Why did it take 'the Pentagon three times longer to develop the C-I 7 Globemaster III than it took the Boeing Company to produce the 777--planes with similar capabilities and technology? This striking comparison led the author of The DOD C-I 7 versus the Boeing 777 to conclude that: "Boeing made a concerted effort to determine what kind of airplane to build and researched the best methods to build it.

Politics interfered with the DOD process to determine need and hindered its ability to stay focused on the C-17." As this work by a talented acquisition professional reveals, "differences in commitment and focus are pervasive in each organization's management methods, technology philosophy, structure, mission, needs determination, and funding."

Preface:

This study--a comparison of the Boeing and Department of Defense approaches to developing and producing an airplane--was undertaken to find out why the DOD approach results in development and production programs that span 11 to 21 years, while Boeing develops and produces planes in 4 to 9 years. The O17 and 777 were chosen
because both use similar technology levels.

Boeing President Philip Condit emphasized in an interview with the author that while Boeing's latest transport plane, the 777, is phenomenal, it does not represent a technology breakthrough: "Designing the airplane with no mock-up and doing it all on computer was an order of magnitude change."

The design process using CATIA--computeraided, three-dimensional, interactive application- helped Boeing produce a better plane and reduce future costs. Boeing invested heavily in CATIA; completely reorganized its management approach, adopting a system of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI); and used design-build teams composed of designers, builders, suppliers, and customers. CATIA allowed design-build teams to work together and identify problems before production; the teams could seehow parts fit together and whether there was room to fit all the parts. Once everyone agreed on the approach and the design, Boeing committed to producing the 777.

Program management for the C-17 did not enjoy the same dedicated focus. Vacillation from the top in leadership and direction marred progress for the C-17 program, which began in theearly 1970s as the Advanced Medium Short-Range Take Off and Landing (AMST) transport, a tactical plane primarily for short flights. Toward the end of the 1970s, leaders decided they really wanted a tactical plane with strategic capabilities (one that could travel longer distances), then decided they wanted a strategic plane, then refocused on a strategic plane with tactical capabilities that could carry more payload.

Because DOD had already performed several tests on the tactical AMST to prove short take-off and landing capabilities, top leaders did not believe more testing was necessary for the strategic plane. Also, because top leaders knew exactly what they wanted, there was no reason for concept exploration, demonstration, and validation.

While leaders in the 1980s agreed the United States needed more strategic capability, they believed adding updated models of existing planes would provide the needed strategic airlift capability much sooner than the C-17. The U.S. Government purchased more C-5s from Lockheed and awarded McDonnell Douglas a low-level development contract, which essentially put the O17 development on hold until 1985.

After the government approved the C-17 for full-scale development, seven reorganizations within DOD and McDonnell Douglas, plus three significant labor turnovers, adversely affected C-17 development and production.

In addition, both DOD and Congress continued to question whether the Air Force really needed the C-17.

As the reader will learn in the following chapters, the reasons it took DOD longer to produce the C-17 than it took Boeing to produce the 777 are many and complicated.

The basic explanation is the difference in commitment and focus. The priorities of each presidential administration affected DOD commitment to the C-17. At lower levels, lack of policy direction and funding reflected a wavering commitment. Boeing viewed the 777 as important to its mission and remained committed throughout development.

A stable management structure supported Boeing's constancy of purpose. Boeing made a concerted effort to determine what kind of airplane to build and researched the best methods to build it. Politics interfered with the DOD process to determine need and hindered its ability to stay focused on the C-17. In the end, strong leadership during the Clinton administration from General Ronald Fogleman, John Deutch, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisitions), and Paul Kaminski brought the program to fruition.

Download The DOD C-I 7 versus the Boeing 777

PDF format (Scanned), 7.8MB, 108Pages. Provided by NDU.

The DOD C-17 versus the Boeing 777: A Comparison of Acquisition and Development
by A. Lee Battershell
NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
Washington, D.C. 1999

Introduction:

In 1995, two significant aircraft made aviation history as they lifted off runways in different parts of the country. One, the Boeing 777, a wide-bodied, two-engine passenger plane created by private enterprise, made its first commercial transoceanic flight in June 1 995.

The other, the C-17, a military cargo plane created by the Department of Defense (DOD), received initial operating certification in January 1995. Each aircraft exhibited innovative design and high-tech features, but neither boasted an unprecedented level of untried technology. They were similar in many ways--both intended to ferry passengers or cargo with appropriate ease from one point to another. Yet each of these aircraft had a unique story of development--one a straightforward narrative of almost 9 years, the other a complex, convoluted yarn spanning 24 years. Even after Congress approved funding, the C-17 time table was greater than the Boeing 777 (figure 1). This study compares and contrasts the histories of these two aircraft to determine why a private-sector company was able to develop and produce the 777 in significantly less time than the government took to develop and produce the C-17.

The 777 originated in the late 1980s during market research by the Seattle-based Boeing Company. To determine what the market would bear, Boeing solicited input from commercial airlines, asking them what they wanted in a new aircraft. Once Boeing determined the type of aircraft to build, the company set a timeline, initiated innovative development procedures, and then followed a set of guidelines to produce the aircraft.

The C-17 began in the early 1970s as the Advanced Medium Short Range Take Off and Landing (AMST)--a prototype for a tactical cargo airlifter. At that time, the Air Force was looking for a carrier to help Upgrade its tactical cargo fleet. However, just as prototype testing reached completion, military leaders questioned the limited strategic aspects of the aircraft and began lobbying for an aircraft that included strategic capabilities. DOD created the C-17 in the AMST shadow--claiming short-takeoff-and-landing technology proved on the tactical AMST would work on the strategic C-17. Preliminary steps leading to the C-1 7 program started in the late 1970s.

After heavy lobbying by President Carter and Defense Secretary Brown, Congress approved funding in 1980. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the C-17 continued to experience erratic backing, technical problems, and contractual disagreements. Delays, cost increases, and questions of unethical management at DOD and McDonnell Douglas centering on the C-17 caused the public and Congress to question whether or not DOD could efficiently manage a major development program. ...

About the Author:

A. Lee Battershell is a Certified Acquisition Professional Program Manager and Acquisition Professional Financial Management Comptroller. She is currently on the staff of Battershell and Company, Certified Public Accountants, in Kent, Washington. Prior to her current position she served on the board of directors of the Association of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and the Industry Conference Board, Washington. Research for this book was conducted while the author served as a Research Fellow at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

Ms. Battershell retired in 1997 as Director, Policy, Oversight, and Systems, Air Force Audit Agency. During her 31 years of government service she served in various positions for the Departments of Defense, Air Force, State, and Treasury. She authored several pamphlets and articles, including "Acquisition Alerts for Program Managers" and "Technology Approach: DOD versus Boeing, A Comparative Study."

In addition to many performance awards, Ms. Battershell received the Federal Woman of the Year Award and the Outstanding Civilian Career Service Award. She holds a Master of Science in National Resource Strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, a Bachelor of Science in business from California State University, Sacramento, and a certificate from the Defense Acquisition University Senior Acquisition Program Course. At present she is completing her Master of Science in business from Central Michigan University.

Comments (0)

Show/Hide comments

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment