Such a complex issue and how to sum it up in a few paragraphs. Having spent years in requirements and test I don't have the answer.
I had one project that was well defined (both requirement and spec) and small enough to be able to be developed on time on cost. On delivery it worked. It had issues but basically it was sound. It was a National programme.
Now take Typhoon. The aircraft was designed as an air to air aircraft with a ground attack secondary capability, although UK was the only country pushing for that secondary capability from the early days. The ISD when I joined the project was 1996 with one approved slip of up to 2 years. It was to use state of the art technology - in other words off the shelf - and the company would write the specs and development would be "hands off" to avoid requirement creep. Throw in politics; the Germans delayed their requiremnts by years, add the usual development problems such as flying control software that didn't work and we see an actual ISD of 2005. Remember that at one time it was called Eurofighter 2000? Add to that orders from the nations that are then trimmed back pushing up the unit cost because of a smaller buy.
You can't keep hundreds of companies active over a 9 year delay and expect to come in on cost. Such a delay also builds in obsolescence both in components and requirement. There was a minor change in circumstances during that period as "The Wall" fell. How can such events be ignored during an aquisition and expect still to have a platform that meets the operational need?
Until we have punitive payments for delays and built in "mid development upgrades" to keep the design relevant and viable, we won't make progress. We also need a contracts branch who write tight contracts that the company can't just ignore.
That said, fixed price contracts do not work. Unforseen problems in a complex development are inevitable. Fixed price means that either the cost is renegotiated or the additional expense is camouflaged. Companies will always protect their profit so if the price stays the same, corners are cut elsewhere. In my experience that was things like operational testing so the "short cuts" remain undetected for longer and the effectiveness suffers. To solve this some form of closely monitored fixed price plus system is needed with a contingency built in to the contract funding.
I could go on for hours but still not come up with a solution. That said, I'm sure the Governments aim is not to deliver more effective equipment, rather to save money, Cheap, invariably, is not effective.
Last edited by Geehovah; 21st Feb 2011 at 17:57.