John van Santen

1) a HBS-method using real acquisitions as case studies; having students make key determinations (as the IPT did) and role playing to a conclusion against a provided skilled team representing the contractor – looking only at the end result of the negotiation (don’t care how we got there; was the result similar to the real world result?)

2) mixed classes of skills, backgrounds, and motivation; government personnel have to role-play the contractor side (often without any real-world experience in private industry); presenters inject their bias (or are required to) during the process and the end-result is less important than everyone gets there the way the course intended. Too few dissections of real acquistions and too many contrived role-plays. Not enough opportunities to train (what if airline pilots only saw a simulator once a year or so?), not much done online with an AI/KMS (sorry DAU, you try VERY hard). Commercial vendors have to mimic DAU/FAI courses or the variations would kill common understanding, so it’s more of the same.

3) Can partake in real procurements via a backchannel offered by agency Acquisition Services USG-only social network (whose contents may or may not be incorporated as the KO sees fit); AI/KMS simulations based on a wide-variety of real procurements to test your (contracting) wits against (DAU used to have a contracting question of the week, but it wasn’t updated very often and was often arcane) whenever one wants; the full-range of acquisition responsibilites should be modeled (FAC-P/PM and FAC-COR are much less developed than FAC-C in training materials, role-playing, online training, simulations, etc).

4) more work online. Aircraft simuators are hyper-realistic; contracting, program management, COR training can and should be also; No reason not to shadow actual procurements and advise (crowsourcing SMEs).