Contractors hire ex-government/NASA personnel versed in the workings of an upcoming contract. Most of these hired personnel are retired from NASA if it is a space contract. They write/review the storyboarding on the contract proposals...and their names are listed as the personnel who will be involved in the contract..as administrators. Names are recognized...contracts are awarded...and away it goes.
Here at JSC I saw it happen over and over again. It's a status quo thingy. But I often wondered about the double dipping...how do they sleep at night in their beautifully expensive homes?
I have worked on absolutely immense projects and if you examined the progress that everyone reports, you'll find the project is ALWAYS 100% on schedule. In my engineer's eyes, that tells me right away that the project isn't reporting progress accurately, but people are loathe to report anything but 100% progress.
Part of the problem is a) the sheer size of many of these contracts, coupled b) the do or die nature of success. Failure on many of these contracts means loss of jobs for thousands of employees, and perhaps closing of a factory.
NASA a few years ago started off with the right idea, "faster, leaner, cheaper" with an intent to accept higher rates of failure. But no one could accept the failure, and if you can't accept failure, you're not going to make the process faster, leaner, or cheaper.
I would actually like to see a lot more contracts, all issued for a lot less money that demanded less "process overhead" but required results. Build incrementally on proven results with the ability to change courses. [ Parent ]
Make a new account