Around three months ago, Mr Gates....our big Pentagon boss....got around to asking some big questions on his staff, and found that a number of folks didn't know who did what. In fact, there were contractors hired but the staff under Mr Gates just didn't have a grasp of who did what or why. So he challenged them, and basically brought DISA into this discussion. At some point, they made a decision and it got explained today.
The communications folks underneath Mr Gates....will come to work for DISA. Yeah, there will be some carved off for contracting. Yep, there will be some carved off to the Cyber Command folks. But DISA ends up with this mission of supporting Mr Gates and the internal communications of his office.
I kinda felt proud of this announcement. It's like K-Mart admitting issues and asking Wal-Mart to take over operations.
Well....that lasted about a minute, until I got to the bottom of the article.
One former senior Senate defense aide questions moving any NII functions to the Defense Information Systems Agency, asking: "Why would you move parts of the most ineffectual office in OSD into DISA, which is the most inefficient organization in all of DoD?
Yeah, well, it's a fairly harsh accusation....DISA being inefficient and such. Yeah, well....it's hard for me after nine months to argue against this comment.
To put this in a good prospective? I sat and pondered over this, and came back to a Bama-like situation. Working around this organization is kinda like being invited over to bale some hay and haul it for some local guy. The problem occurs when we (DISA) arrive at the field of hay.
First, six guys will wander over to the baler and ask for the certificate paperwork that it's in working order.
Second, two guys around the barn will begin asking for a plan on how each bale will be laid out in the barn.
Third, one guy will halt the operation until a safety review is done.
Fourth, two guys will refuse access to the one jug of ice-water on a 95 degree afternoon because it's not marked "pure water".
Fifth and final, eight guys will refuse to move any bales until a consolidated plan is written and agreed upon by forty-four different parties (some live out of state and just couldn't make it that day).
Yeah, so I kinda understand this 'slam' on my organization. Course, this would make a great masters degree evaluation as you take one ineffective group and layer them over another ineffective group. Can we improve the ineffectiveness by fifty percent? Can we lose some of our ineffectiveness? It's a dynamic thing....which you'd best just forget and hope that things can only get better.