Upload
vocong
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1Date/reference/classification
Agility, Assurance and Capability
SCAF Conference20th September 2007
Bob BartonBAE SystemsThe views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author
and do not necessarily represent the official view of BAE SYSTEMS
2SCAF September 2007
Agility, assurance and Capability
– The role of the SRD – inputs vs outcomes?– Problem space vs Solution space – more agility?– Programme vs Project – scrutiny vs assurance?– What role the user - enough say?– Impact on risk – lessen or worsen?– More COTs – assurance?– Reduce costs – cost of acquisition?– Delivery accountability – to whom?– Why do UORs “work”? – focus?– Pace – why does it all take so long?
Opening thoughts…..
The User (they really did hate being called Customer 2!!)is totally frustrated at their lack of voice!!
3SCAF September 2007
National Capability Trade Offs
Defence Policy andNational requirements
Capability AreaPlan
Capability Management Plan
Through Life Management Plan
CM CapabilityTrade Offs
Equipment / LoDTrade Offs
DEC CapabilityTrade Offs LoDs
Budget & Aspirations
Reality and Costs
The importance of trades
4SCAF September 2007
The Acquisition environment has changed..
– There is now an accent on Capability – top down Defence policy– Contracting for Capability is much harder
– You can at least basically cost a solution….but you can’t cost a capability
– Skillbases have both eroded – and not kept pace– There are few “systems” experts in the DE&S– The desire for certainty - “fixed price” development - is unrealistic
– It purports to bound the cost – a certainty– In practice it just fuels the “conspiracy of optimism”
– Programme approval, phased scrutiny and iterative development would: – reveal cost drivers– Permit “trading”, recognise inevitability of the “unknowns”
Opening up the “trade space” is critical to achieving morewin-win answers.
5SCAF September 2007
Programmes, Projects and Process
– Military Capability is derived from a combination of projects:– across the DLoDs– including multiple equipments
………cohesively managed through readiness and in sustainment
– Who manages the whole?– How is it scrutinised and assured?– Does the current approach drive “premature certainty” ?
– Programmes should be approved– Projects should be scrutinised– Process should be assured
The key issues:
6SCAF September 2007
Programme Versus Project
Business Management –Change Mgt, Benefits, Affordability, TL Strategies, Business Plan
Programme Coherency & Enterprise Integration
Capability Acquisition – Programme Management, TLMP, WLC/COO, Risk/benefit mgt
Capability Requirements & Assurance– OA, URD, Systems Specifications, Trade offs,
Programm
e O
utcomes
Manpow
er
Infrastructure
Mission system
s
Weapons
Platform
Project Delivery Outputs
Through life managem
ent
Integration
Trade Offs
Source:FSM IPT
Trade – offs in aProgramme outcome context
not in a project delivery context
Issues: culture, incentives?
7SCAF September 2007
Capability Planning - Governance Control & AssuranceFully Understand Stakeholder Objectives
Establish and sustain right cultural environment
Create clear structures and boundaries
Measure progress and make risk-aware decisions focussed on successful project delivery
Report to enable risk-aware strategic decisions
Deliver Programme Outcomes to meet Stakeholder Needs
Governance C
ontrol Assurance
(Government and Supply Chain)
Mod & Industry Relationship Mgt, Supply, Partnering & Incentivisation
Project objectives, Scope, OBS, WBS, CBS
EVM & Risk Analysis, Engineering, Transversal & Quality processes etc.
Programme Review Structure
(Government and Supply Chain)
Source:FSM IPT
8SCAF September 2007
Programme Management Framework
TopLevel
Logic Network
Up to c.50 Programme Objectives- Stakeholder Goals- Other project interdependencies- Key decisions & approvals etc.
ReportingCommunicationsCapability trade-off analysis
Detailed Project and Stage Plans
High LevelProgramme Network
c.250-350 Activities- detail reflects risk areas- Timescale risk analysis
modelling
Risk AnalysisConfidence LevelsProject-level ‘What-ifs’
c. 3000 activitiesIntegrated Master Schedule
Source:FSM IPT
9SCAF September 2007
Straightforwardprojects
Intri
cacy
Uncertainty
Programmes vs Projects – a different game
Waterfall model
non-repetitive
repetitivephysical
intellectual
Source: PA Consulting
10SCAF September 2007
Complicated projects
Straightforwardprojects
Intri
cacy
Uncertainty
Veemodel
V
Waterfall model
non-repetitive
repetitivephysical
intellectual
Source: PA Consulting
Programmes vs Projects – a different game
11SCAF September 2007
Volatile projects
Complicated projects
Straightforwardprojects
Intri
cacy
Uncertainty
Veemodel
V
Option modelWaterfall
model
non-repetitive
repetitivephysical
intellectual
Source: PA Consulting
Programmes vs Projects – a different game
12SCAF September 2007
Strategic creativity
Volatile projects
Complicated projects
Straightforwardprojects
Coordination
Communication
Intri
cacy
Uncertainty
Veemodel
V
Waterfall model
Option model
Emergence model
Planning for capability requires a whole diffe
rent way
of thinking fro
m conventional equipment delivery
Source: PA Consulting
Programmes vs Projects – a different game
13SCAF September 2007
Programmes vs Projects
– The key issues:– Programme offices which force accountability
– Of IPTs– DLoD owners– Industry role– The focus on Military Capability
– Approvals and accountability at the Programme level– Put the degrees of freedom where they count– Scrutinise at the right time– Greater USER assurance, accountability to USER– Reduce the “nay sayers” and signatories– Accountabilty/governance of DECs
– Keep scrutiny for the proposed solutions at project level
14SCAF September 2007
Value for Money
– A major issue to resolve– But do the assurance and scrutiny processes help achieve it?
– DIS (1) said – “value for money, better Military Capability, better shareholder value”– It’s essential all parties are considered– Too often the VfM considerations are one –sided
– We need more balance
– How can we ensure that the user and Industrial views are considered?
15SCAF September 2007
Value for Money – a different perspective?– VfM is currently one-dimensional – it needs to reflect a broader base– Only in this way will we break the “VfM = competition” mindset
FinanceTotal Acquisition Cost
Through Life CostBalance of Payments
Use of EP/STPCost of MoD
R+T maturity and utilisation
IndustryCapacity Plan’g/UtilisationKey skills retentionShareholder ValueReturn on InvestmentCost of BiddingTake up of R+TValue of Exports
MilitaryAchieved In-service date
Capability GrowthAvailability
Adaptability/FlexibilityOperational Effectiveness
Manpower improvementMilitary tempo
Innovation + ChangeLoD synchronisationAcquisition paceMoD-Industry relationshipR+T investment levelCommercial flexibilitySME utilisation
The Value for Money Balanced Scorecard?
16SCAF September 2007
Chasing the certainty – agility = degrees of freedom!!
- Detail creates work- Makes the whole process unnecessarily complex!
17SCAF September 2007
Some considerations in the assurance and scrutiny debate– The complexity of major systems is accelerating faster than our ability to
learn, and adapt our approach (realisation needed)
– Decisions in the MoD environment are long in the gestation and generally bogged down by the “system” (diffuse decision bodies?)
– The inertia (or “immune system”) is substantive and usually underestimated from a response perspective (culture change?)
– Managing at the project level will not deliver Military Capability (a programmes and pan – DLoD approach will help?)
– A requirements driven approach is not compatible with TLCM (Outcomes - acceptance needed)
Scrutiny could help achieve the DIS balance?
18SCAF September 2007
Summary conclusions
– You cannot touch a Capability – we need to think differently!!!
– Assurance is easy - its all about the results– Agility starts with agility in the prime requirement
– Stay high, think capability where possible– Adopt a clear Programme management approach– A programme only needs approval, accept the ambiguity, not solution!
– Scrutiny is difficult– There’s too much “soft scrutiny” – interested, unaccountable signatories– It should be replaced by simpler approval of a problem solving approach– Hard scrutiny is often applied too late– Over scrutiny wastes time and resource
– The answer lies in incremental, embedded scrutiny, no surprises– But not so inclusive it goes native!!
– And what role the OA? Main Gate approval? What then?