CASE STUDY Questions

1. What does the story of the EFV suggest about the importance of considering what a project’s key
mission is supposed to be prior to authorizing it?

2. The EFV has been labeled, “The wrong weapon for the wrong war at the wrong time.” Do you agree or
disagree with this characterization? Why?

3. Why does the EFV failure illustrate the dangers of long lead times for weapon systems? In other
words, when a project’s development cycle takes 20 years from start to finish, what dangers do the
project developers face when the project is finally operational?

4. What were some of the broader implications and consequences of the EFV program's cancellation for
the Marine Corps and the defense industry as a whole?

5. How did the EFV case study influence or inform subsequent decision-making and procurement
processes in the U.S. Department of Defense and the defense acquisition community?

01. The story of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) teaches us the importance of knowing a
project's main mission before starting it. If a project's purpose isn't clear, it can lead to problems
like expanding the project's scope or wasting resources. In the EFV case, the project started
without a clear mission, and this caused delays and higher costs. Defining a project's mission
helps everyone involved understand its goals and how to achieve them. It also helps in making
decisions and managing risks effectively. So, before starting any project, it's crucial to be clear
about what it's supposed to achieve to avoid these issues.

02. The label "the wrong weapon for the wrong war at the wrong time" for the EFV is a matter of
perspective. Some think it was ill-suited due to changing warfare dynamics, cost issues, and
evolving priorities. Others believe it still had relevance for specific scenarios and represented a
substantial investment. It's a complex issue with varying viewpoints.

03. Long lead-times for weapon systems, like the EFV, are risky because they can lead to outdated
technology, budget overruns, and shifting priorities. When a project takes 20 years to complete,
it may no longer meet modern needs, costs can skyrocket, and political changes or evolving
threats may render it obsolete. Flexibility becomes limited, making adjustments challenging.

04. The story of the EFV highlights the importance of clearly defining a project's key mission and
purpose before authorizing it. Failure to do so can lead to significant issues and waste of
resources.
 05. Whether the EFV was the wrong weapon for the wrong war and time is subjective. Critics argue
that it didn't align with modern warfare needs, while some officials believed it had a crucial role.
It underscores the importance of adapting military technology to evolving threats.

06. The EFV's failure due to long lead-times demonstrates the risk of technological obsolescence and
changing operational requirements over two decades. Project developers may struggle to
address evolving challenges, making the final product outdated and ineffective.

07. The EFV's cancellation had broader implications for the Marine Corps, reducing their capabilities,
and for the defense industry, affecting contracts and future projects.

08. The EFV case study likely influenced decision-making in the Department of Defense by
emphasizing the need for better assessment and adaptability in military acquisitions. It may have
led to increased scrutiny and oversight in the procurement process to avoid similar costly
failures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

01. The EFV story underscores the importance of defining a project's mission before authorization.
Without a clear mission, projects risk losing sight of their purpose, leading to inefficiencies and
potential failure. The EFV's mission was to support amphibious assaults, but changing warfare
dynamics made this role obsolete. Properly aligning a project's mission with current needs is
essential to ensure resources are well-spent and that projects remain relevant and effective
throughout their development and operational lifecycles.

02. The characterization of the EFV as "the wrong weapon for the wrong war at the wrong time" is a
matter of perspective. Critics argue it didn't fit modern warfare, while proponents believed it
was vital for the Marines' expeditionary mission. This debate highlights the challenge of aligning
military technology with evolving threats. It's essential to continuously evaluate and adapt
weapon systems to remain effective in dynamic conflict environments.

03. The EFV's long lead-time illustrated the dangers of technological obsolescence and evolving
operational needs. Over two decades, the project faced shifting requirements and the
emergence of new threats. Such extended development cycles risk rendering a system outdated,
leading to inefficiencies, wasted resources, and the need for costly redesigns. Shorter
development timelines and adaptable project management strategies are essential to address
evolving challenges and remain relevant in the ever-changing landscape of defense technology.

04. The cancellation of the EFV program had significant implications. For the Marine Corps, it meant
a reduction in their amphibious assault capabilities. The defense industry saw contracts affected,
and it could have influenced how they approach future projects. This cancellation served as a
 cautionary tale about the need for adaptability and consistent evaluation of defense
procurement to avoid investing in projects that don't align with current needs and strategic
objectives.

05. The EFV case study likely influenced decision-making in the Department of Defense by
highlighting the need for rigorous assessment and adaptability in military acquisitions. It may
have led to increased scrutiny, transparency, and oversight in the procurement process to
prevent costly failures. Additionally, it may have prompted a shift towards more agile and
modular approaches in defense technology development to better respond to evolving threats
and operational requirements while minimizing the risks associated with long development
cycles. This case served as a valuable lesson for the defense acquisition community in ensuring
that projects align with strategic objectives and remain relevant in changing security landscapes.