Falling short: suboptimal outcomes in Canadian defence procurement
release_t4cx5oe6gzbt3k7ujrhchbaqwq
by
Ian MacMillan, University Of Calgary, University Of Calgary, David Jay Bercuson
2018
Abstract
Why do Canada's military procurement projects often fall short of their primary goals? Otherwise known as a suboptimal result, defence acquisitions regularly fall short of established delivery schedules, accruing cost-overruns, sometimes resulting in cancellation of key materiel. One-hundred percent of the twenty-five Major Crown Projects at the Department of National Defence have experienced delays in achieving key milestones. Aside from cost, suboptimal results are injurious to Canada's tri-force military. Fortunately, the matter has not gone unchecked. A fairly recent surge in procurement research has generated a critical mass of Canadian-focused literature. Preliminary research for this study shows a connection between suboptimal results and the organizations and personnel that populate procurement processes. Based on the bureaucratic politics model, a competitive interaction between uniquely conditioned policy players causes suboptimal delays and costs. Players orient outcomes to suit personal and organizational interests. The advantage of the bureaucratic politics model is the clarity with which it illustrates decision processes. Its simplistic structure serves as an ideal model for comparing three cases in Canadian procurement. Taken from the Department of National Defence's Status Report on Transformational and Major Crown Projects, this study tests the bureaucratic theory against the Tank Replacement Project, the Joint Support Ship Project, and the ongoing project(s) to replace Canada's CF-18 Hornets. The objective is to see if these cases share common findings contributing to suboptimality. The bureaucratic model assists the methodological goal of a structured, focused comparison. Two of the three cases demonstrate the competitive interaction between players as a factor in determining delays and cost-overruns. Although the Joint Support Ship Project included a host of unique players competing to determine decision outcomes, the factor that contributed to schedule slippage was the result of widespread ag [...]
In text/plain
format
Archived Files and Locations
application/pdf 1.6 MB
file_o3tyj6zopncuha3x7igut5e23a
|
prism.ucalgary.ca (publisher) web.archive.org (webarchive) |
article
Stage
published
Date 2018-10-09
access all versions, variants, and formats of this works (eg, pre-prints)
Datacite Metadata (via API)
Worldcat
wikidata.org
CORE.ac.uk
Semantic Scholar
Google Scholar