This report documents the structured process that was developed to help project teams identify acquisition framing assumptions (FAs), which are useful in defining and tracking key program assumptions throughout the life of an acquisition program. The process describes a structured deliberation workshop (in the form of a briefing) with the aim of identifying candidate FAs.

Read Online

Identifying Acquisition Framing Assumptions Through Structured Deliberation

by Mark V. Arena, Lauren A. Mayer

Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1.1 MB

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

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback64 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

Research Question

  1. Can a process be developed to help project teams identify program acquisition framing assumptions?

This report documents the structured process that was developed to help project teams identify acquisition framing assumptions (FAs), which are useful in defining and tracking key program assumptions throughout the life of an acquisition program. The process describes a structured deliberation workshop (in the form of a briefing) used to facilitate a deliberation with the aim of identifying candidate FAs. The report provides an introduction to the concept of FAs and an overview of the approach used in the briefing to identify FAs. It includes an overview of structured deliberation, some of the important concepts in having a successful session, and suggestions on how to tailor questions related to program risk areas to help elucidate FAs.

Key Findings

A briefing has been developed to introduce framing assumptions and explain their importance

  • An accurate framing assumption is central in shaping cost, schedule, and performance expectations.
  • Explicit framing assumptions, made early in a program's life cycle, may help the Services better manage major risks to programs.
  • Those involved in deliberations to develop framing assumptions should include a mix of people with different backgrounds.
  • Each candidate framing assumption should be foundational and program-specific and have no workarounds.
  • Potential framing assumptions should be ranked, so that 3 to 5 can be selected for the program under discussion.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Structured Process Guidance

  • Chapter Two

    Slides

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis (PARCA) office and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 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 Tool series. RAND tools may include models, databases, calculators, computer code, GIS mapping tools, practitioner guidelines, web applications, and various toolkits. All RAND tools undergo rigorous peer review to ensure both high data standards and appropriate methodology in keeping with RAND's commitment to quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

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.