Program Managers have considered the subject of effectiveness quantification from three diverse points of view. The first viewpoint, in conjunction with the system effectiveness analyst, is to quantify everything and to consider everything quantifiable into a figure of merit. The result is a numerical decision aid that usually has some undesirable attributes such as oversimplification, non-sensitivity to critical parameters, hidden calculations, and difficulty in exercise of the model. This technique is characterized by mathematical models, computer programs, and attempted optimizations. The second viewpoint, in conjunction with the controller, is to consider the effectiveness as specified and concentrate on cost reduction, This has a danger of formulating all technical problems in terms of cost or economic considerations. This technique is characterized by closely controlled work packages. The third viewpoint, in conjunction with program planning and control personnel, is a distrust of the "numbers game" of the system effectiveness analyst and places a stress on taking all of the management actions that have, in the past, yielded a cost effective product. The result may be a well-run project but could yield a product design that is less than satisfactory for mission success. This technique is characterized by an emphasis on understood and accepted policies, procedures, processes, organizational objectives, and functional plans.
This bulletin is the result of attempting to meld the three points of view. This is accomplished through the intermeshing of engineering efforts to ensure their full impact on the system design and the technical program and decision criteria that assure management decisions resulting in a product with high probability of mission accomplishment, a program with minimum risk, and product and program costs within acceptable values of resources expended.