Preliminary Observations on Program Instability

This white paper reports emerging findings at the end of Phase I of the Lean Aircraft Initiative in the Policy focus group area. Specifically, it provides details about research on program instability. Its objective is to discuss high-level findings detailing: 1) the relative contribution of different factors to a program’s overall instability; 2) the cost impact of program instability on acquisition programs; and 3) some strategies recommended by program managers for overcoming and/or mitigating the negative effects of program instability on their programs. Because this report comes as this research is underway, this is not meant to be a definitive document on the subject. Rather, is it anticipated that this research may potentially produce a number of reports on program instability-related topics. The government managers of military acquisition programs rated annual budget or production rate changes, changes in requirements, and technical difficulties as the three top contributors, respectively, to program instability. When asked to partition actual variance in their program’s planned cost and schedule to each of these factors, it was found that the combined effects of unplanned budget and requirement changes accounted for 5.2% annual cost growth and 20% total program schedule slip. At a rate of approximately 5% annual cost growth from these factors, it is easy to see that even conservative estimates of the cost benefits to be gained from acquisition reforms and process improvements can quickly be eclipsed by the added cost associated with program instability. Program management practices involving the integration of stakeholders from throughout the value chain into the decision making process were rated the most effective at avoiding program instability. The use of advanced information technologies was rated the most effective at mitigating the negative impact of program instability.

Preliminary Observations on Program Instability

This white paper reports emerging findings at the end of Phase I of the Lean Aircraft Initiative in the Policy focus group area. Specifically, it provides details about research on program instability. Its objective is to discuss high-level findings detailing: 1) the relative contribution of different factors to a program’s overall instability; 2) the cost impact of program instability on acquisition programs; and 3) some strategies recommended by program managers for overcoming and/or mitigating the negative effects of program instability on their programs. Because this report comes as this research is underway, this is not meant to be a definitive document on the subject. Rather, is it anticipated that this research may potentially produce a number of reports on program instability-related topics. The government managers of military acquisition programs rated annual budget or production rate changes, changes in requirements, and technical difficulties as the three top contributors, respectively, to program instability. When asked to partition actual variance in their program’s planned cost and schedule to each of these factors, it was found that the combined effects of unplanned budget and requirement changes accounted for 5.2% annual cost growth and 20% total program schedule slip. At a rate of approximately 5% annual cost growth from these factors, it is easy to see that even conservative estimates of the cost benefits to be gained from acquisition reforms and process improvements can quickly be eclipsed by the added cost associated with program instability. Program management practices involving the integration of stakeholders from throughout the value chain into the decision making process were rated the most effective at avoiding program instability. The use of advanced information technologies was rated the most effective at mitigating the negative impact of program instability.

Molecular computations for reactions and phase transitions: applications to protein stabilization, hydrates and catalysis

In this work we have made significant contributions in three different areas of interest: therapeutic protein stabilization, thermodynamics of natural gas clathrate-hydrates, and zeolite catalysis. In all three fields, using our various computational techniques, we have been able to elucidate phenomena that are difficult or impossible to explain experimentally. More specifically, in mixed solvent systems for proteins we developed a statistical-mechanical method to model the thermodynamic effects of additives in molecular-level detail. It was the first method demonstrated to have truly predictive (no adjustable parameters) capability for real protein systems. We also describe a novel mechanism that slows protein association reactions, called the “gap effect.” We developed a comprehensive picture of methioine oxidation by hydrogen peroxide that allows for accurate prediction of protein oxidation and provides a rationale for developing strategies to control oxidation. The method of solvent accessible area (SAA) was shown not to correlate well with oxidation rates. A new property, averaged two-shell water coordination number (2SWCN) was identified and shown to correlate well with oxidation rates. Reference parameters for the van der Waals Platteeuw model of clathrate-hydrates were found for structure I and structure II. These reference parameters are independent of the potential form (unlike the commonly used parameters) and have been validated by calculating phase behavior and structural transitions for mixed hydrate systems. These calculations are validated with experimental data for both structures and for systems that undergo transitions from one structure to another. This is the first method of calculating hydrate thermodynamics to demonstrate predictive capability for phase equilibria, structural changes, and occupancy in pure and mixed hydrate systems. We have computed a new mechanism for the methanol coupling reaction to form ethanol and water in the zeolite chabazite. The mechanism at 400°C proceeds via stable intermediates of water, methane, and protonated formaldehyde.