Comments on: Pentagon Programs Still Cost Too Much, Too Slow

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:05:23 +0000

LC, you’re exactly right! We absolutely need better requirements managers and processes. I think DAU is rolling out a new certification for RM.

By: Joseph B. Cryer

Joseph B. Cryer — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:30:46 +0000

This is a culture of runaway spending. Is this new in Washington? That being said the contractors need to bear a large part of this responsibility. Put an Unlimited Liability Clause in the initial proposal and this will make people be more sincere about over-committing and then under-performing.

By: LC

LC — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:12:23 +0000

They could fix a lot of the problems if they forced the people writing requirements to go through extensive training courses and be certified like they do to the acquisitions community. Half the people who work in requirements can’t even spell JCIDS.

By: orionhawk

orionhawk — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:55:50 +0000

I am shocked. He didn’t mention LCS.

Only problem with all this is that no one in Congress, DOD, or the White House actually does anything about GAO reports.

By: C

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:14:18 +0000

Interesting and no doubt has a large grain of truth…BUT what about the programs that did come in at budget? Of the programs being developed, how many are for the soldier in the fight, new equipment, weapons, etc.?

By: kzemach

kzemach — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:26:34 +0000

This is a pretty accurate criticism of manny, but of course not all, programs.

One criticism that was missing, at least in this review (I haven’t read the full report) was the propensity for program offices to exaggerate urgency or severity of an alleged problem to increase their program’s perceived importance. This is distinctly different than exaggerating your system’s performance, as it also bastardizes the ground truth about relative combat threats and operational needs.