Originally Posted by
Bigbux
Hi PDR
thanks for the reply. You raise some really interesting points and its nice to see that some hard data has been generated in favour of co-operation. Ultimately, (after requirements gathering) a contract is only ever a start point and after 5 years or so, it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Some of the examples you describe really are at the difficult end - an F-35 programme for instance, as opposed to generating a refurbished KC135. I'm going to ponder further on your post
I tend to get a bit passionate about this one (which is how the dissertation ended up at 54,000 words!) and it kinda suited my general outlook on life to challenge the assumption that competition is always a "good thing", although that wasn't where I intended to go when I started it.
One of my core findings was that, in an availability/capability contract, if you observe that the KPIs drive the behaviours it follows that the KPIs influence system performance - ergo they are actually PART of the system. It therefore follows that KPI Design is an engineering activity which needs as much science, rigour and care as (say) the design of the low-observability solution. In hindsight this is glaringly obvious, but when initially suggested to people (both in the MoD and in Industry) it was treated as heresy. The initial response was that KPIs were a purely commercial issue and engineers should stay away from them...
PDR