Uncertainty in threat accuracy.
Sensitivity of design and technology to threat.
Vulnerability of system to threat and threat countermeasures.
Vulnerability of program to intelligence
Operational requirements not properly established or vaguely stated.
Requirements are not
Required operating environment
Requirements do not address
logistics and suitability.
Requirements are too
constrictive—identify specific solutions that force high
Design implications not sufficiently considered in concept
System will not satisfy
Mismatch of user manpower or
skill profiles with system design solution or human-machine interface
Increased skills or more
training requirements identified late in the acquisition process.
Design not cost
Design relies on immature
technologies or “exotic” materials to achieve performance
Software design, coding, and
Test planning not initiated early in program (CR Phase).
Testing does not address
the ultimate operating environment.
Test procedures do not address
all major performance and suitability specifications.
Test facilities not available to
accomplish specific tests, especially system-level tests.
Insufficient time to test
Same risks as contained in the Significant Risks for Test and
M&S are not verified,
validated, or accredited for the intended purpose.
Program lacks proper tools and
modeling and simulation capability to assess
Program depends on unproved technology for success—there are no
Program success depends
on achieving advances in state-of-the-art technology.
Potential advances in technology
will result in less than optimal cost-effective system or make system
Technology has not been
demonstrated in required operating environment.
Technology relies on complex
hardware, software, or integration design.|
Inadequate supportability late in development or after fielding,
resulting in need for engineering changes, increased costs, and/or
Life-cycle costs not
accurate because of poor logistics supportability analyses.
Logistics analyses results not
included in cost-performance tradeoffs.
Design trade studies do not
include supportability considerations.|
Production implications not considered during concept exploration.
Production not sufficiently considered during
Inadequate planning for long lead items and vendor
Production processes not proven.
Prime contractors do not have adequate plans for managing
Sufficient facilities not readily available for cost-effective
Contract offers no incentive to modernize facilities or reduce
Immature or unproven technologies will not be adequately developed
Production funding will be available too early—before
development effort has sufficiently matured.
Concurrency established without clear understanding of
Developer has limited experience in specific type of development.
Contractor has poor track record relative to costs
Contractor experiences loss of key personnel.
Prime contractor relies excessively on subcontractors for major
Contractor will require significant capitalization to meet program
Realistic cost objectives not established early.
Marginal performance capabilities incorporated at
excessive costs; satisfactory cost-performance tradeoffs not
Excessive life-cycle costs due to inadequate treatment of support
Significant reliance on software.
Funding profile does not match acquisition strategy.
Funding profile not stable from budget cycle to budget
Schedule not considered in trade-off studies.
Schedule does not reflect realistic acquisition
APB schedule objectives not realistic and attainable.
Resources not available to meet
Acquisition strategy does not give adequate consideration to various
essential elements, e.g., mission need, test and evaluation, technology,
Subordinate strategies and plans are not developed in
a timely manner or based on the acquisition strategy.
Proper mix (experience, skills, stability) of people not assigned
to PMO or to contractor team.
Effective risk assessments not performed or results not understood
and acted upon.|