Regulatory Burden and Poor Defense Acquisition Program Outcomes
TENNESSEE UNIV KNOXVILLE INST FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY
Pagination or Media Count:
Overview Traditional metrics of program performance have been cost, schedule and system requirements, relative to the APB baselines set at a previous point in time. Some programs perform well, but most do not. What is the impact of defense acquisition regulation or reforms Previously modeled as the correlation and direction of change for a key performance metric for a program in the years following the introduction of the oversight or reform change. Provides absolutely no insight on the actual mechanism behind the implied causality. Hypothetical What went on that was internal to programs that caused cost growth to slow after FASA in 1994, or to show no effect from Packard Commission reforms in 1987. We take a new approach here, where a mechanism is already in place to create program changes. DAES reviews and requirements for corrective actions. Recurring program assessment ratings. Defined corrective steps and timeline. Follow up occurs in the next DAES review. The following models will determine if regulation, oversight and a variety of other factors produce desired or expected results on the ratings process - and drive the corrective steps that have to be taken by program management before the next review.
- Administration and Management
- Economics and Cost Analysis
- Defense Systems