Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
* Leutenant (N), Turksh Coast Guard Command.
** Assoc. Prof., (R) Brg. Gen., Istnye Unversty, Faculty of Economcs and Admnstratve Scences.
İnsan&İnsan, Yıl/Year 5, Sayı/Issue 17, Yaz/Summer 2018, 163-193
DOI: https://do.org/10.29224/nsanvensan.392155
Receved 8 February 2018
Receved n revsed form 13 March 2018
Accepted 3 Aprl 2018
www.nsanvensan.org e-ISSN: 2148-7537
The Applicability of Program Management Approach
in the Defense Acquisition Projects in Order to Avoid
Deviations
Özhan Eren* Fahri Erenel**
ozhaneren87@gmal.com ferenel@stnye.edu.tr
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5032-3751 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8943-7265
Abstract: Defense acquisition process contains initiatives aiming to maintain defense capa-
bilities needed, by making use of the most sophisticated technologies under legal and nancial
constraints. Increasing number and complexity of those initiatives and also the necessity of
developing them integratedly causes defense projects to deviate to a certain extent. In this study,
following a brief discussion on the deviations of defense projects in terms of defense planning
process, Program Management Approach, which may be dened briey as managing a number
of complicated projects for deriving common interests has been introduced. Following that, an
alternative governance model which is based on the program management concept has been
proposed, in order to manage defense resources in a more organized way. As a consequence,
a number of inferences about the applicability of program management approach have been
made in consideration of this research and interviews.
Keywords: Defense industry, Defense acquisition, Planning management model, Project
management, Human resource.
Introduction
e process of developing and procuring defence systems consists of long-termed
and complicated attempts that necessitate using the most sophisticated technologies
throughout the country, planning human resource, budget and the other factors to-
gether with the participation of a range of organizations. Due to the uncertainty and
instability of threats, number and complexity of those attempts have been increased
and it causes the defense projects and capabilities of countries to deviate more than
ever. ose kind of deviations seen in the defense projects have been analysed fur-
ther in the second section.
164
In terms of the technological competence limits in a country and in consideration of
the obligation of managing interior/exterior stakeholders’ legal, technical and man-
agerial procedures controlledly, specic management methodologies need to be im-
plemented to reduce the time, budget and performance deviations seen in most of
the large-scale defense systems projects.
In this regard, program management approach, whose standards have been set by
PMI, “dened briey as managing a number of complicated projects together for
deriving common interests” is considered to contribute positive outcomes to defense
sector. us, in consideration of Project Management Institute (PMI) standarts, of-
ferings by program management methodology have been investigated in the third
section to be able to comprehend the dierence between project and program struc-
tures from an organizational perspective.
In fourth section, face-to-face interviews with the project management profession-
als in Turkey have been conducted by using depth-interview method to assess the
awareness level of program management and infer about defense program manage-
ment. Aer that, an alternative management model which is based on the program
management structure has been proposed.
On the conclusion, it is inferred that program management approach, which is rela-
tively new compared to project management, may be implemented in defense sector
if maturity of project management culture reaches a certain level, organizational pro-
cess and legal procedures are revised and inspection mechanisms provide enough
convenience and authority for program managers within the aim of managing long-
term initiatives from a holistic point of view.
Defense Acquisition Projects and Eects of Evolving Defense Acquisition
Process
Defense Acquisition Projects in Brief
As a denition, defense acquisition projects are the initiatives aiming to provide
end-users operational systems in order to maintain defense requirements under a
number of constraints1 by making use of project management procedures.
In principle, a number of factors are common in defense projects and others. Time,
budget and qualied human resources stand as key elements which aect the success
of any projects as these kind of limitations are also seen in commercial ones. Also,
quality requirements enforce the project managers to decide the methodologies and
techniques accordingly. In accordance with the fact whether system requirements
could be met by the capabilities of defense industry of certain country or not, proce-
dures may dier from o-the-shelf procurement to joint production (with another
country) or indigenous design and innovative productions by country’s own capa-
bilities.2
1 Moshe Schwartz, Defense Acquisitions: How DoD Acquires Weapon Systems and Recent Eorts to Reform the
Process, Congressional Research Service, May 23rd, 2014, p.7.
2 Jessie Riposo et. al., Prolonged Cycle Times and Schedule Growth in Defense Acquisition-A Literature Review,
Santa Monica: National Defense Research Institute, RAND Corporation, 2014, p.8.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
165
Considering the uniqueness of purpose in the defense acquisition projects, meth-
odologies and priorities dened by top-level responsible organisations may dier
comparing to the other large-scaled commercial projects. Moreover, characteristics
of systems/platforms, priority level according to operational needs and risks towards
the security of country direct the ocials to apply several approaches and techniques
to result in a success in a defense project. Figure presented below indicates the deci-
sion phases in general followed by defense project managers in the U.S.3
Figure 1. U.S. Decision Process for Defense Acquisitions4
is gure may be conceived as a basis frame for an acquisition project manager from
the beginning of analysis of alternatives to disposal of a certain system/platform in
theory. rough these stages, apart from common project management standards,
project managers make use of a combination of dierent technical methodologies in
defense projects such as:
• System engineering concept: Defense organisations give special importance to
system engineering principles since technological expectations require integrat-
ing the components, sub-systems and systems which are already available or
need to be developed. System engineering plans are used as a guide for project
managers to maintain interface with other systems/projects, to dene technical
process, resources and measurable performance criteria for a single project.5
• Evolutionary acquisition concept: Since unexpected asymmetric threats keep
countries acquire the most technologically-sophisticated and soware-intensive
defense systems in a rapid and cost-eective way throughout this century, au-
thorities strive for having fast-adaptable and upgradable systems by evolution-
ary acquisition methods. Dynamicism of enemies’ tools do not let armed forces
design and develop a completely-new solution. us, spiral and/or incremental
development initiatives under evolutionary acquisition approach become prom-
3 Schwartz, Defense Acquisitions, p.7.
4 Schwartz, Defense Acquisitions, p.7.
5 Joint Program Management Handbook, Fort Belvoir: Defence Acquisition University Press, 2004, p.23.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
166
inent in defense procurements by project managers.6
• Life-cycle management concept: A research including 29 programs of U.S. Army
aiming to nd the correlation between technology development costs and total
acquisition costs indicates that 40,6% of total acquisition costs are created in sys-
tem development phases.7 Operational costs also constitute a signicant portion
in the system’s life cycle. erefore, defense project managers are expected to
consider life-cycle costs of every steps (concept development, design, technology
and system development, production, operational usage and disposal) by making
use of long-term contracts/performance based logistics, cross-functional project
teams and proactive resource planning tools.8
ough such kind of methodologies are applied in order for projects to be succeed-
ed, deviations keep occurring in almost all large-scaled defense projects throughout
the world. us, we will look into detail in the following sections about how defense
acquisition process has evolved throughout decades along with the recent studies on
the possible reasons of such deviations seen in defense medium.
Overview of Evolving Defense Acquisition Process
In a guide named as “Best Practices”, published by U.S. Navy in 1986, defense acqui-
sition process (from capability planning to disposal of procured systems), is dened
as the most complicated technical process.9 e instability of threats and the speed of
advancing technologies enhance the level of complexity further. Defense acquisition
systems include activities of managing nation’s investments on technology, programs
and product support and then promoting the armed forces as far as possible.10
Meeting users’ expectations (under time/budget constraints) by improving mission
capability and operational support is the main focus of acquisition process.11
In this context, when the acquisition process, used in the U.S. and most of NATO
members, is examined, dening needs, resource planning and budgeting, develop-
ing/procuring stages are three intensively inter-related systems, given in Figure 2.
On the other hand, U.S.A and most of NATO members have chosen the capabili-
ty-based approach instead of threat-based approach since 2000s.12
is changeover has compelled countries to choose system/platform requirements
among alternatives that have been created by the analysis of capability gaps. Moreover,
6 Richard K. Sylvester and Joseph A. Ferrara, “Conict and Ambiguity Implementing Evolutionary Acquisition”,
Acquisition Review Quarterly, Winter 2003, p.5.
7 Brian G. Chow et. al., Toward Aordable Systems: Portfolio Analysis and Management for Army Science and
Technology Programs, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2009, p.136.
8 Nancy Y. Moore et. al., A Gap Analysis of Life Cycle Management Commands and Best Purchasing and Supply
Management Organizations, Santa Monica: RAND Arroyo Center, 2012, p.21.
9 U.S. Department of Navy, Best Practices: How to Avoid Surprises in the World’s Most Complicated Technical Pro-
cess, March 1986, p.5.
10 U.S. Department of Defense, e Defense Acquisition System Directive (DoDD 5000.01), May 12, 2003, p.3.
11 Riposo et. al., Prolonged Cycle Times, p.27.
12 U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense, Review Report 2006, 2006, p.19.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
167
Figure-2. U.S. Defense Acquisition System13
it forms a basis for implementing scientic methods intensively in defense acquisi-
tion process. System engineering,14 system of systems approach, risk management,
life-cycle management and project/program management concepts are more-widely
used in procurement medium, and also relation between them and contribution of
procurement process have been argued recent years.15
A research made by RAND indicates that 85% of decisions about system life-cycle
costs are made before the technology developing decision stages in an acquisition
process that consists of technology development stages.16 is fact puts forward that
portfolio of projects, managed aer technologies are developed without life-cycle
cost concept, tend to increase the possibility of deviation.17
Analysis of Deviations Seen in Defense Acquisition Process
Deviations are common among development projects. A research in the U.S. shows
that 40% of 21 large-scale acquisition programs deviate in terms of initial procure-
ment cost estimates. According to same research, 50% of deviations stem from the
change requests and updates on program purpose, from the beginning of projects.18
Considering a defense portfolio which consists 96 major defense program belonging
to 2008 in the U.S., a detailed analysis of deviations has been made, as shown below
in Table 1.
13 Schwartz, Defense Acquisitions, p.3.
14 Oce of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Systems Engineering Guide
for Systems of Systems, Version 1.0, Washington D.C, 2008, p.iii.
15 INCOSE, Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes and Activities, v.3.2.2, San
Diego: InternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineering (INCOSE), October 2011. Josef Oehmen, e Guide to
Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs, Version 1.0, Cambridge: Joint MIT-PMI-INCOSE Commu-
nity of Practice on Lean in Program Management, 2012. Walter Tomczykowski et. al., Program Managers Hand-
book: Common Practices to Mitigate the Risk of Obsolescence (Dra), Maryland, 2000, p.2.1-2.2.
16 Chow et. al., Toward Aordable Systems, p.xi.
17 Chow et. al., Toward Aordable Systems, p.3.
18 Scott Hiromoto, Fundamental Capability Portfolio Management: A Study of Developing Systems with Implica-
tions for Army Research and Development Strategy, Santa Monica: Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2013, p.7.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
168
Table 1. Analysis of Deviations in Defense Acquisition Program Portfolio in the U.S.19
According to this report,
• Research & Development (R&D) costs for programs have been increased by 42%,
total acquisition costs have also been increased by 25%, compared to the initial
cost estimates,
• Capability-acquiring dates have been delayed by 22 months compared to rst
predictions,
• Total exceeding amount of money has been around 296,4 bn. Dollars in this de-
fense portfolio.20
Another research (made in the same year above) indicates that cost exceeding rates
climb up to 40% on technology developing projects whereas total cost exceeding
rates stay at the rate of around 25%.21
Time deviations have been considered less signicant than budget deviations his-
torically.22 But a research made by U.S. Government Accountability Oce (GAO) in
2012 reminds that average deviation time is 27 months among the large scale proj-
ects examined.23
Reasons of delays and cost exceedings bear a resemblance to each other. High tech-
nology needs (complexity of program, immatured technology, technical issues un-
predicted), over-optimistic initial estimates (schedule expectations, risk, operational
needs and performance predictions), budget instabilities, inter-organizational issues
on integration and inability of managing inter-related projects altogether are only a
few of those reasons.24
19 U.S. Government Accountability Oce, Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,
GAO-09-326SP, 2009, p.7.
20 U.S. Government Accountability Oce, Defense Acquisitions, 2009, p.7.
21 Oehmen, e Guide to Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs, p.14.
22 Riposo et. al., Prolonged Cycle Times, p.28.
23 U.S. Government Accountability Oce, Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of Selected Weapon Programs, GAO-
13-294SP, Washington, 2013, p.10.
24 Riposo et. al., Prolonged Cycle Times, p.x. Irv Blickstein et. al., Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches:
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
169
Another reason is that, personnel on project management and system engineering
eld, employed by defense acquisition agencies and other organizations, are insu-
cient and less-qualied in most cases.25 Table below summarize the causes of devia-
tions according to a research made by RAND organisation.
Table 2. Possible Reasons of Deviations Encountered in Defense Programs26
Subjec t of Issue Pos s ible De viatio n Re asons
Impossible or unrealistic expectations
Changing requireme nts (i. e . Engineering requirements, changes in ope rational plans or
operational environment)
Inefficiencies in ac qu isitio n proc es s (i.e. Managing needs a nd programming process
separate ly instead of managing simultaneous ly)
Complexity of programmes, exc eeding tec hnical, production and integration risks
Unexpected design, engineering, technical and production challenges, technological
limitations
Too optimistic forecasts (technical risks, perfomance targets, system requirements,
maturity of design)
İmmature technology
Misleading in para llel processing in comlex programmes
Iss ues in producing prototype
Lac k of test planning and implementation experiences
Allocation of insufficient res ource for test pha se s
Re s ource Planning Instability of funds and budget c uts
Lac k of focusing on time constraints
Sche dule planning and management (Ignoring the c orrelations between ongoing
projects a nd other efforts)
Planning insu ffic ie n t recovery budgets wh ic h do not enable to backup the
project/programme initiatives when neede d due to too optimistic forecasts.
Too optimistic forecasts in cos t and timeframe.
Iss ues in personnel planning
Competition (too little or too much)
Deficiencies in contract management
Pe rformanc e of contractor and inade quate ince ntives by sponsors
Miscoordination betwee n ac quisition phase s
Othe r Obstac les to reach the ne cessitated information require d by relevant authority
De fining and
Manag ing Ne e ds
Possible Reasons of Deviations In Completed Defense Programmes
De fe ns e Acquis itio n
M anage me nt
Manag ing Te chnic al
Risks
ese ndings mainly assert that before initiating a defense acquisition project, it is
strictly required to take into account of whole planning and capability integrating
process of country since the problems faced in most cases comprise and relate dier-
ent disciplines, areas of expertise and management methodologies. us, it won’t be
a realistic approach to be looking for only one solution method to overcome a great
number of issues.
erefore, considering the increase in the number of defense projects and evolving
defense requirements, an overarching management approach undertaken by one de-
Zumwalt-Class Destroyer, Joint Strike Fighter, Longbow Apache and Wideband Global Satellite, Volume 1, Santa
Monica, 2011, p.xv.
25 Blickstein et. al., Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches, p.1.
26 Blickstein et. al., Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-McCurdy Breaches, p.xi.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
170
cision authority must be placed into defense acquisition process of countries in order
to keep the total defense capabilities satisfying against the possible threats. At this
stage, program management standards might provide us the theoretical knowledge
on how the challenges of managing a number of projects and shareholders simulta-
neously could be overcome in this sector.
Analysing Program Management Approach in Theory and Practice
e Progress of Program Management Approach
Since 1960s, scheme of management which was held in a conventional way of func-
tional units has been replaced by matrix structural units based on projects. Compet-
itive pressure and eorts of diminishing the production time stimulate the respon-
sibilities of high-level project managers and project teams. Further, project activities
take primacy over functional units and projects have started to change the business
manner of organizations.
Projects, as a classic denition, are the group of activities aiming to meet a certain
requirement under time constraints and consisting the design/engineering appli-
cations.27 As being a part of programs and portfolios, projects are usually seen as
a means of reaching the targets of strategic plans and acquisition programs. Even
though the group of projects under a specic program facilitates a variety of “inde-
pendent” benets, it must also contribute to strategic goals of program and portfo-
lio.28
Nevertheless, it is possible to put forward that defense projects have some unique
characteristics among others. In general, system development initiatives require
large-scale investments and a long time frame due to high technology level. Besides,
those attempts need extra measures on privacy and security issues of country.
Constraints like the need for sophisticated engineering knowledge and high level of
uncontrollable exterior factors which aect project process, make the usual project
management models remain incapable in some cases.29 erefore, it could be seen
that the concepts of program and program management have been being developed
because of increasing number of projects in the organizations which make use of
projects as the main tool for their business.30
ough its initial examples are seen in following the World War II at the Ballistic
Missile Systems Program in the U.S. Navy, it is dicult to say that literature related
to program management has been well-established so far. However, a number of or-
27 İsmet Barutçugil, Proje Yönetimi, İstanbul: Kariyer Yayıncılık, 2008, s.14.
28 Ziya İpekkan, “Savunma Planlama ve Sistem Tedariki Sürecinde Proje, Program ve Portföy Yönetimi”, Savun-
ma Sanayii Gündemi, 17/4, (2011), s.12.
29 Michel iry, Program Management: Fundamentals of Project Management, Surrey: MPG Printgroup, 2013,
p.13.
30 Harvey Maylor et. al., “From Projectication To Programmication,” International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 24/8, (2006), p.663.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
171
ganizations have been leading, especially on setting standards and methodologies.31
is essay makes use of e Standart for Program Management of PMI, which stands
out as a widely-admitted approach.
According to PMI, program is a group of inter-related projects, sub-programs and
operational activities which must be managed in a coordinated way in order to gain
benets that cannot be acquired when they are managed independently.32 Projects in
a program need to be in a relationship with each other through a common strategic
goal of organization.33
While D. C. Ferns denes programs as a mechanism that manages and coordinates
projects in terms of their relations among each other,34 Williams and Parr uses a de-
nition that program is a structure and process that eases of establishing the relations
between the project groups and organization strategies, and also leads the resources
shared and managed in a more explicit and fair way.35
Figure 3. A Basic Demonstration of Program Structures36
Instead of programs, it may be more appropriate to make use of project portfolios
only if the projects are not possible to join the same group with interdependent pur-
poses to attain a common benet and if they only use the same resource, technology
or are in a relationship with the same shareholders. Programs may be classied in
a number of dierent ways considering the number and dependencies of projects
consisting of programs, performance measurement methods and scope level of pro-
grams. “Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards” denes program catego-
ries as indicated in the table below37:
31 Managing Succesful Programmes (MSP) Methodology-England, Body of Knowledge Introduction to
Programme Management-England, Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation (P2M)-Japan
are the major ones.
32 e Standard for Program Management, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute, 2013, p.34.
33 Dragan Z. Milosevic, Russ Martinelli and James M. Waddell, Program Management for Improved Business
Results, Hoboken: Wiley and Sons, Inc, 2007, p.3.
34 D. C. Ferns, “Developments in Programme Management,” International Journal of Project Management, 9/3,
(1991), p.148-149.
35 David Williams and Tim Parr, Enterprise Programme Management: Delivering Value, Houndmills: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004, p.6.
36 Bülent E. Beyoğlu, “Teoride ve Pratikte Program Yönetimi”, Savunma Sanayii Gündemi, 17/4, 2011, s.57.
37 GAPPS, A Framework for Performance Based Competency Standards for Program Managers, Version 1.1, 15,
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
172
Table 3. Program Types38
Strate gical Program Operat ional Pro gram Multi -Projects Program Mega Project
General Purpose
Creating benefits relevant
to maintaining strategical
vision of organisation
Creating benefits be ing
critical for operational
process of organisation
Maintaing synergy between
projects that are common in
certain aspects (i.e. Customer,
resource, production technology)
Providing new
capability or value to
organis ation
Diff ere nce
Dependent on a certain
strategical and/or business
goal
Main proj ects are
dependent to each
other under subject
program
Main projects are de pendent to
each other under subject program
Larger i n scale
comparing to the
other projects of
organis ation
Reason for
Grouping
proj ects
Result of a such project
affects foll owing projects
Minimising negative
effe cts on ongoing
activities
Creating synergy between
proj ects
Necessi tating
dif ferent man agerial
imple mentations to
handle such large-
scaled efforts
Program Ty pes
Program
Characteristics
Moreover, Managing Succesful Projects (MSP), a well-known program management
approach by British Ministry of Commerce, oers another variety of classication:
• Vision-led programs: Program types initiated through the strategical planning
process and shaped by strategical goals under portfolio management.
• Emergent programs: Program types managed as project groups aer realising the
fact that separately-managed initiatives may avail a common result, capability or
benet for organisation.
• Compliance Programs: Initiated due to a legal or contractual requirements with-
out any strategical expectations.39
Figure 4. Vision-Led and Emergent Programs40
Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards, 2011, p.4.
38 GAPPS, A Framework for Performance Based Competency Standards for Program Managers, p.4.
39 e Standard for Program Management, p.141-142.
40 e Standard for Program Management, p.42.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
173
In most cases, government organisations adopt the vision-led programs in princi-
ple but emergent programs come out more in practice owing to the lack of well-es-
tablished planning process.41 In Turkey, applications in defense organisations corre-
spond to emergent program categories mostly.
Literature demonstrates a classifying method for defense programs stemming from
the past initiatives:
• Joint Programs: All/some of forces and defense agencies are the shareholders.
• Interagency Programs: Initiatives by subsidiaries of Defense Ministry and other
departments/government organisations as seen National Polar Orbit System be-
tween U.S. Air Force and Department of Commerce.42
• Holistic Programs: Establishing the integrated program management approach
by having the Government and private sector representatives.
Considering these brief explanations above, program management aims to help us-
ers dene the most convenient approach to manage projects by focusing on the de-
pendencies. ose dependencies may be in three ways:
• Result of a project aects the other.
• Projects are using the same limited resources.
• A project includes systems that may be used in the other projects.43
Managing dependencies is one of the fundamental responsibilities of program man-
agers. To create a positive interaction between projects, program managers need to
take the measures below at the right time:
• Coordinating and managing common program activities like nance and acqui-
sition, nding solutions for overcoming resource constraints,
• Communicating with shareholders and informing them periodically,
• Managing program activities in order to comply with the strategical aims of the
organization and exterior shareholders.
• Handling the issues about scope, expenditures, quality, time and risks of projects
by maintaining temporary and exible organizational structure.
• Leading in forming positive interfaces among the units by making use of the
cultural, socioeconomic and political divergence at the most.
e main dierence between program and project management is that program
management concept is based on benet management focusing on the top strat-
egies.44 Inter-organizational communication is as signicant as the one inside the
organizations.
41 e Standard for Program Management, p.42.
42 Joint Program Management Handbook, p.47-51.
43 e Standard for Program Management, p.43.
44 e Standard for Program Management, p.25-28.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
174
For maintaining the outcomes that lead organizations to strategical goals by using
program management approach, a exible organizational structure must be designed
without any exception even in the defense organisations. In this way, a systematic,
accountable and more reactive approach may be attained. A simplied example of
organizational scheme including program and portfolio may be seen in Figure 3.45
Figure 5. e Relationship Between Program Structures and Strategical Goals46
Responsibilities that the programs include are planning program life-cycle, identify-
ing values/benets, helding maintainability, dening dependencies, solving problems
of dierent projects and contribution level of projects to the main goals of program.
Managing a number of projects under the same program framework is likely to ease
of foreseeing the risks that the organization may face with. Because, a failure in a
project may contribute to an irreversible problem in others; additionally, the prob-
lem may not be seen in advance at the project level.
In a well-established organizational program structure, managers are striving for
adapting the projects and strategies by focusing the dependencies, proposing meth-
ods for integrating the business strategies and expected benets. Specically, the or-
ganizations in which a lot of inputs from diverse actors, have been faced through
programs get benet from program management oce as a centre of excellence,
more frequently.47
e Practicality of Program Management Approach in Defense Sector
Defense systems are among the most complicated projects through their scale and
technological expectations. Controlling the defense projects are getting more di-
cult due to the need of defense units for pushing the limits of technologies to be able
to stay one step ahead of the threats and protecting the national interests.48 us,
improving the ability of managing projects and programs, putting a corporate and
program-focused structure into practice are seen as a “must” for boosting the de-
45 “International Association of Project and Program Management Ocial Website”, Last updated: 19.01.2015,
http://www.iappm.org/concepts.htm.
46 e Standard for Program Management, p.12.
47 e Standard for Program Management, p.9, 64.
48 Christopher G. Pernin et. al., Lessons form the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program, Santa Monica: RAND
Arroyo Center, 2012, p.xxvii.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
175
fense acquisition performance.49
e main dierence between defense and civilian programs may be the obligation
of considering the legal regulations, policies, rules and procedures more intensively
than the private sector.50 In addition, the possibility of confronting the obstacles un-
der the sponsorship of government counted below is higher, compared to the other
programs:
• Uncertainty and instability of funding medium,
• Appointment frequency of leaders and managers,
• Bureaucracy and political developments slowing down the main project eorts,
• Time limit for improving the program performance,
• Deciency of qualied personnel.51
Responsibilities for parties during the defense programs: It is troublesome to dene
program goals that are convenient for every parties and create a common language
among the stakeholders including contractors, subcontractors, users, needers, pro-
curement ocials, project teams and government ocials all of whom come from a
divergent background.
Figure 6. Responsibility&Coordination Cycle Between Shareholders of Acquisition
Programs52
49 Jonathan Kolodny, Adi Leviatan and Dana Maor, “Project Management in Defense: e Essential Capability”,
McKinsey on Government, 8 (2013), p.74.
50 John F. Schank et. al., Learning From Experience-Lessons from the United Kingdom’s Astute Submarine Program,
Volume III, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2011, p.2.
51 Oehmen, e Guide to Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs, p.23.
52 George Rebovich and Joseph K. DeRosa, Patterns of Success in Systems Engineering Acquisition of ITIntensive
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
176
e matters that aect and hold to account all of the stakeholders to a certain extent
from the beginning of the defense acquisition program till the end can be seen in
Table 4.
Table 4. e Elements that Aect Program Stakeholders to Certain Extent53
It is getting harder to determine the halting (causing deviations) point in connection
with the disorder of responsibilities in acquisition process. is is another funda-
mental fact that leads program managers critical in a medium necessitating to han-
dle a number of projects simultaneously.54
Program managers are actors for planning the organizational scheme and inspec-
tion process compatible with the projects and also connecting the project level to
program board.55 erefore, it is expected for them to be entrusted with enough au-
thority to manage.
Defense program managers are furnished with dierent missions compared to proj-
ect managers. Program managers should establish closer relations with project man-
agers and give them support one by one. Subsequently they provide integration with
each program component and nal destination in a correct way. Allocating resource
fairly among projects, controlling the urgency of requirements and considering the
budget constraints of systems and outputs in the view of life-cycle across the organi-
zation are key specialties of program managers.56
Due to the direct eect of developed systems/platforms to country defense, program
managers are urged to do their job by means of program oces.
Program management oces are rst held in the U.S. in the military departments
and procurement agencies as a practice for diminishing the unnecessary correspon-
dence and reports between decision authorities.57 is change might stem from the
Government Systems, MITRE Corporation, 2012, p.9.
53 Joint Program Management Handbook, p.15-16.
54 Owen C. Gadeken, “Project Managers as Leaders–Competencies of Top Performers” RD&A, 1997, p.4.
55 Joint Program Management Handbook. p.B.1.
56 e Standard for Program Management, p.14.
57 Mark Lumb, “Where Defense Acquisition Today: A close Examination of Structures and Capabilities”, Defense
AT&L, 2008, p.19.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
177
fact that managing defense projects is getting more complex and expensive, especial-
ly since 1980s.58
Program management oces are expected to make things easier for program man-
agers on actions below:
• Maintaining organizational standarts and sustaining them,
• Conveying the earned lessons aer a challenge into the other initiatives.59
• Identifying the quality standarts and procedures through projects,
• Supporting schedule and budget management at program level,
• Analysing the risks, changes and challenges centrally,60
• Appointing personnel among the projects and from other sources. (fast and ef-
fective personnel planning),
• Making use of common source and capabilities throughout the project portfoli-
os.
A wide range of organizations, especially project based enterprises struggling with
project portfolios are aware of the need for program management.61 Nevertheless,
the need for authorizing program managers with serious power including spendings
make the decision authority reluctant about supporting the reform of acquisition
process focused on program management, just because of limiting the authorization
of top-level managers.
Inspection Mechanism in Defense Program Management: Privacy and complexity of
projects are among the fundamental negative factors that make the inspection pro-
cess of program management dicult. Complexity of systems necessitates scientic
analysis techniques through inspections, but it prevents countries from constituting
those mechanisms which are expected to reduce the deviations of projects and –es-
pecially- programs, owing to the lack of know-how and number of inspection au-
thorities which are capable of making those analyses.
Briey, it may be claimed that inspection activities do not contribute to the concept
of program management positively, in most of developing countries.
Assessment of Program Management in terms of Human Resources: e expectations
58 Joint Program Management Handbook, p.7. In “Future Combat Systems” program (being developed on behalf of
U.S. Army and consisting manned-unmanned, air/ground-based manoeuvering and sustaining systems integrated
with network-based infrastructures), program management oces’ structure and mechanism, which have been
builded up with the intention of peer-to-peer communication between army, acquisition agency and main system
integrator, serve as a good example for matching up with the Program Management Standarts of PMI.
59 North Ireland Finance and Personnel Department Ocial Website, Last Updated: 24.02.2015, http://www.
dfpni.gov.uk/index/procurement-2/succesful-delivery/project-management/pmo.htm,
60 e Standard for Program Management, p.13.
61 Murat Dengiz, “Stratejik Yönetişim: Bütünleşik Proje, Program ve Portföy Yönetimi”, Savunma Sanayii Gün-
demi, 17/4, (2011), p.25.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
178
from professionals responsible for acquisition activities are getting higher due to the
need for choosing the right alternative for a highly complex system among other
procurement methods and preparing detailed procurement contracts62. erefore, it
seems not enough to employ more personnel only in number.
From the viewpoint of human resource, it is critical in major system acquisitions to
employ experienced personnel continually through the program life cycle. While
work experience is vital especially in complex systems, sustaining the continuity of
acquisition manpower has been a big challenge due to the fact that number of pro-
fessionals are not adequate comparing to the number of future projects, including
developed countries. For instance, recent research indicates that the ratio of proj-
ects of Turkish Undersecretariat for Defense Industries to number of personnel has
slipped down to around 1.3.63
e insuciency of both military and government personnel brings about handing
over the responsibilities in projects to major and minor contractors. A research made
by U.S. GAO shows that 41% of employees of program oce in 61 major defense
programs represents contractor rms and 26% of them are assigned to contribute to
managing programs. 64
at fact may pose signicant eects on boosting the benets of program manage-
ment. Considering military, private and other employees altogether may contribute
to develop a holistic and supra-projects approach by Department of Defense. is
approach anticipates to take into account not only the military personnel but also
the personnel and other capabilities of private agents related to programs as total ca-
pacity of program, without limiting the capacity with only military forces of country.
An Analysis of Awareness Level for Program Management in Turkey by
“Depth Interview” Method
Conceptual Framework
Within the scope of research, a framework has been drawn about the deviations of
defense projects and program management approach. Aer that, factors aecting the
practicality of program management approach in defense projects have been anal-
ysed.
Going on further, gathered data have been evaluated by descriptive analysis method,
structured interview questions have been organized so as to ask them to chief profes-
sionals, experts, researchers, project/program managers and defense planners from
military, government and private sector who takes part in defense acquisitions.
Under the guidance of core answerers and documentary research made by author, 13
participants are dened as sample group for depth-interview.
62 Susan M. Gates, Shining a Spotlight on the Defence Acquisition Workforce-Again, Santa Monica: RAND Corpo-
ration, 2009, p.5.
63 Murad Bayar, “Bir Konuk Bir Söyleşi-Program Yönetimi”, Savunma Sanayii Gündemi, 17/4, (2011), p.10.
64 Gates, Shining a Spotlight on the Defence Acquisition Workforce-Again, p.15, 23.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
179
Table 5. Information About Sample Participants
Constraints
• Making use of only the open source on the research, due to the privacy of defense
projects’ documents,
• Not nding the opportunity to interview the people in the eld not living in
Turke y.
Data Analysis
Following the data analysis about the problem areas and maturing the thoughts and
views, interviews have been analysed by “descriptive analysis method”. en solution
proposals have been made by dening the common and diverse sides (thoughts) of
dierent organizations in order to gure out the reforms needed to put the program
management approach in Turkey into practice.
By attaching the views of participants, main themes have been diversied and sim-
plied for the sake of clarity. Research themes can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6. Interview emes on Program Management Approach
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
180
Findings rough Interview
It is understood through the interview with the defense industry professionals that
program management standards based on PMI has newly come into prominence by
a few of the organisations which need to manage a range of (mainly R&D) defense
projects to attain their strategical goals. ose who have enough knowledge on proj-
ect management procedures indicate an interest for building a new organizational
scheme with the mentality of program management approach. However, the idea
of designing and developing the systems which have certain level of commonalities
together by seeking the possible strategical benets has not been well-adapted by
almost all of companies of interviewees. Participant-11 has commented on this by
claiming that the program management approach seems to be more notional and
theoretical comparing to project management process which has more measurable
and applicable phases.
Main contractors on defense sector of Turkey seems well-aware of the concepts of
project management, system engineering, system of systems and life-cycle manage-
ment subjects together with the problem elds. Participants does not neglect the
requirements of a sort of “governing body” which takes the responsibility of leading
diverse projects and existing systems and correlating them with long-term strate-
gies. Nevertheless, since any attempt to revise the business model based on program
structure necessitates high-equipped and skilled personnel and organizational cul-
ture (which means a long period of time before adopted), they behave reluctantly
towards such a fundamental amendment and continue to make use of project man-
agement tools though some of them have positions called development program di-
rectorate.
Participant 9. Initiatives for individual projects have started in 1989 and evolved
to multi-projects structure through following years. PMBOK Rev4 procedures have
been predicated from then on.
Participant 10. ... We compose risk management plan in accordance with project
management guide. Tools such as DOORS, JIRA, MS Project and SVN are actively
used to inspect the stage of projects’ time, budget and quality standarts. Having said
that, connection between project long-term outputs (both in positive and negative
way) and organizational strategies needs to be established somehow for the ease of
future strategical decisions, which is our weak side.
On the other hand, subcontractor-level companies have limited knowledge on proj-
ect management methodologies in practical manner as participant-13 states that
they have no vision and near-future plans regarding project-program management.
Taking into account of program management standards, it might be deduced that
soware-intensive and R&D projects are more compatible for program scheme since
the modules are developed simultaneously and easily integrated to other projects
and/or other operational activities.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
181
In general, interviews made in public organisations predominantly indicates the lack
of information related to the program management procedures, the idea and poten-
tial benets of program structures in terms of strategical defense planning process.
Public ocials and especially military personnel acknowledge the reality of the fact
that numbers of large-scale projects get increased and cause a dicult environment
for managers to lead the multi-disciplinary process. On the other hand, they do not
easily adopt and embrace the program management approach as a roadmap so far as
what the interviewees put forward during the research.
Moreover, a portion of the participants share the premise that program management
is a method which may be facilitated only in the procurement organisations and it
has nothing to do with the other stages of planning, programming and budgeting
system.
Participant 3. Gaining benets from the intersection of projects completely relates to
the acquisition authorities. Operational needs and technical requirements are con-
veyed to the logistics/procurement division. System/personnel/budget usage from
common pool need to be considered by procurement authorities then.
For the rst time in Turkey, it has been possible to state this “program management
concept” in public organisations of Turkey by Defense Industry Secretariate which
had adopted the principle of “transition to Corporate Program Management” in
their 2012-2016 Strategical Plan. However, it will make things easier in order to gain
maximum benet from this approach if and only if large-scale programs are consid-
ered mutually with the other shareholders.
Participant 7. e number of projects undertaken so far has reached a peak by 300,
on the contrary, the average number of personnel in a project has decreased to level
of 1,4. is circumstance make dening the priorities of projects, the content of stra-
tegical decisions and maintaining a healthy communication environment between
the other stakeholders.
Participant 6. A working group consisting of 25 personnel has been given miscel-
lenaous education regarding program management from PRINCE2 and ESI Interna-
tional Institutes.
Participant 5. We have not provided any kind of program management education
in theory and practice. Our projects have been carried out by the personal eorts
and experience of our sta. Earned experience has been conveyed from seniours to
inexpert sta by master-apprentice relationship
According to the expressions stated by interviewees, transition for program manage-
ment occurs slowly by covering only a limited number of organisations. e funda-
mental reason behind this fact is that decision makers nd it easy to comprehend the
product/output based approach compared to the program structure based on stra-
tegical benet. It may be inferred that establishing such a comprehensive approach
into organisation culture necessitates a great deal of time under these circumstances.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
182
Participant 6. In order to succeed in such a comprehensive change in business strat-
egy, not only it is required to obtain support from high level decision authority but
also a cultural changeover in terms of our business mentality is to be achieved both
in public and private defense sector.
Participant 6. In the lights of our strategical plan, we have established Program Man-
agement Information System which will enable us to make use of past and current
project details easily. Nowadays, we have been striving for creating a pilot program
structure, aer that we will evaluate the idea of having a “program management of-
ce” and inter-organisational program concepts for the further steps.
Main contractors and project managers from public side have agreed on one thing
that they could have realized some of their eorts for attaining a new specic tech-
nological capability which have already been developed by another projects inside or
outside of the subject organisations. is indicate that we have to handle increasing
number of projects by establishing a holistic view.
Inter-Organizational (Shareholders in Defense Planning and Acquisition Process)
Owing to the nature of defense projects which require the cutting-edge technology,
a wide variety of prominent organisations need to contribute to the process from
the beginning to the end. is undoubtedly increases the complexity of managerial
process. Further, Turkey’s planning, programming and budgeting process also ne-
cessitates at least three years to initiate any defense projects on the condition that
relevant documents (National Security Policy Document, Strategical Plan, National
Military Strategy and Operation Requirement Plans) have been completed in time. It
indicates that duration for decision is more than required considering the fast chang-
ing technology constraint.
e fundamental reason behind this long time planning request seems according
to interviewees that there has not been any single responsible authority to lead the
whole process. Most of the organisations consider their own internal interests or
responsibilities at rst without sucient communication eorts with their share-
holders and in most cases, it turns into a contradictive approach resulting deviations
to obtain the system or any other requirements at the eld. However, as the program
management standards conrm, a well-established program management consisting
of large-scaled diverse projects may be achieved by the mutual eorts of all elements.
e inexibility of planning process stands as a burden for defense projects speci-
cally when it is required a revision of a number of projects which have already been
proceeded to a certain level by procurer. Such a revision request needs to be handled
in terms of budgeting, operational medium, present and future expectations on na-
tional strategies (which may aect the system requirements directly), and technolog-
ical constraints of country’s defense industry. Taking into account of reaction time
of all shareholders from governmental perspective, almost all interviewees agree that
this fact forms an obstacle to follow the timelines of any defense projects. Together
with that, when a contradiction occurs between two or more agencies, no single
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
183
authority, which has a pure command over the process and related details is found
available to come up with a decision.
Subject inexibility also occurs due to the tight regulations of nations. For instance,
since budgeting organs of government considers cost factors more important and
neglects the operational priorities (disregarding the exceptions), and procurement
ocials carry the pressure of nancial auditing procedures, authorities (except from
the ones in operation eld) behave in a reluctant and intolerant way to compulsory
changes in projects. Furthermore, main and sub-contractors are tried to keep away
from the planning and programming process with the intention of sustaining the
competitiveness and fairness of governmental expenditures and security concerns.
It has the possibility to cause deviations on the grounds that real capabilities of in-
dustry may not comply with the system requirements of projects. is case is seen in
both projects and programs according to interviewees.
Following this further, though it is one of the main program management require-
ments, applicability of exible and eective inter-organisational use of total human
resources by program managers in government side seems nothing more than a
dream for even the most developed countries. ose constitute the reason why pro-
gram structures shall be an option for improving the defense procurement process.
Participant 2. Planning, programming and budgeting process is mainly focus on
resource management, not categorizing the projects in terms of foreseen operational
and strategic capabilities with an inter-organisational approach. Managing a number
of projects are more than managing resources.
Participant 5. PPBS works as a concept for planning. However, without integrating
the planning process with acquisition stage and operational feedbacks, this will stay
as a “scapegoat” for any kind of deviations for defense organisations.
Participant 8. Main defense capability groups cannot be dened systematically with-
in the direction of capability based planning. is impedes the prioritization of sys-
tem/platform requirements. Country-wide defense capabilities need to be managed
in a holistic approach.
Participant 4. Disconnection between procurement, nancial, planning authorities
aects the time frame and direct/indirect costs of projects. Duplications continue
to occur in current and already-nished project eorts owing to the lack of com-
munication… Integration meetings are held once or twice a year which lowers the
eectiveness of programming process.
Participant 6. Same or similar requirements and R&D eorts are not being consoli-
dated in most cases and tried to be procured/developed independently.
Participant 5. Every year, responsible organisation strives for completing its own
area of responsibility. However, they are not able to see the complete picture.
Participant 3. Project and program planners are not allowed to communicate with
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
184
the procurement authorities or contractors under the restrictions of regulations.
Inferring from the discussions by the interviewees, including the acquisition organi-
sations and potential contractors to the project process when needed by pre-inform-
ing them about the project requirements is considered as a positive contribution pre-
venting from the time and budget deviations. By this way, more planned approach for
improving countries’ defense industry could be implemented by the defense actors.
Participant 6. Procurement authority is included to the project process later than it
should be. is case does not let them make themselves ready for initiating and com-
pleting the projects since personel hiring and R&D eorts take substantial amount
of time.
Program shareholder management necessitates the establishment of a program man-
agement oce which will enable universities and research centers to take part in the
process well in advance. However, regulations have still too much way to improve
and contribute to the process.
Participant 8. Scientic analysis are not adequately done by the help of academic
medium in order to combine strategic vision and end capabilities. Universities are in
if and only if procurement authority call them to participate in the process.
Nonetheless, as creating such a comprehensive initiative and leading whole process
requires, a program risk plan needs to consider all the inputs from external factors
such as political upcomings.
Going through the organisation schemes within the aim of implementing program
management seems to compose a common ground for almost all interviewees.
Participant 2. Peer positions in ministry of defense, joint sta, undersecretariate of
defense industry and main contractors should be established under a superior board
of program management. Consolidating individual project eorts of forces may fa-
cilitate the consistency of projects.
Participant 3. Understanding of Joint Portfolio Management needs to be established
in organisations to be able to decide faster and focus on strategic benets.
Participant 10. Program managers should be authorized to manage human resourc-
es and nancial instruments between projects. is will enable projects to be priori-
tized accordingly to the conditions.
Model Proposal
In the lights of interviews and past project experiences, it can be understood that
Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) process being implemented
by most of the NATO countries including Turkey does not stand out as a exible sys-
tem, it is too strict in every stages that any holistic approach does not seem possible
to be applied. It is proposed that a unique “resource management structure” must be
formed with the intent of overcoming unstable threats as soon as possible, managing
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
185
the change of system requirements in minor/major defense projects and enable the
national strategies to be implemented.
In this research, by considering the issues of PPBS-user countries, an inter-organiza-
tional matrix model has been proposed, with the aim of arranging the relationships
among project stakeholders. Details can be seen in Appendix Figure-1. In this
model, top level responsibility is given “Defense Resource Planning and Manage-
ment Directorate” which may be formed under Department of Defense. at re-
sponsibility is thought to be discharged by a range of oces and boards. In this man-
ner, an organizational scheme is considered to be able to relate cross-functionally
with stakeholders instead of strict hierarchical relations. Besides, defense industry
stakeholders are replaced into the process from the planning stage.
e model, in which several characteristics of traditional control-based approach
and integrated program approach based on PMI’s standarts could be seen, envisages
that resource planning and management process are centrally-managed by top-level
management which has been authorized with directing the process from dening
the needs to the disposal stages.
e positions mentioned in the model are also proposed to be held inside the other
stakeholders’ organizational scheme as peers to a certain detail level needed. Break-
down of the responsibility through the defense acquisition process are deemed to be
dened as indicated in the table below.
Table 7. Breakdown of the Responsibility of Authorities Indicated in the Model
Re s ponsible Autho rity Main Functio n
Defense Resource
Planning and M anage ment
Dire c to rate
• To underta ke the responsibility of the whole defense acquisition process on behalf of
government
• To maintain and c oordinate esta blishing projects and programs tha t deliver defense
capabilities of c ountry
• To interac t intensely with the relevant a uthorities in an effort to prepare the top-level
documents lea ding to specify the operational re quirements.
Capability Portfolio
Manage ment O ffice
• To move together with the working groups which verify the ca pability needs and
performance expectations
• To form the programs coming up with the right major breakdown of capability areas
• To manage the relations and communications within the programs and with the
exte rior stake holders
• To advise program management office regarding the strategical upcomings
• To audit programs in terms of change, life-cycle, contract, resource management
aspects.
Jo int Ne eds Spe cification
Co mmitte e
• To verify the capability needs and pe rformance expectations by making use of
scientific methods
• To be strategically in touc h with universities, agents of industry, research organizations
and armed forces
• To contact directly and act with the intention of promoting benefits of defense
industry.
Sys te m, Te chnolog y
De velopme nt and
Acquisition Planning
Co mmitte e
• To develop the right te chnologies re quired by the end users of armed forces
• To evaluate every requirement by the end user capabilities well in advance
• To be strategically in touc h with universities, agents of industry, research organizations
and armed forces
• To contact directly and act with the intention of promoting benefits of defense industry
shareholders.
Prog ram M anage ment
Office (including program
manage rs )
• To be involved in the a cquisition process from the beginning of “defining needs” pha se
• To support the efforts of program managers that seek an interfac e with systems in use
and the ones being deve loped
•To be responsible in prioritization of budget a nd a lloc a ting among projects of a
progra m in a dynamic manner.
•To hold the authority of assigning personne l from a project to a nother (whe n
necessary), even if he w orks for different organization, by considering opera tional
pr ior ities
•To inspect the projects and share the benefits/outcomes/earned lessons w it h related
shareholders
Unive rsities, Age nts of
Indus try, Research
Organizatio ns and Arme d
Fo rce s
• To be involved in the a cquisition process from the beginning of “defining needs” pha se
• To hold their opportunity to contribute the end-product in an effective manner
• To raise the intellectua l knowledge of defense environment of subject country.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
186
Re s ponsible Autho rity Main Functio n
Defense Resource
Planning and M anage ment
Dire c to rate
• To underta ke the responsibility of the whole defense acquisition process on behalf of
government
• To maintain and c oordinate esta blishing projects and programs tha t deliver defense
capabilities of c ountry
• To interac t intensely with the relevant a uthorities in an effort to prepare the top-level
documents lea ding to specify the operational re quirements.
Capability Portfolio
Manage ment O ffice
• To move together with the working groups which verify the ca pability needs and
performance expectations
• To form the programs coming up with the right major breakdown of capability areas
• To manage the relations and communications within the programs and with the
exte rior stake holders
• To advise program management office regarding the strategical upcomings
• To audit programs in terms of change, life-cycle, contract, resource management
aspects.
Jo int Ne eds Spe cification
Co mmitte e
• To verify the capability needs and pe rformance expectations by making use of
scientific methods
• To be strategically in touc h with universities, agents of industry, research organizations
and armed forces
• To contact directly and act with the intention of promoting benefits of defense
industry.
Sys te m, Te chnolog y
De velopme nt and
Acquisition Planning
Co mmitte e
• To develop the right te chnologies re quired by the end users of armed forces
• To evaluate every requirement by the end user capabilities well in advance
• To be strategically in touc h with universities, agents of industry, research organizations
and armed forces
• To contact directly and act with the intention of promoting benefits of defense industry
shareholders.
Prog ram M anage ment
Office (including program
manage rs )
• To be involved in the a cquisition process from the beginning of “defining needs” pha se
• To support the efforts of program managers that seek an interfac e with systems in use
and the ones being deve loped
•To be responsible in prioritization of budget a nd a lloc a t ing a mong projects of a
progra m in a dynamic manner.
•To hold the authority of assigning pers onnel from a projec t to anothe r (when
necessary), even if he w orks for different organization, by considering operational
pr ior ities
•To inspect the projects and share the benefits/outcomes/earned lessons w ith related
shareholders
Unive rsities, Age nts of
Indus try, Research
Organizatio ns and Arme d
Fo rce s
• To be involved in the a cquisition process from the beginning of “defining needs” pha se
• To hold their opportunity to contribute the end-product in an effective manner
• To raise the intellectua l knowledge of defense environment of subject country.
It is considered that this model based on the coordination of all components of de-
fense acquisition process may be adapted and improved by countries, aer evalu-
ating the level of knowledge, technology and potential of industry, in addition to
regulations of country.
Conclusion
Owing to the many-sided and unstable threat environment, together with the in-
clination towards decreasing spendings for highly-sophisticated defense systems, it
comes out that the defense projects must be managed in a more professional way.
Despite a certain advances in managing complex, long-lasting projects one by one,
examined studies point out that a reorganization of related shareholders needs to be
put into practice, especially when considered the growing number and complexity
of projects. Capability/scenario-based defense concept, which is adopted by many
countries including Turkey, necessitates a “supra-projects management scheme” to
be able to gure out to what extent projects’ possible outcomes meet the capability
gaps and thoroughly national defense strategies.
e success of defense projects depends on the macro-economic (instability of bud-
get and cost inputs), politic (government program, conjuncture, bureaucratical im-
pediments) and managerial (limitation of relations with contractors, other share-
holders, instability of manpower, decision-making process) in addition to technical
factors. is case supports the idea of establishing a supra-projects management
scheme which will match the existing and planned Project portfolio with the strate-
gic objectives of country. is framework will be responsible for the whole process,
from the denition of concepts and programs to the disposal of systems.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
187
Considering internationally-accepted program management standarts of PMI, a
number of inferences may be made for defense organizations:
• Projects/alternative projects may be managed centrally to lead the organization
to a common strategic goal set before.
• e usage of system/sub-system commonality may be raised through seeking for
tactical/strategical relations between projects, leading to budget savings,
• An interface may be created between end-product and organization strategy
through integrating program management oce from the beginning of planning
stage,
• Decision making process may be accelerated through giving enough authority to
program managers and oces,
• Shareholders may be directed to collaboration to each other by making them
adopt the program goals in order to maintain the common benets,
• Comprehensive and inter-organizational risk management plans may be made
and updated by deciding the priorities and importance of projects through the
scientic analysis,
• Due to the longer life-cycle of programs, corporate and established framework
may be formed to manage the continuous changes in a more eective way.
Whereas program management discipline, as examined in this research, has a the-
oretical infrastructure and international standarts, it necessitates not only organi-
zational changes, but also the cultural reforms to be able to highly-adopted by the
shareholders. It is apparent that moving the focus point from time, cost and quality
expectations to risk, benet and performance expectations is a painful and trouble-
some process. In this regard, the case of some program management oces which is
established with the only purpose of a hierarchical stage over the project managers
without considering inter-project relations and total benets strengthens the previ-
ous inference.
In this concept, Defense Resource Planning and Management Model, proposed
through examining the current position of defense programs, standarts and inter-
views made with the corporations in Turkey, puts forward an approach supporting
the points below, in order to implement program management inter-organizational-
ly in the defense planning process:
• Firstly, an environment of condence must be established among the organiza-
tions in PPBS with the intent of making decisions together in every stages.
• In order to hold the responsibilites holistically in project process, organizing po-
sitions as peers to the related shareholders is fundamental.
• With the contribution of inputs provided by Joint Requirement Determining
Board, an authority for managing the capability portfolio through their life-cycle
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
188
(mentioned as Defense Resource Planning and Management Model) and its sub-
ordinates (risk, change, life-cycle, contracting, resource planning and inspecting
units) must be established by considering the country-specic conditions.
On the purpose of facilitating the use of program and portfolio management oces,
another major step to be taken is related to reforms about legal procedures. High
cost of projects makes personnel not take initiatives that may lower the speed and/or
eectiveness of the projects, with the intention of guaranteeing himself under legal
constraints. Providing that the changes on technical issues are discussed and decided
by program oces (directly responsible for project success) instead of authorities
from military/government/parliament, it might enhance the performance and suc-
cess rate of projects. Another negative eect of strict regulations is to be impelled to
conduct critical-requirement dening and technology developing activities only by
means of military capacity because of “privacy” issues.
It makes the situation inextricable for defense industry agents to dene long-term
organizational strategy; in consequence of managing defense projects in a short-
term, temporary and product-based fashion. us, including the industry earlier in
the beginning of program life-cycle may aect the development of countries’ defense
industr y.
Adjusting the auditing method of inspectors is another main factor that aects the
practicality of program management approach. On the grounds of uncontrollable
macro-extrinsic factors, inspectorates must adopt a responsive way of controlling
the programs by focusing on attaining the defense capabilities as planned. is may
encourage the project and program managers to apply to professional inspection
authorities for checking the halting points in projects that they are responsible for.
us, it leads managers to take measures much earlier and to respond possible de-
viating issues. Establishing an inspection mechanism that correlate the usage of re-
sources and defense objectives by using some digitalized performance criteria seems
another benecial area to search.
Moreover, appointment policy of government organizations aects the the eec-
tiveness of project personnel who take part in defense planning process. Creating
a specic project pattern, which leads the ones working for government or private
corporations to be assigned for simpler missions at rst and gradually more com-
plicated programs that need to be managed by strategical vision, may possibly have
an inuential step for the success of projects portfolio. For defense sector, the need
for unique system/platform development through making use of domestic industry
have an upward trend and this fact necessitates the continuity of well-trained pro-
gram managers, especially working for government side. In this manner, program
management has a critical importance for countries, in the meaning of top-level re-
sponsibilities and requirements for the capability of assessing the dynamics of de-
fense industry and technological advances.
On the conclusion, it is deduced that a country-specic program management ap-
proach is possible to be developed and implemented by raising program managers
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
189
that can analyse and manage the risks, benets and relations of projects responsively,
throughout the entire planning, programming and budgeting process, with the con-
tribution of academy and top-level policy makers.
References
Barutçugil, İsmet. Proje Yönetimi. İstanbul: Kariyer Yayıncılık, 2008.
Bayar, Murad. “Bir Konuk Bir Söyleşi-Program Yönetimi”. Savunma Sanayii
Gündemi. 17/4 (2011): 8-10.
Beyoğlu, Bülent E. “Teoride ve Pratikte Program Yönetimi”. Savunma Sanayii
Gündemi. 17/4 (2011): 52-59.
Blickstein, Irv et. al. Root Cause Analyses of Nunn-Mccurdy Breaches: Zumwalt-Class
Destroyer, Joint Strike Fighter, Longbow Apache and Wideband Global Satellite.
Vol-1. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2011.
Chow, Brian G. Et. Al. Toward Aordable Systems: Portfolio Analysis and Management
For Army Science and Technology Programs. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation,
2009.
Dengiz, Murat. “Stratejik Yönetişim: Bütünleşik Proje, Program ve Portföy Yönetimi”.
Savunma Sanayii Gündemi. 17/4 (2011): 22-25.
Ferns, D.C. “Developments in Programme Management”. International Journal of
Project Management. 9/3 (1991): 148-156.
Gadeken, Owen C. “Project Managers as Leaders–Competencies of Top Performers”.
RD&A. (1997): 2-8.
GAPPS. A Framework for Performance Based Competency Standards for Program
Managers. Version 1.1, 15. Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards,
2011.
Gates, Susan M. Shining A Spotlight on the Defence Acquisition Workforce-Again.
Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2009.
Hiromoto, Scott. Fundamental Capability Portfolio Management: A Study of
Developing Systems with Implications for Army Research and Development
Strategy. Santa Monica: Pardee Rand Graduate School, 2013.
INCOSE. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Life Cycle Processes
and Activities. V.3.2.2. San Diego: InternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineer-
ing(INCOSE), 2011.
International Association of Project and Program. “International Association of
Project and Program Management Ocial Website”. Last updated: 19.01.2015.
http://www.iappm.org/concepts.htm.
İpekkan, Ziya. “Savunma Planlama ve Sistem Tedariki Sürecinde Proje, Program ve
Portföy Yönetimi”. Savunma Sanayii Gündemi. 17/4 (2011): 11-12.
Joint Program Management Handbook. Fort Belvoir: Defence Acquisition University
Press, 2004.
Kolodny Jonathan, Adi Leviatan and Dana Maor. “Project Management in Defense:
e Essential Capability”. Mckinsey on Government. 8 (2013): 56-86.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
190
Lumb Mark. “Where Defense Acquisition Today: A Close Examination of Structures
and Capabilities”. Defense AT&L. (2008): 18-21.
Maylor, Harvey et. al. “From Projectication to Programmication”. International
Journal of Project Management. 24/8 (2006): 663-674.
Milosevic, Dragan Z., Russ Martinelli and James M. Waddell. Program Management
for Improved Business Results. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007.
Moore, Nancy Y. et. al. A Gap Analysis of Life Cycle Management Commands and
Best Purchasing and Supply Management Organizations. Santa Monica: RAND
Arroyo Center, 2012.
North Ireland Finance and Personnel Department. “North Ireland Finance and
Personnel Department Ocial Website”. Last Updated: 24.02.2015 http://www.
dfpni.gov.uk/index/procurement-2/succesful-delivery/project-management/
pmo.htm.
Oehmen, Josef. e Guide To Lean Enablers For Managing Engineering Programs.
Version 1.0. Cambridge: Joint Mit-Pmi-Incose Community Of Practice On Lean
In Program Management, 2012.
Oce of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Systems Engineering Guide for Systems of Systems. Version 1.0. Washington D.C.,
2008.
Pernin, Christopher G. et. al. Lessons from the Army’s Future Combat Systems Program.
Santa Monica: Rand Arroyo Center, 2012.
Rebovich, George and Joseph K. DeRosa. Patterns of Success in Systems Engineering
Acquisition of ItIntensive Government Systems. Mitre Corporation, 14 August
2012.
Riposo, Jessie et. al. Prolonged Cycle Times and Schedule Growth in Defense
Acquisition-A Literature Review. Santa Monica: National Defense Research
Institute, Rand Corporation, 2014.
Schank, John F., Frank W. Lacroix, Robert Murphy, Cesse Cameron Ip, Mark V. Arena,
Gordon T. Lee. Learning from Experience-Lessons From e United Kingdom’s
Astute Submarine Program. Volume III. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2011.
Schwartz, Moshe. Defense Acquisitions: How Dod Acquires Weapon Systems and
Recent Eorts to Reform the Process. Congressional Research Service, 2014.
Sylvester, Richard K. and Joseph A. Ferrara. “Conict and Ambiguity Implementing
Evolutionary Acquisition”. Acquisition Review Quarterly. (2003): 3-26.
e Standard for Program Management. ird Edition. Pennsylvania: Project
Management Institute, 2013.
iry, Michel. Program Management: Fundamentals of Project Management. Surrey:
Mpg Printgroup, 2013.
Tomczykowski, Walter et. al. Program Managers Handbook: Common Practices to
Mitigate the Risk of Obsolescence (Dra). Maryland, 2000.
U.S. Department of Defense. Quadrennial Defense, Review Report 2006. February
2006.
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
191
U.S. Department of Defense. e Defense Acquisition System Directive (Dodd
5000.01). May, 2003.
U.S. Department of Navy. Best Practices: How to Avoid Surprises in the World’s Most
Complicated Technical Process. March 1986.
U.S. Government Accountability Oce. Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected
Weapon Programs. Gao-09-326sp. March 2009.
U.S. Government Accountability Oce. Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of Selected
Weapon Programs. Gao-13-294sp. Washington D.C. March 2013.
Williams, David and Tim Parr. Enterprise Programme Management: Delivering Value.
Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Özhan Eren / Fahri Erenel
192
İnsan&İnsan (5/17 Yaz/Summer 2018)
Appendix Figure 1
193
Savunma Tedark Projelernde Sapmaların Önlenmes Maksadıyla Program
Yönetm Yaklaşımının Uygulanablrlğ
Özhan Eren Fahri Erenel
Öz: Savunma tedark sürec, stratejk sevyede brçok paydaşın rol aldığı, sahp olunan en yük-
sek teknolojnn kullanılarak, yasal ve mal kısıtlar altında arzu edlen savunma yeteneğn
sağlamayı hedeeyen grşmler barındırmaktadır. Söz konusu grşmlern karmaşıklığının ve
sayılarının artması ve brbrleryle entegre gelştrlme zorunluluğu, savunma projelernde sap-
malara yol açmaktadır. Makalede, savunma planlama sürec özelnde savunma projelernde
görülen sapmalar kısaca tartışıldıktan sonra, brden fazla karmaşık projenn ortak fayda gö-
zeterek yönetlmes olarak özetleneblecek Program Yönetm yaklaşımı ncelenmştr. Program
yönetmne lşkn farkındalık sevyesnn değerlendrlmes ve savunma program yönetmyle
lgl çıkarımlarda bulunulması maksadıyla Türkye’de proje yönetmnde görevl profesyonel-
lerle “dernlemesne görüşme metodu” kullanılarak yüzyüze görüşmeler gerçekleştrlmş ve sa-
vunma kaynaklarının daha organze br bçmde yönetlmes düşüncesnden hareketle program
yönetm konseptn esas alan br “alternatf yönetm model” önerlmştr. Sonuç bölümünde,
yapılan araştırma ve görüşmeler ışığında önerlen modeln ve program yönetm yaklaşımının
uygulanablmesne yönelk çıkarımlar yapılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelmeler: Savunma sanay, Savunma tedark, Planlama ve yönetm model, Proje
yönetm, Tedark sapmaları, İnsan kaynakları.
İnsan&İnsan, Yıl/Year 5, Sayı/Issue 17, Yaz/Summer 2018, 163-193
DOI: https://do.org/10.29224/nsanvensan.392155
Gönderm 25 Şubat 2018
Düzeltlmş gönderm 13 Mart 2018
Kabul 3 Nsan 2018
www.nsanvensan.org e-ISSN: 2148-7537
