Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Director, Knowledge Mangement Global Learning and Technology Center
Corporate Learning Organization Career Long Support to the AT&L Workforce John Hickok Director, Knowledge Mangement Global Learning and Technology Center May 1, 2010
2
The Challenge DoD’s Big “A”cquisition Systems and Processes
Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, & Logistics Life Cycle Management Framework Draft ver May 21, 2004 Joint Capabilities Development System Integration & VCJCS Oversight CJCSI D Acquisition Defense USD(AT&L) Oversight System DoDD Planning, DEPSECDEF Oversight Budgeting & Execution Programming, MID 913 Decision Support Systems Three DOD Effective Interaction is Essential The Milestone Decision Authority may authorize entry into the acquisition process at any point, consistent with phase specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements This chart is a classroom aid for Defense Acquisition University students. It provides a notional illustration of the interfaces among the three major decision support systems used to develop, produce, and field a system for national defense. Defense acquisition is a complex process, with many more activities than shown here, and many concurrent processes that cannot be properly displayed on a two-dimensional chart. Supporting information is on the back of this chart. For more detailed information see the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Knowledge Sharing System ( Concept Refinement Phase Technology Development Phase System Development & Demonstration Phase Production & Deployment Phase Operations & Support Phase Refine initial concept. Develop Technology Development Strategy MS A Reduce technology risk and determine appropriate set of technologies to integrate into a full system. MS B Develop a system or increment of capability; reduce integration and manufacturing risk; ensure operational supportability; reduce logistics footprint; implement human systems integration; design for producibility; ensure affordability and protection of critical program information; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility. Achieve operational capability that satisfies mission needs. Execute a support program that meets operational support performance requirements and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life cycle. Dispose of the system in the most cost-effective manner at the end of its useful life. MS C Decision Points/Milestones CD System Integration DRR System Demonstration Low-Rate Initial Production FRP DR Full-Rate Production/Deployment Sustainment Disposal Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System - Acronyms CDD – Capability Development Document DOTMLPF – Doctrine, Organization, Training, CPD – Capability Production Document CJCSI – Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities DAB – Defense Acquisition Board JROC – Joint Requirements Oversight Council KPP – Key Performance Parameter IOC – Initial Operational Capability ICD – Initial Capabilities Document DoD Strategic Guidance KPPs System Threat Assessment KPPs System Threat Assessment IOC FOC Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (need driven) Net-Ready KPP Net-Ready KPP FOC Joint Operations Concepts Area Analysis Functional Joint Integrating Concepts Joint Functional Concepts Joint Operating Concepts Integrated Architectures ICD Joint Functional Concept Joint Integrating Concept Integrated Architecture CDD Draft & Supportability Cert. J-6 Interoperability Service/JROC Validation & Approval CDD Threshold/objective tradeoffs – Revised Performance Attributes Joint Functional Concept Joint Integrating Concept Integrated Architecture & Supportability Cert. J-6 Interoperability Service/JROC Validation & Approval CPD CPD Threshold/objective tradeoffs – Revised Performance Attributes Joint Functional Concept Joint Integrating Concept Integrated Architecture Validated and approved CDD and CPD for each increment of an evolutionary acquisition Needs Analysis Functional Information Support Plan Validation & Approval Service/JROC Information Support Plan D O L M T F P (CJCSI 3170) Changes Materiel Approaches Materiel Ideas for Analysis of Approaches Materiel DOTMLPF Changes (CJCSI 3180) Alternative 1 Initiate Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy Increment II B C DRR FRP Functional Solution Analysis Alternative 2 Alternative N Post Independent Analysis - Certification (MAIS) - Compliance (all IT) Clinger-Cohen Act - Certification (MAIS) - Compliance (all IT) Clinger-Cohen Act - Certification (MAIS) - Compliance (all IT) Clinger-Cohen Act - Certification (MAIS) - Compliance (all IT) Clinger-Cohen Act Increment III B C DRR FRP ADM ITAB DAB/ MDA ADM Criteria Exit Met ITAB DAB/ MDA ADM Criteria Exit Met ITAB DAB/ MDA APB ADM Criteria Exit Met ITAB DAB/ MDA ADM Criteria Exit Met ITAB DAB/ MDA APB ADM Criteria Exit Met DAB/ ITAB MDA APB Oversight & Review Development Strategy Technology performance goals & Cost, schedule & Program Strategy exit criteria for first tech Test Plan demo Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Approach Program Structure Resource Management T&E Considerations Risk Management Capability Needs Business Considerations Life-Cycle Considerations Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Approach Program Structure Resource Management T&E Considerations Risk Management Capability Needs Life-Cycle Considerations Business Considerations Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Approach Program Structure Resource Management T&E Considerations Risk Management Capability Needs Business Considerations Life-Cycle Considerations ADM – Acquisition Decision Memorandum APB – Acquisition Program Baseline AoA – Analysis of Alternatives DAB – Defense Acquisition Board DRR – Design Readiness Review CD – Concept Decision FOC – Full Operational Capability ITAB – Information Technology Acquisition Board FRPDR – Full-Rate Production Decision Review MAIS – Major Automated Information System LRIP – Low Rate Initial Production IOC – Initial Operational Capability MDA – Milestone Decision Authority Oversight & Review Acronyms Cycle Systems Total Life Management AoA Plan Performance Deployment Post Review AoA AoA updated AoA n/a MAIS updated Produce systems for IOT&E Ramp to Production Rate Establish Production Base Purpose of LRIP: AoA MAIS only Contracting Contracts Study Plan Acq RFP Draft Selection Source Development Technology Contract Plan Acq Selection Source Draft RFP System Development & Demonstration Contract Plan Acq RFP Draft Selection Source Integrated Baseline Review Contract LRIP Plan Acq Selection Source Plan Draft RFP RFP Integrated Baseline Review Production Contract Post Production Software Support Contracts RFP – Request for Proposal Integrated Baseline Review Integrated Baseline Review Sustainment Contracts Products Major Architecture Integrated Preliminary Approach(es) Materiel Best Preferred Concept System Demos Tech Performance System Spec Dev Models Engineering Prototypes/ Prototypes/ Engineering Dev Models Production Initial Baseline Low-Rate Initial Production Systems Production Final Baseline Production Full-Rate Systems In-Service Review Supports O&M Budget Review Product Support Package/PBL Implementation Support and Cost Baseline Product Support Elements Supply Chain Management Contract for Sustainment (organic & commercial) Logistics/ Sustainment Supportability Define Objectives Support Capabilities Evaluate Product Supportability Constraints Objectives/ Refine Develop Initial Product Support Strategy Supply Chain Mgmt LCC Optimization Interoperability Footprint reduction Product Support Elements Product Support Plan Legacy Considerations Statutory/Regulatory Source of Support -Maintenance Support Data -Supply Support Training -Manpower & personnel Product Support Elements Product Support Strategy Set Demonstrate Product Support Capability Supply Chain Management Product Support Elements Footprint Reduction Continuous Tech Refreshment Obsolescence Management Configuration Control Data Management Product Support/PBL Management Assessment of PSI/PSPs Public-Private Partnering Supply Chain Management PBA Modifications Operations & Sustainment Training Peacetime Joint Operations Crises The Challenge DoD’s Big “A”cquisition Systems and Processes CD A B DRR C FRP DR Defense Acquisition System (event driven) Alternative Maintenance & Logistics Concepts Exit Criteria AoA Plan ICD INPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Strategy (Preferred Product Support Approach) OUTPUTS OTRR Prelim Sys Spec T&E Strategy Concepts & Technologies Support & Maintenance SEP -draft CDD Inputs to: -Cost/Manpower Est. -AoA -TDS Preferred Sys Concept ICD & Draft CDD Concepts & Technologies Support & Maintenance T&E Strategy Exit Criteria SEP TDS AoA Sys Performance Spec LFT&E Waiver Request Validated Sys Support & TEMP SEP •PESHE •PPP •TRA Maintenance Objectives & Requirements -IBR -ISP -STA -CDD -Affordability Assessment -Acq Strategy Inputs to: -Cost/Manpower Est. Validated Sys Support & Sys Performance Spec Exit Criteria Maintenance Objectives & Requirements APB TEMP ISP SEP CDD Performance Based Agreements Business Case Analysis Product Support Provider Product Support Integrator/ Initial Prod Baseline Test Reports Elements of Product TEMP Risk Assessment Support SEP •TRA -CPD -STA -ISP Inputs to: PESHE -Cost/Manpower Est. Independent IOT&E Pre-IOC & Post IOC Supportability Assessments Full-Up System Level LFT&E Congress Report to BLRIP Logistics & Technical Acronyms BLRIP – Beyond Low Rate Initial Production ASR – Alternative Systems Review EDM – Engineering Development Model DT&E – Developmental Test & Evaluation CDR – Critical Design Review CI – Configuration Item ESOH – Environmental, Safety & Occupational Health FCA – Functional Configuration Audit EOA – Early Operational Assessment FMECA – Failure Mode Effects & Criticality Analysis FOT&E – Follow-on Test & Evaluation IOT&E – Initial Operational Test & Evaluation FTA – Failure Tree Analysis JITC – Joint Interoperability Test Command LFT&E – Live Fire Test & Evaluation ISR – In-Service Review LRIP – Low Rate Initial Production LORA – Level of Repair Analysis LCC – Life Cycle Costs MTA – Maintenance Task Analysis OA – Operational Assessment PESHE – Programmatic Environment, Safety & OTRR – Operational Test Readiness Review OT&E – Operational Test & Evaluation PCA – Physical Configuration Audit Occupational Health Evaluation PRR – Production Readiness Review PDR – Preliminary Design Review RMS – Reliability, Maintainability & PPP – Program Protection Plan SFR – System Functional Review SEP – Systems Engineering Plan Supportability SRR – System Requirements Review S&T – Science & Technology TEMP – Test & Evaluation Master Plan SVR – System Verification Review STA – System Threat Assessment T&E – Test & Evaluation TRA – Technology Readiness Assessment TDS – Technology Development Strategy TRR – Test Readiness Review Acceptable Least Most Recycle/Reuse Reprocessing Disposal Landfill Certification Testing JITC Interoperability FOT&E & Supportability Validation J-6 Interoperability Congress Report to LFTE ASR SRR SVR PRR Environmental Constraints Analyze Operational Interpret User Needs, Capabilities & Concepts Versus Analyze/Assess Defined User Needs Interpret User Needs. Analyze Operational Environmental Constraints Capabilities & Concepts & Technology Demo & Validate Sys Defined User Needs Maturity Versus Interpret User Needs, Performance Specs & Refine System Environmental Constraints Combined DT&E/OT&E/LFT&E Specified User Needs & Demonstrate System to Environmental Constraints INPUTS APB • CPD • SEP •TEMP Exit Criteria Test Results Product Support Package Production Baseline - Cost/Manpower Est. TEMP • PESHE • SEP Test Reports Input to: OUTPUTS Service Use Data Discrepancy Reports Failure Reports User Feedback SEP INPUTS Modifications/upgrades to fielded systems Input to CDD for next increment Data for In-Service Review SEP OUTPUTS Technical Systems Engineering Test & Evaluation Supportability Trades Analyze Trades Analyze Trades SRR Analyze Performance (& Constraints) Definition & Verification Develop Concept Objectives System Concept’s Concept & Verify Assess/Analyze Performance Enabling/Critical Tech (& Constraints) Spec & Develop System Perf &Verification Plan Integrated System Versus Demo/Model Performance Spec System Verification Plan Functional Specs & Develop System System DT&E, LFT&E & OAs, & Constraints Compliance Verify System Functionality to Specs PCA TRR To Determine Corrective Analyze Deficiencies Actions Verify & Validate Configuration Production Monitor and Collect All Service Use Data Implement and Field SFR FCA The overall acquisition process shown here is an extremely complex system, comprised of three interdependent systems of somewhat predicable processes. The major processes alone are enough to provide a major challenge to the workforce. Verification Objectives Perf into Functional Decompose Concept Definition & Versus Functional Concept System Assess/Analyze Capabilities Associated Verification Plan Critical Technologies & Definitions for Enabling/ Develop Functional Demo System Versus Plan Functionality FMECA FTA RCM CI Functional (Design to) Performance Specs into Evolve Functional Specs and CI Verification Plan Integrated DT&E, LFT&E & EOAs Verify Performance Compliance to Specs Trades Analyze PDR (Hardware/Software/Specs) To Correct Deficiencies Modify Configuration Analyze Data to Root Cause Determine Assess Risk of Improved System Functional Definition into Assessment Objectives Component Concepts/ Decompose Concept Components Versus Enabling/Critical Assess/Analyze Capabilities & Tech Verification Plan Definitions into Critical Decompose Functional Component Definition Critical Technology Demo Enabling/ Versus Plan Components (if appropriate) Waiver LFT&E Evolve CI Functional (Build to) Documentation Specs into Product and Inspection Plan Individual CI Verification DT&E LORA Hazard Severity System Risk/ Determine Corrective Action Integrate & Test MTA CDR Develop Component Concepts, Technologies, Constraints i.e., Enabling/Critical & Cost/Risk Drivers i.e., Enabling/Critical Technologies, Develop System Concepts, Update Constraints & Cost/Risk Drivers Fabricate, Assemble, Code to “Build-to” Documentation Corrective Develop Action Process Change – Hardware/Support Materiel Change Funding in Full FYDP Economic Analysis (MAIS Only) Assessment Affordability POE CCA ICE Economic Analysis (MAIS Only) CARD (Designated Programs) CARD – Cost Analysis Requirements Description MAIS – Major Automated Information System CCA – Component Cost Assessment POE – Program Office Estimate ICE – Independent Cost Estimate RDT&E – Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Cost Acronyms Economic Analysis (MAIS Only) Assessment Affordability CARD (Designated Programs) POE CCA ICE Assessment Affordability POE CCA ICE PMO Budget Estimate PMO POM Input Cost Cost Estimation Methods Analogy Parametric Engineering Actual Costs Types of Funds RDT&E – Advanced Technology Development RDT&E – Adv Component Dev & Prototypes RDT&E – Systems Development & Demonstration Procurement Maintenance Operations & RDT&E – Management & Support RDT&E – Management & Support RDT&E – Management & Support Planning, Programming, Budgeting, & Execution Process (biennial calendar driven) Defense Agencies Departments & Military August Appropriated Funds To Support Contracts POM/Budget Formulation PCP/BCP Prep POM/Budget Submit PCP/BCP Submit OMB – Office of Management & Budget FYDP – Future Years Defense Program BCP – Budget Change Proposals MBI – Major Budget Issue PBD – Program Budget Decision POM – Program Objectives Memorandum PDM – Program Decision Memorandum PCP – Program Change Proposals SLRG – Senior Leadership Review Group Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution Acronyms DoD Testimony DoD Appeals Allocation September - November Joint Staff OSD & Joint Planning Document Strategic Planning Guidance Off Year Optional Joint Programming Guidance Off Year Optional ISSUES SLRG Reviews PDM(s) Apportionment National Military Strategy October April / May updated FYDP PBD Cycle PBDs Final MBI Budget DoD October - November November December updated FYDP Congress Congress On Year House White National Security Strategy Fiscal Guidance OMB President’s Congress Budget to Committees Budget Authorization Committees Appropriation Committees Authorization/ Appropriation Acts Passed Off Year January February (1st Monday) February - September
3
The Acquisition Warrior
Add the unpredictable activity with end users, OSD, Congress, industry, oversight organizations, and the media - Add the challenges of Human Capital Management - Add Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns - When you add the unpredictable actions that come about through activity with end users, OSD, Congress, industry, oversight organizations, and the media, and When you add the challenges related to Human Capital Management, And then the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns, - you have a very complex system for the Acquisition workforce to work, including DoD’s industry partners. DAU’s challenge is to help this work force do their jobs, continuously learn, and respond You have a very complex system for the Acquisition workforce to work, including DoD’s industry partners.
4
DAU Supporting the Defense Acquisition Workforce…180,000 + Industry
…with Formal Filling the formal learning gaps with & Informal Learning Knowledge Systems & Assets & Social Networking Formal Learning Asset Reachback Mission Assistance + + Formal Courses Providing a Constant Support Presence in DoD Acquisition Careers
5
Videos Audios Classroom Materials Webcasts Policies Lessons learned
Acquisition Knowledge Management System (AKMS) Learning Management Systems DAP ACC BPCh Multimedia Atlas Blackboard AT&L knowledge repository – gateway to policy and DoD AT&L services (MOSS2007) Collaborative arm of the AKMS. Hosts acquisition related Communities of Practice. (Ecco 2.0) Repository of validated practices and lessons learned. (MOSS2007) Video and audio library. (Qumu) Distance learning courses and continuous learning modules. Classroom and online facilitation tools and content management. 24/7 access to Informal learning assets Guidance AAP Q&A Policies Webcasts Communities of Practice Videos Best Practices Lessons learned Templates Tools Guidebooks Examples Regulations Laws Handbooks Audios Simulations Gaming Scenarios Classroom Materials Browseable DL/CL courseware DAU presently manages six major learning asset systems that offer up assets to the workforce and provide collaboration. The first two, ATLAS and Blackboard facilitate DoD’s formal certification training; and house our formal learning assets – courseware and online modules. Four other systems comprise the AT&L Knowledge Management System (AKMS), where informal assets are developed, contributed and managed. Users find formal and informal assets and cohorts/experts through Formal Learning Management and AKMS systems, Search, and ACQuipedia articles – at their point and time of need. Beyond formal instructor led training -- users have access to informal online performance support, cohorts/experts, and learning assets through Search, ACQuipedia articles, and icatalog, – at their point and time of need.
6
DAU Learning Organization Office of the President
Vice President Chief of Staff Human Capital Planning and Management Performance & Resource Management HCI Assistant to the President Planning, Policy & Leadership Support 4th Estate Defense Acq & Career Management Operations Support Learning Asset Life Cycle Management and Delivery Learning Asset Delivery (Regions) Learning Asset Design West Midwest South Learning Capabilities Integration Center Mid-Atlantic Capital/NE DSMC Global Learning Technology Center Internet Delivery Global Learning Technology Center
7
Functional Center Directors Performance Learning Directors
Functional Leaders Dr. Nancy Spruill BCEFM Mr. Dave Ahern ACQ & PM Mr. Alfred Volkman AT&L IC Mr. James Dalton FE Mr. Shay Assad CON Mr. Stephen Welby SPRDE/SE/PQM Dr. John Fischer STM Mr. Edward Wingfield Acting, IT/SAM Mr. Randy Fowler LOG Mr. Chris DiPetto Acting - T&E Functional Center Directors Ms. Sharon Jackson BCEFM Mr. Brad Brown Pm & ACQ Mr. Lenny Manning CON Mr. George Prosnik E&T Mr. Bill Kobren LOG Performance Learning Directors Sharon DAnjou Reggie Parks Larry Leggett Richard Fowler Michael Rodgers Ray Ward Leslie Deneault John Paciorek John Snoderly Bill Motley Larry Baker Tom Simcik Pat Dallosta Robert Pratt Pamela Johnson John McElhenny Stephen Skotte Lyle Eesley Dwayne Tripp Bryan Johns James Malloy Gail Foley Renee Butler Marty Falk John Claxton Gerald Emke David Floyd Doug Killey Revised 20 Jan 10
8
Learning at the Point of Need?
It’s not about classroom or web, it’s about selecting the right delivery medium. Learning at the Point of Need is about giving the learner more control! Formal and Informal Learning must be integrated!
9
Integrating Formal and Informal Learning
Training Event 100% M A S T E R Y Performance Learning Model Strategy 80% Informal Learning at the Point of Need 60% 58% 40% 33% Single-Dimensional Learning Environment 20% 0% 30 Min. 48 Hrs. Time after course completion 3 weeks Source: Research Institute of America © LearningGuide Solutions US, 2007 9
10
Informal vs Formal Learning
Is this true: 80 % of learning takes place on the job (and not in a class)? Informal = 80% Formal = 20% Informal: the degree which the learner has control of both the objective and the means. Formal: the degree which the institution has control of both the objective and the means. Research within one of the world’s leading brand-name food producers, employing 145,000 people underlines how employees learn. American industries annually spend more than $100 billion on training …not more than 10% of this expenditure actually results in transfer of the learning to the job. Baldwin & Ford, 1988, reconfirmed by Ford & Weissbein, 1997 “Learning in the Workplace”, Marsick and Watkins, 1990.
11
DAU Provides both formal & informal learning
304% increase of informal hours over the FY03 baseline Hours FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 DAWIA Training 410,000 2,563,000 2,240,000 3,730,000 3,900,000 4,129,349 4,351,478 4,415,087 5,308,917 6,479,014 CL Module Hours 331 20,382 456,423 192,000 439,416 535,315 837,086 1,205,471 1,785,446 Knowledge Sharing 277,000 471,500 775,654 782,818 656,674 697,509 1,236,971 Mission Assistance 136,800 170,317 380,800 400,535 389,416 419,504 492,521 Total 2,563,331 2,260,382 4,600,223 4,733,817 5,725,219 6,070,146 6,298,263 7,631,401 9,993,952
12
Second Transformation: Making “Learning at the Point of Need” a Reality!
DAU Training Assets DAU Media Library DAU on iTunes U MG Erwin Lessel Living Library Interview Live WebCast Conference Speakers Guest Lecturers Best Practices Clearing House Acquisition Community Connection (ACC) Integrated Environment Asset in one location Consumable by All Locations! ACQuipedia Defense Acquisition Portal (New) Multi- dimensional Learning Environment
13
AT&L Knowledge Management System (AKMS) Systems and Tools
DAU has been developing and managing the AT&L Knowledge Management System since taking over the Defense Acquisition Deskbook in In addition to the major systems and Search shown on the left, additional capabilities, tools and gateways to knowledge assets such as Ask-A-Professor, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Integrated Framework Chart, Media Library and ACQuipedia make up the overall “system of systems”. The newest tool in development is the PM eToolkit, due to be released at the end of September 2009
Similar presentations
