Today’s quote is from page 273 of the Second Hoover
Commission Hearings (1957):
“Mr. Brown. [The Department of Defense] seldom get anything for the price tag originally put on it…
“Mr. McNeil. That was certainly true some years ago… For about 4 years now, most estimates are on the beam. And it was always possible.”
It is hard to believe that between 1953 and 1957 defense
cost estimates had been “on the beam,” particularly when Martin Peck and
Frederic Scherer found substantial cost growth in the 1950s in their classic The Weapons Acquisition Process: An Economic
Analysis. Maybe they were just better than the estimates developed during
the Korean War crisis.
Cost estimation continues to be a major problem today. In fact,
it is widely agreed that cost growth has come
down relative to the 1950s period. I doubt any informed observer would say
we have contained cost growth, or that we are doing better today than in the
1950s, despite the fact that the AT&L’s “Performance
of the Defense Acquisition System” repeatedly trumpets cost containment.
It may not take a searching review to understand that cost
growth need not have any relationship with program outcomes. As Robert
Devons wrote, cost growth studies “showed that most of the so called cost
growth was the direct result of low initial cost estimates.”
So, as Donald
Srull said, “One could not after all, buy the new Cadillac automobile for
$5,000. When it turned out to cost $25,000 it was not “cost growth”—it was an
unrealistic, poor initial underestimate!” (Srull was the first chairman of the
Cost Analysis Improvement Group, or CAIG.)
Our problem today is that in a decision maker’s mind, a
higher cost estimate is a more “realistic” one. If a realistic cost estimate
for a $25,000 Cadillac comes out to be $40,000, anything other than large cost underruns signal escalating backend
prices. Unfortunately, “should cost” initiatives cannot deliver the required
information. We only know a $25,000 Cadillac doesn’t cost $40,000 because there
is a market for Cadillacs which is embedded in an even broader market
framework. You cannot just add up the labor and materials required to produce technological
innovation.
The problem more pernicious than cost growth is simply high
costs (similar to the “cost disease” inflicting the commanding heights of
education and healthcare). It might be stunning to some that the Bruce Harmon of
the Institute for Defense Analysis found that the fighter aircraft industry experiences
price escalation at nearly twice the rate seen in the economy at large. (In
other words, for a constant quality fighter aircraft our “buying power” is falling
by about 2%-3% per year—every couple decades we can only afford half as much
with the same inflation-adjusted dollars.)
Harmon’s conclusion… the F-35 is an average performing
program and it experienced “cost growth” because of its artificially low
Milestone B cost estimate that did not assume fast enough price growth in line
with experience! If the F-35 is not really a cost growth problem, then cost
growth is not the problem we should be
looking at.
No comments:
Post a Comment