1. 1-1

2. 1-2

3. 1-3

4. 1-4 Appendix B of RMG

5. 1-5 Project Tasks for Mid Term Exam Provide items 1 - 9 listed below in briefing chart format. 1. Project introduction/background/orientation chart. (4 pts) 2. Identification of key requirements. (6 pts) 3. Program performance measures (technical, cost, and schedule) with thresholds and objectives. (5 pts) 4. Project work breakdown structure (WBS). (6 pts) 5. Integrated master plan for the WBS element(s) of interest. (6 pts) 6. Integrated master schedule in network form with personnel needs identified. (6 pts) 7. Project risk assessment. (6 pts) 8. Risk abatement plan for highest risk item/driver. (6 pts) 9. Development progress metrics. (5 pts)

6. 1-6 Notes to Students You will need graph paper and a hand calculator for exams. Exams are open book. Some exam questions will come from class notes and required texts. If you are not familiar with the content you will likely not have time to find the answers.

7. 1-7 Historically Many Large DoD Systems Have Experienced Significant Problems That Can be Traced to Development Low Readiness in Operational Use Excessive Support Costs Cost and Schedule Overruns in Development and Production Interoperability Problem

8. 1-8 Overall Purpose of Systems Engineering... … Is to Prevent Such Problems by Providing for the: Planning of All Technical Program Tasks Establishing a System Configuration and Size Capable of Meeting All Schedule, Cost and Performance Constraints and Objectives Identifying and Balancing Technical Program Risks Monitoring and Controlling Technical Development Defining of All Requirements for System Development, Test, Production, Operation, and Support in a Systematic and Timely Manner Verifying System Capabilities

9. 1-9 System Engineering Integrates And Balances Systems Engineering Breadth Depth Req. Analysis System Concept Dev. Trade Studies Risk Analysis AvonicsAvonics PropulsionPropulsion StructuresStructures FlightControlsFlightControls Test&EvaluationTest&Evaluation ToolDesignToolDesign ToolingTooling PurchasingPurchasing QualityAssuranceQualityAssurance AssemblyAssembly FabricationFabrication T e c h. M a n u a l s S u p o r t E q u i p. FieldSupportFieldSupport TrainingTraining ProductionSupportEngineering

10. 1-10 How To Help Engineers Think Like Systems Engineers CONDUCT OUR DESIGN REVIEWS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Requirements What Are Your Requirements? Objectives Thresholds Constraints What Are Your Assumptions and Criteria Where Did They Come From? Customer Specs Derived Strategy Flow From Above/Allocated Validated? What Do They Affect? System/Subsystem Impact Impact on Next Level (Quantified Allocations) How Did You Balance Your Requirements Approach & Why? Sensitivities

11. 1-11 How To Help Engineers (continued) 2. Design What’s Your Design That Meets Requirements? Physical Description How Does It Work? Functional Description How Well Does It Meet Requirements? Predicted Status vs. Thresholds/Objectives Performance Substantiation Analysis vs. Test Data Test Data vs. Assumptions Where’s the Data That Shows It’s the Best Design to Meet Requirements ? Performance vs. Design Changes Trade Studies Where’s Your Documentation?

12. 1-12 How To Help Engineers (continued) 3. Risks What Are Your Design Challenges? Technology Concept Risk vs. Benefit or Opportunity What Are the Things That Can Keep Your Design From Meeting Requirements? Risks Uncertainties What Do You Plan to Do About It? Risk Reduction Plan What’s Your Plan if It Can’t Meet Requirements? Fall Back Impact on Design/Requirements

13. 1-13 Discuss McNamara Era DoD Acquisition Environment Discuss McNamara Era DoD Acquisition Environment

14. 1-14 Pre-1961 Situation Analyzed Twelve major systems were studied (ATLAS, JUPITER, POLARIS, BOMARC I, NIKE AJAX, NIKE HERCULES, B- 58, F-105, F-4H, TALOS, NIKE-ZUES, AND SPARROW III). Conclusions with regard to the development of these programs were: “On the average, quality outcomes in our sample tended to exceed original predictions. This performance was achieved, however, at the expense of: Development time - Actual development time averaged 36% greater than predictions, Costs - An average increase of over 200% and as much as seven times original estimates.”

15. 1-15 What Did SEC DEF Do About This Situation? Made costs equal in importance to performance and lead-time in the normal program, as a matter of policy. Made elimination of “gold plating” a policy goal. Made an increase in competition a policy goal. Made reduction in cost-type contracts, particularly Cost Plus Fixed Fee, a policy goal. Established a concept formulation and contract definition procedure. Established a broad range of system analysis studies to aid the decision making process so that life cycle costing and long range force structure planning became an intimate and significant feature.

16. 1-16 DoD Acquisition Process Changes Impacting Systems Engineering 1970DoD 5000.1 Acquisition Guidelines Published 1974MIL-STD-499A Establishes Standards for Engineering Management 1981Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P 3 I) Incorporated 1986Willoughby Templates Published 1988Total Quality Management and Concurrent Engineering Introduced 1989Air Force Systems Center Instituted an Integrated Product Development (IPT) Approach 1991New DoD 5000 Series Acquisition Guidelines Signed-Off 1993Draft of MIL-STD-499B on Systems Engineering 1994Aeronautical Systems Center Announces Integrated Risk Management to Be Used on Proposals 1994Process Action Team Recommends Defense Contractors Cease Using Military Specifications and Standards 1996 New DoD 5000 Series Signed-Off 2000 New DoD 5000 Series Signed-Off 2002 DoD 5000 Series Cancelled (presently used for interim guidance)

17. 1-17 DoD 5000 Series Guidance http://www.dau.mil/ DoD 5000 Resource Center Documents & Changes DoD 5000 Series Guidance http://www.dau.mil/ DoD 5000 Resource Center Documents & Changes