David Sulek
sulek_david@bah.comRichard Cowell
cowell_richard@bah.comMike Delurey
delurey_mike@bah.comMission Integration
1 “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs,” April 23, 2007.
In today’s world of joint-missions, government agencies
need new capabilities to strengthen integration and
collaboration with public and private-sector partners.
Executive Summary
Federal agencies today often share overlapping mission responsibilities, not just with each other, but increasingly with other public and private entities. Whether engaged in disease control, disaster response, environmental protection, counter terrorism, intelligence gathering or stability operations, civilian and military agencies operate in distributed environments characterized by greater integration and interdependency among diverse sets of players. This shared-mission approach is made necessary by challenges whose size and complexity defy solutions by a single department or agency. And so agencies must adopt organizational and operating strategies that enable Mission Integration—the ability to collaborate and work closely with mission partners. Mission Integration is more than information sharing; it encompasses a broad range of policy, cultural, managerial, operational, technical and organizational components that, addressed together, can enable joint-mission success. Mission Integration serves as a guiding principle for helping government decision-makers adopt a whole-of-government strategy that integrates and combines capabilities across government and society to address 21st-century challenges.
Nearly 18 months before his election as the 44th president of the United States, then-Senator Barack Obama described the challenges facing our Nation as complex, interconnected, and requiring bold new approaches. “Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the twenty-first century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries,” Obama said.1 While Mr. Obama was talking about national boundaries, his observation applies equally well to organizational boundaries. Many of today’s national and global
challenges are simply too large and too complex for a government agency to manage on its own. No single government agency, for example, can tackle global warming or prevent an avian flu pandemic or combat terrorism. No agency can provide the entire range of relief and recovery services following a hurricane, fire or other major disaster. These and other challenges require a “whole-of-government” approach that involves active collaboration among multiple actors at all levels of government. Agencies today rely on a diverse set of partners to accomplish their mission goals in areas such as health, homeland security, emergency preparedness, diplomacy, and stability operations. No agency is an island unto itself in the face of these complex issues.
Federal leaders recognize that a shared-mission or whole-of-government approach is the best strategy for tackling modern-day problems; and yet, despite some visible examples of success, many agencies and their employees are struggling to collaborate and integrate effectively with their mission partners. Why? Because under this new model of shared responsibilities, no single entity can dictate solutions or exercise complete decision-making authority. No organization has control of the information or the levers of power. Consequently, the traditional command-and-control, executive agent style of governance has limited effectiveness. It may even exacerbate
problems.
Mission Integration
A Whole-of-Government Strategy for a New Century
“Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic
disease, dramatic climate change or the
proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation,
the threats we face at the dawn of the
twenty-first century can no longer be contained by
borders and boundaries.”
To work effectively in a complex world of interdependent, overlapping roles and responsibilities, government agencies require modified governance structures, updated bureaucratic policies and processes, tailored technologies, and new leadership models that support collaboration, cooperation, information sharing, and synchronized collective action—all characteristics of Mission Integration.
Best Practices for Mission Integration
Mission Integration enables joint-mission collaboration. The most common misconception about Mission Integration is that it primarily, if not exclusively, involves information sharing. Information sharing, of course, is essential for shared-mission success. Numerous government studies and reports have emphasized the need for improved information sharing and decentralized,
integrated networks. But a focus on information sharing alone can lead agencies to develop point solutions, most often technology “fixes,” that address only one aspect of the Mission Integration challenge.
When engaged in whole-of-government activities, the most successful agencies adopt holistic solutions that address all five organizational features underpinning Mission Integration (see Exhibit 1). The specific challenges in each of these five realms will be different for each agency. But each agency must look at all areas that impact its Mission Integration efforts. For example, an agency’s IT infrastructure might be capable of sharing data with its relevant government partners, but outdated policies or procedures might be hindering its employees from effectively using those systems. Or perhaps the agency’s culture and incentives undermine collaborative behavior. Most likely, an agency has room for some degree of improvement in each area.
This holistic perspective was adopted by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DoVA) to improve the health care provided to America’s wounded soldiers. Working with Booz Allen Hamilton, these agencies approached health care as a continuum— starting with providing basic health care to the wounded, determining their fitness to return to duty, helping them access benefits after leaving the service, and
Today’s challenges call for new governance
structures, new bureaucratic policies and
processes, new technologies, and new leadership
models that support collaboration, cooperation,
information sharing, and collective action—all
characteristics of Mission Integration.
Information Technology
How do we integrate disparate information across agencies and systems
and develop the capability to share?
People & Culture
How do we create incentives to collaborate and share information across different organizational cultures?
Operations
How do we ensure the integrated execution of plans
across agencies?
Management & Budgeting
How do we ensure alignment of resources against our plans across
multiple agencies?
Policy, Strategy, and Planning
How do we establish the rules across agencies to manage
emerging threats?
Mission Integration
Exhibit 1 | A Holistic Approach Blends All Aspects of Mission Integration
communicating the soldiers’ status to key stakeholders through deliberate communications and outreach strategies.
This new perspective enabled DoD and the DoVA to see the broad range of organizations involved in the wounded soldiers’ care – a surprisingly challenging task. Each organization was doing the best it could, but no single organization touched the entire continuum of care. As a result, coordination and information sharing between the different care givers and organizations were haphazard, hampered by outdated processes and technology. As wounded soldiers and their families moved from one stage of care to the next, they often ran into bureaucratic roadblocks and their needs went unmet.
Consequently, to improve care, DoD and the DoVA engaged the entire range of organizations involved in helping wounded soldiers and their families. This included non-VA hospitals and therapists, support groups for amputees, housing facilities for family members, and specialists who could help soldiers and their families obtain needed benefits and help. The resulting Wounded Warriors’ program began addressing all aspects of Mission Integration—changing processes and policies to smooth transition from one care facility to another, improving information sharing among different organizations, garnering funds to support the revamped care system, putting in place the operational structures to carry out the new program, and providing the training and incentives for organizations within the care provider community to collaborate effectively—a synchronized holistic solution.
Booz Allen also has worked with other civilian and federal agencies to help them tackle their Mission Integration challenges. The focus of attention in each case centered on the element that was hindering progress toward mission goals. For example:
• At the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), we helped developed the DHS Information Sharing Strategy, which sets the goals for transforming DHS into an organization whose culture, business processes and governance structure foster an information sharing environment.
• For the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), we were instrumental in articulating an integrated Concept of Operations and requirements specification.
• At U.S. military installations and ranges, we have introduced a new strategy for managing and protecting environmental assets—called Natural Infrastructure Asset Management—that enables military bases to partner with other government agencies, businesses, private land owners and environmental organizations on broad-based conservation efforts that sustain both the environment and the military mission.
• In the area of Irregular Warfare, we worked hand in hand with multiple stakeholders and drafted the Irregular Warfare Joint Operating Concept that is being used to guide future DoD and U.S. government transformation efforts.
• For the Intelligence Community, we developed a maturity model framework that enables community members to articulate measurement parameters for successful information sharing while also breaking down impediments to sharing and helping the Director of National Intelligence establish a new culture of “responsibility to provide” information.
• We are supporting a wide range of U.S. Government and civilian entities in countering improvised explosive devices (C-IED) abroad and applying the lessons learned to address the Mission Integration challenges for a domestic strategy.
One of the most important lessons we learned is that agencies must apply the principles of Mission Integration to all three phases of an event: 1) joint-interagency planning before the event; 2) execution during the event; and 3) analysis of lessons learned after the event. When agencies are forced into collaboration by a major, game-changing event, such as the 9-11 terrorist attacks or Hurricane Katrina, they will conduct extensive post-mortems to ensure better performance during the next crisis. But unfortunately, agencies rarely apply similar careful analysis to their routine, everyday collaborative activities that serve as the backbone of government efficiency. We have found that governance and culture are typically the biggest impediments to interagency collaboration, and these can be best addressed through
careful pre-event planning, thoughtful post-event analysis, and then apply lessons learned in training events to ensure correct procedures are in place.
Mission Integration: The View from Government
Federal leaders are well aware of the trends driving their agencies towards greater interdependency and Mission Integration, according to a recent survey conducted by the Government Business Council for Booz Allen. In the survey, which included 260 government executives and managers from every federal sector, 88 percent of respondents reported that their agencies’ missions were either “very complex” or “somewhat complex” (see Exhibit 2).
Respondents also reported that joint missions are common, requiring integration and collaboration with other entities inside and/or outside their agencies (see Exhibit 3).
Although the need for integration and collaboration is strongest among homeland security, law enforcement and defense agencies, other areas of federal responsibility can benefit from moderate to full levels of integration, such as energy and the environment, financial and economic issues, transportation and public health, they said.
Mission complexity is evident in a variety of ways, according to respondents (see Exhibit 4 on page 5). For example, almost three-quarters (74 percent) are required
to work with other missions within their own department or agency, while more than half (57 percent) said they are required to collaborate with missions outside of their agencies. In addition, about one-third (32 percent) of agencies participate in public-private partnerships, while nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of respondents’ budgets are allocated from other agencies.
Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of respondents (76 percent) said their agencies have missions that
Exhibit 2 | Degree of Complexity in Federal Missions or Programs
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton
1%: Not Complex at All 11%: Not Very Complex
47%: Somewhat Complex 41%: Very Complex Percentage of Respondents 88 % of respondents have complex missions.
2 “Achieving Mission Success: The Role of Mission Integration in the Federal Sector,” Government Business Council, October 2008. The survey was sent to 5,000 randomly selected subscrib-ers of Government Executive, all GS-12 level or above, representing the broad spectrum of federal agencies. Respondents’ decision-making authority included operations and program manage-ment, administration, personnel and manpower, purchasing, programming and budget, research and developmanage-ment, IT systems, and finance.
Exhibit 3 | All Sectors Require Some Degree of
Integration
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton Agriculture Public Health Transportation and Infrastructure Financial/Economic Issues and Entitlements Energy and Environmental Issues National Security (Intelligence and Defense) Homeland Security and Law Enforcement 51% 23% 8%3% 74% Full Integration 16% 50% 20% 8%4% 17% 39% 24% 11% 5% 22% 34% 35% 13% 3% 14% 27% 31% 13% 5% 24% 22% 32% 15% 6% 26% 15% 22% 18% 11% 35% 70% 63% 69% 58% 54% 37% Moderate Integration Little Integration No Integration— mission managers work in isolation Don’t know Percentage of respondents
often require collaboration with other agencies, non-governmental organizations or the private sector for mission success. More than a third (36 percent) said their agencies “always” depend on outside collaboration. Consequently, federal managers recognize the importance of integrating with other government and non-government organizations: Nearly nine out of ten respondents (89 percent) said that either “full” or “moderate” levels of integration are necessary for their agencies’ mission success. And less than one percent said their agencies never collaborate and do not need to integrate with other organizations.
Federal leaders expect Mission Integration to grow more pronounced. For example, 84 percent of respondents said their agencies’ missions have become more complex
since 2000, compared to less than 2 percent who said their agencies’ missions have decreased in complexity. Similarly, 79 percent of respondents predicted that joint missions will become more common by 2012, including 50 percent who said their agencies’ missions will become “significantly more integrated” over the next four years (see Exhibit 5).
Conversely, less than three percent envision those missions becoming less integrated by 2012.
Assessing Agency Effectiveness
Despite the challenges posed by Mission Integration, surveyed officials indicated that federal agencies have achieved some degree of success integrating and collaborating with their shared-mission partners. Most respondents (65 percent) described their collaboration efforts as “somewhat effective,” and another 22 percent said those efforts were “highly effective” (see Exhibit 6 on page 6). They reported that information sharing and stakeholder engagement were practiced by their agencies, though somewhat haphazardly. But federal agencies are not implementing best practices for collaboration efforts, according to respondents. Only 25 percent said their agencies conduct formal post-mission analysis of their joint activities.
Exhibit 4 | Attributes of the Mission Environment
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 74% 57% 25% 32% 29% 55% 23% 18% Percentage of respondents It requires me to collaborate with other missions within my agency It requires me to collaborate with missions that are not in my agency In executing my mission, I report to entities outside my agency I collaborate in a partnership with the private sector
I collaborate with private-sector consultants I collaborate with/consult with non-profit organizations My budget allocations are from my home department/agency My budget allocations are shared by other agencies
Exhibit 5 | Trends in Mission Integration Through 2012
Significantly less integrated in 2012 Somewhat less integrated in 2012 Integration levels will be the same
in 2012 Somewhat more integrated in 2012 Significantly more integrated in 2012 50% 29% 18% 2% 1% Percentage of Respondents 79 % of respondents expect mission integration to increase.
The survey is cause for both optimism and concern. It shows that government leaders recognize the importance of Mission Integration in solving today’s challenges. They understand that agencies depend on each other—and on partners in state and local government and in the civil society—for mission success. And most respondents believe their agencies are achieving at least moderate success in their Mission Integration efforts.
But federal leaders also recognize that there is much room for improvement, especially because their shared mission responsibilities are steadily increasing. Survey respondents cited a variety of cultural, leadership, budget, technical, and process barriers to collaboration. Significantly, they cited “Leadership Failings” as the No. 1 cause of joint-mission failures, while they pointed to “Technical Failings” as the least likely of five possible reasons for failure (see Exhibit 7). Their rankings suggest that agency leaders should assess all organizational aspects of mission integration. The primary causes of their problems most likely will be found in non-technical areas, as will their most effective solutions.
This insight is reiterated in the respondents’
recommendations for addressing joint-mission failures. When asked to rank potential solutions, respondents suggested a mix of solutions to address all five aspects
of Mission Integration outlined in Exhibit 1 on page 2: Policy, Strategy, and Planning; Operations; Management and Budgeting; Information Technology; and People and Culture. However, the solutions that garnered the most support were those that emphasize a broad perspective to problem solving (see Exhibit 8 on page 7).
For example, respondents said agencies should start developing and implementing a clear joint-mission strategy. In addition, agencies should make interagency collaboration a professional advancement criterion. Federal leaders clearly recognize the importance of a holistic approach to Mission Integration.
The Incoming Administration and a
Whole-of-Government Strategy
Although President-elect Barack Obama did not use the term “Mission Integration” during his campaign, he nevertheless called for more effective integration
Exhibit 6 | Effectiveness of Collaboration with Other Agencies Significantly less integrated in 2012 Somewhat less integrated in 2012 Integration levels will be the same
in 2012 Somewhat more integrated in 2012 Significantly more integrated in 2012 50% 29% 18% 2% 1% Percentage of Respondents 79 % of respondents expect mission integration to increase.
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton
As ranked by respondents*
Rank
Average
Rank
1 Leadership Failings 2.28 2 Process/Procedure Failings 2.95 3 Organizational/Cultural Failings 2.96 4 Budget Shortfalls (e.g.,unfunded mandates)
3.23
5 Technical Failings 3.81
* Respondents were asked to rank each of these areas with a ranking of 1 (most common cause of failure) through 5 (least common cause of failure). The scores reflect their average ranking.
and collaboration among government agencies to address their growing shared-mission responsibilities. In areas such as homeland security, military and stability operations, diplomacy, global warming and the environment, health, and national preparedness, Obama advocated an integrated, whole-of-government strategy that will engage all levels of government, civic and private sector organizations, and international partners. Among the initiative he proposed during the campaign:
• Obama called for integrating civilian and military capacities to promote global development and democracy. For example, Obama said he intends to create Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the military, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the United States Agency for International Development to integrate fully U.S. government efforts in counterterrorism, state-building and post-conflict operations. The military “cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places,” he said during the campaign. “I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can’t just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.”3
• Similarly, Obama said his administration “will also build a ready reserve corps of private civilians that can participate in post-conflict, humanitarian and stabilization efforts around the globe.”4
• In the area of national preparedness, Obama called for improving interoperable communications, as well as improving coordination between all levels of government. He also said his administration would reach out to the private sector to leverage its expertise and assets. Obama advocated a “federal government [that] works with states, localities, and the private sector as a true partner in prevention, mitigation, and response.”5
• To fight terrorism, Obama said he would establish a Shared Security Partnership Program to invest $5 billion over three years to improve cooperation between U.S. and foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The program will include information sharing, as well as funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and the targeting of terrorist financing.6
• In the area of global health, Obama said the threat of infectious disease knows no borders, and so called for strengthened global cooperation to prevent and respond to the spread of deadly diseases such as
Exhibit 8 | Solutions for Mission Integration Challenges
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 64% 57% 57% 56% 55% 52% 54% 50% 50% 49% Percentage of respondents Develop and implement a clear joint-mission strategy Promote interagency collaboration as a professional advancement criterion Determine complementary, duplicative and conflicting roles Interconnect and fully integrate domains for joint access to networks/information Implement cross-agency training programs to promote trust Develop an architecture for technical sharing and information exchange Develop ability to identify impact of major trends on mission goals Develop a community-wide concept of operation Develop a heightened awareness of cross-agency cultural barriers Create incentives for
collaboration
3 “Strengthening Our Common Security By Strengthening Our Common Humanity,” p. 7. Obama-Biden Campaign.
4 Ibid., p. 8.
5 From the BarackObama.com web page on Homeland Security (accessed Dec. 2, 2008): http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/homeland_security.
tuberculosis and avian flu. He said his administration will “take the lead at the G-8, working with and leveraging the engagement of the private sector and private philanthropy, to launch Health Infrastructure 2020 – a global effort to work with developing countries to invest in the full range of infrastructure needed to improve and protect both American and global health.”7
Only time will tell whether the Obama administration can successfully implement these plans. But President-elect Obama and his advisors clearly intend to adopt an integrated, whole-of-government approach that marshals all of society’s capabilities—in the public, private and civic sectors—to address today’s global challenges.
Mission Integration and the Megacommunity
Many of President-elect Obama’s proposals call for federal agencies to collaborate more effectively not just with government partners, but also with private-sector and civil organizations. Why? Because many issues have multiple stakeholders inside and outside government with strong and varied interests in potential outcomes.
When an organization performs a mission analysis, the analysis typically identifies: 1) the challenges and threats
to overcome; 2) the resources needed to overcome those challenges and threats; and 3) the owners of the resources. This last point is crucial, because many of today’s problems and challenges typically require the joint participation and collaboration of multiple “resource owners” or stakeholders, which we at Booz Allen call a “Megacommunity™.”8
A megacommunity is a public sphere in which
organizations — public, private, and civil — join together to address a compelling issue of mutual importance, such as climate change, economic development, conservation or energy policy. Some members of the megacommunity are larger and more powerful than others, but each plays a role and can contribute to problem-solving efforts. Megacommunities are created because no single organization owns all of the resources—has sufficient power or authority—to solve the problem on its own. As a problem-solving approach, the megacommunity concept has become a powerful tool for helping public-and private-sector organizations address complex regional, national and global challenges.
Government agencies that effectively master Mission Integration find themselves well positioned to collaborate with organizations in the broader megacommunity. A case in point is the Wounded Warrior program. As discussed earlier, DoD and the DoVA created the program by bringing together the community of organizations—public, private and non-profit—that play a role in the continuum of health care for U.S. military personnel. No single organization had total responsibility; but working together these organizations made sure that all aspects of the soldiers’ care, including financial benefits, family support, physical therapy and post-discharge services, were adequately addressed. An important step in this megacommunity effort was the Mission Integration and leadership provided by DoD and DoVA officials, who jointly tackled their shared-mission challenge of caring for wounded U.S. warfighters.
Conclusion
Government agencies today face large-scale challenges of unprecedented complexity. Some of these issues, such as global climate change, energy security, terrorism, and catastrophic natural disasters, command high global
7 “Strengthening Our Common Security,” p. 6. 8 See The Megacommunity Way: Mastering Dynamic Leadership Challenges with Cross-Boundary Leadership, edited by Art Kleiner and Michael Delurey, Booz Allen Hamilton, 2007.
“The finest military in the world is adapting
to the challenges of the 21st century. But it
cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats
without civilian counterparts who can carry
out economic and political reconstruction
missions – sometimes in dangerous places. As
president, I will …increase both the numbers
and capabilities of our diplomats, development
experts, and other civilians who can work
alongside our military. We can’t just say there is
no military solution to these problems. We need
to integrate all aspects of American might.”
profiles. Others, such as water scarcity, aging populations, and obsolete infrastructures, may appear less pressing but could suddenly emerge as critical issues.
While each issue is unique, collectively they share common traits. First, all exhibit a high degree of interdependency (consider, for example, the now-recognized nexus of energy independence, climate change, and terrorism). Second, the global interactions that define these issues also compound their impact, such as when a mortgage crisis in the United States ripples across global financial institutions. Third, these events often escalate unpredictably, outpacing our ability to respond. These first three traits lead to a fourth common trait: These problems and challenges cannot be solved by just one nation acting on its own, let alone by a single government agency or institution. Rather, they are most effectively addressed by agencies acting in concert—sharing information, collaborating, integrating relevant operations and activities—with government organizations that have shared mission goals. This is Mission Integration. And, as government leaders are discovering, it’s not easy—but it is the new imperative. In many respects, solving the Mission Integration
challenge is like solving a Rubik’s cube. First-time players, trying to solve the puzzle quickly, typically start lining up the colors one at a time. This may lead to initial progress but not to an overall solution because, ultimately, players will be forced to rearrange the squares of the first colors in order to get other colors in order. Instead of reducing the problem to matching colors in a step-by-step, linear fashion (which, in the end, will only frustrate), players must recognize that the cube is actually a series of interconnected, interdependent layers. The key to solving the Rubik’s cube is understanding the mathematics of the cube—how the squares work together as a whole— rather than trying to line up the squares one at a time. Players must embrace the cube’s 43 quintillion possible arrangements, not fight it.
The same holds true for Mission Integration. Too often, in the current interagency coordination process, agencies try to solve Mission Integration’s five organization elements one at a time, as if they are independent activities. Agencies grappling with a shared-mission challenge will focus on a point solution, such as solving
technical problems related to information sharing, without considering how this will impact the other Mission Integration elements related to operations, governance and culture, budget, and strategy and policy. Instead, agencies should assess how well all of these elements— working individually and together as a whole—support effective Mission Integration. In turn, effective Mission Integration can improve interagency coordination by focusing attention (and activity) on the critical success factors associated with shared-mission challenges. For more than a decade, Booz Allen has explored and analyzed dozens of shared-mission challenges facing U.S. government agencies. Our reflections on these missions—which range from bolstering national preparedness to improving information sharing to securing our transportation systems—point to the need for leaders and organizations to operate in more open, integrated, and collaborative environments. Mission risks, rewards, and responsibilities must be more distributed. Solutions must be implemented in a more holistic fashion. Simply installing a new technology or drafting a policy will not meet the mission challenges facing agencies. What is required instead is a whole-of-government approach, enabled by Mission Integration, in which each agency recognizes and embraces the layers of its mission challenges, bringing its capabilities, talents, and resources to the fore in a collaboration with its government partners.
About Booz Allen
To learn more about the firm and to download digital versions of this article and other Booz Allen Hamilton publications, visit www.boozallen.com.
Booz Allen Hamilton has been at the forefront of strategy and technology consulting for 95 years. Every day, government agencies, institutions, corporations, and infrastructure organizations rely on the firm’s expertise and objectivity, and on the combined capabilities and dedication of our exceptional people to find solutions and seize opportunities. We combine a consultant’s unique problem-solving orientation with deep technical knowledge and strong execution to help clients achieve success in their most critical missions. Providing a broad range of services in strategy, operations, organization and change,
information technology, systems engineering, and program management, Booz Allen is committed to delivering results that endure.
With more than 22,000 people and $4.5 billion in annual revenue, Booz Allen is continually recognized for its quality work and corporate culture. In 2009, for the fifth consecutive year, Fortune magazine named Booz Allen one of “The 100 Best Companies to Work For,” and Working Mother magazine has ranked the firm among its “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers” annually since 1999.
Contact Information: HERNDON, VA MCLEAN, VA David Sulek Principal 703/984-0798 sulek_david@bah.com Richard Cowell Principal 703/377-1479 cowell_richard@bah.com Mike Delurey Principal 703/902-6858 delurey_mike@bah.com
www.boozallen.com
The most complete, recent list of offices and their and addresses and telephone numbers can be found on www.boozallen.com by clicking the “Offices” link under “About Booz Allen.”
