Comments on: Fix Requirements, You Fix Costs

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:17:48 +0000

Chu said: “Much of what we pursue is actually technological objectives, not requirements.”

This is entirely true–but the contemporary acquisition community has no way of telling the difference! Thanks to a blizzard of lawsuits filed by everyone in the world, the acquisition boards can no longer ask for “desirable” performance. Everything has to be a hard-and-fast no-backdown carved-in-stone REQUIREMENT, or else you’ll get sued for saying that you want it.

By: JC

JC — Sat, 02 May 2009 01:59:06 +0000

This, from another blog. http://www.g2mil.com/blog09.htm

April 12, 2009 — Tenured Program Managers

Fixing America’s broken military acquisition system is a huge challenge. An simple change that would improve the process is to create tenured program managers. This key slot is currently filled by ambitious, career-focused officers who serve just two years. As a result, they seek to please everyone and hide problems rather than address them. Program managers know little about their program when they arrive and are easily misled by contractors. They are also intimidated by retired Generals working for contractors since these Generals have close contacts with active duty Generals that sit on promotion boards.

Troubled programs like the F-22 and V-22 have seen over a dozen program managers punch their career ticket with two years heading those programs. There are several ways to change this. Appointing career DoD civilians as program managers is one option. The Generals will dislike this idea, yet legislation should exclude military program managers for consideration for promotion. Accepting an assignment as a program manager would become a career ender. This would keep ambitious career officers away, and allow program managers to serve many years until they retire.

There will be no shortage of candidates because a program manager is a prestigious and interesting assignment. In addition, many senior officers tire of the career rat race and moving their families every few years. Many Colonels would be happy to serve their last eight or so years in the same job. Of course the contractors and Generals will not like the idea of tenured program managers, however, they can’t prevent the President or Congress from implementing this common sense reform.

By: Navybrat111

Navybrat111 — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:57:31 +0000

Trying to pass cost growth off onto contractors is a easy scapegoating of the entire acquisition process. Contractors do try to get what they can from the system; but the government encourages this by overmanaging the entire process. Cost will only go down if the contractor is encouraged to pursue a “fast in, fast out” development process w/o overly stringent requirements to begin with. If the government doesn’t know what it wants to begin with, then the development cycle stretches out as the contractor and government try to define in words what they can’t conceive of intellectually. the result is longer development time and increased costs. Reduce the requirements burden and shoot for a workable product instead of trying to perfect an item on the first go-around and the result will be a lower cost item but maybe not a perfect as one would like. Remember, in many, instances, the contractor is being asked to develop something that has never existed before; if the governm,ent keeps modifying it in development to achieve perfection, the item will take forever to built, cost a fortune for what may seen as a simple device, and won’t meet all the requirements.

By: Greg Olivares

Greg Olivares — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:44:40 +0000

In my observation, most “requirements” stem from technology features that look great. Defining required “capabilities” early and frequently provider the defense community most bang for the buck by deriving requirements from operational community assessment. Consider this article by the Air Force on their approach to ISR planning and requirements. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123143770

By: Joseph Foster

Joseph Foster — Fri, 01 May 2009 12:39:36 +0000

In response to Ms. Feeney’s assertion that the defense industry is the sole agent responsible for “scope creep” and adding costs to all projects is absurd. The number of projects that experience adding requirements are legion however it is usually in response to someone involved with the program that adds new “features” and capabilities after a project has been baselined. Any time you add work (just like in construction) through change orders, you will incur costs rightfully!

By: Nancy Feeney

Nancy Feeney — Fri, 01 May 2009 09:50:11 +0000

When we all realize that the “real” requirement is the defense industry’s profit making on whatever the military needs, then we will be getting to the truth.
The programs are mostly run by the contractors, not government personnel.
Just when a project is almost complete, guess what? A new “feature” is pulled out of the hat and “sold” as a new requirement to the government.
I have seen projects burn up money even when the contractors know it is not working.
The government must hire government personnel, who have the power to stop the wasteful spending without being “transferred” because they are shutting down a politically powerful project. That courage is very hard to find.

By: Jaime Gracia

Jaime Gracia — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:26:46 +0000

Although all elements identified are to blame, the bottom-line is that garbage in equates to garbage out when it comes to program requirements. The requirements definition phase performed during concept development is rarely performed with the disciplined and coordinated approach to tradeoffs among cost, schedule, and performance. This process also seems to be done in a vacuum, with poor program management to blame for the lack of coordination among the organizations that are part of, or should be made part of, the process.
For technology programs in the commercial sector, a strong consideration is given to changes in requirements when considered against cost, performance, or schedule. These requirements are analyzed for benefit and impact against cost, and are either modified or eliminated. This approach does not normally happen with the typical government IT or defense acquisition program, and the result is rebaselining and scope creep without the business case to support the change or a process in place to analyze the change.
Requirements need to be defined upfront, baselined, and managed. Like the title implies; fix requirements and you fix costs.