The authors investigate whether the tenure of program managers contributes to Nunn-McCurdy breaches. They also examine the existing decentralized systems used to track cost growth to determine whether additional guidance and control are needed to make acquisition category II programs' performance more transparent. Finally, they investigate whether key assumptions, so-called framing assumptions, could be useful risk management tools.

Cover: Management Perspectives Pertaining to Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches, Volume 4
Read Online

Management Perspectives Pertaining to Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches, Volume 4

Program Manager Tenure, Oversight of Acquisition Category II Programs, and Framing Assumptions

by Mark V. Arena, Irv Blickstein, Abby Doll, Jeffrey A. Drezner, James G. Kallimani, Jennifer Kavanagh, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Megan McKernan, Charles Nemfakos, Rena Rudavsky, et al.

Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.2 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback146 pages $37.95 $30.36 20% Web Discount

Research Questions

  1. Has program manager tenure lengthened since policy guidance to encourage longer tenures was issued in 2005 and 2007?
  2. Should additional guidance for acquisition category II (ACAT II) programs be mandated?
  3. Can identification of key assumptions, so-called "framing assumptions," be a useful risk management tool?

Concern with cost overruns in major defense acquisition programs led Congress to direct investigation of the root causes of overruns in programs that have breached Nunn-McCurdy thresholds. The authors calculate program manager tenure to determine whether tenures have lengthened since policy guidance was issued in 2005 and 2007. They also address the question of whether existing decentralized systems used to track the cost growth and performance of acquisition category II programs are sufficient or whether additional centralized guidance and control from the Office of the Secretary of Defense are warranted. A third question deals with the management of cost and schedule risk and whether the identification of key assumptions, which the authors call framing assumptions, could be a useful risk management tool.

Key Findings

It Is Unclear Whether Program Manager Tenure Lengthened After the Federal Guidelines Were Issued

  • There were too many incomplete tenure periods within the time period examined to help answer the question of whether program manager tenure has lengthened.
  • Analysis of closed periods shows that tenure averaged 33 months, longer than the 17.2 months the Government Accountability Office found in 2007.

ACAT II Programs Do Not Need Additional Reporting and Control Requirements

  • At present, ACAT II programs perform reasonably well once they have entered production and perform at least as well as major defense acquisition programs, which have rigorous centralized oversight.
  • Twelve ACAT II programs were investigated and only three warrant significant concern.
  • Most program cost growth appears to result from a downward revision in procurement quantities.
  • Adding new reporting requirements would place additional burdens on programs that already have much to do.

It Remains to Be Seen Whether the Use of Framing Assumptions Can Be Useful in Managing Risk

  • To be useful as a management tool, framing assumptions should be kept at a high level and not focus on minutiae.
  • Framing assumptions may change or new ones emerge as a program moves through the acquisition process.
  • For mature programs, identifying a core set of framing assumptions is more complicated because of the wealth of, and potentially conflicting, information.
  • It is possible to define framing assumptions and apply them to programs that are in their early stages.

Recommendations

  • The authors recommend that acquisition category II (ACAT II) programs not be subjected to additional guidance at this time.
  • ACAT II programs should be monitored continually to ensure that their performance remains acceptable.
  • Future work should be undertaken to examine framing assumptions in a broader range of programs.
  • Including data on the tenure agreements between program managers and acquisition executives, along with the Precepts for the Promotion Boards in the Navy and similar processes in the other services, would provide a richer analysis of this topic.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Program Manager Tenure

  • Chapter Three

    Oversight of ACAT II Programs

  • Chapter Four

    Framing Assumptions

  • Chapter Five

    Conclusions

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The research was conducted within the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by OSD, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.