Rate this page's content:   poor

excellent

The tables below show the response profiles for software acquisition practice effectiveness that make up Turner’s analysis of the 9 original Airlie practices.  For more details and background, please review/download the Turner dissertation.

Respondents to the Effectiveness Survey

Programs Reported by Service and ACAT Designation

·   ACAT – Acquisition CATegory

·   ACAT I:  An acquisition program that is not highly sensitive or classified (as determined by SecDef) and is designated by USD(A&T) as a Major Defense Acquisition (MDA) Program, or estimated by USD(A&T) to require an eventual total expenditure for RDT&E of more than $335M in FY96 constant dollars or, for procurement, of more than $2.135B in FY96 constant dollars.

·   ACAT II:  An acquisition program that does not meet ACAT I criteria, but does meet the criteria for a major system, or is a program designated ACAT II by the MDA.  A system is considered a major system if it is estimated by a DoD Component Head to require an eventual expenditure for RDT&E of more than $135M in FY96 constant dollars  or, for procurement, of more than $640M in FY96 constant dollars, or if designated by a DoD Component Head.

·   ACAT III:  An acquisition program that does not meet the criteria for an ACAT I, ACAT IA or ACAT II program.

·   OTHER:  Any acquisition program that is not designated with an ACAT level

Percentage of Programs Represented by ACAT Designation

Percentage of Programs Represented by Service

Basis of Scoring Effectiveness for Airlie Analysis

5 = Highly Effective

4 = Very Effective

3 = Moderately Effective

2 = Somewhat Effective

1 = Negligibly Effective

Response Profiles for Practice Effectiveness – Expert Analysis

The tables below show the response profiles for software acquisition practice effectiveness that make up Turner’s analysis of inputs from his Experts for his 32 meta-practices.  For more details and background, please review/download the Turner dissertation.

Expert Respondents to Practice Effectiveness and Risk Survey

Expert Respondents by Category

Basis of Scoring Effectiveness for Expert Analysis

Three basic techniques were used to establish the perceived effectiveness values:

1.       Respondents provided a general judgment as to the value of a practice, as well as its value in relation to other practices of a similar type.  The five-point scale was Highly Effective (5), Very Effective (4), Moderately Effective (3), Somewhat Effective (2) and Negligibly Effective (1).

2.       Respondents were asked to rank practices from first to last (1-8) within each of the four practice focus areas defined within Turner’s dissertation:

·   Focus Area 1:    Systems Engineering

·   Focus Area 2:    Change Management

·   Focus Area 3:    Risk Management

·   Focus Area 4:    Measurement

3.       Respondents were asked to Identify the 8 “best” practices and the 8 “least” practices out of the 32 total practices listed in the survey.

The combined “perceived effectiveness” value for each practice was calculated as:

Combined Value = 10ev + (28 – 3fr) + tb 

where,

ev =   effectiveness data, from 5 for “Highly Effective” through 1 for “Negligibly Effective”

fr =    the rank (1-8) within its applicable Focus Area

tb =   25 if included in the top 8 of 32 practices; 0 if included in the bottom 8 of 32 practices; and 10 otherwise