Quality control must be performed throughout weapons systems programme projects with ultimate accountability resident in the Internal programme head to ensure project deliverables meet the level of quality assurance required and risk mitigation activities are being followed as planned.
Project schedule and cost baselines are two primary yardsticks for measuring whether a project is meeting the quality standards. Missed project milestones, over/under-spending are warning signs of risks to project success.
If the project timeline or budget is not on track, risk mitigation teams must review the situation and set up smart processes to follow up. Deliverable acceptance criteria for supply line acceptance varies according to the type of deliverable and criteria must be considered.
Here we introduce supply line logistics decision-making activities type from the strategic to the tactical to the operational level
•Strategic level deals with decisions to have long-lasting effect on organisation to include decisions on product design, what to make internally and what to outsource, supplier selection, decisions on Job Site number, location & capacity
•Tactical level includes decisions to be updated less frequently to include purchasing/production decisions, inventory policies & transit route strategies
•Operational level refers to day-to-day decisions such as scheduling, lead time quotes &, routing
As part of its Offer, Supplier must confirm/provide evidence product can be dispatched according to quality, planning & cost requirements, with demonstration of its ability to reach the following targets: estimations, return on experience, feedback on similar products & related future actions.
Risk can be associated with all aspects of a programme, e.g., threat, technology maturity, supplier capability, design maturation and performance against plan, as these aspects relate across the Work Breakdown Structure and Integrated Master Schedule.
Risk addresses potential variation in the planned approach and its expected outcome. While such variation could include positive as well as negative effects, this guide will address problematic future effects since programmes have typically experienced difficulty in this area during the acquisition process.
Successful acquisition programme risk mitigation characteristics include feasible, stable, and well-understood user requirements, supported by leadership/stakeholders, and integrated with program tech planning decisions.
Continuous, event-driven technical reviews help define a developed, resourced, and implemented risk mitigation plan to satisfy user needs within acceptable risk. Established thresholds and criteria must be established to proactively implement defined risk mitigation. Plans must be combined with continuous and iterative assessment of risks and defined set of success criteria for performance, schedule, and cost elements during each acquisition phase.
If risk components are eliminated or corrected, would prevent potential consequences from occurring, Risk components include probability/likelihood assessed at present time of future root cause occurring, and the effect/ consequence of future occurrence. Future root causes are the most basic reason for the presence of a risk. Accordingly, risks should be tied to future root causes and their effects.
Risk mitigation is the overarching process that encompasses identification, assessment, implementation/planning, and tracking. Risk mitigation must begin at the earliest stages of programme planning and continue throughout the total service life of the programme.
Risk mitigation planning must reflect technical foundation, activity definition, and inputs from technical and cost areas to project an independent forecast of the planned completion dates for major milestones.
Sustainment cost estimates are derived by integrating technical assessment and schedule risk impacts on resources and providing programme life-cycle cost excursions from near-term budget execution impacts and external budget changes and constraints.
Additionally, team attention to risk factors is most effective if it is fully integrated with the programme systems engineering and programme administration processes—as a driver and a dependency on those processes for root cause and consequence control.
This guide focuses on risk mitigation, planning and implementation rather on risk avoidance, transfer or assumption. Risks should not be confused with issues. If a root cause is described in the past tense, the root cause has already occurred, so it is issue that needs to be resolved, but it is not a risk.
While confronting issues is one of the main functions of programme , an important difference between issues and risk is that addressing issues applies resources to resolve current issues or problems, while risk teams must apply resources to mitigate future potential root causes and their consequences.
If programme is behind schedule on release of engineering drawings, this is not a risk; it is an issue that has already emerged and needs to be resolved. Other examples of issues include failure of components under tests that show a design shortfall.
So these are programme problems that should be handled as issues instead of risks, since their probability of occurrence is certain to occur or has occurred. Also, issues may have adverse future consequences to the programme-- as a risk would have.
An organised methodology is required for continuously identifying and measuring unknowns; developing mitigation options; selecting, planning, and implementing appropriate risk mitigations; and tracking the implementation to ensure successful risk reduction.
Effective planning is required for early identification and risks assessments, early implementation of corrective actions; continuous monitoring and reassessment; and communication, documentation, and coordination.
Acquisition programme risk control teams is not a stand-alone programme office task. It is supported by a number of other programme office tasks. In turn, risk control measures finalise those tasks.
Important tasks, which must be integrated as part of the risk control process, include requirements development, logical solutions, systems engineering design solutions, schedule development, performance measurement, earned value when implemented and cost estimating, all tasks critical to overall programme success rates.
1. How should administration update project schedule regularly to help identify potential problems in selecting a set of job site locations and capacities to influence market demand and improve bottom line?
2. How are production levels at each job site determined for each product based on design approaches to project solutions, identification of possible risks, assumptions, constraints and dependencies?
3. Does the deliverable provide recommendations traceable to the contract work breakdown structure and testing /verification procedures required in accordance with the test plan standards/practices?
4. Have you made recommendations on budget or time to be allocated, and if fallback risk mitigation status approach is incorporated in the estimate at completion or in other programme plans?
5. Why are deliverables far more cost effective to have quality built into day-to-day activities rather than find a problem after design process parameters have been completed so impact on capability/readiness?
6. Are problems due to uncertainty of formats and media in predicting customer demand, uncertainty in the supply process, or some other reasons ?
7. Is there anything that can be done to reduce problems in predicting demand or is result going to be ordering more than, less than demand forecast?
8. Do you hold risk mitigation meetings at high enough frequency, depending on the programme phase to provide a thorough and timely understanding of the risk status, but not too frequent to interfere with execution of the programme plan?
9. Why is it important to use results of prior event-based systems engineering risk checklist technical reviews to provide systematic process for continuously assessing the design maturity, technical risk, and programmatic risk of acquisition programs?
10. Have you established a series of effective risk assessments events to date Include contractor administrative baseline development plans for work definition, valuation estimates, manufacturing processes and repair processes for sustainment phase?
11. Is deliverable clearly written or presented to communicate effectively at appropriate detail with its target audience and account for change from industry to industry?
12. Do you ensure programme acquisition plans and strategies provide for risk mitigation team action and consider identified risks and root causes in project milestone decisions?
13. How is an integrated risk mitigation team established, used, and maintained focused efforts to ensure process includes all disciplines required to support life cycle of system include scheduled risk assessments conducted at key points during all phases of the programme, including proposal development?
14. Have you derived estimates of completion dates for major project milestones and assessed probability of maintaining the baseline schedule?
15. What is impact of strategy on determining costs of service deliverable levels aligning with contract scope to include all mandatory items/sections to meet project standards?
16. How are project schedule risk assessments conducted as needed to determine potential impact to the programme estimates and approved funding?
17. How is realistic schedule established along with funding baseline for programme as early as possible in the program, incorporating an acceptable level of risk?
18. Do adequate schedule and funding margins protect programme integrity by budgeting to a conservative estimate with a high probability?
19. Do you evaluate and continually assess the programme for new root causes, address the status of existing risks, and implement risk mitigation activities?
20. How can deliverable integration successfully meet the requirements and criteria of the contract, statement/breakdown structure of work?
21. Why are shared information and expectations of operational plans like assess likelihood of contractor achieving the forecasted schedule or final costs against the programme constraints keys to a successfully integrated supply chain?
22. How should technically sound and economically feasible information be shared and operational plans be used?
23. How does verification of quality control information affect the design and operation of the supply chain?
24. Is sufficient time allocated to develop contract /procurement integration levels within the organisation and with external partners?
25. What types of partnerships can be implemented, and which type should be implemented for a given situation so expectations aren’t getting the project stuck due to lack of communication?
26. How can supplier identify what upfront /proactive manufacturing activities are present in its set of core compentencies to determine what/where to produce product next?
27. Have you approved appropriate risk mitigation strategies to include operational users and other stakeholders in the formulation and acceptance of risk mitigation plans?
28. Is there any relationship between the answer to activity completion/purchase and product architecture?
29. What are risks associated with sourcing decision risks be minimised using information based on valid and current production of deliverable?
30. Do you have an approach for identifying and compiling a list of root causes is to: examine each in terms of risk sources or areas with probability and consequence criteria scales?
31. Are consequence thresholds allocated in terms of performance, schedule , and/or cost and resource constraints against work breakout statement?
32. Can you provide a description of project risk including a summary of the performance, schedule, resource impacts, likelihood of occurrence, consequence and if risk is within control of the programme standards?
33. Is there ongoing/continual risk assessment during all phases of programme life cycle?
34. When is it worthwhile to use quality checklists to ensure quality elements are not overlooked while a project deliverable is being redesigned so logistics costs or supply chain lead time are not compromised?
35. Is it possible to leverage product design to compensate for uncertainty in customer demand containing only the necessary essential features or characteristics of the requirement, e.g. what is needed over what is wanted?
36. Can amount of savings resulting from clear, concise and logical product design specs requirements strategy be quantified/leveraged?
37. What changes should be made in the supply chain to take advantage of new user-friendly product design?
38. What role does supply chain policy play in the successful implementation of mass customisation concepts?
39. What risk information, metrics, and trends using the standard likelihood and consequence format are significant for supply chain success?
40. How frequently should performance metrics used for deliverable review be transferred and assessed to monitor and track newly identified risks and monitor progress against risk plans?
41. What test/evaluation monitor infrastructure is required both internally and between supply chain partners to identify readiness results/problems in sustainment phase?
42. Are information technology and decision-support systems used to achieve competitive market advantage?
43. What is preventing others from using the same tech demos, modeling/simulation and prototyping to reduce risks?
44 . What determines customer value measured to ensure deliverable meets expectations for intended use in different industries like definition of events/activities intended to reduce the risk, success criteria for each plan event?
45. How is information technology user interface outcome/output expected to enhance customer value in supply chain functions?
46. How do supply chain decisions contribute to customer value when considering performance related requirements for project if related to system implementation?
47. How do trends in customer value like relationship development and experiences affect supply chain since end user is the ultimate judge of the quality of a product?
48. How is a comprehensive programme risk assessment conducted for each of the applicable technical reviews and each key programme decision point?
49. Do “smart” programme strategies contain enough information for potential proposals judging how best to deliver requirements used to improve supply chain performance?
50 . What is the impact of quality control feedback strategies on supply chain deliverables?