The prospect of technological advances still persuades planners and decisionmakers to seek increased performance, greater precision, added function capability, and thus more complexity, all of which tend to increase cost and reduce reliability. Such courses are frequently followed without proper regard to realistic operational needs.
Also, there is often a misconception at technically naïve management levels that the promise of a new (or better) system can be validated solely through analysis, without recourse to actual experimental hardware or software. This has often proved to be an invalid assumption. As a result, budgets are often formulated without adequate provision for funds to permit realistic evaluation of alternatives or, even when budgeted, such funds are cut prematurely in favor of a “preferred” approach advanced by an articulate system advocate.
… To satisfy as many needs as possible, there often is reluctance to fund for contingencies or to support alternative options…. At the same time there must be adequate provision for technology “push” in contrast to requirements “pull.” If R&D is completely constrained to respond only to specific requirements, the current trend toward guaranteed success as a criterion for initiating development programs will grow to the detriment of invention and innovation.
These words from 1975 are just as relevant today as they were 45 years ago. That was from the “Report of the Navy Marine Corps Acquisition Review Committee.” Volume 1, Office of the Secretary of the Navy, January, 1975.
Leave a Reply