Quote:
Originally Posted by Galrahn
- With little schedule flexibility from the outset, the program was significantly impacted by the insertion of new shipbuilding standards and build specifications (shortly after contract award and at the conclusion of Final Design) that introduced extensive changes, above those expected for a lead ship. The Naval Vessel Rules introduced over 14,000 new technical requirements which required review and adjudication to determine applicability to the Lockheed Martin LCS design. This in turn drove many of the over 600 engineering changes on the lead ship.
|
IMHO, one huge source of cost overruns is the changing of the original design specification, leading to costly redesigns and delays. Its happened with the LCS. (And why did they decide to grandfather the changes? Where they that important?) The constantly changing capabilities and roles of the DD(X) & its predessors has led to overruns with those programs. THere are many more examples and they are not confined to the Navy.
Why do specifications change? I have a few ideas.
1. THe constant changing of military program managers as they move from post to post or are promoted out of their job. The new guy wants to put his stamp on the project or has a different idea/philosophy and makes a change.
2. Poorly written contracts that leave out specific capabilities or word them so poorly that the original intent is not met, requiring a change to achieve the intent. Working in the industry, I've seen this first hand. The contractor did everything (and more) that was directed by the contract, but there was not enough money to do everything that was desired as the contractor did not budget for them. In addition, the lack of specifics in certain areas meant that while the contract was fulfilled, we had to do a lot of extra work on our end to make everything fit properly.
3. The next gee whiz gadget or idea comes along and they want to include it in the base production ship.
I am sure that there are others. Here are a couple possible solutions:
1. Keep PMs on longer to improve stability. Fire those that don't perform. Do not let specifications change unless approved by higher. Now this will reduce flexibility a lot, but it will hopefully save some money.
2. Improve your contracts writing process. Pay these people more and attract better & brighter people, plus add more of them. They are chronically overworked and have to rush what they do to get to everything.
3. Revolutionary costs money, see F22. Evolutionary brings capability increases without breaking the bank. Hold off from including every new capability that comes along. Design your hull to accomodate improvements and buy them later when they are fully researched, designed, and fielded.
Some discipline needs to be incorporated into the shipbuilding process or we will spend ourselves out of a Navy.