The Frontiers of Project Management Research

The EARP is sponsored by the DAU and managed by the NPS. The mission of the EARP is to dramatically increase the quality and quantity of acquisition research, in addition to expanding the base of researchers interested in topics germane to defense acquisition and producing new, relevant knowledge, solutions, and technologies from a variety of disciplines. The program targets the top researchers at leading universities outside the DoD and its customary sphere of influence and support, but is open to all institutions capable of top-quality acquisition research. To summarize, the EARP has been designed to focus on seven principal objectives.

1. Raise the quality and quantity of relevant acquisition research.

2. Catalyze a broad and robust external acquisition research program.

3. Involve top researchers and institutions in research germane to defense acquisition.

4. Augment and complement current acquisition research activities.

5. Disseminate relevant, impactful results to researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners.

6. Integrate research with education, training, and practice in acquisition.

7. Establish and maintain a community of academic and professional acquisition scholars.

University Focus

One obvious approach to the problems noted above is to get trained academics from leading universities involved in acquisition research. Although few universities aside from the NPS have specific groups or departments that are devoted to acquisition research today, relevant work can be obtained from a number of potential reference disciplines, including (alphabetically) Economics, Finance, Information Systems, Law, Logistics, Operations Research, Organizational Behavior, Public Policy, and others; and unlike acquisition, per se, these reference disciplines are represented by established groups and departments at most universities.

The key is that university academics must be interested in their topics of research and they must be able to publish the results in leading academic journals. Thus, the problem is not so much one of funding acquisition research—although some funding is certainly required to catalyze a robust acquisition research program. Rather, the key is motivating the participation of top academics at leading universities and guiding them to adapt their current research streams to also address the needs of our acquisition community. This represents a problem for which the NPS possesses a unique capability to address.

As a leading research institution itself, NPS experience suggests this kind of motivation and guidance (i.e., leadership) can best be accomplished at the peer level, and NPS represents the only DoD institution possessing the research capability, reputation, and personnel necessary to lead the top universities as a peer research organization. This leadership takes on two principal modes: 1) bridging, brokering, and guidance, and 2) leadership by example. Bridging, brokering, and guidance pertains to peer-level assistance with the problem of adapting current research streams at external universities to focus on acquisition research problems, future as well as current; helping to provide relevant context, background, knowledge, and information about the acquisition domain; matching research capabilities with DoD professional needs, and vice versa; and facilitating access to DoD personnel, systems, processes, and tools for purposes of research.

Leading by example requires NPS to remain active in producing scholarly acquisition research and publications. For example, such leadership can be effected by producing some of the key, seminal articles that add to the body of knowledge in acquisition. Through refereed publication, such articles can become widely available to researchers and practitioners, and they may be used to set a standard in terms of high research quality, along with helping to establish prudent topical directions and methods for external research in the university community.

Process and Organization

The process supporting the EARP has a heavy seasonal component coupled with a smaller perennial counterpart. Five seasonal activities are performed each year: 1) establishing and refining a target list of research topics for the year; 2) advertising and soliciting proposals from leading universities and other research institutions; 3) forming an independent, interdisciplinary team to review the research proposals; 4) selecting the subset of research proposals for award and provide feedback on all submittals; 5) evaluating the research results and helping disseminate through the acquisition and academic communities. The perennial activities include: 1) ongoing program management and program marketing, which is perhaps the most important role; 2) grant/contract and office administration; and 3) providing DoD access to researchers along with the kinds of bridging, brokering, and acquisition guidance mentioned above.

The organization designed to manage the EARP can be described at two levels: 1) Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) and 2) Working-Level IPT (WIPT), as depicted in Figure 3. The center point of the OIPT, which is responsible for policy and high-level direction of the research program, is represented by the DAU President and the Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition Reform (AR), both of whom report to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD [AT&L]). This OIPT also includes acquisition executives from research, military, and commercial organizations, with members drawn principally from the DAU Board of Visitors (BoV). The OIPT provides guidance to the WIPT, which centers on the Executive Agent.

Figure 3: EARP Organization

The WIPT reports to the DAU President and also includes members from research, commercial, and military acquisition organizations. OIPT members often nominate people from their own organizations to serve on this WIPT, and the BoV has representation through liaison with the WIPT. This OIPT-WIPT structure bears considerable resemblance to the kinds of organizations that now represent the state of the practice in defense acquisition. The Executive Agent is comprised mainly of a few part-time, research-oriented officials, augmented by a host of qualified people from universities, commercial industry, and the DoD. The Executive Agent organization accomplishes the seasonal and perennial activities mentioned above.

Research Topics

The research topics for the program were generated by an integrated group of acquisition researchers, professionals, and executives from leading universities, industry, and government. Topics were categorized as either management, applied, developmental, exploratory, or basic. Following are brief descriptions of each category and selected research topics for each.

Management

This category addresses organizational, policy, and people issues with research topics such as:

1. What processes should an acquisition organization measure in order to reflect efficiency, and how unique are various acquisition activities with respect to the processes measured and tracked?

2. What should be the authority and responsibilities of a Life Cycle Program Manager, and how should horizontal management be maintained in a product-managed organization?

3. How to calculate the impact of cycle time reductions with respect to other project aspects (e.g., cost, performance) in development efforts?

The first question addresses process measurement, a key element of quality. We need to understand which processes in acquisition organizations are crucial to providing quality service and products. Further, since activities of acquisition organizations vary widely (e.g., testing, contracting), each type of organization may likely have a different set of critical processes. The second question addresses the concept of a single individual managing an acquisition program from start to finish. This provides leadership and management continuity through the various acquisition phases, in contrast to the usual 2-3 year tenure of DoD program managers. The corresponding issue of horizontal (e.g., cross-functional) management would likely become more acute if other program participants (e.g., engineers, planners, testers) also remained on a single program for extended periods of time. The third topic relates to the common saying, "time is money." We seek to understand and quantify monetary savings for each increment of cycle-time reduction. And we need to understand the implications in terms of performance, particularly if reducing cycle time requires a corresponding performance compromise.

Applied

The applied category addresses operational application and the study of feasible concepts, processes, and technologies. Topics include:

1. How to adopt price-based acquisition, for example, eliminating cost type contracting and its attendant bureaucracy (Cost Accounting Standards, cost principles, cost-based valuation), and value acquisitions through market and price analysis?

2. How can a customer rely on the market to determine prices when there are only a few large suppliers (e.g., oligopoly) and only one buyer (e.g., monopsony)?

3. How can life-cycle costs be effectively measured and evaluated?

The first question addresses application of a market-based commercial pricing practice to DoD acquisitions, in contrast to the cost-based manner in which defense acquisitions are typically valued. The second question complements the first, in that the defense industry does not reflect true markets throughout. For instance, many large and advanced weapon systems (e.g., aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, tanks) have only one or two suppliers capable of their design and manufacture, and the government represents the only buyer of most such weapons. This begs the economic question of how market-based pricing can be effected in such an environment. The third research question seeks to apply cost measurement across all phases of the acquisition life cycle and understand how best to evaluate the resulting measures.

Developmental

The developmental category addresses feasibility demonstrations of new concepts, processes, and technologies, but without operational implementation, as with applied research. Research questions in this category include:

1. What are the implications of privatization of acquisition functions?

2. What are the various implications of consolidating defense acquisition processes into a single DoD (or non-DoD) system?

3. How can the life-cycle process be modeled to determine the optimal level of program concurrency?

The first question considers the feasibility and implications of outsourcing acquisition functions (e.g., procurement, contracting, testing) that have traditionally been performed by military and governmental personnel. Such outsourcing is increasingly practiced by commercial firms. Similarly, process consolidation (e.g., eliminating service and geographical differences) seeks economies of scale and scope, but the feasibility of this concept is questionable, thus requiring investigation. The third research question seeks to develop analytical models for various acquisition programs and employ such models to optimize the level of concurrency (e.g., simultaneous development and test, test and production) for each specific acquisition.

Exploratory

Research questions in this category address promising new concepts, processes, and technologies in order to assess their potential in terms of desirability, utility, or payoff, but they do not assess their feasibility, as with developmental research. They include the following:

1. To what extent can (and should) private sector systems/processes be adapted for the public sector?

2. What enterprise activities, strategies, processes, and organizational forms may facilitate more effective government/contractor relationships in today's evolving acquisition environment?

3. What models and process innovations are available to improve the performance of acquisition processes?

One overarching theme of many of the topics above is a focus on commercial practices. Indeed, many of the developmental, applied, and management research questions pertain to the feasibility, adaptation, and employment of commercial practices to defense acquisition processes and systems. But this presumes that commercial practices are inherently better than their DoD counterparts, and they are suitable for defense application. We have yet to identify definitive research to support such putative superiority or suitability; and the first exploratory research question seeks to investigate these aspects of systems and processes from the private sector.

The second question addresses inter-organizational relationships between the military/government and commercial suppliers. In industry, customers are consolidating their supplier bases and forming closer alliances with fewer vendors. In many such cases, performance gains in efficiency, efficacy, speed, and agility have been noted. This question explores how the government may establish and benefit from similar, closer relationships with suppliers.

The third question addresses process innovation and seeks to explore how acquisition processes can reap the benefits of quantum, order-of-magnitude performance gains. Many firms in the private sector have reported such quantum gains through business process reengineering, but it is unclear how to effect such reengineering in the domain of defense acquisition.

Basic

Research questions in the basic category pursue fundamental knowledge, but without promise in terms of potential utility or payoff, as with exploratory research. For example:

1. How can we better understand what "acquisition" is (e.g., its nature, scope, and boundaries)? What are the different dimensions/contexts (e.g., technological, political, military, business), issues, and questions that define "defense acquisition", and how do these interrelate?

2. What are the central research questions to be answered through a program of inquiry in the acquisition domain?

3. Does the acquisition field merit scholarly inquiry?

Despite our simple operationalization of the term acquisition above, broad and informal use of the term is accompanied by a wide diversity of definitions and conceptualizations. In order to conduct a program of inquiry in an area such as acquisition, it is important to understand what that area involves and includes. The first basic research question addresses this issue and is somewhat introspective. The second and third basic research questions are even more introspective, as they seek to identify the central acquisition research questions and assess the extent to which scholarly inquiry should even be undertaken for acquisition as a field.

Curiously, most existing research activity is being undertaken on the more applied topics discussed previously. But we have yet to develop a common definition of "acquisition", to identify the central research questions associated with the phenomenon, or to even determine whether it merits scholarly inquiry through research. Clearly, the answers to such basic questions will directly influence and permeate through the entire set of more applied questions, exploratory through management.

Status and Plans

At the time of this writing, EARP is in its third year. After more than a year of planning and preparation, the program was funded beginning in 1999 to solicit and engage top researchers from leading universities in topics of interest to the acquisition community. A Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is used to formally advertise the program.

During 1999, five research awards were made; twelve grants were approved in 2000; but in 2001, only six awards were made. A leadership change at the DAU shifted its perspective on acquisition research, and many top researchers working on grants in 2000 were not retained in the 2001 program. DAU funding in 2001 is also down considerably from planned levels, which inhibits the EARP's growth potential.

Since the beginning of 2001, the emphasis has been on creating a stronger link between EARP research and DoD acquisition research priorities. A key program goal will be to closely associate the researchers from the six 2001 projects with DoD agencies that have a direct interest in the research being conducted.

A significant improvement for the EARP has been the development and release of a website, at <http://www.nps.navy.mil/earp>. Research reports are now posted as they are received, and reference materials for prospective and current researchers are provided. The creation of the website is part of the effort being made by NPS to build bridges between researchers and DoD agencies.

The complex nature of the BAA, which also does not provide a clear indication of DoD acquisition research priorities to prospective researchers, is a key concern. Thus, the BAA is being rewritten by requesting comments from many interested parties, including current and past EARP researchers. Another planned change will be advertising the BAA in professional and academic publications, rather than only posting the solicitation on CBDNet. This should broaden our exposure and better reach the target academic audience.

We believe that with changes such as those described previously, we will receive a large number of high-quality, relevant research proposals during 2002, the fourth year of the program, and beyond. Furthermore, EARP stands to become a very exciting tool for supporting DoD's acquisition research requirements. We are also closely following the evolving strategic direction of the new administration, which will be reflected in the 2002 BAA. As with any sponsored program, however, the key lies in satisfying the sponsor, whose views may not be congruent currently with the broad goals of the program. Given the recent changes in DAU leadership and acquisition-research perspective, this represents a challenging issue that potentially impacts the EARP.