Originally published at: What Happened? The Rise and Stall of NextGen
FAA’s decades-long bid to modernize America’s air traffic control network has delivered just a fraction of its promised benefits—and cost far more than expected.
I was a hardware/software program and project manager for many years in the federal and private sectors in charge of major modernization projects as well as a PMI certified project manager. My experience was that most of the problems with inaccurate cost and schedule are introduced in the initial estimates. After that as reality sinks in, the cost and schedule estimates have to be dramatically increased. That’s not too surprising since less is known about the multitude of variables and goals (project scope) in the early stages of a project. NextGen program is a huge set of complex projects so it’s even less surprising that the initial scope, cost and schedule estimates were way off. Sometimes that’s also due to having inexperienced project managers and users involved in creating the initial estimates. I don’t know if that applies to NextGen but it’s prevalent throughout the federal agencies that I encountered. Requirements management is essential to defining the scope of a project and it drives cost and schedule estimates. Engaging users in the initial requirements phase is difficult and expensive and many agencies can’t afford to allocate their most experienced users to the effort so they allocate less experienced or less knowledgeable users to it instead. That results in poor identification of the requirements for the projects and thus poor cost and schedule estimates. When external pressures such as audits and budget fluctuations force an agency to revisit original inaccurate estimates, the result is the dramatic jumps in cost and schedule that NextGen is experiencing. Another part of the problem faced by federal agencies like the FAA is that there are many isolated systems that were developed over time due to budget constraints and lack of a coherent systems architecture that would integrate them. By the time the pressure to integrate them rises to a sufficient trigger point, it is very difficult to achieve effective integration of old hardware, software and databases with modern technology.
There are various solutions to these problems. Step one is to create a systems architecture that defines the anticipated projects in enough detail to avoid massive changes as time goes on and technology improves. Step two is to engage a small number of knowledgeable, experienced project managers and users in defining project scope (requirements). These people get pulled out of their normal career fields to work on those projects, which can hurt their chances of advancing in their core organizations, so the new project work has to become part of their career advancement opportunities. It is essential to have certified, experienced project managers develop and manage the project costs and schedules using robust project management tools with resource-loaded critical path networks. Many federal agencies don’t place enough importance on this to train their project managers properly. Project managers don’t need to be technical subject matter experts, but they need to have a good understanding of the technical aspects of their projects. I’ve seen many projects where the project managers have no clue as to the technical requirements so they are unaware of the true scope, cost and schedule.
Lastly, there needs to be continuity in the personnel involved in long term projects and continued resource allocation to update the scope, cost and schedules on at least an annual basis. Too many agencies get exhausted by the continued effort over time and suffer significant personnel turnover. That’s because the people involved need to stay in touch with their normal careers and have normal opportunities for advancement in those careers. Stable, committed agency leadership is extremely important to make this happen. What we usually see in federal agencies instead is chaotic changes in leadership due to politics at least every four years with a new administration. In any large bureaucracy changes at the top trickle downward as new leaders replace existing staff with their own choices. Often the agendas of the new leadership are radically different from the old and introduce massive changes and instability in project priorities, scope, cost and schedule. We’re seeing that now with this administration. That happens when the new leaders are more focused on achieving their own agendas than understanding and preserving current projects. Obviously, the solution is to select the right leaders and preserve efforts like NextGen that span multiple administrations.