Using Pre-Milestone B Data to Predict Schedule Duration for Defense Acquisition Programs

Jimenez, Christopher A.; White, Edward B.; Brown, Gregory; Ritschel, Jonathan D.; Lucas, Brandon; Seibel, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/1941658x.2016.1201024

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be due to the increasing complexity of modern programs, which include the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and other highly complex systems, and that increased complexity drives cost and schedule. This is consistent with the work conducted by Jimenez et al (2016), who found that these modern programs tend to have a longer schedule.…”

Section: Critical Overrunsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Jimenez, White, Brown, Ritschel, Lucas, and Seibel (2016) concluded similar findings. Longer time between MS A and MS B correlated to programs having generally longer schedule duration.…”

Section: Background and Databasesupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Similar to Jimenez et al (2016), this suggests pre-MS B data are very important to predicting program outcomes. Unfortunately, not many programs have pre-MS B data since a DoD acquisition program does not officially begin until MS B; however, these recent studies seem to suggest that problems relating to cost growth and schedule slippage might be detected early.…”

Section: Background and Databasementioning

confidence: 73%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimating an acquisition program’s likelihood of staying within cost and schedule bounds

Trudelle¹,

White²,

Koschnick³

et al. 2017

Defense ARJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Critical Overrunsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Jimenez, White, Brown, Ritschel, Lucas, and Seibel (2016) concluded similar findings. Longer time between MS A and MS B correlated to programs having generally longer schedule duration.…”

Section: Background and Databasesupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Background and Databasementioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Estimating an acquisition program’s likelihood of staying within cost and schedule bounds

Trudelle¹,

White²,

Koschnick³

et al. 2017

Defense ARJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our literature review spans the change in acquisition taxonomy from Milestone (MS) JDAL 1,1 20 I, II and III to MS A, B and C. For this study, we consider MS I, II and III to be equivalent to MS A, B and C, respectively. This is consistent with prior literature findings that the naming convention has simply altered over time without tangible changes in definition or substance (Harmon, 2012;Jimenez et al, 2016). Prior to relaying our data collection process, we first discuss recent studies pertinent to our research.…”

Section: On June 15 2011 the Under Secretary Of Defense For Acquisisupporting

confidence: 67%

“…These studies provide the foundation for how we conduct our research into the relative program characteristics that predict program cost. Jimenez et al (2016) developed a schedule duration prediction model for defense acquisition programs using pre-MS B data; we leverage their research to identify explanatory variables for investigation and an initial data set from which to draw upon. Their analysis concluded that the following variables were significant in establishing an empirical benchmark for "should schedule" estimates: amount of Research Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E dollars) at MS B start (in millions), the per cent of RDT&E funding at MS B start, whether a program is a modification and whether a program has a MS B start in 1985 or later.…”

Section: On June 15 2011 the Under Secretary Of Defense For Acquisimentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling median will-cost estimates for defense acquisition programs

Trudelle

White

Ritschel

et al. 2017

JDAL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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). Findings 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. Originality/value 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.

show abstract

Acquisition strategy factors related to faster defense acquisitions

Etemadi

Kamp

2021

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Department of Defense is experimenting with rapid acquisition strategies intended to deliver new capabilities in 2-5 years. There are few historical examples of programs achieving such cycle times -the duration from program start to initial operational capability within such short durations. This paper summarizes recent research between strategy decisions during program development and eventual program durations. Regression models are developed providing initial estimates of program schedule durations and growth from a few planning decisions. Program offices may use similar models and relationships as part of setting realistic program schedule expectations.

show abstract

Using Pre-Milestone B Data to Predict Schedule Duration for Defense Acquisition Programs

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Estimating an acquisition program’s likelihood of staying within cost and schedule bounds

Estimating an acquisition program’s likelihood of staying within cost and schedule bounds

Modeling median will-cost estimates for defense acquisition programs

Acquisition strategy factors related to faster defense acquisitions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About