Search results

In 2006, the U.S. Defense Acquisition Executive approved a program at the Naval Postgraduate School to solicit, evaluate, and fund proposals for innovative and scholarly acquisition research. This paper presents an exploratory analysis of proposals from 2007 to the present. It seeks to provide an understanding of the types and sources of research proposals, and the extent to which the programʼs goal has been achieved. Cluster and trend analyses classify and examine the data according to several key aspects, such as: topical area (e.g., contracting, logistics); research type (e.g., exploratory, hypothesis testing); research design (e.g., case study, experiment); and type of analysis (e.g., comparative, statistical). The results show positive trends, but the number of institutions with interest in defense acquisition remains low, suggesting that it remains a limited niche research topic.

Despite Congressional and Presidential emphasis on reducing bundling and consolidation of defense contracts, recent studies cast doubt on whether such practices are problematic for small contractors or the defense acquisition system. Those studies proposed that bundling and consolidation are generally positive tools to procure best value. This paper tests these propositions by examining relevant U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) contracts for Fiscal Year 2010, when Congress reported record bundling and consolidation in U.S. defense contracting. Specifically, the paper looks to performance of Navy and Marine Corps buying commands in meeting small business goals and other good-government objectives such as competition, performance-based acquisitions, preference for commercial suppliers, and support for the U.S. defense industrial base. The paper recommends improvements in targeted good-government practices as measures to reduce bundling and consolidation.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight on high-interest areas of research in defense-related logistics and supply chain management and opportunities for advancing theory and practice in this domain.

A panel of experts provided their insight to several questions oriented toward examining research opportunities and gaps in defense logistics research at the 2018 Academic Research Symposium of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals annual conference on September 30, 2018.

Three overarching themes emerged from the panel discussion for advancing theory and practice in defense logistics and supply chain management, which are developing a central repository, creating publication opportunities and integrating research practice and knowledge with the greater academic community.

Logistics and supply chain research is critical for advancing knowledge and practice in the military, as well as industrial settings. The intention in this manuscript is to provide scholars and practitioners in both settings greater awareness and potential avenues for developing synergies and processes for advancing logistics and supply chain research.

Defense acquisition programs are plagued by surging delays and cost overruns. In particular, contract management of defense acquisition programs has been identified as 'high risk' - and threatening to project results. This article examines how contracts, as legal mechanisms, may be disruptive and obstruct cooperation between the DoD and contractors. The main observation this article makes is that tensions between the norms set forth in contracts and other non-legal norms can become a major reason for problems in defense procurement. It explains why these tensions may undermine cooperative behavior between contractors and the DoD and can become a source of disappointing acquisition program results. A framework is provided for identifying such tensions, and contract design principles are proposed to enhance cooperation and eliminate these tensions when drafting contracts for defense acquisition and other complex programs.

The purpose of this research is to examine the extent to which Belbin's team role theories are relevant and can be used to predict performance in the context of the Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) responsible for acquisition within the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

A sample of seven IPTs across the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) and the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) completed Belbin's (1981) manual 8 Role Self Perception Inventory in order to determine their team role preferences. A team performance survey, developed by Barbara Senior in 2005, was then used to determine perceived process performance. The relationship between these two variables was examined in detail.

The results provide support to the proposition that Belbin's Team Role Theory is relevant in MoD acquisition. Certain team roles are more predominant in certain functional roles within IPTs and this duplication could have a negative impact on performance, given Belbin's assertion that “balanced” teams will perform better than “unbalanced”. The difficulties in objectively assessing team role balance (both narratively and statistically) are discussed in detail.

Whilst a representative sample of IPTs was investigated, a longitudinal study of a more extensive sample is required to substantiate these initial findings.

Belbin's Team Role Theory provides a cost effective means of potentially improving performance in defence acquisition.

While there have been some unpublished studies into functional roles in MoD teams, there is a research lacuna with regard to the examination of team roles as a factor influencing performance in defence acquisition.

This research examines how the cost performance of defense contracts varies among the Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Department of Defense (DoD) and among five major defense contractors: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Data for these analyses was extracted from the recently established Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR) web-based interface for management information on Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP). Note that, in addition to the three military services, MDAP data is also reported for DoD itself.

Data analysis indicates that the Navy ranks last among the military services and DoD in cost performance for MDAP contracts, while the Air Force ranks best. Of the defense contractors, Raytheon ranks last in cost performance and General Dynamics is next to last. Furthermore, the Navy contracts more frequently with Raytheon and General Dynamics than do the other services or DoD. Explanatory factors for poor cost performance may be due to factors such as the Navy's lack of oversight, the quality of the acquisition workforce, the defense contractors’ cost inefficiency, ethical lapses, or weak corporate governance, or combinations of these factors.

In addition, the schedule performance data was also identified. Tests of statistical significance on the schedule performance difference generally yield no results except for one relationship which indicates that the Navy is more likely to have Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) schedule breaches than its counterparts. Finally, cost performance data is examined for statistically significant differences between the two major categories of defense contracts: fixed-price contracts and cost-plus contracts. However, no significant findings were discovered.

This study proposes targeted modernization of the Department of Defense (DoD's) Joint Forces Ammunition Logistics information system by implementing the optimized innovative information technology open architecture design and integrating Radio Frequency Identification Device data technologies and real-time optimization and control mechanisms as the critical technology components of the solution. The innovative information technology, which pursues the focused logistics, will be deployed in 36 months at the estimated cost of $568 million in constant dollars. We estimate that the Systems, Applications, Products (SAP)-based enterprise integration solution that the Army currently pursues will cost another $1.5 billion through the year 2014; however, it is unlikely to deliver the intended technical capabilities.

The introduction of “should cost” in 2011 required all Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) to create efficiencies and improvements to reduce a program’s “will-cost” estimate. Realistic “will-cost” estimates are a necessary condition for the “should cost” analysis to be effectively implemented. Owing to the inherent difficulties in establishing a program’s will-cost estimate, this paper aims to propose a new model to infuse realism into this estimate.

Using historical data from 73 Departments of Defense programs as recorded in the selected acquisition reports (SARs), the analysis uses mixed stepwise regression to predict a program’s cost from Milestone B (MS B) to initial operational capability (IOC).

The presented model explains 83 per cent of the variation in the program acquisition cost. Significant predictor variables include: projected duration (months from MS B to IOC); the amount of research development test and evaluation (RDT&E) funding spent at the start of MS B; whether the program is considered a fixed-wing aircraft; whether a program is considered an electronic system program; whether a program is considered ACAT I at MS B; and the program size relative to the total program’s projected acquisition costs at MS B.

The model supports the “will-cost and should-cost” requirement levied in 2011 by providing an objective and defensible cost for what a program should actually cost based on what has been achieved in the past. A quality will-cost estimate provides a starting point for program managers to examine processes and find efficiencies that lead to reduced program costs.

Militaries face increasing budget pressures, high operations tempos, a blitzing pace of technology, and adversaries that often meet or beat government capabilities using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies. The integration of COTS products into defense systems has been offered to help meet these challenges, yet such integration suffers mixed results. The purpose of this paper is to offer a knowledge-based conceptual framework for understanding COTS technology integration in the defense sector.

A literature review of 62 sources was conducted with the objectives of identifying antecedents (barriers and facilitators) and consequences of COTS adoption.

Research implicates the importance of knowledge management to successful COTS integration. COTS appropriateness should be gauged, and it is impacted by 14 enabling and five deterrent factors.

The conceptual framework of COTS technology usage enhances understanding of COTS performance. The framework and its propositions should focus, and thus, stimulate increased future research of COTS performance. Limitations common to qualitative methods are disclosed.

By identifying factors that shape COTS appropriateness, practitioners know the factors to manage to hedge toward successful COTS integration. Managers should be aware of the importance of market knowledge for defense COTS innovation, especially for commercial companies that work as system integrators. COTS integrators need to better manage the lessons learned from COTS integration programs.

This research is the first to develop a conceptual framework of COTS product usage and a scale to measure COTS product appropriateness.

A deteriorating security situation and an increased need for defence equipment calls for new forms of collaboration between Armed Forces and the defence industry. This paper aims to investigate the ways in which the accelerating demand for increased security of supply of equipment and supplies to the Armed Forces requires adaptability in the procurement process that is governed by laws on public procurement (PP).

This paper is based on a review of current literature as well as empirical data obtained through interviews with representatives from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration and the Swedish defence industry.

Collaboration with the globalized defence industry requires new approaches, where the PP rules make procurement of a safe supply of defence equipment difficult.

The study's empirical data and findings are based on the Swedish context. In order to draw more general conclusions in a defence context, the study should be expanded to cover more nations.

The findings will enable the defence industry and the procurement authorizations to better understand the requirements of Armed Forces, and how to cooperate under applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

The paper extends the extant body of academic knowledge of the security of supply into the defence sector. It serves as a first step towards articulating a call for new approaches to collaboration in defence supply chains.