Schwartz Now Expects a Cost Breach on JSF

[Rubicks13]

Well it was bound to happen. First he says no overrun then we have an over run.

JFS reversal from General Norton Schwartz (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abeeb2766-2716-4993-a106-92de8bb38bd9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest).

[TheTiresome1]

First Rules of Project Management ....

1. Extend ISD by at least 5-10 years, due to "all sorts of excuses".

2. Cost increase at least 50%, often nearer 100%.

The same always applies, whether it's a Defence Dog-Kennel, Base Housing or the latest soooper aircraft.

Curiously, that lesson never seems to get learned. :uhoh:

[the funky munky]

It all depends on which DEC, correction, Hd of Cap you are dealing with. Most of them need a tame "chap" to tie their shoe laces. I am talking about the majority of these good 1*s infecting MB not just JSF.

When they come to you and say "oh no we want capabilty X delivered for y spondoolicks and how dare you ask for any more, don't you know we have had some consultant work the figures up and they are robust and accurate because it cost us £Zs so it must be right!" (what a crock!)

So when you have looked at what they have dictated needs to be fitted, beg pardon. Removed all fat, then all useful capability to fit the cost. Checked the costs with the real world, then twisted the manufacturers arm and those costs come out at a fairly robust level of certainty. Then you factor in risk and uncertainty and they say oh you oik why is it £xxxx over what our expensive consultant dictated it would be well yes I am rather put out!

I think some clear expectation management is needed. To get a lot of these capabilities in requires a large amount of investment to reduce the technical risks, hearing that some guru can just create a project cost for a certain cost just makes me want to ring up the Daily Wail!

Plus the only reason the ISD is so far out is because of some Treasury d**k dance where Darlings boys and girls have said you can only have this much money for your new toy.... grrrr that is my frustration. Then they have the audacity to say well you are just being difficult because you are too close to the project........feckers!

[OFBSLF]

First Rules of Project Management ....

1. Extend ISD by at least 5-10 years, due to "all sorts of excuses".

2. Cost increase at least 50%, often nearer 100%.
You forgot the remaining steps:

3. Grand poobah retires or changes jobs before the chickens come home to roost.

4. New grand poobah blames all the problems on the previous grand poobah.

5. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

TheTiresome1. In our system, there’s an incentive to do the opposite. Before authorising the release of any funds, the Treasury likes to hear good news and see small numbers. Bad news (or even realistic news) has a tendency to soil the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s underwear and slam his wallet shut. Only once a programme/project has been approved and has commenced is it “sensible” to drip feed truth and reality.

[tucumseh]

GBZ

Very true. But not just the Treasury. There is a notorious cadre at AbbeyWood who think System Integration is an unacceptable risk and have been known to demand cancellation if it is even mentioned in supporting papers. I know one guy who took over a project and promptly waived the contractual requirement to integrate complex systems, thinking this constituted risk mitigation. He still paid the contractor in full, who of course were delighted. (The subsequent Board of Inquiry wasn't told this). Those who think it unavoidable know not to mention the dreaded phrase.