Derleme
PDF Mendeley EndNote BibTex Kaynak Göster

Risk Management in Defense Acquisiton Projects

Yıl 2021, Cilt 31, Sayı 2, 319 - 356, 30.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.54078/savsad.1050484

Öz

Changes in the defense ecosystem due to internal and external factors have made risk-oriented approach, which is a state-of-the-art management technique, mandatory in the management of defense acquisiton projects. However, studies in the international literature have shown that risk management is not adopted by project managers as much as techniques such as work breakdown structure, scheduling or earned value management. Yet, it’s observed that studies increase after 2000s. On the other hand, studies on risk management in defense acquisiton projects are scarce in the national literature. Few studies seem to concentrate on technical risks. From this point of view, by examining the reports on the defense acquisition projects of the United States, the risks were tried to be defined and the action recommendations applied for risk mitigation were compiled. As a result, recommendations were made for the management of national defense acquisition projects in the light of the information obtained from the reviewed reports. The recommendations include, but not limited to, employment of risk managemet in project management, provision of adequate information required by decision-makers at decision points, introduction of knowledge based and evolutionary acquisition strategies, and utilization of system engineering approach.

Kaynakça

  • Allen, M., Carpenter, C., Hutchins, M. ve Jones, G. (2015). Impact of risk management on project cost: An industry comparison. Journal of IT and Economic Development 6(2), 1-19.
  • Bourne, L. ve Walker, D. H. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence—two Australian examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5–21.
  • Carlson, C., Groebel, D. J. ve Mettas, A. (2010). Best practices for effective reliability program plans. 2010 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. San Jose, CA, .
  • Choi, T.M., Chiu, C.H. ve Chan, H.K. C. (2016). Risk management of logistics systems. Transportation Research Part E 90 , 1-6.
  • Cooley, W. T. ve Ruhm, B. C. (2014). A guide for DoD program managers. Defense Acquisition University.
  • Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir bir tedarik yönetim sistemi örneğinde, askeri turbofan motor geliştirme projelerindeki maliyet tahmin yöntemleri ve teknoloji hazırlık seviyesi tabanlı risk faktörleri. Sürdürülebilir Havacılık Araştırmaları Dergisi, C1-S1, 12-18.
  • Eren, Ö. ve Erenel, F. (2018). The applicability of program management approach in the defense acquisition projects in order to avoid deviations. İnsan&İnsan, Yıl 5, Sayı 17, 163-193.
  • Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. ve Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk–an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  • Gansler, J. S. ve Lucyshyn, W. (2005). A strategy for defense acquisition research. Research Paper, University of Maryland, Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise.
  • Gürkan, H. (2010). Hava Kuvvetlerinin ana savunma sistem tedarikinde proje yönetimi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • GAO (2001). DOD Teaming practices not achieving potential results. United States General Accounting Office.
  • GAO (2002a). Defense acquisition, steps to improve the crusader program’s investment decisions, GAO -02-201. Washington D.C.: Goverment Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2002b). Capturing design and manufacturing knowledge early improves acquisition outcomes. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO. (2004a). Stronger management practices are needed to improve DoD's software intensive weapon acquisitions. Washington: Goverment Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2006a). Space acquisitions: DOD needs to take more action to address unrealistic initial cost estimates of space systems, GAO-07-96. Washington: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2007). Defense acquisitions: Assessments of selected weapons programs GAO-07-406SP. Washington, DC;: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2008). Defense acquisitions: 2009 is a critical juncture for the army’s future combat system, GAO-08-408. Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2010a). DOD business transformation: Improved management oversight of business system modernization efforts needed, GAO-11-53. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2010b). DOD can achieve better outcomes by standardizing the way manufacturing risks are managed. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2010c). Best practices: DOD can achieve better outcomes by standardizing the way manufacturing risks are managed, GAO-10-439. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2015a). Assessments of selected weapon programs. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2015b). Best practices for project schedules GAO-16-89G. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2016a). Best practices for evaluating the readiness of technology for use in acquisition programs and projects GAO-14-410G. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2016b). Weapon system requirements: Detailed systems engineering prior to product development positions programs for success, GAO-17-77. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2017). Assessments of selected weapon programs. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2018a). Knowledge gaps pose risks to sustaining recent positive trends. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2018b). GAO, Weapon system sustainment: Selected air force and navy aircraft generally have not met availability goals, and DOD and navy guidance need to be clarified, GAO-18-678. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2019). Weapon systems annual assessment limited use of knowledge-based practices continues to undercut DOD’s Investments. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020a). Defense acquisition annual assesment. US Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020b). Best practices for developing and managing program costs. Washington: government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020c). MISSILE DEFENSE lessons learned from acquisition efforts. United States Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020ç). F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER actions needed to address manufacturing and modernization risks. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020d). Senior leaders should emphasize key practices to improve weapon system reliability. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • Georgiev, V. (2010). Modeling defense acquisition strategy. Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes , 53-68.
  • Karadadaş, E. (2007). A risk management method for a Turkish defence industry firm. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Karataş, R. (2000). Risk management in military acquisition projects: A quality function deployment approach. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Kundu, O. (2019). Risks in defence procurement: India in the 21st century. Defence and Peace Economics, DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2019.1646443
  • Kwak, Y. H. ve Smith, B. M. (2009). Managing risks in mega defense acquisition projects:Performance, policy, and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management 27 , 812-820.
  • Lorell, M. A., Payne, L. A. ve Mehta, K. (2017). Program characteristics that contribute to cost growth: A comparison of Air Force major defense acquisitionprograms. RAND Corporation.
  • Mortlock, R. F. (2020). Studying acquisition strategy formulation of incremental development approaches. Defense ARJ, Vol. 27 No. 3 , 264-311.
  • Pennock, M. J. (2015). Defense acquisition: A tragedy of the commons. Systems Engineering Vol. 18, No. 4, , 349-364.
  • Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 5th Press. . Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
  • PMI (2017). The PMI guide to business analysis. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
  • Raz, T., Senbar, A. J. ve Divir, D. (2002). Tzvi Raz, risk management, project success and technological uncertainty. R&D and Management , 101-109.
  • Riposo, J., McKernan, M. ve Duran, C. (2014). Prolonged cycle times and schedule growth in defense acquisition: A literature review. RAND Corporation.
  • Riposo, J., McKernan, M. ve Kaihoi, C. (2014). Prolonged cycle times and schedule growth in defense acquisition: A literature review. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-455-OSD.
  • Smith, J., Egglestone, G., Farr, P., Moon, T., Saunders, D., Shoubridge, P., Thalassoudis, K. ve Wallace, T. (2004). Technical risk assessment of Australian defence projects. Avutralya Savunma Bakanlığı: Savunma Sistemleri Analiz Bölümü, DSTO-TR-1656.
  • Topcu, M . (2021). Savunma tedarik proje yönetiminde entegre proje ekiplerinin kullanımına yönelik bir model önerisi. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, (39), 211-248. DOI: 10.17134/khosbd.913768
  • Turner, R. (2002). A Study of best practice adoption by defense acquisition programs. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering , 1-8.

SAVUNMA TEDARİK PROJELERİNDE RİSK YÖNETİMİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt 31, Sayı 2, 319 - 356, 30.12.2021
https://doi.org/10.54078/savsad.1050484

Öz

Savunma ekosisteminde içsel ve dışsal faktörlere bağlı olarak yaşanan değişimler savunma tedarik projelerinin yönetiminde güncel bir yönetim tekniği olan risk odaklı yaklaşımı zorunlu hâle getirmiştir. Ancak, uluslararası alanyazında yer alan çalışmalar, risk yönetiminin proje yöneticileri tarafından, iş kırılım yapısı, zaman çizelgeleme ya da kazanılmış değer yönetimi gibi teknikler kadar benimsenmediğini göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, 2000’li yıllardan itibaren bu konuda yapılan çalışmaların arttığı gözlemlenmektedir. Diğer taraftan ulusal alanyazında savunma tedarik projelerinde risk yönetimini ele alan çalışmalar yok denecek kadar azdır. Birkaç çalışmanın teknik riskler üzerinde yoğunlaştığı görülmektedir. Buradan hareketle Amerika Birleşik Devletleri savunma tedarik projelerine ilişkin raporlar incelenerek riskler tanımlanmaya ve risk azaltma için uygulanan faaliyet önerileri derlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak incelenen raporlardan elde edilen bilgiler ışığında ulusal savunma tedarik projelerinin yönetimi için önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Bu öneriler içerisinde ön plana çıkanlar: proje yönetiminde risk yönetim yaklaşımının kullanılması, karar vericilere projelerin karar noktalarında ihtiyaç duydukları yeterli bilginin sağlanması, bilgi tabanlı tedarik ve evrimsel tedarik yöntemlerinin kullanılması ve sistem mühendisliği yaklaşımından istifade edilmesidir.

Kaynakça

  • Allen, M., Carpenter, C., Hutchins, M. ve Jones, G. (2015). Impact of risk management on project cost: An industry comparison. Journal of IT and Economic Development 6(2), 1-19.
  • Bourne, L. ve Walker, D. H. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence—two Australian examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5–21.
  • Carlson, C., Groebel, D. J. ve Mettas, A. (2010). Best practices for effective reliability program plans. 2010 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. San Jose, CA, .
  • Choi, T.M., Chiu, C.H. ve Chan, H.K. C. (2016). Risk management of logistics systems. Transportation Research Part E 90 , 1-6.
  • Cooley, W. T. ve Ruhm, B. C. (2014). A guide for DoD program managers. Defense Acquisition University.
  • Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir bir tedarik yönetim sistemi örneğinde, askeri turbofan motor geliştirme projelerindeki maliyet tahmin yöntemleri ve teknoloji hazırlık seviyesi tabanlı risk faktörleri. Sürdürülebilir Havacılık Araştırmaları Dergisi, C1-S1, 12-18.
  • Eren, Ö. ve Erenel, F. (2018). The applicability of program management approach in the defense acquisition projects in order to avoid deviations. İnsan&İnsan, Yıl 5, Sayı 17, 163-193.
  • Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N. ve Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk–an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  • Gansler, J. S. ve Lucyshyn, W. (2005). A strategy for defense acquisition research. Research Paper, University of Maryland, Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise.
  • Gürkan, H. (2010). Hava Kuvvetlerinin ana savunma sistem tedarikinde proje yönetimi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • GAO (2001). DOD Teaming practices not achieving potential results. United States General Accounting Office.
  • GAO (2002a). Defense acquisition, steps to improve the crusader program’s investment decisions, GAO -02-201. Washington D.C.: Goverment Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2002b). Capturing design and manufacturing knowledge early improves acquisition outcomes. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO. (2004a). Stronger management practices are needed to improve DoD's software intensive weapon acquisitions. Washington: Goverment Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2006a). Space acquisitions: DOD needs to take more action to address unrealistic initial cost estimates of space systems, GAO-07-96. Washington: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2007). Defense acquisitions: Assessments of selected weapons programs GAO-07-406SP. Washington, DC;: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2008). Defense acquisitions: 2009 is a critical juncture for the army’s future combat system, GAO-08-408. Washington, D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2010a). DOD business transformation: Improved management oversight of business system modernization efforts needed, GAO-11-53. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2010b). DOD can achieve better outcomes by standardizing the way manufacturing risks are managed. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2010c). Best practices: DOD can achieve better outcomes by standardizing the way manufacturing risks are managed, GAO-10-439. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2015a). Assessments of selected weapon programs. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2015b). Best practices for project schedules GAO-16-89G. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2016a). Best practices for evaluating the readiness of technology for use in acquisition programs and projects GAO-14-410G. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2016b). Weapon system requirements: Detailed systems engineering prior to product development positions programs for success, GAO-17-77. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2017). Assessments of selected weapon programs. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2018a). Knowledge gaps pose risks to sustaining recent positive trends. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2018b). GAO, Weapon system sustainment: Selected air force and navy aircraft generally have not met availability goals, and DOD and navy guidance need to be clarified, GAO-18-678. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2019). Weapon systems annual assessment limited use of knowledge-based practices continues to undercut DOD’s Investments. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020a). Defense acquisition annual assesment. US Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020b). Best practices for developing and managing program costs. Washington: government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020c). MISSILE DEFENSE lessons learned from acquisition efforts. United States Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020ç). F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER actions needed to address manufacturing and modernization risks. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • GAO (2020d). Senior leaders should emphasize key practices to improve weapon system reliability. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office.
  • Georgiev, V. (2010). Modeling defense acquisition strategy. Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes , 53-68.
  • Karadadaş, E. (2007). A risk management method for a Turkish defence industry firm. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Karataş, R. (2000). Risk management in military acquisition projects: A quality function deployment approach. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Yeditepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Kundu, O. (2019). Risks in defence procurement: India in the 21st century. Defence and Peace Economics, DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2019.1646443
  • Kwak, Y. H. ve Smith, B. M. (2009). Managing risks in mega defense acquisition projects:Performance, policy, and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management 27 , 812-820.
  • Lorell, M. A., Payne, L. A. ve Mehta, K. (2017). Program characteristics that contribute to cost growth: A comparison of Air Force major defense acquisitionprograms. RAND Corporation.
  • Mortlock, R. F. (2020). Studying acquisition strategy formulation of incremental development approaches. Defense ARJ, Vol. 27 No. 3 , 264-311.
  • Pennock, M. J. (2015). Defense acquisition: A tragedy of the commons. Systems Engineering Vol. 18, No. 4, , 349-364.
  • Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 5th Press. . Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
  • PMI (2017). The PMI guide to business analysis. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
  • Raz, T., Senbar, A. J. ve Divir, D. (2002). Tzvi Raz, risk management, project success and technological uncertainty. R&D and Management , 101-109.
  • Riposo, J., McKernan, M. ve Duran, C. (2014). Prolonged cycle times and schedule growth in defense acquisition: A literature review. RAND Corporation.
  • Riposo, J., McKernan, M. ve Kaihoi, C. (2014). Prolonged cycle times and schedule growth in defense acquisition: A literature review. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-455-OSD.
  • Smith, J., Egglestone, G., Farr, P., Moon, T., Saunders, D., Shoubridge, P., Thalassoudis, K. ve Wallace, T. (2004). Technical risk assessment of Australian defence projects. Avutralya Savunma Bakanlığı: Savunma Sistemleri Analiz Bölümü, DSTO-TR-1656.
  • Topcu, M . (2021). Savunma tedarik proje yönetiminde entegre proje ekiplerinin kullanımına yönelik bir model önerisi. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, (39), 211-248. DOI: 10.17134/khosbd.913768
  • Turner, R. (2002). A Study of best practice adoption by defense acquisition programs. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering , 1-8.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sosyal
Bölüm SAVSAD Savunma ve Savaş Araştırmaları Dergisi Aralık 2021
Yazarlar

Mustafa Kemal TOPÇU Bu kişi benim (Sorumlu Yazar)
KARA HARP OKULU KOMUTANLIĞI, KARA HARP OKULU (DEKANLIK)
0000-0002-3298-1283
Türkiye


Göksel KORKMAZ Bu kişi benim
MİLLİ SAVUNMA BAKANLIĞI
0000-0002-2789-2657
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Aralık 2021
Yayınlandığı Sayı Yıl 2021, Cilt 31, Sayı 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Topçu, M. K. & Korkmaz, G. (2021). SAVUNMA TEDARİK PROJELERİNDE RİSK YÖNETİMİ . SAVSAD Savunma ve Savaş Araştırmaları Dergisi , 31 (2) , 319-356 . DOI: 10.54078/savsad.1050484