1. Integrated Program Assessment Status 28 February 2008
Air Armament Center
Integrated Program Assessment Status 28 February 2008
Mr. Deryl Israel
AAC/EN
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

2. Outline Integrated Assessment (IA) Update
IA purpose & background
Progress since 2007 Industry Day
Program Sufficiency Review (PSR) summary
FY06-07 activity & results
Lessons learned: How to do better SRs
Lessons learned: How to build better programs
Way Ahead: Plans for 2008

3. Assessment Purpose & Background
Historically, Eglin programs have
Cost overruns of 15%-30%
Schedule slips of 6-12 months
Since FY06, deployed and integrated a suite of assessments to execute AAC’s vision--War-winning capabilities… on time, on cost
Intent is to create and maintain a high-confidence portfolio
Historically, we have designed our programs with a moderate risk of meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals. We have gathered information that shows Eglin programs on the average overrun about 15-30% and schedule slips from 6 to 12 months.
Dr Sambur challenged us to change this paradigm by establishing a goal of having at least a 90% confidence level in meeting our commitments.
At AAC/CC’s direction, a Process Action Team under the leadership of AE and working with chief functional and line program managers developed the sufficiency review process.
These processes are not new and have been used in the past; however, they were restructured. The resulting processes follow.

4. High-Confidence Programs Key Characteristics*
Good “Should-Cost” Estimate
Budget/Cost Estimate alignment
Approved time-phased CDD requirements
Program office resourcing
Requirements stability
Budget stability mechanism
Incremental program plan
Short-duration capability release/production schedules
SDD phase no greater than 6 years
Tech / manufacturing maturity assessment thresholds met
Integrated sustainment and depot strategy
Realistic test planning, Approved IOT&E plan
Life-cycle acquisition strategy—time certain success incentive
Executing according to “plan”
Probability of Program Success (PoPS) measures
* As Defined by D&SWS design teams

5. AFPEO/WP Policy, 23 May 07 AAC Integrated Assessments
These assessments will help us collaborate with our government stakeholders and industry to improve our acquisition processes and align expectations.
AAC acquisition commanders/directors must effectively employ the assessments during program planning and execution
Assessment leaders will provide results to the PEO/Deputy PEO, Weapons; commanders or directors of appropriate AAC line units; and the AAC Center Senior Functional owning the assessment being reported.

6. Spiral 2 Assessment Engine
Logistics
Health
Assessment
(LHA)
Logistics
Health
Assessment
(LHA)
Rollout Spring ‘08
INPUTS (FROM STD AAC PRODUCTS)
Technology
Readiness &
Integration
Assessment
(TRA)
Systems
Engineering
Assessment
(SEA)
Probability
of Program
Success
(PoPS)
Program
Sufficiency
Review
(PSR)
Probability
of Program
Success
(PoPS)
Manufacturing
Readiness
Assessment
(MRA)
Cost
Sufficiency
Review
(CSR)

7. AAC Assessment Life Cycle
POM Input
MS A
MS B
MS C
Sustainment
PSR
TRA/
MRA’
CSR
SEA
PoPS
TRA/
MRA’
PSR
LHA
MRA/
TRA’
CSR
SEA
PoPS
MRA/
TRA’
(As Required)
TRA’/
MRA’
CSR
CSR
(As Required)
CSR
SEA
SEA
Updated
Quarterly
LHA
LHA
Updated
Monthly
PoPS
PoPS
PoPS
Updated
Monthly
PSR
PSR
PSR
(As Required)

8. Progress Since 2007 Industry Day
Probability of Program Success (PoPS)
Consistent monthly updates in SMART
Internal audits drive process compliance
Cost Sufficiency Review
Earlier collaboration between staff & programs
Manufacturing Readiness Assessment
Updated guide published 30 Nov 07
Logistics Health Assessment
Increment 1 design complete; approved by AFMC/A4
Increment 2 design to include Pre MS B coverage
Sufficiency Reviews
Co-chaired by AAC/EN, 308th ARSW/CL
PoPS-based template; promotes standard work
Action item status reported at program reviews

9. FY06 AAC Sufficiency ReviewsO N D J F M A S
Current MAR/Rebaselines since SR/Notes
AIR-TO-GROUND PROGRAMS
Focused Lethality Munition
Wind-Correct Mun Disp-Ext Range
Laser JDAM
Covert Resupply (COVERS)
BLU-122 Rebaseline G
/ None
Canceled- major redesign req’d G
/ None
User requirement withdrawn
Canceled- producibility issues
AIR-TO-AIR PROGRAMS
AMRAAM FY08 POM
MALD SDD Rebaseline
AMRAAM Rebaseline
Air Superiority Target FY08 POM
MALD Universal Armament Interface
User did not include in POM R
/ None / FY08 funding issue Y
/ None
Contract award: FY10
Plan presented at EWSR
COMBAT SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Munition Assy Conveyor II MS C
AAC/CA Approved Prod
NEW CONCEPT PROGRAMS
ALM MK82 DIME
Very Small Munition
Tactical Laser for Airfield Defense
I-500 Penetrator
Small Concept Weapon on Predator
Concept provided to SECAF
Concept provided to AFSOC
Concept provided to ACC
Concept provided to ACC
Assessment sent to AFMC/CC
Adaptive Carriage Enterprise
Close Air Support Weapons
Hd Tgt Void Sens Fuze Risk Reduct
Concept provided to SOCOM
Concept provided to AFSOC
PDRR on track; JCTD starts FY08
AAC Totals
20 ( )
Realistic
Realistic, Carries Risk

10. FY07 AAC Sufficiency ReviewsO N D J F M A S
Current MAR/Rebaselines since SR/Notes
AIR-TO-GROUND PROGRAMS
AMSTE-JDAM
JASSM-ER Restructure
JASSM Maritime Interdiction
JDAM Production
Laser JDAM
SDB II Cost (prior to DoD CAIG rvw)
SFW Production FY10 POM
User requirement withdrawn R
/ None – Awaiting N-M decision R
/ None – Awaiting N-M decision G
/ None G
/ None G
/ None G
/ None
AIR-TO-AIR PROGRAMS
AST Business Jet AoA
MALD-J SDD
AST QF-16 Update
CRIIS Rapid Prototype
Joint Threat Emitter
CRIIS Risk Reduction & SDD
P5 Combat Training System
Automated Remote Transport Sys
AoA eliminated concept G
/ None
PDRR Contract award: FY10
COMBAT SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Prototype effort: on track G
/ None
Contract award: FY08 G
/ None
Adv Tactical Laser Ext User Eval
Hard Tgt Void Sensing Fuze JCTD
Massive Ordnance Penetrator QRC
Hard Tgt Void Sensing Fuze G
/ None
CRIIS Test & Training
Contract award: FY10
NEW CONCEPT PROGRAMS
Extended User Eval
JCTD
User requirement withdrawn
FY08 JCTD; SDD start: FY10
AAC Totals
22 ( )
Realistic
Realistic, Carries Risk

11. AAC Portfolio Performance
Programs Jan 06 Dec 06
AFSAT AFSAT
AMRAAM AMRAAM
ARTS ARTS
BLU-122 BLU-122
DPGDS DPGDS
DSU-33 DSU-33
HTS HTS
JASSM JASSM
JASSM-ER
JDAM JDAM
JPF JPF
JTE JTE
MAC II MAC II
MALD MALD
P5CTS P5CTS
QF-4 QF-4
SDB SDB
SDB II
SFW SFW
UMT UMT
WCMD WCMD
Program Rebaselines: 3

12. AAC Portfolio Performance
Programs Dec 07
AFSAT
AMRAAM
HTS
JASSM
JASSM-ER
JDAM
JPF
JTE
MAC II
MALD
P5CTS
QF-4
SDB
SDB II
SFW
WCMD
Program Rebaselines: 2

13. Lessons Learned How to do better Sufficiency Reviews
Employ cross-functional approach when completing assessments
Use proper versions of process guides/tools (e.g. PoPS spreadsheet)
Conduct sufficient “deep dives” into appropriate individual assessments
Address weaponeering & mission planning across entire life cycle
Present efficient and effective test plans built with CTA & RTO inputs
Incentivize supplier decision processes when transitioning to production
Identify opportunities to validate manufacturing processes
Carefully select cost/schedule benchmarks
Conduct thorough Cost SRs prior to Program SRs
Use PoPS results in Program SRs to identify, communicate risks
Don’t:
Assume all AAC programs will be low-risk efforts
Over-optimistically evaluate programs
View Cost and Program SRs as the IG; they are home team help

14. Assessments Becoming AF Tools
AAC leaders assigned to AFSO21 Develop & Sustain Warfighting Systems (D&SWS) teams
Ms Stokley, AAC/CA, co-sponsored Life Cycle Management; Oversight/Command & Control teams
Ms Rutledge, 708ARSG/CL; Mr Mistretta, AAC/EN; Tech Development team
Mr Walley, 918ARSG/DD; Life Cycle Management team
Assessments endorsed by AFMC/CC; SAF/AQ to create & maintain high-confidence programs
PoPS: key risk management tool & metric
TRAs/MRAs: enable “stage gating” milestones
SEA: moving toward AFMC-wide application
LHA: Sponsored by AFMC/A4
Sufficiency Reviews: req’d at key decision points
AF-level Implementation planning now underway

15. Building Better Programs Attaining High Confidence
Better transition planning, decisions via technology and manufacturing assessments, PoPS, Pre-MS B risk reduction phase*
Iterative requirements that evolve, provide trade space prior to MS B*
Stable requirements for a given increment*
Realistic resourcing ($$ and people)*
Risk-based source selections*
Strong, consistent Systems Engineering processes*
Incremental development w/ discrete offramps*
Incentivize sustainment (affordability/availability)*
Proactive risk management*
Early, active test community involvement in test planning
Up-front weaponeering & mission planning—and resources
* Proposed by D&SWS design teams

16. Way Ahead: 2008 Plans Share AAC processes/lessons learned via D&SWS
Enable running start at other centers
Facilitate PoPS training at other Centers
Personnel from other Centers attend AAC IA events
Design LHA Increment 2 (supports pre-MS B efforts)
Align AAC IA improvements with D&SWS
Integrate near-term AFMC; SAF/AQ decisions
Minimize scrap & rework as AF standards adopted
Continue process standardization
Leverage assessments to streamline doc prep
Summarize key results in AAC Expectation Mgt Agreements
Use assessment products to streamline Life Cycle Mgt Plan creation/updates via Zero Based Documentation pilots