Program Analysis & Evaluation 1 © 2006 July 13, 2015 11/18/98 2:13 PM Research Sponsors Robert Flowe, Gary Bliss OSD Program Analysis and Evaluation, Resource.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DoDAF V2.0 Community Update Overview
Advertisements

© 2009 The MITRE Corporation. All rights Reserved. Evolutionary Strategies for the Development of a SOA-Enabled USMC Enterprise Mohamed Hussein, Ph.D.
Ninth Lecture Hour 8:30 – 9:20 pm, Thursday, September 13
ERS Overview 5/15/12 | Page-1 Distribution Statement A – Cleared for public release by OSR, SR Case #s 12-S-0258, 0817, 1003, and 1854 apply. Affordable,
(Insert Title of Project Here) Kickoff Meeting (Month Date, Year)
Information Flow: Tactical Network Design and Bandwidth Management University XXI Texas A&M University University of Texas United States Army.
Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense © 2001 by Carnegie Mellon.
Systems Engineering in a System of Systems Context
0 AT&L Service-oriented Architecture (SOA) Demonstration Briefing Presented: DAMIR Conference - October 30 and 31, 2007 Gary R. Bliss Acquisition Resource.
Software and System Engineering Integration Sponsor Overview Kristen Baldwin Deputy Director, Software Engineering and System Assurance Office of the Under.
DoD Systems and Software Engineering A Strategy for Enhanced Systems Engineering Kristen Baldwin Acting Director, Systems and Software Engineering Office.
6/17/ :30:49 PM _Teamwork Competitive Prototyping Challenges for DoD and Industry Paul Croll, AMND Fellow May 28, 2008.
Recent DoD Trends & System and Software Process Implications
SE 555 Software Requirements & Specification Beyond Requirements Based on Weigers Chapter17.
Recent Trends in DoD Systems and Software Engineering Processes Bruce Amato Acting Deputy Director, Software Engineering and Systems Assurance Office of.
Operations Planning Organizing for Travel Time Reliability Ohio Planning Conference July 15, 2014.
Need to clarify what is possible.... Variables  settable  measurable  inferrable  observable  estimable  aspirational  hypothetical Relationships.
System Engineering Instructor: Dr. Jerry Gao. System Engineering Jerry Gao, Ph.D. Jan System Engineering Hierarchy - System Modeling - Information.
1 First, some interesting numbers: ~2,000 ~80 2 >200 [To be defined on March 23]
Tennessee Valley Chapter SPACE AND MISSILE DEFENSE WORKING GROUP 14 November 2013 Meeting.
Unclassified. Program Management Empowerment and Accountability Mr. David Ahern Director, Portfolio Systems Acquisition AT&L(A&T) 14 April 2009 The Acquisition.
Collaboration to Meet Future T&E Needs ITEA 14 September Mr. Mike Crisp Deputy Director, Air Warfare Operational Test and Evaluation.
Page 1 Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Defense Acquisition University Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense © 2004 by Carnegie.
Overview of NIPP 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience October 2013 DRAFT.
EMIS 7307 T&E Part 2 1 Documents in flux. MNS - Mission need statement –Non system specific, a needed capability. Being replaced by Initial Capabilities.
DoD Acquisition Domain (Sourcing) (DADS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) E-Business/SPS Joint Users’ Conference November 15-19, 2004 Houston, TX.
Mr. Frank J. Anderson, Jr. President, Defense Acquisition University Acquisition Education Challenges and the Human Capital Strategic Plan.
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) in the DoD Business Management Modernization Program April 2005 John Coho I&E Business Transformation.
Lecture 7 Project Scheduling and Tracking
December 14, 2011/Office of the NIH CIO Operational Analysis – What Does It Mean To The Project Manager? NIH Project Management Community of Excellence.
Software Project Management Lecture # 7. What are we studying today? Chapter 24 - Project Scheduling  Effort distribution  Defining task set for the.
Reinvigorating the Army Quality Program: The New AR
1 Institutional Adaptation Panel Association of the United States Army Mr. Dean G. Popps Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics.
© MCR, LLC MCR Proprietary - Distribution Limited Earned Value Management Application, Guidance, and Education Neil F. Albert President/CEO MCR, LLC
1 Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) Dr. Jeffrey Beach Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division; Survivability,
Mr. Charles Riechers Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Management 17 April 2007 SAE/CAE Panel on Acquisition of Services.
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST & EVALUATION DT&E – From Concept to Combat Integrated Test Process Darlene Mosser-Kerner Developmental Test & Evaluation OUSD(AT&L)/Systems.
Slide 1V&V 10/2002 Software Quality Assurance Dr. Linda H. Rosenberg Assistant Director For Information Sciences Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA
CHECKPOINTS OF THE PROCESS Three sequences of project checkpoints are used to synchronize stakeholder expectations throughout the lifecycle: 1)Major milestones,
Stuart A. Hazlett Deputy Director, OUSD(AT&L) Defense Pricing Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy A Presentation to NCMA Pentagon 8 September 2011.
D Appendix D.11. Toward Net-Centric Acquisition Oversight A Proposal for an Acquisition Community of Interest (COI) MID 905 Streamlined Acquisition.
CAPT Joe Spruill Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Logistics) September 29, 2005 Managing Obsolescence within a Performance Based Logistics.
Fermilab Presentation Greg Bock, Pepin Carolan, Mike Lindgren, Elaine McCluskey 2014 SC PM Workshop July 2014.
Verification and Validation — An OSD Perspective — Fred Myers Deputy Director, Test Infrastructure Test Resource Management Center November 4, 2009.
A Prescriptive Adaptive Test Framework (PATFrame) for Unmanned and Autonomous Systems: A Collaboration Between MIT, USC, UT Arlington and Softstar Systems.
Mapping the Software Assurance Landscape: A Guide to What’s Going On In the Community Sean Barnum.
Software Project Management Iterative Model & Spiral Model.
1 Project Management C13PM Session 2 Project Initiation & Definition Russell Taylor Business Department Staff Workroom
Power to the Edge A Net-Centric DoD NII/DoD CIO IT Acquisition Management Transformation Rapid Improvement Team (RIT) Principals Meeting November 18, 2003.
America’s Force of Decisive Action Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW) Hiring Cell Discussion P&R Acquisition Workforce Hiring Summit Mr. Jack Kendall Army.
1 Alternative Designs for a Joint C4I Capability Certification Management (JC3M) System A Student Project Gregory A. Miller Naval Postgraduate School Monterey,
2.1 ACQUISITION STRATEGYSlide 1 Space System Segments.
Michael J. Novak ASQ Section 0511 Meeting, February 8, 2017
MORS Special Meeting: Risk, Trade Space, & Analytics for Acquisition
MNS - Mission need statement
BEA 10.0 CCB Architecture Artifact Approval Brief Acquisition
MDD to Milestone A Requirements Management Activities
NDIA Architecture Analysis for System-of-System (SoS) Interoperability Assessment Karen L. Lauro, Ph.D Oct 21, 2003.
Architecture Tool Vendor’s Day
Air Force Airborne SIGINT Architecture & Analysis
Range Cost Estimates Estimating Accuracy Trumpet
MDD to Milestone A Requirements Management Activities
By Jeff Burklo, Director
System Modeling Assessment & Roadmap Joint OMG/INCOSE Working Group
Dr. Glenn Lamartin Director, Defense Systems Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L)
CAF Quarterly Meeting Measuring the Value of an EA Practice
Vijay Rachamadugu and David Snyder September 7, 2006
Perspectives on Transforming DT and OT Industry-Government Roundtable
IV&V Planning & Execution Initiative
(Insert Title of Project Here) Kickoff Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Program Analysis & Evaluation 1 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Research Sponsors Robert Flowe, Gary Bliss OSD Program Analysis and Evaluation, Resource Analysis Capabilities Based Cost Analysis Adapting to a New Paradigm Overview of an OSD-Sponsored Research Project* Principal Researchers Dr. Maureen Brown, Mr. Sean Hamel University of North Carolina School of Government Dr. David Zubrow, Mr. Bill Anderson, Mr. Jim McCurley Software Engineering Institute Mr. Robert Jones, Ms. Elizabeth Koza, Mr. John Wilke, Mr. Paul Hardin Technomics, Inc. Dr. David Usechak OSEC Supporting Co-Sponsors Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition Technology & Logistics) Air Force Cost Analysis Agency Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost and Economics *The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author, and should not be construed as representing the views of the Department of Defense, or its components

Program Analysis & Evaluation 2 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM AGENDA Background  Capabilities & Portfolio Management (C/PM) Issues  Interdependence and Outcomes Hypothesis Risk Indicators – Software Engineering Institute  Interdependence and Acquisition Risk Interdependence – University of North Carolina  Programmatic Interdependence and Cost/Schedule Breaches Architectural Parametric Modeling – Technomics  Constructive Interdependence and Development Resource Demands Next Steps

Program Analysis & Evaluation 3 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Three “Domains” of Interdependence Programmatic - Acquisition and management practices Constructive – Technical construction activities Operational – Mission, goals, objectives, and their fulfillment programmatic operational constructiveconstructive

Program Analysis & Evaluation 4 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Relate to “Induced Costs” Relate to “Inherent Costs” How Does ‘Interdependence’ Matter? Concept Map of Attributes and Outcomes Cost Schedule Performance (Outcomes) Drives Total Effort Inherent Effort Induced Effort Constructive Interdependence Programmatic Interdependence

Program Analysis & Evaluation 5 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM C/PM vs “Big”– Management Issues Capability and portfolio management (C/PM) drives cooperative management of entities which are developed and managed separately This creates induced costs due to (for example)  decentralized management and independent authority of constituent systems  asymmetrical incentives for SoS vs constituent objects/systems goals and objectives  different maturities of the objects/systems C/PM incurs effects beyond scale alone

Program Analysis & Evaluation 6 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM What’s Wrong With Current Methods? Department management and oversight processes still largely program-centric Interdependence effects not routinely captured Transaction costs largely exogenous to program baselines Failure to understand effects of interdependence  Results in unanticipated, uncontrolled program cost & schedule growth  Results in diminished capacity to develop joint capabilities

Program Analysis & Evaluation 7 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Diagnostic Risk Indicators Inter-program interdependence influences each program’s outcomes  suggests potential risk areas for program execution A risk taxonomy  applicable to prospective SoS or joint capability implementations Early insight  allow proactive mitigation

Program Analysis & Evaluation 8 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Systems-of-Systems Risk Taxonomy

Program Analysis & Evaluation 9 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM In Systems-of-Systems, the requirement for interoperability expands the Risk Taxonomy

Program Analysis & Evaluation 10 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Interoperability Expands the Risk Taxonomy

Program Analysis & Evaluation 11 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Observations of Joint Capabilities & Interdependence No program is an “Island” Programs share and transfer resources across programmatic boundaries These “resources” include:  Capital  Materiel  Labor  Authority  Data

Program Analysis & Evaluation 12 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Observation: Interdependence Correlates to Schedule Slippage

Program Analysis & Evaluation 13 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Parametric Model: Study of Architectural Based Cost Estimation Hypothesis: a relationship exists between resources required and architecture-based interdependencies

Program Analysis & Evaluation 14 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Preliminary Results A Parametric Estimating Relationship provides preliminary evidence that there is a relationship between resources required and architecture-based interdependencies * The RDT&E Budget, i.e., the sum of actual and estimated costs to completion, is used as a proxy for RDT&E Cost Equation (1) *

Program Analysis & Evaluation 15 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Parametric Model: Study of Architectural Based Cost Estimation Results: Preliminary analysis using Equation (1) supports the hypothesis that a relationship exists between resources required and architecture-based interdependencies Next Step: Apply analysis approach to programs using costs instead of budgets

Program Analysis & Evaluation 16 © 2006 July 13, /18/98 2:13 PM Next Steps Technical Research  Pilot Study Model detailed relationships Develop representation of overall program properties Validate data gathering & analysis methods  Risk Indicators Continuing analysis for confirmation of risk indicators  Interdependence Cost and Schedule Consequences Expand data points and refine Cost Estimating Relationships Explore portfolio analysis for targets of interest Collaborations  Continue collaborative work with Services & AT&L  Seek collaboration with ASD/NII on DoDAF  Develop collaborations with T&E community for test data