Content deleted Content added
Patriot0239 (talk | contribs) Some useful edits |
Patriot0239 (talk | contribs) Some useful edits |
||
Line 5:
==Overview==
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>
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 address the issues. Such a disruptive, iterative approach may not be appropriate in otherwise hardware-centric, large budget programs, such as aircraft procurement and production.
|