Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Systems Engineering: It’s the Law!

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Systems Engineering: It’s the Law!"— Presentation transcript:

1 Systems Engineering: It’s the Law!
An Overview of the Defense Acquisition Management System and Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) Geoff Draper Harris Government Communications Systems Division

2 Systems Engineering: It’s the Law!
Topics: Performance issues in Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) Summary of studies and reports Overview of the Defense Acquisition Management System DoD policies and guidance DODI Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) Potential Implications to the Defense Industry References: P. L , Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. May 22, Defense Technical Memorandum, DTM “Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009”. Dec DoDI , The Defense Acquisition Management System. Dec 2008. DoD Strategic Management Plan. July 2009. Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG), Chapter 4: Systems Engineering. https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=332951&lang=en-US Implementation of Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of Mona Lush, OUSD (AT&L). Oct 2009. DODI and WSARA Impacts on Early System s Engineering. Sharon Vannucci, OSD (AT&L) / DDRE. NDIA SE Conference, Oct ’09. Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) 2009. Mr. Nicholas Torelli, OUSD (AT&L) / DDRE. NDIA SE Div mtg, July 2009. A Multi-Level Approach to Addressing SE Issues in Defense Programs. NDIA SE Division, June 27-Mar-17

3 The Problem – Improving Program Performance through SE
Numerous studies and reports document program performance issues and the role of effective systems engineering GAO T - Actions Needed to Overcome Long-standing Challenges with Weapon Systems Acquisition and Service Contract Management “DOD’s major weapon systems programs continue to take longer to develop, cost more, and deliver fewer quantities and capabilities than originally planned.” “costs … of major defense acquisition programs increased 26 percent and development costs increased by 40 percent from first estimates” “programs … failed to deliver capabilities when promised—often forcing warfighters to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems” “current programs experienced, on average, a 21-month delay in delivering initial capabilities to the warfighter” NRC/USAF Study - Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering: A Retrospective Review and Benefits for Future Air Force Acquisition “Attention to a few critical systems engineering processes and functions particularly during preparation for Milestones A and B is essential…” “…critically dependent on having experienced systems engineers with adequate knowledge of the domain…” “Decisions made prior to Milestone A should be supported by a rigorous systems analysis and systems engineering process involving teams of users, acquirers, and industry representatives.”

4 Addressing SE Issues - Key Studies and Reports
Study / Report Summary Issues / Findings Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering [report] (NRC/USAF study) Inexperienced leadership External interface complexity System complexity Incomplete/unstable reqts at MS B Reliance on immature technology Reliance on large amts of new SW NDIA Top 5 SE Issues (2006) [report, briefing] Inconsistent SE practices Insufficient SE early in life cycle Lack SE resources (qty, quality) Requirements not well-defined and managed Inadequate SE tools/environments NDIA Top SW Issues (2006) SE decisions without SW involvement Ineffective SW life cycle plans Lack SW resources (qty, quality) SW verification: costly, ineffective Requirements impact on SW SW assurance (predictable, secure) COTS/NDI impacts Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) (2008) (publication 2009, pending) Unrealistic acq. strategies and plans Milestone decision gates, criteria Staffing shortfalls (quantity, skills, experience) Systems Engineering of Tactical Air Launched Systems: An Industry Examination (2008) [briefing] (Air Armament Center, NDIA Gulf Coast Chapter) Incomplete design-to requirements Requirements creep, not stable Unplanned reqts verification effort Unplanned performance/design tests Configuration variation issues Component qualification test Weapon level integration tests Weapon level qualification tests Weapon flight testing Redesign for producibility/cost Field reliability, sustainability House Armed Services Panel on Defense Acq. Reform (final report, March 2010) Manage performance of acq. system Lacking good reqts process (JCIDS) Ad hoc acquisition of services Develop/incentivize acq. workforce Ineffective financial mgmt system Protect the industrial base (all sizes) Responsiveness of core acq system Details

5 Systemic Issues of Big “A” Acquisition
Resources (PPBE) Funding instability Insufficient resource trade space Budget not properly phased/magnitude to support planned development Defense Acquisition System (DAS) Small “a” Acquisition Requirements (JCIDS) Immature technologies Inadequate systems engineering Inadequate requirements flow-down/ traceability/ decomposition Insufficient schedule trade space Inadequate implementation of Earned Value Management System Lack of time and assets for testing To deliver capable, effective, efficient material solutions, Requirements Managers must understand “Big A Acquisition” which is the combination of the Requirements, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) and acquisition processes. Program success depends on integrating the three components of “Big A Acquisition.” Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) states that the requirements process, the acquisition process, and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process must work together to deliver capabilities to the warfighters. Our goals are to align the three processes, to make consistent decisions, and to avoid the mistakes of the past. Welcome. I am Major General William Troy, the Joint Staff J-8 Vice Director for Force Structure, Resources and Assessment. One of our most important missions in J-8 is to be an advocate for the warfighter and assist the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in properly defining and validating future warfighting capabilities. The course you are taking will help you, a requirements manager, play your role in defining the requirements for future warfighting capabilities. While we are all committed to giving the warfighter the best possible solutions, there is often a gap in both experience and expectation between the warfighters on one hand and the acquisition and resource communities on the other. This may result in misinterpreted requirements and lead to systems which: do not perform to the level required by the warfighter, cost too much, or are not delivered when needed. This certification course will help address that challenge. With this training, you will be better able to establish a common understanding between these two communities on how the requirements are developed and how they are turned from performance requirements on paper into acquisition programs. Ultimately it will help you ensure the right capabilities are delivered to the warfighter. As requirements managers, we need to make sure we get the requirement right, and I think that means four things. First, we need to ensure the performance requirements defined by the warfighter are feasible given available or developing technologies. We have to be realistic about the amount of technological risk we are assuming. Second, the requirement must have an affordable solution. If it is too expensive, chances are we’ll never get it in the quantities we need. Third, the system must be delivered on time. An overly complex or rigid requirement can result in a system that’s late-to-need and may well be useless. Fourth, and most importantly, we need to make sure the requirement meets the needs of the combatant commanders. To meet these four imperatives, we must engage key players within the Services, Agencies, combatant commands, Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense early in the process. All have important roles, and we need to make sure their voices are heard. In doing this job you must think of yourself as the warfighter’s advocate, and understand the perspectives of the various players to find the right balance between capability investments and operational risk. Decisions to pursue new capabilities without sufficient engagement up front can result in: pursuing the wrong solution multiple efforts for the same capability, or not delivering what the warfighter really needs. From a warfighter’s perspective, an approach or solution by one Service may not meet the needs of all combatant commanders. The Services often develop new capabilities based on their existing and future doctrine with a service-centric approach. Combatant command requirements, however, are based on their OPLANs and CONPLANs. And remember, the joint warfighter requires capabilities that can be operated across Service boundaries. As a Requirements manager we need you to help reconcile the natural tensions that exist in these two perspectives. By engaging with the Combatant Commanders and their staffs early you will ensure we understand how they intend to employ these future capabilities and make sure their needs are accurately represented to the services. The requirements manager must help ensure we deliver capabilities with joint operations and versatility designed in from the start. In the war we are now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen many battles fought in extremely limited battlespace, with every Service directly involved in the fight. We have seen soldiers and Marines fighting side-by-side, calling in Navy and Air Force close air support with Special Operations Forces in critically close quarters, all taking place on a battlefield that includes non-combatants, religious shrines, and friendly indigenous forces. More than ever, the tools of our trade must be precise and must fit together. We need to be able to see each other and talk to each other and reduce the fog of war. We’ll never get there if we don’t get the requirements right at the outset of the process. As you proceed through this course, I ask you to remember the impact you have when you write, review, interpret, or develop new capabilities for the warfighter. Lack of JROC-validated requirements document for basic program (ORD, CDD, CPD) Inadequate requirements for basic program and any increments Critical dependence on external programs with developmental issues Lack of inter- and intra-departmental stakeholder coordination and support Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (CJCSI-3170) Program, Planning, Budgeting, and Execution (DoD-7000, FMRs) Defense Acquisition System (DoDI-5000) *Systemic Issues of Nunn-McCurdy “Class of 2007” Programs Synchronize JCIDS, DAS, and PPBE to deliver capabilities to Warfighters.

6 Summary of Key SE Initiatives and Reports
Common program issues: -Poor program planning -Unrealistic estimates -Unstable requirements -Immature technology -Not following SE processes -Insufficient SE expertise -Ineffective reviews -Poor system reliability Other sources: Program Support Reviews (PSRs) Nunn-McCurdy breaches Congressional oversight Defense Science Board Other studies, reviews, reports 2003 2006 2008 2009 2010 NDIA Top 5 SE Issues [1/03] DODI [5/03] Defense Acq Guide (DAG); Chap 4: SE [7/06] OSD policy, guidance, reviews: SEP; IMS; training; risk mgmt; PSRs NDIA Top SE Issues [7/06] NDIA Top SW Issues [9/06] NRC/USAF Study: Pre-MS A and Early SE [1/08] DODI updates [12/08] Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) [draft] PL (WSARA) [5/09] DTM Implementation of WSARA [12/09] QDR [2/10] House Armed Services Committee report [3/10] OSD WSARA report to Congress [3/10] NDIA Reports DoD policy and actions Other (Congress, studies, reviews) There is no shortage of sources confirming we have issues – How do government and industry collaborate to act upon solutions?

7 Secretary of Defense Direction
Chief among institutional challenges facing the Department is acquisition.”

8 Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
“The key to successful acquisition programs is getting things right from the start with sound systems engineering, cost estimating, and developmental testing early in the program cycle. The bill that we are introducing today will require the Department of Defense to take the steps needed to put major defense acquisition programs on a sound footing from the outset. If these changes are successfully implemented, they should help our acquisition programs avoid future cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems.” –Senator Carl Levin, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee “The Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 is an important step in efforts to reform the defense acquisition process. This legislation is needed to focus acquisition and procurement on emphasizing systems engineering; more effective upfront planning and management of technology risk; and growing the acquisition workforce to meet program objectives.” –Senator John McCain, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

9 P. L. 111-23: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) – May 2009
Key Elements of Legislation: Organizational Establishes Directorates for SE and DT&E as principal advisors Joint tracking of component and MDAP progress against plans and measurable criteria with annual reporting to Congress Independent cost estimation and cost analysis (Director, CAPE) Provide adequate trained staff for SE and development planning Conduct MDAP performance assessments and root cause analysis Role of SE across program lifecycle Developmental planning, lifecycle management, sustainability Ensure reliability, availability, maintainability (RAM) Mandates Measurable performance criteria in SE/DT&E plans Competitive prototypes for MDAPs; prime make/buy analyses System PDR before MS B, with formal MDA assessment Assessment of technical maturity and integration risk of critical technologies during Technology Development (TD) Technical and cost oversight Independent estimates, Problem Assessment Root Cause Analysis Technical analysis of cost/schedule breaches; presumed termination 27-Mar-1727-Mar-1727-Mar-1727-Mar-17

10 27-Mar-17

11 Key Acquisition Business Process Changes
X Increased Emphasis on Milestone A Mandatory for MDAPs with Technology Development Programs Likely for Most Programs When PDR is Conducted after Milestone B an MDA Post-PDR Assessment is Required Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B to Enhance Understanding of Derived Requirements and Improve Cost Estimation Post-Critical Design Review Assessment – A Mandatory Decision Point to Review Progress MS A MS B MS C X FRP DR ICD MDD Materiel Solution Analysis PCDRA Technology Development PDR P-PDRA Engineering & Manufacturing Development PDR CDD Production & Deployment CPD Operations & Support Competitive Prototyping Re-structured “EMD” Phase Effective Contracting via Pre-Award Peer Reviews Materiel Development Decision – Mandatory Process Entry Point Enhanced Emphasis on: Technology Maturity Systems Engineering Integrated Testing and Test Planning Manufacturing and Producibility Logistics and Sustainment Planning Competitive Prototyping Configuration Steering Boards Established to Stabilize Requirements

12 27-Mar-17

13 27-Mar-17

14 Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Test and Demonstration
B C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Engineering & Manufacturing Development PRODUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONS & SUPPORT Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post CDR Assessment TRLs 1-3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9 Technology Readiness Levels Defense Acquisition Guidebook para Analytical/ Experimental Critical Function/ Characteristic Proof of Concept Component And/or Breadboard Validation In a Laboratory Environment Component And/or Breadboard Validation In a Relevant Environment System/ Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstrated In a Relevant Environment System Prototype Demonstrated In an Operational Environment Actual System Completed Qualified Through Test and Demonstration Actual System “Mission Proven” Through Successful Operations MRLs 1-3 MRL 4 MRL 5 MRL 6 MRL 7 MRL 8 MRL 9 MRL 10 Manufacturing Readiness Levels Draft MRA Deskbook May 2008 Manufacturing Feasibility Assessed. Concepts defined/ developed Capability to produce Technology In Lab Environment. Manufacturing Risks Identified Capability to Produce Prototype Components Capability to Produce System/ Subsystem Prototypes Capability to Produce Systems, Subsystems Or Components in a Production Representative Environment Pilot Line Capability Demonstrated. Ready for LRIP Low Rate Production Demonstrated. Capability In Place for FRP Full Rate Production Demonstrated. Lean Production Practices In Place Manufacturing Cost Drivers Identified Cost Model Constructed Detailed Cost Analysis Complete Cost Model Updated To System Level Unit Cost Reduction Efforts Underway Engineering Cost Model Validated LRIP Cost Goals Met Learning Curve Validated FRP Unit Cost Goals Met Section 2366b of Title 10, United States Code, requires certification that: the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment to enter Milestone B. [TRL 6] 14

15 DoD Strategic Management Plan (7/09) Key acquisition-related excerpts
Goals Measures Key Initiatives Improve acquisition processes and execution to support warfighter reqts # of months to IOC Acquire systems through evolutionary acquisition Increase use of fixed price contracts % of contracts at MS B that are FP % of contracts at MS C that are FP Milestone decision reviews Increase % of MDAPs initiated with low technical risk # of MDAPs initiated in GFY % of MDAPs with technologies demonstrated in a relevant environment (i.e., TRL 6) Competitive prototyping PDR before MS B Independent Technical Readiness Assessments (TRA) Assess programs as directed in WSARA % of Problem Assessment Root Cause Analysis (PARCA) offices % of programs assessed Root cause analysis Ensure supportability, maintainability and costs are considered in lifecycle % programs meeting DoD sustainment metrics Establish sustainment metrics reporting (availability, reliability, TOC) Implement recommended next-gen sustainment strategies Focus R&D to address warfighting requirements % of completing demonstration programs transitioned per year Track programs transitioning with CY Review RDT&E funding for transition Sponsor technology leadership strategy outreach to industry, academia # of 2-day dialogues with academia technology leaders Understand investment drivers and strategies to sustain tech leadership Right-shape and re-balance the acquisition workforce - goal to grow by 20,000 positions by FY2015 % certification positions filled (annual) Annual increase in end-strength # contractor work-yr equiv in-sourced Grow the acquisition workforce Achieve 10,000 acquisition positions through in-sourcing

16 What’s Next? Areas of emphasis: Defense workforce
Defense Strategy Defense objectives, emerging threats Rebalancing the Force Counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, WMD, cyber U.S. force structure: sizing, shaping, evolution Defense workforce Supporting troops, deployment Recruiting, retention, development Strengthening relationships U.S. defense posture, interagency, abroad Reforming How We Do Business Rapid acquisition, security, how we buy, exports Strengthening the industrial base Strategic approach to climate and energy Defense Risk Management Framework Operational, force management, institutional, future challenges, strategic, military, political A U.S. force “prepared to conduct a wide variety of missions under a range of different circumstances.”

17 Summary DODI 5000.2 and WSARA are changing the game Questions?
Early life cycle planning (SEP) Adherence to effective SE practices Independent cost estimates Competitive prototyping Managed technology risks (TRL) Increased emphasis on reliability and supportability (RAM) Congressional reporting and oversight More fixed priced contracts and evolutionary acquisition likely Revitalization of DoD SE and acquisition workforce Questions? Geoff Draper )

18 Backup 27-Mar-1727-Mar-1727-Mar-1727-Mar-17

19

20 Addressing SE Issues – Key NDIA Task Groups and Milestones
Government Studies/Reports (GAO, NRC, DCMA, etc.) Reviews (QDR, etc.) Program Support Reviews (PSRs) Congressional oversight (Nunn-McCurdy, McCain-Levin, …) Working Groups Conferences Forums 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 NDIA Top 5 SE Issues NDIA Top 5 SE Issues NDIA Top SW Issues Defense Software Strategy Summit SE Effectiveness Survey Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) [draft] Industrial Committee on Program Mgmt (ICPM) SE of Tactical Air Launched Systems (Gulf Coast Chapter) (Air Armament Center) Top SE/SW Issues Update (planned) Industrial Committee on SE (ICSE) (planned) Common program issues: -Poor program planning -Unrealistic estimates -Unstable requirements -Immature technology -Not following SE processes -Insufficient SE expertise -Ineffective reviews -Poor system reliability There is no shortage of sources confirming we have issues – How do government and industry collaborate to act upon solutions?

21 NRC Study – Pre-MS A and Early-Phase SE
Findings Recommendations Attention to a few critical systems engineering processes and functions particularly during preparation for Milestones A and B is essential to ensuring that Air Force acquisition programs deliver products on time and on budget. Require that Milestones A and B be treated as critical milestones in every acquisition program and that … the “Pre-Milestone A/B Checklist” … be used to judge successful completion. The creation of a robust systems engineering process is critically dependent on having experienced systems engineers with adequate knowledge of the domain relevant to a contemplated program. Assess needs for officers and civilians in the systems engineering field and evaluate whether either internal training programs … or external organizations are able to produce the required quality and quantity of systems engineers and systems engineering skills. … The government, FFRDCs, and industry all have important roles to play throughout the acquisition life cycle.… Source selection for system development and demonstration should not be made until after the work associated with Milestones A and B is complete. Decisions made prior to Milestone A should be supported by a rigorous systems analysis and systems engineering process involving teams of users, acquirers, and industry representatives. The Air Force used to have a development planning organization that applied pre-Milestone A systems engineering processes to a number of successful programs, but that organization was allowed to lapse. A development planning function should be established in the military departments to coordinate the concept development and refinement phase of all acquisition programs to ensure that the capabilities … as a whole are considered and that unifying strategies such as … interoperability are addressed. Reference: Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase Systems Engineering: A Retrospective Review and Benefits for Future Air Force Acquisition.

22 NDIA Top 5 SE Issues NDIA SE Division (July 2006)
Provides an update and status from a previous task group report conducted in 2003. Issues Recommendations 1. Key systems engineering practices known to be effective are not consistently applied across all phases of the program life cycle. Ensure institutionalization of effective SE practices into program planning and execution 2. Insufficient systems engineering is applied early in the program life cycle, compromising the foundation for initial requirements and architecture development. Integrate engineering planning within the acquisition life cycle to ensure adequate time and effort for SE early in the program life cycle 3. Requirements are not always well-managed, including the effective translation from capabilities statements into executable requirements to achieve successful acquisition programs Emphasize the application of SE practices and resources to the capability definition process to address warfighter needs and translation into executable programs. 4. The quantity and quality of systems engineering expertise is insufficient to meet the demands of the government and the defense industry. Grow SE expertise through training, career incentives, and broadening “systems thinking” into other disciplines. 5. Collaborative environments, including SE tools, are inadequate to effectively execute SE at the joint capability, system of systems (SoS), and system levels. Strengthen and clarify policy and guidance regarding use of collaborative environments, models, simulations, and other automated tools. Reference: NDIA Top 5 Systems Engineering Issues Report. July NDIA Systems Engineering Division. [report, briefing]

23 NDIA Top Software Issues NDIA SE Division (Sept 2006)
Recommendations 1. The impact of requirements upon software is not consistently quantified and managed in development or sustainment. Enforce effective software requirements development and management practices, including assessment of change impacts, for both the acquirer and the supplier organizations. 2. Fundamental system engineering decisions are made without full participation of software engineering Institutionalize the integration and participation of software engineering in all system engineering activities. 3. Software life-cycle planning and management by acquirers and suppliers is ineffective. Establish a culture of quantitative planning and management, using proven processes with collaborative decision-making across the software life cycle. 4. The quantity and quality of software engineering expertise is insufficient to meet the demands of government and the defense industry. Collaborate on innovative strategies to staff to appropriate levels, and to attract, develop, and retain qualified talent to meet current and future software engineering needs in government and industry. 5. Traditional software verification techniques are costly and ineffective for dealing with the scale and complexity of modern systems. Study current software verification practices in industry, and develop guidance and training to improve effectiveness in assuring product quality across the life cycle. 6. There is a failure to assure correct, predictable, safe, secure execution of complex software in distributed environments. Collaborate with industry to develop approaches, standards, and tools addressing system assurance issues throughout the acquisition life cycle and supply chain. 7. Inadequate attention is given to total lifecycle issues for COTS/NDI impacts on lifecycle cost and risk. Improve and expand guidelines for addressing total lifecycle COTS/NDI issues. Reference: NDIA Top Software Engineering Issues Report. Sep NDIA Systems Engineering Division. [report, briefing]

24 Systemic Root Cause Analysis (SRCA) - Conducted 2007-2008, publication pending
SRCA workshops and task group Based on PSR findings (44 programs) Tagged to core/systemic root causes 95 preliminary recommendations 48 systemic issues 3 Recommendation Areas Recommendation Area Problem Statement Industry Actions* Implement Achievable Acquisition Strategy and Planning Acquisition strategies and plans are incomplete, ineffective and unrealistic, resulting in unachievable program expectations Require the government, prior to RFP release, to provide industry with govt. expectations and common understanding for IMP/IMS/risk management/business rhythms Enhance Gate Review Process Lack of timely process and adequately defined and enforceable criteria to assess program maturity at milestones and linkage to technical reviews Define criteria for trigger conditions Enhance Staff Capabilities Staffing shortfalls (numbers, skills, and experience) lead to adverse acquisition consequences specifically in the areas of requirements, planning, execution and expectations Develop and validate a representative staffing model for DoD based on industry that can be applied to the govt. given the current OSD acquisition guidance Develop a workload analysis to estimate the numbers and expertise needed in the acquisition workforce Broaden expertise to enhance cross-functional and domain knowledge and skills * Reference SRCA briefing for additional details and recommended government actions. © 2006 by Carnegie Mellon University 24

25 SE of Tactical Air Launched Weapons NDIA Gulf Coast Chapter (2008)
SE Deficiencies Root Causes Program Structure and Control Insufficient Maturity Of Design At Critical Decision Points •Insufficient Testing And Analysis Planned To Achieve Maturity •Late Integration Of Production Critical Processes And Controls •Program Funding Profiles Not Structured For Improved Practices Requirements And Verification Lack Of Service Use Profile Leaves Interpretive Requirements •Insufficient Mapping Of Requirements To Design •Ineffective Maturation And Verification Planning Design Best Practices •Inadequate Design Analysis - Fault Tree Analysis On All Subsystems During Design - Single Point Failure Analysis During Design •Inadequate Maturation Analysis And Testing - COTS Integration - Design Margin And Sensitivity Development - Critical Manufacture And Assembly Process ID / Control •Use Of “Production Representative” Configuration For Verification Risk Identification And Management •Inadequate Relationship To “Knowledge” Of Design Supply Chain Practices •Inconsistent Approaches To Design Characterization Reference: “Systems Engineering of Tactical Air-Launched Weapons: An Industry Examination.” Air Armament Symposium, [briefing]

26 A Survey of Systems Engineering Effectiveness (2007)
Joint NDIA/SEI survey of 46 programs correlating the effectiveness of SE processes with program performance. SE processes most strongly correlated with better program performance: Architecture Trade Studies Technical Solution IPT Capability Requirements Development and Management Report: documents/08.reports/08sr034.html Projects with better Systems Engineering Capabilities deliver better Project Performance (cost, schedule, functionality)

27 Defense Acquisition System Weighted Expenditures
DoDI Perspective Program Initiation A B C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Technology Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post-CDR Assessment LRIP/IOT&E Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment Warfighter and Sustainment Organization Perspective A B (Program Initiation) C Materiel Solution Analysis The point of this chart s that the system is with the warfighter and supporter a lot longer than it was in development. So, a good reason to make sure systems are reliable and supportable up front. Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision FR5P Review Decision LRIP/IOT&E Assessment Post-CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment 65-80% 20-35% 30+ YEARS Nominal Life Cycle Cost Distribution


Download ppt "Systems Engineering: It’s the Law!"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google