Metrics
48 File views/ downloads
146 Record Views
Dissertation
Improving Defense Acquisition Process Timelines in a System Program Office
University of West Florida Libraries
Doctor of Education (EDD), University of West Florida
2023
Abstract
Historically, even with decades of attempted reform efforts, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) has a record of difficulty fielding weapons on schedule (Hinton, 2000;
Keating et al., 2018; Weisgerber, 2014). Moreover, multiple levels of Air Force leadership agreed that lengthy acquisitions were a problem that needed fixing (Air Force News Service,
2019; Pope, 2022). The review of relevant research in this study underscored the complexity of the defense acquisition system, outlined the long history of reform initiatives, and highlighted recommendations in the literature.
This study addressed the problem of unnecessary delays in defense acquisition that impeded the delivery of needs or capabilities with resulting impacts on the mission. I used the
performance improvement/Human Performance Technology (HPT) model as the roadmap and framed the analysis with the three performance levels (organization, process, performer) described by Rummler and Brache (Rummler & Brache, 2012; Rummler-Brache Group, 2022; Van Tiem et al., 2012). The three performance levels directly aligned with the three improvement areas (system, process, workforce) discovered in the research (Hinton, 2000; Peters, 2014; Reeves, 2014; Rummler & Brache, 2012; Rummler-Brache Group, 2022).
I collected performance data using a dual-response survey and semi-structured interview from a sample of 849 participants in two geographically separated organizations within the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center that are representative of the Air Force acquisition professional population (Smith, 2020; Watkins et al., 2012). From that group, 143 participants responded to the survey with a 16% participation rate at a 90% confidence level (Smith, 2020). In addition, 10 participants with similar demographics to the population volunteered for interviews.
This study analyzed organizational and environmental data using the Kaufman Organizational Elements Model and the Rothwell six-cell analysis tool, which revealed eight possible performance gaps across all three performance levels (Kaufman & Valentine, 1989; Rothwell, 2005; Rothwell et al., 2018; Rummler & Brache, 2012; Rummler-Brache Group, 2022; Watkins & Kaufman, 1996). In addition, key stakeholders participated in facilitated sessions to assign performance gap criticality and priority ratings as well as perform a Five Whys
cause analysis (Marker, 2007; Rothwell, 2005; Van Tiem et al., 2012; Watkins & Kaufman, 1996; Watkins et al., 2012). This analysis resulted in several possible causes of the high priority gap associated with teams not evaluating processes for effectiveness.
Intervention selection began after a complete and accurate performance analysis identifying the possible root causes (Langdon, 1997; Langdon et al., 1999; Sanders & Thiagarajan, 2001; Van Tiem, 2004; Van Tiem et al., 2012). The performance improvement/HPT intervention selection process was the general guide (Van Tiem et al., 2012). Additionally, I used a hybrid approach for my intervention selection process, meaning various models and methods were applied to determine the actionable and adequate root causes and interventions (Langley et al., 2009; Rothwell et al., 2018; Sanders & Thiagarajan, 2001). Specifically, I utilized the Rothwell et al.’s (2018) intervention selection process, the Sanders and Thiagarajan (2001) intervention classification system with corresponding performance intervention maps, and the Langdon et al. (1999) intervention resource guide. To design and
develop these interventions, I applied the basic process layer of the Layers of Necessity Model (Tessmer & Wedman, 1990, 1992; Wedman & Tessmer, 1990, 1991). This process resulted in a five-intervention bundle to mitigate the possible causes and close the performance gap associated with teams not evaluating processes for effectiveness.
According to Moseley and Hastings (2005), the intervention implementation phase can be a weak link in the performance improvement process. However, their four-stage implementation model mitigated that assertion. Each stage (plan, do, stabilize, and institutionalize) had the same four tasks (communication, action, auditing, and feedback) to commit to long-term institutionalized change (Moseley & Hastings, 2005; Van Tiem et al., 2012). This model was the roadmap for this study’s “pilot implementation” because it is effective with short-term interventions (Moseley & Hastings, 2005).
Evaluations are vital to an organization’s success because they provide the data needed to detect issues and opportunities for performance improvement (Giberson et al., 2006; Kaufman et al., 1996; Phillips & Phillips, 2019). The objective of this study’s evaluation was to determine if the interventions engaged and excited teams to evaluate processes for effectiveness. Several evaluation approaches (i.e., participant-oriented, expertise-oriented, objective-oriented, and decision-oriented) were used within the framework of the Kirkpatrick four-level evaluation model (Fitzpatrick et al., 2012; Keith et al., 2019; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Van Tiem et al., 2012). Based on participant feedback, no improvement actions were taken, and all objectives were met.
This dissertation in practice closes with a discussion of the study's significant conclusions and future efforts. Of note, the study validated the effectiveness of the RummlerBrache framework and the performance improvement/HPT model (Rummler & Brache, 2012; Rummler-Brache Group, 2022; Van Tiem et al., 2012). Additionally, I identified leadership,
vision, communication, and stakeholder management as critical elements needed to implement the changes successfully. Finally, this dissertation in practice concludes with an insight and reflection on my dissertation journey.
Details
- Title
- Improving Defense Acquisition Process Timelines in a System Program Office
- Resource Type
- Dissertation
- Contributors
- Charles Sherwin (Committee Member)Holley Handley (Committee Chair)
- Publisher
- University of West Florida Libraries
- Format
- pdf
- Number of pages
- 363
- Copyright
- Unpublished work © John Henry Armstrong, Jr.
- Identifiers
- 99380482293906600
- Academic Unit
- Instructional Design and Technology
- Language
- English
- Awarding Institution
- Education; University of West Florida; Doctor of Education (EDD)
- Theses and Dissertations
- Doctor of Education (EDD), University of West Florida