Is US Fighting Force Big Enough?

[wm]

When you add the changes desired by senior leaders -- who also rotate entirely too rapidly -- above the Project Managers, you get a never ending series of ECPs that the contractors absolutely love. They bid in low, knowing that will occur and that they can thus realize a healthy profit.

Add to all that micromanagement by Congroids and their staffers (not at all influenced by Lobbyists ...) and you have a recipe for a mess.

That's where we are. So. How to fix it?

All we gotta do is clean out Congress, reduce their staff by 60% and make it functional, discard DOPMA, select people who are competent in the field for jobs, quit rotating people to 'manage personnel' every 18-48 months and stop trying to prove everyone can do anything.

No problem...

Don't forget to get rid of "low bid/best value" as an award criterion. I suspect a big piece of cost increases is due to contractors underbidding and then getting price increases granted as the programs get well entrenched. This can happen with or without government ECPs. From an earned value management (EVM) perspective, things look great until too late. Contractors can game the system and earn big EVM points doing egg-sucking work early on. If a contractor puts off the really hard tech development stuff until late in the materiel development effort, program costs tend to skyrocket late in life.

I think the operative logic (or is that illogic) is once you're more than a quarter way into the program, you need to keep throwing money at it in order to save the investment you've already made (not to mention all the jobs that the program has created in Congressional districts across the country). I think any program's likelihood of cancellation is inversely proportional to the number of Congressional districts in which the contractor and its subs have operating locations. I also suspect that the likelihood of cost overruns is directly proportional to that number of Congressional districts as well.

[Ken White]

...
I think the operative logic (or is that illogic) is once you're more than a quarter way into the program, you need to keep throwing money at it in order to save the investment you've already made (not to mention all the jobs that the program has created in Congressional districts across the country). I think any program's likelihood of cancellation is inversely proportional to the number of Congressional districts in which the contractor and its subs have operating locations. I also suspect that the likelihood of cost overruns is directly proportional to that number of Congressional districts as well.

That part, in particular is distressingly correct...

The good news is that my unnecessarily dour prescription of a fix while obviously unlikely on several levels is not the only way the trend can be reversed. The move toward spiral development is a good start and reversal of the trend for excessive in-process changes can be accomplished to a great extent far more simply with some firm direction from those on high by simply locking the design at the 'good enough' stage. Hopefully, they can and will do that. Equally (more??? ) hopefully, Congress will assist rather than impede that process...

[Tom Odom]

That part, in particular is distressingly correct...

The good news is that my unnecessarily dour prescription of a fix while obviously unlikely on several levels is not the only way the trend can be reversed. The move toward spiral development is a good start and reversal of the trend for excessive in-process changes can be accomplished to a great extent far more simply with some firm direction from those on high by simply locking the design at the 'good enough' stage. Hopefully, they can and will do that. Equally (more??? ) hopefully, Congress will assist rather than impede that process...

And in a related matter, the idea that Senator Stevens will continue to run for office after his conviction and pending appeals makes the likelihood of a sudden rush to reform from within Congress doubtful

Next week will tell many tales

Tom

[Tacitus]

And in a related matter, the idea that Senator Stevens will continue to run for office after his conviction and pending appeals makes the likelihood of a sudden rush to reform from within Congress doubtful

Next week will tell many tales

Tom

Tom, I don't know if you have seen the Alaskan election returns or not. But it looks like a victory for (drumroll, please)...Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, of all people.

I believe that makes him the first person in the history of our republic to be re-elected to the U.S. Senate after having been found guilty of a felony. Any Senate historians out there who can come up with another, correct me if I am wrong. I thnk it takes 2/3 of the vote in the Senate to expel a Senator. Stay tuned for more on this one.

Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel.

[Tom Odom]

Tom, I don't know if you have seen the Alaskan election returns or not. But it looks like a victory for (drumroll, please)...Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, of all people.

I believe that makes him the first person in the history of our republic to be re-elected to the U.S. Senate after having been found guilty of a felony. Any Senate historians out there who can come up with another, correct me if I am wrong. I thnk it takes 2/3 of the vote in the Senate to expel a Senator. Stay tuned for more on this one.

Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel.

Hey mate

yeah I saw that this AM

incredible

[wm]

That part, in particular is distressingly correct...

The good news is that my unnecessarily dour prescription of a fix while obviously unlikely on several levels is not the only way the trend can be reversed. The move toward spiral development is a good start and reversal of the trend for excessive in-process changes can be accomplished to a great extent far more simply with some firm direction from those on high by simply locking the design at the 'good enough' stage. Hopefully, they can and will do that. Equally (more??? ) hopefully, Congress will assist rather than impede that process...

Would that it were so simple--we used to have spiral and incremental development as alternatives. But in the planned revision of the DoDD 5000.01, spirals go away and all we have are increments developed on mature technology. The intent, I think , is to prevent cost overruns due to tech development costs being postponed until later in a program because of unknowns or requirements creep. However, this means we will probably have to keep doing new cycles of technology development for each new increment (and all the Acq paperwork to go from pre-MS A to post MS C for each increment)--big loss of time and effort here I think. I'd like to see the cost benefit analysis for increments vice spirals.

[Ken White]

...But in the planned revision of the DoDD 5000.01, spirals go away and all we have are increments developed on mature technology. ... I'd like to see the cost benefit analysis for increments vice spirals.

Or maybe I saw a blurb on it and didn't want to believe it...

Why do I have visions of future revolving doors going through my little brain...

Sigh.

One step forward and two back. Agree on your your desire for an analysis; hopefully someone will trigger an effort.

[wm]

Or maybe I saw a blurb on it and didn't want to believe it...

Why do I have visions of future revolving doors going through my little brain...

Sigh.

One step forward and two back. Agree on your your desire for an analysis; hopefully someone will trigger an effort.

Someone probably views the move to only increments as a streamlining of the process.

After all, now we will only have one route forward in acquisition--simpler is better, right ?