Tactical Intelligence: Army Needs to Reconsider and Test All-Source Analysis System Alternative
NSIAD-94-49
Published: Mar 07, 1994. Publicly Released: Mar 07, 1994.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO provided information on the Army's plans to field block I of the All-Source Analysis System (ASAS), focusing on: (1) block I field readiness; (2) whether further development of block II can cost-effectively improve system capabilities; and (3) whether alternatives exist to developing block II.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should direct the Army to incorporate and test upgrades necessary to correct operational and suitability problems identified during testing and user evaluations prior to block I fielding. |
Closed – Not Implemented
The Army has already replaced the ASAS Block I equipment with modern open architecture equipment to correct the problems reported with Block I.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of the Defense should direct the Army to maximize Warlord's potential to increase block I capabilities and to provide capabilities for units not receiving block I. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army fielded Warlord-like equipment across the Army to extend ASAS-type capabilities to the force. This equipment will be used until Block II capabilities are fielded in the late 1990s.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should direct the Army to use planned operational tests of block I, including Warlord capabilities, to establish a performance baseline for evaluation of costs and benefits from continued development of ASAS. |
Closed – Not Implemented
The Army awarded the Block II contract in January 1994 and the recommendation is moot. In addition, Block I has been replaced by a more capable system with Warlord-type equipment that can function as an ASAS baseline for future developments.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should direct the Army to fully assess the costs and benefits of future development plans in block II. |
Closed – Not Implemented
Since the Block II contract was awarded in January 1994 this recommendation has been overcome by events. Also, Block II was designed to provide for continuous user input during development of various phases, which accomplishes basically the same thing as GAO recommended.
|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should direct the Army to restrict additional funding for block II development until the proven ASAS baseline is established and the Army minimizes block II software development by identifying and assessing capabilities of other systems and develops a plan to transfer the appropriate capabilities to ASAS. |
Closed – Not Implemented
Many of the objectives of this recommendation were achieved when the Army fielded Warlord-like equipment to replace ASAS Block I equipment. Further, the recommendation is overcome by events since the Army is already well along into the Block II contract.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Army procurementCombat readinessCommand and control systemsCost effectiveness analysisDefense contingency planningIT acquisitionsMilitary systems analysisResearch and development costsSoftwareTesting