Recent DoD Trends & System and Software Process Implications

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

3. 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?

4. Systems AcquisitionReality 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

5. Production and Deployment O&S Draft Early Acquisition Policy Changes* Early Acquisition MS A MS B MS C JCIDS Process Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Demonstration Materiel Solution Analysis Joint Concepts CBA ICD CDD CPD Technology Development Strategic Guidance MDD CDR PDR 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

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

7. Recognition of the Impacts of System Interdependencies Aggregated data from DAES interdependence charts Interdependencies exist among all MDAPs Most interdependence with non-MDAP programs March 11, 2014

8. 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: A set or arrangement of systems that results when independent and useful systems are integrated into a larger system that delivers unique capabilities

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 – tojoint portfoliomanagement.” [Introduction, iv] “The 2006 QDR provides new direction for accelerating the transformation of the Department to focus more on the needs of Combatant Commanders andto develop portfolios of joint capabilitiesrather than individual stove-piped programs.” [16] …… “The goal is to manage the Department increasingly through the use ofjoint capability portfolios.” [16] Shift from individual programs to portfolios Apply portfolios to full complement of DOD activities CPMs viewed as a mechanism for change

12. CPM DoD Directive 7045.2025 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

13. 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

14. Backup

15. DoD Capability Portfolio ManagementKey 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 DoD CpM has evolved over the past 3 years beginning in earnest with QDR JCA Baseline Review Tasked Feb 2007 DepSecDef Memo Formalizes and Expands CpMs Feb 2008 Joint Capability Areas (JCA) Defined May 2005 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 Capability PfM DoDD Issued Sept 2008 Test Case CpMs Play in Program Review Fall 2006 IT PfM DoDD 8115 October 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008

16. 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

17. 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