|
==Overview==
TypicalThe typical defense industry bureaucratic approach to problem-solving involves exquisite enterprise solutions requiring long [[Lead time|lead times]], the establishment of large, standing teams, and relative inflexibility. The longLong development cycles and lead times associated with this approach sometimes resultresults in fielding a solutionsolutions that isare 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".
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]</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 (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. ▼
▲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 that may not be appropriate in otherwise hardware- centric, large budgetfocused programs, such as aircraft procurement and production.
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 a commitment to a long-term solution set, while constantly changing the solution itself in order to work through the bureaucratic hurdles.
To address the cultural issues associated with mishap prevention in a large bureaucracy, the [[Air National Guard]] safety directorate used Boyd's [[OODA Loop|Observe, Orient, Decide, Act Loop]] to assess the effectiveness of the process. This was the origin of DSP.
The DSP approach is both persistent and adaptive, which makes it entrepreneurial, according to Christopher Gergen and Gregg Vanourek in their article "Fending off the Recession with 'Adaptive Persistence'," published in Harvard Business Review, April 2009. They write... "Persistence is about refusing to give up even in the face of adversity. Adaptation is about shortening the time to success through ingenuity and flexibility. 'Adaptive persistence' entails alternating between anticipation, changing course, and sticking with it, deftly navigating that paradox with aplomb."<ref>[http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/gergen-vanourek/2009/04/fending-off-the-recession-with.html Adaptive Persistence article from HBR]</ref> ▼
▲The DSP approach is both persistent and adaptive , which makes it entrepreneurial, according to Christopher Gergen and Gregg Vanourek in their article "Fending off the Recession with 'Adaptive Persistence'," published in Harvard Business Review, April 2009. They write... :<blockquote>"Persistence is about refusing to give up even in the face of adversity. Adaptation is about shortening the time to success through ingenuity and flexibility. 'Adaptive persistence' entails alternating between anticipation, changing course, and sticking with it, deftly navigating that paradox with aplomb."<ref>[http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/gergen-vanourek/2009/04/fending-off-the-recession-with.html Adaptive Persistence article from HBR]</ref ></blockquote>
==Basic process==
|
