Recent DoD Trends
&
System and Software Process
Implications
COCOMO/SSCM Forum and ICM Workshop 3
October 27, 2008
Dr. Judith Dahmann
The MITRE Corporation
1
2
Trends
• Acquisition of systems - major defense acquisition
programs (MDAPs)
• Focus on capabilities and recognition of systems of
systems (SoS)
• Move toward capability portfolios and DoD
Capability Area Management (CPMs)
How do these trends shape the DoD environment for
systems and software processes?
3
Systems Acquisition
Reality and the Opportunity
• Acquisition cost
growth over 11
years*:
– Estimation changes:
$201B
– Engineering changes:
$147B
– Schedule changes:
$70B
*SAR data FY 1995–2005
With 72% of O&S costs established pre-Milestone A, Systems
Engineering plays a critical role ensuring capabilities are
translated into executable requirements and feasible programs
4
Draft Early Acquisition Policy Changes*
Early
Acquisition
MS A
MS B
MS C
JCIDS Process
Strategic
Guidance
Joint
Concepts
CBA
ICD
MDD
Materiel
Solution
Analysis
Technology
Development CDD
PDR
Materiel
Development
Decision (MDD)
Engineering and
Manufacturing
Development and
Demonstration
CPD
Production and
Deployment
CDR
O&S
Full Rate Production
Decision Review
PDR and a PDR report
to the MDA before MS B
(moves MS B to the right)
Competing
prototypes
before MS B
5
Coordination Draft, DoDI 5000.02
Base Acquisition Decisions
on Robust Engineering Foundation
MS
A
MDD
Business
Decisions Agreement
to pursue a
material
solution
Uncertainty
Engineering
Support
Preferred
System
Analysis
AoA
MS
B
Selection
of a
preferred
solution
Preferred
System
Concept Technology
Maturation
And
Prototyping System
Level Specs
Formal
Program
Start
PDR
Preliminary
Design
Material Solution Analysis
CDR
Completed
Design
Technology Development
Make acquisition commitments when you have solid
evidence and acceptable risk
6
Recognition of the Impacts of System
Interdependencies
Example: CVN-21 Interrelationships
with Complementary Systems*
Replacing NIMITZ-class CVN:
CVN-77
CSG:
DDG-51
DD(X)
CG(X)
LCS
SSN-688
SSN-774
ESG:
LHA(R)
LHD-1
LPD-17
C4:
JTRS (CL-3)
GBS
WGS
NAVSTAR
GPS
CVW:
F/A18E/F
F/A18C/D
JSF
E-2C
EA-18G
MH-60S
Combat Logistics Force:
AOE-6
T-AKE
T-AOE(X)
Other:
JPALS
Ordnance:
AGM-88E
AIM-9X
JSOW U
JASSM
Current schedule and performance support fielding
Performance issues with interface
J-UCAS
BAMS UAV
MMA
ACS-N
Fires / Fire Support:
CEC
SSGN
Arrow to CVN-21 denotes CVN 21 receiving other program’s technology or capability
Arrow from CVN-21 denotes technology recipients from CVN-21
OSD DAES Rating:
C S P
Not Rated
*Ref DAB review: Apr 04
Aggregated data from DAES interdependence charts
Interdependencies exist among all MDAPs
Most interdependence with non-MDAP programs
March 12, 2016
7
SoS in the DoD Today
SoS Type
Directed
Acknowledged
Collaborative
Virtual
Description
SoS objectives, management,
funding and authority;
systems are subordinated to
SoS
SoS objectives, management,
funding and authority;
however systems retain their
own management, funding
and authority in parallel with
the SoS
No objectives, management,
authority, responsibility, or
funding at the SoS level;
Systems voluntarily work
together to address shared or
common interest
Like collaborative, but
systems don’t know about
each other
SoS: A set or arrangement of systems that
results when independent and useful
systems are integrated into a larger system
that delivers unique capabilities
• US DoD builds and fields large
systems employed to support
Joint & Coalition operations
– Conceived and developed
independently by Military
Services on a system by system
basis
• Focus of DoD investment
shifting to broad user
capabilities implemented in a
networked environment
– Ensembles of interdependent
systems which interact based
on end-to-end business
processes and networked
information exchange
• Increasingly SoS of various
types proliferate despite
continued focus on individual
8
systems
Increased Attention on SoS
• DoD Guide to Systems Engineering for
SoS V1.0 –AT&L System and SW Engineering
Translating
Translating
capability
Translating
capability
objectives
capability
objectives
objectives
Assessing
Assessing
(actual)
Assessing
(actual)
performance
performance
performance
totocapability
to capability
capability
objectives
objectives
objectives
Orchestrating
Orchestrating
Orchestrating
upgrades
upgrades
upgrades
to
toSoS
SoS
Understanding
Understanding
systems
Understanding
systems&&
relationships
relationships
systems
&
(includes
plans)
(includes
plans)
relationships
– Characterizes SoS in the DoD Today
– Identifies core elements of SoS SE
– Discusses application of SE processes to SoS
SE core elements
– Highlights ‘emerging principles’
to SoS
• New Service Initiatives to Address SoS
Developing,
Developing,
Developing
evolving
and
evolving and
maintaining
& evolving
SoSmaintaining
design/arch
SoS
SoS design/arch
Addressing
Addressing
new
Addressing
new
requirements
requirements
requirements
&&options
&
solution
options
options
architecture
– Army has established an SoS SE organization
to provide a mechanism to address issues
which cut across Army PEOs
– Navy has initiated plans to develop a suite
of architectures to address SoS to support
Navy contributions to the DoD Joint
Capability Areas at the campaign, mission,
platform and system levels
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
&
assessing
assessing
&&changes
assessing
changes
changes
External Environment
Enterprise Level SoS Engineer
Ground Combat
Portfolio
Ammo Portfolio
ISR Portfolio
Soldier Portfolio
Lead – PEO GCS
Lead – PEO Ammo
Lead – PEO IEW&S
Lead – PEO Soldier
Current BC Portfolio
Simulation Portfolio
Lead – PEO C3T
Lead – PEO STRI
Aviation Portfolio
Lead – PEO Aviation
Future Combat
System
Lead – PM FCS
Enterprise
Systems Portfolio
Lead – PEO EIS
Missile Portfolio
Tactical Mobility
Portfolio
Lead – PEO M&S
Lead – PEO CS/CSS
Chem Bio Portfolio
Lead – JPEO CBD
ASAALT/Mr. Wiltsie/16 APR
FOUO
6
SoS Provide A Context for System and9
Software Processes
DoD Capability Portfolio Management CPM
CPM: The process of managing groups of similar capabilities across the
Department of Defense within each portfolio to meet war fighter needs
Clinger
Cohen
JCIDS
Capability
Roadmaps
Joint
Capability
Areas
(JCA)
Defined
May
2005
QDR
Addresses
Capability
PfM
January
2006
IT PfM
DoDD
8115
October
2005
2005
JCA
IR&G Results
Rebaseline
Briefed to
Complete
DAWG
Jan
Jan-Feb
2008
2007
DepSecDef
JCA
Memo
Baseline
Formalizes
IR&G
Review
and
Roadmap
Tasked DepSecDef
Expands
March
Memo
Feb
Test
CpMs Capability
2006 Test
Test
Extends Case
2007
PfM
Feb
Case
Case
Test
CpMs
DoDD
2008
CpMs
CpMs
Cases Play in
Issued
in
Play
Initiated
March Program
Sept
June Program
2007 Review
2008
Review
2006
Fall
Fall
2007
2006
2006
2007
2008
10
DoD CPM has evolved over the past 3 years beginning in earnest with QDR
2006 QDR Discussion of ‘Portfolio’
“In this era, characterized by uncertainty and
surprise, examples of this shift in emphasis
include: ……”
• “From single Service acquisition systems –
to joint portfolio management.”
[Introduction, iv]
“The 2006 QDR provides new direction
for accelerating the transformation of the
Department to focus more on the needs of
Combatant Commanders and to develop
portfolios of joint capabilities rather than
individual stove-piped programs.” [16]
……
“The goal is to manage the Department
increasingly through the use of joint capability
portfolios.” [16]
Shift from individual
programs to portfolios
Apply portfolios to full
complement of DOD
activities
CPMs viewed as a mechanism for change
11
CPM DoD Directive 7045.20
25 September 2008
“….The role of Capability Portfolio Manager’s
is to manage a portfolio by integrating,
coordinating and synchronizing programs to
optimize capability within time and budget
constraints.”
Nine Capability Portfolios
1. Force Application
2. Battlespace Awareness
3. Command & Control
4. Net-Centric
5. Force Support
6. Protection
7. Building Partnerships
8. Logistics
9. Corporate Management &
Support
CPMs make recommendations to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense and the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group (DAWG) on
capability development issues within their respective portfolio
12
In sum, in DoD today we see increasing
• Pressures on system acquisition programs to base
commitments on evidence and acceptable risk
– …. and to meet those commitments
• Recognition that systems support broader user
capabilities in an SoS environment
– …. with an acknowledgement that today in many situations
systems and SoS both have legitimate requirements and
authorities
– …. and plans by Services to more explicit manage and
engineer SoS
• New attention on broader DoD capability portfolios to
establish enterprise-wide development and
investment priorities
Trends provide context for system and
software processes
13
Backup
14
DoD Capability Portfolio Management
Key Events
Clinger
Cohen
JCIDS
Capability
Roadmaps
Joint
Capability
Areas
(JCA)
Defined
May
2005
QDR
Addresses
Capability
PfM
January
2006
IT PfM
DoDD
8115
October
2005
2005
JCA
IR&G Results
Rebaseline
Briefed to
Complete
DAWG
Jan
Jan-Feb
2008
2007
DepSecDef
JCA
Memo
Baseline
Formalizes
IR&G
Review
and
Roadmap
Tasked DepSecDef
Expands
March
Memo
Feb
Test
CpMs Capability
2006 Test
Test
Extends Case
2007
PfM
Feb
Case
Case
Test
CpMs
DoDD
2008
CpMs
CpMs
Cases Play in
Issued
Initiated Play in
March Program
Sept
June Program
2007 Review
2008
Review
2006
Fall
Fall
2007
2006
2006
2007
2008
DoD CpM has evolved over the past 3 years beginning in earnest with QDR
15
IR&G Roadmap
• Institutional Reform & Governance (IR&G)
initiative was formed in March 2006 to
implement a set of QDR recommendations
• Develop a DoD-wide decision
Framework
• Co-lead Joint Staff and OSD
• Results of CY06 work presented to
Deputies Advisory Working Group (DAWG)
in January- February 2007
• Included recommendations on
instituting Capability Portfolio
Management (CpM)
• March 2007 DepSecDef memo issuing
direction based on DAWG response
• Recommendations on CpM
institutionalization
16
Joint Capability Areas (JCAs)
Battlespace
Awareness
Functional
C2
Maritime
Domain
Interagency Coordination
Land
Log
Public Affairs Ops
Net-centric
Space
Protect
Information
Ops
Air
Spec Ops / IW
Access/
Access Denial
Global Deter
Def Spt to Civil Auth
Operational
Shaping
Homeland Def
Stability
Institutional
Force
Management
Force
Generation
• Originally (May 2005) 21
JCAs including mix of
functional, operational
and other areas
– Tremendous overlap
• IR&G recommended JCAs
be ‘rebaselined’ to serve
as the capability areas for
portfolios
– Comprehensive & discrete
• In February 2007 JS tasked
J7 to conduct JCA baseline
review
– In January 2008, accepted a
new JCA structure with 9 top
level JCAs
CpMs are aligned to top level JCAs
17