【正文】 gram should develop a path forward to address shortfalls and brief their corrective action plan to the acquisition DOTamp。E)in the amp。E is adequate to confirm operational effectiveness and suitability of the defense system in bat use [1].Data from 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, a reliability point estimate that is consistent with the reliability growth curve, and(2)for automated information systems, ensuring that there are no open category 1 or 2 deficiency reports prior to OT [4]Of the 15 programs in Table 3 that established and met their RAM entrance criteria in DT, 13 met their reliability goals in of the seven programs that failed to meet their entrance criteria in DT went on to meet their reliability thresholds in Pearson pvalue in shown in Table 3 indicates that this result is statistically result suggests that programs that do well in DT are more likely to so well in later , despite this obvious result,many programs do not establish RAM entrance criteria, and programs that fail to meet entrance criteria in DT are still permitted to move forward and participate in result confirms that moving programs forward that perform poorly in DT increases the risk they will fail to reach reliability thresholds in is also evidence that programs that have intermediate goals that are linked to the reliability growth curve are more likely to meet their RAM entrance criteria asshown in Table results also suggest that implementing RAM policies alone, without the support of a robust reliability growth program, is insufficient to improve the chance of success in of responses collected in 2013 for programs that had an IOTamp。E provide no significant evidence that implementation of RAM policies alone improves the chance of demonstrating RAM threshold during shown in Table 5, there was no single policy area that could be correlated with success in fact, a smaller fraction of programs with growth curves met their RAM entrance and exit criteria pared to programs that do not have reliability growth ments report a variety of reliability growth plan inadequacies such as requirement deficiencies, policy implementation concerns, and testing example, some respondents mented that reliability growth curves were constructed as an afterthought,retrofitted in the TEMP only after DOTamp。Es had the highest fraction of programs that met their exit criteria or demonstrated reliability above the requirement(Figure 1).This suggests that many programs do not reach their reliability goals until after Comparison of Responses by TEMP Date Analysis of responses shows that the fraction of programs that implement reliabilityfocused policy guidance continues to of continuous policy implementation improvement over time included the following: ?Having a reliability growth(RG)strategy ?Documenting reliability RG in the TEMP ?Incorporating RG curves into the TEMP ?Having a process for calculating RG results for these questions are listed in Table 6 for known “Yes” or “No” results suggest that the improvement over time is statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence shown in Table 7, the fraction of FY 2012 or 2013 TEMP programs that use the reliability growth curve to develop intermediate goals improved(59 percent)pared to FY 2011 TEMP programs(48 percent), but remained below the fraction observed for programs with TEMPs approved between June 2008 and October 2010(73 percent).The fraction of FY 2012 or 2013 TEMP programs that use reliability metrics to ensure growth is on track to achieve requirements also increased, reaching a higher percentage than that observed for older TEMP date fraction of programs that have reliability growth curves has remained relatively constant over 60 percent of programs with FY 2012 or 2013 approved TEMPs link their reliability growth goal to an OT Differences Across Lead Services Among programs with FY 2012 or 2013 TEMP approvals, all Services are generally following guidance to: ?Establish a reliability growth or improvement strategy and describe it in the TEMP ?Incorporate reliability growth curves into the TEMP ?Use reliability metrics to ensure growth is on track to achieve and Navy programs show improvement in implementing the following RAM policies: ?Establishing a reliability growth or improvement strategy(since July 2008, more than 80 percent of Air Force programs have had a reliability growth or improvement strategy)?Having reliability growth curves and documenting them in the TEMP ?Calculating reliability growth larger fraction of Army and Navy programs with FY 2012 or 2013 TEMPs establish and link intermediate goals to the reliability growth curve pared to the Air shown in Figure 2, Army programs were more likely to link reliability growth goals to OTs pared to the other RECOMMENDATIONSSurvey results suggest that military systems should carry out the following activities to improve their chance of meeting reliability requirement in OT: ?Establish OT entrance criteria and ensure these criteria are met prior to proceeding on to the next test phase.?In accordance with existing USD(ATam