OVERVIEW: Develop a 4-6 page specific, actionable self-development plan to increase your personal effectiveness. RESOURCES: INSTRUCTIONS: Scenario For Assessment 4, you gave a presentation for upper management on strategies for approaching change in teams and groups. Your immediate supervisor attended and afterward congratulated you on all the change leadership you have recently provided. She lets you know that for the next several weeks you will be back on her individual staff development initiative. For starters, she wants you to draft a staff development plan that can help train more change leaders to make the kinds of contributions you have been making lately! Using the results of the Agile Leadership Self-Assessment, create a self-development plan that includes the following: Identify personal change-related leadership competencies targeted for development. Consider one or two competencies to focus on for this assessment.Support with a rationale the importance of each identified change-related leadership competency.Develop an action plan for each change-related leadership competency. Include at least four actionable steps for each identified competency.Explain action steps for improving each change-related leadership competency. Be as specific as you can in explaining your deliberate experimentation for increasing your effectiveness.Develop a timeline for each action step, including a target date for assessing progress. Use the next six-month period for your timeline. Your development plan should be written coherently to support a central idea. Use appropriate APA format, with correct grammar, usage, and mechanics as expected of a business professional. Deliverable Format Length: 4–6 pages.Written communication: Demonstrate graduate-level writing skills through accurate communication of thoughts that convey the overall goals of the assessment and do not detract from the message.Formatting: Use APA formatting, including correct in-text citations, proper punctuation, double spacing throughout, proper headings and subheadings, no extra line spaces before headings and subheadings, proper paragraph and block indentation, no bolding, one-inch margins all around, and no bullets.Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.

Book:http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a606328.pd... INITIAL FORUM Question: "Your readings this week also goes on to discuss the capabilities-based assessment (CBA) process, which is the “backbone” of JCIDS Defense Acquisition University, 2010, p. 35). There is an excellent chart on page 36 of your textbook that details the CBA process. The CBA is an analytical approach utilized by the DoD to identify the needs of the warfighter. The purpose of the process is to find out what requirements the warfighter has. “Requirement” is just the acquisition way of saying needs, supplies, or equipment. In a DoD contracting activity, the “requirement” is the item or service that is being acquired. The ground work discussed in the lesson for this week is imperative to set the stage for the acquisition process. Without solid research and analysis early on, the acquisition process will go down the wrong path and result in lost money and time. So, your question for this week, and some of what we discussed last week, is "What is wrong with the requirements" analysis that goes into our federal or defense contracts today? Bring in examples of any problems you have experienced to help round out the discussion this week." INSTRUCTIONS: Respond to the two student initial posts below, the replies should be directly to the individual student, a minimum of 150 words and include direct questions. Student names are included next to each corresponding post. STUDENT 1( Fraser)It is a fairly simple question when you think about it. But it can be expanded and torn apart to make it more complicated. We could look at every word and examine its meanings, but that will become a problem in and of itself. This problem is something that lends itself to what is wrong with the requirements analysis in the defense contracts world. Time, it seems like a simple concept, when a time line has been established and needs to me you would think this is the easiest part of getting a contract done. When you begin to add different processes and teams and multiple offices and individuals into the process it begins to get truly get mucked up. A simple process on line with a fixed timeline can stay the course easily but the more people and processes added will slow things down greatly. In todays world we all know the longer you take to buy things we can see the prices change. Now when it comes to electronics and small things they may get cheaper, but when It comes to large projects like building a destroyer or aircraft means it gets more expensive. So as the process gets more mucked down and the timeline expands to unforeseen delays the more expensive something may become. This is something that the government does not want. Once a budget has been approved it shouldn’t have to flex to meet time costs. The United States Government doesn’t want to change its budget every few weeks to fit the ever changing timeline. It should be one of the easiest things to control. STUDENT 2 (Stacy)One of the biggest issues I see with requirements analysis at the operation level is lack of technical experts employed by the government and/or the resistance to partner with industry leaders during the requirements phase in order to create the best package possible. At my current location we recently awarded a project (small dollar…less than $1M) for a company to come in to provide rubber removal services and painting airfield lines. This is about a simple of a requirement as one could get. Literally every airport in the world requires these services at least once a year, if not more, depending on how busy they are. However, in this case, the end users were very knew to working on the airfield, the engineer graduated college less than 1 year ago and the contracting officer left in the middle of the process with no turnover with their replacement. This was a trifecta of a Charlie Foxtrot. The overall lack of experience with the requirement, the PWS was generated without reaching out to anyone in the industry to see if even made the slighted bit of sense or was in line with commercial practices. During the execution of the work several ambiguities were found along with several miscalculations that has not lead to the contractor and the government in a dispute over a Request for Equitable Adjustment in excess of $250,000. The inexperience of the Government was clear from the start and ultimately did not allow for a true requirement to be formed. Federal Times advised that SOWs are often just cut and pasted from old documents and are rarely checked for accuracy, which results in conflicts of the requirement (Goodrich, 2017). Reference: Goodrich, S. (2017, July 22). 6 simple fixes for the federal procurement process. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://www.federaltimes.com/opinions/2015/02/20/6...