Managing risks in mega defense acquisition projects: Performance, policy, and opportunities

International Journal of Project Management

Volumn 27, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 812-820

  Kwak, Young Hoon ^a   Smith, Brian M ^b  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Research Development Test and Evaluation Division Code 524   (United States)

Author keywords

Case study; Cost estimating; Department of Defense; Future Combat Systems; Project management; Risk management

Indexed keywords

ACQUISITION PROJECTS; CASE STUDY; COST ESTIMATING; COST OVERRUNS; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS; PLANNING PHASE; PROGRAM MANAGEMENT; PROJECT DELAYS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES; RISK MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE; RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS; US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; US GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICES;

MANAGEMENT SCIENCE; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

PLANNING;

ARMED FORCES; DEFENSE INDUSTRY; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70349464764     PISSN: 02637863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States government. Washington, DC; 2006. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007 [accessed 31.03.2007].
2. Washington Post, GAO questions cost of joint strike fighter; 16 March, 2005.
3. Washington Post. Big rewards for defense firms; 16 April 2006.
4. Washington Post. Problems stall Pentagon's new fighting vehicle; 7 February 2007.
5. Government Accountability Office. Department of defense: long-standing problems continue to impede financial and business management transformation, GAO-04-907T. Washington, DC; 2004.
6. Department of Defense. Directive 5000.1: the defense acquisition system. Washington, DC; 2003.
7. Department of Defense. Directive 5000.2: operation of the defense acquisition system. Washington, DC; 2003.
8. Department of Defense Instruction 5000.2-R. Mandatory procedures for major defense acquisitions programs (MDAPS) and major automated information systems (MAIS) acquisitions programs; 5 April 2002, 214.
9. Bolles M. Understanding risk management in the DOD - tutorial. Acquisition Rev J 1 (2003) 141-154
10. Government Accountability Office. Defense acquisitions: assessments of selected weapons programs GAO-07-406SP. Washington, DC; 2007.
11. Department of Defense. Interim defense acquisition guidebook. Washington, DC; 2002.
12. Government Accountability Office. Defense acquisitions: future combat systems challenges and prospects for success GAO-05-442T. Washington, DC; 2005.
13. United States Army. Future combat systems: on the network the strong become stronger; 2006. http://www.army.mil/fcs [accessed 1.04.2007].
14. United States Congress. Defense authorization bill. Washington, DC; 2006. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01815 [accessed 7.06.2007].
15. United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. Testimony of Lieutenant General Yakovac, Jodeph Jr L; 2004. http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04-04-01yakovac.html [accessed 2.04.2007].
16. Kendrick, Tom. Identifying and managing project risk: essential tools for failure-proofing your project. New York: AMACOM; 2003.
17. Government Accountability Office. Defense acquisitions: future combat system risks underscore the importance of oversight GAO-07-672T. Washington, DC; 2007.
18. Government Accountability Office. Military transformation: army actions needed to enhance formation of future interim brigade combat team GAO-02-442. Washington, DC; 2002.
19. Government Accountability Office. Defense acquisitions: the army's future combat systems' features, risks, and alternatives GAO-04-635T. Washington, DC; 2004.
20. Government Accountability Office. Defense acquisitions: improved business case is needed for FCS's successful outcome GAO-06-367. Washington, DC; 2006.
21. Government Accountability Office. Joint strike fighter: progress made and challenges remain GAO-07-360. Washington, DC; 2007.
22. Singer, Jeremy. Boeing says FCS risk management plan will quell concerns; 2006. http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/FCS_061206.html. [accessed 01.04.07].
23. DefenseNews.com. US marine EFV delivery delayed to 2015 and costs double; 14 March, 2007.
24. Pellegrinelli S., and Bowman C. Implementing strategy through projects. Long Range Plann 27 (1994) 125-132
25. Stannard C.J. Managing a mega-project - the Channel Tunnel. Long Range Plann 23 5 (1990) 49-62
26. Lanford H.W., and McCann T.M. Effective planning and control of large projects - using work breakdown structure. Long Range Plann 16 2 (1983) 38-50
27. Lord M.A. Implementing strategy through project management. Long Range Plann 26 1 (1993) 76-85
28. Kwak Y.H., and LaPlace K. Examining risk tolerance in project-driven organization. Technovation: Int J Technol Innov, Entrep, Technol Manage 25 6 (2005) 691-695
29. Kwak Y.H., and Stoddard J. Project risk management: lessons learned from software development environment. Technovation: Int J Technol Innov, Entrep, Technol Manage 24 11 (2004) 915-920
30. Bhuiyan N., and Thomson V. The use of continuous approval methods in defence acquisition projects. Int J Proj Manage 17 2 (1999) 121-129
31. Strain J.D., and Preece D.A. Project management and the integration of human factors in military system procurement. Int J Proj Manage 17 5 (1999) 283-292
32. Dvir D. Transferring projects to their final users: the effect of planning and preparations for commissioning on project success. Int J Proj Manage 23 (2005) 257-265
33. Tysseland B.E. Life cycle cost based procurement decisions: a case study of Norwegian defence procurement projects. Int J Proj Manage 26 (2008) 366-375
34. Williams T.M. Using a risk register to integrate risk management in project definition. Int J Proj Manage 12 11 (1994) 17-22
35. Chapman C. Project risk analysis and management - PRAM the generic process. Int J Proj Manage 15 5 (1997) 273-281
36. Baldry D. The evaluation of risk management in public sector capital projects. Int J Proj Manage 16 1 (1998) 35-41
37. Klein J.H., and Cork R.B. An approach to technical risk assessment. Int J Proj Manage 16 6 (1998) 345-351
38. Baccarini D., and Archer R. The risk ranking of projects: a methodology. Int J Proj Manage 19 (2001) 139-145
39. Raz T., and Michael E. Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. Int J Proj Manage 19 (2001) 9-17
40. Ward S.C. Assessing and managing important risks. Int J Proj Manage 17 6 (1999) 331-336
41. Chapman C., and Ward S. Why risk efficiency is a key aspect of best practice projects. Int J Proj Manage 22 (2004) 619-632
42. Barber R.B. Understanding internally generated risks in projects. Int J Proj Manage 23 (2005) 584-590
43. Dvir D., Raz T., and Shenhar A.J. An empirical analysis of the relationships between project planning and project success. Int J Proj Manage 21 (2003) 89-95
44. Hillson D. Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. Int J Proj Manage 20 (2002) 235-240
45. Olsson R. In search of opportunity management: is the risk management process enough. Int J Proj Manage 25 (2007) 745-752
46. Ward S., and Chapman C. Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. Int J Proj Manage 21 (2003) 97-105
47. Chapman C. Key points of contention in framing assumptions for risk and uncertainty management. Int J Proj Manage 24 (2006) 303-313
48. Perminova O., Gustanfsson M., and Wikstrom K. Defining uncertainty in projects - a new perspectives. Int J Proj Manage 26 (2008) 73-79
49. Flyvbjerg B., Bruzelius N., and Rothengatter W. Megaprojects and risk - an anatomy of ambition (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
50. Government Accountability Office. Cost Estimating Guide: Best Practices for Estimating and Managing Program Costs, Exposure Draft, GAO-07-1134SP. Washington, DC; 2007.