Savunma Projelerinin Başarısında Teknoloji Hazırlık Seviyesinin Rolü: Vaka Analiz Çalışması

Öz

Savunma projeleri çoğu zaman oldukça maliyetli ve yüksek teknolojiye ihtiyaç duyan projelerdir. Sistem tanımlanırken ortaya çıkan isterlerin karmaşıklığı kimi zaman projenin öngörülen bütçesinin aşılmasına, kimi zaman süresinin çok uzamasına bazen de projenin tamamen iptal edilmesine neden olabilmektedir. İhtiyaç duyulan savunma sisteminin ihtiyaç duyulan zamanda envantere alınamaması sistemin güncelliğini yitirmesine ve artık bir ihtiyaç olmaktan çıkmasına da neden olabilmektedir. Savunma sistemlerinin geliştirilmesinde öncü olan ülkeler teknoloji yeterlilik riski ile daha fazla karşı karşıyayken mevcut sistemleri kopyalayan ülkeler bu riske daha az maruz kalmaktadır. Savunma projelerinin geliştirilmesinde öncü ülke konumundaki ABD milyarlarca dolar harcamasına rağmen karşılaştığı sorunlar nedeniyle bazı savunma projelerini iptal edebilmekte veya başlangıçtaki tedarik miktarını oldukça azaltabilmektedir. Esasında Rusya Çin gibi ülkeler de başladıkları birçok savunma projesini iptal edebilmektedir. Ancak bu ülkelerin şeffaf olmayan yapıları ve projeleri yüksek gizlilik seviyesi ile yürütmeleri bilgiye erişimi sınırlandırmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada savunma projelerinin geliştirilmesinde öncü ülke konumunda olan ABD’de milyarlarca dolar harcandığı halde iptal edilen iki proje seçilmiş ve bu projelerin iptal nedenleri vaka çalışması yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmada teknoloji hazırlık seviyesi ile proje başarısı arasındaki ilişki incelenmektedir. Veri toplama tekniği olarak doküman incelemesi kullanılmakta olup kronolojik sıra takip edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Savunma tedarik projeleri
• tedarik
• proje yönetimi
• teknoloji hazırlık seviyesi

The Role of Technology Readiness in the Success of Defense Projects: A Case Study

Öz

Defense projects are often very costly and require high technology. The complexity of the requirements that arise while defining the system can sometimes cause the project to exceed the projected budget, sometimes lead to a very long duration and sometimes completely cancellation of the project. Failure to take the needed defense system into inventory when needed may cause the system to become outdated and no longer a necessity. Countries that are pioneers in the development of defense systems are more exposed to technology capability risk, while countries that replicate existing systems are less exposed to this risk. Although the USA, which is the leading country in the development of defense projects, spends billions of dollars, it sometimes may cancel some defense projects or reduce the initial supply considerably due to the problems it faces. In fact, countries such as Russia and China may cancel many defense projects they have started. However, the non-transparent structures of these countries and the fact that they carry out projects with a high level of confidentiality limit access to information. For this reason, two projects that were canceled even though billions of dollars were spent in the USA were selected and the reasons for the cancellation of these projects were analyzed with the case study method. In the study, the relationship between technology readiness level and project success is examined. Document analysis is used as a data collection technique and chronological order is followed.

Kaynakça

1. Kitaplar Baker BN, Murphy DC, Fisher D (2008) Factors afecting project success. Project Management Handbook, Second Edition, 902–919.
2. DAG (2017). Defense Acquisition Guidebook, U.S. Department of Defense.
3. DoD (2011). Department of Defense. Technology readiness assessment (TRA) guidebook, Washington, DC, 2011.
4. Lafont J.J. ve Martimort, D. (2002) The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton University Press, New Jersy.
5. PMI (2017). The PMI Guide to Business Analysis. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
6. Korkmaz, G., Topçu, M.K. ve Beğenirbaş, M. (2021). Savunma Tedarik Stratejileri ve Trendler. Lojistik Gelecek Doç. Dr. Mustafa Polat & Dr. Aziz Yurttaş, Nobel Akademik Yayincilik.
7. Shenhar, A.J. ve Dvir, D. (2007), Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
8. Makaleler Albert M, Balve P, Spang K (2017) Evaluation of project success: a structured literature review. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.

9. Alvarez, S.J. (2003), Project management failure: Main causes, Bo wie State University Maryland, Europe.
10. Andrews, A. M.(2001) “S&T Assessment and Analysis RRC,” briefing, November 1, 2001.
11. Becz, S., Pinto, A., Zeidner, L., Khire, R., Reeve, H. ve Banaszuk, A. (2010), “Design System for Managing Complexity Aerospace Systems”, paper presented at 10th AIAA
12. Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 13-15.09.2010, Fort Worth, Texas.
13. Bolton, C.m. (2007) Memorandum for Program Manager, Future Combat Systems (Brigade Combat Team),” January 11, 2007.
14. Bonsignore, E. (2004). Comanche terminated. NATO’s Nations & Partners for Peace Journal, 49(3), 102–106.
15. Capaccio, T. (2002). “Boeing, UTX See Positive Impact in Comanche Cut.” Bloomberg.com. October 23, 2002.
16. Crane, C.C., Lynch, M.E. ve Reilly, S. (2018) A History of the Army’s Future: 1990– 2018, Carlisle, PA: US Army Heritage and Education Center, 2018, 7, 20.
17. Davis K (2014) Diferent stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. Int J Project Manage 32(2):189–201.
18. Dubos, G.F., Saleh, J.H. ve Braun, R. (2008) Technology Readiness Level, Schedule Risk, and Slippage in Spacecraft Design. Journal of Spacecrft and Rockets 45 no: 4
19. Galindo, J.L. (2000). A Case History of The United States Army RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter. Naval Postgraduate School Master Thesis.
20. Jugdev K, Müller R (2005) A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Proj Manag J 36(4):19–31.
21. Kaeser, H.U. (2009) The Future Combat System What Future Can the Army Afford? Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS.
22. Herz, M., Krezdorn, N. (2021). Epic fail: Exploring project failure’s reasons, outcomes and indicators. Rev Manag Sci https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00479-4
23. Katz, D.R., Sarkani, S., Mazzuchi, T., ve Conrow, E.H. (2015). The relationship of technology and design maturity to DoD weapon system cost change and Schedule change during engineering and manufacturing development. Systems Engineering, 18(1), 1-15. doi:10.1111/sys.21281
24. Kwak, Y.H. ve Smith, B. (2009) Managing risks in mega defense acquisition projects: Performance, policy, and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 812–820
25. Loeb, V. (2002). “Fate of Army Chopper On The Block.” Washington Post. August 31, s.2. Mainard, J.D. (2012) RAH-66 Comanche– The Self-Inflicted Termination: Exploring the Dynamics of Change in Weapons Procurement, Defense ARJ, April 2012, Vol. 19 No. 2 : 183–208.
26. Mensah, K.E. (1997), “Critical issues in abandoned information systems development projects”, Communications of the ACM, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, September, pp. 73-80.
27. Müller R, Jugdev K (2012), Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott–the elucidation of project success. Int J Manag Proj Bus 5(4):757–775. Nardulli, B.R. ve McNaugher, T.L. (2002). “The Army: Toward the Objective Force,” in Hans Binnendijk, ed. Transforming America’s Military (National Defense University Press, 2002)
28. Papke-Shields, K.E., Beise, C. ve Quan, J., (2010). Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success? International Journal of Project Management 28 (7), 650–662.
29. Pennock, M. ve Rouse, B. (2008). The costs and risks of maturing technologies, traditional vs. evolutionary approaches. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Acquisition Research Symposium
30. Smoker, R.E., ve Smith, S. (2007) System cost growth associated with Technology Readiness Level. Journal of Parametrics, 26(1), 8-38. doi:10.1080/10157891.2007.10462276.
31. Topçu, M. K. ve Korkmaz, G. (2021). Savunma Tedarik Projelerinde Risk Yönetimi. SAVSAD Savunma ve Savaş Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31 (2) , 319-356 . DOI: 10.54078/savsad.1050484.
32. Rhaiem, K., Amara, N. (2019) Learning from innovation failures: A systematic review of the literature and research agenda. Review of Managerial Science, 1–46.
33. Turner, R. ve Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting Success on Large Projects: Developing Reliable Scales to Predict Multiple Perspectives by Multiple Stakeholders Over Multiple Time Frames. , 43(5), doi:10.1002/pmj.21289.
34. Walan, A. (2018). Application of System Maturity Level to Cost and Schedule Risk in Major DoD Programs.  The George Washington University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,  2018. 10846206.
35. Whittaker, B. (1999). What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects," Inform. Management & Comput. Security 7/1, pp. 23–29.
36. Raporlar Bolkcom, C. (2002). Army Aviation: The RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter Issue. CRS Report for Congress. RS20522
37. Bolkcom, C. (2003). Army Aviation: The RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter Issue. CRS Report for Congress (Güncellenmiş versiyon)
38. Bolkcom, C. (2003). Army Aviation: The RAH-66 Comanche Helicopter Issue. CRS Report for Congress
39. Feickert, A. (2009). The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS): Background and Issues for Congress. CRS Report for Congress. 7-5700, RL32888.
40. GAO (1992) Comanche Helicopter Program Needs Reassessment Due to Increased Unit Cost and Other Factors. GAO/NSIAD-92-204 Army’s Comanche Helicopter.
41. GAO (2001) Defense Acquisition: Comanche Program Objectives Need to Be Revised to More Achievable Levels. GAO-01-450.
42. GAO (2003) FCS Program Issues, Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, GAO-03-101-0R, August 2003.
43. GAO, (2004A) The Army’s Future Combat Systems’ Features, Risks, and Alternatives. GAO-04-635T
44. GAO (2004B) Assessments of Major Weapon Programs. GAO-04-248
45. GAO (2004C) Using A Knowledge-Based Approach to Improve Weapon Acquisition. GAO-04-386SP
46. GAO (2006). Improved Business Case Is Needed for Future Combat System’s Successful Outcome. GAO-06-367
47. GAO (2007) Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-07-406SP.
48. GAO, (2008) Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. GAO-08-467SP.
49. GAO, (2009A). Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes, GAO-09-3SP.
50. GAO, (2009B) Defense Acquisitions –Review of Future Combat System is Critical to Program’s Direction, GAO-08-638T, 10 April 2008, Summary.
51. GAO (2010) Strong Leadership Is Key to Planning and Executing Stable Weapon Programs. GAO-10-522.
52. GAO (2016A). Detailed Systems Engineering Priorto Product Development Positions Programs for Success. Washington D.C: Government Accountability Office.
53. GAO (2016B) Technology Readiness Assesment Guide. Best Practices for Evaluating the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition Programs and Projects. GAO-16- 410G
54. GAO, (2019). SPACE ACQUISITIONS DOD Faces Significant Challenges as it Seeks to Address Threats and Accelerate Space Programs, GAO-19-482T.
55. GAO (2020A) “Technology Readiness Assessment Guide.” Gao.gov, www.gao.gov/assets/710/703694.pdf. Erişim tarihi: 29.04.2022
56. GAO (2020B) Lessons Learned From Acquisition Efforts. GAO-20-490T Missile Defense Lorell, M. A., Payne, L. A., ve Mehta, K. R. (2017). Program characteristics that contribute to cost growth: A comparison of Air Force major defense acquisition programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
57. Perry, W.L. ve Millot, M.D. (1998) Issues from the 1997 Army After Next Winter Wargame, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MR-988-A, 1998.
58. RAND (2012) Lessons from the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program. RAND Corporation. OMB No. 0704-0188
59. İnternet Kaynağı Bissing, C. (2021) An Analysis of the Effects of Technology Readiness Levels on Cost Growth. Theses and Dissertations. 5030. 20 Mart 2021 tarihinde https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/5030 adresinden alınmıştır
60. Chapman, K. (2020). Aircraft Report: RAH-66 Comanche. Key.AERO. 29.04.2022 tarihinde https://www.key.aero/article/aircraft-report-rah-66-comanche’ adresinden alınmıştır
61. DOT&E (2014) Reasons Behind Program Delays 2014 Update The office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. Briefing. 29.04.2022 tarihinde https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/presentations/2014/ProgramDelaysBriefing2014_8Aug_Final-77u.pdf?ver=2019-09-03-104340-613 adresinden alınmıştır
62. Dunbar, B. (2017) “Technology Readiness Levels Demystified.” NASA, NASA. 29.04.2022 tarihinde www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html adresinden alınmıştır
63. Sandboxx News, (2022). Meet The RAH-66 Comanche: The Stealth Helicopter Built To Fight Russia. 28.04.2022 tarihinde https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/03/meet-the-rah-66-comanche-the-stealth-helicopter-built-to-fight-russia/ adresinden alınmıştır
64. Schrader, E. (2004) Army Cancels Comanche Helicopter, Los Angeles Times. 29.04.2022 tarihinde https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-feb-24-na-comanche24-story.html adresinden alınmıştır