Recent DoD Trends & System and Software Process Implications COCOMO/SSCM Forum and ICM Workshop 3 October 27, 2008 Dr. Judith Dahmann The MITRE Corporation

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?

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

Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Demonstration Draft Early Acquisition Policy Changes* Early Acquisition MS A MS B MS C JCIDS Process Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Demonstration Joint Concepts CBA ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development CDD CPD Production and Deployment O&S Strategic Guidance MDD PDR CDR Full Rate Production Decision Review Materiel Development Decision (MDD) PDR and a PDR report to the MDA before MS B (moves MS B to the right) Competing prototypes before MS B Coordination Draft, DoDI 5000.02

Base Acquisition Decisions on Robust Engineering Foundation Formal Program Start Uncertainty Agreement to pursue a material solution Material Solution Analysis Technology Development Selection of a preferred solution System Level Specs Preliminary Design Completed Design AoA Business Decisions Engineering Support PDR CDR Preferred System Concept Preferred System Analysis Technology Maturation And Prototyping MDD MS A B Make acquisition commitments when you have solid evidence and acceptable risk

Recognition of the Impacts of System Interdependencies As the DoD transforms itself toward a more agile, joint warfighting force, the DoD acquisition process must itself change from a “program centric” paradigm to a “capabilities-based” paradigm. In this context major defense acquisition programs, are linked through various means to other programs. These linkages, or “interdependencies” have been demonstrated to influence the outcome of programs, at times causing unanticipated cost and schedule growth, etc.. This is a depiction of the interdependence among current MDAPS, derived from the “Interrelationships, Dependencies, and Synchronization with Complementary Systems” slide developed for each program for DAES reviews. The analysis that generated this view (conducted by Dr. Maureen Brown, UNC Charlotte) is based on the compiled DAES charts of all MDAPS, plotting the interdependencies as reported by the Program. Of the 78 programs of record included in the analysis, 989 unique relationships are identified with a total of 442 entities, which include active and inactive programs of record, MDAPs and non-MDAPs. Coding scheme is Gray=Low Risk; Yellow=Medium Risk; Red=High Risk. Of the 989 relationships, 81% (804) are ‘green” 18% (177) are yellow 1% (8) are red. Aggregated data from DAES interdependence charts Interdependencies exist among all MDAPs Most interdependence with non-MDAP programs April 16, 2017 7 7

SoS in the DoD Today 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 systems SoS Type Description Directed SoS objectives, management, funding and authority; systems are subordinated to SoS Acknowledged SoS objectives, management, funding and authority; however systems retain their own management, funding and authority in parallel with the SoS Collaborative No objectives, management, authority, responsibility, or funding at the SoS level; Systems voluntarily work together to address shared or common interest Virtual 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

Increased Attention on SoS DoD Guide to Systems Engineering for SoS V1.0 –AT&L System and SW Engineering 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’ New Service Initiatives to Address SoS 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 SoS Provide A Context for System and 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 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

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 Force Application Battlespace Awareness Command & Control Net-Centric Force Support Protection Building Partnerships Logistics 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

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

Backup

DoD Capability Portfolio Management Key Events Clinger Cohen JCIDS Capability Roadmaps QDR Addresses Capability PfM January 2006 JCA Rebaseline Complete Jan 2008 IR&G Results Briefed to DAWG Jan-Feb 2007 Joint Capability Areas (JCA) Defined May 2005 JCA Baseline Review Tasked Feb 2007 DepSecDef Memo Formalizes and Expands CpMs Feb 2008 IR&G Roadmap March 2006 DepSecDef Memo Extends Test Cases March 2007 Test Case CpMs Initiated June 2006 Test Case CpMs Play in Program Review Fall 2007 Test Case CpMs Play in Program Review Fall 2006 Capability PfM DoDD Issued Sept 2008 IT PfM DoDD 8115 October 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 DoD CpM has evolved over the past 3 years beginning in earnest with QDR

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

Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) 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