Ratings . Now we turn our attention to the inverse; cost,
schedule and performance success rather than overruns. Table 3 contains the
five success ratings used in this research. For each success rating level we
indicate the number of programs in our spreadsheet that achieved that success
rating in cost, in schedule, and in performance. For the performance rating we
are using the success rating assigned to that program's DOT&E BLRIP
report. This report goes directly to the Secretary of Defense and to the
congressional committees concerned with DoD acquisition. In earlier times it
was thought of as the "final exam." The average success ratings shown for the
entire period 1980-1996, indicate performance is always rated highest and
schedule is always rated lowest in success ratings. It seems reasonable to
expect a high performance success rating since, after all, if the system did
not essentially meet specifications it would not be accepted. Figure 6
(depicting the average success ratings by year the EMD phase ended) shows
again that during the Cold War years schedule adherence was greater than more
recent years. And, cost success has been greater in the post Cold War period.
Figure 7 shows success ratings by Service. Relatively equal cost success
ratings are shown for all Services. The Air Force appears to have the least
schedule success and the greatest performance success.
In our methodology we have
assigned 5 points maximum for a Very Successful rating in cost, in schedule,
and in performance. For the performance rating we are using the success rating
assigned to that program's DOT&E BLRIP report. Thus, a "perfectly"
successful program would achieve a total rating score of 15. A not successful
program would achieve the minimum score possible of 3. Figure 8 shows the
number of programs on the Y axis that have achieved the various total success
ratings: 3 through 15 on the X axis. On first glance the majority of the
programs have achieved success ratings of 9 or more.