Finding 2.2: There is no program-wide CB defense strategy, nor common characterization of the program elements among the participating organizations. The many different organizations currently involved in the CBDP (e.g., OASD(NCB/CB), JRO-CBRND, JSTO-CBD, and JPEO-CBD) each view the chemical and biological defense mission from different perspectives. Although this can be expected based on their different roles, the coordination and collaboration between these groups is far from seamless. As a result, the program has been—and continues to be—limited in its ability to deliver fielded solutions in a timely manner.
Finding 2.3: Strategic priorities tend to change with changes in senior leadership. As a result, efforts requiring sustained and/or longer-term commitments (e.g., medical countermeasures) are unable to deliver timely results, if at all.
Recommendation 2.1: The DASD(CBD) should lead a mission and strategy development activity that aligns all of the program elements and offices. The differences among offices in how they portray and communicate their stories, in their priorities, and in the terminology they use to describe the program are stark. Bold moves are needed to break the current stagnation that permeates the chemical and biological S&T and acquisition environment. Tweaking the management or refocusing a few projects will not be sufficient. The recommended alignment activity should promote a shared understanding of and commitment to key priorities for maintaining the core capabilities and expertise needed to fulfill the overall program mission and strategy.