1. 1 Probability of Program Success Component Standardization : Status Brief Ms. Jane Rathbun Special Assistant, Program Management Improvement OSD(AT&L)(A&T)(PSA) Wednesday, January 13, 2010

2. 2 Background & Intent Status Next Steps OSD Study of PM Training and Experience

3. 3 NDIA/ICPM Sub-Team working on Key Performance Indicators identified a set of metrics that might serve both government and industry ( March 2009 ICPM) As of 2008, all Military Departments are utilizing some variant of PoPS (Probability of Program Success)—a program health assessment tool November 2008 Memo from AT&L, Director PSA to Military Deputies established as working group to determine a way forward on a common variant Can we get to a common variant of PoPS within Defense? What other program health/performance indicators are needed for a complete suite of assessment tools—PoPS+? What enterprise level information requirements could be replaced by a PoPS +? Could a common variant of PoPS serve as the baseline measure of program health for both Government and Industry? Background & Intent

4. 4 4 PoPS Framework Components As defined by DoN version Program Health: The current state of an acquisition program’s requirements, resources, planning and execution activities, and external influencers, and how those factors are impacting the program’s ability to deliver a capability within specific constraints. Factors: These are Program Health organizational categories. The four Factors are: Program Requirements, Program Resources, Program Planning and Execution, and External Influencers. Metrics: Major sub-categories that collectively define the scope of a particular Factor. There are 18 Metrics in the Naval PoPS 2.0 Program Health framework. Metrics are the basic building blocks of Naval PoPS. Criteria: Parameters (qualitative and quantitative) used to evaluate a particular Metric. Each Criteria is associated with a unique identification number to enable traceability between Naval PoPS documents and tools.

5. 5 5 Framework Example Metric Factor Criteria

6. 6 6 PoPs v1.0 Leveraged Air Force PoPS 6 Relocated Removed Added AF/ DON Interim PoPS 5 Factors 22 Metrics Subjective Criteria Naval PoPS v1.0 4 Factors 17 Metrics More Objective Criteria WSARA and 5000.02 driving to version 2.0

7. 7 Components and AT&L have conducted two meetings Evaluate the feasibility of having a common set of PoPS factors and metrics Identify the process and policy differences in PoPS execution and interpretation of data across the components to determine if a common position can be agreed upon Army has agreed to update their PoPS to the common structure once difference between AF and Navy versions can be accomodated There is agreement that all three Departments can use the factors in the Naval PoPS version Under discussion for the February meeting—metrics level, most of the issues appear to be in the Program Planning and Execution Factor. Status-Phase One –A common Framework Program Requirements Program Resources Program Planning/Execution External Influencers

8. 8 Issue Areas Should PoPs give status of health or predict future health? Components are using it for slightly different purposes—this effects the way criteria is stated—seems to be an interest in moving to a point in time status PoPs in support of phases —Factors and Metrics stay the same, but criteria and weighting change depending on where the program is in the life cycle—Each component has a different process—need to select a common set of phases and weighting for enterprise reporting DoN-criteria changes and weighting for its six gates Air Force-criteria changes and weighting for planning, pre-milestone B, post milestone B, post milestone C and sustainment Army –single criteria and weighting for Milestone B and beyond Risk—Naval PoPs embedded risk in all their metrics—the likelihood of an issue occurring, the Air Force and Army Models have risk as a separate metric.

9. 9 Next Steps For March Complete review of metrics and negotiate any changes between the two models— produce a common version for leadership review and agreement Determine any criteria wording differences—take action: accept, caveat or change Identify any additional information needs that are currently not met through PoPS, propose a mechanism—to get to PoPS+ (example: DAES risk cube) Propose a common set of reporting phases for enterprise use (Components may have more) For May Determine what enterprise reporting requirements could be replaced with a common PoPS assessment tool