Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Defense</strong> <strong>Acquisition</strong> Review Journal tAble 4. funding instaBility and staff turn-over A. There was uncertainly about future funding The results from this present study of Army systems support that view. When one looks in turn at how these questions about financial stability relate to other key factors, strong, negative relationships are found with staffing stability and effective testing. In particular, both financial uncertainty and cutbacks are found to relate strongly to turnover. Of six projects where respondents reported little or no funding uncertainty, none are reported to have had turnover. For the remaining projects where funding was more uncertain, six of seven experienced turnover (top, Table 4). When one compares the projects that didn’t have compromises or changes forced by cutbacks with those that did, the results show that all five projects with no cutbacks also had no turnover. By contrast, six of the eight projects that experienced cutbacks also experienced turnover (bottom, Table 4). Project cutbacks and financial stability were also found to all relate to the effectiveness and the appropriate timing of the testing used in the program. One might readily understand that slowing projects could disrupt testing schedules, and that 120 Members turned over? Other responses Strongly disagree Other responses 6 0 Disagree, no turnover 1 6 Total 7 6 Tau B = 0.667, significant at .001. Missing data for one case. B. Cut-backs forced changes? Members turned over? Forced changes No changes forced Other responses 6 0 Strongly disagree, no turnover 2 5 Tau B = 0.635, significant at .001. Total 8 5 A Note oN StAtiSticS Despite the limitation that the analysis only includes 13 cases, the Tau B statistical test appropriate for these variables (Blalock, 1960) shows that the strength of the relationship between the two variables is sufficiently strong that it could have happened by chance less than one time in a thousand (p < .001). One can thus have confidence that the reported relationships are statistically meaningful despite the small number of programs being studied.
lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arMy systeMs tAble 5. funding instaBility and the tiMing of testing A. Was project slowed down? Appropriate timing of testing? Slowed down Kept on schedule Other responses 4 2 Strongly agree 1 6 Tau B = 0.620, significant at .004. B. Cut-backs forced changes Total 5 8 Appropriate timing of testing? Occurred None Other responses 5 1 Strongly agree 3 4 Tau B = 0.610, significant at .002. Total 8 5 investment in testing might be a casualty of budget cuts. For projects slowed during the life of the program, four of five cases did not conduct timely testing activities. For projects that stayed on schedule, six of eight were reported as having conducted appropriate testing (top, Table 5). Cutbacks could cause testing changes and compromises, which could lead to the conclusion that testing was negatively affected. Four out of five cases that did not have any changes forced by cutbacks also had appropriate testing; only three of eight programs that were slowed are reported confidently as having appropriately timed their testing activities (bottom, Table 5). Experience suggests that stretching projects disrupts schedules, and that cutbacks and changes often lead to the need to repeat old test procedures or design new ones. Experience suggests that stretching projects disrupts schedules, and that cutbacks and changes often lead to the need to repeat old test procedures or design new ones. That and the presence of turnover mean that revised testing programs are sometimes prepared by different individuals from those who designed the system and supported its integration. Whatever the mechanisms, the general conclusion from these results is that funding instability seriously affects staffing and the quality of testing, which were in turn shown in the research to be key predictors of program performance. 121
Page 2 and 3: Vacant Office of Small Business Pro
Page 4 and 5: 133 151 disruption of testing regim
Page 7 and 8: Defense ARJ executiVe eDitor Defens
Page 9 and 10: July 2008 Joint attack Munition sys
Page 11 and 12: Does orGaniZational leVel influence
Page 13 and 14: creatiVe Potential anD PracticeD cr
Page 31 and 32: lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arM
Page 33 and 34: tAble 1. suMMary Case inforMation S
Page 35: lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arM
Page 41 and 42: tAble 9. Continuity of tradoC staff
Page 49 and 50: HoW to Make incentiVe systeM of anD
Page 51 and 52: tAble 2. suMMary of Consensus views
Page 63 and 64: conclusions HoW to Make incentiVe s
Page 65 and 66: endnotes HoW to Make incentiVe syst
Page 67 and 68: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? PPBe: a
Page 69 and 70: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? 1995).
Page 71 and 72: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? cation;
Page 73 and 74: Our policy to counter international
Page 75 and 76: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? reminis
Page 77 and 78: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? process
Page 79 and 80: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? COE. As
Page 81 and 82: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? with th
Page 83 and 84: RefeRences PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pi
Page 85 and 86: PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? Martin,
Page 87 and 88:
PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? Wachows
Page 89 and 90:
PPBe: a reD or a Blue Pill? 6. The
Page 91 and 92:
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent syste
Page 93 and 94:
tHe Defense acQuisition fraMeWork:
Page 95 and 96:
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent tHe D
Page 97 and 98:
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent searc
Page 99 and 100:
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent “em
Page 101 and 102:
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent for l
Page 103 and 104:
systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMent DAPA
Page 105 and 106:
� � systeM of systeMs DeVeloPMe
Page 107 and 108:
RefeRences systeM of systeMs DeVelo
Page 109 and 110:
endnotes systeM of systeMs DeVeloPM
Page 111 and 112:
a GliMPse into DoD WeaPon systeMs P
Page 113 and 114:
� � � � � � � systeM
Page 115 and 116:
systeM DoD WeaPon of systeMs DeVelo
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123:
Page 126 and 127:
Defense Acquisition Review Journal
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
defense Acqu s t on un vers ty web
Page 132:
show all

Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?