Disruptive solutions process: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:11, 27 January 2022

Revision as of 23:13, 22 February 2022

Line 6:

The typical defense industry bureaucratic approach to problem-solving involves long [[lead time]]s and relative inflexibility. Long development cycles and lead times results in solutions that are no longer relevant.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=661 |title=Archived copy |website=www.nationaldefensemagazine.org |access-date=27 January 2022 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140503132704/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=661 |archive-date=3 May 2014 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Recent attempts to resolve inefficiencies include overwhelming the problem with funding, resources, and manpower—for example, major weapon systems development, such as a new fighter jet or IT system.<ref>[http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140403/NEWS/304030061/Lawmakers-scold-DoD-medical-records-failure] {{Dead link|date=February 2022}}</ref> Conversely, when resources are constrained, bureaucratic staff adopt continuous process improvement, similar to [[kaizen]], [[total quality management]], and [[Lean Six Sigma]]. This perpetuates low-value programs that should be eliminated, rather than "improved".

Because most preventable safety mishaps are caused by human factors,<ref>Catalog of Air Force Statistics by Aircraft Type, considered typical for US Military [http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/index.asp] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205120401/http://www.afsc.af.mil/organizations/aviation/aircraftstatistics/index.asp |date=December 5, 2008 }}</ref> safety should apply a disruptive, iterative approach that may not be appropriate in hardware-focused programs, such as aircraft production.