Army Gap Analysis II

 

IF you read [joking no one reads these] the earlier posting Army Gap Analysis I (1st part of this particular saga) where I submitted my Army Gap Analysis write-up to Susan after she assigned "do a gap analysis on the Army."  An assignment that any engineer could easily do, yeah right, as usual assigning work well above my pay grade.  As I stated she was totally pissed about my first submission in which I pointed out the dismal state of the Army software process and practices which she oversees for years (decades?).  She specified that I redo the gap analysis but stipulated I was to provide "a procedure."  Below you will find my 2nd submission to Susan Davis.  She ordered me to meet in her office to discuss it, which occurred with us alone [important point!].  So she starts off by saying "you didn't provide a procedure."  To which I replied I did provide a procedure. You didn't provide a procedure.  I replied I did provide a procedure.  This when on forever escalating over time.  Repeated over and over and over again.  You didn't provide a procedure.  I did provide a procedure.  This could have easily gone on for 5 or 10 minutes.  During this debate I was seated in a chair in front of the left side of her disk.  Finally totally frustration I asked Susan to pull up my write-up on her computer.  Of course the computer monitor was facing her, placed on the right side of her desk facing her and I couldn't see the screen from where I was sitting in front of her desk.  She pulled up the write-up and to actually be able to read it I had to lean over the front of her desk to read the screen.  I read the prudent lines to her to which she immediately said "you did provide a procedure."  So in shock I asked why the heck did you keep stating I had not provided a procedure.  To my astonishment she replied that the write-up had upset she so much she didn't read it.  So she is falsely accusing me of not providing a procedure [not doing my assignment] because she didn't even bother to read the write-up I submitted.  Yet has no problem with acquiring me of not doing the assigned task.  Definitely illustrating the total lack of integrity Susan Davis exhibited after I was forced back under Phil Howard by Jeff Langhout and mirrored by all of upper management who never respond to my emails or intervene:

Christensen, Juanita M

Holmes, Marcia B

Sherrod, Stan K

Langhout, Jeffrey L.

Kirsch, James

Specifically Phil Howard who had previously personally threaten me with "You will find myself on the sidewalk." [i.e. fired] when I disapproved the T700 engine control software.  But wait it get even better which I'll document in my next Army Gap Analysis posting.

 

25 May 2018

To: Susan Davis,

Subject: “A rough outline procedure of how to perform a gap analysis”

First of all let me say I'm rather shocked to be asked for a rough outline procedure of how to perform a gap analysis.  In my last appraisal discussion (a short time ago) you indicated that during my next appraisal period (current but currently undefined) you wanted me to try to focus on understanding the gap analysis process and I agreed that I could focus on that.  Now even before those objectives have been agreed to or finalized I am being asked for an outline procedure of how to perform a gap analysis.  I find it confusing and conflicting to be asked for the procedure before I’ve actually started to do the work required to try to capture or define the procedure.  All of which I stated when I spoke to you on the phone Friday (May 18) about this assignment.   The strange thing being I received this assignment right after I declined management's offer of a "opportunity" (job) I was "offered" May 16 appearing as almost a reprisal for my action.  You stated in our meeting right after I had declined the "opportunity" by email that in reality I have no choice but, luckily, someone else accepted the job so it was now not an issue and that "duties as assigned" would be added to my objectives in the future to address my act.

As I wrote to you in a previous email pertaining to the lack of SED programs meeting Enterprise Process Improvement and Collaboration [EPIC] requirements; SED programs, the vast majority, do not meet EPIC or even CMMI for that matter, to which I have witnessed DB4s (a total of 4) in EPIC meetings verbally confirm this so this fact is not a secret and you personally have been a part of a conversation where this noncompliance was acknowledged.  This "gap" has been extensively documented by the internal analysis that have been performed by the Army.  So we had an organization (SED) with a process (EPIC) but to which almost none of the programs comply.  This doesn’t ever address additional technical requirements such as airworthiness e.g. DO-178 and DO-254 (neither are addressed by EPIC) both of which I documented using Army documentation explicitly stating failure to meet Federal and Foreign legislated airworthiness requirements much less basic fundamental core engineering procedures and processes like those being done as part of EPIC, which is basic engineering.  Failure to meet DO-178 and DO-254 Airworthiness infractions have been provided and documented through official channel to both Phil Howard and Jeff Langhout.  Why is the commercial sector required to meet universally legislated technical mandates to operate in public air space while the Army knowingly does not based solely on the justification the Army doesn't have to.  More "gaps!"

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

SED gap analysis has been done by small group of highly homed contracted experts with many many years of experience.  EPIC has had many names and been many things with its long lineage over an extended period of time.  Each analysis performed is extremely labor intensive and custom tailored to the program under review and the type of analysis being done.

You requested a brief overview but what I'm actually providing goes well beyond that.  The attached document provided with this email are a detail intricate view into the process itself since it is actual process.  A rough brief overview of the procedure: Identify program for analysis, Identify analysis type, review program for compliance to applicable type checklist (see attachment Master EPIC 2 0 1 Checklist for an example), and create the analysis report from the data. 

In view of the Army's and current S3I upper management's (those individuals noted above) previous actions of knowingly allowing technical noncompliance of programs the most probable course of S3I as an organization is  - ignorance is bliss - but maybe with another wrapper, a different name but essentially the same and no change. 

Ignorance is bliss!

I hope this exceeds your expectations which truly was my goal.

D F

Computer Engineer DB3