1. CCA LSS Team #2 Post Implementation Review (PIR) Kick-off Meeting 13 Jan 2009 CS4 Room 310 Small V3

2. Purpose of this meeting is to craft a plan for executing the LSS project charter: Improving Post Implementation Reviews

3. 3 Agenda IntroductionRick LSS process overviewTomatra ContextLen CharterLen PIR information sourcesLen Team roles and responsibilitiesRick VOC Data CollectionAmelia ScheduleRick Next StepsRick

4. 4 Team #2 Membership Rick Perron (DCIO) Len Sadauskas (DCIO) Amelia Grazioso (DCIO) CDR Ben Torreon (J6) Maj Jeff Delvecchio (NII) Neal Zank (AFCIO) Jim Oliver (USA CIO/G6) Core Other Austin Huangfu (DOT&E) TBD (PA&E) TBD (C) Phil Minor (NII) John Burson (DON CIO)

5. 5 PIR Project Context  Role of MOE and PIR in IT/NSS Investments –CURRENT: Individual “Program” orientation –FUTURE: Portfolio view  LSS Team deliberations resulted in two projects: –Improving quality of outcome measures –Improving quality and value of post implementation reviews  Scope of LSS PIR project constrained IAW charter  Next Generation Goal: Fully implement PIR planning and report data into IT/NSS Investment Lifecycle

6. 6 LSS Methodology: Part DMAIC & Part Rapid Improvement  DMAIC –To address concerns that are identified during data collection Surveys, groupware  Rapid Improvement –Quick wins as they are identified (such as) Centralized PIR Plan and Report Repository Clarification of policy and guidance

7. 7 Improving Post Implementation Reviews (PIRs) PIR data enables capability portfolio development trend analysis and identification of best practices Team Members NameRoleAffiliationDACI Rick Perron Green BeltDoD CIO Driver Ed Wingfield SponsorDoD CIO Approver Tomatra Minor MBBDoD CIO Driver TBD Process OwnerCPM (?) Approver LSS Charter Problem Statement: PIRs are not being conducted by all MAIS and MDAP solutions for capability gaps, thereby hampering the DoD’s ability to identify and report on capability portfolio development trends and best practices. Business Case:  Ensure that PIRs are conducted  Implement standardized format PIR reporting  Enable analysis of trends and identify potential capability development best practices Unit: PIR Report Defect: PIR not conducted, inability to conduct trend analysis and to identify best practices Customer Specifications: Ability to develop PIR Report trend analysis and best practice identification Start: Receipt of PIR Plan Stop: PIR Report issued, recipients complete analysis of trends, and best practices documented Scope: All MDAP and MAIS under DoDI 5000.02 Table 2-1 Timeline PhasePlannedActualStatus Define20 Jan 09dd mm yy MeasureD + 3 weeks dd mm yy AnalyzeD+3 weeks dd mm yy ImproveD + 7 weeks dd mm yy ControlD + 8 Weeks dd mm yy Y

8. 8 Information Sources and Collaboration  PIR guidance is in DAG Ch 7.9  Additional guidance, examples and discussion is found in IT-CoP under CCA Implementation/PIR at: –https://acc.dau.mil/ccahttps://acc.dau.mil/cca  MOE and PIR LSS team information is in IT-CoP: –https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=234715&lang=en-UShttps://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=234715&lang=en-US  PIR Team collaboration options are: –Email, IT-CoP page, DKO?

9. 9 Proposed VOC Data Collection Method  Groupware Session – 28 January 2009 tentative; DISA Columbia Pike location –Scope: PIRs for ACAT I programs since 2003 (JCS 3170) –Participants: ACAT I PMOs across DoD Components, OSD + Component SMEs, and Capability Portfolio Managers –Opportunity to: Collect data quickly and in non-attribution environment from people directly involved with MOE-PIR Support data derived by sub-team in areas of policy, people, procedures, data, work environment, technology (reference: MOE-PIR Cause & Effective Diagram) Prove or disprove three hypotheses (reference: MOE-PIR Cause Affinity Diagram) Resolve problem statement and achieve business case goals defined in PIR LSS Charter –Desired outcome of session; i.e., what would success look like? –Format: PIR introduction; data input to mini-survey; general discussion; present next steps (e.g., follow-up surveys, if necessary, and receive raw data for analysis)

10. 10 Team Roles and Responsibilities Before ProjectDuring ProjectAfter Project Team Leader  Review draft Charter with Sponsors  Develop Charter further  Help Select Team Members  Manage schedules  Lead meetings  Coordinate communication  Liaison between coach, sponsor(s), and stakeholders  Keep records  Do team’s work  Ensure that documents are completed and lessons captured  Monitor implementation (if appropriate)  Use improved methods Team Members  Assist with team definition and recruiting  Participate in meetings  Complete assignments  Help with team tasks and logistics  Contribute knowledge and expertise  Learn necessary methods and acquire needed skills  Use improved methods

11. 11 Before ProjectDuring ProjectAfter Project MBB  Assist Team Leader  Help develop Charter  Provide expert guidance and coaching on skills and methods  Help team gather and interpret data  Help prepare for sponsor reviews  Provide guidance as needed Process Owner  Reviews draft Charter with Sponsor  Approve Tollgates  Contribute knowledge and expertise  Use improved methods Sponsor (guidance team)  Identify goals  Select Team Leader and Members  Assign coach  Approve Draft Charter  Provide direction and guidance  Review team progress  Run interference  Control budget  Provide ongoing support for implementation  Ensure monitoring  Preserve lessons learned Team Roles and Responsibilities

12. 12 High-Level SIPOC SuppliersInputsProcessOutputsCustomers Measurable Y:

13. 13 DACI Chart D = Driver – The person who is responsible for the action/task. A = Approver – Process owner: Responsible for area impacted by project. C = Contributor – Who should be consulted regarding changes in the process. I = Informed – The person(s) who is informed after performing the action/task. StepAction/TaskDriverApproverContributorInformed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

14. 14 CCA LSS PIR Project Schedule

15. 15 Next Steps  Week of 1/12 & 1/19 –Amelia leads team to develop survey and plan groupware session –Len begins collection of PIR plans and reports –Team decides on collaboration approach – Rick develops DACI chart and confirms schedule –Team develops SIPOC

16. 16 Back-up

17. 17 PIR Results PIR Role in Capability Based Planning CBP

18. 18 1. Improving the Quality of Outcome Measures Timeline PhasePlannedActualStatus DefineDec 08dd mm yy Measuredd mm yy Analyzedd mm yy Improvedd mm yy Controldd mm yy Having outcome measures in place reduces investment costs & schedule overruns Team Members NameRoleAffiliationDACI Ron Richardson Black Belt (C)*DoD CIO Driver TBD SponsorJoint Staff (?) Approver LoraLee Kodozo MBBDoD CIO Driver TBD Process OwnerJoint Staff (?) Approver LSS Charter Problem Statement: A three year sampling of data of Initial Capabilities Documents (ICDs) reveals that X% (X out of Y) failed to articulate outcome measures (formerly measures of effectiveness (MOEs)) thereby increasing requirement changes that contribute to cost and schedule overruns. Business Case:  Ability to assess mission area capability  Reduce costs associated with requirement changes due to lack of outcome measures. Unit: Initial Capabilities Document Defect: ICDs without capability outcome measures Customer Specifications: ICDs are required to have outcome measures of the desired effect needed to fill a capability gap. Start: Submission of an ICD into the JROC Knowledge Management/Decision Support (KMDS) system Stop: Approved ICD Scope: New IT/NSS investments under the purview of the Logistics (L), Command & Control (C2) and Net-Centric (NC) functional capability boards (FCB). * (C) = Candidate in Training; Not certified