Major defence engineering contracts involve highly innovative product development. For these products to be managed effectively, BAE Systems has implemented a novel management system to chart progression through the product lifecycle, thereby allowing early identification and resolution of problems. Considering the product hierarchically from the "bottom up", an elaborate monthly scoring system is in place to measure the progress of component parts. BAE Systems asked the study group to analyse data gleaned as if from this process to determine whether past performance is a guide to future progress. This included understanding the impact of interdependencies and the effect of aggregation up to the product level. BAE Systems also asked for comment on the nature of the maturity modelling approach currently used and advice on how improvements can be made, including on how the maturity value is calculated and whether tasks should be weighted. They also wished to know what relationships exist between dependent parameters, and how assignment of issues moves between them. In response, the Study Group analysed the data; they suggested that "value at risk" models might be useful in this context and considered how incentives might be designed to encourage accurate reporting.

Problem presented by
Richard Hadji, BAE Systems

Study Group contributors
John Billingham (University of Nottingham)
Tim Gardener (Industrial Mathematics KTN)
Dave Hewett (University of Oxford)
Marcin Jaroszewski (University of Nottingham)
Ricardo Pachon (University of Oxford)
Dave Szotten (University of Manchester)
Eddie Wilson (University of Bristol)