Sign In



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
From the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 88 the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 882019-04-01T16:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass391C23FDE71945449879E6FD7AA92B47">The theme of this edition of the Defense Acquisition Research Journal is “Delivering Performance at the Speed of Relevance: Agile Acquisition Approaches,” which is the same theme as the DAU Alumni Association’s 2019 Hirsch Award Competition. The two award winners were selected from a strong field of entrants.<br> <br> The first-place winner is William J. Weinig, for his paper “Other Transaction Authority: Saint or Sinner for Defense Acquisition?” Weinig provides an overview and history of Other Transactions (OT), which are flexible business arrangements that can be used for prototype projects. These agreements are powerful because they sidestep the vast majority of existing laws and regulations, and Weinig’s analysis shows that to date, the benefits of OTs have outweighed their risks.<br> <br> Second prize went to Jeremy D. Kramer and Torrey J. Wagner for their article “Developmental Test and Requirements: Best Practices of Successful Information Systems Using Agile Methods.” The article describes case studies of five DoD information systems that were developed using Agile or development and operations (DevOps) practices, and articulates best practices related to developmental testing and requirements management strategies for programs employing modernized Software Development Life Cycle practices.<br> <br> The final article, “Multiple Incentive Contracts Result in Increased Costs—Or Do They?” by Robert J. Muretta, Jr., compares incentive contract outcomes between the DoD and other government agencies, and identifies underlying factors leading to their success—such as the use of schedule incentives and penalties, which turn out to be closely correlated to schedule outcomes.<br> <br> The featured book in this issue’s Defense Acquisition Professional Reading List is The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses by Eric Ries, reviewed by David L. Gallop.<br> <br> Finally, we thank departing Editorial Board member Dr. Craig Lush for his service, and welcome Mr. William Lucyshyn of the University of Maryland as a new member of the Board.<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-88
From the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 87 the Chairman and Executive Editor - Issue 872019-01-01T17:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClassAFB4E885C3DD4F7580E86507C69FEC9D"><img alt="" src="/library/arj/PublishingImages/larrie.jpg" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:148px;height:183px;" />This edition of the Defense Acquisition Research Journal marks the 25th anniversary of its publication. It began as the Acquisition Review Quarterly in 1994, with the remit to “address the needs of professionals across the full spectrum of defense acquisition.” Although it has changed names several times over the years, we are proud to have continued the original mission for a quarter-century, and remain the world’s top journal for publishing high-quality, scholarly research into defense acquisition issues.<br> <br> No one is better suited to tell the history of the journal than Managing Editor Norene Johnson. Norene has been with the publication for 24 of its 25 years, and has led it from strength to strength. Her introductory essay, “Defense ARJ: 25 Years and Counting,” tells the story of how this journal came to be, and how it continues to turn out award-winning editions.<br> <br> The first research article in this edition, “Approaches to F-35 Depot-Level Maintenance: Insights from Other Systems” by Edward G. Keating, uses historical data from other aircraft programs to weigh the near-term costs of increased maintenance for the F-35 aircraft now rolling out, versus future operational longevity.<br> The next article, “Identifying and Quantifying Critical ‘ilities’ in the Acquisition of DoD Systems,” by James R. Enos, John V. Farr, and Roshanak R. Nilchiani, explores how using social network analysis can provide greater insights on how individual DoD systems interoperate within a larger portfolio of systems.<br> <br> The final article, “Intellectual Property and Architecture: New Research on How to Avoid Lock-In,” by Chris Berardi and Bruce Cameron, examines the unique acquisition structure of the Department of Defense as a monopsony (one buyer, many sellers) and the pervasive problem of intellectual property lock-in. The authors analyzed a number of software acquisition cases to develop remedies against acquisition lock-in without having to secure additional intellectual property rights.<br> <br> The featured book in this issue’s Defense Acquisition Professional Reading List is Victory on the Potomac: The Goldwater-Nichols Act Unifies the Pentagon by James R. Locher III, reviewed by Moshe Schwartz.<br> <br> The masthead has several new additions to the Editorial Board: Dr. Craig Arndt, formerly of DAU and now at the MITRE Corporation; Joseph Ilk of DAU, and Dr. John G. McGinn of George Mason University. Welcome aboard! We also thank the departing Board member, Jacques Gansler, for his service.<br> <br> Note: After the print edition of this issue went to press, we learned of the passing of Dr. Jacques “Jack” Gansler in December 2018. Jack was a long-time member of the Defense ARJ Editorial Board, had been Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 1997–2001, and was a prolific author on defense acquisition issues. Our condolences go out to his family, friends, and colleagues.</div>string;#/library/arj/blog/From-the-Chairmen-and-Executive-Editor---Issue-87