1 Program Health Metrics/Templates. 2 Program Requirements Program Parameter Status Program Scope Evolution Program Resources Budget Manning Contractor

1

Program Health Metrics/Templates

2

Program Requirements

Program ParameterStatus

Program ScopeEvolution

Program Resources

Budget

Manning

Contractor Health

LEGENDSColors: G: On Track, No/Minor IssuesY: On Track, Significant IssuesR: Off Track, Major IssuesGray: Not Related/Not Applicable

Trends:Up Arrow: Situation Improving(number): Risk Score (based on 100 possible)Down Arrow: Situation Deteriorating

Program Execution

Contract EarnedValue Metric

ContractorPerformance

Testing Status

Technical Maturity

Sustainability RiskAssessment

Program RiskAssessment

Fixed PricePerformance

ACME Aerospace

Probability of Program SuccessSummary

Date of Review: 2 May 06

PEOPEO’s Name

Program Name

ACAT ID

Program Life Cycle Phase:

Program “Fit”Capability Vision

DoD Vision

Program Success

Naval Vision

Program Advocacy

Warfighter

Congress

Industry

International

Naval

Joint Staff

OSD

Rebaselines: (0)Last Rebaseline: Date

Software

3

I. Program Requirements Factor

4

Combat Capability

Threshold Objective

C4I Interoperability(Strategic, Theater, Force

Coord.,Force Control, Fire Control)

Endurance

Position diamond along bar to best show where each item is in terms of its threshold - objective range.

Cost

Manning (Non-KPP)

Sustained Speed

ProgramProgramAcronymAcronym

ACAT XXACAT XXDate of Review: dd mmm yy PM

PEOPEOXXXXXX

(EXAMPLES)

-Status as of Last Brief(mm/yy – e.g. “01/03”)

Comments:

REQUIREMENTS - PROGRAM PARAMETER STATUS

YHistorical

YPredictive

5

REQUIREMENTS - PROGRAM SCOPE EVOLUTION

Requirement Funded Pgm Schedule

(Budgeted/Obl) (Used / Planned)

• Original CDD (date) $#.#B / NA NA / 120 Months

• Current CDD (date) $#.#B / $#.#B 170/210 Months

Stable

Increased

Descoped

COL, PM Date of Review: dd mmm yy

PEOPEOXXXXXX


ACAT XXACAT XX

Comments:

YPredictive

Y Historical

6

II. Program Resources Factor

7

Program Funding Requirement($ in Millions / Then Year) Prior FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY08-15 To Comp Total

RDT&ECurrent $ (PB 08) 1257.5 68.5 55.4 48.1 58.3 41.6 50.0 47.5 47.9 417.3 200.0 1874.8Required $ 1257.5 70.0 57.0 48.1 58.3 41.6 50.0 47.5 47.9 420.4 200.0 1877.9 Delta $ (Current - Required) 0.0 (1.5) (1.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (3.1) 0.0 (3.1)

PROCUREMENTCurrent $ (PB 08) 569.0 351.5 521.7 499.2 497.6 507.8 512.5 500.5 495.4 3886.2 2000.0 6455.1Required $ 569.0 351.5 521.7 499.2 497.6 507.8 512.5 500.5 495.4 3886.2 2000.0 6455.1 Delta $ (Current - Required) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

O&MCurrent $ (PB 08) 0.0 0.6 2.7 6.9 10.6 30.8 44.5 46.0 46.5 188.6 1000.0 1188.6Required $ 0.0 0.6 2.7 6.9 10.6 30.8 44.5 46.0 46.5 188.6 1000.0 1188.6 Delta $ (Current - Required) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTALCurrent $ (PB 08) 1826.5 420.6 579.8 554.2 566.5 580.2 607.0 594.0 589.8 4492.1 3200.0 9518.5Required $ 1826.5 422.1 581.4 554.2 566.5 580.2 607.0 594.0 589.8 4495.2 3200.0 9521.6 Delta $ (Current - Required) 0.0 (1.5) (1.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (3.1) 0.0 (3.1)

QUANTITIESCurrent (PB 08) 16 10 18 19 23 23 23 23 23 116 102 280.0Required Qty 16 7 11 17 22 22 22 23 23 101 141 304.0 Delta Qty (Current - Required) 0 (3) (7) (2) (1) (1) (1) 0 0 (15) (39) (54)

YPredictive

Y Historical

8

RESOURCES - BUDGETProgramProgramAcronymAcronym

ACAT XXACAT XX

PEOPEOXXXXXX

PM Date of Review: dd mmm yy

Navy Goals (Obl/Exp): First Year Second Year Third Year

RDT&E,N 95%/58% 100%/91% ------- OP,N 70%/--- 85%/--- 100%/--- OM,N -------

Comments:

SUFF

R/Y/G

FY01 OBL/EXP

FY02 OBL/EXP

FY03 OBL/ EXP

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

RDT&E,N

Xx%/yy%

Xx%/yy%

Xx%/yy%

OPN N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A N/A N/A

SCN N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

WPN N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A N/A N/A N/A

O&M,N N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

Xx%/yy%

MPN N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

MILCON N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A Xx%/yy%

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AGPredictive

G Historical

9

Staffing Adequacy Staffing Level Skill Level

Previous Current Future Previous Current Future

OVERALL G G G G G G

Program Mgmt G G G G G G

Engineering G Y Y G G G

Logistics G G G G G G

Test & Evaluation G G Y G G Y

Contracting Mgmt G R G G Y G

Budget & Financial Mgmt G G G G G G

Cost Analysis Y R G G G G

Depots G G G G G G

Resource Sponsors GG G G G G

GPredictive

G Historical

10

RESOURCES – CONTRACTOR HEALTH

• Corporate Indicators – Company/Group Metrics

• Current Stock P/E Ratio• Last Stock Dividends Declared/Passed • Industrial Base Status (Only Player? One of __ Viable

Competitors?)– Market Share in Program Area, and Trend (over last Five Years)

• Significant Events (Mergers/Acquisitions/ “Distractors”)

• Program Indicators – Program-Specific Metrics

• “Program Fit” in Company/Group• Program ROI (if available)• Key Players, Phone Numbers, and their Experience• Program Manning/Issues• Contractor Facilities/Issues• Key Skills Certification Status (e.g. ISO 9000/CMM Level)

• PM Evaluation of Contractor Commitment to Program – High, Med, or Low


ACAT XXACAT XX

PEOPEOXXXXXX Date of Review: dd mmm yyCOL, PM

YPredictive

YHistorical

11

Contractor Staffing

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Fu

ll T

ime

Eq

uiv

ale

nt

Plan 1266 1399 1357 1434 1518 1604 1681 1745 1798 1814 1814 1814 1820 1825 1802 1811

Status 1272 1314 1342 1395 1447 1578 1605 1627

38626

38657

38687

38718

38749

38777

38808

38838

38869

38899

38930

38961

38991

39022

39052

39083

YPredictive

YHistorical

12

III. Program Execution Factor

13

Platform Quantities 1 1 1

System Quantities 1 1 1

Subsystem Quantities 1 1 1

Milestones/Reviews

Squadron Acquisition Schedule:Lead ShipFollow ShipFollow Ship

System 1

System 2

System 3

Subsystem 1

Subsystem 2

Subsystem 3

FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY09 FY 08 FY11 FY10 FY12 FY14FY13 FY15

AS Approval

MS B

FY17 FY16 FY18 FY20FY19 FY21 FY22 FY23

First Ship Design & Mat’l Procurement

First Ship Design & Mat’l Procurement w/ AP Funds

Follow Ship Mat’l ProcurementConstruction

Contract Award and Reviews

Builders Trial (BT)

Acceptance Trial (AT)

Integrated Trial (IT)

Delivery (Del)

OPEVAL

Inc One CDD

Approval

Total Program 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 1

Seabasing CBAJIC

ApprovedSeabasing

CBA IOC FOC ----------------

BT DEL AT

(10/09/07)

Squadron

DABPR

Notional Program Schedule

DABPR

IT DEL

BT AT DEL

OPEVAL 4 mo after DELPreliminary(8 mo)

And Contract Design(12 mo)

PreliminaryAnd Contract

Design

AP 1 AP 1 1

We are here

Inc Two CDD

Approval

Inc Three CDD

Approval

14

$100111%

56% $50

100% $90

122% $110

00%

04/02 04/04 08/0404/00

EXECUTION – CONTRACT EARNED VALUE METRICS [give short contract title]

YYMMDD

Axxxxx-YY-Cxxxx Contractor Name [Prime or Significant Sub]


ACAT XXACAT XX

Date of Last Rebaselining: JAN02Number of Rebaselinings: 1Date of Next Rebaselining: MMM YY

KTR’s EAC: 104M

Date of Last Award Fee: MMM YYDate of Next Award Fee: MMM YY

1.18

PM’s EAC

To

tal

Sp

ent

Total Calendar Schedule $M

0 %

TAB

BAC

ACWP

EAC

EV

% S

pe

nt

50%

[TCPIEAC = 0.76]

CV = $2.0 M

SV = $2.9 M

100% 108%

01/02

SPI

1.18

1.18

Ahead of Schedule and UnderspentBehind Schedule and Underspent

Ahead of Schedule and OverspentBehind Schedule and Overspent

0.940

0.960

0.82

0.86

0.90

0.94

0.98

1.02

1.06

1.10

1.14

0.82 0.86 0.90 0.94 0.98 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.14

CPI

01/00

10/9907/99

04/99

05/0204/02

03/02

02/02

10/01

07/01

04/011/01

10/0007/00

04/00

01/02

42%

PM’s Projected Performance at Completionfor CPI and Duration.

PEOPEOXXXXXX

Date of Review: dd mmm yyCOL, PM

(1.1,1.1)

(1.1, -0.95)(-0.95, -0.95)

(-0.95, 1.1)

YPredictive

YCurrent

15

Cost Risk and Mitigation• This slide will use NAVSEA/NAVAIR S- curve for

cost risk showing current info and if possible where the PM expects to be in 1 year and why (mitigation plan).– Include where cost risk was last year– Include PM and all independent cost estimates

PM

Probability Distribution Curve

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$2,100 $2,150 $2,200 $2,250 $2,300 $2,350 $2,400

EAC ($M)

% P

rob

abil

ity

Probability Cost5% 2,138$

10% 2,155$ 15% 2,167$ 20% 2,177$ 25% 2,187$ 30% 2,194$ 35% 2,203$ 40% 2,211$ 45% 2,219$ 50% 2,228$ 55% 2,235$ 60% 2,244$ 65% 2,254$ 70% 2,264$ 75% 2,276$ 80% 2,290$ 85% 2,304$ 90% 2,325$ 95% 2,358$

AIR-4.2’s Most Likely Estimate $XXXM

AIR-4.2’s Point Estimate $XXX

YPredictiveY

Current

16

APB Schedule PerformanceMilestone Objective Threshold Current Est.

Milestone A,B,C Sep 1996 Mar 1997 Oct 1996

Preliminary Design Review Complete Jul 1997 Jan 1998 Jun 1997

Critical Design Review Complete Jul 1998 Jan 1999 Sep 1998

Integrated Testing Complete Jul 2005 Jan 2006 Jan 2006

OPEVAL Testing Complete (AH-1Z) Jan 2006 Jul 2006 Oct 2006

Milestone III Aug 2006 Feb 2007 TBD

IOC (AH-1Z) Mar 2011 Sep 2011 Sep 2011

Navy Support Date (AH-1Z) Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Mar 2012

DAB LRIP Review Aug 2003 Feb 2004 Oct 2003

CAE LRIP #2 Review Feb 2005 Aug 2005 Mar 2005

OPEVAL Testing Complete (UH-1Y) Jan 2006 Jul 2006 Oct 2006

IOC (UH-1Y) Mar 2008 Sep 2008 Mar 2008

Navy Support Date (UH-1Y) Mar 2012 Sep 2012 Mar 2012

CAE LRIP #3 Review Sep 2005 Mar 2006 Mar 2006

COLOR DEFINITIONS:≥ 30 days prior to threshold< 30 days prior to threshold

BREACH: Date follows threshold

Prior to objective

Only applies when you have a APB

Discuss Breaches and mitigation plans

YPredictive

YCurrent

17

APB Cost PerformanceObjective Threshold Current Est.

Base Year Costs

Development (RDT&E): 1221.0 1343.1 1214.8

Procurement (PROC): 5165.8 5682.4 5003.1

MILCON: - - -

Acquisition O&M: - - -

Total Acquisition Costs: 6386.8 - 6217.9

O&S: 6548.0 7202.8 6548.0

Total BY Life Cycle Costs: 12934.8 N/A 12765.9

Then Year Costs

Development (RDT&E): 1324.8 N/A 1322.0

Procurement (PROC): 6676.1 N/A 6693.3

MILCON: - N/A -

Acquisition O&M: - N/A -

Total Acquisition Costs: 8000.9 N/A 8015.3

O&S: - N/A -

Total TY Life Cycle Costs: N/A N/A N/A

Quantities

Development (RDT&E): 4 4 4

Procurement (PROC): 280 280 280

Unit Cost

Avg Proc Unit Cost (BY $M): 18.4 20.3 17.9

Avg Proc Unit Cost (TY $M): 23.8 N/A 23.9

Prog Acq Unit Cost (BY $M): 22.5 24.7 21.9

Prog Acq Unit Cost (TY $M): 28.2 N/A 28.2

COLOR DEFINITIONS:≤ 9% above Objective> 9% above Objective

BREACH: Exceeds threshold

Below Objective

Only applies when you have a APB

Discuss Breaches and mitigation plans

YPredictive

YCurrent

18

Contractor:

Program:

Contract Number:

Item: (CPAR, IPAR or AF) AF CPAR AF AF IPAR CPAR IPAR AF IPAR IPAR AF IPAR CPAR IPAR

Period Ending: (Mmm YY) Jan 99 Apr 99 Jul 99 Jan 00 Mar 00 Apr 00 Jun 00 Jul 00 Sep 00 Dec 00 Jan 01 Mar 01 Apr 01 Jun 01

Months Covered: (NR) 6 12 6 6 3 12 3 6 3 3 6 3 12 3

Areas to Evaluate

a. Technical (Quality of Product) EXC EXC EXC EXC

(1) Product Performance VG VG VG VG

(2) Systems Engineering SAT SAT SAT SAT

(3) Software Engineering MARG MARG MARG MARG

(4) Logistics Support/Sustainment UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT

(5) Product Assurance EXC EXC EXC EXC

(6) Other Technical Performance VG VG VG VG

b. Schedule SAT SAT SAT SAT

c. Cost Control MARG MARG MARG MARG

d. Management UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT

(1) Management Responsiveness EXC EXC EXC EXC

(2) SubContract Management VG VG VG VG

(3) Program Mgmt and Other Mgmt SAT SAT SAT SAT

e. Other Areas MARG MARG MARG MARG

(1) Communications UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT

(2) Support to Government Tests UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT

Award Fee Percentage: 85% 70% 90% 84%

N00000-00-C-0000

Contract Start Date:

Estimated Completion Date:

MMM YY

MMM YY

((Contractor Name))

((Program Name))


ACAT XXACAT XX

EXECUTION – CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCEPEOPEOXXXXXX


YPredictive

YCurrent

19

EXECUTION – FIXED PRICE PERFORMANCE

• DCMA Plant Rep Evaluation– Major Issues

• Delivery Profile Graphic (Plan vs Actual)– Major Issues

• Progress Payment Status– Major Issues

• Other Metrics are Available – Example – Status/Explanation for Production Backlog


PEOPEOXXXXXX


ACAT XXACAT XX

GPredictive

G(3)

Current

20

(4)

(2)

5

(3)

EXECUTION - PROGRAM RISK ASSESSMENT

Lik

eli

ho

od

5

4

3

2

1

Consequence4321

High

Medium

Low

• A brief description of Issue # 5 and rationale for its rating.

• Approach to remedy/mitigation


• Approach to remedy/mitigation• A brief description of Issue # 1 and rationale for its rating.

















ACAT XXACAT XX

PEOPEOXXXXXX


Trends: Up Arrow: Situation Improving (#): Situation Stable

(for # Reporting Periods) Down Arrow: Situation Deteriorating

( )

( )

YPredictive

YCurrent

Cost, schedule, technical and external risks

21

1: Training2: Support Equipment3: Publications4: Facilities5: Maintenance Concept6: Supply Support7: MTBF/Ao/Reliability

Sustainability Areas Sustainability Areas (examples)

Consequence

Lik

eli

ho

od

5

4

3

2

1

54321

41

2

6

5

3

7

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

ProgramProgramAcronymAcronymACAT XXACAT XXDate of Review: dd mmm yyCOL, PM

PEOPEOXXXXXX

RISK # 4 Brief description of Issue and rationale for its rating.

Approach to remedy/mitigation.

RISK #5Brief description of Issue and rationale for its rating.


RISK # 6

Brief description of Issue and rationale for its rating.


EXECUTION – SUSTAINABILITY RISK ASSESSMENT

YCurrent

YPredictive

22

Risk and Mitigation Plan for each RED- Yellow in B/U

PM

Risk Owner: Program office, Contractor

Description:• Two PB 08 Congressional marks ($30M/$4.9M). If passed will significantly increase risk of executing the POR. Impacts risk reduction, shipyard PD/CD,

Government review of shipyard products and source selection.

Mitigation Steps:

1. Brief Resource Sponsor on funding requirements for POM 10 09/05//07

2. De-scope and re-prioritize POR execution plan 10/07 – 12/07

3. Develop and staff POM 10 issue 11/07 – 05/08

4. Requirement included in Navy POM 10 Submit 05/08

5. Requirement included in PB10 01/09

6. Brief Congressional Staffer’s on funding requirement 03/09

7. Track Congressional actions and ensure funding is included in final DoD appropriations bill

8. De-scope and reprioritize Program, if necessary, based on final Congressional action

Date of Review: 11/2007

1 2 3 5 6

7

Category: High 5-5

Sept 10 Sept 07 Oct 07 Nov 07 Mar 09

4

Pre MDAPTechnology

Development Phase

Pre MDAPTechnology

Development Phase

May 08 Jan 09

3

8

23

ILS StatusPrevious Current Future Issues

Maintenance Planning G G G

Supply Support G G G

Technical Data G G Y

Computer Resources Support Y G G

PHS&T G G G

Manpower And Personnel G G G

Support Equipment G G RCritical support equipment will be obsolete; replacement unfunded.

Training and Training Support G G G

Facilities G G G

Design Interface G G G

24

EXECUTION – TESTING STATUS

• TES/TEMP Status • Contractor Testing - Status (R/Y/G)

– Major Points/Issues• Developmental Testing – Status (R/Y/G)

– Major Points/Issues• Operational Testing – Status (R/Y/G)

– Major Points/Issues• Follow-On Operational Testing – Status (R/Y/G)

– Major Points/Issues• Special Testing – Status (R/Y/G) (Could Include LFT&E,

Interoperability Testing (JITC), Etc.) – Major Points/Issues

• Other (DOT&E Annual Report to Congress, etc – As Necessary)


ACAT XXACAT XX

PEOPEOXXXXXX Date of Review: dd mmm yyCOL, PM

GPredictive

GCurrent

25

Maturity of Key Technologies

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Sep-03 Dec-03

Tech 1

Tech 2

Tech 3

Tech 4

Tech 5

EXECUTION – TECHNICAL MATURITYPEOPEOXXXXXX



ACAT XXACAT XX

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mar-04 Jun-04 Sep-04 Dec-04 Mar-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05

Percentage of Engineering Drawings Approved/Released

CDR

Program Initiation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06

Percentage of Production Processes Under SPC

MilestoneC

YPredictive

YCurrent

26

Program XXX Summary

Technology Readiness Assessment

Critical Technologies Today MS B

Tech 1 TRL 5 TRL 7

Tech 2 TRL 5 TRL 7

Tech 3 TRL 7 TRL 7

Tech 4 TRL 4 TRL 7

Tech 5 TRL 7 TRL 7

Top Cost Drivers

Cost FY08$ B

- APUC

- PAUC

Notional Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)

Note: Program is Pre-Milestone “B” and does not yet have an APB

Schedule

COSTS ARE BASED ON PROGRAM OF RECORDAND ARE INTERDEPENDANT, NOT SEPARABLE

IOC 03/16 06/16

MS B 07/10 01/11

1. Transport, Carry, Offload and Deliver 1/3 of a Surface BLT (w/o manning) (Surface Battalion Landing Team Employment KPP) 25%

2. Propulsion & Control System (Surface Battalion Landing Team Employment and At-Sea Vehicle/Equipment and Personnel Transfer KPPs) 19%

3. Accommodations (Mission Payload and Surface Battalion Landing Team Employment KPPs) 15%

4. At sea vehicle transfer capability (At-Sea Vehicle/Equipment and Personnel Transfer KPP) 7.5%

27

Interrelationships, Dependencies and Synchronization with Complementary Systems

C4:

GCCS-M JTRS Cluster 1

JTRS Cluster 5 JTRS WNW

DCGS-N JPALS

Army:

LCU 2000

LSV

CH47 variants

AH64D

OH58D

LMSR

FSS

1

3

3

C S PI

C S PI

2

Combat Logistics Force:T-AKE

T-AOE2

2

PM DAES Rating: I C S P Not Rated Fielded

I = Integration. Color denotes Synchronization of effort with this program Number denotes degree of dependency:

1 – Critical , 2 – Significant , 3 - Enabler

1Solid denotes current systemDash denotes future system

Arrow to MPF(F) denotes supports MPF(F)Arrow from MPF(F) denotes MPF(F) supports

3

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

C S PI

3

2

Program X

Air Force: HH60G

MH53J or MC5/C17/KC_

3

3

1

3

3

1

1

MPF(F) LMSRMPF(F) LHA(R)/ LHD

Aviation:

CH-53

MH-60S

MH-60R

UH-1/AH-1

MV-22

Sea Shield:

DDG1000

CG(X)

LCS

SSGN

DDG-51

SSN-774

CSG / ESG:

CVN 21

LHA(R)

CVN-68

LHD

LPD-17

C S PI

C S PI

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

Connectors:

EFV

LCAC

JHSV

2

2

DEC. 07

28

IV. Capability Fit Factor

29

PROGRAM “FIT” IN CAPABILITY VISION

AREA(Examples) STATUS TRENDDoD Vision G (2)• Transformation G (2)• Interoperability Y (3)• Joint G (3)Naval Vision Y (4)• Current Force Y (4)• Future Force (N/A) (N/A)• Other (N/A) (N/A)

• Overall Y Y (2)

• TRANSFORMATION: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROGRAM POSSESSES THE TRANSFORMATIONAL ATTRIBUTES (E.G. PRECISION, LETHALITY, STREAMLINED/COMMON LOGISTICS, ETC) SPECIFIED BY OSD LEADERSHIP

• INTEROPERABILITY: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROGRAM COMPLIES WITH/HAS EMBEDDED WITHIN IT THE ARCHITECTURAL /ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS (E.G. COMPLIANCE WITH THE GLOBAL INFORMATION GRID (GIG)/INFORMATION DISSEMINATION MANAGEMENT (IDM) CRDS, DII, OPEN ARCHITECTURE PROTOCOLS) WHICH WOULD ALLOW IT TO INTEROPERATE ACROSS SERVICES (JOINT FORCES)/WITHIN COALITIONS

• JOINTNESS: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROGRAM IS USABLE BY OTHER SERVICES, JOINT OPERATIONS, AND COALITIONS WITHOUT UNIQUE SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS BEING MADE BY THOSE USERS


ACAT XXACAT XX

PEOPEOXXXXXX


YPredictive

Y(2)

Current

30

V. Advocacy Fit Factor

31

PROGRAM ADVOCACY

AREA(Examples) STATUS TREND• OSD Y (2)

– (Major point)• Joint Staff Y (2)

– (Major point)• War Fighter Y (4)

– (Major point)• Naval Secretariat G

– (Major point)• Congressional Y

– (Major point)• Industry G (3)

– (Major Point)• International G (3)

– (Major Point)• Overall Y



ACAT XXACAT XX

PEOPEOXXXXXX

Y Current

YPredictive

32

Congressional Adds/Issues

TitleAmount

($M)Committee/

MemberStatus

Action (last 12 months) Due Date Status

Action completed and on timeAction completed but not on timeAction not completed and due within 2 weeksAction not completed and due overdue

Documents

1 Program Health Metrics/Templates. 2 Program Requirements Program Parameter Status Program Scope Evolution Program Resources Budget Manning Contractor