[This article was first published in Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin, which was then called Army Logistician, volume 3, number 3 (May–June 1971), pages 22–23. The text, including any biographical note, is reproduced as faithfully as possible to enable searchability. To view any images and charts in the article, refer to the issue itself, available on DVIDS.]
Far more than a change in the name of a system, MN is a new concept in handling the materiel life cycle of a piece of hardware from the initial idea stage to production.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (DA) has given its stamp of approval to a revolutionary new materiel life cycle concept that will provide quicker reaction to the needs of the user in the field.
Approval of the Materiel Need (MN) Concept re-orients much of the way the U.S. Army establishes a need for, and the manner in which it goes about, designing and engineering its materiel. A Materiel Need is defined as “A DA-approved statement of a need for new or improved materiel to provide an initial operational capability by a specified time frame, without regard to a particular approach or solution.”
Single Document
The MN Concept is a far-reaching change of considerable import to logistics personnel. It replaces the objectives and requirements documents of the old system — Qualitative Materiel Development Objective (QMDO), Advanced Development Objective (ADO), Qualitative Materiel Requirement (QMR), Small Development Requirement (SDR), and the Small Development Requirement-Expedited — with a single document — the Materiel Need.
This refined requirements documentation concept is expected to completely revise and speed up the way the Army establishes its materiel needs. It will reduce the documentation processing time from two and one-half years to thirty weeks and the number of steps now prescribed by the Life Cycle Management Model for Army Systems from a total of 239 steps to 153 steps.
The Army decided to begin using the Materiel Need Concept only after seven pilot projects were successfully tested recently under the new system. The U.S. Army Combat Developments Command and U.S. Army Materiel Command representatives have signed a Memorandum of Understanding stating that all action “in the mill” before 31 March 1971 would be processed in the Qualitative Materiel Requirement format and those processed after that date would have to be revised to the new Materiel Need format.
The scientific director of the U.S. Army Combat Developments Command, Dave Hardison, was a pioneer in developing the MN Concept. Then, a joint USACDC/USAMC Ad Hoc Board met at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in December 1969, to study the complete materiel life cycle. It conducted a comprehensive review of the existing formats, procedures, and practices used to establish materiel development objectives and requirements. As a result of their study, the Materiel Need Concept emerged. The theory of the concept was molded from many sources and ideas. It contains a number of advantages over the old system. The MN Concept requires less paperwork and less red tape and uses a single document to establish the need for new or improved items and systems and to provide guidance to the materiel developer.
The Materiel Need Concept also emphasizes face-to-face meetings between the engineers on the materiel development side and the operational thinkers on the combat developments side. In contrast, the old system has had the combat and materiel developers at opposite ends, with the operational personnel demanding ever higher hardware performance and the materiel personnel responding to that demand with even more complex and expensive systems.
One of the most important factors of the new MN Concept is the interaction of the combat and materiel developers during the hardware concept formulation stage. This builds specific and realistic objectives for the hardware.
Under the new concept, the combat and materiel developers get together right from the start of a project to insure that the characteristics stated in the MN are both those that the user really needs and are technically attainable within the allotted time frame. This means, in effect, that if an item is needed by 1979 the developers see if they can develop and produce it by that time. They must take into consideration time allotted for the development and the technical risks that might be present and have to be solved before resources are made available and the item can be fielded. This combat developer-materiel developer coordination adds still another plus to the MN Concept over the old system.
Cuts Administrative Time
Four of the old system’s documents — Qualitative Materiel Development Objectives, Advanced Development Objective, Qualitative Materiel Requirement, and Small Development Requirement — took an average of one hundred thirty weeks in processing time, while the MN requires an estimated administrative time of only sixty weeks.
The Materiel Need Concept works this way:
• A single document, Materiel Need, with a single format, is used to establish the need for new or improved items/systems for the Army and to provide guidance to the materiel developer throughout the life cycle of materiel.
• A Materiel Need will be established through the joint face-to-face efforts of the combat and materiel developers.
• All Materiel Need systems will begin in the concept formulation phase.
• The characteristics in Materiel Needs will be prepared as bands of performance, within which it is possible to optimize the overall system. As long as the development does not go outside these bands, it will not be necessary to revise the MN and the resulting items will be operationally acceptable to USACDC.
• External or worldwide coordination of the Materiel Need will normally occur only once in the cycle.
• All Materiel Needs will go through the concept formulation phase.
• The Material Need will be revised as necessary through the life cycle, based on information gained in concept formulation, contract definition, engineering development, testing and production and by changes that occur in the threat, concept of use, technology, costs, and time to develop.
• A final detailed definition of the item is not stated until completion of the development and testing phases.
• At any time during the life cycle that an impasse is reached between the subordinate elements of the combat and materiel developers as to what course to follow, these problems will be referred to the commanding generals of the combat and materiel developers for a resolution. These disagreements will be forwarded to the commanders for resolution within thirty days from the time they become known.
The reasons for the change from the old system to the MN Concept were many. Criticisms from the Congress and other levels of authority, coupled with USAMC’s and USACDC’s assessment of the old life cycle system, indicated that increased emphasis should be given to finding specific objectives for the item/system development programs.
Thus, the rigid concept of “operational requirement” has now been retired in favor of a more comprehensive and flexible notion of a “Materiel Need.” High quality “Materiel Needs” can best be prepared by a cross-command multidiscipline team of dedicated professionals committed solely to definition of the materiel needs and documentation of the program rationale. The setting of materiel needs is not a one-time proposition, but instead the process must remain a dynamic one wherein the Army must provide feedback mechanisms to adjust performance as physical threats, cost, or other aspects of the program become available even during the course of development.
A more thorough and realistic appraisal must be made to determine whether the operational capability to be provided by each item being considered for development warrants the expected expenditures, in the light of the overall resource constraints imposed on the Army.
| Date Taken: | 09.22.2025 |
| Date Posted: | 09.22.2025 16:07 |
| Story ID: | 548985 |
| Location: | US |
| Web Views: | 17 |
| Downloads: | 0 |
This work, Materiel Need Concept, an ALOG Staff Feature, Thomas A. Johnson, Editor, must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.
