1. Software in Acquisition Workshop Software Expert Panel Working Groups and Tasks Rick Selby Rick.Selby@NGC.com 310-813-5570 DoD Software In Acquisition Workshop April 15-16, 2008 Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA

2. NDIA Software Experts Panel Working Groups ● Requirements ● Risk/Estimation ● Quality

3. Voting for Payoff vs. Ease for “Big Ideas”

4. Payoff vs. Ease for “Big Ideas” Low High DifficultEasy Define software implications of competitive prototyping policy Lack of software requirements and technology maturity are causing most systems to fail Recommended guidance for defining architecture requirements and quantitatively identifying, predicting, evaluating, verifying, and validating quality characteristics and attributes Max score is 261 = 29*9 Body of knowledge for estimation Systems and software quality survey report (e.g., resources regarding: selection of characteristics, measurements, evaluation methods, etc.)

5. Knit Together Selected “Big Ideas” into Unified Proposed Initiative Leveraging Competitive Prototyping through Acquisition Initiatives in Integrated Systems and Software Requirements, Risk/Estimation, and Quality NDIA Software Experts Panel will use its working groups to emphasize: ● Requirements ● Risk/Estimation ● Quality

6. Leveraging Competitive Prototyping through Acquisition Initiatives in Integrated Systems and Software Requirements, Risk, Estimation, and Quality (1/3) ● Task 1: Conduct surveys and interviews of leading software professionals (government, industry, academia) to gather ideas, assess impacts, and sense expectations for Competitive Prototyping –14 days: Coordination of feedback from selected participation in DoD Workshop on Competitive Prototyping 4/28/08 –6 months: Summary report complete ● Task 2: Provide amplification of Competitive Prototyping memo for integrated SE/SW, [including where in the lifecycle there are opportunities for Competitive Prototyping [and how they can be contractually achieved]] –6 months: Initial sensing of guidance/implementation implications, including investigating the movement of Milestone B after System PDR –12 months: Specific guidance/implementation recommendations

7. Leveraging Competitive Prototyping through Acquisition Initiatives in Integrated Systems and Software Requirements, Risk, Estimation, and Quality (2/3) ● Task 3:Identify first adopters of Competitive Prototyping and facilitate and gather insights on effective usage, including collecting and analyzing data –6 months: Recommendations for programs, including lessons learned from previous similar programs that used competitive prototyping –12 months: Support kickoff of programs –18 months: Actively engaged with programs in facilitation and gathering insights ● Task 4: Develop guidance for early selection and application of integrated SE/SW quality systems for Competitive Prototyping [for RFP-authors] –6 months: 1 st draft, ready for limited circulation –18 months: 2 nd draft, ready for wide circulation

8. Leveraging Competitive Prototyping through Acquisition Initiatives in Integrated Systems and Software Requirements, Risk, Estimation, and Quality (3/3) ● Task 5: Develop Software Engineering Handbook for Competitive Prototyping including material explicitly targeted to different audiences (acquirer, supplier, etc.). Note: tasks 5 and 6 are tightly coupled. –6 months: Outline –12 months: 1 st draft, ready for limited circulation –18 months: Usage and evaluations on programs –30 months: 2 nd draft, ready for wide circulation ● Task 6: Develop training assets (materials, competencies, skill sets, etc.) that capture best-of-class ideas/practices for Competitive Prototyping. Note: tasks 5 and 6 are tightly coupled. –6 months: Outline –12 months: Scenarios and initial example materials including drafts coordinated with feedback from programs –18 months: Usage and evaluations on programs –24 months: 1 st draft, ready for limited circulation –36 months: 2 nd draft, ready for wide circulation