【正文】 open Category 1 or 2 deficiency reports prior to is also evidence that having intermediate goals linked to the reliability growth curve improves the chance of meeting RAM entrance survey results also indicate that programs are increasingly incorporating reliabilityfocused policy guidance,but despite these policy implementation improvements, many programs still fail to reach reliability other words, the policies have not yet proven effective at improving reliability reasons programs fail to reach reliability goals include inadequate requirements, unrealistic assumptions, lack of a design for reliability effort, and failure to employ a prehensive reliability growth the DoD is in a period of new policy that emphasizes good reliability growth principles, without a consistent implementation of those principles, the reliability trend will likely remain the future, programs need to do a better job incorporating a robust design and reliability growth program from the beginning that includes the design for reliability tenets described in the ANSI/GEIASTD0009, “Reliability Program Standard for Systems Design, Development, and Manufacturing.” Programs that follow this practice are more likely to be should be a greater emphasis on ensuring that reliability requirements are achievable, and reliability expectations during each phase of development are supported by realistic assumptions that are linked with systems engineering should also establish RAM entrance criteria and ensure these criteria are met prior to proceeding to the next test program’s reliability growth curves should be constructed with a series of intermediate goals, with time allowed in the program schedule for testfixtest activities to support achieving those , when sufficient evidence exists to determine that a program’s demonstrated reliability is significantly below the growth curve, that program should develop a path forward to address shortfalls and brief their corrective action plan to the acquisition DOTamp。E is the principal staff assistant and senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense on operational test and evaluation(OTamp。E)in the amp。E oversees major DoD acquisition programs to ensure OTamp。E is adequate to confirm operational effectiveness and suitability of the defense system in bat use [1].Data from DOTamp。E reports to congress suggest that despite establishment over the years of policies intended to encourage development of more reliable systems, DoD system reliability has not 1997 to 2013, only 56 percent of the systems that underwent an OT met or exceeded their reliability threshold requirements [2].Further analysis suggests there has been no improvement in the fraction of programs meeting their reliability requirements over better understand these trends, DOTamp。E requested IDA to conduct a survey of military programs in each of the past five years to determine the extent to which reliabilityfocused policy guidance is being implemented and to assess whether it is leading to improved developed a survey and distributed it to research staff members that are subject matter experts on the programs of topics included questions on the program’s reliability growth plan,plans for tracking reliability during development, whether the program has a process of calculating the reliability growth potential, and questions on reliability performance in survey questions are listed in Table most questions, respondents were required to answer “yes,” “no”, or“unknown.”Respondents were also provided with opportunities to enter ments for each most recent survey was conducted in 2013 and focused on programs that submitted a Test and Evaluation Master Plan(TEMP)to DOTamp。E or had an OT in FY TEMP is the overarching document that describes the program’s test plan [3]. Survey Analysis ApproachAnalysis of each survey question considered how the responses varied by time by paring responses in the most recent survey to the earlier surveys by TEMP survey entries between surveys were analysis also considered differences by lead service including the Army, Navy, and Air Force(Marine Corps responses were grouped with the Navy), and by acquisition analysis binned the responses using the following TEMP date categories to maintain consistency with the methodology used in previous survey analyses: ?Dated before July 2008, prior to approval of a key DoD reliability policy(75 responses)?Dated between June 2008 and October 2010(81 responses)?Dated in FY 2011(57 responses)?Dated in FY 2012 or FY2013 13(52 responses).Where appropriate, contingency tables were used to record and analyze the relationship between two or more categorical allowed the determination of whether the observed results were statistically Population of Survey ResponsesIDA analysts pleted 97 responses in the most recent reliability survey conducted in the 97 responses, 52 were for programs that had an FY 2012 or 2013 TEMP, 66 were for programs that had an FY 2012 OT, and 7 were for programs that did not have an FY 2012 or 2013 TEMP or the 66 programs with an FY 2012 OT, 28 also had an FY 2012 or 2013 2 shows the breakdown of responses by acquisition phase, lead Service, and test 63 percent of systems represented by survey responses were past their Initial Operational Test(IOT).SURVEY RESULTSOverall results, based on analysis of survey responses and user ments, reinforce the understanding that systems with a robust reliability growth program are more likely to reach reliability particular, analysis results revealed the importance of establishing RAM entrance criteria and intermediate goals that are linked to the reliability growth shown in Table 3, programs that establish and meet their RAM entrance criteria are more likely to demonstrate reliability at or above the required value during of effective RAM entrance criteria include(1)demonstrating, in the last DT event before the IOTamp。E, a reliability point estimate that is consistent with the reliability growth curve,