Original audio cassette(s), signed legal release forms, and edited interview transcripts are on file in the Defense Acquisition History Oral History Collection, U.S. Army Center of Military History, Fort Leslie J. McNair, Washington, D.C.

Charles B. Cochrane

UNITED STATES ARMY
CENTER FOR MILITARY HISTORY
DEFENSE ACQUISITION HISTORY PROJECT

INTERVIEW OF
CHARLES B. COCHRANE
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
CURRICULA DEVELOPMENT & SUPPORT CENTER
DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY

CONDUCTED BY
DR. CAROLYN C. HÖFIG
AT
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA
21 SEPTEMBER 2004

Interviewee: Charles B. Cochrane
Interviewers: Dr. Carolyn C. Höfig
Date: 21 September 2004
Location: Fort Belvoir, Virginia
     
DR. HÖFIG:  Thank you.  Now I will get this machine started.  There we go.  As I say, I am very, very early in my own research process on the subject of acquisition training, education, and professionalization.  So this is pretty preliminary stuff.

Can I have you start with a rundown of your career, how you get here?

MR. COCHRANE:  I spent most of my career in the Army—field artillery—and I came into what the Army used to call the Program Management Professional Development Program in the mid-'80s.  I was assigned here as an Army lieutenant colonel in 1987, and I retired here in 1990.  In other words, I applied for a job in a civilian position and stayed on.

DR. HÖFIG:  And when you started, it was the Defense Systems Management College?

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  Defense Acquisition University didn't come along until about 1991, as I recall.

I've been a faculty member and department chair.  Right now, I'm the director of the Center for Program Management in the Curriculum Development and Support Center.

DR. HÖFIG:  Who are your students at the Defense Acquisitions University?

MR. COCHRANE:  A wide range of students:  active duty military, government civilians, defense industry civilians.

DR. HÖFIG:  How do the industry students get here?  Are they nominated from their companies?

MR. COCHRANE:  Their companies nominate them. We have a person in the registrar's office who takes care of the industry students.  We encourage the industry students to attend and get the cross-fertilization between the government perspective and the industry perspective.

DR. HÖFIG:  Where are these students, typically, in their careers?

MR. COCHRANE:  We start with the fairly junior students in our basic 100-series level courses.  They could be GS-9, -10, -11 civilians.  They could be lieutenants or captains from the military departments, all the way up through the Senior Executive Service civilians and general or flag officers.  So we cover a whole range of ranks, grades, ages.

DR. HÖFIG:  And needs.  I can tell from the course descriptions, some of the courses go for some weeks; some of them are just a couple of days.  If you were just starting out in acquisitions, though, you would come here, is that right?

MR. COCHRANE:  If you’re just starting out, you're probably taking the online introductory course.  Then, say, two or three years later, when you get to be at the intermediate level, probably you start taking courses that last from one to two weeks.  You get up to the more senior level and the program management career field, which is where the longest courses are, and we're talking about a six-week course.  You get more senior, and you may go as long as a ten-week program management course.

DR. HÖFIG:  And these are in-residence courses?

MR. COCHRANE:  In residence.

DR. HÖFIG:  Why is program management is the longest course?

MR. COCHRANE:  Well, it's the most difficult career field because the program managers are responsible for bringing together all of the other functional areas—ten to twelve areas, depending on what type of acquisition program—into a coherent program office environment to manage or, really, oversee the development and fielding of the weapon system.

DR. HÖFIG:  Had you done any acquisitions kind of work before you got here in 1987?

MR. COCHRANE:  Not really.  Most of my career was on the combat arms side of the Army, field artillery.

DR. HÖFIG:  What was that transition like?

MR. COCHRANE:  It wasn't bad.  I went through the twenty-week program management course back in 1984.  The courses used to be a lot longer!  But we didn't have all of the shorter basic and intermediate courses back in those days.

DR. HÖFIG:  I see.  DAU came out of the statute—

MR. COCHRANE:  Actually in public law.  That's the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA).

DR. HÖFIG:  It kind of culminated several different reform efforts that kind of came together, I think.

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes, yes.

DR. HÖFIG:  Where were we when you started out in this acquisition reform?  Where are we now, do you think?

MR. COCHRANE:  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by acquisition reform.

DR. HÖFIG:  I'm thinking of everything from the panels and commissions, the efforts that the Pentagon undertook, public opinion, the various scandals, from developing the C-5 to the $640 toilet seat—all these things that kind of lead people to believe that the acquisition process was broken or at least not especially effective.  When you started, we were kind of getting things together in the '80s, right?

MR. COCHRANE:  Well, there were a lot of scandals and issues, and the Congress got heavily involved in the mid-'80s.  That's where we got most of the legislation that I'd say supported and constrained the acquisition process.  But frankly, some of the best weapon systems that are in the field today were developed in the '70s, and they were fielded in the '80s.  So I don't know that the scandals were all that widespread.  You know, there were a lot of horror stories, like the coffee pot and the toilet seat, but that was a lot of media stuff, frankly.  It wasn't all that big of a deal to me.

DR. HÖFIG:  So to your mind, we were still fielding good stuff for the men and women who had to use it?

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  It was good stuff, and it's gotten better.

DR. HÖFIG:  I assume that this education process has helped.
            MR. COCHRANE:  The acquisition workforce, because of all the emphasis on training since the mid-'80s and early '90s, is much better trained today than it was back in the mid-'80s.  And technology has advanced.  So the systems are more reliable; they're more lethal and easier to operate and maintain than you would normally expect for a highly-complex system—because the technology is better.
It's not just the training of the workforce, you know.  The technology has gotten much better out in the civilian sector, and that's also reflected in the defense systems.

DR. HÖFIG:  Of course, then you've got to train your folks here to deal with all this new technology as well.

MR. COCHRANE:  Well, we train the folks that are responsible for developing and fielding the systems, not operating the systems.

The thing our students have to understand from the human factors perspective is that we have to field systems that are—  I won't say easier to operate, but technology has to be developed so that the average soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine can operate them and take care of them in a tense combat environment like we have in Iraq right now.  So that's important.  Human factors are a big deal.

DR. HÖFIG:  When you say human factors, do you mean it in terms of the use, or in terms of the development?

MR. COCHRANE:  In terms of operating and maintaining the systems.

DR. HÖFIG:  What about the human factors in the acquisition process, though?  You train here so that these folks can manage the process and other things like that, right?

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  Like I said, we do everything from the basic to executive level training.  

What the government really does is oversee a contractor to make sure the warfighter’s requirements are being met.  We do very little actual in-house research and development for the major systems.  We have laboratories and so forth, but generally we depend on the defense industry to develop the system, and we are in an oversight role.

DR. HÖFIG:  So what are the kinds of things that you teach people, particularly the beginners, particularly the people who haven't done this before, as they're growing into this oversight role?

MR. COCHRANE:  We bring them in and introduce them to a pretty complex business: the fundamentals of contracting, fundamentals of logistics, fundamentals of cost, cost estimating, scheduling, how to put together a statement of work, how to deal with other people in an integrated product team environment—not just government but industry.  It's very difficult for, say, a person who comes in and learns about contracting, which is a specialized area, to be brought into a situation where they have to deal with the engineers, the logisticians, the comptroller types, the people who have the money.  In my career field, the program management career field, we bring them together so they can learn as much as they need to learn about all these other functional areas, so that the team, the program office team is more efficient when they oversee that contractor.

DR. HÖFIG:  Are these courses, then, largely like seminars or are they more lab-like?

MR. COCHRANE:  All of that.  We have knowledge-based courses, which means that you're either getting it online or you're getting it through a lecture or discussion format.  We have courses that are case-based.  Some of the courses are scenario-based, which is sort of like a continuing case study.  And some are a mixture.  So, it really depends.
At the more junior level or the more basic level or even at the intermediate level, you have more lecture discussion.  At the more senior level, when we're looking at majors and lieutenant colonels and colonels, we try to get into the case studies method.  We have case studies that are fictitious, and we have case studies that reflect systems that are in development or in the field today.

DR. HÖFIG:  You have good connections to people who are now or have recently been in the Pentagon doing these sorts of things and industry as well, right?

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  We, or at least I, deal with folks in the Pentagon almost every day.  I deal with a lot of folks in the defense industry. 

In fact, I have a course that we teach under an MOU with the National Defense Industrial Association for industry, mid-level program managers.  We do that about four to six times a year.  I personally teach that course.  That keeps me up to date on the industry perspective. 

We deal with the people out in the government program offices.  We have a very active performance support role here at DAU.  When the folks out in the program office are running into a problem, say implementing a new policy or a new initiative that comes out of the Pentagon, then they can contact our director of Performance Support.  If necessary, we'll send people out to the office to provide on-site consulting.

DR. HÖFIG:  Would that be for a particular issue?

MR. COCHRANE:  Normally, it's a specialized issue.  Like for example, here recently, we've had a lot of emphasis on corrosion control, the unique item identification program, the radio frequency ID system for parts and components.  In the last couple of years, we've had brand-new sets of policies and procedures come out for defense acquisition and for requirements generation.  So we train the faculty.  The faculty trains other faculty members, and then we respond to requests from program executive officers and PMs and major acquisition commands all over the country.

DR. HÖFIG:  How much of your curriculum is online?

MR. COCHRANE:  That's a good question.  I'd say probably around half right now.  There's data on that some place.  I'd say between 40 percent and 50 percent.

DR. HÖFIG:  And those are whole courses that are online?

MR. COCHRANE:  Whole courses.  I have, just in my area, the fundamentals course that I manage—sort of an acquisition 101 course, the fundamentals of systems acquisition management.  It is all online.  The intermediate course that I have, acquisition 201, is an online course that's followed up with one week in the classroom. I have an intermediate program management course, PMT-250, that's all online, about eighty hours.  Then I have a 300-level course, which is the Level 3 certification course, PMT-352, with about fifty hours online and six weeks in the classroom.

DR. HÖFIG:  So you do mix the online content with the classroom time.  Is that to get the maximum amount of material to the maximum amount of people?

MR. COCHRANE:  It depends on what the requirements are—what we call performance outcomes or the learning outcomes that we expect to get out of the course.  Sometimes you just can't get it all online or over the Internet.  It takes teamwork, and teamwork's pretty hard to get—not impossible, but hard to get—over the internet.  You need a lot of eyeball-to-eyeball personal interaction to solve a lot of the more advanced problems.

DR. HÖFIG:  How long have you had the online component?  It must be fairly well developed here.

MR. COCHRANE:  Well, I think it is.  I think we put our first course online, which was my acquisition 101 course, in about 1998 or '99.  And then over the years, we got part of the intermediate course online, part of the 300-series course online.  So our use of online technology is fairly well advanced here.

DR. HÖFIG:  And you have regional campuses, or a regional presence, and then, as I read in the catalog, if you've got a big enough group in some place, you'll send an instructor to the group?

MR. COCHRANE:  We can do that, too.  That's exactly right.  We call those courses “onsites.”

We've been looked at by a number of national web-based training organizations.  We've won a number of awards for our online training.

DR. HÖFIG:  What makes a good program manager in this day and age?

MR. COCHRANE:  That's a good question.  I'd say that it probably boils down to two things:  business sense and technical knowledge.  It's probably very like it is in industry.  You need a pretty good engineer who has also got a lot of business sense.

DR. HÖFIG:  Do you find a lot of those?

MR. COCHRANE:  No, they're hard to find.  So you have to grow them.  You bring them in as a fairly junior person, maybe.  It varies by the military department.  The Air Force brings in lieutenants, but the Army and the Navy bring in officers, probably about senior captain, O-3 level.  At some point, they have to make a decision on what career field they want to pursue.  So they come into the program management career field as opposed to logistics or contracting or engineering.  Then they need to be developed through a broad range of assignments.  The training courses sort of emulate that broader range of assignment by providing the integrated course material.  When they get to be a lieutenant colonel or a colonel, then they become a PM.

DR. HÖFIG:  And then the fun really begins.

MR. COCHRANE:  And then the fun really begins.  It's a tough job.

DR. HÖFIG:  Most of your program managers, do they have technical backgrounds then, by and large, when they start?

MR. COCHRANE:  I'd say that varies a lot, but by and large, I think they do.  You know, it depends on the culture of the military department.  It really does.  I think the Air Force and the Navy tend to lean very heavily on folks with an engineering background, and the Army may lean heavier on the folks with a business background.

Nevertheless, you've got to be technically qualified in the system you're developing or how do you know whether or not you're meeting the warfighter's requirement?  You've got to have enough savvy to make sure you're on schedule and within your cost constraints.  So it's really a combination of talent, I think.

You know, it's pretty common knowledge out there in the business world in complex systems that you're looking for engineers that have a master's in business administration.  It's almost the same in the government.

DR. HÖFIG:  It seems to me that one of the side effects of the professionalization is that not only do you have people who are well prepared for the acquisition tasks that they get, but you can now make a very good career in the military in acquisition and project management and things like that.  Do you get the sense that that career track has become more well regarded?

MR. COCHRANE:  I think it's become more well regarded over the years.  It's not necessarily the career track to make general officer.  It's probably a good solid career track to make full colonel.  I think on the warfighting side is where you really find the need for general flag officers.  There are some in the acquisition business, but most of them are not.
We have DAWIA, the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act we mentioned earlier.  There were some provisions in that act that required the military departments to promote their active duty acquisition workforce members at at least the same rate they were promoting the warfighter career field, and I think that that pretty well holds true, at least up through the full colonel level.  I'm not too sure about the general officer level, but at least through the full colonel level.

DR. HÖFIG:  Do you see that changing at all?

MR. COCHRANE:  No.  I don't know exactly how to put it.  The reason we have a Department of Defense is national security, and it's the warfighting component of the department that's always been preeminent.  So that's where the requirements seem to be—on the operational side of the house—for the general and flag officers.

Even though the acquisition system may be more complex now than it ever was before, lieutenant colonels and colonels can handle a lot of complex activities.

DR. HÖFIG:  You say it's an oversight relationship that the government has over industry.  So when you bring the industry students here, is that kind of like a foreign exchange program?  Is that so that they get to see what the government's concerns are and their future counter-numbers in the government get to see what they're about?

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  Exactly.  They're two different cultures, really.  The industry students come from a culture that's motivated by profit, and the government students are in a culture that's motivated by mission.  It's good to get them in a classroom together, to get the classroom discussions going, so they understand the different perspectives.  It's good for the government students to understand profit is not a bad thing.  It's good for the industry students to understand that the government folks are primarily focused on meeting the warfighter's requirement.  It has to be a balance.

DR. HÖFIG:  Do you teach your students here how to manage that tension?

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  In many of our courses, we try to give the government students enough information so they understand the industry problems:  the profit motivation, cash flow issues, and other issues that their counterparts in industry have to deal with.  Having that industry student in the classroom to back up that instruction is very beneficial.

DR. HÖFIG:  And then he's got some sense of what his government colleagues are about.
            MR. COCHRANE:  Yes.  For the industry students, unless they just happen to have come out of the government and gone to work for industry, the culture's almost alien to them.  It's a different language, a whole different way of looking at the same problem.  

DR. HÖFIG:  What else do I need to know about the program?

MR. COCHRANE:  I'm not sure.  You've seen the catalog.  You might want to take these with you and look at them some time.  This is a little chart (This chart is in the interviewer’s records in the file designated for this interview.) that shows all of the career fields—I've mentioned a few of them, like program management, contracting and logistics and so forth—and then the requirements of Level 1, 2, and 3.  You can see the education requirements, which is the bachelor's degree, the master's degree, how many years of experience they're required to have at that level, and then the training which is what we do.
There are the different training courses.  I've mentioned some, like ACQ 101.  ACQ 101 is one of my courses, but it's required for almost every career field.  That's that integration requirement to understand what the other career fields are responsible for.  Then there is the same thing at Level 2 and Level 3.  That might generate some more questions.

The other thing, in my area, I've got this little flyer (This flyer is in the interviewer’s records, in the file designated for this interview.) here, which gives you an idea of the courses that I've got.  I've got all the integrated courses.  So you can look at this little flyer and you can see some of the same information, but this gets a little more detailed and how many hours on the Internet, how many hours in the classroom, what the target student audience is, the type of instruction that's used, like scenario-based, case-based.
There are some websites on here you might want to look at if you have time.
We pass this out to both government and industry folks.  It also tells our industry contractors, how to get into our courses.

DR. HÖFIG:  Do all the major industrial characters send people?

MR. COCHRANE:  Oh, yes.  We get students from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics.  We also get the smaller ones.  It runs the whole range of contractors.  In that course I mentioned earlier that we do with NDIA, we even get really small mom-and-pop businesses sometimes coming to that course.

DR. HÖFIG:  Does the war change the acquisition process at all?  Does it change your students?

MR. COCHRANE:  Well, it makes it harder for them to find time to come to class!  And it also re-creates a sense of urgency, I think. It reminds everybody of why we're here.  In long stretches of peace, you tend to forget what we're really here for.
This is not a business where you start working on a new fighter aircraft or a new armored personnel carrier or main battle tank or a combat radio and expect to make a career out of it.  What we're supposed to do is get it out to the field as fast as possible.  So when you get into an ongoing conflict, it reminds everybody of why we're here.  Sometimes you lose sight of that.  You get wrapped up in process.  You get wrapped up in the process and you forget that the acquisition process has a goal and that's to get the systems to the field as fast as possible.

DR. HÖFIG:  So, in a lot of ways, the same old pressures apply to the acquisition process, getting things, good quality material into the field, managing the relationship with contractors whose motivations do not coincide completely with the government's.

MR. COCHRANE:  Right.

DR. HÖFIG:  What about new challenges?  Do you see anything new coming up?  Variations on the theme?

MR. COCHRANE:  It's hard to predict the future, but obviously the lack of a major global threat, like the old Soviet Union, probably not even an anticipated major global threat like that on the horizon for numerous decades—which requires this transformation of the warfighting forces to meet the smaller contingencies and the war on terrorism—is going to have a big impact on the type of systems they need.  We're seeing a lot more emphasis on intelligence types of systems, command-and-control types of systems, particularly secure command-and-control.  Precision-guided munitions, so you can be very careful about the types of targets that you're attacking, less collateral damage, a lot more emphasis on individual soldier-type equipment—

The American people see it on TV every day.  It's the soldier on the ground that makes the big difference.  So the more survivable the soldier is, the better equipment the soldier has from the individual standpoint, the better off they are, the more likely they are to win rapidly.

We're going to see, I think, more pre-positioned equipment.  We're probably going to see requirements for different types of aircraft, different types of ships, those things that make us a lot more mobile.  Rapid deployment from the continental United States of people and equipment, rapid deployment of people to marry up with pre-positioned stocks overseas some place.

DR. HÖFIG:  So, a lot more logistics work as well.

MR. COCHRANE:  Yes. There is a lot of emphasis on logistics right now. 
The ideal logistics is to have no requirement for logistics, of course.  The best system is a system that doesn't need any maintenance.  So the more reliable the systems become, the easier they are to maintain, the better off the warfighter is.

DR. HÖFIG:  Okay.  I think that will give me something to start with.  Thank you very much for your time this morning.
            (End of Interview of Charles B. Cochrane.)

* * * * *