Content deleted Content added
Patriot0239 (talk | contribs) Some useful edits |
Patriot0239 (talk | contribs) Some useful edits |
||
Line 7:
Typical defense industry bureaucratic approach to problem-solving involves exquisite enterprise solutions requiring long lead times, the establishment of large, standing teams, and relative inflexibility. The long development cycles and lead times associated with this approach sometimes result in fielding a solution that is no longer relevant.<ref>[https://archive.today/20140503132704/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists/posts/post.aspx?ID=661]</ref> Recent attempts to resolve inefficiencies may include overwhelming with superior funding, resources, and manpower—for example, take any 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]</ref> Conversely, when resources are constrained, bureaucratic staff adopt a tactic of continuous process improvement, similar to that espoused in [[Kaizen]], [[total quality management]], and [[Lean Six Sigma]]. This further discourages innovation and perpetuates low-value programs and work teams that should be eliminated altogether rather than "improved".
Because most preventable "safety" mishaps are caused by human factors (83% of the Fiscal Year 2007 Air Force major mishap costs due to human factors per AF Safety Center)<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> and can be traced to human cultural and behavioral issues, according to DSP, safety can and should uniquely apply a "disruptive" solution set to
To address the safety cultural issues associated with mishap prevention in a large bureaucracy, Air National Guard safety directorate pursued a disruptive approach in requirement definition, problem identification, solution vetting, funding, and procurement. Using Boyd's Observe, Orient, Decide, Act [[OODA Loop]] to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the process, DSP was created. However, taking on a bureaucracy is not without its downside. Fiefdoms and stovepipes{{clarify|date=July 2019}} within the system attempt to protect their "turf" and "lanes" with rules, regulations, and non-stop administrative delays and paperwork. All this requires commitment to a long-term solution set, while constantly changing the solution itself in order to work through the bureaucratic hurdles.
| |||