Army Gap Analysis I

When Phil Howard became my Supervisor, again, I was immediately forced onto work I had never been trained to do and requiring a level of expertise far exceeding my paygrade DB3.  The first task I was assigned by Susan Dave, who said "we want to use your big brain" was to do a "gap analysis."  Really that was all I had for direction; do a gap analysis.   I emailed my analysis which is provided below.  To say the least Susan was really angered (pissed) and noticeably distressed by my submission.  Immediately ordering me to provide a "procedure."  This is the beginning of a series of events that led to me being written up by Susan for "inappropriate behavior" when I was alone with her in her office, which in reality was actually inappropriate behavior by Susan.  For example the subsequent EEO violation I submitted is documented on this blog.  Writing me up for alleged unwitnessed inappropriate behavior and then writing me up when I refused to be alone with her requesting a witness there. Which she refused.  It served her purpose of officially reprimanding me for not following orders as she attempted to get me fired from the Government.  All the while email upper management about and NEVER receiving any response.  I went to the Union about this writing the Union Rep and the Union did nothing. 

Sent to Susan Dave - 5/22/2018 

Susan,

First of all let me say I find it kind of shocking to be asked for a rough outline procedure of how to perform a gap analysis.  During out last appraisal discussion (a short time ago) you indicated that during my next appraisal period (current) you wanted me to try to focus on understanding the gap analysis process, which I agree that I could focus on that.  Now even before the objectives we discussed have been agreed to I have you asking for an outline procedure of how to perform a gap analysis. I find it confusing and conflicting to be asked for procedure before I’ve actually started to do the work required to try to capture the procedure.

As I’ve written to you in a previous email, SED (prior to merger) programs, the majority, do not meet EPIC or even CMMI for that matter.  This has been documented by the internal analysis that have been performed by the Army.  So we had an organization with a process to which almost none of the programs compile.   This doesn’t ever address additional technical requirements such as DO-178 and DO-254 both of which I have extensively documented programs using Army documentation that explicitly states they failed to meet both Federal and Foreign legal airworthiness laws much less basic fundamental core engineering procedures and processes being done as part of EPIC: Basic engineering.  Failure to meet DO-178 and DO-254 Airworthiness infractions have been provided and documented through official channel to both Mr. Howard and Mr. Langhout.  Why is the commercial sector required to meet legislated technical mandates to operate in public air space while the Army, knowingly does not, based solely on the position, we don’t have to.

Addressing the current S3I organizational merger with or absorption of SED: S3I has no specified organizational process.  None.  I’ll leave that up to your imagination but it can’t be good.  For the future I’ll be labeling this organizational process approach “ignorance is bliss. “

SED gap analysis has been done and now done by small group of homed experts with many many years of experience, EPIC has been many names and many things with a long lineage over an extended period of years.  Each analysis performed is a labor intensive and custom tailored to the system under review.

You asked for a brief overview but actually well beyond that the attached document I’m providing is a detail intricate view into the process itself since it is the actual process.

In view of the Army’s past tradition of covering up technical negligence the ignorance is bliss process will in most probability be the future of the S3I.