Opinion on documentation requirements is divergent. Practically all non-Government respondents contrast the sparse documentation which accompanies private R. & D. programs with that provided by the Government where, it is said, the documentation pendulum has now swung too far. Estimates as to documentation costs range from 20 to over 50 percent of development. costs but, reliable information is not available.
Some industry executives maintain that competent engineers invariably include maintenance, reliability, and operability in their designs and that documentation, at such an early stage, diverts them from the central job of development.
That was Elmer Staat, longtime Comptroller General, speaking on July 16, 1969 before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on Justice, “Competition in Defense Procurement.”
First, the documentation costs of 20 to 50 percent for a development program sounds about right — I’m sure it’s worse today than in 1969. But the biggest problem isn’t just to cost of documentation, but that the documentation process actually selects for worse designs.
Second, sustainment issues are often cited as a reason for more and more documentation to fix every issue possible years down the road. It seems that competent engineers will take sustainment issues into account in their designs if customers desire it and are willing to sacrifice a bunch of goldplating for it. The problem is, the DoD *doesn’t* actually desire reliability, sustainability, etc. I think the F-20 Tigershark, built at Northrop’s expense to be super low cost and sustainable, is a prime example where the DoD punished an emphasis on sustainability.
Finally, Elmer Staats at the GAO seemed to understand these problems which still very much exist today. But then he goes on to recommend that oversight agencies like the GAO should have *more* decision-rights in early R&D phases — despite not having the technical talent to make any real contributions. It’s hard for me to understand the following quote, where in one breath Staats says “we need more flexibility” and then “but, we also need more accountants making R&D decisions.”
… We are attempting, in the General Accounting Office, to become more involved in assessment of research and development efforts, particularly as applies to defense because we realize that it is at this stage of weapons systems acquisition that are really’ giving birth to decisions which may involve many hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars… But one thing is clear, we need a lot of flexibility in the R. & D. stage to make decisions.
Leave a Reply