Defense ARJ - Defense Acquisition University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Defense</strong> <strong>Acquisition</strong> Review Journal tAble 8. staBility of systeMs reQuireMents and proJeCt perforManCe Average number of successful outcomes Mid-development requirements change? Frequency of systems requirements change? late engineering changes (bottom, Table 7). For those that had none or only one or two systems requirements changes, six of nine met their cost goals, and three of nine avoided (even minor) late engineering changes. Weaker but similar negative differences on other outcomes (not shown) are found among those projects that experienced more requirements changes. One can see the overall effects of the frequency and timing of systems requirements changes by looking at how many successful outcomes these projects had on average. The respondents were asked in what stage of development the requirements had changed, and it was found that the negative impact on the average rates of success was greatest when changes had occurred in mid-development (typically after the Critical Design Review). As shown in Table 8, the four projects that had systems requirement changes in mid-development had only an average of 2.0 positive performance outcomes, compared to 4.11 average positive outcomes of those that did not change in mid-development. The impact is even greater when one looks at the frequency of requirements changes and the average number of successful outcomes. The four projects said to have seen systems requirements changes several or many times during development averaged only 1.50 successful outcomes, compared to 4.33 successes among those projects that had no or only one or two systems requirements changes. turnoVer in key user Personnel The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is responsible for determining the requirements that Army materiel must meet in order to have utility on the battlefield. A senior TRADOC staff member (typically a colonel) serves as the alter ego of the Project Manager in interpreting these requirements as they are translated into system technical requirements during the acquisition process. This key individual may also play a critical role in preserving the planned funding for the system development by persuading more senior TRADOC leaders to strongly reaffirm the need for the system when budget cuts are threatened or problems are encountered in the system development that increase cost or stretch schedule. The frequency and timing of turnover in key TRADOC personnel were examined to determine influence on project outcomes. 124 Changes occurred No changes Signif. at 2.00 (4) 4.11 (9) .005 Several or Many times None, or One or two times Signif. at 1.50 (4) 4.33 (9) .006
tAble 9. Continuity of tradoC staffing Did TRADOC change during early development? lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arMy systeMs Operational problems in the field? Yes No Field problems limited effectiveness 4 1 Deployed at no loss of effectiveness 1 4 Exceeded expectations 0 7 Total 5 7 Tau B = 0.630, significant at .001. Data are available on 12 cases for this TRADOC question. All of the respondents reported that their projects had experienced some turnover in key TRADOC personnel. Only two reported no key TRADOC personnel changes during the development phase of the project. Such regular change is consistent with the military reassignment cycle. The timing of when TRADOC key personnel turnover occurred correlated with several of the outcome metrics, most notably with the extent to which the system met expectations when used on the battlefield during DESERT STORM. Table 9 shows the negative impact of staff change early in development on system performance on the battlefield. Key TRADOC personnel changed for five cases during early development, and four of those projects subsequently encountered operational field problems. Where there was no early TRADOC change, only one of seven projects was not as effective as expected. Cases that experienced no TRADOC changes in early development, however, are seen to be substantially more successful at an average of 4.29 successful outcomes. The only two cases—Night Sight and the M829A1 sabot round—that did not experience TRADOC changes during the development phase are the same two cases that the respondents felt exceeded performance expectations in the field. To further examine the possible impact of TRADOC changes at different stages of the project, one can again look at the average number of goals met for the different projects. No relationships of consequence are found between TRADOC change in mid- and late development and the average number of successful outcomes. Cases that experienced no TRADOC changes in early development, however, are seen to be substantially more successful at an average of 4.29 successful outcomes, compared to an average of 2.40 for those that did have TRADOC changes at that time. 125
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 39: lessons froM tHe DeVeloPMent of arM
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?