1 / 4

An Assessment of Adaptive Program Management (APM) Development by the United States Navy in Guam

An Assessment of Adaptive Program Management (APM) Development by the United States Navy in Guam. Advisor: Dr. Michael K. Orbach. What are the limitations for the use of consensus-based adaptive (program) management to mitigate very large, complex, and long duration construction programs?

carys
Download Presentation

An Assessment of Adaptive Program Management (APM) Development by the United States Navy in Guam

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An Assessment of Adaptive Program Management (APM) Development by theUnited States Navy in Guam Advisor: Dr. Michael K. Orbach

  2. What are the limitations for the use of consensus-based adaptive (program) management to mitigate very large, complex, and long duration construction programs? Key concepts: Adaptive Program Management NEPA mitigation monitoring Management by Consensus Project Question

  3. Method - single case qualitative analysis • Data - Guam APM project documents, interview responses from project tiger team members, comparative adaptive program management examples, and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance and task force reports • Analysis • Interview responses • Charter documents • Construction Impact Analysis tool • CEQ guidance and other relevant AM mitigation Methods, Data, and Analysis

  4. Preliminary Findings: • Comparative APM examples have not been found • Subjects express high level of satisfaction with APM • Implementation procedures are vague/under development • The issue of “authorities” has been difficult to reconcile with consensus-based management. Next Steps: • Analyze interview responses (Dec 2012) • Conduct further research for comparative cases (Jan2012) • Draft MP (Jan-March 2013) Preliminary Findings and Next Steps

More Related