Optimizing U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense Review of Air Force Acquisition Programs (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix D: Survey
Appendix D: Survey
Pages 58-87
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 58... ...
2. The draft set of survey questions was discussed with current Air Force PMs and senior functional support staff at one Air Force product center and the questions were refined.
|
From page 59... ...
After survey development had been completed, the final version of the survey was submitted in parallel to the NRC Institutional Review Board and to the Air Force formal survey approval process. Both the NRC and the Air Force approved the survey as it was submitted, and it received an official Air Force Survey Number (USAF SCN 08-045)
|
From page 60... ...
, it sought and received professional support from the NRC in, among other things, devising criteria to judge whether there was sufficient information to permit meaningful analysis. The committee also made promises to the Air Force regarding the use and anonymity of the data.
|
From page 61... ...
, the chairman and vicechairman of the study committee (Rand Fisher and Dan Stewart, respectively) , and National Academy of Sciences professional staff members (Jim Garcia, Enita Williams, and Kamara Brown)
|
From page 62... ...
Response Count AAC 9 ASC 17 ESC 41 SMC 12 Other 2 answered question 81 skipped question 2 1.1 How long have you been a program manager in your current position? Response Count Less than 6 months 23 6 months but less than 1 year 8 1 year but less than 2 years 21 2 years but less than 3 years 19 3 years or more 12 answered question 83 skipped question 0
|
From page 63... ...
Response Count Less than 1 year 0 1 year but less than 3 years 7 3 years but less than 5 years 8 5 years but less than 7 years 14 7 years but less than 15 years 26 15 or more years 28 answered question 83 skipped question 0 1.3 How much acquisition experience do you have? For the purposes of this study, consider time spent in program offices as well as staff assignments that worked with the requirements definition process, the planning/programming/ budgeting process, or the acquisition policy/governance process.
|
From page 64... ...
Other Activities 5.85 answered question 82 skipped question 1
|
From page 65... ...
Response Count Less than 1% 2 1% to 5% 6 6% to 10% 19 11% to 15% 16 16% to 20% 15 21% to 25% 4 26% to 30% 5 31% to 35% 2 36%-40% 6 More than 40% 3 N/A 1 Other 2 answered question 81 skipped question 2 1.7 Absent any other demands on your time, ideally how much time would you want to spend in contact with your contractors, on average, each week? Response Count Less than 1% 0 1% to 5% 0 6% to 10% 9 11% to 15% 10 16% to 20% 13 21% to 25% 14 26% to 30% 5 31% to 35% 10 36%-40% 9 More than 40% 11 N/A 0 Other 0 answered question 81 skipped question 2
|
From page 66... ...
Response Count Less than 5 1 5-10 2 11-20 11 21-40 13 41-60 11 61-80 7 81-100 2 101 or more 34 N/A 1 answered question 82 skipped question 1 1.9 In your opinion, during your tenure has the acquisition experience level of personnel in your program office increased, remained about the same, or decreased? Response Count Increased 17 Remained about the same 29 Decreased 36 N/A 0 answered question 82 skipped question 1 1.10 What is the approximate annual budget of your program/portfolio?
|
From page 67... ...
. Response Count ACAT ID 25 ACAT IC 5 ACAT IAM 1 ACAT IAC 3 ACAT II 15 ACAT III 30 N/A 2 answered question 81 skipped question 2 1.12 During the period 1 Jan 06 to 30 May 08, what acquisition phase has your program been in?
|
From page 68... ...
9 Air Force Review Board (AFRB) 13 Other 29 answered question 57 skipped question 28
|
From page 69... ...
3 7 2 33 45 Air Force Review Board (AFRB) 7 5 1 34 47 Other 9 8 3 23 43 answered question 66 skipped question 17
|
From page 70... ...
Response Count Subject matter experts provided valuable inputs on problems/issues 21 Senior leaders engaged to help resolve problems/issues 26 Visibility of the review focused contractor leadership attention on fixing problems 16 prior to having to brief senior government leaders Program office uncovered problems/issues as part of preparation for review 12 N/A 19 Other 7 answered question 64 skipped question 19
|
From page 71... ...
Air Force Review Board (AFRB) 4 9 2 1 26 42 Other 4 9 2 1 22 38 answered question 61 skipped question 22
|
From page 72... ...
Air Force Review Board (AFRB) 5 7 1 1 31 45 Other 7 6 1 1 21 38 answered question 61 skipped question 22
|
From page 73... ...
Air Force Review Board (AFRB) 2 2 4 8 Other 4 1 0 5 answered question 46 skipped question 37
|
From page 74... ...
12 System Engineering Assessment Model (SEAM) 12 Air Force Review Board (AFRB)
|
From page 75... ...
Response Count SMART 70 PoPS 68 SAR 18 DAES 21 Other 13 answered question 71 skipped question 12 2.9 Internal to your program office, do you use these written/digital reporting mechanisms in the day-to-day management of your program? Please mark Yes, No, or N/A for all reporting mechanisms.
|
From page 76... ...
Yes No N/A Response Count SMART 15 54 1 70 PoPS 11 54 2 67 SAR 7 17 34 58 DAES 8 16 33 57 Other 4 6 23 33 answered question 71 skipped question 12 2.11 How well do you think these written/digital reporting mechanisms do at providing an accurate and informative view of your program? Please rate each tool that you use on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating the tool does a very good job at providing an accurate and informative picture of your program and 5 indicating that the tool does a very poor job at providing an accurate and informative picture.
|
From page 77... ...
Air Force Review Board (AFRB) 0 10 2 8 2 32 54 Other 0 4 0 2 1 20 27 answered question 62 skipped question 21 Section 3A -- Questions on Specific Reviews This section asks you to rate the Most Helpful and Least Helpful higher level reviews/assessments that your program has experienced sometime during the period 1 Jan 06 to 30 May 08.
|
From page 78... ...
Response Count Yes 53 No 5 answered question 58 skipped question 25 3.3 Did the right subject matter experts appropriate for this review attend the meeting? Response Count Yes 44 No 7 Does not apply 9 answered question 60 skipped question 23
|
From page 79... ...
Response Count Yes 24 No 29 Does not apply 8 answered question 61 skipped question 22 3.6 Did the review, or directed follow-up action, cause any change in the future plans for the program? Response Count Yes 31 No 22 Does not apply 7 answered question 60 skipped question 23 3.7 What percentage of program office senior leadership personnel (i.e., X of the Y senior SPO people, example 2 of 5 = 40%)
|
From page 80... ...
? Response Count Yes 13 No 22 answered question 35 skipped question 48 Section 3A (cont)
|
From page 81... ...
, but another aspect of these costs is the monetary value of the time the program office spends doing preparation, prebriefs, the review itself, coordination of meeting minutes/decision memoranda, and postreview follow-up. The questions below ask for estimates of these costs in several variations.
|
From page 82... ...
Response Count Reduce frequency 7 Increase attendees 2 Decrease attendees 12 Change charter 6 Combine with another review 9 Consolidate or reduce number of pre-reviews 22 Narrow focus of review 11 Shorten length of the meeting 5 Change sequence in relation to other reviews 3 Better synchronize with other reviews 14 Nothing -- review is fine as it is 10 Other 10 answered question 53 skipped question 30 Section 3B -- Evaluating Least Helpful Higher Level Reviews/Assessments Least Helpful Review -- For the higher level review/assessment that you thought was least helpful (reference question 2.5 above) , please answer the following questions: 3.16 Did the review occur at the most useful time in the schedule for program activities?
|
From page 83... ...
Response Count Yes 32 No 10 answered question 42 skipped question 41 3.19 Did you get timely guidance from this meeting? Response Count Yes 16 No 26 answered question 42 skipped question 41 3.20 Did the review, or directed follow-up action, cause any change in the current execution of the program?
|
From page 84... ...
Response Count Yes 23 No 11 N/A 8 answered question 42 skipped question 41 3.23.a If yes, then did this support involve more than 20% of the contractor leadership personnel (i.e., X of the Y senior program people, example 2 of 5 = 40%)
|
From page 85... ...
One way to measure this is to identify positive and negative impacts of these reviews/ reports on program performance. The questions below seek to identify any specific examples of both positive impacts and negative impacts.
|
From page 86... ...
(Select all those that apply.) Response Count Reduce frequency 9 Increase attendees 1 Decrease attendees 12 Change charter 7 Combine with another review 13 Consolidate or reduce number of pre-reviews 12 Narrow focus of review 10 Shorten length of the meeting 5 Change sequence in relation to other reviews 3 Better synchronize with other reviews 9 Nothing -- review is fine as it is 4 Other 5 answered question 39 skipped question 44
|
From page 87... ...
Write-in responses withheld. 4.5 Please provide any other comments you think would improve the ability of higher HQ review of AF acquisition programs to either enable senior leaders to perform their oversight role more effectively, and/or help the program being reviewed execute more effectively.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.