –Matt

——————————————————————

U.S. trying to track missing weapons issued to Afghan police

By SETH ROBSON

September 11, 2010

Soldiers with the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment patrol alongside Afghan National Police in Kandahar province.

TIRIN KOT, Afghanistan — A massive hunt is on for tens of thousands of rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers that the U.S. government procured for the Afghan National Police but are unaccounted for, according to the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan.

“There have been discrepancies in the number of weapons the Afghans say they have and the number of weapons issued,” U.S. Air Force Maj. Lindsay Logsdon, a public affairs officer with NTM-A, said in an e-mail Wednesday.

According to Logsdon, the Department of Defense procured more than 72,400 AK-47s, as well as heavy machine guns and RPG launchers for Afghan police. Coalition forces are attempting to track exactly where the weapons are — amid allegations by the military and others that some police weapons may have ended up in the hands of the Taliban.

Logsdon did not provide details on how many weapons have been tracked. She said there are weapons and equipment shortages at Afghan police units all over the country, but that the extent of the problem is unclear.

(more…)

Afghanistan: Petraeus Issues Guidance For Afghan Contracting

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Military News — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:32 AM

     Nothing too radical or exciting about this one.  I mean all of these issues have been talked about and mulled over for quite awhile now, and I am quite frankly pretty tired of discussing it. The problems have been identified and now all that is needed is leadership and action.

     What is more important is for Petraeus to actually punish those within his command that do not deliver.  We are going into nine years of contracting in this war zone, and it is pretty pathetic that it has taken this long for today’s war time leaders to finally recognize how important it is to square away this aspect of the war. That’s government for you.

     As for tips on how to insure you are getting the best bang for the buck, I would implement as many mentorship programs as possible.  Just as long as there is a responsible and trustworthy partner that is attached to all of these contracts, then at least you will have someone you can deal with and give guidance too. Either assign a military unit with these local companies, or find a company with expats that can watch over this stuff. In either case, you must have an eye on the project so you can control it or shut it down if it hurts the war effort.

    Another thing to think about is the Mystery Shopper concept I have talked about in the past.  It is such a simple method of checking up on projects, and I still don’t know why we don’t implement more of this kind of thing?  It is especially important if you do not have eyes on the project at all times due to manpower issues or whatever.  A simple visit by someone that no one knows is an inspector or observer, will give you a good dose of feedback and shared reality as to what is really going on with that project.

    The other thing that will help for accounting purposes is to use payment systems for contracting that make it easy for transparency.  Things like mobile cash can really help out in this department. This area requires innovation and a dedication to continuos improvement or Kaizen.

    Well written contracts and having plenty of manpower to watch over these contracts is also a basic one that really needs good leadership to ensure it happens.  Now that Petraeus has issued guidance, perhaps he will do what is necessary to assign sufficient manpower to these contracts.  And not just soldiers without a clue, but individuals that will take everything into account, and actually look at the secondary and third effects of each and every contract they sign.  They should be applying OODA to every contract, and win the war of contracting.

    Finally, I wonder if the Taliban have issues with managing their contractors?  They have to pay for bounties, mercenaries, equipment, weapons, explosives and everything else an insurgency requires.  I tend to view their operations and logistics as one that is simpler, smaller and more flexible–kind of like business, and less like government. There is also the fear of pissing off their command and fellow Taliban if you steal from the organization, so that probably keeps the organization in check.  I could be wrong and I am just thinking out loud here. It would be extremely interesting to read a report on the Taliban and their contracting issues. I certainly have plenty of information about our own contracting practices, or lack there of. pffft –Matt

——————————————————————-

Petraeus issues guidance for Afghan contracting

By DEB RIECHMANN

Sep 12, 2010

The NATO command has issued new guidelines for awarding billions of dollars worth of international contracts in Afghanistan, saying that without proper oversight the money could end up in the hands of insurgents and criminals, deepen corruption and undermine efforts to win the loyalty of the Afghan people at a critical juncture in the war.

The guidance, issued last week by Gen. David Petraeus and obtained Sunday by The Associated Press, was issued in response to concern that the military’s own contracting procedures could be, in some cases, running counter to efforts on the battlefield.

The changes are aimed, in large part, at addressing complaints that ordinary Afghans have seen little change in their daily lives despite billions poured into their country since 2001.

“With proper oversight, contracting can spur economic development and support the Afghan government and NATO’s campaign objectives,” Petraeus wrote in a two-page memorandum. “If, however, we spend large quantities of international contracting funds quickly and with insufficient oversight, it is likely that some of those funds will unintentionally fuel corruption, finance insurgent organizations, strengthen criminal patronage networks and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan.”

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress