Constructing program management offices for major defense acquisition programs: Factors to consider

Farmer, C M (2018) Constructing program management offices for major defense acquisition programs: Factors to consider. DEng thesis, George Washington University, USA.

Abstract

Over the last two decades, assessments of major defense acquisition systems consistently cite program management office (PMO) effectiveness as a key factor for successfully producing weapon systems. Studies conducted across government, industry, and academia attribute PMO effectiveness to ideal organizational structure, relevant capabilities, and well-balanced skill mix among other PMO attributes. This research identifies key factors to consider when constructing systems integration organizational structures (SIOS) for large, complex programs. Unique organizational factors emerged from the analysis of 162 Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) (including current and terminated systems, 1995-2016). Theoretically, these factors will help the program management scholars design a robust decision model that will guide selection of organizing constructs for MDAP PMOs. This research provides the methodology used to identify primary SIOS types, evaluate SIOS effectiveness, and identify core factors that help Program Managers select a SIOS that aligns with acquisition strategy. Program Managers can review SIOS type attributes and gain understanding of available SIOS configurations, the success rate and factors associated with a given SIOS type and understand the advantages and disadvantages of each option. While most SIOS types will work, probability of success can be improved by selecting the configuration that best suits the program factors.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Thesis advisor: Mazzuchi, T A and Sarkani, S
Uncontrolled Keywords: government; integration; organizational factors; effectiveness; organizational structure; probability
Index terms: configuration, program, methodology, integration, organizational structure, manager, strategy, academia, effectiveness, option, organizational factor, acquisition
Subjects: practitioner, research methods, business, systems engineering, educational institutions, sociology, decision analysis, organizational analysis, performance management, software systems, management
Topics: Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Education, Quality Management
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here