The problems related to the Department of Defense weapon system acquisition process are varied and complex. Whatever the reasons for the problems, they generate the need for a clear delineation of responsibilities and improved communication. One aspect of the dynamic communication process includes the communication between the Procurement and Contract administration offices in the Air Force. The Air Force expects the interaction between these two offices to occur in such a manner that administrative effectiveness is optimized.
The study directly attempts to perceive whether administrative effectiveness is occurring by testing each form of communication used (Oral, Schedule of Pricing Workload, and the Memorandum of Understanding) with questions relating to ways in which the degree of administrative effectiveness can be measured.
The test results revealed strong associations between the forms of communications and ways used to measure administrative effectiveness in four instances. There was an agreement between the offices that: 1) the more that tasks are reflected in the schedule of pricing case workload, the more reliable is the schedule of pricing case workload; 2) the more adequate the time is in which the pricing workload is to be accomplished, the more reliable is the schedule of pricing case workload; 3) the more adequate the communication dialogue is between offices dealing with pricing report due dates, the more reliable is the schedule of pricing case workload; and 4) the more clearly the requests for pricing assistance clearly identify the extent of assistance required, the more reliable is the schedule of pricing case workload.
The results of the tests also revealed some problems as perceived by the employees of the two offices. The test results showed the respondents felt that 1) the schedule of pricing workload has less than a fair amount of scheduling occurring, 2) there are not quite enough price analysts to handle the program office workload, 3) the quality of the pricing reports is influenced by reasons other than shortened due dates. Another test showed that job titles, experience in one or both offices, and years of experience were not factors in understanding their counterpart's responsibilities. Finally, a test concerning the Memorandum of Understanding could not be supported because a nominal question was asked and the respondents provided a variety of perceived improvements which could be made to the document. The list of improvements, however, did not lend itself to rank ordering.
Level of Degree
School of Public Administration
First Committee Member (Chair)
Albert H. Rosenthal
Second Committee Member
Vladmir V. Berniklau
Third Committee Member
Terry Davis Edgmon
Claussen, Richard Dale. "The Dynamics Of Communication Between The Procurement Office And The Contract Administration Office In The Air Force." (1977). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/padm_etds/41