- 04 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 4 (Ethics) with AIR 7 A.R. Rajah Mohaideen Click Here to register for the session →
- 04 June | GS Advance Program begins from 4th June 2026 | First 2 classes open to all Click Here to register for the event →
- 05 June | MGP Strategy Series | GS Paper 3 Strategy Session with AIR 406 Mannat Luthra Click Here to register for the session
- 06 June | Open Orientation on Essay Guidance Program (EGP 2026) Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Open Orientation for Current Affairs for Mains 2026 Click Here to register →
- 07 June | Sociology Optional Strategy Session with AIR 10 Ujjwal Priyank Click Here to register →
Contents
Source: The post is based on the article “CAG pulls up DRDO for delay in the completion of projects and failure to achieve key parameters” published in The Hindu on 24th December 2022
What is the News?
The Comptroller and Auditor General(CAG) has submitted a report in Parliament titled “Management and Outcome of Mission Mode Projects in DRDO”.
What are Mission Mode(MM) Projects?
“Mission Mode”(MM) projects are taken up by the DRDO on high priority, based on specific user requirements and with definite timeframes for their completion.
These projects depend on technologies that are already available, proven and readily accessible within the DRDO or India or from abroad at a short notice.
What are the observations made by CAG on the DRDO Mission Mode Projects?
Mission Mode(MM) projects have a very high outcome certainty due to ready availability of underlying technology.
But still there were several issues in these projects such as 1) considerable delays in the initiation and sanction of such projects by the DRDO. 2) cost overrun in completion of projects, 3) irregular closure of projects declaring them successful despite non-achievement of key objectives and 4) taking up of new projects for realizing the unachieved objectives of earlier closed projects declared as successful.
For instance, in 119 out of 178 projects, the original time schedules could not be adhered to. In 49 cases, the additional time was in fact more than 100% of the original timeframe.
Overall, the delays ranged from 16% to 500% and the extension of time for the completion of projects was taken multiple times.
