June 4th, 2008 | Defense Tech Poll | 288717 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F2008%2F06%2F04%2Fyoungs-quandary%2FYoung%27s+Quandary2008-06-04+19%3A23%3A59Wardhttp%3A%2F%2Fdeftech.usmilblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D2887
Previous post: Not Enough People to Man the Sinking Ship
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
You forgot to add “get chummy with ear-marksmen over golf and expensive dinners” to option one. That way, the estimates don’t even have to be lowballs!
“We got pretty good gear, don’t we?”– yes, but not if compared to the gear US troops could have if money was spent with real accountability, and attention was paid expeditiously to reports of requirements from the field. The fact is that when lives are on the line, “pretty good” doesn’t cut it… or at least, shouldn’t.
You forgot Get Congress to:
1. just ‘fund’ or ‘not fund’ programs,
2. be consistent on #1 above
3. stop micro-managing defense strategies, programs, and everything level down to the size of the restroom signs.
4. Accept responsibility for what they did last session and stop pretending ‘that was last Congress’ when they have lower turnover than any other organization on the planet.
5. Don’t change the rules just to change behavior for some political advantage. Changing rules for any reason other than proper defense interests gives moral license to everyone else to do the right thing any way they can to get around the change which can screw things up even more. Everyone else involved can adapt faster than 700+ self-important prima donnas to game the results to work around your plans and to their advantage.
6. Cut their staffs to 1980s levels. Remind the rest that THEY weren’t elected by anybody.
SMSgt Mac is absolutely correct!
MOST of the problems we face today (whether related to defense or anything else) are the direct result of the US government getting TOO involved & getting in the way of actually getting things done in a timely & cost-effective manner.
????????
As other posters have already noted (but it’s worth repeating), many of the problems that I have also observed firsthand is the direct result of the “Requirements Creep”; that is, the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines continually adding changes and updates to a project that is already underway, which inevitably increases development time (delays completion), increases costs, and leads to cancellations for the delays and increased costs, most of which were not the fault of the contractors, but of the military/government itself.
True, there is some gold-plating by the contractors which increases costs as well, but I agree wholeheartedly with those who identify requirements creep as a huge reason for the lousy arms acquisition system. Fix that problem and you will go a long way toward fixing the system.
I don’t know of a good way to fix it myself other than to not allow any major changes to a program once it has passed a certain point in development. And if they do, they would also have to take full responsibility for any increased costs and delayed completion of the project. But that’s kind of like asking an alcoholic to stop drinking. LOL
Interesting comments. Congress certainly does contribute to the problems by defunding programs or becoming politically involved, but a large part of the problem lies with the services themselves.
Take a look at the USAF, almost all major weapon systems procurements are ran by pilots who lack an understanding of the DOD acquisition process or the impacts of requirement creeps. The air force has a whole career field devoted to acquisitions, but when it comes time to run the programs those USAF acquisition professionals are rarely seen in the upper level leadership of the program.
My fix, especially for the constantly late and over budget Air Force is to actually develop and use the acquisition force that is already present to lead the programs rather than using pilots with no program management experience who want everything gold plated.
Seconding what Rino and Old Sailor have stated. The interesting thing is that the same problems exist in the private sector with regards to technology projects. It does not get as much attention most likely due to the differences in size (budget/cost and scope), as well as not be (generally) paid for with tax payer dollars and thus not subject to so much oversight.
Very few people understand the impacts of scope/requirements management and creep. No one stands up and points out that there is always a compromise between cost, schedule, and quality (the triple constraints). Sure, perhaps the program manager is, but is anyone listening to him, or does he have the authority to stop or terminate a program? Probably not without getting fired. So the people driving the changes don’t have the professional knowledge to understand the impact of their decisions and oft times don’t want to listen to the people that can tell them and are often not held responsible. Until you can get people up the whole chain to understand, agree, and be responsible for change during the lifecycle the situation will never change.
Bob
“So the people driving the changes don’t have the professional knowledge to understand the impact of their decisions and oft times don’t want to listen to the people that can tell them and are often not held responsible. Until you can get people up the whole chain to understand, agree, and be responsible for change during the lifecycle the situation will never change.”
Well said, Bob.
One last note: on the Crusader project, I and many others (especially in the software development groups) noticed that people in higher management had little or no software experience. The lower-level project managers were typically Electrical Engineers, but above them were people with very little, if any, real understanding of requirements creep and it detrimental impact on the project.
It seems like the common-sense solution would be, then, to move people with actual software development experience into higher-level project management positions, so that they can bring that needed insight to the table, and help stop bad decisions before they happen.
Electrical Engineers seem to be preferred for these project manager positions, but in my experience, there needs to be a mix of both Electrical and Software Engineering types and not just EEs, because even EEs are not as knowledgeable on software issues as they should be. My two cents…
Breaking News: Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne will resign by the end of the day….says Fox News…..
The procurement is basically chaos!Partially pirate,liberal,Demoskrat etc…It has no cohesion!
I’ve read a lot of articles here,and we have everything we need…Especially networks which is
way outsmarting terrorists etc…We have the best
planes,doctrine etc…So,what are you guys dreaming of??? The adoption of Israeli doctrine has done wonders also…
On the subject of using IDF tactics:Shows that we
aren’t really hunting the enemy,but waiting for them instead?