Sign In
App icon


Available Now!
Get the App
Click Here to Continue Browser Session   ❯



From the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 92 the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 922020-04-01T16:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass4241C2C80BC8443D91F6A9FD097817C6"><img src="/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ89/larry.jpg" style="float:left;margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;" />The theme of this edition of the <em>Defense Acquisition Research Journal</em> is “Growing Pains,” an apt description of the problems that many defense acquisition programs face with cost and schedule.<br> <br> The first research paper in this issue, “Software Productivity Trends and Issues” by David M. Tate, examines recent trends in defense software supply, demand, and productivity to estimate the severity of capacity bottleneck, then briefly discusses potential long-term actions available to the Department of Defense to mitigate that bottleneck. In the second article, “Analysis of Military Construction Cost Growth in USAF Major Defense Acquisition Programs,” the authors Capt Emily E. Angell, USAF, Edward D. White, Jonathan D. Ritschel, and Alfred E. Thal, Jr., use descriptive and inferential statistics to identify cost growth of military construction at the programmatic level, and describe how they change over time. The findings of this study may help determine allocation of resources in developing cost estimates. The third article is “Inflation and Price Escalation Adjustments in Estimating Program Costs: F 35 Case Study” by Stanley A. Horowitz and Bruce R. Harmon. It illustrates the importance of basing estimates of future program prices on historical price increases of similar systems. The authors caution that in the case of tactical aircraft, using general inflation rates to predict future aircraft prices is likely to lead to serious underestimates of future cost.<br> <br> This issue’s Current Research Resources in Defense Acquisition focuses on Acquisition Reform. It contains descriptions of several key resources, along with links to the DAU Knowledge Repository sites.<br> <br> The featured reading in this issue’s Defense Acquisition Professional Reading List is <em>To Provide and Maintain a Navy: 1775–1945</em> by CAPT Richard L. Wright, USN (Ret.), and reviewed by Brad Martin.<br> <br> <strong>Dr. Larrie D. Ferreiro </strong><br> Chairman and Executive Editor Defense ARJ <hr />To print a PDF copy of this article, <a href="/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ92/ARJ92%20From%20THe%20Chairman%20and%20Executive%20Editor.pdf">click here</a>.</div>string;#/library/arj/blog/From-the-Chairman-and-Executive-Editor---Issue-92
From the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 91 the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 912020-01-01T17:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClassB3A57269BE8B437A91828F1FC10ED35E"><img src="/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ89/larry.jpg" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;" />The theme of this edition of the Defense Acquisition Research Journal is “Thinking Critically about Defense Acquisition.” In order to open the aperture for critical thinking, the Defense Acquisition Research Journal has updated its guidelines for contributors to now include submissions for case histories based on defense acquisition programs or efforts. Case histories differ from case studies in that case histories (like research papers) draw specific conclusions based on analysis as opposed to case studies, which are primarily intended for classroom and pedagogical use, and generally terminate with a jumping-off point for the student or class to come to decisions. We invite potential authors to consider submitting case history manuscripts. Cases from all acquisition career fields and/or phases of the acquisition life cycle will be considered. They may be decision-based, descriptive, or explanatory in nature. Cases must be sufficiently focused and complete (i.e., not open-ended like classroom case studies) with relevant analysis and conclusions. All cases must be factual and authentic. [Please note that we do not accept fictional cases.]<br> <br> The first research article in this issue, “Critical Thinking for the Federal Auditor" by Gabrielle G. McClure-Nelson, identifies to what extent critical thinking skills are considered an important competency for federal auditors, given the often tightly constrained and rules-focused nature of auditing government contractors.<br> <br> The second article, authored by Gregory A. Davis and David M. Tate and titled, “Complexity in an Unexpected Place: Quantities in Selected Acquisition Reports," notes that the definition of unit quantities in acquisition programs is not consistent (for example, the units produced at the end of a long production run are substantially different from the early ones). The authors offer explanations as to why this is the case, and possible methods for improving the reporting requirement. The third article, "Risk-based ROI, Capital Budgeting, and Portfolio Optimization in the Department of Defense" by Johnathan Mun, describes an analytical modeling process to help the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) senior leadership with making decisions about risk-based capital budgeting and optimizing acquisition and program portfolios. <br> <br> This issue’s Current Research Resources in Defense Acquisition focuses on the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) in government contracting. It contains descriptions of several key resources, along with links to the DAU Knowledge Repository sites. <br> <br> The featured reading in this issue’s Defense Acquisition Professional Reading List is Perspectives on Defense Systems Analysis: The What, the Why, and the Who, but Mostly the How of Broad Defense Systems Analysis by William P. Delaney, with Robert G. Atkins, Alan D. Bernard, Don M. Boroson, David J. Ebel, Aryeh Feder, Jack G. Fleischman, Michael P. Shatz, Robert Stein, and Stephen D. Weiner, reviewed by Kevin Garrison. <br> <br> Dr. Michael J. Pryce has departed the Defense ARJ Editorial Board. We thank him for his service and wish him well. We welcome Mr. John McCormack to the Editorial Board.<br> <br> Please note at the end of this journal the re-issued Call for Papers for the 2020 DAU Alumni Association Edward Hirsch Acquisition and Writing Competition. Due date is March 15, 2020. <br> <br> <br> <em>Dr. Larrie D. Ferreiro</em><br> Chairman and Executive Editor<br> Defense ARJ<br> <hr /> <h2>From the Art Director </h2> <em>Michael Bubar-Krukowski</em><br> <br> <img alt="" src="/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ91/Michael%20Krukowski%208x10.jpg" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:120px;height:150px;" />As we start a new decade, so does the Defense Acquisition Research Journal (ARJ)—and with some big changes. <br> Like most publications, the Defense ARJ tries to keep up with the latest design trends and push the standards for design in the research journal world. We pride ourselves on this at the Defense ARJ and are always trying to keep the journal fresh and accessible to everyone.<br> <br> One of the big changes you will notice is the updated logo. Like most great brands, the Defense ARJ logo should evolve over the years while still keeping aspects that make it recognizable. The Defense ARJ has been long overdue for an update. Our new logo still pays homage to the previous version that everyone knows, but the updated version has been cleaned up to be more on trend. The signature quill exhibits the most drastic change, becoming cleaner while also creating more opportunities to add color. Also the chosen typeface is a slight update from the previous version that adds a cleaner feel, allowing the quill to shine and creating a timeless look. <br> <br> Other changes have been made to the design of the journal that should hopefully revitalize the aesthetic and keep the Defense ARJ at the top of its class. You will notice a redesigned table of contents, new ads, and more! For several years now the Defense ARJ has been winning awards for design. Going forward, we strive to keep up the same standards of excellence while also becoming more competitive in the world of design and publication.<br></div>string;#/library/arj/blog/From-the-Chairman-and-Executive-Editor---Issue-91
From the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 90 the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 902019-10-01T12:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass8172C6FBF8EA4FD4ABF49F91CEC646DD"><img src="/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ89/larry.jpg" style="float:left;margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;" />The theme of this edition of the Defense Acquisition Research Journal is “Defense Procurement and Public Utility Regulation.” Back in 1968, when the Apollo missions were aiming for the moon while social unrest and the Vietnam War raged back on Earth, George R. Hall, an analyst with the RAND Corporation, published the study “Defense Procurement and Public Utility Regulation” (reprinted here with permission from the University of Wisconsin Press), which examined the mechanism of control that the Department of Defense employs over its procurement process. He noted that the DoD used a mix of competition and direct controls over the prices, profits, and managerial decisions of its contractors, and observed that defense contractors and public utilities share many common features. He then explored whether conferring public utility status on the producers of major weapon systems, and utilizing the regulatory techniques applied to conventional public utilities, might result in a more satisfactory performance of the military procurement system.<br> <br> Hall’s conclusion, that regulatory oversight for those two industries would be completely different, was followed with his observation that “the best solution to procurement regulation is to minimize the need for it,” and he proposed different ways to achieve this. Now, 50 years later, Dr. Phil Koenig, who studies strategy and economics and teaches at the University of British Columbia, has revisited Hall’s study in his essay “Defense Procurement and Public Utility Regulation: A 21st-Century Re-examination.” He finds that Hall’s conclusions are still valid a half-century later, though for different reasons. Dr. Koenig’s analysis provides a fresh look at what Hall identified as the key problem of information asymmetry between government and the defense industry. <br> <br> The first research paper in this issue, “Air Force Space Programs: Comparing Estimates to Final Development Budgets,” by Christopher Elworth, Edward D. White, Jonathan D. Ritschel, and Gregory E. Brown, looks at the data from Selected Acquisition Reports for Defense Department space programs to estimate how development budgets vary from the actual development budgets over time. They suggest that, since many programs experience substantial budget growth later in their schedules, budgeting more funds later in a program’s schedule rather than earlier might be more appropriate than doing so earlier in their schedules. <br> <br> The second paper, “Evaluating Business Models Enabling Organic Additive Manufacturing for Maintenance and Sustainment” by Ashley N. Totin and Brett P. Connor, examines additive manufacturing to produce parts on demand and provide parts at the point-of-need. Their case study and survey of acquisition and engineering professionals analyzes the profitability of four business models, and shows that under the right conditions, digital business models incorporating additive manufacturing can indeed be profitable. <br> <br> Please note that we have updated the section “New Research in Defense Acquisition,” which is now “Current Research Resources in Defense Acquisition.” It is directly linked with the DAU Knowledge Repository, which offers defense acquisition workforce professionals the products and services needed for user-defined, job-oriented knowledge and situational awareness. “Current Research Resources” gathers in one location the latest topical research and information on many subjects of topical and critical interest to the workforce. In this issue, we highlight Additive Manufacturing and Logistics with descriptions of several key resources, along with links to the Knowledge Repository sites. <br> The featured reading in this issue’s Defense Acquisition Professional Reading List is Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War by Paul Scharre, reviewed by Brian Duddy.<br> <br> Dr. Richard Donnelly and Mr. William Conroy have departed the Defense ARJ Editorial Board. We thank them for their service and wish them well.<br> <br> We welcome two new members of the Editorial Board, Dr. Thomas A. Mazzuchi of the George Washington University and Dr. Steve Fasko of DAU. <br> <br> Dr. Larrie D. Ferreiro<br> Chairman and Executive Editor<br> Defense ARJ</div>string;#/library/arj/blog/From-the-Chairman-and-Executive-Editor---Issue-90
From the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 89 the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 892019-07-01T12:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass4E4812DC308940349BF12BE5A4C03846"><img alt="" src="/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ89/larry.jpg" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:106px;height:131px;" />The theme of this edition of the Defense Acquisition Research Journal is “The Social Goals of Defense Acquisition.” It always has been commonplace to read or hear criticisms of the defense acquisition process, generally with the premise that it is not focused on meeting warfighter needs, and often with the codicil “if defense acquisition could just be run more like a business….” Yet such criticism overlooks the many differences between government and commercial business, not the least of which is the fact that Congress places specific social and economic policy requirements on federal acquisition in general, and defense acquisition in particular. By contrast, businesses are not encumbered by these Congressionally mandated policy requirements.<br> <br> These policy goals were deftly outlined in a relatively obscure but insightful paper, “Social and Economic Goals and Their Impact on the Defense Acquisition Process” by Thomas E. Harvey (a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army – Acquisition), which was published in 1979 in the Notre Dame Law Review and reprinted here with that journal’s permission. Now, 40 years after the publication of Harvey’s paper, we have asked Moshe Schwarz, who has served as an analyst on defense acquisition for over a decade, to revisit Harvey’s paper and answer the question: What has changed over the last 40 years since the article was published? Moshe’s short answer—a great deal, and his observations are insightful and enlightening. <br> <br> The first research paper in this issue, “The Impacts of DoD Acquisition Initiatives on Defense Industry Business Strategy” by Joseph R. Blank, follows in this same vein. The author examines recent Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition initiatives, and through semistructured interviews with defense industry executives, explores and identifies the business strategies needed by these companies to address DoD’s evolving requirements. The second paper, “Foundations for a Game Theoretic Framework for Agile Acquisition” by Scott Rosen, Kelly Horinek, Alexander Odeh, Les Servi, and Andreas Tolk, examines the use of game theory within the government acquisition community to understand and develop strategies that help vendors and expedite their decision-making. <br> The featured reading in this issue’s Defense Acquisition Professional Reading List is Paul A. C. Koistinen’s magisterial five-volume series, The Political Economy of American Warfare, reviewed by Mark Wilson. <br> <br> Dr. Larrie D. Ferreiro<br> Chairman and Executive Editor<br> Defense ARJ</div>string;#/library/arj/blog/From-the-Chairman-and-Executive-Editor---Issue-89