Optimizing U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense Review of Air Force Acquisition Programs (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Appendix C Related Studies AFA (Air Force Association). 2009. Fixing DOD Acquisition. Available online at http://www.afa.org/edop/edop_8_01_08.asp. Last accessed on December 10, 2008. Chenoweth, Mary E., Sarah Hunter, Brent Keltner, and David Adamson. 2004. Organizational Policy Levers Can Affect Acquisition Reform Implementa- tion in Air Force Repair Contracts, MR-1711. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Day, Donald. 1982. GAO Memorandum: MASAD/SDA Handbook, January 29, 1982. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office (GAO). DOD (Department of Defense). 2006. Defense Acquisition Performance Assess- ment. Washington, D.C.: Deputy Secretary of Defense. GAO. 1993. Waivers to Acquisition Workforce Training, Education, and Experi- ence Requirements, GAO/NIASD 93-128. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1993. Implementation of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Act, GAO/ NIASD 93-129. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1996. Best Practices: Commercial Quality Assurance Practices Offer Improve­ments for DOD, GAO/NSIAD-96-162. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1998. Best Practices: Successful Application to Weapons Acquisition Requires Changes in DOD’s Environment, GAO/NSIAD-98-56. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1998. Implementation of Key Aspects of the Federal Acquisition Stream­ lining Act of 1994, GAO/NSIAD-98-81. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1998. Defense Acquisitions: Improved Program Outcomes Are Possible, GAO/NSIAD-98-123. Washington, D.C.: GAO. 55 

56 OPTIMIZING USAF AND DOD REVIEW OF AIR FORCE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS GAO. 1999. Defense Acquisitions: Best Commercial Practices Can Improve Pro- gram Outcomes, GAO/NSIAD-99-116. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1999. Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapons System Outcomes, GAO/NSIAD-99-162. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 1999. Best Practices: DOD Training Can Do More to Help Weapons Sys- tems Implement Best Practices, GAO/NSIAD-99-206. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2000. Defense Acquisitions: Employing Best Practices Can Shape Better Weapon System Decisions, GAO/NSIAD-00-137. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2000. Best Practices: A More Constructive Test Approach Is Key to ­ etter Weapon Systems Outcomes, GAO/NSIAD-00-199. Washington, D.C.: B GAO. GAO. 2001. Best Practices: Better Matching of Needs and Resources Will Lead to Better Weapons System Outcomes, GAO-01-288. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2002. Defense Acquisitions: DOD Faces Challenges in Implementing Best Practices, GAO-02-469T. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2002. Best Practices: Capturing Design and Manufacturing Knowledge Early Improves Acquisition Outcomes, GAO-02-701. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2002. Defense Acquisitions: Factors Affecting Outcomes of Advanced ­ oncept Technology Demonstration, GAO-03-52. Washington, D.C.: GAO. C GAO. 2003. Best Practices: Setting Requirements Differently Could Reduce Weapons Systems’ Total Ownership Costs, GAO-03-57. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2004. Defense Acquisitions: Stronger Management Practices Are Needed to Improve DOD’s Software-Intensive Weapon Acquisition, GAO-04-393. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO (Government Accountability Office). November 2005. Best Practices: Better Support of Weapon System Program Managers Needed to Improve Outcomes, GAO-06-110. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2005. DOD Acquisitions Outcomes: A Case for Change, GAO-06-257T. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2006. DOD Management Approach and Processes Not Well-Suited to Sup- port Development of Global Information Grid, GAO-06-211. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2006. Best Practices: Stronger Practices Needed to Improve DOD Tech­ nology Transition Processes, GAO-06-883. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2006. Defense Acquisitions: Major Weapons Systems Continue to Experi- ence Cost and Schedule Problems Under DOD’s Revised Policy, GAO-06- 368. Washington, D.C.: GAO.   ame N was changed on July 7, 2004. 

APPENDIX C 57 GAO. 2007. Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs, GAO-07-406SP. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2008. Best Practices: Increased Focus on Requirements and Oversight Needed to Improve DOD’s Acquisition Environment and Weapons Systems Quality, GAO-08-294. Washington, D.C.: GAO. GAO. 2008. Defense Management: More Transparency Needed over the Financial and Human Capital Operations of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, GAO-08-342. Washington, D.C.: GAO. Hanks, Christopher H., Elliot I. Axelband, Shuna Lindsay, Mohammed Rehan Malik, and Brett D. Steele. 2005. Reexamining Military Acquisition Reform: Are We There Yet? MG-291. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Johnson, Stephen B. 2002. Bernard Schriever and the Scientific Vision. Air Power History 49(1):30-45. Lorell, Mark A., Julia F. Lowell, and Obaid Younossi. 2006. Evolutionary Acqui- sition: Implementation Challenges for Defense Space Programs, MG-413. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. McKinney, Ethan, Eugene Gholz, and Harvey M. Sapolsky. 1994. Acquisition Reform— Lean 94-03. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Putnam, W.D. 1972. The Evolution of the Air Force System Acquisition Manage- ment, R-868-PR. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Pyles, Raymond A., and Hyman L. Shulman. 1995. United States Air Force Fighter Support in Desert Storm, MR-468-AF. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation. Stem, David, Michael Boito, and Obaid Younossi. 2006. Systems Engineering and Program Management: Trends and Costs for Aircraft and Guided Weapons Programs, MG-413. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.