scope:

Abstract:

A. Reviews: General feedback received from all levels of project participants - There are too many reviews without clear definition of their purpose. As a result, reviews tended to overlap in their charters and often provided conflicting recommendations. Those involved in projects would be more motivated to support reviews if they could see and experience distinct, valuable purposes that each review served.

Independent review committees are not allowed (or do not take) adequate review time to understand the project»s work, accomplishments, etc. and alignment with schedule and budget. As a result, many of the findings are incorrect or misleading as a result of misunderstandings or lack of knowledge about the project.

B. Reporting: General feedback received - Too much disconnected upward reporting with little downward direction where the Program and/or Headquarters express direct interest or understanding in the work of the project and helping to make it successful. AATT spent a lot of time and resources dealing with high-level issues throughout the life of the project.

C. Technical Publications: The AATT Project Office made a special point to request and remind technical and sub-project managers that project recognition be appropriately documented in technical publications. This was a recurring problem throughout the 9-year life of the project.