“Never Promise to complete any project within six months of the end of the year – In either direction” – Norm Augustine.[1]

The recently released UK House of Commons Inquiry into the UK’s Defence Procurement system[2] highlights significant challenges with delivering capability on time. Major projects in this jurisdiction are experiencing an average 15 percent schedule overrun.[3] Schedule delays also plague the Australian Department of Defence where the average delay for major projects is 40 months[4]. Delays associated with US Department of Defence programs are also acute.[5]

As the recent UK inquiry and other procurement reviews highlight, schedule delays incur substantial direct and indirect costs with:

1. Supplier cost increases since fixed costs will be accrued over a longer timeframe;
2. Substantial reputation damage on both the buy side and sell side;
3. Enormous costs associated with extending the life of existing capabilities;
4. Capability gaps where existing capabilities cannot continue (especially those that have reached life of type);
5. Reduced morale as end users are relegated to using obsolete systems and equipment;[6] and
6. Valuable resources from the acquisition agency are tied up for longer durations and cannot be diverted to other programs.

The war in Ukraine has highlighted that time is not a luxury and we need to deliver capabilities faster rather than accept overruns, but how can we do this?

Schedule as An Independent variable

Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) is a successful procurement methodology that has been used on many successful defence programs.  CAIV allows us to trade off capability requirements against cost objectives. Flexibility is key, as highlighted by the US Acquisition Agency:

“Requirements are stated in terms of capabilities and may be exchanged, substituted, or adjusted for the sake of another.”[7]

Where cost and affordability are the key acquisition and sustainment drivers, CAIV is a very useful tool.  Where schedule performance is more important, then we should consider Schedule as an Independent variable (SAIV). SAIV is not as common as CAIV though the concept has been around for at least two decades.  The pioneer of the Spiral Development methodology, Barry Boehm, discussed the concept of SAIV as early as 2004 with coauthors Brown and Huang where development requires prioritisation of capabilities to achieve schedule imperatives.[8]

SAIV does not mean that other performance measures are ignored as highlighted by Potts;

“In SAIV, schedule is the primary program driver. This is not, however, a license for PMs to disregard cost or to provide systems with less capability than required by the warfighter. SAIV balances schedule, cost, and requirements but maintains schedule as the primary driver”.[9]

To achieve SAIV though will require very close collaboration between the customer, end-user, and supplier.  Only suppliers and their supply chains will possess the skills and experience to understand the schedule risks, issues and opportunities. Likewise, the end-user and project sponsor have the authority to decide what capabilities are essential and which are desirable. Similarly the customer will ultimately be needed to make a call on what is ‘affordable’ based on advice from suppliers.

SAIV is an iterative process that encourages innovation and an exploration into the art of the possible when it comes to schedule, cost and capability trade-offs.  Consequently, a joint customer and supplier ‘Schedule Integrated Product Team’ must be established early in the acquisition process to explore meaningful trade-offs against requirements and gain agreement between all relevant stakeholders and what is needed.

Appetite for Trade-offs

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and we should not view SAIV as the solution to all our program management woes.  SAIV comes at a price as observed by McGhee and Moschler:

“Independent Variables have their place, but we must make sure all stakeholders are willing to accept the resultant exorbitant inefficiencies incurred in the dependent variables. Independent variables are not free.”[10]

If schedule is the key program driver, then there must be an appetite for making compromises in the cost and capability dimensions.  With sponsors putting far greater emphasis on timely delivery of capability, many organisations are focussing on ‘minimum viable products’ and ‘minimum viable capabilities’. SAIV is one tool we can exploit to achieve this goal.

Image developed by LucaDP “Project Management Software” – Adobe Stock Image

---

[1] N. Augustine “Augustine’s Laws” (1986) LAW XXXIX.

[2] UK House of Commons “It is broke — and it’s time to fix it. The UK’s defence procurement system Ninth Report of Session 2022–23” (Jul 2023) https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40911/documents/199247/default/

[3] Ibid, Figure 4.

[4] ANAO “2021–22 Major Projects Report” (Feb 2023) [39]  https://www.anao.gov.au/work/major-projects-report/2021-22-major-projects-report 

[5]US GAO “Weapon Systems Annual Assessment: Challenges to Fielding Capabilities Faster Persist” (June 2022) Figure 9, p28 https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105230.pdf

[6] House of Commons, opcit p 12.

[7] https://acqnotes.com/acqnote/careerfields/cost-as-an-independent-variable

[8] Boehm et al “The Schedule as Independent Variable (SAIV) Process for Acquisition of Software-Intensive Systems” INCOSE 14 (2004)

[9] A. Potts “SAIVing Acquisition Excellence”. (2004) https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/2004_03_04/pot-ma04.pdf

[10] Mike McGhee and Joe Moschler “Project Apollo” Defence Acquisition Magazine (July 2019) https://www.dau.edu/library/defense-atl/blog/Project-Apollo