A C Q U I S I T I O N OF NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE PROGRAMS

Course Outline Disclaimer Challenger Disaster Mythical Man – Month Engineer – Mgr Conflicts Chief Scientist Analytic & Gaming Sims Complex Systems

SUMMARY National security space budget declined after Cold War Requirements for space-based capabilities increased     — More programs started than budget could support     — Programs were significantly underfunded     — Programs were high-risk Cost has replaced mission success as the primary driver     — Unrealistic estimates     — Unrealistic budgets     — Unexecutable programs

Unrealistic estimates     — Incumbent contractor loses more than 90% of time     — Competitor not “burdened” by actual program cost     — Can be far more optimistic     — Budgets often reduced to match unrealistic estimate     — Predictable cost growth of 50% – 100% Requirements creep increases cost and schedule delays     — Tradeoffs not done adequately             •  Cost             •  Schedule             •  Risk             •  Requirements Government management capabilities seriously eroded     — Tenure of many program managers less than 2 years     — Inexperienced PMs have accepted programs             • With inadequate resources             • With excessive risk             • Reporting problems to higher levels discouraged

TOP

R E F E R E N C E

Report of the Defense Science Board/Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Joint Task Force on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Washington, D.C. 20301-3140, May 2003

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA429180.pdf

A L T E R N A T I V E   O N E – PROGRAM STRETCHOUTS

Initial plan:   produce 100 planes in 5 years     — Stretchout:   produce 100 planes in 10 years     — Cut yearly cost roughly in half Disadvantages     — Capacity planned for 20 planes/year     — Use only 10     — Excess capacity/waste             •   Unless alternative planned for from start             •   Option to vary output?

TOP

Annual Cost Savings, But Total Program Cost Increased

A L T E R N A T I V E   T W O

Fewer     — Initial plan:   produce 100 planes in 5 years     — Stretchout:   produce 50 planes in 5 years     — Cut program cost roughly in half Disadvantages     — Capacity planned for 20 planes/year     — Use only 10     — Excess capacity/waste             •   Unless planned this way from beginning

Savings On Total Program, But Unit Cost Increased

A L T E R N A T I V E   T H R E E

Smaller/less capable     — Initial plan:   produce 100 planes with capability XYZ in 5 years     — New Plan:   produce 100 planes with lesser capability in 5 years     — Cut yearly cost Disadvantages     — Have to plan this way from the beginning     — Or do extensive re-planning

TOP

Cannot Change To This After Program Start, Without Expensive Replanning

A L T E R N A T I V E   F O U R

Reduce number of programs     — Initial plan:   produce new bomber, new comm satellite, new ABM, new fighter     — New Plan:   produce new comm satellite, new ABM, new fighter     — Cut yearly cost, total cost Disadvantages     — Don't get to do everything you want

TOP