USC ICM Workshop October 29-30, 2008 USC Los Angeles, CA

USC ICM Workshop
October 29-30, 2008
Los Angeles, CA
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
• Everything points to need for improvements in human capital
DAU approach that requires 4 weeks off-site has limitations
People do not tend to read policy and guidance
How do we best “work with programs”?
Program management does not understand that plans (such as SEP)
are not just checkboxes; these plans describe how the programs should
be run
• What can we do to support the program between increment
– Note: FCS had credential checks where people shared plans to
complete builds
• Goal:
– Bring policy and guidance to life (bring it “off the page”)
– Conduct a PSR that has a green risk cube: (cost, schedule, technical)
– Ensure that the behavior of the Program Acquisition organization after
MS B meets the agreements/documents/plans/etc that were put in
place between MS A and MS B
– How to best support the programs prior to MS A (ICM spans work prior
to MS A)
• ICM has milestones that align with MS A and MS B
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
Milestone/Event ordering:
Define Acquisition Strategy
Pre-CP period
CP period
Workshop A
Workshop B
PSR (6-9 months prior to MS B); may or may not occur prior to PDR
DAU 4-6 week “bootcamp”
MS A/B Software Engineering guidance inputs:
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Navy SW Guide
AF SW Guide
SE/SW integration framework
Cost estimation
Survey results and recommendations
Start-Up Teams focus areas:
Coordination of the offices that “touch” the program
Prepare to reduce risk by providing just-in-time support between MS A and MS B
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
Workshops (may be called Start-Up Teams or “TouchPoints”) between MS
A and PSR; Note that ICM spans work prior to MS A)
N working sessions driven by program needs
Just-in-time training/tutorials
Help people pass the “final exam”; please attend the “office hours”
Could include technology demos
External stakeholders do not just show up, assign actions, and leave; they help
do work
8) Each Workshop TouchPoint has a focus (“how is it that we will be able to
produce the evidence?”):
1) Acquisition strategy
1) Incentive structures
2) RFP wording
1) CP RFP wording
2) Post-MS B RFP wording
3) Support for baseline cost/schedule/etc estimates
1) WBS
4) Infrastructure
5) User engagement
6) Make sure all these assets are synchronized and stabilized
9) Mentoring
10)Send drafts to larger audiences
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
1) Workshops: Possible team members
SSE – Engineering
DCMA – Contracts
DDR&E – Science and technology
PA&E – Metrics
Component leads
2) Workshops: Awareness of overall environment
1) Looking at what is happening around you, including looking at
emerging opportunities and risks
2) Validation of what was supposed to get done was done
3) Work to get done is getting done now
4) Planning for what needs to get done
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
• Contractors have the concern of the customers “leveling the playing field”
by seeing two competing demos and selecting a differentiating feature
from one contractor and making it “required” from both
– Removes the potential competitive advantage
– Contractors “hold back” key features
– AT&L is trying to discourage the combining of competing systems, such as
LCS example of combining tower and shallow-water capabilities
• Combining features during CP is not buying down risk – it is adding
• Can we postpone the new features to O&M?
• Can we use PRDA funding to keep the contractor teams funding during
down-select intervals?
• Suggestion: Identify an actual pre-B program and support it using StartUp Teams to adopt new approaches, such as ICM, TouchPoints, etc.
– Or should we just continue to build a community?
• “At DARPA, you are only as good as your next demo”
• How frequent should your demos occur, what are the goals for the demos
(risk reduction etc), who is the audience, etc.?
– It will be hard to pin-down time frequency without defining goals/context/etc
• Program needs to define goals for prototypes: risk reduction, key nominal
capabilities, etc
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
Need acquisition strategy for these new ideas
Why do contractors re-validate requirements after they win a contract?
– Anticipate requirements changes
Acquisition reform decimated the acquisition workforce
– Investing in human capital
– Large portions of the acquisition workforce will be eligible to retire soon
There is no current career track for SW personnel in the acquisition workforce
CP Survey report needs to highlight benefits and pitfalls, so report can be action
Basic CP value propositions:
– There is significant risk exposure in making the wrong decision
– The prototype has significant ROI for reducing the risk
Need “CRACK” stakeholder participants:
– Committed, representative, authorized, collaborative, knowledgeable
Satisficing principle: All success-critical stakeholders
Key goal for CP: reduce Nunn-McCurdy recertifications
– Lost of key staff during recertification period
– Recertifications are expensive because of funding needed to conduct re-cert plus
funding needed for contractor teams
– Close-out costs can be greater than continuing to fund the contractor team
If certain programs are on the pathway to being “doomed” due to risks, CP may
help us know that sooner
ICM Workshop – Key Discussions
• We need an update framework and
updated guidance
• Since systems take so long to develop and
technology continues to change, we
actually acquire “legacy systems”
– Also: the systems we ultimately deliver that
are sufficiently outdated that they are
considered “legacy systems” at the time of
Some Feedback on Strategic Issues
• Need to weave 2x2 payoff-ease charts, task
lists, and other recommendations into
SE/SW roadmap
• Select a few high-payoff ideas, such as StartUp Teams
• Need best-of-class example of favorable
adoption of Competitive Prototyping
• Challenging inhibitors: Indivisible IOC, need
near/mid/etc-term payoff horizons
• Define success criteria for roadmap and set
expectations accordingly